Thank fucking God. As Ana Kasparian explains, the BBC wants to ensure that they don't create a false balance in the discussion. After all, as most news networks go they usually make the issue look split by having one person on each side of the debate duke it out on air, make it look like it's up for debate when it's not. When in truth 97% of published scientists on climate change do believe that it exists and to a large extent that man is mostly responsible.
I think this is a good thing. The debate shouldn't be stuck at whether climate change is actually happening but needs to move onto what needs to be done about it. Not allowing a minority of anti-intellectuals a platform to bog down progress is a good step. I hope other networks decide to pick up on such an approach.
As mentioned in the TYT video, John Oliver did a sketch where he wants a debate, he just thinks the debate should be mathematically representative. and just see what happens...
What say you OT? Should news networks shun climate change skeptics like they're members of the Flat Earth Society? Or should they be allowed on air in a "mathematically representative debate"? Or do you think the on air debates of opposing views with 50-50 representation are adequate for news stations?