Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

BBC Staff to be giving less air time to fringe science such as climate change deniers Watch

    • Editorial Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.salon.com/2014/07/06/bbc_...ium=socialflow

    Thoughts?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think the BBC has for once done the right thing here. I don't think we should give any air time to something which is 98% certain. The BBC would never air a story on a 2% chance it was true, so why should climate change be any different. It is simply spreading disinformation; I agree the BBC must be impartial but this cannot come at the expense of scientific fact so this is definitely a good outcome.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    This is good, giving equal time suggests there is still some kind of scientific debate on issues such as climate change when there really isn't.

    Relevant video

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    It's no different to not giving air time to people who believe that the Earth is flat in my opinion.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Good. Balance is all well and good but if you can't have a debate between someone who acknowledges known facts and someone who doesn't.

    "Today on BBC Breakfast we have Professor of Nutrition, Dr Samuel Beakley here to discuss the ideal breakfast, also with us is Ben Dengier, a man who claims that the best breakfast is a bowl of glass combined with a glass of ethanol and an entire spanner. Good morning gentleman."

    Let's not give crazy people equal time with experts, it causes people to assume that a position somewhere in the middle is probably most likely to be true, which in many cases is simply false.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Today on Radio 4 we are looking at fracking with Claire Balding.

    " It is hard to think that just 10 years ago some people were actually protesting at this very spot in what used to be a so-called National Park. Now it is a thriving executive community; house prices here are rising at an estimated 15% a month, although it is quite rare for one to come onto the open market. The steel security fence around this desirable gated community was made from confiscated vans of the troublemakers who tried to stop the development of this beautiful estate and the discreet shale gas unit over there behind the artificial trees.
    "Geoff Grimswold, you are the manager of Frak-U-Like™ and have been here since the early days. Could you tell us what happened to the real trees ?
    "Good Morning Claire. Welcome. It is true that there were various poorly managed arboreal features in this area many years ago. Since we took over the so-called National Park we have modernised this ad-hoc situation and rationalised the carbon cycle using cutting edge technology.
    "You mean you replaced the real trees with plastic ones, don't you Geoff"
    "Yes Claire. That is what the residents wanted. That is what we wanted. It is a win-win situation".
    "There do not seem to be any birds here Geoff."
    "Frack-U-Like are the proud sponsors of Wild Heritage; for 250 marks you can have a day out with the family unit and experience in safety and comfort an authentic Countryside reconstruction. If you choose the Forest Fun option for an extra 50 credits you will be allowed to touch the last living Oak tree in the country."
    "People used to be able to visit the countryside and parks for free Geoff. Why do they have to pay now ?"
    "We provide a safe alternative. In the old days children would climb trees and fall off. There used to be burrowing animals called rabbits which left dangerous holes which caused many tragic ankle injuries. No, it is much better this way. You have to pay for quality Claire, as you know at the BBC. How much is it now for the entertainment implant ? 5000 credits ? for just one eye ?"
    "Thank you Geoff. This has been Claire Balding. Now back to the studio"
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iuyscvbh)
    I think the BBC has for once done the right thing here. I don't think we should give any air time to something which is 98% certain. The BBC would never air a story on a 2% chance it was true, so why should climate change be any different. It is simply spreading disinformation; I agree the BBC must be impartial but this cannot come at the expense of scientific fact so this is definitely a good outcome.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It is not certain at all. Ice levels are at their highest for years.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Old_Simon)
    It is not certain at all. Ice levels are at their highest for years.
    Doesn't mean much. Global warming is global, small scale weather patterns can be very different and often get colder not warmer. Also, IIRC, there was a recent article explaining why we have more ice than before.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    The BBC doesn't give any air time to views which oppose the politically correct orthodoxy. So this is not a surprise at all.

    Climate change deniers do not actually exist, no one is denying climate change because the climate always changes, the argument is over what is causing it?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    Doesn't mean much. Global warming is global, small scale weather patterns can be very different and often get colder not warmer. Also, IIRC, there was a recent article explaining why we have more ice than before.
    It does mean something, because all the scientific models predicted sea ice would decrease. Explaining the past is easy, predicting the future is where a theory is tested.

    Now, I do believe the world is getting warmer and there is a lot of evidence to back that up. But I think one of the major problem with the debate is that climate scientists think they have any sort of licence to talk about what should or should not be done in response to climate change, which is an economic, not a scientific, issue. Scientists are wheeled out all the time to support some windfarm somewhere or criticise fracking as if their climate expertise gives them a corresponding economic and industry expertise, which it does not. Here is where I believe their shrill voices are often far more questionable.

    Environmentalists are deliberately trying to conflate these two issues – the reality of global warming and the question of what should be done about it – to give the impression that their prescriptions are just as scientific and well-evidenced as climate change itself. People who are not convinced that extortionately expensive wind farms are the best way to deal with our energy problems are treated as climate-change deniers. The price they pay for this merger is that when the public see the obvious problems in their logic they don't differentiate and assume the same problems exist in the climate-science.

    What I want to know is whether this ban on climate-change sceptics is restricted to the scientific debate, or whether people who – quite sensibly in my view – hold economic beliefs such as that wind farms are a ridiculous way to deal with the problem (such as Nigel Lawson) et cetera will now also be proscribed.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    It does mean something, because all the scientific models predicted sea ice would decrease. Explaining the past is easy, predicting the future is where a theory is tested.

    Now, I do believe the world is getting warmer and there is a lot of evidence to back that up. But I think one of the major problem with the debate is that climate scientists think they have any sort of licence to talk about what should or should not be done in response to climate change, which is an economic, not a scientific, issue. Scientists are wheeled out all the time to support some windfarm somewhere or criticise fracking as if their climate expertise gives them a corresponding economic and industry expertise, which it does not. Here is where I believe their shrill voices are often far more questionable.

