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

[Tomo]

Does this mean Jeremy Clarkson cannot appear on TV?

[simplezz]

that man-man climate change is happening

Uh, what?

That thar is the brokeback mountain effect :laugh:

[simplezz]

This seems on-topic:

It's funny how the host references that same deceptive John Cook et al paper. He just assumed it was correct. Over half the abstracts were ignored 66.4%. And of the ones that do think AGW exists, only 65 (out of 12k papers), explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+% (human actions causing 50% or more warming). But then again, you wouldn't expect a hack like him to actually check the facts. It's a lot easier to just assume that 97% figure is correct. This is the problem the world faces today. Many people get spoon fed information and believe it.

[jakem1]

So basically, the BBC has been told to tow the line.

 

 

You toe the line, not tow the line.  The rest of your post was equally incorrect.

 

The BBC should be encouraging intelligent, fact-based discussion but instead they've been manufacturing debate by giving kooks and cranks equal airtime and legitimising fringe beliefs.  In many cases the climate change deniers that appear on the BBC are not scientists (let alone climate scientists) but right-wing politicians/people with other vested interests who are not qualifications to appear in a discussion with an expert and are not interested in promoting the truth. 

 

The BBC have been told on a number of occasions that this needs to stop but they have been too busy trying to appeal to Daily Mail readers to listen.  Hopefully they will be forced to change this time.

[leqin]

Does this mean Jeremy Clarkson cannot appear on TV?

Please let it be so

[Ironman273]

It's funny how the host references that same deceptive John Cook et al paper. He just assumed it was correct. Over half the abstracts were ignored 66.4%. And of the ones that do think AGW exists, only 65 (out of 12k papers), explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+% (human actions causing 50% or more warming). But then again, you wouldn't expect a hack like him to actually check the facts. It's a lot easier to just assume that 97% figure is correct. This is the problem the world faces today. Many people get spoon fed information and believe it.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

[theyarecomingforyou]

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

People are free to have moronic beliefs but the BBC is under no obligation to air them. In fact the BBC has an obligation to provide accurate and unbiased information, which isn't achieved through the interviewing of people with opinions that are demonstrably false or unsubstantiable. That's in stark contrast to US networks like Fox News, which deliberately manipulate the news to suit a political agenda - they deliberately mislead their audiences without any consequence or accountability.

 

I no longer have any respect for your opinions.  :no:

[simplezz]

You toe the line, not tow the line.

Thanks for pointing out the spelling error in my idiom. I'm sure it adds a great deal to the discussion.

The rest of your post was equally incorrect.

And there we go. The ad hominem (Poisoning the well) raises its ugly head again. What's that great expression I read somewhere again, oh yes, - Without argumentum ad hominem, the alarmists would have argumentum at all.

The BBC should be encouraging intelligent, fact-based discussion but instead they've been manufacturing debate by giving kooks and cranks equal airtime and legitimising fringe beliefs.

How can you have an intelligent discussion when everybody in is complete agreement, and there's absolutely nothing that can be done about it (China is building a coal powered station every single day).

The BBC have been told on a number of occasions that this needs to stop but they have been too busy trying to appeal to Daily Mail readers to listen.  Hopefully they will be forced to change this time.

Here we go again. Trying to denigrate and disparage anyone who disagrees with your view as "Daily mail" readers. Like you're referring to some kind of subspecies. I don't read the daily mail, so what insult have you got for me? I won't hold my breath.

[wakjak]

How can you have an intelligent discussion when everybody in is complete agreement, and there's absolutely nothing that can be done about it (China is building a coal powered station every single day)

 

 

 

When everyone's in agreement.. then the intelligent discussions have happened.. and there is no need for idiotic "opinions" to be polluting public airwaves.

[Gurkin]

The basic problem is that almost all Scientists of any recognised standing rely upon funding. The people who pay the Piper choose the song. Any scientist who dares, publicly, to offer evidence that contradicts popular belief will quickly find himself on the street.

 

Consequently, we will never see a balanced debate because those with contrary evidence are certain to keep quiet.

 

Nevertheless, a lot of evidence is out there but don't expect to find it on "the Media". You'll find it on "alternative" sites together with a lot of crackpot stuff. The trick lies in recognising the good evidence and ignoring the bad - and also in ignoring the planted evidence that is put there to confuse.

 

The big question is: IF global warming is man-made, why are we still using fossil fuels for energy? I'll give you a clue: it has to do with a small number of people getting very rich indeed and, therefore, "paying the Piper" to maintain the status quo. But they will never be penalised for their role in suppressing and failing to fund the development of alternative means of producing energy (e.g. geothermal, solar and probably other stuff we haven't even dreamed of).

