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

[bradsday]

I have no problem with carbon dating, evolution and a lot of the other distractions you've posted. Religious yes (a Lutheran) but creationist - no. They are not synonyms. Sorry to break your precious little bubble.

 

DocM - Thank you.  Personally, I do not get injecting creationist theory into this debate, but do appreciate you pointing out a fact that is so often overlooked - being religious or believing in intelligent design does not inherently mean one does not believe in evolution.  Certainly there are fanatics on both sides - just as in this discussion - but a large percentage of religious people do actually believe in evolution.  One is not mutually exclusive of the other.  I attended a Christian boarding school through high school where evolution was taught in the science classes. 

 

For me - religion states the what - where science merely tries to explain the how.  God created the heavens and the earth - how?  God created man in his own image - how?  There are some that are blind to science and others that maybe read the Bible too literally - but the reality is, most contemporary Christians do embrace evolution as a fact.

[compl3x]

 

 

but creationist - no.

 

 

You'd have to be a creationist. I don't want to derail this topic, but if you believe there is a supreme being or divine creator that created all that exists, you are a creationist. You mightn't be a Biblical literalist and you might accept evolution (which should raise questions like "why would a supreme creator employ this long, brutal, inefficient method) but you are still a creationist. Unfortunately, you're just in a camp full of wackos who say things like the Grand Canyon was cut during the Biblical flood.

 

Why a person would draw parallels between climate change denial and creationist's denial of evolution seem obvious: they engage in the same type of strategy: nit pick disparate pieces of information, repeat long dismissed, debunked, or corrected errors and accuse the scientific community of all being part of some sort of conspiracy. Putting aside the obvious issues with concealing a conspiracy of this magnitude, you also have to ask why so many would willing go along with it? Profit? It is far more profitable to be in the denial camp and get massive funding from very well funded donors in the industry which action against climate change would hurt.

[DocM]

You'd have to be a creationist. I don't want to derail this topic,

>

You just did, but no I don't.

Christians vary in their position on evolution. Some are biblical literalists, but most are not. You can't put all Christians (or even Jews or Muslims) into the same basket.

We're Evangelical Lutherans, and our teaching is that how Gods creation unfolds is open to scientific inquiry. Off-topic a bit, but we also have gay clergy & marriage (where legal), etc. Evangelical Lutherans are the largest Lutheran denomination in the US.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches you can believe in either literalism or in a theistic evolution** (not the same as intelligent design.) Up to the worshiper.

Overall, mainstream Protestant, non-denominational, Catholic, and to a lesser extent Orthodox Christians have no problem with scientific evolution.

Those who push literalism the hardest are black protestants, evangelical protestants (Missouri Synod Lutherans, SOME Baptists, etc), Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses.

** theistic evolution holds that religious teachings about God are compatible with scientific biological evolution.

[compl3x]

I never then, nor have I ever said "All Christians reject evolution". The rates of creationism in America are at like ~4X%, (pew research has a lot of info about American attitudes towards evolution, if you're interested) so much for it being a fringe view. I'd be happy to discuss this in the religion thread but hardly anyone goes in there.

 

 

 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches you can believe in either literalism or in a theistic evolution** (not the same as intelligent design.) Up to the worshiper. 

 

Which is ridiculous because both can't be true. It can't be true that all things exist now as they always have AND God guided the process of evolution over eons. Completely incompatible. Leaving it up to the worshiper seems silly . Do they also let worshipers decide the value of Pi? Or the shape of the earth? Or gravitation? Or any other scientific field we overwhelmingly understand? I guess most of those don't contradict the heart of the belief so they are safe.

 

 

If you are in the climate denial camp, there are still plenty of other media outlets who'll let just about any crank, usually with no useful background in this debate, have their time in this debate.

[DocM]

It depends on how you ask the question, just like in political polling.

In 2009 Pew did a poll asking the evolution in a neutral way and got this,

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/public-opinion-on-religion-and-science-in-the-united-states/

>

31% of Americans directly reject evolution, believing instead that humans and other living creatures have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.

>

About 10 points lower than the poll you quoted.

On most any topic you can get 30% of people to be contrarians, though only 21-23% are bold enough to identify themselves as liberals ;)

[Ravensky]

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6040/20130911/global-cooling-arctic-ice-cap-60-photo.htm

[compl3x]

31% is still incredibly high. 1/4 would be incredibly high. 

 

To suggest people are simply being "contrarians" about the issue of evolution is about as disingenuous as you can get. What, they just think it's hip and trendy to reject evolution?

[chrisj1968]

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

 

so controlled opposition? that's what this says. offer only one view point.. shut out folks with opposing views... controlled opposition.

