Climate change is not debatable
Dr. Michio Kaku and The Huffington Post’s Jack Mirkinson on why the media continue to present human impact on climate change as a two-sided argument.
About "Reliable Sources"
Now more than ever, the press is a part of every story it covers. And CNN's "Reliable Sources" is one of television's only regular programs to examine how journalists do their jobs and how the media affect the stories they cover.
Subscribe on iTunes | Instagram
Tune in every Sunday at 11am Eastern time!
About the host
Brian Stelter is the host of "Reliable Sources" and the senior media correspondent for CNN Worldwide. Before he joined CNN in November 2013, Stelter was a media reporter for The New York Times. He is the author of the New York Times best-seller "Top of the Morning."
Here's his biography. You can read his stories on this blog and at CNNMoney.com/Media/.
@cnnreliable on Twitter
Wow no comments to speak of. Almost 15000 on Carol Costello's article with the same subject. You guys must not have ever been heard of.
Would ya look at these comments!
All the scientists and climate experts that come to leave comments and rail against climate change news! I see them all the time lately. Experts on climate, leaving comments all over the internet. How do they find the time?
These are experts leaving all these comments...right?
Stelter’s supposed to have some professional credibility in assaying, for CNN, the state of journalism but brings in in two lefty lap dogs to prove his point a la 'am I right or am I right?' Have some balls and bring on Chris Monckton for a real debate.
There’s “95% agreement among scientists” because the entity paying most of these scientists’ salaries (in the form of research grants) is the US government, which has a huge political ax to grind on this issue.
“Some stories don’t have two sides.” This is the guy who’s supposed to be comment on the state of journalism?
Dr Kaku says science is testable, reproducable, and falsifiable. Agreed. Any unbiased scientist will look at the performance of the climate computer models for the last 20 years and see that they have been wrong, not just slightly wrong, but very wrong. For the last 3 decades climate computer models have projected dramatic warming due to ever increasing CO2 emissions. But the world hasn't warmed anywhere close to the predictions. Any honest unbiased scientist will conclude the models have been tested, and have been falsified. The public can see this. Yet, many of the scientists who have staked their reputations and careers on the models being accurate find themselves in a difficult predicament. They are only human, and it is clear that they have become extremely biased, which is why the topic has digressed from scientific to religious extremism. They can no longer prevail in an honest debate, which is why the tactic has now shifted to refuse honest debate, and instead come up with terms like "deniers" and "flat earthers", which shows their true colors. The truth is, the effect of CO2 on climate is very debatable. There is no debate that the world warms and cools, but there is legitimate debate over the causes of that warming and cooling. The CO2 models have failed badly, predicting warming that has not occurred, which legitimately calls into question the whole theory that CO2 causes climate to warm. Religions of the world depend on their followers disallowing any possibility that their beliefs are not true. CAGW has become a religion. It was forced to because science is gradually showing it to be untrue. I invite you to research it for yourself and draw your own conclusions. Review both sides, such as Real Climate, WUWT, Climate Etc, Skeptical Science. Read them all. It isn't hard to see which side is open and honest, and which side is biased. Which side is real science and which side is just another fanatical religious movement. Not hard at all.
Not debatable eh? 95% of the climate models have already failed. No warming for 17 years, which even the most ardent CAGW scientists find embarrassing and can't explain. There are many, many failed predictions by the CAGW types. Thousands of degreed scientists disagree with CAGW, many of them quite distinguished, including. Richard Lindzen, Freeman Dyson (an avid Obama supporter no less), Robert Tennekens and Iva Giaever. The supposed cure for CAGW is one which will completely transform our way of life and lead to mass poverty and unemployment and greatly lowered standards of living and yet you say it's NOT DEBATEABLE? How pathetic.
Of course it is debatable. The left just wants to cut off debate. There are credible climate scientist who could destroy the media hacks that were on this show. I thought I was watching MSNBC.