DeGrasse Tyson to Journalists: Don't Question Scientists or Climate Change
Would signal "the beginning of the end of an informed democracy." This from a guy that lies all the timeIn an interview with ThinkProgress.org, star scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson said there's no more reason to question climate change than there is to question if the world is flat. He even encouraged journalists not to offer another side to the story because there is no debate when it comes to "emergent scientific truths."
Tyson also stated that when politicians begin denying climate change, it signals "the beginning of the end of an informed democracy."
"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," Tyson stated. "You can’t just cherry-pick data and choose what is true about the world and what isn’t."
He added that basing decisions on these scientific truths "will play a fundamental role in what kind of society we create for ourselves."
When asked what responsibility the media has in all of this, Tyson responded:
There’s this journalistic ethos saying if I get one opinion then I need to get another opinion that countervails that. So if I say the world is round, are you obligated to say the world is flat, lest someone think you are being biased in your reporting? Well, that’s absurd. You wouldn’t do that, you’re educated. You know that there are certain points of view that have no foundation at all in objective truth.
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.
In fact, Tyson declared that he doesn't even bother participating in debates -- "ever." He reasoned:
[B ]ecause that implies that we each have opinions and “oh let’s see who can give the best argument for this audience so they can believe my opinion instead of yours.” But if you’re more charismatic than I am or have better word use, or are more articulate, then you’ll win the debate, and that means you’ll be right and I’ll be wrong. This is not how it works.
Tyson is currently promoting his new show StarTalk which begins in April on the National Geographic Channel and hopes to break new ground in becoming the "first late-night science talk show," according to the interview. Guests will include fellow scientist Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins, George Takei, and Ariana Huffington -- undoubtedly, as Think Progress notes, "the science will go down easy."
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/degrasse-tyson-journalists-dont-question-scientists-or-climate-change
