4 ms·

If you were to report on climate change deniers, would you not focus on the fact that they are denying something that overwhelming scientific evidence attests t

by jboynyc 10y ago

If you were to report on climate change deniers, would you not focus on the fact that they are denying something that overwhelming scientific evidence attests to? Or if somebody claimed the earth was flat, would your report say, "gee, there's an opposing view, guess we'll never know who's right"?

ams6110 10y ago
I think if you were to write a report on such a topic you would have to honestly examine their arguments and to what extent they have any credible basis. Otherwise, to write a report about a subject where supposedly there is already an overwhelming agreement seems a waste of time. Who would you be trying to convince?
salgernon 10y ago
In American that is exactly what the climate change deniers and young earth creationists demand - that we give equal time to their ideas. "Teach the controversy." The controversy only exists in the mind of that minority, and their extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (Thanks, Carl Sagan) - the birthers, climate change deniers, creationists trump supporters and spoon benders fail to meet the minimum criteria, but their bombastic temperaments make for good press coverage, which keeps them in the headlines and in our collective consciousness.
- brador 10y ago
  We should not be teaching blindly following an absolute in any science. There is always doubt, and if counter evidence exists it should be presented not swept under the rug because a majority disagree. Equal time? No. Should it be discussed? Absolutely yes.
  - salgernon 10y ago
    No, it shouldn't be, in the context of studying science. Creationism has no more validity than any other creation myth. It should be dismissed from science as readily as Zeus, Ra, or Xenu. The appropriate place to study mythology is in a mythology class - until and unless that mythology offers falsifiable evidence to support moving it into the sphere of reality.
    - brador 10y ago
      "If counter evidence exists".

by jboynyc 10y ago

ams6110 10y ago

I think if you were to write a report on such a topic you would have to honestly examine their arguments and to what extent they have any credible basis. Otherwise, to write a report about a subject where supposedly there is already an overwhelming agreement seems a waste of time. Who would you be trying to convince?

salgernon 10y ago

In American that is exactly what the climate change deniers and young earth creationists demand - that we give equal time to their ideas. "Teach the controversy." The controversy only exists in the mind of that minority, and their extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (Thanks, Carl Sagan) - the birthers, climate change deniers, creationists trump supporters and spoon benders fail to meet the minimum criteria, but their bombastic temperaments make for good press coverage, which keeps them in the headlines and in our collective consciousness.

brador 10y ago
We should not be teaching blindly following an absolute in any science. There is always doubt, and if counter evidence exists it should be presented not swept under the rug because a majority disagree. Equal time? No. Should it be discussed? Absolutely yes.
- salgernon 10y ago
  No, it shouldn't be, in the context of studying science. Creationism has no more validity than any other creation myth. It should be dismissed from science as readily as Zeus, Ra, or Xenu. The appropriate place to study mythology is in a mythology class - until and unless that mythology offers falsifiable evidence to support moving it into the sphere of reality.
  - brador 10y ago
    "If counter evidence exists".