Neil deGrasse Tyson shuts down climate change deniers

a reply to: Euphem

I leave a smaller foot print than most. Since I do not have any tokens left in my bank there is little else I can do right now.

I do see how the carbon tax will likely just be another way to siphon money away from us, the peasants of the planet.

The problem I want to expose is the junk pseudo science that is rampant in any environmental debate. Some of the most destructive practices we as a species do are also very profitable. Those who are making money at the expense of the planet are funding all kinds of junk studies and campaigns to keep laws in their favor and sway(or at least distract) the popular opinion of to what is going wrong with planet Earth.

a reply to: amazing

I wouldn't say that I am the exception to the rule. It is hard to really understand someones entire viewpoint on an issue in the forum format. Some people have a hard time communicating their thoughts, I know I am definitely one of them.

I think the majority of those who call AGW a scam are focusing on the history of corrupt governments more than the science. Taking into account a lot of different variables from the past when it comes to conspiracies(some true and some crazy). So they are hesitant to believe everything climate scientists say.

I am a computer engineer and have been obsessed with science since I was little. I can still remember when I was 4 years old my dad teaching me what E=mc2 meant when I was taking a bath. My whole life has revolved around science and technology. However, I am still skeptical of a lot of scientific studies that come out. Why wouldn't you be? Humans are flawed, and even the most intelligent of us make mistakes.

I will use my friend as an example. Smartest guy I know by far. He is a biochemist that had a 4.0 GPA starting in kindergarten all through college. Incredible quick and intelligent academically. However, when it comes to street smarts, politics, social interaction, emotions, and just general life skills he is an utter failure. He is so focused on one specific area of life that he can't see the big picture. I think this is true for a lot of the brightest scientists in the world, and they are very easily manipulated.

Who are the biggest manipulators on the planet? Politicians. Who controls the UN, IPCC, and really any important program in the world? Who has all throughout history conspired against their own citizens? I think you know the answer.

So it comes down to being smart enough to understand the big picture while also understanding the science involved, and those people are extremely rare these days.

originally posted by: Euphem
a reply to: amazing


Who are the biggest manipulators on the planet? Politicians. Who controls the UN, IPCC, and really any important program in the world? Who has all throughout history conspired against their own citizens? I think you know the answer.

So it comes down to being smart enough to understand the big picture while also understanding the science involved, and those people are extremely rare these days.

Politicians are merely cheerleaders. Most have enough trouble tying their own shoes without help and are simply not capable intellectually to be master manipulators. Someone else is pulling their strings.

Some of the industry giants are the worlds biggest threat. Short term profit is more important than the long term health of this planet. Those are the master manipulators.

a reply to: Phage

I do. Profit and abundance are mutually exclusive.

When did we become Ferengi?

Profit means nothing, if it is not turned into abundance.

a reply to: jrod

It is true that there are people behind the scenes pulling the strings of the politicians. What I am referring to though is the face to face interaction that does the manipulating. Politicians are the middle man for the people truly in control.

There is a cognitive bias that plays into all of this called the Dunning-Kruger effect. It basically says that the unskilled among us suffer from illusory superiority. They are unable to recognize their shortcomings.

Intelligent individuals erroneously assume things that are easy for them are also easy for everyone else. The more skilled individuals also doubt themselves much more often. Combining these two elements creates an environment where the less intelligent individual can intimidate and control the more intelligent person.

This is perfect for the truly powerful and intelligent in control. They can manipulate the manipulators, while the truly skilled are too caught up in their own minds to question them.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Flatfish

So why use that name?

Why not Anthropogenic Climate Change Deniers?

The reason people don't use the term "anthropogenic climate change deniers" is simply because that's a lot of syllables. Nothing more to it than that.

I think you're getting way too hung up on semantics.

In fact I don't even hear the term "climate change deniers" very often - it's usually just "climate deniers". So I hope that doesn't mean you think people deny the existence of climate altogether as well??



Anyway as for the term being thrown around as a pejorative - well, it's unfortunate, but sometimes you also have to call a spade a spade. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a skeptic, it's a wonderful and totally revered thing in science.

But there are so many phony skeptics, phony skeptic talking points, and so much phony skeptic "science" in the climate debate that the term denier becomes entirely justified, like it or not.

Personally I think deniers are called deniers not because of the fact that they deny climate, or climate change, or anthropogenic climate change, or whatever amount of syllables you want to put in front there - they get called deniers because of the way they deny the evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

You see it in every single one of these discussions (and there are plenty of examples in this very thread). These so-called skeptics will make some totally ignorant claim, about how there's absolutely no evidence that CO2 causes warming for example, or that it's all based on hypothetical computer models, or that one volcano emits more CO2 than all humans ever have - and then when somebody delivers the evidence that refutes these completely manufactured talking points, they just...deny it.


They either ignore that evidence, or move the goal posts, or quickly change the subject to the next meme, or nitpick trivial details that deliberately avoid the bigger picture, or just flat out DENY it - with no counter-evidence to support their entirely baseless rejection.


This happens over and over and over again on these threads. But deniers tend to be so obtuse about it, and lack any semblance of self-awareness over their very blatant denial, that they just repeat the same pattern endlessly, and then usually cry about how much they're being persecuted for their supposedly innocent skeptical interjections.

So you may be sick of being called a denier when you feel you're just being a humble skeptic, but personally I'm sick of all the deniers hiding behind the term "skeptic", when they don't even know the meaning of the word.


If you feel you're being wrongly lumped into that group then just do your best to disassociate yourself from them first, and I guarantee you it will get noticed, and it will be very much appreciated. Because real skeptics are like an absolute breath of fresh air in this mostly phony debate. But please don't pretend like deniers don't exist either - because they completely poison and pollute this debate way more than anyone, or any word.