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

People debating it doesn't mean there's a debate to be had - if people were so inclined they could debate if 2+2 equalled 4 or potato, doesn't mean there's any debate that 2+2 doesn't equal 4. We know there's no debate because all the evidence we have at present points to the current consensus - that's why it's the consensus.

How do you know there's no debate? There's never no debate, only a lost debate, which is certainly some debate. Other than eventual boredom I have no problem watching Kent Hovind debate Richard Dawkings a thousand times. And no doubt of the outcome.

The basic problem here is we are not really discussing inviting opponents of the CAGW hypothesis to debates between two technically knowledgeable people about an issue of fact, which does not really occur in the media. We are talking about handing out propaganda slots for the <whatever> Lobby, based on whether the <whatever> Lobby is politically and socially powerful at the moment. The BBC's role is not seen as just a conduit for discussions about the nature of reality, but rather determining it in the minds of the public, not on the basis of evidence, but emotional influence.

When those decisions are made by government agencies like the BBC we are talking about an Official Truth. While I believe the Official Truth is closer to the real truth than, say, Ken Hovind does, I don't think it's identical, nor that calling a committee of journalists with BAs in Art History a safe and effective way of determining the real truth.

Bingo. Good post sir.

There was an opinion piece in Monday's Times about the BBC decision, which broadly covers your point. The BBC shouldn't be held to the whims of whatever lobbyists (who have been proven to not be reputable climate scientists but green lobby activists) happen to sway the sensibilities of the comfortably middle-class urban humanity broadly leftist grads who staff the organization.

If the BBC cannot within it's role as government owned state broadcaster maintain it's impartiality rules it should probably just privatise and compete with the rest of the UK's broadcasting/media industry on it;s own merits.

Whether you're me (that due to my own research has determined AGW to be a crock of smelly) or a self-professed environmentalist wanting to save the world from human hubris, I think we can all agree (assuming we're not douche-canoes with ulterior motives) that a free and liberal society requires free and liberal discourse and media, especially if it's state controlled and publicly funded.

For or against either camp, censorship is just wrong.

Bingo. Good post sir.

There was an opinion piece in Monday's Times about the BBC decision, which broadly covers your point. The BBC shouldn't be held to the whims of whatever lobbyists (who have been proven to not be reputable climate scientists but green lobby activists) happen to sway the sensibilities of the comfortably middle-class urban humanity broadly leftist grads who staff the organization.

If the BBC cannot within it's role as government owned state broadcaster maintain it's impartiality rules it should probably just privatise and compete with the rest of the UK's broadcasting/media industry on it;s own merits.

Whether you're me (that due to my own research has determined AGW to be a crock of smelly) or a self-professed environmentalist wanting to save the world from human hubris, I think we can all agree (assuming we're not douche-canoes with ulterior motives) that a free and liberal society requires free and liberal discourse and media, especially if it's state controlled and publicly funded.

For or against either camp, censorship is just wrong.

For the most part it reprints press releases from political organisations (NGOs, government, charities) that predict consequences of CAGW rather than substantiate its existence.

The fact that the BBC is state-owned is more of a reason why it shouldn't give them airtime. It's funded by the public and thus the public have the right to learn the actual truth. If you people want to criticise the science they can do it on a private channel/newspaper or actually write a scientific paper to win the Nobel prize which would undoubtedly be on their mantel if they managed to refute AGW.

But, surely, it is their responsibility to give you both sides of the argument in cases where it isn't proven.

Of course, due to political reasons they won't do this, after all, they're hardly going to have people accuse Israel of attempted genocide except on something like panorama.

Of course they wouldn't be able to prove that; for starters the term "catastrophic" is a subjective term, and secondly it's a term that has never been used in any scientific paper as you can see here: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22catastrophic+anthropomorphic+global+warming%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

Yes, if that really is the case, but the fact is debating over whether or not humans are capable of causing global warming in this day and age would be like debating over whether bacteria really cause diseases.

