Unethical Quote Of The Week: “Meet The Press” Host Chuck Todd

Silence, Denier!

“Just as important as what we are going to do this hour is what we’re not going to do. We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter, and human activity is a major cause. Period. We’re not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled, even if political opinion is not.”

NBC’s “Meet The Press” host Chuck Todd, introducing a “special” edition today on climate change.

It’s difficult to see the progressive-mainstream news media alliance more openly flexing its totalitarian muscles than that, is it?

“Settled science” on this topic has become one more debate and knowledge stifling cliché,   like similar dishonest word games such as “right to choose,” “sensible gun laws” and “comprehensive immigration reform.” It also means “Shut up!” Todd demonstrated this literally, by refusing to allow any dissent on a program with the objective of frightening the public into accepting draconian and speculative policy measures by uncritically accepting a doomsday scenario that is anything but settled science.

This is not merely bad science, it’s unethical journalism. I presume that the program didn’t mention, for example, the inconvenient report just this week  that 2018 had the fewest major tornadoes in recorded in history.

Wait—how could that be, when the much ballyhooed (and criticized)  federal report on climate change had Democrats crowing things like Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D–TX),  the presumed chair of the House science committee in January, about the certainty of report’s conclusion predicting “increased wildfires, more damaging storms, dramatic sea level rise, more harmful algal blooms, disease spread, dire economic impacts, the list goes on and on. That being said, all hope is not lost, but we must act now. We have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, work on adaptation and mitigation, and explore technology solutions such as geoengineering and carbon capture and sequestration”?

The less-destructive tornadoes go along nicely with the highly- reduced numbers of major hurricanes in the past decade. Don’t they at least suggest that the “settled science” can’t predict what is going to happen as accurately as “settled science” should? Does the settled science know how long warming trends will continue? How warm it will get? Whether various proposed measures will be effective in combating it? Does the settled science know why every model has failed so far, and why all the dire reports still must be called speculative at best, irresponsible hysteria at worst?

Most news media that reported the tornado data never even linked it to climate change models and the federal report, which it directly contradicted. Check the Hill for example. Call me a stickler, but I like my “settled science” a lot more settled than “the Earth continues to warm due to man-made pollution, and this is causing catastrophic extreme weather that threatens our lives, economy and infrastructure, but for some damn reason this hasn’t been true of hurricanes and tornadoes—you know, the most destructive storms there are?–lately and we don’t know why.”

I am not a “climate change denier.” [ By the way, anyone in politics, academia the news media, like Chuck Todd, who uses that dishonest term to characterize those who question the cant and false certainty should be automatically discounted as untrustworthy and dishonest. The intent is to associate them with Holocaust deniers; it’s another cognitive dissonance scale trick. this one backfires, though, because anyone who claims denying what has already happened and is documented in film and records is the same as denying the reliability of constantly failing predictions about what is going to happen in a century or more is a) a liar; b) trying to pull a fast one; or c) an idiot.]

I accept that the Earth has been warming. I accept that man-made pollution is probably a big part of it. I just don’t accept the politically warped and biased models that consistently don’t work and seem to be devised with the primary purpose of panicking governments and the public into expensive policies with substantial human consequences on the basis of incomplete data and an uncertain future. (See: Gore, Al) I also don’t accept the suspiciously illogical arguments from progressives and socialists who sound like what they really want is less democracy and more enlightened dictatorship from world organizations.

It’s actually good of Chuck to finally drop the mask. He’s not interested in journalism and informing the public. He wants to assist those who want the public to be complicit in the surrender of their own power, because “settled science” says taxes and restrictive energy policies are desperately needed to prevent devastating sto…floods! Yeah, that’s it! Floods! In a hundred years…well, maybe 200. OK, 300 at most. It’s settled!

Shut up.

