Skip to main content

View Diary: Bill Nye versus Marsha Blackburn on Meet The Press: Climate Change Politics (261 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You are incredibly generous to Nye ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kfunk937, jqb

    and not attentive to the social science research.

    1.  "Research" -- shows that people pay attention to headlines / framing.  This was "debate" -- framed as debate, the bigger attention was "debate" is legit rather than any details.  

    2.  Try counting how many times Nye emphasized that climate change is manmade.  Rewatch the debate as many times as you wish, you will still come up with ... 0.

    3. Etc ... etc ... etc ...

    RE social science research, Featuring Skeptics in News Media Stories Reduces Public Beliefs in the Seriousness of Global Warming

    Viewing an interview with a mainstream scientist only increased the number of people who believed that global warming has been happening and that humans have caused global warming.

    Adding the skeptic to the mainstream scientific message significantly reduced the number of people who endorsed a variety of beliefs and attitudes. Specifically, it made people:

    Less likely to believe that scientists agree that global warming has been happening.

    Less certain that global warming has been happening

    Less likely to ascribe high personal importance to the global warming issue

    Less likely to believe that global warming will be bad for people

    Less likely to believe that global warming is a very serious issue

    Less likely to support more government action to deal with global warming

    Less likely to support a cap and trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions

    Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

    by A Siegel on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 12:58:10 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Adam, Adam, Adam (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ER Doc, kfunk937, R30A

      If I get the gist of your post, you feel that this segment with Nye and Blackburn on the politics of climate change was a net loss because it gave Blackburn a platform to spread doubt and misinformation, negating the messaging from Bill Nye.

      You fault Nye for not explicitly saying that climate change is man-made.

      Would you have preferred that the segment not have aired at all? Would you have left the topic of climate change to Gregory's panel? People like Chuck Todd?

      The framing was not ideal; the question as Gregory framed it is Climate Change is real - should government do anything about it? (Hence the reference to politics)

      Gregory corrected Blackburn several times when she tried to cast doubt on the reality of climate change; Nye repeated several times that there is no doubt it is happening. Further, he urged that we need to do everything all at once several times.

      Granted, Nye didn't get the chance to explicitly say climate change is man-made, but Gregory bounced off it obliquely a time or two. Baby steps.

      Look, we're now seeing the mainstream media (Gregory at least) actually acknowledge the climate IS changing. The Overton Window is slowly starting to shift. With that as a start, it's going to be easier to start getting the idea across that it's human activity driving it and we have to change what we're doing.

      I think you're also unfairly discounting the effect of having Bill Nye as a spokesperson; reaction around the internet and in the press (and here in this diary) seems to indicate he got a lot of attention from people who might not have paid any attention otherwise. To many people, he is a trusted figure where more qualified but less well-known climate change authorities would not be. He didn't just hit people with facts either - he was able to add an emotional pitch on why we need to act which will resonate with people who may not get the science but can go with the patriotism.

      It may not have been done the way you would have wanted, the words may not have been the ones you would have chosen, but you can either try to build on it or piss on it. That's what it comes down to.

      (You might want to factor one other thing into your appraisal. I've a suggestion that one reason Nye seemed a little unfocused was because he was coming in from the West Coast - he'd probably had to get up around 3:00am his time to appear live on the show. Gregory and Blackburn are several times zones ahead.)

      "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

      by xaxnar on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 03:04:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Issue is even before Nye ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jqb

        "debate" as title is what the vast majority of people hear.  

        When it comes to "evolution", these "debates' don't occur because the relevant scientific community is unified that it will not show up to pretend that "debate" exists.

        And, well, you should watch Nye when he 'debated' on Stoessel -- http://www.mrctv.org/...  

        Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

        by A Siegel on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 06:26:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The problem is, nothing is ever 'over' (0+ / 0-)

          Conservatives never abandon a position, no matter how often disproved as long as it serves their purposes. Declaring the debate over is not enough. Ignoring them isn't working - and we end up fighting the same old battles over again because they learn nothing and they forget nothing.

          As for Stoessel, what can I say besides Fox, Gish Gallop, etc. etc. Rigged game from square one. Going on NBC not in the same league.

          "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

          by xaxnar on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 06:48:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not 'declaring over' ... (0+ / 0-)

            but refusing to 'debate'.

            From an interlocutor:

            The CTR (click through rate) on banner ads is less than 0.1% . The CTR on twitter links is perhaps closer to 3%.  Since people don't like ads but use twitter to find stuff to click through to, that may be the range (not normally distributed, I would guess) of rates.  So, a link on a news site that has the ad, or someone's facebook page, etc, would be lucky to get more than 1%.  The medium is no longer the message.  The headline is the message!

            Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

            by A Siegel on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:08:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's a Trap - Run Away (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              A Siegel

              That's the gist I get from your points.

              So, what exactly do we do? Where and when can we speak, and how? And who should be speaking, if anyone at all?

              On a case by case basis it makes sense not to engage if you're going to lose more than you win in an encounter. But if you never engage at all, you will never win anything.

              I can't help but see  a parallel with this situation.

              The president is starting to speak out on Climate Change. The Secretary of State is drawing fire for doing so in no uncertain terms. The weather is making news around the world.  The Overton Window looks like it just might be starting to shift.

              If a major news show wants to get people on to talk about climate change, and no one from the side that actually wants to do something about it is willing to show up, what message does that send?

              "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

              by xaxnar on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 04:16:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually ... (0+ / 0-)

                there were four major Sunday talk show segments on climate change -- only one framed it as "debate".

                See: http://blog.nwf.org/...

                ABC + CBS both get "B" grades.

                This NBC segment is graded "C-".

                Fox got an F.

                Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

                by A Siegel on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 06:15:06 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I can see we have different expectations (0+ / 0-)

                  Which is why we're getting a different appreciation of this. I will note the link you supplied had this one observation:

                  Nye delivered what might’ve been the strongest and most lasting words of the entire morning when he threw aside the passive debate format to make a plea directly to Rep. Blackburn.

                  “There is no debate in the scientific community. And I encourage the Congresswoman to really look at the facts,” Nye urged Rep. Blackburn. “You are a leader. We need you to change things, not deny what’s happening.”

                  Of the four shows, Nye threw out the most direct challenge to the climate change deniers.

                  I'd really like to know what Gregory's staff told them to expect before the show. If nothing else, Blackburn had the far easier job of it.

                  Having looked at all four programs, ABC struck me as having some good stuff from Cullen, but diluted it with too many other viewpoints. CBS was good with the one on one; although Schieffer really seems baffled by it all, Shepherd did make some clear points. OTOH, he kept qualifying them a bit too much for my taste.

                  FOX was worse than useless, of course.

                  On the whole, I think Nye comes off not too badly in this mix. He kept his points simple, repeated them several times, to reinforce them, and did not get derailed by Blackburn. If you gave Nye a chance to sit down with Cullen and Shepherd, I suspect all of them would benefit from each other's strengths. Cullen and Shepherd are knowledgable; Nye is too - and an educator and a communicator with an audience who knows and trusts him.

                  "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

                  by xaxnar on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 07:44:01 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  "Adam, Adam, Adam" (0+ / 0-)

        Hey, DBAD.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site