 

It is WE who will be penalised - and we already are. For example, I pay a "green" carbon tax. This actually appears IN PRINT on my own electricity bill - as if *I* had any choice in the way that the only electricity company on this island powers its generators (oil). I pay a huge tax penalty on gasolene so I use a 50cc motorbike whenever possible to save money.

 

Meanwhile, the government pays "lip service" to the problem by generously allowing certain companies to make lots of money by installing wind powered generators - the LEAST efficient method in the f. universe - which will NEVER take the place of oil and, therefore, are not perceived as a threat.

[simplezz]

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Yes, that's exactly where I got those figures from. It's a sham paper that fails under scrutiny. 12000 climate change scientific paper abstracts were examined. Out of those, 66.4% were discarded because they offered no position one way or the other. This can't be overstated. When you hear someone declare that 97% of scientists agree with the consensus, they're not talking about all scientists for a start, only ones who offer an opinion. Then what they don't mention is the varying opinions of them. Notice in the John Cook et al abstract, he employs the word 'Endorsed'. That can encompass a range of opinions, and out of that 32.6% who 'endorsed' AGW, only 65 (yes out of 12000) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as 50+% (human actions causing 50% or more warming). That's not quite a concensus that mankind is the primary driver of climate change is it now?

[Ironman273]

Yes, that's exactly where I got those figures from. It's a sham paper that fails under scrutiny. 12000 climate change scientific paper abstracts were examined. Out of those, 66.4% were discarded because they offered no position one way or the other. This can't be overstated. When you hear someone declare that 97% of scientists agree with the consensus, they're not talking about all scientists for a start, only ones who offer an opinion. Then what they don't mention is the varying opinions of them. Notice in the John Cook et al abstract, he employs the word 'Endorsed'. That can encompass a range of opinions, and out of that 32.6% who 'endorsed' AGW, only 65 (yes out of 12000) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as 50+% (human actions causing 50% or more warming). That's not quite a concensus that mankind is the primary driver of climate change is it now?

I think you're using the term "discarded" incorrectly here.  They included the ones that don't offer an opinion because they were looked at.  You could say that "of those papers that had an opinion" and you'd still see the overwhelming consensus.  Remember that not having an opinion doesn't mean they don't care or they didn't want to talk about it.  It could be that those papers were about global warming but not about placing the source.  There are two other groups of papers: those that reject and those that are uncertain.  If you told me the 66% were uncertain that would be a different matter.

[Soldiers33]

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.

[simplezz]

When everyone's in agreement.. then the intelligent discussions have happened.. and there is no need for idiotic "opinions" to be polluting public airwaves.

Where are these so called intelligent discussions? All I see is ego stroking and preaching to the converted. How is that going to stop China building a coal fired power station every day?

[ctebah]

Glad BBC is actually doing something about this. You will never see media in North America do the same.

[Sandor]

When will they start removing the ravings of lunatic religionists from the screens?

[TheReaperMan]

When will they start removing the ravings of lunatic religionists from the screens?

 

when they stop political party broadcasts!  :woot:

[simplezz]

You could say that "of those papers that had an opinion" and you'd still see the overwhelming consensus.

Except it's not inclusive. In fact it's excluding over half of all scientific papers. That's what drives me nuts when I hear people say "97% of all scientists agree". How can 97% of all scientists agree, when only 32.6% of all the abstracts examined agreed that AGW exists (not the primary driver).

Remember that not having an opinion doesn't mean they don't care or they didn't want to talk about it.

True, but it's still not a consensus. A consensus of those who expressed an opinion stated that man probably has an impact on climate change. Well of course, there's likely to be some warming, however small it might be from a doubling of Co2. That doesn't mean there's a consensus that man is the primary driver of climate change. As I stated, only 65 abstracts out of that 12000 agreed with the IPCC's most extreme view that we cause 50% or more of the warming. I'm sorry, but that's no consensus at all.

It could be that those papers were about global warming but not about placing the source.  There are two other groups of papers: those that reject and those that are uncertain.  If you told me the 66% were uncertain that would be a different matter.

Let's put these numbers into context shall we?

So according to John Cook et al, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain. So let's lump those two together, which constitutes 1% of 12k abstracts (120). Now let's compare that to the 65 abstracts (0.5%) that explicitly endorse mankind as the primary driver of global warming.

In simplistic terms, that's 1% who explicitly disagree or show uncertainty. and 0.5% who explicitly endorse the IPCC's position that we're the primary driver. I don't see a consensus here. In fact, the deniers outnumber the alarmists. Note, I don't treat scientists who think that man contributes towards warming as alarmist because it's not an extreme position. A doubling of Co2 will probably cause some warming, few will disagree with that. The question of whether it is the primary driver of warming is in doubt, and there's certainly nowhere near a consensus on that.

