Perhaps the best place to begin is with a simple question. If you were out driving on a sunny Sunday afternoon and came to a bridge which 97% of engineers who’ve examined it agree will probably collapse under you, would you stop and reconsider your options? Or would you side with the 3% who feel the bridge is structurally sound and in no danger of collapse? Would you attempt to cross the bridge because 100% of the engineers consulted aren’t in complete agreement? I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe that you’d seriously rethink your situation and try to find another route to your intended destination.
When it comes to global climate change, deniers like S.E. Cupp and Nicholas Loris (neither of whom are climate scientists), reject the notion because “[n]ot all the scientists” agree on what the future may hold. Sure, 97% of scientists may support the idea that human-driven global climate change is real…but 3% don’t. This means that, because there’s not complete agreement, global climate change is a hoax perpetrated by science “bullies” determined to scare Americans into falling for their Liberal, anti-jobs agenda.
During the debate, Loris conveniently forgot to disclose that the Heritage Foundation receives substantial funding from the Koch brothers, known for being rabid deniers. That the foundation of their vast wealth lies in industries which pollute the environment to almost unimaginable degrees is beside the point (Don’t look at the man behind the curtain!!). The Heritage Foundation is committed to the orthodoxy that global climate change is a hoax, and that “science bullies” like Bill Nye are alarmists determined to destroy Big Business and weaken America’s economic standing in the world. That the talking heads of Fox News Channel (Cupp chief among them) are willing to beat the propaganda drums only serves to perpetuate the ignorance and make it less likely positive action will be taken before its too late.
Cupp also accused Nye, co-host Van Jones and President Barack Obama’s administration of using “scare tactics” against the public regarding climate change, while Loris called into question a study released on Tuesday by the National Climate Assessment (NCA).
If by “scare tactics,” you mean “boatloads of studies and more empirical data than you could possibly hope to wade through in three lifetimes,” then sure, I suppose “science bullies” would be an accurate description. Despite Cupp’s assertions that a lack of uniform consensus on the reality of global climate change means that it’s a hoax, she simply doesn’t have the evidence on her side. Most rational people would agree that when 97% of climate scientists agree on something, there’s a VERY good chance that what they agree on is real.
The National Climate Assessment is a very real and compelling call to action…unless you refuse to believe any conclusion not support by 100% of climate scientists. I know; empirical data and validated investigations in weather pattern changes are SO overrated….
Despite what Cupp may believe, you don’t “bully” with facts and studies and evidence. That’s called “education.”