BBC to no longer give airtime to climate change deniers

  • 89 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by lamprey263 (23547 posts) -

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?

#2 Edited by Aljosa23 (24851 posts) -

Heard about this a few days, 100% agree. I think it's dumb to give fringe opinions a pedestal to project their shit.

#3 Edited by vl4d_l3nin (928 posts) -

Good. Maybe they will get some actual dialog on the BBC. We can stop wasting time, before it wastes us.

#4 Edited by jasean79 (2371 posts) -

Ummm...Yay for them?

BBC Channel in the US is one that I don't ever watch. So, makes no difference to me.

#5 Posted by outworld222 (2415 posts) -

Ya. Just because someone has a well spoken opinion, doesn't mean their opinion is correct or should be put on tv.

Look at the West Coast we are in serious drought, there is 12-18 months of water according to this article:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-famiglietti-southern-california-drought-20140709-story.html

#6 Edited by fmobliv06 (2381 posts) -

I totally agree with you OP. We're beyond the point as a society where this should be a debate. We should be talking about preventative measures and ways to fix the changes we've made to the atmosphere. Giving air time to climate change deniers, or those "smogging" people who've been putting giant smokestacks on their trucks to protest Obama, is just validating someone's blatant refusal to look at facts. Regardless of politics, hopefully everyone agrees that we need to start thinking long-term.

And yes @outworld222, it's been a pretty brutal year out west. Hot and dry and no signs of slowing down. The Bay is trying hard to curb water usage, but in big cities like SF, Oakland, LA etc. it can be really tough, because it's not like people can just stop watering their gardens or washing their cars when many of them live in apartments and already take public transit.

#7 Edited by playmynutz (5982 posts) -

Fox News needs more climate change debate

#8 Edited by edinsftw (4238 posts) -

Yea lets look at the facts. The earth goes through cycles. This is the only 100% provable fact to any of this.

Al Gore, the one who started all this with global warming made a lot of claims. One of them was that the class in which he was presented this idea(with no evidence) had changed his life. You know the one he got a D in. The one where the teacher refuted his own theory(that had no evidence) later. The one that made him rich, and environmentalist scientists based data off of for the next 5 years. Then when they found the basis for all this data was incorrectly done it was changed to the name climate change.

Then the companies/scientists that are being funded by environmentalists of predicting climate change have been found in emails to omit data so its more favorable to the environmentalist side. If someone does this you really cannot trust any data they put out. I am also sure this has happened on both sides. The fact is anyone who is interested in doing research for this has an ulterior motive of money. What else can you get payed well by being a geologist? Nothing, and that is why many in the field have skewed results in favor of either side.

Many of the things both sides have said in this are stupid. Neither side knows enough to predict anything accurately.

#9 Posted by GazaAli (22694 posts) -

Damn liberals, they're more and more consolidating their growing dominance and marginalization of the opposite camps.

#10 Posted by toast_burner (21522 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

Damn liberals, they're more and more consolidating their growing dominance and marginalization of the opposite camps.

Is this a joke?

#11 Posted by Iszdope (9884 posts) -

I don't get it.

#12 Posted by GazaAli (22694 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

Damn liberals, they're more and more consolidating their growing dominance and marginalization of the opposite camps.

Is this a joke?

Yes you're such a genius for figuring out this much on your own.

I bet you're feeling disappointed right now.

#13 Posted by toast_burner (21522 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@toast_burner said:

@GazaAli said:

Damn liberals, they're more and more consolidating their growing dominance and marginalization of the opposite camps.

Is this a joke?

Yes you're such a genius for figuring out this much on your own.

I bet you're feeling disappointed right now.

I have to be honest I don't get the joke. Is there a connection between liberalism and global warming?

#14 Posted by Senor_Kami (8380 posts) -

You could also interpret this as BBC coming out and saying they will no longer give airtime to people and concepts they don't like, which seems like a horrible path to take.

#15 Posted by toast_burner (21522 posts) -

You could also interpret this as BBC coming out and saying they will no longer give airtime to people and concepts they don't like, which seems like a horrible path to take.

You could say that, but then you would be wrong.

#16 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150727 posts) -

You could also interpret this as BBC coming out and saying they will no longer give airtime to people and concepts they don't like, which seems like a horrible path to take.

