... and one of them comes off looking like a champion of science going by this quote highlighted by Al Gore:
“I have a choice of believing the 98 percent or the 2 percent,” Kennedy said. “If you believe my 98 percent and we go ahead and try to reduce our carbon, we’ve gotten rid of the dirty fuel, we’ve made ourselves energy independent, improved our national security, improved our prosperity and quality of life and health for American citizens. If we believe Mr. Blankenship and his 2 percent, and they’re wrong, the whole of civilization is destroyed.”
Nice quote and sentiment I have no quarrel with. Yet I can't help but wonder why Mr. Kennedy cannot apply the same criteria towards the science on the risks of vaccines? For there, on the issue of the connection between vaccines and autism in particular, there is probably an even stronger than 98% consensus among scientists that there is no link - yet Kennedy is a leading denialist of that science! What gives? Why this selective rationalism?
Nevertheless, Kennedy is on the right (left) side on the issues of mountaintop removal, alternative energy, and global warming - while Blankenship says some really astonishing (to me anyway) things highlighting his ignorant denialism. If the above edited excerpts have whetted your appetite, you can see the entire debate on YouTube (parts 1, 2, and 3.
I'm a reconciliation ecologist studying the responses of wildlife to human influences through an evolutionary lens. I seek ways to apply evolutionary ecology towards reconciling biodiversity conservation with human development. Also a father of two girls; photographer; birdwatcher; bookworm; cinephile; and explorer of the internets.