Still my favorite segment about why it's a bad idea to participate in bad-faith "debates" about science. They only result in further amplifying disinformation.
"People still think this issue is open to debate, because on TV it is. It's always one person for one person against. When you look at the screen, it's 50/50, which is inherently misleading."
— @iamjohnoliver
@luckytran reminds me of Emily Maitlis’ powerful speech last year after leaving the BBC:
“it might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it. But by the time we went on air, we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn’t.”
...and while I'm on:
Deniers can also regularly be heard trotting out "why should we believe scientists? They moaned on and on about "the Y2K bug" and when those clocks ticked over, no-one died."
Mate. The reason there were so few glitches is that as a planet we'd spend millions of work-hours fixing the problem in advance. I know; I fixed half-a-dozen of them myself. IF ONLY we were in the same position here, doing the right things, at the right time, so that idiots could look back decades later and gloat that "all that hype was for nothing." At least we'd all still be alive. The only downside to that I can see is that it would be quadruply hard to convince them when the next major threat comes along.
@aris @garretguy @JugglingWithEggs @luckytran
Yep! Several recent influenza epidemics that kind of just barely didn't happen, too.
Dr. Lucky Tran 
Juggling With Eggs
Jeri Dansky
John Beresford
Aris Adamantiadis 
💲Paid
Steve Gisselbrecht
George Zimbragos