[headsoup]

Weird though that it's perfectly fine to host false statements so long as they're on the correct 'side.' Those become honest mistakes or 'the science changed,' etc. This helps no one, as does not allowing opposing opinions/'science' just because, especially if controversial.

As long as the journalists are ensuring they do enough diligence to not present blatant lies or propaganda, it should not matter which 'side' is presented, journalism is supposedly (?) about presenting honest data and information for the viewer/consumer to form their own opinions on.

If someone somehow forms the opinion that climate change isn't a thing, then present better arguments and information and debate with honesty and integrity. It's not as loud and might not get the internet clicks, but it will shine through better in the end, much as it doesn't seem to in the moment. Don't let the fear/threat of trolls block being challenged by opposing ideas.

[simiones]

> If someone somehow forms the opinion that climate change isn't a thing, then present better arguments and information and debate with honesty and integrity.

If you're not already climate scientist, or willing to seriously read up on the literature, then you have no chance of understanding and judging for yourself arguments about the field - this is true for most fields requiring advanced mathematics and statistics. You are deluding yourself if you think you can listen to two climate scientists debate a point and accurately assess who has the better argument; not that this may even be true if you are a climate scientist, as you often need to run your own experiments or at least verify equations and statistical models before making up your mind.

The purpose of journalism is exactly to process facts to the public at a level where they can be understood by most people reading/watching them. The proper way to do science journalism is two steps removed from the raw scientific discussion: you ask scientists in the field about the mainstream opinion, about how strong the consensus is, about plausible non-mainstream opinions; maybe you check with a few people close to the field but outside of it to see what are opinions about the field itself in the larger academic context. If you can, you also get information about consequences of these theories in terms that can be understood by a non-expert audience (such as time dilation and the way it is used in GPS satellites for special relativity).

Then, you present to the public a condensed version of this information.

What you don't do is ignore all of this burden of journalistic research and just bring some scientists that are for or against a theory and let them make some random simplified meaningless arguments to the public to see who has the slicker tongue and nothing else.

[headsoup]

Ah, the old everyone's an idiot that can't think critically thing. People might not form the opinion you want, but that doesn't mean they can't still be critical and come to an informed opinion.

I think none of these topics are the problem being actually hinted at. Instead, I would ask bigger questions: - Why do we seem to have an increasing number of politicians/positions of power with little to no depth of experience in their field?

- After decades and more of scientific abuse and manipulation by corporations, how do we rebuild trust (I think this is particularly relevant to the discussion here)?

- How do we ensure social media companies do not influence discussion, but also try to avoid echo chambers and propoganda?

In other words, it's not people not understanding a topic or the 'wrong' voices getting too much attention or too many 'wrong' opinions that is the problem, these are just symptoms. Good arguments, data and integrity and more discussion should always be desired and encouraged as the way to debate and understand. Most other options are roads to tyranny of some form.

[simiones]

This is not my point at all. Instead, the problem is that scientific topics require huge time investments to be able to form an informed opinion.

To check whether someone's scientific arguments hold (assuming they are not ridiculously bad), you will need hours, days or weeks of research of your own, if you don't already know everything. You will need to check their math, to check their models, to compare with others' models in the literature, to do some small experiments of your own (even if just statistical experiments). You can't just listen to two people speak for 1 hour and meaningfully decide for yourself who is right.

Einstein couldn't have listened to two climate scientists debate for 1h and have decided for himself who is right. It just takes far more effort.

And the purpose of journalism and the scientific establishment is exactly to spare the rest of us that effort: journalists can talk to established scientists and help many millions of people form an informed opinion on what we know about a topic, without having to dedicate their week to that single topic. Those that do want to dedicate more time, and who do want to meaningfully investigate the fringe opinions shouldn't get it from Fox or BBC, they should go and read up on the literature, pro and against, with detailed technical arguments, once they understand enough of the field for those arguments to make sense.

To summarize: anyone who wants to contradict climate change should show you the math. If they can't show the math for various time constraint reasons, then it mustn't be on TV. If a TV station or news article is willing to spend 4-8 hours to discuss the technical details, then by all means, invite both sides of the argument.