Of course they wouldn't be able to prove that; for starters the term "catastrophic" is a subjective term, and secondly it's a term that has never been used in any scientific paper as you can see here: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22catastrophic+anthropomorphic+global+warming%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

There is no "censorship" of any kind taking place here.

On one side of the "debate", you have nearly all of the world's scientists who study climate change. On the other side are journalists and oil company shills, with almost no scientists. Why should non scientists (like Nigel Lawson) be treated as though their views hold as much weight as qualified scientific opinion?

With respect, a distinguished professor in this field gave a talk at the American Physical Society showing that the recorded data has now diverged significantly from the computer model predictions and, absent rapid warming in the near future, will soon fall out of the 95% confidence intervals. That has pretty strong establishment credentials. (You also at one point claimed that the scientific consensus was that there has been no pause in warming: note the title of this talk!)

So if there is a scientific consensus that AGW is happening, there is no consensus how much, or how to predict how much. That latter is the actually important question for technocratic political purposes. The complete irrelevance of CO2 to the climate is pretty much ruled out by basic physics, but +0.5C warming in a century would be economically irrelevant; conversely +10C warming would be devastating. It doesn't seem to me that the mainstream people believe - or have any good reason to believe - that they know with high certainty which it will be.

Compare the BMA. They have always advised the government on issues of public health. If they tell the government 'alcoholic drinks are bad, we advise you try to get the public to consume fewer' then that is fine. If, as they have done, they stand up and start publicly campaigning for a specific policy such as a minimum price on alcohol – as if their medical expertise gives them a corresponding economic expertise and the ability to properly assess all the effects of a policy – then they overstep their remit in many people's view.

I submit that climate scientists have behaved in a similar way. They have segued from advising governments of the science to publicly promoting specific policies. For instance, there was a large group of climate scientists who publicly called for fracking to be outright banned, as if their atmospheric expertise has an innate carryover. It doesn't, and indeed people with an expertise in that area generally argue that fracking is likely to decrease carbon emissions. There are numerous other examples, and if people like Lawson to stand up and provide a contrary view on policy then that is all to the good in my view.

But more than this, the recent IPCC report was not simply presenting evidence, but had a clear agenda to persuade policy-makers to act. This isn't the first report which has been viewed in this way, and the problem is that when scientists start to see that as their job we get the collusion and the data-manipulation which has afflicted some scientists. Again I bring up East Anglia, but there's been a few things in America as well recently. The tragedy of that is that in being overeager to convince people they're right, they only end up creating the suspicion it's all a big con.

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

There is no "censorship" of any kind taking place here.

On one side of the "debate", you have nearly all of the world's scientists who study climate change. On the other side are journalists and oil company shills, with almost no scientists. Why should non scientists (like Nigel Lawson) be treated as though their views hold as much weight as qualified scientific opinion?

If the BBC want to have a climate change "skeptic" on a programme discussing the science, they should either find a qualified scientist willing to present that view, or not have a "skeptic" on at all.
If you insist on "balance" in situations where genuine balance doesn't exist, you end up with people like Nigel Lawson being dragged on to a programme alongside a world renowned scientist, a situation which would be funny if it wasn't about such a serious issue.

They are still allowed BBC coverage by the way - just less. They are no longer going to give them the sort of coverage which implies their arguments have equal merit. This is a good thing and more accurately reflects the current scientific consensus.

Lol climate deniers say the funniest things don't they. This is how it went:

'Global warming is a lie'
'Okay the world is warming, but its all natural cycles'
'Okay the world is warming, and we are causing it, but its a good thing!'
'Okay the world is warming, we are causing it, its bad, but it isn't catastrophic!'

I always imagined that the sort of people that are climate skeptics would be watching the oceans boil in 5 billion years and claim the sun isn't expanding!

Lol climate deniers say the funniest things don't they. This is how it went:

'Global warming is a lie'
'Okay the world is warming, but its all natural cycles'
'Okay the world is warming, and we are causing it, but its a good thing!'
'Okay the world is warming, we are causing it, its bad, but it isn't catastrophic!'