    Environmentalists are deliberately trying to conflate these two issues – the reality of global warming and the question of what should be done about it – to give the impression that their prescriptions are just as scientific and well-evidenced as climate change itself. People who are not convinced that extortionately expensive wind farms are the best way to deal with our energy problems are treated as climate-change deniers. The price they pay for this merger is that when the public see the obvious problems in their logic they don't differentiate and assume the same problems exist in the climate-science.

    What I want to know is whether this ban on climate-change sceptics is restricted to the scientific debate, or whether people who – quite sensibly in my view – hold economic beliefs such as that wind farms are a ridiculous way to deal with the problem (such as Nigel Lawson) et cetera will now also be proscribed.
    Criticizing the methods for dealing with climate change is fine, but so long as that criticism is not based on a denial of man made climate change.

    Unless someone has a better idea than building loads of renewable energy generators, you shouldn't really attack the current methods. Something has to be done, and whatever is done loads of people will disagree with it. It's a lose-lose situation.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    just wondering why people who have not jumped on the bandwagon are called this pejorative term Climate Change Deniers .

    you could just as well call the bandwagon jumpers Climate Stability Deniers :holmes:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    Criticizing the methods for dealing with climate change is fine, but so long as that criticism is not based on a denial of man made climate change.

    Unless someone has a better idea than building loads of renewable energy generators, you shouldn't really attack the current methods. Something has to be done, and whatever is done loads of people will disagree with it. It's a lose-lose situation.
    I think this is a case where often the treatment is worse than the illness. The doomsday scenarios you might have heard are very much the outliers in terms of scientific predictions. Rising temperatures would definitely cause some bad things, such as rising sea levels which could threaten extremely low-lying land such as in Bangladesh, but the world has seen warmer temperatures even in the recent past and it's hardly as if it's something human adaptability could not handle.

    On the converse the prescriptions include raising the price of fossil fuels which, amongst other things, is hamstringing economic growth in the developing world where deaths from poverty, famine and preventable diseases are still distressingly common. Tell me that is worth it. When it is far from clear that such policies are likely to have any effect on reducing climate change, or whether it would even be possible to reverse it, it seems a bit like a cruel joke.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    I think this is a case where often the treatment is worse than the illness. The doomsday scenarios you might have heard are very much the outliers in terms of scientific predictions. Rising temperatures would definitely cause some bad things, such as rising sea levels which could threaten extremely low-lying land such as in Bangladesh, but the world has seen warmer temperatures even in the recent past and it's hardly as if it's something human adaptability could not handle.

    On the converse the prescriptions include raising the price of fossil fuels which, amongst other things, is hamstringing economic growth in the developing world where deaths from poverty, famine and preventable diseases are still distressingly common. Tell me that is worth it. When it is far from clear that such policies are likely to have any effect on reducing climate change, or whether it would even be possible to reverse it, it seems a bit like a cruel joke.
    But unless we do something, CO2 levels will keep rising until they are eventually so high that environmental disasters are inevitable. This may be in 50 years, it may be in 500 years. But it will happen.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    If the BBC are not giving time to loonies, perhaps they should do away with shows like Songs of Praise as well.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    But unless we do something, CO2 levels will keep rising until they are eventually so high that environmental disasters are inevitable. This may be in 50 years, it may be in 500 years. But it will happen.
    The reason we won't use fossil fuels indefinitely is because we expect future technologies to be more efficient. Currently, however, renewable energy is not even comparable, with the exception of nuclear power which people dislike for other reasons.

    So really, we only need fossil fuels to tide us over until fusion overtakes everything in a few decades. Arguably the economic hit the world takes from anti-carbon measures means fewer resources to fund this sort of research.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    The reason we won't use fossil fuels indefinitely is because we expect future technologies to be more efficient. Currently, however, renewable energy is not even comparable, with the exception of nuclear power which people dislike for other reasons.

    So really, we only need fossil fuels to tide us over until fusion overtakes everything in a few decades. Arguably the economic hit the world takes from anti-carbon measures means fewer resources to fund this sort of research.
    It is impossible to predict what technology we will have in a few decades. Whatever we guess will amost certainly be completely wrong.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    It is impossible to predict what technology we will have in a few decades. Whatever we guess will amost certainly be completely wrong.
    Fusion is possible now, it's just about making it cheaper and it's already on the cusp of being economic. So I don't think it really is that impossible to make a prediction with a reasonable possibility of being correct on that one.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I wonder what this will mean in practise. What will be classed as 'fringe'? I will believe it when I see it, but I suspect we will still be getting endless appearances from the likes of Nigel Lawson and James Delingpole, because even though they have no scientific credentials whatsoever, they are considered 'representative' of organisations holding 'other viewpoints' (eg, propaganda organisations ultimately funded by Big Coal and Big Oil) or because they are establishment figures with right wing views which therefore 'balance' what is wrongly seen as a 'leftwing' issue, eg, climate change.

    The real clever trick of those big corporations and financial interests opposed to the widespread implementation of climate change policies is to make it seem as though it is a left wing issue, supported only by Marxists, general haters of capitalism and nutjob Extreme Greens. Whereas in fact the climate change agenda is also supported by nearly every large institution on the planet that has a scientific view and by large numbers of right wing and centrist people in most countries. It did not emerge from the left or even from Greens - it emerged from scientists working in the field. It isn't a political agenda, but the heavily-funded denial industry has made it look like it is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What else will be deemed 'fringe'? Can't stand the BBC.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.