Belief is not dissenting view. You don't take anyone seriously who believes Elvis is still alive and you shouldn't give ANY religion equal time in a scientific discussion either.
Saying Elvis is not alive is not the same as saying that climate change is false. And all sides should be shown equally. If you are going to have a discussion then it should present all sides, and not just a single side, otherwise it is not a discussion.
My argument is that saying people with data showing the opposite of the popular opinion have just as much right to show their data. Your saying no, they don't. So tell me how is your way being fair to the facts? I am saying lay all the cards out on the table, and let people see them for what they are. Not let a certain group shut them down, and say, we don't believe what you have to say, so you don't get to say it.
My point is that some 'data' is bunk. Just like the video mentions "flat-earther's' as being a group of people who's opinion should not be respected. The same goes for people who claim climate change is not science fact. Their opinions should not be respected. We don't give equal time to people who think the earth is flat - same goes for climate deniers.
Ok, Media Matters is a extreme liberal site, and lumping flat earth in with people disagreeing with climate change is their way to marginalize them. I am open minded enough that I want to see all sides of an issue, and not be part of the book burners society as we have had in the past. This is along the same lines. Remember opinions sway both ways, and there will be a time that your thoughts will be outside the mainstream. If you shut those down around you on issues that you don't agree with, then the same can/will happen in the future on issues you do agree with. Let the facts be laid out, and let people see them for what they are. On either side of the issue. Don't be the one to yell "kill the heretic" which is what this is.
Not every opinion deserves the same respect simply because someone "believes" in it. Climate change has and continued to pass the scrutiny of the scientific method. The people whom deny such things are doing so for political reasons or just refuse to "believe" or accept that it is happening.
You have turned this discussion into climate science. I am talking about putting both sides of a debate out. I will let this be my last comment. I respectfully disagree with you. I believe that all sides should be given equal opportunity to be presented. If the idea is wack, then it will be shown that way. But at least we have all the information.
I am not trying to say we should stifle a view point. What I am trying to say is that; just because someone holds a differing opinion doesn't mean it should be automatically respected. Differing views should meet certain testable criteria to be considered worthy. I think the entire point is that the idea IS wack which is why people like Neil Degrasse Tyson are saying we should stop giving equal time to climate deniers.
Belief is not dissenting view. You don't take anyone seriously who believes Elvis is still alive and you shouldn't give ANY religion equal time in a scientific discussion either.
Saying Elvis is not alive is not the same as saying that climate change is false. And all sides should be shown equally. If you are going to have a discussion then it should present all sides, and not just a single side, otherwise it is not a discussion.
Yea, it kinda is actually. Some sides of of a discussion are just simply not based in fact are are marginalized as they should be.
My argument is that saying people with data showing the opposite of the popular opinion have just as much right to show their data. Your saying no, they don't. So tell me how is your way being fair to the facts? I am saying lay all the cards out on the table, and let people see them for what they are. Not let a certain group shut them down, and say, we don't believe what you have to say, so you don't get to say it.
My point is that some 'data' is bunk. Just like the video mentions "flat-earther's' as being a group of people who's opinion should not be respected. The same goes for people who claim climate change is not science fact. Their opinions should not be respected. We don't give equal time to people who think the earth is flat - same goes for climate deniers.
Ok, Media Matters is a extreme liberal site, and lumping flat earth in with people disagreeing with climate change is their way to marginalize them. I am open minded enough that I want to see all sides of an issue, and not be part of the book burners society as we have had in the past. This is along the same lines. Remember opinions sway both ways, and there will be a time that your thoughts will be outside the mainstream. If you shut those down around you on issues that you don't agree with, then the same can/will happen in the future on issues you do agree with. Let the facts be laid out, and let people see them for what they are. On either side of the issue. Don't be the one to yell "kill the heretic" which is what this is.
Not every opinion deserves the same respect simply because someone "believes" in it. Climate change has and continued to pass the scrutiny of the scientific method. The people whom deny such things are doing so for political reasons or just refuse to "believe" or accept that it is happening.
You have turned this discussion into climate science. I am talking about putting both sides of a debate out. I will let this be my last comment. I respectfully disagree with you. I believe that all sides should be given equal opportunity to be presented. If the idea is wack, then it will be shown that way. But at least we have all the information.
I am not trying to say we should stifle a view point. What I am trying to say is that; just because someone holds a differing opinion doesn't mean it should be automatically respected. Differing views should meet certain testable criteria to be considered worthy. I think the entire point is that the idea IS wack which is why people like Neil Degrasse Tyson are saying we should stop giving equal time to climate deniers.