This is my concern. I think anyone with an education knows climates change over time. But it's troubling that the BBC is okay with limited ideas....no matter how silly. Don't like the precedent.

#17 Posted by toast_burner (21522 posts) -

@Senor_Kami said:

You could also interpret this as BBC coming out and saying they will no longer give airtime to people and concepts they don't like, which seems like a horrible path to take.

This is my concern. I think anyone with an education knows climates change over time. But it's troubling that the BBC is okay with limited ideas....no matter how silly. Don't like the precedent.

The BBC has never claimed to be a place for people to discus their opinions. It tries to present itself as a more objective news site.

Facts don't have alternative views.

#18 Posted by Serraph105 (27952 posts) -

Good for bbc, with the way the news outlets have come to prize unbiased attitudes it's become increasingly rare for any of the major sources to become biased towards the facts.

#19 Edited by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

Lol they want to create balance my ass. You can't have balance when only one side is allowed in the discussion and only a fool would think otherwise. They sure are trying their ass off to push this climate change agenda aren't they.

#20 Edited by Serraph105 (27952 posts) -

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

Lol they want to create balance my ass. You can't have balance when only one side is allowed in the discussion and only a fool would think otherwise. They sure are trying their ass off to push this climate change agenda aren't they.

If someone were trying to convince you of something by giving you an unrealistic view of the picture would you honestly continue to listen to that person in future discussions?

#21 Posted by toast_burner (21522 posts) -

Lol they want to create balance my ass. You can't have balance when only one side is allowed in the discussion and only a fool would think otherwise. They sure are trying their ass off to push this climate change agenda aren't they.

It's not about balance. It's about being truthful.

#22 Posted by Motokid6 (5442 posts) -

Keep this in mind..

#23 Edited by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

Lol they want to create balance my ass. You can't have balance when only one side is allowed in the discussion and only a fool would think otherwise. They sure are trying their ass off to push this climate change agenda aren't they.

If someone were trying to convince you of something by giving you an unrealistic view of the picture would you honestly continue to listen to that person in future discussions?

And who is to say it is an unrealistic view, the other side? LOL thanks for the laugh.

#24 Posted by toast_burner (21522 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

Lol they want to create balance my ass. You can't have balance when only one side is allowed in the discussion and only a fool would think otherwise. They sure are trying their ass off to push this climate change agenda aren't they.

If someone were trying to convince you of something by giving you an unrealistic view of the picture would you honestly continue to listen to that person in future discussions?

And who is to say it is an unrealistic view, the other side? LOL thanks for the laugh.

97% of studies show that man made climate change is real.

#25 Posted by GazaAli (22694 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@toast_burner said:

@GazaAli said:

Damn liberals, they're more and more consolidating their growing dominance and marginalization of the opposite camps.

Is this a joke?

Yes you're such a genius for figuring out this much on your own.

I bet you're feeling disappointed right now.

I have to be honest I don't get the joke. Is there a connection between liberalism and global warming?

If you don't get the joke then I can't really do much to help you do so. It just means you don't have a sense of humor or that you're incapable of laughing at anything humorous I might say.

#26 Posted by Serraph105 (27952 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

Lol they want to create balance my ass. You can't have balance when only one side is allowed in the discussion and only a fool would think otherwise. They sure are trying their ass off to push this climate change agenda aren't they.

If someone were trying to convince you of something by giving you an unrealistic view of the picture would you honestly continue to listen to that person in future discussions?

And who is to say it is an unrealistic view, the other side? LOL thanks for the laugh.

In the case of climate change "The other side" is 97% of climatologists otherwise known as experts.
However this works for any discussion, if I were to sit you down and show you a bunch of evidence pointing towards the conclusion that unicorns exist and continually had a single person debate a separate individual on whether or not my evidence is correct would you still consider me to be a credible source of information? Perhaps you might until you realized that not only do 97% of zoologists disagree with my evidence, but that the people had in favor of my evidence were considered fringe groups.

#27 Posted by Aljosa23 (24851 posts) -

#28 Posted by toast_burner (21522 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@toast_burner said:

@GazaAli said:

@toast_burner said:

@GazaAli said:

Damn liberals, they're more and more consolidating their growing dominance and marginalization of the opposite camps.

Is this a joke?

Yes you're such a genius for figuring out this much on your own.

I bet you're feeling disappointed right now.

