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.
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.