Just when you think the corporate media is getting beyond the idea of a climate change “debate,” and that journalists are finally going to acknowledge the scientific consensus that humans are warming the planet, the idea that “both sides” must be heard comes around again.
On Meet the Press (2/16/14), host David Gregory announced at the top of the show:
Are the paralyzing storms in the East, the drought in the West, creating new urgency to take on climate change? I’m going to speak to two people on opposite sides of the issue. Bill Nye, The Science Guy, and Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee.
The debate rolled out just as one would have expected. Gregory kicked off by saying, accurately enough, that “in the scientific community, this is not really a debate about whether climate change is real.” Which is an odd thing to say right before a debate that, well, sort of suggested that this was up for debate.
Nye was there to represent the scientific consensus on climate change. Blackburn, meanwhile, was there to try to suggest there wasn’t one:
I think that Bill would probably agree with this, neither he nor I are a climate scientist. He is an engineer and actor. I am a member of Congress. And what we have to do is look at the information that we get from climate scientists. As you said, there is not agreement around the fact of exactly what is causing this.
She went on:
BLACKBURN: Well, I think that what you have to do is look at what that warming is. And when you look at the fact that we have gone from 320 parts per million 0.032, to 0.040, 400 parts per million, what you do is realize it’s very slight. Now, there is not consensus and you can look at the latest IPCC Report and look at Doctor Lindzen from MIT. His rejection of that, or Judith Curry, who recently…
GREGORY: Right.
BLACKBURN: …from Georgia Tech. There is not consensus there.
And then, once more: “What we have to look at is the fact that you don’t make good laws, sustainable laws, when you’re making them on hypotheses or theories or unproven sciences.”
If Gregory doesn’t think there’s any point in debating the science of climate change, why did he host a debate on it? It’s puzzling. But then again, so was the reaction from NBC journalist Chuck Todd later on in the show, who tried to lay down a middle-of-the-road approach:
TODD: There are a lot of people that say okay, let’s not debate who’s right, man-made or is it just nature that’s happening. The fact of the matter, it’s happening. And I wonder if there’s too much—you know, I know some environmentalists are frustrated with that portion of the debate. But maybe you steer away from it and say, it doesn’t matter. We have to tackle this infrastructure problem. You got to build different higher seawalls in some places. We’re going to have to figure out a different way to distribute water in California. The fact of the matter—and the federal government is going to have to pay for this.
GREGORY: Right.
TODD: And pay for all these things. And so I wonder if everybody should say, you know what? Let’s table this debate. We know what’s happening. Table that part of the debate, because when you do that, then it becomes this like clubbing each other with—with—with political argument that takes away from what we have to do.
This is a great example of the problem with corporate media centrism. The debate over “who’s right” about climate change annoys people like Todd because it is objectively true that some are more right than others. And one major political party is more frequently aligned with those who deny climate change’s existence or the need to do something about it.
So it’s not a debate that can be “tabled,” nor is it a distraction from “what we have to do.” Sea level will continue to rise as the planet warms, and governments will necessarily spend trillions of dollars dealing with the consequences. But whether we’re looking at a 35-centimeter rise (about 14 inches) by the end of the century or more like 124 centimeters (close to four feet) depends in large part on whether we face the reality that human-caused changes to the atmosphere are catastrophically altering the climate. Chuck Todd wants us to stop talking about our responsibility for the disaster we’re creating—and focus instead on who’s going to pay for the damages.
“For Chrissake, let’s not worry about how the addict got the drugs, and that he’s continuing to use them …
Let’s devote our energies to treating the symptoms!”
Gott im Himmel …
I thought Bill Nye was far more convincing than Ms Blackburn. Though she agreed that things were changing in the climate, she denied that they were as bad as Nye said they were and she named two scientists who equivocate on the question as opposed to the preponderance of scientific opinion that says it is happening. So, she is right when she says there is not consensus—if consensus means unanimity.
When is NBC going to have a blow-dry debate the theory of gravity? How about heliocentrism? The mass media is just so useless. If they are not pandering to the religious right, then they are shilling for their own products. gag.
Since global warming is a given, David Gregory should be discussing its implications, not its existence. He could start with recent projections of world population growth and carbon dioxide emission rates that suggest mankind is well on the way to its own extinction.
Unfortunately, NBC in general and David Gregory in particular display laughable ignorance of the subjects they discuss and expect to be admired for it.
As always, a persons ability to see a particular point of view is inversely proportional to the amount their income is dependent on them not seeing that point of view.
Just look at human progress over the past 200-300 years. We’ve gone from horseback, walking, or sailing ship to autos and jet planes; from candles and oil lamps to creating vast amounts of energy from burning coal, gas and oil; from a population of less than a billion to more than seven billion, many of whom use our new vast forms of energy. In a very short time span we’ve gone from producing almost zero CO2 to cranking out over 32.4 billion metric tons of the stuff each year. That’s not the total amount we’ve pumped into the atmosphere. That’s for only one year! Anyone why says that that couldn’t possibly have an effect on our planet is either nuts, or so scared of the potential consequences they don’t dare acknowledge the reality.
Oh yes, the one remaining fact: CO2 in the atmosphere lets light through but partially blocks heat energy from escaping – voila, the global warming blanket. Want an example of what CO2 can do? The planet Venus has an atmosphere of 80-90 percent CO2 and as a result has an average temperature of well over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, hot enough to melt lead!
Hmmm Chuck Todd, you say to find a better way to distribute water in California.,…well, what if there isn’t any more?
There is a finite amount of water in California now, and if it doesn’t rain or snow, then what? The Colorado River doesn’t even reach the Pacific anymore. It ends in a mud puddle far from the shore!
Oh yes all that fracking going on certainly ruins the water too.
