BBC to reduce deniers coverage

No more BBC platform for climate change deniers? It’d be about time | Richard Black

From time to time the BBC gets itself into an awful mess over climate change. Unnecessarily so, given that it has visited and revisited principles of good coverage, repeatedly arriving at more or less the same conclusions.

Back in 2007, a report for the BBC Trust, then the corporation’s regulator, concluded that the old bipolar world of “the climate change debate” had gone. The working model had to change, as the title put it, From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel : “the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should.” Four years later, the Trust’s review of accuracy and impartiality in science coverage , commissioned from geneticist Professor Steve Jones, reached very similar conclusions.

Both reports were accepted by BBC managers. Both contain much that is common sense. And then there are the editorial guidelines, which are very clear that the guiding principle is “due impartiality”, rather than equal weight.



Everyone is entitled to a point of view but it should be backed by facts to get a plaform..

 

This is why you are brainwashed by the queen, the government and the establishment and Americans are smarter.

 

Well we voted for brexit and you voted for trump. I call that as two wins for stupid.

 

There is no common sense in blocking opposing viewpoints..

 

That isnt what it is about. Its about not giving cranks a platform to spout unsubstantiated crap.

 

That the weather has changed for 4.5 billion years is not substantial evidence to disprove the AGW junk science?



.

 

Then you agree in blocking the IPCC reports, since they post a lot of unsubstantiated crap?

You seem to agree with the BBC, an alleged Journalistic organization, that they should block opposing viewpoints.

Do YOU know the difference between Endoheritic and Exoheretic?

 

Everyone is entitled to a point of view but it should be backed by facts to get a plaform..
Plaform? Do you give us the option to insert a Y or a T? I think the Y fits better.
But these dissenters (or even sceptics)
What is a "sceptic"? I know what a skeptic is. So I guess a "sceptic" is your new superlative for "dissenter", which in turn is another negative to the max label of anyone who disagrees with your beliefs.
Tells me how simple minded you are figuring that this BBC policy regarding what causes global warming is yet another confirmation by consensus which is supposed to substitute for scrutinizing the "evidence" the skeptics want to see, but Michael Mann etc don`t want to release. The BBC is a joke and hasn`t been what it used to be for quite a few years now and can no longer be distinguished from any of the other left wing-nut media like CNN or the NYT.

 

That is not blocking opposing view points. The first duty of a reporter is not to report that one person is telling him there is a terrible storm outside, and the second person is telling him it is a beautiful day outside. The first duty of the reporter is to go to the window and see what is happening. Then report that, and what each of the people stated. Then we can judge who is to be believed from then on. The scientists have given us accurate models of what is happening now 40 years ago. You denialists have given us nothing but political slogans and lies.

 

What an absolute dumb fuck you are. Yes the weather has changed constantly in the history of this planet. And there have been reasons for those changes. Drivers, in other words. Here, reduce your ignorance if you dare. Dollars to donuts says you do not. You are much too proud of your willful ignorance.