Jump to content



Photo

208 replies to this topic

#1 +Frank B.

Frank B.

    Member N° 1,302

  • 23,134 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 01
  • Location: Frankfurt, DE
  • OS: OS X 10.9.3
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z2

Posted 07 July 2014 - 07:19

BBC staff ordered to stop giving equal air time to climate deniers

The network will stop airing "debates" featuring members of the anti-science fringe

 

Good news for viewers of BBC News: you’ll no longer be subjected to the unhinged ravings of climate deniers and other members of the anti-science fringe. In a report published Thursday by the BBC Trust, the network’s journalists were criticized for devoting too much air time (as in, any air time) to unqualified people with “marginal views” about non-contentious issues in a misguided attempt to provide editorial balance.

 

“The Trust wishes to emphasize the importance of attempting to establish where the weight of scientific agreement may be found and make that clear to audiences,” the report reads. “Science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views but depends on the varying degree of prominence such views should be given.” So far, according to the Telegraph, about 200 staff members have attending seminars and workshops aimed at improving their coverage.

 

To illustrate the ridiculousness of having one fringe “expert” come in to undermine a scientific consensus, the report points to the network’s coverage of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which in September released a report concluding, with 95 percent certainty, that man-man climate change is happening. As was their due diligence, BBC reporters called a dozen prominent U.K. scientists, trying to drum up an opposing viewpoint. When that didn’t happen — probably because 97 percent of scientists agree that man-made climate change is happening — they turned instead to retired Australian geologist Bob Carter, who has ties to the industry-affiliated Heartland Institute.

 

To be clear, having one guy dismiss the consensus of hundreds of the world’s top climate scientists as “hocus-pocus science” wasn’t the “balanced” thing to do, and the only reason why people like Carter continue to be taken seriously is because news networks continue to suggest they should be.

 

Were every network to start doing what the BBC is, their unfounded opinions would cease to be heard, Bill Nye wouldn’t have to keep debating them, and maybe, just maybe, they’d all just go away.

 

Source: Salon.com




#2 Shiranui

Shiranui

    Iconoclast

  • 3,748 posts
  • Joined: 24-December 03

Posted 07 July 2014 - 07:21

Good.



#3 compl3x

compl3x

    OK. compl3x again.

  • 7,980 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 09
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4

Posted 07 July 2014 - 09:08

Good.

 

Very good.


Although it will no doubt give rise to accusations of "suppression of the truth" & left-wing censorship of "alternative views".



#4 Ambroos

Ambroos

    Neowinian Senior

  • 6,025 posts
  • Joined: 16-January 06
  • Location: Belgium

Posted 07 July 2014 - 09:21

Very good.


Although it will no doubt give rise to accusations of "suppression of the truth" & left-wing censorship of "alternative views".

 

People need to understand that you can't simply have an "alternative view" when it comes to science. If we know it's true, it's true. Same thing with vaccines.



#5 Brian M.

Brian M.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 12,596 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 05
  • Location: London, UK

Posted 07 July 2014 - 09:25

Moreover, this will pave the way to a not-so-politically-correct BBC. Which can only be a good thing.

#6 compl3x

compl3x

    OK. compl3x again.

  • 7,980 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 09
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4

Posted 07 July 2014 - 09:32

People need to understand that you can't simply have an "alternative view" when it comes to science. If we know it's true, it's true. Same thing with vaccines.

 

 

You're right. There is no such thing as "balance" in science. It's what is well evidenced.



#7 blerk

blerk

    Neowinian

  • 628 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 10

Posted 07 July 2014 - 09:32

Moreover, this will pave the way to a not-so-politically-correct BBC. Which can only be a good thing.

Agreed that it is better to have a correct BBC than a politically-correct BBC. 



#8 SpeedyTheSnail

SpeedyTheSnail

    Neowinian

  • 1,479 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 04
  • Location: Caprica

Posted 07 July 2014 - 09:39

Even though scientist have also proved that global warming is not due to human interaction?

