Do you need two sides to debate an issue? Evidently NBC News doesn’t think so. Yesterday The Washington Times posted an article about the debate on climate change.
The article reports:
NBC News has decided that climate change is no longer an issue that has two sides.
Sunday’s episode of “Meet the Press” with Chuck Todd featured an hourlong panel with lawmakers and scientists about the consequences of climate change. But at the start, Mr. Todd said his show is “not going to give time to climate deniers” and went on to inaccurately characterize the nature of the climate debate.
“Just as important as what we are going to do is what we’re not going to do,” he said. “We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The earth is getting hotter, and human activity is a major cause. Period.”
“We’re not going to give time to climate deniers,” Mr. Todd added. “The science is settled even if political opinion is not.”
Skeptics about some of the most alarmist climate-change scenarios drawn by former Vice President Al Gore and other Democratic and left-wing politicians bristle at the word “denier,” claiming it implies parallels to people who claim the Holocaust or the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks didn’t happen.
The article continues with the supposed justification for not allowing a second opinion:
Mr. Todd’s panel Sunday had non-scientists offering their opinions, including California Gov. Jerry Brown, Rep. Carlos Curbelo and potential Democratic presidential contender Michael Bloomberg.
“We need to stop covering the debate and start covering the story so that people see that this is real, and so that politicians take a more pragmatic approach and find solutions that are actually achievable,” Mr. Curbelo said about the one-sided discussion.
Other politicians applauded the well-parametered show, with Sen. Bernie Sanders who took to Twitter to offer “congratulations to Chuck Todd and Meet the Press for holding a serious discussion about climate change.”
“Will this be a breakthrough moment for mainstream TV?” the Vermont socialist asked.
How can it be a serious discussion if one side is censored?
Just for the record, below is an illustration of the Scientific Method as found at Science Buddies:
I don’t see anything on there that says don’t let anyone who disagrees with you speak!