“See, Tucker? In the '70s, the scientific consensus was that hydrofluorocarbons were gnawing away at our vital ozone layer. We observed the damage. We determined the cause. And the nations of the Earth agreed on a remediation plan. And we could do that because the HFC lobby just wasn’t as powerful as the fossil fuel industry. The whole reason for your “doubt” is that, for decades, the gigantic fossil fuel industry has seeded the public and political (but not scientific) dialog with false questions regarding the data we observe.”
When I said “the line between science and engineering isn’t as clear-cut as you might thin[k],” I should have said “as some people might think.” Sorry about that; I was thinking in general rather than you specifically. Duh. Especially since I did remember you were an engineer.
Funny! I recall being at a party with grad students, and the host (another student) had his bachelor’s degree from Rice University on the wall of his rented apartment. I thought it was it a little weird for some reason; I guess because we were all still in school. So I said, “Oh, wow! This is printed on rice paper. How cool!” He assured me it was parchment.
That was hard to watch. Bill Nye just looked weak and he should have known better. Tucker Carlson is a professional blowhard and nothing else. You can’t reason with him, you can’t answer his questions in a calm manner. You can only respond with a counter-attack:
“The science is settled, Tucker. Science doesn’t care if you believe in it or not.”
“Why are you misleading your viewers like that? Your viewers are smart enough to understand that the world’s scientists know we face catastrophic extinction.”
“We have excellent data on the climate going back hundreds of thousands of years. The rapid change is a direct result of human activities. If you don’t believe that you’re living in a Peter Pan world.”
“Talking to you is like trying to reason with an angry 9-year-old.”
At this point it might be good to remember that engineers are highly over represented in YEC and “intelligent design” circles. And I say that as an engineer.
I kinda got the feeling he lost his temper there, in a really restrained way.
That said I think I get the points he was making.
A straight jab - “Don’t you get it dumbass, you’re the mainstream media. All the people applauding you for running me over with your ignorance-plated tank are going to do the same to you real soon.”
Actual point about how ridiculous it is to say the scientific community is divided on climate change but it’s just being covered up/glossed over by biased journals and official gatekeepers (Not something Tucker said directly, but something that comes up a lot from deniers) -
The White House is actually divided, with at least two camps opposing each other, that’s why there’s so many leaks. If Climate Change wasn’t actually a settled debate in the scientific community, but all the official sources were saying it was, there’d be just as many leaks. But there’s not.
Then it’s a good thing science isn’t decided by authority.
Seriously, this is why I despise it when people in an internet argument throw around the term ad hominem when they’re insulted. Ad hominem as a fallacy, is a much broader and more useful idea than that. It literally comes down to: It doesn’t matter if you’re a nincompoop- you can still be right. One thing has nothing to do with the other. If someone calls you an idiot, believe it or not, that’s not automatically an ad hominem fallacy.
If more people truly understood ad hominem as a fallacy, then we wouldn’t ever hear the obnoxious and truly clueless argument “you can’t be objective,” because objectivity is not a prerequisite to being right. The question isn’t whether someone is objective, but whether they can substantiate their claims. Bill Nye can substantiate his claims with the bulk of the published research. That’s all that matters. He could be a skeptic tank installer or work the drive-through at a Wendy’s and still be right.
I took it as a mocking demonstration of exactly what Carlson kept doing – introducing totally irrelevant talking points. “Okay, you don’t actually want to talk about what’s relevant here? Fine, let’s talk about something else then.”
The grapes are a hell of a lot more relatable than the ice caps. One of the big issues with explaining climate science is sticking to the big picture and not talking about the little things that impact normal people.
The problem is definitely speaking over the guest because you don’t want them to make a cogent point.
I’ve pointed a gun at someone’s head and pulled the trigger. Unless you can tell me the exact date that he would have otherwise died, your assertion that I killed him is not “settled”.
But most anywhere else in Florida too. Miami through Ft. Lauderdale? 10 more feet and it’s gone like Atlantis.
