Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
EPA’s Pruitt Asks for TV Climate Debate
The science may not be settled, but EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt wants it televised. He raised the idea of a TV climate change debate in an interview with Reuters:
“There are lots of questions that have not been asked and answered (about climate change),” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told Reuters in an interview late on Monday.
“Who better to do that than a group of scientists … getting together and having a robust discussion for all the world to see,” he added without explaining how the scientists would be chosen.
Asked if he thought the debate should be televised, Pruitt said: “I think so. I think so. I mean, I don’t know yet, but you want this to be open to the world. You want this to be on full display. I think the American people would be very interested in consuming that. I think they deserve it.”
We do deserve it, especially since every proposed solution involves raising our taxes, damaging our economy, and making citizens more submissive to federal and global bureaucracies.
Reuters helpfully labels Pruitt “controversial,” journalese for “we don’t like this guy.” But I’m curious what disagreement believers in apocalyptic climate change will offer to Pruitt’s idea, outside of mockery and #science hashtags. They’ll try to dodge a free and fair debate, since their “argument” has been mocking skeptics, equating them with Holocaust deniers, and suing them into silence. That strategy has only emboldened the doubters. And the eco-doomsdayers’ storied track record of bad predictions has hardly won them converts.
“If you’re going to win and if you’re so certain about it, come and do your deal,” Pruitt said. “They shouldn’t be scared of the debate and discussion.” Just so.
Published in Environment
Optimum average temperatures aren’t sufficient. Precise hourly temperatures for every day of the year for every acre of land over the entire planet must be specified because after all, mountain goats, spider monkeys, fruit bats, orangutans, ants, those cute little rolly-polly bugs (love those little guys), black mambas, mosquitos, gnats, funnel spiders, great white sharks, dolphins, lobsters, herring, tuna, salmon, salmon with a lemon, garlic, and tarragon sauce, krill, and sea anemones are humans, too, even the gender neutral or gender transitory or gender unspecified ones (that’s all based on science by the way) I mean…like…duh.
These specific hourly temperatures for every planetary acre of land (or sea including the entire depth to the ocean’s bottom) can easily be derived from reliable computer models.
Any deviations in meeting required hourly temperature goals should result in exorbitant fines and extreme penalties for humans living in capitalist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, white-priviliged, oppressive, bigoted, racist, imperialist countries. Self-sustaining re-education camps running on green technology when available or human labor as necessary should be added to the these offensive countries’ infrastructure plans where temperature violators can atone for their crimes against the planet by being forced to watch videos of Angela Merkel, Leonardo di Caprio, Matt Damon, and Al Gore wagging their respective fingers at them when they’re not moving rocks to and fro in razor-wire enclosed compounds. And Anthropogenic Global-Warming-Climate-Change-Climate Disruption Deniers (or AGWCCCDDs) should come before tribunals and given an opportunity to admit to their guilt before being executed. Even, and I know this is controversial, if those AGWCCCDDs are members of the LGBTQ+ communities. I mean fair is fair.
I am just trying to be helpful. Sheesh.
Right. And the Algores of the world are trying to portray skeptics as a bunch of ignorant hicks, so it would make that claim harder to make if people saw intelligent, reasonable people make rational points in a debate.
If you say so, Brian. . .
I’m not sure it makes a difference if the left want to participate. Pruitt is head of the EPA. If he says there’s going to be a debate, they will have a debate. If he says it will be used to drive policy, then that’s what will happen. And he can announce that if no one volunteers for the alarmist side of the argument, someone will be assigned.
“Okay… Howie Mandel it is!”
Hey, if it saves one life, it’s worth it!
No, wait, humans are destroying the planet. If it takes one life… No, that’ll never poll well…
Hmmm…
You’re all science deniers!!!11!
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
But, I like Howie Mandel! If we’re going to have a command performance, I want someone worthy of spending time in the stocks. I nominate that noted, award-winning climate scientist Algore. If he can’t make it (because he’s tied up in a hotel room somewhere with an unwilling masseuse), Michael Mann* or Bill Nye will do. Someone who needs the treatment.
*Ooooh, I bet MM just hates being in the same category with Bill Nye!
This idea sounds good at first. But I think it will just produce sound bites that both sides of the argument will use to further their cause. Now if the debate were run along the lines of a 1960’s Harvard debate club starring the likes of WFB, it might be useful. But alas, we only have to look at the last 40 years of presidential debates to see how it would really pan out.
TL;DR
I suppose I’m the aginner. I think it’s a bad idea: Some of the reasons have already been mentioned, like moderators, or it just becoming a source for each side to pick their sound bytes and memes.
My second reason first: Debates tend to be won based upon who’s the better debater, not who has the preponderance of the facts on their side. Does my side have the truth? I think so. The other side would say the same thing and point to raw data (I know it isn’t trustworthy any more, but does John Q. Ignorant? Does my side have the better debaters? I hope so. Does the other side have some excellent liars and propagandists? You bet your bippy.
So here comes my chief objection: Basing national environmental policy on the outcome of a debate? Goodness! What could possibly go wrong! And this is much too important an issue to base on “a debate”, particularly when no one in a position of authority in the administration is really settled on anthropogenic global warming – Including Trump and Pruitt.
No. Scientists ONLY. Please, please, please.
Those are actually good points. I didn’t read that debates would be the only venue for determining policy, as the EPA would still need to weigh the economic risks of whatever path it ultimately chooses.
I don’t know that we’ll ever have a good remedy for the debate issues you bring up. There’s always going to be some fidelity lost as scientists have to make the science understandable by lay people and the best debaters are not always the most truthful. Plus, we live in a society that will cut up the debates to “prove” their side won instead of acknowledging that a true discussion is being held. That antagonism is the worst part, as it makes something that should be easily reconcilable not.
Maybe a combination of long-form interviews, question/answer sessions, and debates would be a good strategy. Listen to each position on its own, compare and contrast the sides, allow for skepticism on all sides, and repeat a few times. What worries me more is how they’d do it. I would not hand this off to any one broadcasting company. Were I Pruitt, I would pull news anchors or journalism students from across the country to moderate the different interviews, have my team vet all of the questions coming in from independent sources, and let the mainstream media be passive consumers. I don’t think even that would completely remove bias, but as long as it was more normalized, I could live with it.
I didn’t read it that way either. I don’t think Pruitt even expects there to be a debate. He’s calling attention to the Alarmists’ refusal to debate despite their insistence that all the facts are on their side.
What a waste of time. The science is settled. Haven’t you heard? Get with the program or get run over!
Would totally buy a ticket to this.