You are saying (2) is a political question.  I never said or implied otherwise.  I said that there’s no explanation for disagreement on (1) besides politicization, and further implied that (1) is not actually a political question.  Which it isn’t.*

Notice I specifically mentioned scientific research, not proposals for mitigation or prevention.

*OK, so construction of truth within scientific communities is obviously political, but those politics aren’t open to people who aren’t part of those communities so I’m ignoring this for the sake of simplification.

If you think Nye should have to establish his credentials as part of the interview, do you routinely demand the same sort of treatment for AGW “skeptics”? 

Did I just lose you?

If Nye can get an easier, more softball-laden interview than that from someone other than Entertainment Tonight, God bless him.

Better than bad is good?  Let me guess, you religiously vote Democrat…

Not only is the headline 100% inaccurate, but the perception of the interview is as well.

Ah, the Perception Police.  Making sure everyone experiences reality in government-approved forms and doses.

the real problem is when the balancing of costs and benefits is done in a way that is selfish, short-term centered and (for some) anthro-centric. there are some political explanations for rejecting AGW that i think are wrong, but that do not cross this threshold of reprehensibleness.

and then there are the excuses from the kochs, which do.

First, I’m not skeptical of the overall point Nye was making. I don’t believe you’ll find anything in my posts to support such a conclusion about my views.

Secondly, I was walking away from the discussion because the mental energy needed to untangle the lines of reasoning exceeded what I wanted to invest at that point. I did not mean to imply that untangling the logical relationships was a fundamentally intractable problem.

Climatologist:  “You’re misinterpreting A and B.  C is entirely irrelevant.  A and B are relevant but because… (etc. etc., long technical explanation).”

Skeptic:  “See?  It’s all so complicated, no one can understand it.”

Neglecting the fact that the skeptic was perfectly happy to “understand it” as long as he thought he had a good counterargument.  When that argument is rebutted, no one knows anything at all.  Until the skeptic comes up with another argument against AGW…then the skeptic is an expert again.  Until that argument is rebutted, then no one knows anything any more.  Until the skeptic comes up with another argument against AGW…

Edit in response:

Sorry, Christian, you seemed to be displaying a terribly familiar pattern of argumentation.

Bemoaning our two-party system is like bitching about British parliament because Labor and the Conservatives control most of the seats. That’s the way workable governments work.

Not even remotely true.  There’s many laws both directly and indirectly entrenching political power for both Democratic and Republican parties in the U.S.  They are not free and willing coalitions of like-minded citizens, they are political machines with the same purpose as any political machine: preventing democracy.

And incidentally, the U.S. was supposed to be more democratic than the U.K. what with its history of Monarchy, Feudalism, House of Lords, oppressive class system, etc.  “The U.S. political system isn’t significantly less free than that of the U.K.” is a pretty serious back-handed compliment.

There are no truths.

But if that’s the case, then it can’t be true that there are no truths.  #self-refuting

And the proper role of the journalist is do what their bosses want them to do in order to gain viewers. Nothing more, nothing less.

That’s ridiculous.  It’s like saying “the proper role of a medical doctor is to do what the hospital executives want them to do in order to get more patients.” Or “the proper role of a plumber is to do what the trade union wants them to in order to get more plumbing contracts.” No, the proper role of a medical doctor is to treat illness, the proper role of a plumber is to install and fix plumbing, and the proper role of a journalist is to witness and/or report events.

“Bosses” and “jobs” and all the other trappings of the modern economy is how we’ve decided to pay for stuff like medicine and journalism (and I’d like to point out that it isn’t working very well in either of these cases or the dozens of others I can think of).  They are means to ends, not ends in themselves.

Another way to think of it is this. A journalist’s boss is free to demand that the journalist spend all day every day making sandwiches. “We make more money selling sandwiches than ad space,” says the boss man, “so slice the ham and shut up.” Is making sandwiches an appropriate role for a journalist? If not we might legitimately question this “you are what your boss wants from you” philosophy.

I don’t doubt that he sometimes wants to be left alone – like any celebrity – but part of the joke in that xkcd is that it’s an absurd situation. People aren’t that faux-clever in real life, coming up with a lead-in for Bill Nye who happens to be sitting next to you to jump in and then being a dick when he doesn’t.

On the other hand if you asked him politely to talk to the kids for a minute, I have no doubt that he would.

As an aside, I saw him give an excellent presentation at university a few years ago – about climate change, actually. A lot of scientists from the university in the audience (such as myself), including a bunch wearing lab coats like he always does on the show, but a whole lot of non-scientists as well. Easily half of the questions asked at the end were from people who were obviously not scientists, and that’s one of the great things about Bill Nye – he gets people interested in science who otherwise never would have been, and not just kids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVGINIsLnqU

Did not getting an army of bulldozers out there to clear the growth add to the problem? I’m sure, but you are looking at the symptoms and not the cause. That’s what Bill Nye conveyed and you missed it, I guess.

And, um… this isn’t just my own “opinion” on the matter, nor Nye’s…

Science. Look into it.

http://www.newser.com/story/149329/climate-change-caused-wildfires.html

Sigh.

Nye shoots his own argument in the foot by agreeing that the wetness of two years ago contributed to excess growth in Colorado forests that was not properly cleared.

No, he doesn’t.  It’s part of extreme weather.  You know, from climate change?  Sigh…

There are a few problems with Bill’s response, though. Forest fires are a part of the natural life cycle of the forest. It helps clear the ground, but it also adds some nutrients, and there are also various species of plants whose seeds are not released until a certain temperature is reached.

Additionally, he cites tornadoes in Michigan. There is nothing abnormal about tornadoes in Michigan. I would have to check the NWS records to be sure, but I don’t think there is a single year on record in which there HASN’T been a tornado in Michigan. There is also the possibility of small tornadoes occurring without anyone being around to notice and report it, especially farther north.

Or, until one of the two parties fractures.

Or, the Glorious Revolution of Our Oppressed Brothers begins and we are all Raptured By The One.