 

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=23746

[compl3x]

Why do people believe that scientific issues have all of these "sides".

 

The side that has the most evidence is the one that is most credible. Climate change deniers have had ample time to dismantle CC, they've failed miserably. Most of the opposition doesn't even deal with any of the science, it just implies cover-ups, scams, or rip-offs without any evidence. My favorite is the idea that research scientists are living in the lap of luxury on the back of grant money. Drilling ice cores in freezing conditions in Antarctica, sounds like luxury to me.

[chrisj1968]

this is strange. when one polar cap melts, it accumulates at the other, hence the growth of Antarctica polar cap increase.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/10/polar_vortex_weather_mid_july_will_be_as_cool_as_mid_september_in_east_and.html

 

eastern US to get hit by a polar vortex..

[Torolol]

this is strange. when one polar cap melts, it accumulates at the other, hence the growth of Antarctica polar cap increase.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/10/polar_vortex_weather_mid_july_will_be_as_cool_as_mid_september_in_east_and.html

 

eastern US to get hit by a polar vortex..

can be said that the warming are not "Global" ?

[TPreston]

can be said that the warming are not "Global" ?

Facepalm, Are you incapable of understanding what an increase in earths global average temperature is ? Protip it didn't mean everywhere on the planet is warm and cosy.

This is the equivilant of "why are their still monkeys" a question which demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the science.

[Clirion]

 

Which is ridiculous because both can't be true. It can't be true that all things exist now as they always have AND God guided the process of evolution over eons. Completely incompatible. Leaving it up to the worshiper seems silly . Do they also let worshipers decide the value of Pi? Or the shape of the earth? Or gravitation? Or any other scientific field we overwhelmingly understand? I guess most of those don't contradict the heart of the belief so they are safe.

 

 

Actually there is no place in the Catholic tradition that teaches that things have always been exactly as they are now.  Even Genesis states 7 days,  which the Churches stance is that the term days does not mean 24 hours, but a time frame.  It was used in an allegorical sense.

[compl3x]

Actually there is no place in the Catholic tradition that teaches that things have always been exactly as they are now.  Even Genesis states 7 days,  which the Churches stance is that the term days does not mean 24 hours, but a time frame.  It was used in an allegorical sense.

 

 

Umm... What?

 

If you believe the Bible is literally true, you believe that god created all things in their current form. It's been a while since I read my Bible, but I know it doesn't mention evolution anywhere.

[Clirion]

Umm... What?

 

If you believe the Bible is literally true, you believe that god created all things in their current form. It's been a while since I read my Bible, but I know it doesn't mention evolution anywhere.

I was discussing Catholic Church teachings.  The Catholic Church does not teach that the bible is literally true.  It teaches that is it is book to follow.  Jesus was the Son of God.  God is the creator, but we do not know the mechanism used, that is what Science addresses. 

[compl3x]

Oh, so how do you differentiate between the parts of the Bible that are literally true (Jesus being the son/saviour) and the parts which are just allegory (Genesis, or the flood, or exodus)?

 

I suppose literal creation is a lot easier to disbelieve than something essentially unfalsifiable like a Jew 2000+ years ago claiming to be the son of God.

[Clirion]

Oh, so how do you differentiate between the parts of the Bible that are literally true (Jesus being the son/saviour) and the parts which are just allegory (Genesis, or the flood, or exodus)?

 

I suppose literal creation is a lot easier to disbelieve than something essentially unfalsifiable like a Jew 2000+ years ago claiming to be the son of God.

Faith.  Here is what we do know.

1. Jesus of Nazareth did exist.

2. He was born to a Mary

3. Three was a Jesus of Nazareth that was crucified.

 

Son of God, is Faith.  That cannot be proven via scientific method.

[compl3x]

That didn't answer my question. In fact, you just completely sidestepped it.

 

People use faith to rationalise all sorts of religious beliefs, some of which I'm sure you wouldn't think twice about dismissing.

 

 

It's funny, I remember reading about a U.S. rep in the U.S. saying he rejected climate change because after the great flood god said he wouldn't destroy mankind (no points for guessing which party this loon belongs to). That is no doubt his faith in action.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

There are also people who think it is irrelevant because they will be ruptured in the next 50 years.

[Clirion]

That didn't answer my question. In fact, you just completely sidestepped it.

 

People use faith to rationalise all sorts of religious beliefs, some of which I'm sure you wouldn't think twice about dismissing.

 

 

It's funny, I remember reading about a U.S. rep in the U.S. saying he rejected climate change because after the great flood god said he wouldn't destroy mankind (no points for guessing which party this loon belongs to). That is no doubt his faith in action.

