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

[SALSN]

Perhaps Obama is a shaven wookie with a nice haircut.

I say we expose people equally to all opinions and let them make an uninformed choice.

 

Also I have a hypothesis that climate deniers are largely funded by organizations that benefit from all the doubt in this area, while the scientists accepting man made climate change are largely funded by organizations that accept that theory, because of these scientists findings not in spite of those.

 

Potholer54 on youtube have a really great video series going through all the deniers arguments, finding out which papers (if any) they come from, and examine their validity, interesting and humorous at the same time, definitely worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

[Vykranth]

where does it say on wikipedia that ancient science said earth was flat? All I see is beliefs and assumptions mixed with religious figures/nutjobs/leaders.

 

That is the problem with the flat earth "science". There is acutally no science: no observation, no demonstration, no repeatable experiments, no validations, no explanations.

These are only opinions and science is not about opinions.

 

ID has a platform where it's appropriate to be discussed, religious class.  For holocaust deniers and climate deniers, the only appropriate place they can be discussed publicly is ON the mainstream media, but it should be made clear that it's NOT a proven viewpoint and the evidence is available to see.  Silencing them is NOT the right way to go about it.  Let them speak, but then counter them with evidence so that the viewing public actually have a decent chance at understanding the issues.

 

The problem with ID is that its proponents are trying to make it pass as science. ID's sole purpose is usurpation of science.

As far as 'deniers' are concerned, when you see them with all their logicial fallacies, their circular reasonings and even if you present them with overwhelming evidences, you could take a Holocaust denier to Auschwitz, show them the photos of the cadavers piles made when the death camps were liberated, meet some survivors and they would continue to refuse to accept the truth.

At some point, when you are faced with zealous idiocy, the patience wears thin and the only thing you want is to bitch slap the stupid out of them.

[dvb2000]

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

 

You've got to remember schools have been indoctrinating kids for the last 10 years or so about things like this. Of course the BBC has been told to stop allowing any counter views that contradict the the politicians and their "climate change departments and scientists". Politicians can't tax people if they don't believe its for the their own good!

[MikeChipshop Member]

You've got to remember schools have been indoctrinating kids for the last 10 years or so about things like this. Of course the BBC has been told to stop allowing any counter views that contradict the the politicians and their "climate change departments and scientists". Politicians can't tax people if they don't believe its for the their own good!

 

Blaming it all on politicians wanting to tax people is the typical fall back routine of someone who doesn't know any better.

 

Yes the earth is heating up, yes partly due to natural causes and yes, part to do with man made issues. The reason governments are having to tax certain areas that cause this issue is less to do with a money grab (as the money is generally going back in to tidying up the mess) but more to do with forcing people, like the deniers on this thread, to have to do something about it rather than putting their fingers in their ears and going "it's not happening ner ner... nothing to with man ner ner".

 

It's the same thing that happened when CFC's were banned. There were deniers then when the cost of junking the nasty gases went up (so they could be dealt with safely) and taxes were applied to their production (before an outright ban) to help pay the cost of their replacement.

It's the same thing happening here and it's a shame the nay-sayers have to be coerced this way.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Does it really matter whether it's man made or not, in the end? No, not really.  Even if we cut ALL CO2 production in the world today, it wouldn't stop what's happening.  What matters is that the climate IS changing more rapidly than it has in the past, and we need to deal with it instead of arguing all the damned time.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Human emissions have been proven to be accelerating climate change and while we certainly can't prevent many of the adverse effects we can certainly mitigate them by reducing our emissions and implementing sustainable policies. Pretending that it's too late to do anything about it is a major part of the problem.

[mudslag]

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.

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.

 

 

Ok what "scientist" and might as well add their studies, say global warming/climate change isn't due to human interaction or at the very least play a major role? 

 

And no there was no "scientist" that thought the world was flat a long time ago. The minority who did were doing it off very basic knowledge and wouldn't be considered "scientist" by any stretch of the imagination. Much of the "flat earth view" is more myth then a widely accepted view. There was no destorying of people who thought the world was spherical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

[mudslag]

another way to shut people up. Climate change is the biggest money grabbign scheme ever and people actually fall for it. The planet changes, always has and always will. They just want more reason for the carbon tax to come into effect.

 

 

 

Let's try not to pretend there isn't money flowing the other way either. Where do you think the money comes from that pays for the anti view? There's big money to be on the anti view side. The oil industry pay some of the biggest payouts to fight against it and they are just part of the big business that's affected by regulations that cut into their bottom line. 