I have to be honest I don't get the joke. Is there a connection between liberalism and global warming?

If you don't get the joke then I can't really do much to help you do so. It just means you don't have a sense of humor or that you're incapable of laughing at anything humorous I might say.

So because someone doesn't think you're funny that means they must not have a sense of humour? I know you're an egoistic douche but that's stupid even for you.

#29 Posted by lamprey263 (23547 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@toast_burner said:

@GazaAli said:

Damn liberals, they're more and more consolidating their growing dominance and marginalization of the opposite camps.

Is this a joke?

Yes you're such a genius for figuring out this much on your own.

I bet you're feeling disappointed right now.

I have to be honest I don't get the joke. Is there a connection between liberalism and global warming?

I don't know about in the rest of the world, but in America the climate change denialism is big with right wing conservatives here, but that's not to say all right leaning conservatives are in denial of climate change, and that's also not to say all liberals believe in climate change either. Though there does exist a disproportionate trend in the social-political divide.

There's a connection though to the social-political divide and their view on climate change, partially in whether the government through regulatory bodies like the EPA should have a say in how a private business conducts its business. Conservatives typically favor more business freedom and less government regulation, and that really shouldn't play a part in whether one believes in man-made climate change or not but it does.

#30 Posted by deeliman (2423 posts) -

But it was cold 4 days ago, so global warming can't be true!

#31 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

You could also interpret this as BBC coming out and saying they will no longer give airtime to people and concepts they don't like, which seems like a horrible path to take.

Airtime is limited. The BBC also doesn't give airtime to round-earth deniers and people who deny that smoking causes cancer. This move allows the network to move on to a practical debate on global warming about real things.

#32 Edited by Nuck81 (5846 posts) -

If Satan is not behind Global Warming, then why is Hell so hot???

Checkmate Scientits!!!

#33 Posted by GazaAli (22694 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@toast_burner said:

@GazaAli said:

@toast_burner said:

@GazaAli said:

Damn liberals, they're more and more consolidating their growing dominance and marginalization of the opposite camps.

Is this a joke?

Yes you're such a genius for figuring out this much on your own.

I bet you're feeling disappointed right now.

I have to be honest I don't get the joke. Is there a connection between liberalism and global warming?

If you don't get the joke then I can't really do much to help you do so. It just means you don't have a sense of humor or that you're incapable of laughing at anything humorous I might say.

So because someone doesn't think you're funny that means they must not have a sense of humour? I know you're an egoistic douche but that's stupid even for you.

You didn't say that you didn't find the joke funny, you explicitly said that you didn't get the joke which is in this instance an expression of your lack of sense of humor. Its really straightforward: I said a joke and you failed to apprehend it which is an expression of the fact that your sense of humor is lacking within the confinement of this topic and this particular joke. Its nothing to be ashamed of or to try to deny, our sense of humor will inevitably fail us at some point when its not in tiptop shape, or in the context of a specific topic that is of cultural connotations that we're unaware of or in the case that we're not really that exposed to or knowledgeable in the subject matter of the joke.

Furthermore, I said its either that or your inability to stop being an uptight ass and consider that I might be saying something humorous rather than attempting to stir shit up. Considering your reply that contained unwarranted personal attacks and resorted to insults right away, that doesn't sound too far fetched now does it?

#34 Posted by GazaAli (22694 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

@GazaAli said:

@toast_burner said:

@GazaAli said:

Damn liberals, they're more and more consolidating their growing dominance and marginalization of the opposite camps.

Is this a joke?

Yes you're such a genius for figuring out this much on your own.

I bet you're feeling disappointed right now.

I have to be honest I don't get the joke. Is there a connection between liberalism and global warming?

I don't know about in the rest of the world, but in America the climate change denialism is big with right wing conservatives here, but that's not to say all right leaning conservatives are in denial of climate change, and that's also not to say all liberals believe in climate change either. Though there does exist a disproportionate trend in the social-political divide.

There's a connection though to the social-political divide and their view on climate change, partially in whether the government through regulatory bodies like the EPA should have a say in how a private business conducts its business. Conservatives typically favor more business freedom and less government regulation, and that really shouldn't play a part in whether one believes in man-made climate change or not but it does.

