BBC to reduce deniers coverage

Like I said...anyone who thinks they have observed energy (of any type) moving spontaneously from a lower to a higher energy state is wrong...usually because they just aren't bright enough to figure out what they are seeing, or they forget the whole spontaneous part. You have demonstrated that you failed at both. congratulations. Call the US patent office and tell them you have observed energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.

Like I said...anyone who thinks they have observed energy (of any type) moving spontaneously from a lower to a higher energy state is wrong..

Exactly. You need work to move energy from the surface through the corona.

Thanks for bringing up an old unfinished thread. Also unfinished is his confusion where he thinks examples of spontaneous emission are stimulated emission. He boldly confuses the two in Posts #121 and #125.

He fills his posts with countless insults on my understanding of stimulated emission and says this:
phosphorescence, fluorescence, and every form of luminescence ... are stimulated emissions...not spontaneous emissions. You latched on to the term spontaneous emission with no understanding of what it actually means.

I pointed out that stimulated emission was the technology of lasers, and not luminescence. When I asked how does the bioluminescence of a jellyfish acts like a laser, he ran off leaving this unfinished thread hanging.

.
 
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..

They should get the same amount of coverage as the flat earthers.
 
Zucker over at CNN was asked 4 years ago why CNN does very little coverage about climate change on its station. His answer, "Its because there is very little interest in climate change stories.":eusa_dance::eusa_dance::eusa_dance:

The bobbleheads of the world suckered by the msm take on climate change don't get that voters take little interest in climate change. Well duh.....they know China is opening 2-3 new coal plants every month for the next 10 years.:cul2:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top