It seems like people only like hearing things that give them the willies. It also seems that the most "politically correct, free and freedom loving" leftist dislike anybodies opinion if it conflicts with theirs (and make no small effort to destroy the reputation of those who do). There are scientist on both sides of the "debate". Since politics has entered the "science", there is no right nor wrong study. There are only politically and monetarily swayed arguments with falsified data by one side or the other (or both).

This winter sure was cold, and last summer was sure hot so it must be global warming! Never mind the extreme temperature changed throughout history which apparently happen on a cycle.

Now if we want to talk about air quality and light pollution, I haven't seen the stars since I've lived in North Carolina (god to I hate Washington D.C.). Also I can't walk on the streets without smelling the damn exhaust of cars.

You're right. There is no such thing as "balance" in science. It's what is well evidenced.


And I disagree with you. Way long ago scientist said the earth was flat, and they provided "evidence" that it was. Anybody contradicting them was pretty much destroyed in one way or another.

#9 Ilys

Ilys

    Neowinian

  • 101 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 01

Posted 07 July 2014 - 09:40

that man-man climate change is happening

 

Uh, what?



#10 MikeChipshop

MikeChipshop

    Miniman

  • 6,600 posts
  • Joined: 02-October 06
  • Location: Scotland
  • OS: Win 8, Win 7, Vista, OSX, iOS, Android, WP8 and various Linux distro's
  • Phone: HTC 8X / Nexus 5

Posted 07 July 2014 - 09:41

Damn right as well. I'm all for impartiality but there is no impartiality where science is involved.



#11 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,057 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 07 July 2014 - 09:42

Even though scientist have also proved that global warming is not due to human interaction?

That's simply not true.



#12 Nick H.

Nick H.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 11,347 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 04
  • Location: Switzerland

Posted 07 July 2014 - 09:42

Uh, what?

Yeah, that bit threw me as well. At first I thought it was a typo and that they meant, "man made" but then they repeat themselves later on in the article. I don't think I've ever heard of "man man..." well, not in this sense anyway.

#13 compl3x

compl3x

    OK. compl3x again.

  • 7,980 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 09
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4

Posted 07 July 2014 - 09:51

Even though scientist have also proved that global warming is not due to human interaction?
 

 

 

Where? Source. Citation. Please don't provide some wacky, fringe nut with no credentials. (e.g. Lord Monckton)

 

And I disagree with you. Way long ago scientist said the earth was flat, and they provided "evidence" that it was. Anybody contradicting them was pretty much destroyed in one way or another.

 

Any "science" that "proved" the earth was flat was obviously of poor quality and would not have been the like the rigorous standards that are set today.

 

Additionally, it was usually science that felt the full force of censorship by religious ideologies which wanted to stifle ideas which contradicted doctrine or faith.

 

 

This climate issue has one side with an overwhelming consensus of people who know what they ar eon about on one side and fringe dwellers on the other. You're free to choose which side you'd prefer to be on, but they don't both deserve the same level of attention or respect. Suggesting they do is being politically correct and unwilling to hurt peoples' feelings.



#14 BajiRav

BajiRav

    Neowinian Senior

  • 10,520 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 04
  • Location: Xbox, where am I?
  • OS: Windows 8.1, Windows 8
  • Phone: Lumia 920

Posted 07 July 2014 - 09:55

Way long ago scientist said the earth was flat, and they provided "evidence" that it was. Anybody contradicting them was pretty much destroyed in one way or another.

got any source for that? Never heard of this before. I know everyone assumed earth was flat but was it a scientific conclusion?



#15 compl3x

compl3x

    OK. compl3x again.

  • 7,980 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 09
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4

Posted 07 July 2014 - 09:58

got any source for that? Never heard of this before. I know everyone assumed earth was flat but was it a scientific conclusion?

 

 

I guess it couldn't have been a scientific conclusion because it wasn't arrived at using science. People probably observed the world around them and assume it behaved in a way which would be consistent with it being flat. They were obviously wrong. That is why you test your observations and hypothesis.





Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!