That was basically the premise of the joke. Its not that assenting to climate change as a fact is part of liberal ideology, and its not that denial of climate change is part of conservatism, but one would have to be blind in order not to see the acute disproportionality in the number of people who deny/accept climate change as a fact at both sides of the American social-political divide. The reasons behind that proportionality may very well have no actual ideological connotations, but its there nonetheless.

#35 Edited by EPICCOMMANDER (460 posts) -

I heard about this a while ago. About damn time.

@GazaAli said:

Damn liberals, they're more and more consolidating their growing dominance and marginalization of the opposite camps.

The time for making jokes about AGW has long since past my friend. Like, seriously, this shit isn't funny anymore.

#36 Edited by lamprey263 (23547 posts) -
@EPICCOMMANDER said:

I heard about this a while ago. About damn time.

@GazaAli said:

Damn liberals, they're more and more consolidating their growing dominance and marginalization of the opposite camps.

The time for making jokes about AGW has long since past my friend. Like, seriously, this shit isn't funny anymore.

no, it continues to be funny because those people are morons, it's sad at the same time though because Americans still elect politicans who form policy and their stance on this is one like "God said he wouldn't flood the Earth again so since it's in the Bible it must be true", but I kind of get the point to an extent, by even acknowledging these people you give them power, but outright ignoring people like that isn't going to change things much, not giving them the platform of the TV news to make the debate look more balanced does a considerable amount more

making them the subject of a joke though does something in the social consciousness to not give credence to their position on the subject, and considering who and what we're talking about that's healthy

#37 Posted by SUD123456 (4446 posts) -

John Stuart Mill would be appalled and so am I. The truth doesn't need to hide behind majority consensus, no matter how large that consensus is; otherwise, we would still be in the stone age.

#38 Edited by EPICCOMMANDER (460 posts) -
@lamprey263 said:
@EPICCOMMANDER said:

I heard about this a while ago. About damn time.

@GazaAli said:

Damn liberals, they're more and more consolidating their growing dominance and marginalization of the opposite camps.

The time for making jokes about AGW has long since past my friend. Like, seriously, this shit isn't funny anymore.

no, it continues to be funny because those people are morons...Americans still elect politicans who form policy and their stance on this is one like "God said he wouldn't flood the Earth again so since it's in the Bible it must be true",

Right and those people who continue to say it's BS should be, at this point, shot. Like it's not funny anymore to deny it and, more importantly, refuse and even block action aimed at trying to reduce the problem. The fact that if we don't do anything and sea levels rise enough to put coastal Miami, Florida underwater, and the $400 billion we will lose because of it, turns any funny feelings I have into outright contempt for the people who say that it's nonsense to think such an event will occur, even when it is undeniable, and has been for over a decade.

#39 Posted by ferrari2001 (16876 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

Ummm...Yay for them?

BBC Channel in the US is one that I don't ever watch. So, makes no difference to me.

BBC America is like one of the greatest channels on television. You should watch it sometime. Although it doesn't have news. Unfortunately we are stuck with CNN, Fox, and MSNBC.

#40 Edited by IronBeaver (1986 posts) -

Man made climate change is real, and to continue to invite people on to debate it perpetuates the notion that there is warranted skepticism out there, which there is not.

#41 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

John Stuart Mill would be appalled and so am I. The truth doesn't need to hide behind majority consensus, no matter how large that consensus is; otherwise, we would still be in the stone age.

We'd still be in the stone age if we were stuck debating the merits of cooking food and whether or not the wheel is just a fad.

#42 Posted by ferrari2001 (16876 posts) -

@SUD123456 said:

John Stuart Mill would be appalled and so am I. The truth doesn't need to hide behind majority consensus, no matter how large that consensus is; otherwise, we would still be in the stone age.

We'd still be in the stone age if we were stuck debating the merits of cooking food and whether or not the wheel is just a fad.

The wheel is a fad. I want my floating cars damit.

#43 Edited by Aljosa23 (24851 posts) -

@ferrari2001 said:

@jasean79 said:

Ummm...Yay for them?

BBC Channel in the US is one that I don't ever watch. So, makes no difference to me.

BBC America is like one of the greatest channels on television. You should watch it sometime. Although it doesn't have news. Unfortunately we are stuck with CNN, Fox, and MSNBC.

Whoa, really? On PBS in Ontario (and I think Buffalo?) there's a broadcast of BBC World News America every week day 6pm.

