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

[Alera]

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.

 

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.

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.

Your lack of understanding of science baffles me, Newton's laws aren't wrong, they simply aren't accurate to the degree that Einstein and others show is possible and yes, somewhere along the line someone will build on top of Einstein's theories, that doesn't mean he was completely wrong. We still use Newton's laws today, there's a reason for it, they work. We're simply building up ever more as our understanding and technology takes us further, refining what we already have to increase the accuracy, rather than just assuming. Newton's genius got us to the moon, I mean come on, that's not bad at all for someone who lived in his day.

 

The proof is there, climate science is being better and better understood as the years go by, and the data is there for all to see. It's now down to you who claims that climate change is not occurring to show the proof, you can't, because if you did then the scientific consensus would agree with you, newspapers around the world would have a single headline to declare the news and you'd be world famous for solving it. Get real.

 

Average global temperatures ARE rising, just because there are some freak weather events (like the polar vortex, which is caused by... changing air streams around the world? Which is caused by? Oh yeah, air pressure and temperatures!) that cause local cooling (see? only in the US...), does not mean that the global temperatures are not going up steadily year on year.

[compl3x]

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.

 *

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.

**

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.

***

 

*So science can never be depended on because it undergoes changes? I'm sure you'll find many proponents of climate sceince are climate scientisits. IDK what you generally read or listen to but they seem to be the ones making th emost noise about this. But you think they're alarmists, so I guess you'd expect them to, right?

 

**I'm not an expert in climate,. You can google "evidence for climate change" and do your own research. You can determine whether the 97%+ consensus & the evidence it is based on in this field lives up to your definition of evidence.

 

***The fact you're using words like "alarmists" and describing this issue as a religion suggests to me 100% proof positive evidence beyond one iota of doubt wouldn't be enough to convince you.

 

 

 

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. 

 

 

I'll address this here... We can't really high jack this topic because it will probably end up locked and the discussion will stop.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

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.

...

I would love to know when Einstein proved that gravity didn't exist.

[TPreston]

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.

Ask a canned question get a canned answer

Q3: Did global warming end in 1998?%5Bhide%5D

A3: One of the strongest El Ni?o events in the instrumental record occurred during late 1997 through 1998, causing a spike in global temperature. Choosing this abnormally warm year as the starting point for comparisons with later years produces a cooling trend; choosing any other year in the 20th century produces a warming trend.

Scientists do not define a "trend" by looking at the difference between two given years. Instead they use methods such as linear regression that take into account all the values in a series of data. 10 years isn't long enough to detect a climate trend. The World Meteorological Organisation specifies 30 years as the standard averaging period for climate statistics so that year-to-year fluctuations are averaged out.^%5B6%5D

In a BBC interview on 13 February 2010, Phil Jones agreed that from 1995 to 2009, the global warming "trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level", though close.^%5B7%5D This has been misleadingly reported by some news sources.^%5B8%5D On 10 June 2011 Jones told the BBC that the trend over the period 1995 to 2010 had reached the 95% significance level traditionally used as a threshold by statisticians.^%5B9%5D

While HadCRU reported an extreme peak in global temperature in 1998, the GISS and NCDC estimates showed a lower peak in 1998, and more subsequent warming.^%5B10%5D The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the decade 2000-2009 was the warmest on record for the globe, with 2005 the warmest year.^%5B11%5D

But sir where are the transitional fossils? Here here here and you can see an entire building full of them here. Next debate.... Where are the transitional fossils ?

Glad everyone can see that you don't care about the truth you can't defeat this so you repeat it again and again. Utterly pathetic.

[theyarecomingforyou]

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.

In other words, you'll dismiss any scientific evidence that doesn't agree with your worldview. Climate change and the effects of CO2 are well understood by the scientific community - to pretend otherwise is astonishing. You're clearly not being reasonable and I have no interest in discussing this any further with you. Take your anti-science rhetoric elsewhere.

[Clirion]

I'll address this here... We can't really high jack this topic because it will probably end up locked and the discussion will stop.

 

I can appreciate that.  I will respond in more detail on that thread.  Thanks.

 

As to the rest of people that think this is an issue?  Really?  The BBC will no longer put the opposition up every time it discusses Climate Change?  Discussion of Science is not the same as the discussion of Politics. 

 

Public Policy should be debated about, and why that policy should or should not go though should be debated.  I wonder if they put people on in the discussion of the Higgs Boson that think this particle does not exist?  I mean it is equal time requirement.

[simplezz]

I love how people label you as Anti-Science and a Climate change denier if you question the impact Co2 has. I do deny the assertion that Co2 is the primary driver of global warming. The evidence doesn't support it. The models have shown us that.

Pretty much sums up the credibility of the AGW proponents. Reminds me of the Spanish Inquisition.

[simplezz]

As to the rest of people that think this is an issue?  Really?  The BBC will no longer put the opposition up every time it discusses Climate Change?  Discussion of Science is not the same as the discussion of Politics.

Except that anthropogenic global warming has become politicised. And the BBC have an incentive to stifle the debate. All their pensions are invested in green technologies. That's the real reason.

I wonder if they put people on in the discussion of the Higgs Boson that think this particle does not exist?  I mean it is equal time requirement.

All of the particles discovered by the accelerators might not be particles at all. They could just be different energy levels of the same material. It's all circumstantial. They detect something different, so they naturally think it's something completely unique and new. Our understanding of subatomic physics, the universe, and reality is infantile at best. The Dark *X* fudge factor can attest to that.

