209 posts in this topic

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

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good.

18 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good.

 

Very good.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that man-man climate change is happening

 

Uh, what?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

That's simply not true.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

 

If you can keep your face straight ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Snail was referring to historic long-term climate change, such as how there have been warming periods between ice ages, etc.

 

That is not related to man-made climate change. One is natural and occurred over hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years. Manmade climate change is occurring in under 200 years and having very adverse affects. The two are separate instances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

meh, while I believe climate change is happening, man caused or not its happening, i think we should have both sides and all opinions (if they are backed up by facts) presented and on the table. Not just one side.

But, I can say alot of these deniers do see pretty out of it lately.

Deny it, but post actual facts with it.

I respect BBC alot for being more about the facts. Maybe they're just tried of the other side just blabbing about personal thoughts based on some agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

meh, while I believe climate change is happening, man caused or not its happening, i think we should have both sides and all opinions (if they are backed up by facts) presented and on the table. Not just one side.

It is intellectually dishonest to present such opinions as equal or comparable to scientific research, as that provides credibility to something devoid of it. Imagine watching a news segment about obesity and then they bring on a guest stating that obesity isn't about what you eat or how much you exercise but rather it's God's wrath for sinning or the government putting chemicals into the food supply. That's utterly ludicrous, as is the presentation of anti-scientific theories for the sake of perceived 'balance'.

 

It's one thing to have two sides represented when it comes to moral arguments?like gay marriage, economic policy or the decriminalisation of drugs?but it's completely unacceptable to bring on people with demonstrably false beliefs.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

I do wish people would stop propagating this old myth.  Contrary to what people today might think, people in those days did NOT generally believe the world was flat...  It was a belief held by only a few, in VERY ancient times... 

 

Also, whilst I do agree with this decision, won't it have the effect of quashing any future legitimate research that may actually contradict currently accepted science?

 

Better, I think, to just vilify the loons rather than gag them.  That just ends up silencing legitimate discussion too.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh....freedom of speech, expression, debate and thought are alive and well, everywhere but the BBC. Only sheeple and grant chasers allowed :whistle:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes is fabulous that our unbiased news agency s ordered to now be biased. Fantastic.

 

Oh and calling it anti science is clever, very clever indeed!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes is fabulous that our unbiased news agency s ordered to now be biased. Fantastic.

 

Oh and calling it anti science is clever, very clever indeed!

There has to be a limit somewhere. In the case given as an example in the article, the BBC journalists were unable to find a notable scientist that opposed the climate change view, therefore they scraped the barrel and found a retired geologist who has been accused of taking payments for his "expertise" in order to bring balance to the subject, ironically making the piece unbalanced by over-representing the views of a fringe minority.

This is part of a larger criticism of the BBC where they're finding quacks and zealots in order to provide an opposing viewpoint, when the evidence that opposes those viewpoints is overwhelming, in order to appear as unbiased as possible. If 99 people hold a view, and one person holds an opposing view, is it balanced to have a 1v1 debate between the two, despite the fact that the minority view is 99% opposed?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems on-topic:

 

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

So basically, the BBC has been told to tow the line and ignore any and all dissenting voices. I love how it's called 'anti-science fringe', yet many of the high profile critics are actually scientists themselves. This is propaganda plain and simple.

 

Good news for viewers of BBC News

No. Bad news for the BBC. Why should my taxpayer money be devoted to pushing a political and religious agenda? That's what global warming or "climate change" has come down to.

 

you?ll no longer be subjected to the unhinged ravings of climate deniers and other members of the anti-science fringe.

I'd rather not be subjected to the unhinged ravings of the climate alarmists who continue to preach apocalypse despite every prediction they make proving false. And there was me thinking science was founded on experimentation and observation? Ignoring the fact that observed temperatures don't match the IPCC's predictions year after year, and still ploughing ahead with the same doomsday rhetoric - now that's anti-science.

 

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.

It's that the trust has been hijacked by special interests. It's time to disband the BBC. I'm not paying my licence fee tax to support this kind of one sided propaganda.

 

To illustrate the ridiculousness of having one fringe ?expert? come in to undermine a scientific consensus

Just listen to yourself. How zealous can you get really? I'm sure you'd be the one leading the charge to convict Galileo Galilei for heresy against the consensus as well. All it takes is a single person to refute a theory. And there have been many questioning the validity of the IPCC's climate sensitivity figures.

And even the so called consensus is just another lie. Take the 97% John Cook et al, the same guy who runs the website skeptical science (should be called conformist science), which ignored over half the papers assessed. There are many statistical tricks used to arrive at the so called consensus figure. Not all that dissimilar to the tricks used in temperature graphs where start and end points are cherry picked to give the desired result.

 

they turned instead to retired Australian geologist Bob Carter, who has ties to the industry-affiliated Heartland Institute.

Again, you call it anti-science fringe, yet here's a real scientist disputing the so called consensus, and what do the alarmists predictably do? Fling ad hominems, trying to discredit him. Is it any wonder few come forward faced with such open hostility. Many are probably afraid for their jobs and even lives. It's gotten that bad.

 

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.

That would be fine if it was just one guy, but it isn't. There are lots of people disputing this. You can try and make out that it's a single rogue scientist, but that's a complete deception. In actual fact, according to scientific abstracts from 1991?2011, 66.4% of them never even stated a position. So who knows how many scientists out there disagree with AGW as the primary driver for climate change.

 

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.

What a great idea. Why not censor anti-government sentiment and internet access to unauthorised sites while we're at it. My god, do you even read back what you write. I fear for the future when people out there really think like that.
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.