 

 

Sorry Me personally?  That is a very complex answer.  I look it though the lens of what I have witnessed and what I have been taught, from school, family, friends, other people.

 

Actually read the article you linked.  He does not think the world will end because God said it would not end in a flood. [Faith] He also said he believes Climate Change is happening. [science/Real World].

 

How do you know what theory of the universe to "believe".  I chose the word believe there because the Big Bang and beyond is observable, the other theories of what happened before the Big Bang is not ...(yet).  You may be proven wrong in the future, but you think its that way now, with no evidence.

[compl3x]

Sorry Me personally?  That is a very complex answer.  I look it though the lens of what I have witnessed and what I have been taught, from school, family, friends, other people.

 

 

So A La Carte or cafeteria Christianity (pick whichever bits you like, ignore others which are too preposterous or scientifically unsound), based on anecdote or authority.

 

 

Actually read the article you linked.  He does not think the world will end because God said it would not end in a flood. [Faith] He also said he believes Climate Change is happening. [science/Real World].

 

Go and tell all the people living in the pacific island and low lying ares not to worry about flood. Bringing biblical prophecy into this debate is infantile at the very least. The issue isn't about the world ending, it's about the effects climate change are going to have on life. An end event is being struck by an asteroid, not steady rising temperature and extreme, unpredictable weather events.

 

 

How do you know what theory of the universe to "believe".  I chose the word believe there because the Big Bang and beyond is observable, the other theories of what happened before the Big Bang is not ...(yet).  You may be proven wrong in the future, but you think its that way now, with no evidence.

 

I believe whatever the consensus of our current understanding of the universe is by people who study it for a living. Ideas might change, and my views could change with them. Unlike rigid, religious faith which makes a virtue out of believing whatever you're told despite evidence to the contrary, one can change their position on a scientific issue when new information is made available.

 

 

Which brings us right back to the problem with climate denial and why it ca be compared to creationism: evidence that contradict their position is dismissed, everyone who calls them on their BS is a part of some conspiracy, they use the legal system to settle issues about science, and so on.

 

As a side note, I'd really like to know how much of an overlap there is of creationism and climate denial. For some reason I think a lot of creationists would be climate denialists.

[Clirion]

So what is Christianity then.  I am curious what you think it is or supposed to be,  But before you do tell me please tell me what Sect of Christianity we are discussing.  I have been discussing the Roman Catholic since you asked me what view of it is

If you want to know what the essence of the Catholic sect is, look at the Nicene Creed.  It distills what it means to be Catholic in it. 

 

I also can only point you to various Papal Encyclicals that are on the Topic of Science and Religion. 

[simplezz]

What does "look at history" even mean? Greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, have been proven to be a major factor in climate change - their role has been thoroughly researched and is widely understood.

I like how you lump all the green house gases into one as a rebuttal to someone questioning the effect Co2 alone has. Of course green house gases have the potential to cause some warming. However, Water vapour is by far the most abundant, accounting for approximately 95% of all observed green house effects. By comparison, Co2 hardly even registers.

Even those who dispute anthropogenic climate change accept the role that carbon dioxide plays.

The two are inextricably linked. If Co2 doesn't have a major impact on temperatures, then anthropogenic driven climate change can't exist.

[simplezz]

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6040/20130911/global-cooling-arctic-ice-cap-60-photo.htm

The zealots will just ignore that. Even if the day after tomorrow happened, and half the world froze to death, they'd still be banging on about apocalyptic global warming caused by Co2 emissions.

[simplezz]

Why do people believe that scientific issues have all of these "sides".

Because no one even knows how the climate works? Science is constantly evolving. Newton's theory of gravitation was thought to be definitive at the time, yet a little upstart named Einstein threw a spanner in the works some years later. And even Einstein's theory will probably be proved wrong as well. That's how science works, things are constantly evolving. Dogmatic positions suit an agenda, never science. That's why the most vocal proponants in this debate aren't actually climate scientists, but politicians and other vested interests.

 

The side that has the most evidence is the one that is most credible.

There never was any evidence though, only inadequate models that failed to predict anything. The stagnant temperatures over the last 17 years have proven that Co2 doesn't have the effect some people thought it did. None of the proponents can offer any evidence for the sudden flat-lining.

Climate change deniers have had ample time to dismantle CC, they've failed miserably.

Onus Probandi. The burden of proof lies solely with the claimants (Alarmists). I have yet to see a working theory, and I don't run my life on guess work. So no, I won't be supporting the religion of global warming any time soon.