[mudslag]

 

Plenty of these scientist get rich off funding, take a look at wasteful funding here: Shrimp on a Treadmill. <--- Look a distraction!!

 

 

I don't disagree that there is wasteful spending from time to time. That can happen in any industry, business, ect. But what evidence do you have that "plenty of these scientist get rich off funding"? Please post your evidence that this actually happens and that it's actually off funding. We'll wait. 

[Vykranth]

To add an example to the 'Science' of denial, this is a campaign ad for a certain Lenar Whitney, running of Louisiana Congress, which singlehandly disprove climate change by explaining that the last winter was cold and by showing a thermometer ...

a medical thermometer which measures human body temperatures ....

a rectal thermometer that is designed to go the place where she is likely yanking her ideas from ...

[Hum]

I deny that there is a sun ! :woot:

[FloatingFatMan]

What a ridiculous thing to say. Human emissions have been proven to be accelerating climate change and while we certainly can't prevent many of the adverse effects we can certainly mitigate them by reducing our emissions and implementing sustainable policies. Pretending that it's too late to do anything about it is a major part of the problem.

 

Why don't you try reading my post again, and this time actually read MY words and not whatever the hell you imagined I wrote...

[Veiva]

I feel that even if humans aren't responsible for global warming, 'dirty energy' is still disastrous and we should move away from it. Pollution and destruction of environments is 'ok' all of a sudden because of the ill-informed notion that we aren't responsible for global warming? Why? It's like a person with a high metabolism eating all the time at McDonald's. Yea, you won't get fat, but you're still unhealthy...

 

Disclaimer: I believe climate change deniers are wrong and that humans have undoubtedly contributed to global warming and the changes that arise from that.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Why don't you try reading my post again, and this time actually read MY words and not whatever the hell you imagined I wrote...

I did and I stand by my statement. Your attitude is that there's nothing we can do about it, therefore it's just about managing the consequences. I fundamentally reject that mentality. Human emissions are directly to blame for climate change, which is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence, therefore it is essential for government policies to reflect that and minimise CO2 emissions.

 

If we can't get people to accept the fundamental truth that humans are responsible for climate change then we don't stand any chance of having sensible policies to address it.

[FloatingFatMan]

Ahem.  I specifically said, we can't do anything about what's ALREADY BEEN DONE  (unless you've got a handy time machine?), and that we now have to stop arguing about that and get on with trying to FIX things.

 

Whether we did it to ourselves or not, it doesn't matter any more; the solutions will remain the same.

 

Sheesh... Your reading skills REALLY suck, dude.

[Athernar]

ID has a platform where it's appropriate to be discussed, religious class.  For holocaust deniers and climate deniers, the only appropriate place they can be discussed publicly is ON the mainstream media, but it should be made clear that it's NOT a proven viewpoint and the evidence is available to see.  Silencing them is NOT the right way to go about it.  Let them speak, but then counter them with evidence so that the viewing public actually have a decent chance at understanding the issues.

 

Again I will repeat the point that not providing people with additional platforms to espouse their views does not constitute silencing them. Silencing them would involve either outright murdering them, or actively suppressing any attempts for them to communicate said view via whatever methods available.

 

On the topic of religion, many in America believe that Intelligent Design should be taught in a science class as the teachings in their view are true, and that religious education classes are not an appropriate place for them even if they do have RE as a subject taught. Do they not indeed try to claim that they're being "silenced" by not being given that additional platform?

 

Science should not be held back by wasting time trying to accommodate and explain basic, highly-verified facts to those that willingly choose to embrace superstition. And neither should debate.

 

Crazies have the internet, until such time as they can actually validate their beliefs in a accepted manner (Via peer review or etc) they can continue to peddle to whatever audience they might have. We don't need to give them a leg up.

[simplezz]

I feel that even if humans aren't responsible for global warming, 'dirty energy' is still disastrous and we should move away from it. Pollution and destruction of environments is 'ok' all of a sudden because of the ill-informed notion that we aren't responsible for global warming?

That's what it comes down to. Some people, especially extremists, just hate the idea of us using Fossil fuels and wish to demonise it.

Co2 isn't 'dirty' or a pollutant. It's essential for life. Without it, none of us would exist. Some other byproducts and products can be, such as plastics, pesticides, particulate matter, etc. In most westernised countries, pollution is kept to a minimum usually. Though I'd argue that pesticides and pharmaceutical drugs in the water supply is a big problem.

