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

[theyarecomingforyou]

Do you believe everything the media feeds you?

That's not a rebuttal.

 

You're only looking at the superficial figures.

No. Of the scientific papers that take a position on anthropogenic climate change 97.1% support it, an indisputable consensus. There is no debate as to whether climate change is man-made - the only debate is what should be done about it.

[Ironman273]

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

[jakem1]

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

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.

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).

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.

 

Pointing out that you're wrong is not an ad hominem attack.  In fact, I didn't attack you at all and the Daily Mail comment wasn't aimed at you.  It was merely pointing out that the BBC have clearly been pursuing a tabloid agenda in order to compete with the Daily Mail.  It's a view shared by many including Robert Peston.

 

Your bit about being unable to have an intelligent conversation of everyone is in agreement is just bizarre.  Are you honestly suggesting that progress is only possible through conflict?  Once everyone is in agreement then something can be done about the problem and we can find solutions rather than wasting time arguing with the ill-informed or the people with vested interests who want to maintain the status quo.  Having the BBC air futile debates because conflict is good for ratings doesn't benefit anyone.

[Ironman273]

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf+html

[MikeChipshop Member]

The planet changes, always has and always will

 

Not sure if serious... but i'll bite.

 

The world has always been in and out of periods of global warming/cooling (ice ages etc) but there's measurable evidence that humans have caused a significant bump in temperature. There's nothing else to it, the planet would have warmed up at this point any way just not as warm and not as fast.

[FloatingFatMan]

That's not a rebuttal.

 

No. Of the scientific papers that take a position on anthropogenic climate change 97.1% support it, an indisputable consensus. There is no debate as to whether climate change is man-made - the only debate is what should be done about it.

 

But only 33% of ALL the papers polled, took a position on it.

 

So it's not a consensus of all scientists, It's a consensus of the 33% of scientists who stated an opinion on the topic.  The media just misrepresents that to be 97.1% of ALL scientists.

[simplezz]

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.

Those figures are from the John Cook et al paper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tol

He's a professor of economics and of the economics of climate change. He's well versed in statistics. If he says John Cook et al used a bogus statistical technique, then I tend to believe him. You can also see from those graphs on the site I linked to, just how many papers and authors he excluded by using a 'global' search criteria.

 

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

Yes, you linked to the abstract, and only quoted the summary figures. The devil is in the detail as they say, and that table you posted doesn't break down the 'endorsed' category and how it was arrived at. The figures I provided do.

[+E.Worm Jimmy Subscriber¹]

BBC have long since stopped being independent, unbiased TV...     long gone.  

Now they push whatever agenda is pushed on them, unfortunately.

Listening to BBC world was a favorite of mine ~15 years ago... not so much now....  as they recycle mainstream news and suppress opposing views.

 

Give it a few more years and they will be another CNN  :(

[JAREDNT1]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/07/ooops_data_from_government_agency_shows_us_cooling_trend.html#.U7qsLZVlXtg.facebook

[simplezz]

No. Of the scientific papers that take a position on anthropogenic climate change 97.1% support it, an indisputable consensus.

Oh really. Do you have any idea how that 97% figure was arrived at, or did you just read it and assume it was true? Personally, I like to see the details. Because more often than not, there's a lot hidden in them.

Many people, including politicians and celebrities have been quoting that 97% figure as proof that mankind is the primary driver of climate change, without even knowing how that number was created. It's very disappointing, and shows a distinct tendency towards short attention spans and little to none independent thought.

 

There is no debate as to whether climate change is man-made

Have to disagree with you there. After all, are you really suggesting that all historic changes in climate are attributable to man?

The debate is whether Co2 and consequently mankind is currently the primary driver of climate change. That I'm afraid is very much undecided. If the evidence (failed IPCC predictions) is anything to go by, then we're not.

 

the only debate is what should be done about it.

Is that even a debate? What exactly can you or any of us do to stop China, India, and the US from burning coal, fracking, etc? Personally, I don't think it'll be a problem because in enough time, technology will advance to the point that it will be more efficient and cost effective than burning fossil fuels anyway.

