I like science and I like Neil DeGrasse Tyson. I particularly like his cute little smile. Tyson recently chastised “Media For Giving ‘Flat-Earthers’ Equal Time in the Climate Change Debate.” He added that science is “not there for you to cherry-pick.”
Couple of questions:
What is a debate then-a self-reinforcing circle-jerk? To whom would you give equal time in a debate if not to someone who disagrees with you? Is Science always right? Has some kind of mantle of infallibility fallen upon the shoulders of men in lab coats? Do scientists themselves “cherry pick” projects based on what kind of grant funding is available? Why are questioners of any stripe labeled “Deniers,” as dissenters were once labeled heretics?
The truth is, people have known the earth was roundish since ancient times. No, Christopher Columbus didn’t have to overcome religiously-induced flat earth fears, that story comes from a book of historical fiction by Washington Irving.
Furthermore, the climate change narrative is not making one truth claim but four:
1. The climate is warming. (OK, it’s always warming or cooling)
2. Human beings are causing it. (What caused past climate changes?)
3. We are all going to die, unless:
4. We implement complex carbon-trading instruments. (Wall Street will save us?)
Follow the money.
Items 2-4 are questionable, especially the last two. If truth claim number 4 was: “Everyone plant a tree, which absorbs 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year and can sequester one ton of carbon dioxide by the time it is 40 years-old,” I wouldn’t be as skeptical as I am. Oh, and I planted a tree three years ago and named him Tony. Tony is doing well, by the way.
But the climate change package deal must be swallowed whole, or you are ignorant. I submit that swallowing the four-part package whole, without asking any questions, is more akin to submitting to a religious dogma than anything like scientific thinking.
How could Tyson use the flat earth myth to bolster science? C’mon Neil you should know better.