I wonder if some of these elected people and talking heads just think, oh well, if there’s no water, I’ ll have a beer, a soda, or wine! Geez— there’s water in those too. Will water go to Big Ag or school kids? Will the government do eminent domain on all that privatized water? Will hospitals get water or will the military; sharing is not an option when fear kicks in. Without water——- the Earth is just another Mars.
Thanks so much for this report. You are spot-on correct.
It may have been worth it for Bill Nye to sum up the simple solution to this – “We have to do everything, all at once” That is the key message.
After that, everything else was posturing and platitudes. NBC and all corporate owned media has returned to active distraction. We knew all this in 1979 science reports like the Charney Report http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/charneyreport.html – and for more than 30 decades we have ignored and denied. Now all that is left is to “do everything, all at once”
Who even WATCHES Meet the Press any longer? Nonagenarians in memory care units? Gregory’s, and the program’s, corporate-rightist-propagandist bias is painfully obvious at all times. Gregory is the very embodiment of the mouthpiece shilling for corporate billionaire masters. There is no truth in him or in the show, which is designed NOT to inform but to tell the gullible and bigoted what to think and/or what they want to hear. It’s a wonder the show hasn’t already died a richly deserved death. It could be transferred to Fox News and Roger Ailes wouldn’t have to change a thing.
Tim Russert never would have held this travesty of a “debate.” Shame on Gregory. What next? “The Holocaust: myth or not?”
The GOP sends out this no-nothing woman to argue about science? What were they thinking…..that her sickening sweet grin could overcome science? The woman is a fool.
This begins with “there should be open debate(I agree),then says since there is scientific concensus that debate is over(ridiculous).Actually there is consencus that the climate is changing(it always has).And that people have an effect on pollution and possibly climate.No one has ever stated they know how much.If they have they are fools.None of the models have been proven.In fact the opposite.Now that we are in a cooling trend even that is pulling a 180.And remember this was first a move by government to gain control of the economy.are we not glad that failed?LOOK AT THIS GOVERNMENT,But for those who are die hard believers in this i will tell you plainly.To accomplish anything you will have to invade China and india.The US is not the problem anymore.They are.So lock and load and off with you on your mission to save the world.
I noticed that Todd said “the government will have to pay for it” rather than the government will have to do it and we will have to pay for it. I would prefer to pay to avoid the worst that can happen rather than pay for the worst that can happen.
Greg I think you are saying that you would rather pay a tax to avoid what may happen(Even though every model has proven it is NOT happening)Than not pay the tax….just in case all the models do a 180 and sometime in the future something DOES happen.That is trusting this government to be right.So far they have not been right on ANYTHING.For the love of God dont ever give them the benefit of the doubt on anything.Global warming ended in 1995.We are now cooling.And cooling dramatically.The ice field off iceland ,and in the Himalaya’s that were the keynote of every model have rebounded 120%.So now they have stopped calling it global warming,and now have fallen to the term “Global climate change”.So what we said all along has come to pass.Any change is now due to us.The actual “consensus”among scientists is now a weak agreement that man MUST be effecting the climate even though no model can be laid down to prove it.Im actually fine with that.What im not fine with is giving government even one ounce of power over our economy for their hair brained scientific notions.
LOL, michael e.
The INSURANCE industry is freaking out aboput the changing climate. When that happes, and it has, then there is negative climate change going on.
The people who pay will be the home owners, first, and then eventually we will all pay with higher rates for cars, planes, and on and on——all the way to our water, which is disappearing in some places and being contanminated in others.
If Ben Franklin were alive today, he would
have to talk about the assurance of what comes: death taxes AND rising insurance rates. : )
Well a friend of mine, who i still hunt and fish with (and grew up with) owns a massive insurance concern.HE is not sure what you are talking about,but my guess is you are talking about storm damage,more so than the massive crap load of snow that has covered 70% of the US.Yes Insurance companies have been hit hard by things like Sandy.And there are a ton of factors that go into that.But to say sandy is due to us……….that is a huge step.My father almost died in that massive typhoon (still I believe the biggest on record) that cost us and the Japanese hundreds of vessels in the South pacific 1945.No body automatically attributed that to mans impact on the earth.And to do so today is still the same stretch.I believe in the theory that when a butterfly flaps its wings in China it send us a breeze here.And Im a strong opponent to pollution.It IS all interconnected.And every generation has been sure that man will destroy the planet.Even when scientifically that was pure nonsense.The problem with the Global warming crowd is they want the riens.To this, that ,and everything so that they can control and guide us to a better world.They cry chicken little and now- demand those reins.Well their science stinks.Hell the world is cooling fast and they are pulling a 180 and saying….THAT TO IS MANMADE!!!!!Ok believe what you want.Im just not ready to hand over any “reins”,if that ok with you lot.And Im always honest here.Yet no one responds.The US is doing a fantastic job as far as cleaning things up.Give huge tax incentives and we will be the model for the world.CHINA and INDIA are polluting everything in sight.If you really think Global warming is thee most pressing issue you better prepare to invade these countries.Because short of that, they have a finger to show you.So dont waste your thunder yelling at conservatives or corporations or anyone else.WE ARE DOING FINE.Turn all your anger and groping for control outward.To foreign lands.that is where your white whale swims.
EQsmsjcGZAmnJJJNuh 3758
“This is a great example of the problem with corporate media centrism.”
And that is a great example of not just getting to the damn point. When it is demonstrable fact that there is almost 100% consensus among the world’s climatologists researching this issue that Anthropogenic Climate Disruption is absolutely happening now, and the MSM presents obfuscation masquerading as “balance” that just happens to serve the interests of Big Energy, then the MSM is ANYTHING BUT centrist.
They are driving hard to so-called debate in service to those corporations, against the broader interests of life on this planet.