Global warming propaganda: omitting debates

Today's Meet the Press (12-30-18) was completely dedicated to the issue of global warming. It is a propaganda piece to mislead and push a carbon tax.

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-december-30-2018-n951406

Here is an excerpt from the transcript:

"But just as important as what we are going to do this hour is what we're not going to do. We're not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter. And human activity is a major cause, period. We're not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled, even if political opinion is not. And we're not going to confuse weather with climate. A heat wave is no more evidence that climate change exists than a blizzard means that it doesn't, unless the blizzard hits Miami. We do have a panel of experts with us today to help us understand the science and consequences of climate change"

So no debate at all about the issue. The excuse? The debate is over because the science is settled, although they never specify what science they are talking about, what specific debate they are referring to or anything specific for that matter.

Then they have a panel of so called experts, none of which are climate scientists. So now climate scientists themselves are being omitted.

Chuck Todd covered consensus a bit, but just public opinion, not the opinion of climate scientists. His poll ( I don't recall him naming his source) stated that 70% believed global warming ( or maybe it was climate change) was happening and 57% believed it was mostly from man made causes.

I was actually very surprised that last number was not higher than 57%. The general public is wildly misinformed about GW. Most people still believe the myth Al Gore made popular in his film "the inconvenient truth" which was ironically untrue.

Temperatures drive CO2 in the ice core samples, not the other way around. Climate scientists know this. They are more informed than the general public.

If 57% of the general public believes man is mostly the cause of GW climate scientists that believe that are a much lower percentage. A real poll needs to be done polling climate scientists and it needs to be unbiased and very specific.

The debate is not over. The people pushing a carbon tax just want it to be over to keep people ignorant. This is how modern propaganda works.

The assertion that man is the main cause of global warming is not settled science. That assertion is very much debatable.

This is the Science forum. It is not the appropriate place to discuss conspiracy theories.

@Metal-Brain
You are on the wrong side of history here. Of course you think you are right and everyone else is wrong. They call that paranoia.

@metal-brain said

If 57% of the general public believes man is mostly the cause of GW climate scientists that believe that are a much lower percentage.

Why? (sources please)

@kazetnagorra said
This is the Science forum. It is not the appropriate place to discuss conspiracy theories.

Not allowing debates is science? No, that is suppressing science.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
You are on the wrong side of history here. Of course you think you are right and everyone else is wrong. They call that paranoia.

You condone a no debates policy and you think you are on the right side of history?
What if I said something like "loop quantum gravity is superior to string theory and the debate is over, the science is settled". Let's say I did this on a science program on the internet reaching thousands of science enthusiasts. Then I had guests on the program trashing string theory that are not physicists. Then when string theorists protest they are accused of being paranoid.

Is that so different? Physicists in the loop quantum gravity camp might think that is just fine and get a false sense of validation, but would string theorists feel like they were treated fairly? Would it be fair at all? More importantly, would it serve science well?

What if it was the other way around? Would you think you were right and everyone else was wrong? Would you think it was fair then?

Why are you terrified of a debate between climate scientists? Do you really condone Nazi style propaganda techniques to quell skeptics? Is that what you are all about? Can't your side win with a level playing field? You alarmists seem really scared and insecure when it comes to debates. Why?

@wildgrass said
Why? (sources please)

Most people believe Ice core samples show CO2 is the cause and temperatures are the effect. If they were to become aware that is a myth that percentage would unquestionably drop. Most climate scientists are aware that is a myth and I think it is likely they would be more skeptical than the general public.

Dedicated leftists are never swayed by finding out they believed in a myth. They are dogmatic and hold onto their beliefs like a religion. I'm talking about the fence sitters who have an open mind. If they found out the cause and effect was backwards they would abandon your side instantly. That is why debates are not allowed, to prevent the exodus of people who resent Al Gore and PBS' Nova for lying to them.

@metal-brain said
Not allowing debates is science? No, that is suppressing science.

What you're doing here is not science.

@metal-brain said
Not allowing debates is science? No, that is suppressing science.

You are not a scientist, hence no science can be suppressed by not taking your conspiracy theories seriously.

@suzianne said
What you're doing here is not science.

Explain yourself.

The Meet the Press program said they would not confuse weather with climate change, but did exactly that. They had Jerry Brown on claiming the forest fires in California are caused by climate change. The experts agree that El Nino caused a dry summer that year and that is a weather event. Forest mis- management is why the fires were hard to contain and that is just neglect. All the forest experts agree that controlled burns should have been done.
There is also a guy on the program claiming storms are worse because of global warming. That is another falsehood that ignores science. Predictably he does not give his source of information since it does not exist and is a pathetic lie.

If the science is settled why did NBC have so many people on their program telling lie after lie after lie? I have never heard anything so absurd as Chuck Todd claiming the science is settled while telling a lot of lies.

Science has no need to lie. Alarmists do, because that is the only way to convince people they are not ignorant people who are fooling themselves.

What I am doing here is science for sure. I am debunking myths while adhering to the facts. You are doing the opposite.

@kazetnagorra said
You are not a scientist, hence no science can be suppressed by not taking your conspiracy theories seriously.

The suppression of debate is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. Chuck Todd openly said they would not have deniers on. I think he is very unprofessional for using a vague term like "deniers" which is best confined to idiots who claim GW is a threat to man's survival like the moron on that program. As if we can adapt to an ice age with stone tools but not global warming with high technology. The fact that they had such an idiot saying something so stupid is evidence they do not respect science.

Did you hear that idiot? He thinks our species is threatened with extinction. We are one of the most adaptable species in world history. That is what you claim is science? Please tell me you are not that stupid.

@metal-brain said
The suppression of debate is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. Chuck Todd openly said they would not have deniers on. I think he is very unprofessional for using a vague term like "deniers" which is best confined to idiots who claim GW is a threat to man's survival like the moron on that program. As if we can adapt to an ice age with stone tools but not global warming with ...[text shortened]... species in world history. That is what you claim is science? Please tell me you are not that stupid.

Science isn't conducted on Meet the Press. The scientific debate takes place in the scientific community, in the literature and during conferences.

@kazetnagorra said
Science isn't conducted on Meet the Press. The scientific debate takes place in the scientific community, in the literature and during conferences.

What if you listened to Science Friday and Ira Flatow said "loop quantum gravity is superior to string theory and the debate is over, the science is settled". Then he had guests on the program trashing string theory that are not even physicists.
Then when someone objects to it I say Science isn't conducted on Science Friday. The scientific debate takes place in the scientific community, in the literature and during conferences.

Same thing, right?

Ira would NEVER say such a thing, he is too honest for that.
Why do you think public debate will settle ANY science issue?
What if penicillin had some crackpot conspiracy theory built up around it where they would say white folks turn brown or some such BS? You think a public debate would help?

@metal-brain said
What if you listened to Science Friday and Ira Flatow said "loop quantum gravity is superior to string theory and the debate is over, the science is settled". Then he had guests on the program trashing string theory that are not even physicists.
Then when someone objects to it I say Science isn't conducted on Science Friday. The scientific debate takes place in the scientific community, in the literature and during conferences.

Same thing, right?

That imaginary broadcast would be eyebrow-raising for sure.

Meanwhile, science still isn't conducted by the press.