 

26 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Week: “Meet The Press” Host Chuck Todd

  1. I have said it before I am saying it again now. This is not journalism it is an editorial masking as journalism. Unfortunately this trend is being perpetrated by both sides of the political spectrum. Back in our youth editorials were labeled as such, and responsible outlets would say things like “ the opinions expressed in this segment does not nessarily reflect the views of this station and management” then the would let Gore Vidal or someone else speak. New reporting, or journalism is suppose to be just the facts, we are supposed to make our own decisions based on those facts, and the editorial were clearly labeled as it was an attempt to sway us to their thinking. Unfortunately today we have editorials posing as journalism, and no one calling either side out on it! These issues are not as easy as the editorializing would have us believe. I still hope the American public is intelligent enough to see this, but I keep getting disappointed by both sides/

    • Rip,
      Absolutely. An educated populace should not need anyone to interpret facts for them. The rise of the analyst pundit suggests either the public is too lazy to digest facts and formulate their own opinion or woefully unable or unwilling to critically think.

  2. Not a science at all. It’s settled opinion. Science runs on data, especially long-term, centuries of data in detail that really isn’t older than fifty years. Inferences from rock and ancient icecap is still heavy on inference. And we don’t have a spare world to let us run controlled experiments. We have a lot of chicken littles assigning blame for millenia long cycles. I think we *might* be able to determine major effects that we can influence in a century to two. I would believe the ones who want drastic action if they lived like the Amish, or do they just want to browbeat others and limit their lives but not their own. Put up or shut up, and a little recycling is not enough putting up with their hysteria. Smart phones and dozens of things they use every day are ungreen luxuries as are quinoa shipped from South America.

    What car do they drive?

    • The hypocrisy you point out is the most unbearable part for me. When the UN (just one example of many) puts out reports that claim that global catastrophe is unavoidable unless we make drastic changes to the world economy and all human societies, then holds annual meetings on climate change that routinely generate more CO2 in a few weeks than a small city generates in a year, what are we to think? Either these people truly believe their catastrophic predictions, and are behaving in a destructive way deliberately, or they know the predictions are bullshit and are using them to manipulate people. Either way, it doesn’t say much for their character.

      I liken it to people who claim on the one hand that Trump is literally the next Hitler, and then call for the government to confiscate privately-owned guns. You can’t have it both ways. If you think Trumpian shock troops are going to come marching through your town, why would you want the people to be disarmed? If you think the world will end if we don’t curb CO2 emissions, why are you flying tens of thousands of people all over the world via private jets for climate conferences?

      • Just check out Kamala Harris for an example.

        http://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.culture.israel/k4OvsDOxGlM/gdo8uXL1BQAJ

        “Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine
        who can carry a concealed weapon,” said Kamala Harris, who was then the
        California Attorney General.

        I have always wondered how #BlackLivesMatter would view this. After all,
        according to their narrative, cops are just Klansmen with badges who
        habitually gun down unarmed black men. How could we trust such people with
        discretion to determine who may carry a concealed weapon.

        And yet,she tweeted this:

        Today, we remember #MikeBrown and recommit to ensuring truth,
        transparency, and trust in our criminal justice system. #BlackLivesMatter

        So I wonder if any reporter from the network broadcast and print media would
        ask her any of the following questions:

        – If the reason that “[l]ocal law enforcement must be able to use their
        discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon” is because they
        are just Klansmen with badges, why shouldn’t the Stormfront White
        Nationalist Community also get to decide who can carry a concealed weapon?

        – If the reason that “[l]ocal law enforcement must be able to use their
        discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon” is because they
        habitually gun down unarmed black men, why shouldn’t the Crips also get to
        decide who can carry a concealed weapon?

        – Is more black men dead or in prison a worthy price to pay to make lawful
        gun ownership more difficult?

        – Is making lawful gun ownership more difficult a worthy price to pay to put
        more black men in prison?

        – Does some magical guardian fairy turn these Klansmen with badges into
        freedom riders whenever they exercise their “discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon”?

  3. Whatever the science says, Earth is a living organism, and though humans can affect pollution either positively or negatively, it is the height of hubris that humans can decide and have control over how Earth should function, now and in the future. We do not control the movement of tectonic plates under the Earth’s crust, though we know about it and continue to populate areas that are most affected by such shifts. We know the Mississippi River flood plain is called a flood plain for a reason, but we continue to build on it, call it a tragedy when the flood plain floods,and rebuild on that same space time after time. We know that much of California is dry forest or desert (e.g. the San Fernando Valley), or would be if water wasn’t diverted from the Colorado River. When wildfires break out as they have since before recorded time, it is a tragedy because we have ignored what we know and have thought we can control what earth and weather does.