 

I'm in complete agreement about destruction of environments and habitats. You can thank the big multinationals for that.

Given time, renewable energies will become more efficient and cheaper than fossil fuels anyway in most cases. Although I don't know what they're going to do about air travel.

 

Disclaimer: I believe climate change deniers are wrong

I doubt you'll find many people who deny that the climate changes. I certainly don't. It has since the world was first created. The key question is what is currently the primary driver of it.

 

and that humans have undoubtedly contributed to global warming and the changes that arise from that.

Yes, it's possible that the Co2 we have added to the atmosphere has contributed somewhat to warming. However, if observed temperatures are anything to go by, it's quite minimal. For instance, if Co2 has such an impact on temperatures through radiative forcing, then the IPCC's models' dire predictions would have come true, but they haven't. So the net effect of a doubling of Co2 is actually quite small. Thus, it's nothing to worry about at least for the next fifty years or so. And I'm willing to bet that by then, technology will have made fossil fuels obsolete in most cases.

[Vykranth]

Science should not be held back by wasting time trying to accommodate and explain basic, highly-verified facts to those that willingly choose to embrace superstition. And neither should debate.

 

Crazies have the internet, until such time as they can actually validate their beliefs in a accepted manner (Via peer review or etc) they can continue to peddle to whatever audience they might have. We don't need to give them a leg up.

 

Here is an other example of the flat earth scientist: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/07/09/Kentucky-state-senator-believes-Earth-is-the-same-temperature-as-Mars/5261404923598/

 

FRANKFORT, Ky., July 9 (UPI) --Kentucky Republican State Sen. Brandon Smith said Thursday that man-made climate change is not real because the temperature on Earth is the same as on Mars.

In a meeting with the Natural Resources and Environment Committee, Smith condemned the new carbon emission regulations set by the Obama administration in early June. He gave his reasons for deeming the regulations unnecessary.

 

"As you [Energy & Environment Cabinet official] sit there in your chair with your data, we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I won't get into the debate about climate change but I will just simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There's no factories on Mars that I'm aware of."

But academia does, in fact, dispute his claim. According to NASA, the average temperature of the Earth is 57 degrees Fahrenheit, 138 degrees warmer than Mars' average temperature of -81 degrees Fahrenheit.

Smith is the owner of mining company Mohawk Energy. Coal is a large part of the economy in Kentucky and an industry both parties in the state want to protect.

Democratic state Rep. Kevin Sinnette said in the same meeting that dinosaurs survived climate change so it must not be real.

"The dinosaurs died, and we don't know why, but the world adjusted," Sinnette said. "And to say that this is what's going to cause detriment to people, I just don't think it's out there."

Kentucky's Democratic Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, who is in a tight race with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, has also condemned the new regulations, saying, "Coal keeps the lights on in the Commonwealth, providing a way for thousands of Kentuckians to put food on their tables."

 

How can one reason with such blatant idiocy? It just baffles my mind, how 40 years of space exploration are just completely ignored.

[Memphis]

 

Here is an other example of the flat earth scientist: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/07/09/Kentucky-state-senator-believes-Earth-is-the-same-temperature-as-Mars/5261404923598/

 

 

How can one reason with such blatant idiocy? It just baffles my mind, how 40 years of space exploration are just completely ignored.

 

I believe in climate change, but I believe the point that he was trying to make is that mars and earth are heating up at similar rates, not that they are the same temperature. That theory is also wrong from what I understand, but that doesn't mean we should practice this kind of hyperbole either.

[Vykranth]

I believe in climate change, but I believe the point that he was trying to make is that mars and earth are heating up at similar rates, not that they are the same temperature. That theory is also wrong from what I understand, but that doesn't mean we should practice this kind of hyperbole either.

 

Please, Sidroc, scientists are called upon research grants, insinuating that their research is tainted by the money provider, that scientists have their conclusions written by the guys who pay the checks.

 

Brandon Smith is the owner on a mining company, wants to nothing but to get rid of the EPA and yanks some total bullcrap from his ass and tries to polish that turd with pseudo-science and I do not get to expose him about the blatant conflict of interest or total disregard of scientific observations? I am getting tired of the constant denial of science and the smearing of scientists

[Vykranth]

From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/11/house-energy-appropriations-bill_n_5579345.html

WASHINGTON -- The Republican-led House of Representatives passed the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act on Thursday night by a vote of 253 to 170. What may appear to be a mundane spending bill includes a number of measures meant to undo environmental programs.