[Ironman273]

Except it's not inclusive. In fact it's excluding over half of all scientific papers. That's what drives me nuts when I hear people say "97% of all scientists agree". How can 97% of all scientists agree, when only 32.6% of all the abstracts examined agreed that AGW exists (not the primary driver).

True, but it's still not a consensus. A consensus of those who expressed an opinion stated that man probably has an impact on climate change. Well of course, there's likely to be some warming, however small it might be from a doubling of Co2. That doesn't mean there's a consensus that man is the primary driver of climate change. As I stated, only 65 abstracts out of that 12000 agreed with the IPCC's most extreme view that we cause 50% or more of the warming. I'm sorry, but that's no consensus at all.

Let's put these numbers into context shall we?

So according to John Cook et al, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain. So let's lump those two together, which constitutes 1% of 12k abstracts (120). Now let's compare that to the 65 abstracts (0.5%) that explicitly endorse mankind as the primary driver of global warming.

In simplistic terms, that's 1% who explicitly disagree or show uncertainty. and 0.5% who explicitly endorse the IPCC's position that we're the primary driver. I don't see a consensus here. In fact, the deniers outnumber the alarmists. Note, I don't treat scientists who think that man contributes towards warming as alarmist because it's not an extreme position. A doubling of Co2 will probably cause some warming, few will disagree with that. The question of whether it is the primary driver of warming is in doubt, and there's certainly nowhere near a consensus on that.

Are we looking at different numbers?

 

From that table there are 3,896 papers that support AGW.  That's 32.6% of all abstracts vs. the 1% that are uncertain or reject it.  We're talking Anthropogenic Global Warming so by definition it's man-made.

[Soldiers33]

Are we looking at different numbers?

AGW.PNG

 

From that table there are 3,896 papers that support AGW.  That's 32.6% of all abstracts vs. the 1% that are uncertain or reject it.  We're talking Anthropogenic Global Warming so by definition it's man-made.

Do you believe everything the media feeds you?

[simplezz]

Are we looking at different numbers?

 

From that table there are 3,896 papers that support AGW.  That's 32.6% of all abstracts vs. the 1% that are uncertain or reject it.  We're talking Anthropogenic Global Warming so by definition it's man-made.

You're only looking at the superficial figures. Those 32.6% so called endorsements revealed a broad range of opinions:

The Cook et al study database has seven categories of rated abstracts.

1. 65 explicit endorse, >50% warming caused by man

2. 934 explicit endorse

3. 2933 implicit endorse

4. 8261 no position

5. 53 implicit reject

6. 15 explicit reject

7. 10 explicit reject, <50% warming caused by man

Papers in the third category which Cook alleges, ?implicit endorse,? in reality make no comment on whether humans have caused warming. This category includes papers about mitigation policies.

The Cook et al paper adds up categories 1, 2 and 3 and presents this total of 3932 papers as endorsing the AGW consensus. In fact many of those papers strongly reject the IPCC AGW position.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10772757.htm

And the statistical work has been called into question by Richard Tol:

1. Including "global" before "climate change", Cook et al. dropped 75% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution.

2. Including "global" before "climate change", Cook et al. dropped many papers by eminent climate researchers.

3. Including "global" before "climate change", Cook et al. dropped 33 of the 50 most cited papers.

4. Choosing exclusive WoS over inclusive Scopus, Cook et al. dropped 35% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/06/the-statistical-destruction-of-97.html

[FloatingFatMan]

When everyone's in agreement.. then the intelligent discussions have happened.. and there is no need for idiotic "opinions" to be polluting public airwaves.

 

Just because a majority hold an opinion, doesn't make them right. Hell, a majority of humans believe in a god in some form or other, and there's sod all evidence for its existence.

[Ironman273]

You're only looking at the superficial figures. Those 32.6% so called endorsements revealed a broad range of opinions:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10772757.htm

And the statistical work has been called into question by Richard Tol:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/06/the-statistical-destruction-of-97.html

Your source is extremely dubious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Science

 

And Tol could be part of the 1%...  someone has to be.

Do you believe everything the media feeds you?

Did you see my link?  It's a scientific paper, not some article from a news source.

[simplezz]

Just because a majority hold an opinion, doesn't make them right. Hell, a majority of humans believe in a god in some form or other, and there's sod all evidence for its existence.

The funny thing is, there isn't even a majority. The so called consensus itself is based on a statistically bogus technique.

[Ironman273]

There's also this graph: