CHARLIE ROSE: And things like climate change.
TYSON: -on issues. And then you can know who is not telling the truth and who is, you can analyze it.
ROSE: Okay but my question is - are we, I mean do we have too many scientific deniers in our country or do we give too much prominence to those who want to look the other way on science?
TYSON: Yeah there are some of those. And dare I implicate some elements of journalism in this, because there’s your journalistic ethos - not to tell you what your ethos is - but as I understand it and it’s been told to me, the journalist’s obligation when writing a story is to give equal column space to all sides. Or half to one of each side. And if someone says the Earth is round and someone says the Earth is flat, at some point you’re going to make a judgement, “the Earth is flat” people, is just flat out wrong. I will not be giving them the attention. We’re wasting time and I’m not doing a service to, in my role of informing the public.
Got that? Disagree with his pet belief and you're not just a 'warming denier', oh no, you're a 'SCIENCE DENIER'.
And journalists should not give the deniers any space for their argument, because that's like they're saying 'The earth is flat' and getting to spout it.
This asshat is just bloody wonderful, isn't he?
I've been reading one of Freeman Dysons' books. Know what he thinks of this?
The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very
good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the
oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the
chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not
begin to describe the real world we live in .
Among other things. Wonder if Tyson will call him a flat-earth people whose views shouldn't receive any air time?