[Nogib]

The problem with climate change is that there is no perspective that works.  It is fundamentally flawed because the people screaming that the sky is falling seem to be under this misguided notion that outside of man, climate is supposed to be static.  The climate has ALWAYS been changing on planet earth.  And with such little data (meteorological data that goes back maybe 100-150 years at best is a split-second when it comes to long-term climate) there is no feasible way to say to what degree mankind has affected it.

 

Yes, climate change is happening.  But to lay it all on the feet of mankind is recklessly naive.

[shockz]

 And with such little data (meteorological data that goes back maybe 100-150 years at best is a split-second when it comes to long-term climate)

There are other ways of extracting info than just looking at spreadsheets of temps. We've been able to determine weather patterns, conditions, etc far longer than just 200 years.

[theyarecomingforyou]

But only 33% of ALL the papers polled, took a position on it.

 

So it's not a consensus of all scientists, It's a consensus of the 33% of scientists who stated an opinion on the topic.  The media just misrepresents that to be 97.1% of ALL scientists.

It absolutely is a consensus. Most climate papers focus on very specific criteria and cannot speculate about large, general trends. For instance, a report on the desertification of northern Africa might only look at the impact of the changes rather than the cause of them. Just because it doesn't support anthropogenic climate change does not mean that it opposes it - it literally means that it has not taken a position on it.

 

Stop trying to muddy the discussion. Of the reports that have investigated the causes of climate change and taken a position the overwhelming majority support the notion of anthropogenic climate change.

 

Is that even a debate? What exactly can you or any of us do to stop China, India, and the US from burning coal, fracking, etc? Personally, I don't think it'll be a problem because in enough time, technology will advance to the point that it will be more efficient and cost effective than burning fossil fuels anyway.

I can't tell if you're being serious. :huh: Of course there is a debate, as many right-wing extremists still deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change and have sought to block any regulations or movements to implement environmental protections. Action is being taken to address climate change by various governments, including the US and China. For instance, the day after Obama announced new environmental targets China followed suit. Unfortunately right-wing politicians have sought to block or weaken those protections.

[simplezz]

Pointing out that you're wrong is not an ad hominem attack.

No, pointing out a spelling mistake alone isn't an ad hominem, however using that as the basis for forming the conclusion that the rest of what I had to say was incorrect as well is. It's called poisoning the well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).

Take a look again at what you wrote.

In fact, I didn't attack you at all and the Daily Mail comment wasn't aimed at you.  It was merely pointing out that the BBC have clearly been pursuing a tabloid agenda in order to compete with the Daily Mail.

I don't think the BBC has to even compete with the Daily Mail considering that it's taxpayer funded. I think it was just trying to offer a balanced perspective. Regardless, it's moot now. The trust has summarily decided that the BBC should only present a one sided argument from now on. I'll get my news from elsewhere in the future. You see, that's all that does. It just excludes the a proportion of the population, and a large chunk of it if the polls are to be believed.

Your bit about being unable to have an intelligent conversation of everyone is in agreement is just bizarre.  Are you honestly suggesting that progress is only possible through conflict?

I'm saying that if you fill a room with 'yes' men and everyone is patting each other's backs, you're not going to get a worthwhile discussion. And that's what's going to happen now. Nothing can be done about Co2 from the UK because we only constitute 5% or less of global emissions anyway. For a meaningful impact you'd have to get the US, India, and China to cut their industry dramatically, and that's not going to happen.

Once everyone is in agreement then something can be done about the problem and we can find solutions rather than wasting time arguing with the ill-informed or the people with vested interests who want to maintain the status quo.

Well according to a lot of people in this thread, the debate is settled, and there's a 97% consensus of scientists. What more do you need to get something done? The fact of the matter is, China, India, the US, and most other industrial nations aren't willing to give up their economies to avert the supposed carbon apocalypse. So how is it wasting time, when all we have is lots and lots of time to debate?

Having the BBC air futile debates because conflict is good for ratings doesn't benefit anyone.

So if 50% or more of the population doesn't believe in mankind being the primary driver of climate change, we should just ignore them all? And there was me thinking that the news should be representative of the people. Then again, I suppose it's no different than Chinese and North Korean state news.

