Neil deGrasse Tyson Thinks Politicians Denying “Climate Change” Is End Of Informed Democracy

If he wants an informed electorate, perhaps he could start with Obama supporters (like himself), who were utterly uninformed about Obama policies.

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Politicians Denying Science Is ‘Beginning Of The End Of An Informed Democracy’

What will you be doing on Monday, 4/20, at 11 p.m.?

Perhaps watching the premiere of acclaimed astrophysicist and author Neil deGrasse Tyson’s new show StarTalk. Tyson, who may be best known for hosting the reboot of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos series in 2014, will now be appearing weekly on the National Geographic Channel in what may be the first late-night science talk show. Along with a trusty cast of comedians and science-minded folks like Bill Nye, Tyson hopes the adaptation of his popular podcast to a broadcast format will make getting a regular dose of science as pain-free as possible. He thinks that by embedding it between pop culture discussions and entertaining asides, the science will go down easy, and even leave you wanting more. And he’s right.

Trending: The 15 Best Conservative News Sites On The Internet

This is the dumbing down of science for the same people who think that “climate change” is super duper horrible and will kill us all and we should pass all sorts of laws, rules, and regulations, giving Government more and more power over Other People’s lives and businesses, along with more taxes. All while refusing to modify their own lives to accord with their Beliefs as members of the Cult of Climastrology.

Anyhow, Mr. Tyson is interviewed by Ari Phillips at Joe Romm’s George Soros funded Climate Progress, and we get

You recently spoke about who to blame for the state of the climate change debate in the U.S., the electorate or the politicians. Can you elaborate on that?

The issue here is not what politicians do because the electorate votes them into office. So what does it mean to complain about what politicians do? We should complain about what the electorate does. I’m an educator, so I see it as one of my duties, especially as a science educator, to alert people of what science is and how it works. About what it means for there to be an objective truth that we would then act upon.

If you want to lean in a political way because that’s your politics, you should do that based on an objective truth rather than cherry-picking science before you even land at an objective truth. You can’t just cherry-pick data and choose what is true about the world and what isn’t.

He’s right. Warmists should stop cherry picking data to make a causal link between CO2, what they unscientifically refer to as “carbon pollution”, and blaming Mankind for slight upticks in the temperature which are quite ordinary during a Holocene warm period.

So I’m not blaming the electorate in that sense. I’m blaming an educational system that is not positioned to educate an electorate such that they can make informed decisions in this, the 21st century, where informed decisions based on objective scientific truths will play a fundamental role in what kind of society we create for ourselves.

In other words, he’s upset that the uber-liberal leaning education system isn’t doing even more to indoctrinate, rather than moving the other way and provide open and honest information that allows people to make an informed decision.

Of course, he’s very upset that the media dares to provide non-members of the CoC any time

So the question arises then at what point should a journalist give equal time to equal points of view that are opposite or in denial of emergent scientific truths. If you allocated column inches in proportion to the scientific consensus of experiments, there would be one sentence talking about people who deny climate change and the rest of the ten columns talking about research that supports it. But that’s not what we see in the public.

I think journalists are abandoning what would be their sensibility of following the emergent truths and in some cases painting a debate as though there’s a scientific debate when in fact there isn’t one — and that makes for headlines and more clicks.

He’s also not a big fan of debates. This is the same for most Warmists, since they tend to get beaten like rented mules each and every time.

Going forward, can you predict where the conversation around climate change will be in a decade or two? And maybe where we’ll be in meeting the challenges it poses?

I can’t predict where it will be, but I can suggest where it should go. The conversation that needs to happen — here it is: you have conservatives and liberals in a room, people with power, let’s say they are representatives or senators. They shake hands and say, “ok humans are changing the climate of this planet, this is the consensus of scientific experiments being conducted, what policy and legislation should we debate in the face of the information?”

Obviously, that is his opinion. Of course, it revolves around that Mankind is mostly/solely responsible for the slight uptick in warming since 1850 (a whopping 1.4F in over 160 years). No matter what real science says, Warmists will not give up their dogma in favor of “informed decisions based on objective scientific truths”. I do enjoy how he says “truths” instead of “facts”.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!