Divine Wind
Platinum Member
The climate change "debate" is a classic example of politics twisting science. Personally, I blame Al Gore for the hyperbole and politicization after his defeat in 2000. The argument was political and, as political arguments often do, were met with "push back". It was the Left saying "We're all going to die! We need to shut down the factories now!!!" and the Right saying "Bullshit. We're fine". The truth is in the middle.But look at the climate change debate. I'll hear from one "source" that temperatures are increasing pretty much every year, then from another that they haven't increased in 15.
I'm not saying that one side is right and the other is wrong, I don't want to move this to that topic, but I'm saying that each side of the argument views their data as "factual", which essentially kills the debate right out of the gate. You can't have any kind of conversation, let alone a constructive conversation, when the participants can't even agree on FACTS.
So one "news" source pushes one side, and another pushes the other. People VOTE for people who agree with THEIR "facts". That's where we are right now, and it's only getting worse.
.
A scientist will present data and then add, "needs more research". A politician will say "this means something" or "this means nothing", meaning they will draw a conclusion from data that doesn't prove either case.
Critical thinkers will look at the data and agree that the climate is changing. There are pros and cons to those changes. There is evidence of both natural and manmade processes at work. There is evidence we can influence the environment, but no evidence we can stop or reverse the process.
As for "the Newz", they'll push whatever sells. Period.
God Bless America!