    No one talks about how we have systematically ignored facts like these, often with serial human tragedies the result. We can’t control these factors, but still pretend we can. We cleaned up Lake Erie in the 1960s, and can control pollution to a great extend, at least in the US. But regardless of what we do, if the rest of the world doesn’t do it as well, it will have little impact. Tell China to stop her industrial revolution — ours came much earlier.

    We’ve had ice ages and warm ages in pre-industrial human history, as geologists have proven, but no one wants to talk about that. ‘Climate change’ is a liberal test of how much cant any citizen will believe. And a 2nd rate journalist’s limitation of the discussion only underscores the fact that once again a topic has become more about ideology than about fact. If you think you’re right, you’re open to discussing differing views. That’s your chance to change minds. If you are afraid to do that, you might as well be living in the Stalinist Soviet Union, where official opinions were the only opinions.

    • E2 makes good points. I tend to agree: it is hubris to think that we as humans, or even our powerful U.S. government and political establishment can reliably control how Earth functions now and into the future. (Why would anyone trust the government to do anything efficiently or logically?)

      Of course there are things we can do to make our environment better and safer. And we in fact already do many of those things in the U.S. pretty well compared to much of the rest of the world… clean water and clean air for example. I can still remember flying over Lake Michigan and not being able to see the Chicago skyline through the smog and looking down to see the sludge being dumped as plumes of brown gunk extending thousands of feet out in to Lake Michigan. No more. We are still not perfect but considering the scale of the problem, we have made important progress since the 1960s. Today, 327 million Americans enjoy cleaner water and cleaner air than many of our grandparents experienced in the 1960s.

      Yes, no doubt, climate change is real. And human activity is one significant causal factor (there are others).

      Over the years, I have followed this debate with interest and am amazed that there is so little mention or concern that the Earth now has a population of 7.7 billion people and is heading to 10 billion people by the middle of the 21 Century. Each man, woman, child and infant requires certain things to survive: calories, water, air, shelter, clothing and energy. Where does that stuff come from and how do we get it to the people who need it. Already, we know that some parts of the world regularly experience shortages and imbalances and are struggling with horrible environmental problems… depleted sea life, lost forests, lost agriculture lands, polluted water, polluted air, out of control filth and waste going into our oceans.

      Some social and physical scientists believe we have already passed the tipping point for population, that have too many people on Planet Earth to sustain with the available resources. Some of these pessimists suggest that the the main environmental problem is not climate change, but too many people. But few want to talk too candidly about what to do about too many people. It is easier to talk about reducing greenhouse gases, as if people have nothing to do with that.

      If climate change is real… and I believe this to be true… and if it’s primary cause is human activity, why is there so rarely any mention of the fact that never before has Planet Earth experienced 7.7 billion inhabitants and all of these people have material needs for basic survival. Fulfilling those needs will inevitably have environmental implications. Some of these people enjoy very high standards of living (like those living in the U.S.) and others are barely surviving or not surviving.

      As counter point to the pessimists, there are optimists who believe that through science and technology we will be able to meet those increasing human material needs without harming the environment and in a sustainable fashion. But think about it… science and technology is exactly what enabled the growth of human population to its present level of 7.7 billion… agricultural advancements, improved crop yields, domestication of animals for food, metallurgy, microbiology, medical science, sanitation, more efficient transportation of people and goods. etc. No doubt there is still plenty of opportunity for more science and technology advancement, but there may be limits to what humans can do. Do we really want to have 10 billion mouths to feed? (Algae as a main diet, anyone?)

      My opinion: At best, some nation-state governments of the world can claim basic competence and reasonable integrity to serve the interests of the people they represent. Unfortunately, many parts of the world still have horribly corrupt, incompetent, and selfish governments that squander their available resources and cause their people senseless suffering. Do we really expect that governments can be trusted to figure out how to save the world from environmental calamity? What choice do we have?

      If the optimists are right, the population of the world will continue to climb, more or less as projected. If they are wrong, nature will make course corrections regionally or world-wide with or without human or governmental cooperation.

