Discussion: John Oliver, Bill Nye Hold A Real Climate Change Debate (VIDEO)

TPM Article Topics
22

The base problem is we’re educated and work as specialists, rather than generalists. General problem-solving skills involving logic are rare even among those who can adeptly use those skills in their specialities. Even from our best universities, many emerge without the broader education that would make them comfortable more broadly utilizing their skills; or with the opposite problem, that they think their use of those skills in their own speciality qualifies them to outthink genuine scientists with deep backgrounds in other specialities, without going to the trouble of deep reading in the literature there.

Even published scientists within a field are often poor at communicating with those in nearby sub-specialities. Basically, we’ve got a bunch of knowledgeable people who have no idea how knowledge scales.

2 Likes
23

MollyNYC, My wife and I are 66 and believe that the people who discount climate change are idiots including my oldest son who lives in NYC. Your age related supposition is false.

1 Like
24

One counter-example does not falsify the general rule. The correlation between age and credence given to Fox lies on this and many other topics is robust. But obviously there are young people who are idiots, and old people with real wisdom.

25

The fact that you can’t discern the gigantic, fundamental difference between “scientists”—and science itself—of the 16th century and 21st science and scientists is an indication that you’re simply ignorant about what real science is.

2 Likes
26

You really have to work much harder at trolling to be successful around here. Our standards are very high.

1 Like
27

For those who are climate change deniers on the basis of science isn’t real, I’d like to challenge them to deny the tornado that is barreling down on their farm. Oh, and by the way, no financial assistance for you, if it should, because I won’t pay for something you don’t believe in destroying what you have.

2 Likes
28

Don’t forget about the pastors at those tax-exempt churches the teavangelicals attend, spouting their anti-Obama, anti-progressive (or should I say anti-realism) rhetoric. Faux and RW radio may speak it first, but then the pastors take over and re-inforce it. So much for separation of church and state. I wish the IRS would start investigating, but…it’ll never happen.

1 Like
29

Nothing drove home how crooked the media landscape is than the failure of “Air America”; moderately liberal talk radio that could not survive in the bluest-of the blue District of Columbia. Why? because most businesses refused to allow their advertising to support it. Advertising works for right-wing talk, but liberal talk needs a different model. The 1% will not allow their advertising budgets to support anything but right-wing talk. The only other model I can think of is by subscription, like Consumer Reports or a premium cable station. Those models have a problem with how to attract new members and not be an inconsequential conversation behind a pay wall.

30

Still, the sweeping generalization that older people aren’t concerned about global climate change reeks of agism. But I guess it’s OK to slander some groups but not others, and “old” is not one of the protected groups, like, say, young people who don’t vote.

31

Again, as in the other two individuals I replied to, the logical assumption you have come to is voting, or as you put it, the ballot box.

And this is the line of thought which I am hopeful will take further root generally. Voting is vital.

If there are any further observations on the thread I opened up, I am hopeful that words like “voting”, “ballot box” and “turnout” figure prominently.

32

Leaving aside the historical ignorance shown in asserting that the people of Galileo’s time thought the world was flat, never mind that the Magellan expedition’s circumnavigation of the globe took place some 40+ years before Galileo’s birth.

edit: Or really, pretty much every historical “fact” he asserted in that post.

33

One other thing…

Since when is my talking about being “on the road in bands” indicating something all-male? You obviously wrote what you wrote in an attempt to get me in a “gotcha” moment. So I guess I am a chauvinist in your book.

But your logic seems sexist to me. You are saying that women cannot play music, sing music or be in bands?

I am never going to mention names on the Web, but, in 1980, the band in which I had the greatest amount of success was started by a woman. In 1977, a woman and I were a piano duet, playing Brasilian music. In the marching band in which I received my college music scholarship, there were young women. As a college freshman, I was on a Symphonic group in which the top performers on horn and trombone (I also played trombone) were female. The Second Horn player was exceptional. And all of these musical groups had travel and extensive social interaction with fellow musicians.

Sometimes I cannot help but wonder why is it that we Progressives seem to be so hung-up on conducting “purity tests”.

34

Are all those ‘scientists’ real scientists? If so, that makes it even better.