If you go back in history, it's easy to see that each era thought they knew everything and how things worked, only to be proved completely wrong, or grossly inaccurate. It's a repeating pattern. I have no doubt that most of our current science in fields such as physics and climate science will be disproved in the future.

[TPreston]

I love how people label you as Anti-Science and a Climate change denier if you question the impact Co2 has. I do deny the assertion that Co2 is the primary driver of global warming. The evidence doesn't support it. The models have shown us that.

Pretty much sums up the credibility of the AGW proponents. Reminds me of the Spanish Inquisition.

And you say this... Right after slandering the whole of science as untrustworthy because newtons theories were replaced by Einstein. What a massive coincidence yet another scientific issue you know absolutely #### all about! This is physics 101 there is no "newtons theory of gravity" theee are newtons LAWS of motion which are still used today! They are good approximations of how our universe behaves and have been used to send people to the moon.

Was this offensive ? I don't care the anti-science title fits your comments like a glove.

There is no climate debate, like legal issues this isn't something decided upon by BBC viewers.

[FloatingFatMan]

There is no climate debate, like legal issues this isn't something decided upon by BBC viewers.

 

Really? Because I can see quite a bit of it going on...

[TPreston]

Really? Because I can see quite a bit of it going on...

In the same way as people are claiming the second law of thermodynamics invalidates evolution. interesting point they both use the "science is unreliable" talking point.

[T3X4S]

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

Catholic church made all "scientists" say what they believed at the time or risked house imprisonment, industry shunning, even death.

Not sure if this wass mentioned , didnt realize the thread already had 11 pages

 

[T3X4S]

In the same way as people are claiming the second law of thermodynamics invalidates evolution. interesting point they both use the "science is unreliable" talking point.

I love it when people (church-going creationists) mention that the 2nd law of thermodynamics proves the universe was intelligently designed -- people need to learn what that law says before trying to spout it off like they know something.

Its always laughable when religious boneheads try to use science as a means of proof... it would be like the scientific world using mother goose fables as proof.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Really? Because I can see quite a bit of it going on...

There's a substantial difference between debate and scientific denialism.

[FloatingFatMan]

In the same way as people are claiming the second law of thermodynamics invalidates evolution. interesting point they both use the "science is unreliable" talking point.

 

Even among the climate scientists who all agree on the subject, there's still plenty of debate going on.

[compl3x]

If you go back in history, it's easy to see that each era thought they knew everything and how things worked, only to be proved completely wrong, or grossly inaccurate. It's a repeating pattern. I have no doubt that most of our current science in fields such as physics and climate science will be disproved in the future.

 

Comparing the pre-scientific era and the current scientific era is nonsensical. What is this "repeating pattern" you speak of? The scientific era has gone through periods of break-throughs and refinement of said break-throughs, not discombobulating changes. Your argument seems to be "science is so unreliable we needn't bother putting any trust in it". You wonder why you're accused of being anti-science?

 

I'd love to know what principals in physics are going to be "disproved" in the future. I suggest you actually bother to research the complex and sophisticated field you just so casually dismissed, professor.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Even among the climate scientists who all agree on the subject, there's still plenty of debate going on.

That's deliberately disingenuous. There is research being conducted into specific elements of climate change and in improving the accuracy of climate modelling but there is no serious debate about the validity of anthropogenic climate change, nor whether carbon dioxide contributes to climate change. That may change in the future as new evidence comes to light but climate change denialism is nothing more than a faith-based belief - it is not supported by evidence.

 

Most of the public debate relates to public policy and what should be done to address climate change, rather than whether it exists.

[simplezz]

Catholic church made all "scientists" say what they believed at the time or risked house imprisonment, industry shunning, even death.

Not that dissimilar to the present day then, the ostracisation at least.

[TPreston]

Not that dissimilar to the present day then, the ostracisation at least.

 

[Ravensky]

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.

Sad isn't it?  The truth stares people in the face and they can't see past their own ignorance...

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

 

They are calling this a "pause" now.  If it were a pause then why are the ice caps growing?  Let me tell you, because the world is entering a cooling stage not a global warming "pause".

 

/wrist

[kljs]

Is this censorship?

[compl3x]

Is this censorship?

 

No. They're not stopping deniers their speech, they just aren't going to invite them onto their programs to discuss it.

 

If you have a discussion about evolution you don't have to invite creationist crack-pots onto the program for "balance"

[theyarecomingforyou]

They are calling this a "pause" now.  If it were a pause then why are the ice caps growing?  Let me tell you, because the world is entering a cooling stage not a global warming "pause".

1) Surface area is different to volume. There is a greater surface area but the ice is much thinner.

2) There is a difference between continental ice and sea ice. Continental ice builds up over hundreds to thousands of years through gradual deposits of snow, resulting in fresh water ice thousands of metres thick; sea ice is typically only one to two metres thick and occurs seasonally.

3) The antarctic sea ice is minor in comparison to the arctic. The increase in surface sea ice at the antarctic pales in comparison to the loss of continental ice occurring at the arctic.

4) There is no pause in global warming. What we're seeing is heat being absorbed by the oceans.

 

Sad isn't it?  The truth stares people in the face and they can't see past their own ignorance...

Yes, it is sad.

[Ravensky]

Once we run out of oil and or replace it with alternative energies this will be a mute point as if what they are saying about human carbon emissions happens to be true, when the emissions cease, things will start to cool down as our planet heals itself much the way it has in the past.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Well no, the carbon is still in our atmosphere, it takes a while for it to be sequestered in things.

It also depends on where it gets sequestered, you don't want it in the oceans for example (Because it turns the water acidic and breaks down the shells of shellfish and stuff like coral, which damages breeding grounds, etc.)