      • To J. Houghton: Good points that I completely missed, especially about the sheer number of humans occupying Earth, and the logarithmic increase in this number over time with a concomitant decrease in natural resources as we urbanize across the world.. Why not use this argument to suggest that ‘underdeveloped’ nations stop reproducing like flies,and follow the 2-child rule (or is it 1-child now?) as in China? Or, as in the US, following a trend toward smaller families?

    • E2
      One way to affect BRIC countrie’s Co2 emissions would be to increase tariffs by 100% or more on their exports. I wonder what the environmentalists would say to that. Killing demand for products produced in countries that have little regulation would cause the global economy to have a meltdown.

      If Trump wanted to have the Tappers of the world tie themselves into knots would be to threaten to impose environmental surcharges on goods produced in factories that do not meet our air & water quality regulations as well as our Worker safety regulations.

  4. If you want to know who the bullies are, look who’s allowed to speak and who’s not, and who’s allowed to get angry and who’s not. Bully is as bully does, and it’s plain to see who’s doing the bullying here.

    However, the flip side of that is that if you want to know who’s shaky and who’s got a good chance of being wrong, look at who the bullies want to silence and deny. If whatever they stand for is unimpeachable, then it should be able to withstand discussion, debate, challenge, or someone honestly asking “what about this?”

    Instead we get “the science is settled,” end of discussion. We get “black lives matter,” end of discussion. “No human is illegal,” end of discussion. Chuck’s line is the same kind of patronizing crap teachers and parents who have all the power feed to students and kids asking questions. Who among us didn’t hear the supercilious say “I really don’t think we’ll get anywhere by pursuing this conversation further” before shooting down further discussion?

    Sometimes it’s appropriate, like when the discussion truly has run its course and everyone has had their say, or when there’s no real discussion to be had, like he wants a second date, but she’s already decided she isn’t interested. It’s not appropriate when there’s a real discussion or a real issue of fact between two adults. Unfortunately, the left has decided they are the only side worth being treated like adults, and only their opinions mean anything, and those who disagree are just, as I described almost four years ago, puppies who should hang our heads because our mistress is cross with us, kids who should just be given an inexpensive, mindless toy and banished to the backyard, or heretics whose opinions need to be silenced lest they contaminate the orthodoxy.

    It’s four years later and the left’s gotten a hell of a jolt, actually a few good jolts, but nothing has changed. I wonder if we on the right should be the ones walking away, since it’s pretty clear the other side is just stubborn, and often rude to boot, although things have become a lot more civil in here lately.

  5. I believe it is at least somewhat ‘settled’ science that there are historical patterns to hurricane activity. E.g. in the 2000s I think we were supposed to be in a peak stretch of hurricane activity, as I think we were in the 1950s if memory serves. Then there are stretches where hurricanes are much reduced. Are we in one of those stretches now, or heading into one?

    We also know there are ebbs and peaks in solar output and activity. This is likely to a much bigger factor in global warming than a lot of manmade activities, even if you accept that humans have a major influence in climate change.

    Just a couple of thoughts. Think about this: Newton’s Laws were ‘settled science’ for centuries. There still applicable, but I believe Einstein came up with some amendments…..

  6. There is also this… Coyote (linked below) thinks that one should have a good thermometer of you are concerned with temperatures, just as you, if you found yourself needing to be a certain weight, would get yourself a decent scale. This is something that global warming crowd might have missed.

    Coyote (Warren Meyer) calls himself a “lukewarmer” rather than denier. At thelink he shows some problems with the data, based on the revelations contained in an Austrialian’s PhD thesis.

    http://coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2018/10/warmists-and-skeptics-should-agree-that-this-is-the-real-scandal-in-climate-science.html

    • This is a smart and important article, but it is essentially one of the many arguments pointing out the holes in climate change proponents’ case. It is one of the bigger ones, but by no means the biggest, as astonishing as that sounds.

      Tragically, climate change has become a religion. Science no longer matters to its adherents as their confirmation bias is so profound that every event is seen to confirm their belief. The fact that the science upon which their sacrament is based is both fundamentally and logically flawed no longer matters. No matter what science actually says, the religion has become unassailable to its proponents.

