Originally posted at AcronymTV
(I work for AcronymTV now! Please become a patron, and support DAILY content like this.)
The scale of death and destruction is hard to wrap your head around. Several days after Super Typhoon Haiyan slammed the Philippines, we still do not have a full picture of the scale of death and destruction that lay in its wake.
Estimates put the number of dead in the city of Tacloban alone at 10,000, and scores of survivors in that city are now in desperate need of food, clean water and shelter.
Trying to make sense of the disaster, many are quick to point to the man-made causes for the increase of violent weather events, like the scene that played out on Piers Morgan recently wherein Mark Hertsgaard berated Morgan for allowing a "climate denier" to speak on live television. CNN’s Morgan held his ground, insisting it is only fair to allow both sides of the debate to be aired.
The problem with this “debate” is that when 97% of climate scientists assert that climate change is linked to human behavior, and then there should no more be “two sides” to this debate than there are two sides to a debate concerning creationism vs. evolution.
If there truly are two sides to the argument, lets have a fair debate. Consider the following scenarios:
Scenario A: Climate activists and hippie tree huggers are spending their paltry little budgets in a global conspiracy with 97% of the worlds climate scientists to trick you into changing civilizations unsustainable consumption without consequence way of life?
Scenario B: Exxon, BP, Chevron and others are spending their and bottomless budgets bribing anyone with their hand out to create misleading ad campaign of the covert overt and embedded variety to protect and expand their profits, limit their future criminal liability.
What say you, scenario A, or B? Discuss.