Episode 1
It's about climate change, what is happening and where it is happening ... and why we need to move forward.
Which of course is why we also have:
The brutally dishonest attacks on Showtime’s landmark climate series
quote:
The bad news is the Times has published an error-riddled hit-job op-ed on the series that is filled with myths at odds with both the climate science and social science literature. For instance, the piece repeats the tired and baseless claim that Al Gore’s 2006 movie An Inconvenient Truth polarized the climate debate, when the peer-reviewed data says the polarization really jumped in 2009, as you can see in this chart from The Sociological Quarterly:
Percent of Americans who believe the effects of global warming have already begun to happen, by political ideology, from Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap. Click to embiggen[enlarge].
The New York Times op-ed is from the founders of the Breakthrough Institute (BTI) the same group where political scientist Roger Pielke Jr. is a senior fellow. It pushes the same argument that Pielke made in his fivethirtyeight.com piece which was so widely criticized and debunked by climate scientists and others that Nate Silver himself admitted its myriad flaws and ran a response piece by MIT climatologist Kerry Emanuel eviscerating Pielke.
Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, two widely debunked eco-critics who run BTI, begin by asserting IF you were looking for ways to increase public skepticism about global warming, you could hardly do better than the forthcoming nine-part series on climate change and natural disasters, starting this Sunday on Showtime. But they never cite anything other than the trailer in making their case, dismissing the entire enterprise on the basis of two minutes of clips!
They base their entire argument on a misrepresentation of climate science and a misrepresentation of social science.
Lots more of debunking of the NYTimes article.
What a surprise. It seems to be a constant in these debates, science vs lies and misinformation based on emotional appeal rather than rebuttals based on evidence.
What's that word again? Fremdschmen? It embarrasses me that it is such a false facade of denial and that the gullible people suck it up.
ps "embiggen" is not a real word people, the word is "enlarge" - more concise as well as meaningful.
Edited by RAZD, : /