[theyarecomingforyou]

 

The problem with climate change is that there is no perspective that works.  It is fundamentally flawed because the people screaming that the sky is falling seem to be under this misguided notion that outside of man, climate is supposed to be static.  The climate has ALWAYS been changing on planet earth.  And with such little data (meteorological data that goes back maybe 100-150 years at best is a split-second when it comes to long-term climate) there is no feasible way to say to what degree mankind has affected it.

Nobody disputes that the climate has changed throughout history, often substantially (just like nobody disputes the role of solar activity, volcanic eruptions, etc). The issue at hand is whether human are responsible for accelerating climate change and whether action can be taken to mitigate it, the answer to both of which is yes.

 

Further, to claim that we can only look back 100-150 years and have no way of knowing long term temperature trends is utterly false and demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge on the science behind climate change. If you're going to offer your opinion on the matter you should at least be aware of the basics.  :|

 

Yes, climate change is happening.  But to lay it all on the feet of mankind is factually accurate.

FTFY.

[TPreston]

So if 50% or more of the population doesn't believe in mankind being the primary driver of climate change, we should just ignore them all? And there was me thinking that the news should be representative of the people. Then again, I suppose it's no different than Chinese and North Korean state news.

So if 50% or more of the population doesn't believe in <The evolution of modern humans>, we should just ignore them all? And there was me thinking that the news should be representative of the people. Then again, I suppose it's no different than Chinese and North Korean state news.

Its simplezz to debunk these childish anti-science arguments, You are entitled to your own opinions not to your own facts.

 

Those figures are from the John Cook et al paper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tol

He's a professor of economics and of the economics of climate change (^Peew that stinks how did you type that  bs without laughing). He's well versed in statistics. If he says John Cook et al used a bogus statistical technique, then I tend to believe him. You can also see from those graphs on the site I linked to, just how many papers and authors he excluded by using a 'global' search criteria.

See this is why we don't relay on individual scientists and their reputation anymore, If he believes the metholidigy is flawed he is free to challenge it with another paper/review. Crying like a big blubbering ****** on blogs is something zealots do when they cant back up their claims. Since you posted about logical fallacy's before let me introduce you again to Appeal to Authority.

 

There are other ways of extracting info than just looking at spreadsheets of temps. We've been able to determine weather patterns, conditions, etc far longer than just 200 years.

 

Try explaining that to the people in this thread who think the age of the earth is a whopping 6000 years

 

The arrogance of these people who storm in to a subject they know nothing about and start spouting "NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSIALS" ... Oh sorry how did I ever get that confused....

[spacer]

The problem with climate change is that there is no perspective that works.  It is fundamentally flawed because the people screaming that the sky is falling seem to be under this misguided notion that outside of man, climate is supposed to be static.  The climate has ALWAYS been changing on planet earth.  And with such little data (meteorological data that goes back maybe 100-150 years at best is a split-second when it comes to long-term climate) there is no feasible way to say to what degree mankind has affected it.

 

Yes, climate change is happening.  But to lay it all on the feet of mankind is recklessly naive.

You're right, we have only been recording weather accurately for the last 100 years or so. However, climate and weather are two very different things. Weather is about the day-to-day, short-term atmospheric data. Climate is the aggregate weather date over a long period of time. We have records of climate data dating back millions of years. What you're talking about is weather data.

 

Climate does change over time, and it is cyclical. However, the climate change over the last few decades alone has been radically more severe than any change that we know of, from any era. The current trend in climate is man-made. There is absolutely no question about it.

 

 

In fact, watch the whole episode here: http://www.cosmosontv.com/watch/270803523723 It will do a far better job of explaining the whole story better than I can.

 

I'm glad the BBC is taking a stand not give ignorant people the spotlight to continue the vomiting of false information without actual, scientific proof. I wish the US media outlets would take this same stand, but then they'd all be out of content...which isn't a bad thing in my opinion, but they're entertainment businesses so they need to see that profit margin go up.

[FloatingFatMan]

Climate does change over time, and it is cyclical. However, the climate change over the last few decades alone has been radically more severe than any change that we know of, from any era. The current trend in climate is man-made. There is absolutely no question about it.

 

 

It's not even close to as severe as the geological record shows.  It's just a little faster, is all.

[spacer]

It's not even close to as severe as the geological record shows.  It's just a little faster, is all.