The House version of the spending bill:

1. Slashes funding for renewable energy programs in the Department of Energy by more than $100 million, while boosting funding for coal and other fossil fuels. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said the bill "targets lower-priority programs for cuts." (The reduction originally was bigger, but a Democratic amendment added some money for renewables and efficiency back into the package.)

Can I call a conflict of interest? Kentucky is a state which main industry is coal mining

2. Bars the Department of Energy from enforcing energy efficiency standards for light bulbs, thanks to an amendment from Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas). This has been a pet issue for House Republicans, who have added the prohibition to previous spending bills, even though the standards originated in the 2007 energy bill that President George W. Bush signed into law.

Cognitive dissonance between 2007 and 2014 and refusal to accept progress.

Do not bother with the recycling of led bulbs, every other western countries have figured out ways of implementing recycling program.

3. Prevents the Energy Department from using appropriated funds for its climate model development and validation program -- an amendment from Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.). In a statement on Friday, Gosar said his amendment "is not about making a statement on climate change or the validity of climate science," but about "restoring fiscal responsibility and efficiency to federal spending as well as preventing duplication.?

Ostrich syndrome: climate change does not exist because there are no scientific studies because we did not fund the studies because we do not want the results of the scientific studies.

4. Forbids spending to "design, implement, administer or carry out specified assessments regarding climate change," under an amendment from Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.). McKinley added a similar amendment to the defense spending bill in May.

Similar, attached to a defense bill is just extra icing

5. Slashes funding for a federal program that provides incentives for swapping low-efficiency toilets for higher-efficiency models. Gosar also offered this amendment, axing what he dubbed the "Cash for Crappers" program.

Unless people are getting water for toilets from rainwater via recuperators, the water is in the toilet is coming from the same water source as the kitchen/bath. Water people pays on their utility bill, water that may been treated, water that may be scarce: Texas.

Is flushing 1/2 gallon most of the times instead of 2 gallons of water every time down the drain that bad?

This is not conservative, this is regressive

[DocM]

And there is this:

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1221243-peer-review-ring/?view=getnewpost

[TPreston]

And there is this:

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1221243-peer-review-ring/?view=getnewpost

Which you use to dismiss science that conflicts with your beloved worldview picking and choosing what science you like and what is inconvenient . You are no different than a creationist who cites this to dismiss evolution;

[DocM]

Just pointing out that they've already been caught smoothing data and had to reverse statements, which is why a great many people no longer believe them. The hockey stick; July 1936 being the hottest month, then NOAA saying not because 1912 was, then reversing field after skeptics pointed out the errors in their methodologies so 1936 is the hottest again, etc.

Doesn't exactly inspire faith.

[TPreston]

Just pointing out that they've already been caught smoothing data and had to reverse statements, which is why a great many people no longer believe them.

 The hockey stick; July 1936 being the hottest month, then NOAA saying not because 1912 was, then reversing field after skeptics pointed out the errors in their methodologies so 1936 is the hottest again, etc.

Doesn't exactly inspire faith.

A great many people believe evolution is false and there is a conspiracy to hide the truth of biblical creationisim, no traditional fossils, carbon dating is unreliable etc, Its what happens when people who know nothing about a subject barge in and start arrogantly proclaiming that this that and the other cant be right.

 

You are no different to them. ITT Cognitive dissonance. I love science but not when it conflicts with my worldview in that case we need to ignore what these scientists publish and listen to Ray Comfort... I mean David Rose how did I ever mix those two up :rolleyes:

[Vykranth]

Just pointing out that they've already been caught smoothing data and had to reverse statements, which is why a great many people no longer believe them. The hockey stick; July 1936 being the hottest month, then NOAA saying not because 1912 was, then reversing field after skeptics pointed out the errors in their methodologies so 1936 is the hottest again, etc.

Doesn't exactly inspire faith.

Faith? I, for one, am going to TRUST scientists before crooked politicians in the pocket of the mining industry.

In the thread about the useless ASTEROIDS act, when I refer to the Kessler Syndrone, I should chill because sciences are thinking about technics for habitats to withstand the hit of space debris: so this is good science.

Whenever temperature data and climate change are concerned, the data was altered, changed, smoothed, this is bad science..

So, yeah, this is cognitive dissonance

After that, there is a review problem in an acoustic journal, so the NOAA climate change is therefore false. Overgeneralization? Jumping from the horse? Where is the link? If acoustic scientists are bad, then meteorologists are bad, then geology scientists are bad, then all scientists are bad.