Chris "Nerf Ball" Matthews tonight had two politicians -- not scientists -- debate global warming. The Democrat, James Moran, says it's a catastrophe in the making and human beings are causing it. The Republican, Dana Rohrabacher, says it's a natural occurrence.
Why didn't Matthews have scientists doing the debating? Simple. If he had scientists on, it would have wrecked his contention that Republicans are skeptics about global warming for the same reason they are skeptics about evolution: Their religion makes them suspicious of science and the scientific method. For Matthews this is a culture/religion thing. Rohrabacher tried to rebut that claim by making scientific arguments and citing scientists in his defense, but Matthews was too busy laughing and patting himself on the back to hear.
He thinks this is good news programing?
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I am not qualified to comment on the substance of claims about global warming, but the tactics used by proponents of human caused global warming, not to mention the role of Al "messiah complex" Gore, leads me to believe that maybe, just a little of it is bullshit.
I am not qualified to comment about it either, but why do you think that nobody has countered the limousine-liberals like Chris Matthews with an argument based on the benefits of global warming. If it were me, for example, I would have no trouble saying, yes global warming is occurring and yes man significantly contributes to it, and that's a GOOD thing for the economy, for human health, and for the planet.
Niccolo, there have been articles written on the benefits of warming. Thomas Gale Moore wrote a book on this.
I am not an atmospheric scientist, and no one should decide which scientists he believes on the basis of political philosophy. That said, there seem to be serious problems with the manmade, catastrophic warming thesis. People like Matthews prefer to steamroll over these problems by talking about the scientific "consensus" and laughing at skeptics as though they are flat-earthers and even Holocaust deniers. This is a disgrace. They are the unscientific ones in this debate--which is why it is was so outrageous for "Nerf Ball" to try to pin the anti-science label on the skeptics.
As Anon suggest, these tactics alone are enough to sew the seeds of skepticism. People confident in a scientific view wouldn't act this way.
It could have been worse: Matthews could have picked a scientist to represent his side and a politician to represent the other. Journalists love to skew debates that way, usually in the form of pitting "concerned citizen" against "industry flack."
If the CIA lied to Congress, then Pelosi should start an investigation of the CIA. How much you wanna bet she does not do such a thing?
Post a Comment