      Seems Todd is a supplicant to the Church of Climate Change. In my view, his rejection of “deniers” is little different from Christians decrying unbelievers as heretics or in the case of Muslims, infidels. He will brook no challenge to his belief, identical to religious rejection of challenges to theirs.

      Climate change is no longer science, and has not been for over a decade.

  7. Call me Dubious. CO2, an inert, naturally occurring gas comprising .04 percent of the atmosphere, is going to destroy the planet? I’m not even convinced temperatures are rising significantly. Who was keeping accurate records of temperatures all over the world a hundred years ago? Why are current experts adjusting old temperatures down and adjusting current temperatures up? Aren’t we already supposed to be at the tip of the hockey stick? Did Al Gore ever actually write anything, never mind a voluminous tome and the script for a movie? The Manhattan Contrarian is really good at aggregating material on the climate hoax.

    • Bill– the link I posted above shows that the collection of temperature data currently is less than optimum.

      I am also a skeptic. No oneh as shown how a 1-degree rise over the coming century will put Central Park under water, or whatever. One has to create the belief of an impending, monumental disaster to get significant Federal funding.

  8. I have spent a little time looking at the data and see the planet’s temperature has been rising ever so slightly (about .3 degrees C since the 1980s, but effectively none since 2000). Honest people will admit there is little way to know what, if anything, is anomalously causing this or if it is natural or perhaps cyclical. Neither has anyone been able to point to anyway humans could legitimately affect this slight warming trend as the honest admit they don’t know what is causing it. Further, the honest admit they don’t know if this slight warming will help or harm humanity or other species beyond the norms of regularly occurring climate change.

    We are left with crisis mongers who clearly have an ideological and economic agenda dressed in the clothing of saving the planet. Just like every other crisis they spin up to further their agenda. Not surprising.

    • A warmer, CO2 rich planet is better for plants… and the animals who eat them. Like humans.

      Some areas might be less suitable to live (like Texas) but the Canadian and Siberian wheat crops will be sweet.

  9. After following this for years, I have serious doubt as to whether ‘climate science’ is science at all.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/08/andrew_montford_interview

    ‘Climate Science’ works unlike any other form of science. All the data is controlled by one group of people. If you want to do research, you don’t generally measure things yourself, you apply to be allowed access to the data. People aren’t working in competing groups, they are working in a cooperative project. People who have a problem with the direction, methods, or findings of this project are booted out. There does not seem to be any meaningful peer review anymore. Scientific peer review relies on competitors to keep their rivals honest. Without the competition, there is no one left to keep people honest. The climate science cabal has been caught modifying the temperature record more than once. I wonder if anyone knows what the actual measurements are anymore.

    •The data from the mid-20th century was multiplied by an parabola to make the temperature increase meet the model.
    “From the file pl_decline.pro: check what the code is doing! It’s reducing the temperatures in the 1930s, and introducing a parabolic trend into the data to make the temperatures in the 1990s look more dramatic.” – ClimateGate blogstar Bishop Hill
    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/?page=2

    •after the modification above, a further subtractions and additions were applied to the temperature
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/13/doctored-data-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/#16931de66184
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/13/doctored-data-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/#16931de66184

    •CERN scientists were forbidden to draw climate conclusions from one of their experiments.
    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/18/cern_cosmic_ray_gag/

    •NASA has had several studies that call into question the models that assert global warming. NASA leadership has dismissed these.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#59dc25c72892
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/#387d0b8a5f23

    Many scientists, mostly physicists, have protested the climate change cabal and its unprecedented gagging of scientific inquiry.
    https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4
    https://www.foxnews.com/science/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-over-global-warming
    http://www.cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

    If you think this is ‘settled science’, I have a bridge to sell you.* If you think this is ‘science’, you probably are dismissive of ‘science’.

    *If you’re interested in the bridge, it is located near Detroit. It handles a large percentage of the cross-border commerce and you get to charge tolls. I unfortunately can only take payment by direct bank transfer to a Caribbean bank account. (No refunds, you should expect the title in 3 months to never.) ;’)

    • It is similar to a “garbage in, garbage out” computer process, no? if you only look for the variables you want, then your research will tend toward those results. Sloppy science is one thing; sloppy science guided by a political or ideological end will lead to bad policy.

      jvb

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.