While the economic self interest of oil and coal companies certainly accounts for a substantial proportion of climate change denial, the influence of religious fundamentalism is important, at least in this country. The right wing blogosphere is filled with observations that evironmentalism is un-christian. This is mostly based on the genesis exhortation to ‘…fill the earth and subdue it’. This leads to the erroneous idea that a deity will prevent humankind from actually causing serious problems for the planet.

Christian fundamentalism obviously does not explain the reluctance of (officially non-religious) China to deal with climate change. The Chinese government appears to have some concern over the social and economic consequences of climate action.

But I loved the clip.

35

I thought that was kind of a shot out of nowhere that didn’t follow from what you said. I play keyboards and I’ve been in a number of bands with women, and I don’t remember any of them having any noticeable reservations about offering their opinions on any topic. Plus which generally you were talking about a style of discussion you were open to, and weren’t saying you only wanted opinions from men. Anyway it’s fun to find a musician in the crowd. Hope you still play.

36

I guess mentioning “the barber shop, on the road in bands and Basic Training” overshadowed the intent of my overall message, which most people have responded to (in a mannert which was satisfying to me).

Yes, I still play–hope you will continue to play as well.

37

I’m not sure that that is entirely the case. There’s no reason that a non-researcher MD needs to practice science-based medicine. They can function to a significant degree simply using “tribal lore.”

For me personally? I’d run the heck out of his/her office and find someone else, but I’d guess that a goodly number of our medical establishment don’t really buy into the whole science thing.

38

Even as the evidence becomes overwhelming, even as the predictions of 30 years ago are far exceeded by the reality, DUMB, WORTHLESS ASSHOLES keep inserting their DUMB WORTHLESS OPINIONS into the climate change debate. It’s about time we just start responding to the onrush of climate denialism by turning, facing the denialist, and LOUDLY SAYING DUMB OVER AND OVER AGAIN until they shut up.

39

Sorry if I didn’t make myself clearer. Obviously, not everyone past a certain age has dementia (FWIW, I’m 61 myself). However, just as obviously, it increases in prevalence with age; I am disinclined to believe that the Fox News viewership (median age: older than you and me) somehow selects for those who escape it.

40

John Oliver offers amusing and thought provoking commentary on a fascinating topic. The understanding & enforcement of truth.

The argument here is a matter of collectivism versus individualism. In the discernment of truth and in the governance of actions which align with such truth decided upon by whomever holds power.

As an agnostic, I believe that, whether or not it is acknowledged, every person embraces some form of faith in order to experience their personal perception of truth. That faith bridges the gap from uncertainty to acceptance of fact. But it is very important to remember and recognize any such instance of faith as ultimately being subject to question. This is one reason to respect the position of others, rather than to dominate them, when their conscious will runs counter to your own. It essentially amounts to humility.

Collectivists seem to place their faith in ideas which are agreed upon by groups of people whom they believe may know more than they do, with respect to the topic at hand.

Individualists seem to place their faith in ideas which make sense to them in their personal paradigm of reasoning, more so than faith in what seems wrong to them, even if others disagree. It can be seen as inconsiderate stubbornness by their detractors. Or else in support, thought of as persistence in defense of what is right, with protection against herd mentality, with lemmings in mind.

Personally, I generally gravitate toward individualism, mainly in that I have the ultimate say over what I choose to believe, and that something needs to fit cohesively into my system of understanding, in coherence with what I think and feel is right, before I will move forward with it in action. But I find it extremely important to be open to all possibilities in preserving the will to question not only others but oneself, in consideration of all things. An individualist who refuses to understand others, not only is blinded to a more inclusive field of awareness which can include important knowledge, but they are like a person who refuses to care or have empathy for others. It’s how psychopaths are born.

Either side can go too far, make mistakes, and be overzealous and disrespectful in how they force their views on others. A commonly recognized group of people who form their views with contemporary science are not the only ones who could possibly have insight worthy of consideration. “Who gives a shit”, may be humorous, but it’s not an ideal way to seriously handle large numbers of people who disagree. Your opponent still matters as a human being worthy of respect and compassion.

While I do disagree with environmental pollution and think that such issues make a strong case for potentially legitimate force of government to protect people from being harmed… I don’t have an exceptionally strong opinion on the debated issues of anthropogenic climate change. But I do wish that people would focus more on what’s being said, rather than who’s saying it.

“I can’t hear you over the weight of scientific evidence,” shouts John with reference to the crowd’s rabbling.

↝☮↜