It's pretty fantastic.

#44 Posted by ferrari2001 (16876 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@ferrari2001 said:

@jasean79 said:

Ummm...Yay for them?

BBC Channel in the US is one that I don't ever watch. So, makes no difference to me.

BBC America is like one of the greatest channels on television. You should watch it sometime. Although it doesn't have news. Unfortunately we are stuck with CNN, Fox, and MSNBC.

Whoa, really? On PBS in Ontario (and I think Buffalo?) there's a broadcast of BBC World News America every week day 6pm.

It's pretty fantastic.

PBS here has the pbs news hour. It's not really all that good. Very shot, just a snapshot of the news rather then in depth analysis of events.

#45 Posted by chessmaster1989 (29193 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@SUD123456 said:

John Stuart Mill would be appalled and so am I. The truth doesn't need to hide behind majority consensus, no matter how large that consensus is; otherwise, we would still be in the stone age.

We'd still be in the stone age if we were stuck debating the merits of cooking food and whether or not the wheel is just a fad.

The wheel is a fad. I want my floating cars damit.

lol flying cars

teleportation is where its at get with the times

#46 Edited by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@SUD123456 said:

John Stuart Mill would be appalled and so am I. The truth doesn't need to hide behind majority consensus, no matter how large that consensus is; otherwise, we would still be in the stone age.

We'd still be in the stone age if we were stuck debating the merits of cooking food and whether or not the wheel is just a fad.

The wheel is a fad. I want my floating cars damit.

lol cars

This is how I travel

Carbon free emissions biatch

#47 Edited by edinsftw (4238 posts) -

The top is data from 1999, pre-climate change from NASA. The Second is made after 2000, after global warming. The data points somehow changed???

Also much of the actual data has not matched up with previous projections. CO2 emmisions charts do not match up with actual temperatures leading to the fact that CO2 does not effect temperature nearly as much as previously thought. You know what is actually more of a threat to CO2 emmissions than fossil fuels? Deforestation. Deforestation causes many parts to change to dessert.

This is a graph of the EPAs heatwave index. During the 1930s there was a tiny increase in emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels, but at the time agriculture had a massive increase. During this increase of agriculture, deforestation increased more rapidly than we have seen in in the last 50 years.

The other thing to look at is where this deforestation happened and where temperatures rose. Temperatures rose in regions where deforestation was happening by a significant amount, enough to change the heatwave index that year. Now that I have said all this, its also good to reduce fossil fuels, but do so in a way that will not negatively impact the economy. You really have to wait to enforce green procedures until technology has caught up to support it or you will have much worse consequences.

#48 Edited by wis3boi (31294 posts) -

Good. Not everything has a 'debate' or 50/50 split, or even another side at all. Sick of these news shows letting utterly insane ideas be tossed around amongst actual experts when interviewed.

Oh, wanna bring on an astrophysicist and talk about the big bang? Better bring in some random theologian to 'balance it out'.

Global climate change? Get a climatologist, a geologist, and some extreme blogger with a tin foil hat, and interrupt them all every five seconds to ask stupid interview questions.

If you want to present scientific ideas and have discussions on the news, you better have demonstrable, testable, observable evidence with you

#49 Posted by JimB (204 posts) -

In 1970 the first earth day the fear was global cooling and leading talk was how to melt the ice caps to warm the planet. Fast froward to the 1990's it is now global warming and the threat is the ice caps are melting. Since those two items did not work it is now climate change. which will cover anything the weather does. What we really have is fear mongering on steroids. All disagreement must be silenced because it does not fit in with the agenda. Science is based on fact and all of the facts must be calculated in to the equation to get the correct answer. Climate change is an agenda driven scare tactic to scare uninformed individuals to cover for the greatest wealth transfer scheme ever created. . .

#50 Edited by GazaAli (22694 posts) -

I heard about this a while ago. About damn time.

@GazaAli said:

Damn liberals, they're more and more consolidating their growing dominance and marginalization of the opposite camps.

The time for making jokes about AGW has long since past my friend. Like, seriously, this shit isn't funny anymore.

What are you talking about? To this day global warming deniers seem to be the target of jokes and derision in excess.

Besides, who gives a shit if no one jokes about this or that topic anymore? So long as I'm at least mildly amused.