All I can say is, watch that episode of Cosmos that I linked to. I forgot the percentages that Tyson quoted, but it was pretty damn high. I guess what can be considered "severe" is up for debate, but the recorded numbers and the projected numbers (and heat map that they show in the episode) looked pretty severe to me. And it's not just the magnitude of the changes, it's also the rate at which things are changing. The plant and animal life can't react quick enough to the rate at which we are changing the planet.

[jakem1]

So if 50% or more of the population doesn't believe in mankind being the primary driver of climate change, we should just ignore them all? And there was me thinking that the news should be representative of the people. Then again, I suppose it's no different than Chinese and North Korean state news.

 

I was going to ignore your post after that silly rant at the beginning but then I saw your last point. 

 

If 50% or more of the population share a belief that is not supported by the facts then I expect that a broadcaster like the BBC will educate them.  Something doesn't become true just because a large number of people believe it, especially when those people aren't experts or don't understand the topic. 

 

You seem to think that ignorance is a virtue and that there's something wrong with pointing out that someone is wrong.  That's not the case and stupid people shouldn't be pandered to or encouraged to think that their ill-informed opinions are valid.  Everyone deserves to be told when they're wrong and then have the facts explained to them.   

 

The BBC's charter explicitly states that its mission is to "inform, educate and entertain".  Note the order.  The sorts of "debates" that you want aren't informative or educational because they are biased and only designed to create a spectacle.  They create a lopsided view of the issue in which the fringe views with no basis in fact are presented as being of equal value to expert opinion.  This leads to argument for the sake of argument which is great for ratings but not great for helping people form educated opinions.  They're just entertainment and have no place on a news or current affairs program. 

 

We have commercial newspapers and broadcasters who pander to the lowest common denominator to make money and the tabloids are particularly good at that.  Public service broadcasters like the BBC should be held to a higher standard and should provide the programming that commercial broadcasters are unwilling to provide.

[Gone]

Where? Source. Citation. Please don't provide some wacky, fringe nut with no credentials. (e.g. Lord Monckton)

 

 

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

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

Washington Times (Pretty Liberal Newspaper)

 

There are people who are "professional scientists" on both sides of the debate. You can pick and chose what you'd like to believe, but in reality this day and age is swayed by politicians trying to win a re-election. The science has two arguments, and they will for a long time because nobody has lived thousands of years, so both sides are winging it.

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

 

Read up! (Yes I know it's wikipedia, but I don't feel like reading several school books again).

[TPreston]

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

Washington Times (Pretty Liberal Newspaper)

 

There are people who are "professional scientists" on both sides of the debate. You can pick and chose what you'd like to believe, but in reality this day and age is swayed by politicians trying to win a re-election. The science has two arguments, and they will for a long time because nobody has lived thousands of years, so both sides are winging it.

 

The same can be said for evolution right ? As with evolution there are no "two sides" there's evolution and the creationists one is supported by the science the other isn't. Of course there are scients who are creationists like their are scientists who are climate change denialists and scientists who are scientologists.

 

 

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

 

Read up! (Yes I know it's wikipedia, but I don't feel like reading several school books again).

Guess we should abandon our legal system also because people have been wrongly accused in the past

 

:sleep: Kindergarten level arguments ITT

[Stoffel]

I'm baffled we still have this conversation.

 

If they are right about Climate change and we are contributing to it, we should do something about it even if it's just to make sure the future generations still have a planet to live on.

 

If they are wrong about it and we have no impact on it, at least we made the earth a little cleaner by looking into alternative fuels.

 

Win win, no?

 

Most of the people who still deny Climate change have a vested interest to do so, they would loose money if they have to adjust their business

[Gone]

I'm baffled we still have this conversation.

 

If they are right about Climate change and we are contributing to it, we should do something about it even if it's just to make sure the future generations still have a planet to live on.

 

If they are wrong about it and we have no impact on it, at least we made the earth a little cleaner by looking into alternative fuels.

 

Win win, no?

 

Most of the people who still deny Climate change have a vested interest to do so, they would loose money if they have to adjust their business

Al Gore has a vested interest to keep promoting climate change, all whilst flying in his private jet all over the world!

[TPreston]

Al Gore has a vested interest to keep promoting climate change, all whilst flying in his private jet all over the world!

This is a red herring he has nothing to do with climate science research. Next one :sleep: