BBC to reduce deniers coverage

[gipper]

Black is right. The debate at whether anthropogenic climate change is occurring is over. The only question is what to do about it. All media should follow suit. Deniers should be relegated to the trash heap of history, and the sooner the better.

Once again how much is humans causing it and how much is natural varience ?

Well now, since we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 40%, from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm, and the CH4 from around 750 ppb to over 1850 ppb, I would have to say that we are the primary cause of the warming that we are seeing. Particularly since the sun is currently putting out slightly less energy. So we should be cooling. But we are warming, that says that we are the cause of the present warming.

What warming? Where?

 

[TNHarley]

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..

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.

WTF do you think man changing natural earth evolution is? Come on dude.. Fuck

 

[Old Rocks]

Harley, yes, man is changing our climate. Other life has done this in the past in a very large way, so what would prevent us from doing it? Physics does not care whether the GHGs come from flood volcanics or smokestacks.

 

[Old Rocks]

Black is right. The debate at whether anthropogenic climate change is occurring is over. The only question is what to do about it. All media should follow suit. Deniers should be relegated to the trash heap of history, and the sooner the better.

Once again how much is humans causing it and how much is natural varience ?

Well now, since we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 40%, from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm, and the CH4 from around 750 ppb to over 1850 ppb, I would have to say that we are the primary cause of the warming that we are seeing. Particularly since the sun is currently putting out slightly less energy. So we should be cooling. But we are warming, that says that we are the cause of the present warming.

What warming? Where?

Those three words indicate just how stupid and deluded you truly are. Essentially, over the whole world.

 

[skookerasbil]

Black is right. The debate at whether anthropogenic climate change is occurring is over. The only question is what to do about it. All media should follow suit. Deniers should be relegated to the trash heap of history, and the sooner the better.

Once again how much is humans causing it and how much is natural varience ?

Well now, since we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 40%, from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm, and the CH4 from around 750 ppb to over 1850 ppb, I would have to say that we are the primary cause of the warming that we are seeing. Particularly since the sun is currently putting out slightly less energy. So we should be cooling. But we are warming, that says that we are the cause of the present warming.

What warming? Where?

Those three words indicate just how stupid and deluded you truly are. Essentially, over the whole world.

Human racism is ghey

 

[mamooth]

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

No, they should block _retarded_ viewpoints, such as flat-eartherism, homeopathy, antivaxxism, 9/11 truthism, thedeepstatehatesTrump nuttery, and denialism.

The media should absolutely not ignore such issues. The media should educate the public on how various personality disorders lead people to embrace such conspiracy retardation.

 

[fncceo]

In today's news ... you've had enough to eat.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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

No, they should block _retarded_ viewpoints, such as flat-eartherism, homeopathy, antivaxxism, 9/11 truthism, thedeepstatehatesTrump nuttery, and denialism.

The media should absolutely not ignore such issues. The media should educate the public on how various personality disorders lead people to embrace such conspiracy retardation.

What do skeptics deny...….?

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

No, they should block _retarded_ viewpoints, such as flat-eartherism, homeopathy, antivaxxism, 9/11 truthism, thedeepstatehatesTrump nuttery, and denialism.

The media should absolutely not ignore such issues. The media should educate the public on how various personality disorders lead people to embrace such conspiracy retardation.

I wonder when you guys will quit embarrassing the fuck out of yourself...

 

[skookerasbil]

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

No, they should block _retarded_ viewpoints, such as flat-eartherism, homeopathy, antivaxxism, 9/11 truthism, thedeepstatehatesTrump nuttery, and denialism.

The media should absolutely not ignore such issues. The media should educate the public on how various personality disorders lead people to embrace such conspiracy retardation.

I wonder when you guys will quit embarrassing the fuck out of yourself...

Hey man I hope not.....I have waaaaay too much fun in here!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

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..

When the observed FACTS call out alarmists as liars... what do you do.... SILENCE THOSE TELLING IT......

That's how dictators and fools act! Bravo BBC, you have no credibility.... You have shown your nothing more than a whore bowing to the highest bidder...

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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

No, they should block _retarded_ viewpoints, such as flat-eartherism, homeopathy, antivaxxism, 9/11 truthism, thedeepstatehatesTrump nuttery, and denialism.

The media should absolutely not ignore such issues. The media should educate the public on how various personality disorders lead people to embrace such conspiracy retardation.

Denial seems to be a key part of the rwnj mindset. They do seem to have politicised this issue. I was told that it was linked to oil and coal donations to the GOP.

 

[SSDD]

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

No, they should block _retarded_ viewpoints, such as flat-eartherism, homeopathy, antivaxxism, 9/11 truthism, thedeepstatehatesTrump nuttery, and denialism.

The media should absolutely not ignore such issues. The media should educate the public on how various personality disorders lead people to embrace such conspiracy retardation.

Denial seems to be a key part of the rwnj mindset. They do seem to have politicised this issue. I was told that it was linked to oil and coal donations to the GOP.

Actually tommy, denial seems to be part and parcel of the climate loon mindset. You claimed that climate skepticism is unsubstantiated bullshit. I asked you to substantiate the man made climate change hypothesis by providing a single piece of observed, measured data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability. I can't help but notice that you don't seem to be able to post even a single piece of actual evidence that supports your belief in man made climate change.

Do you know the meaning of unsubstantiated?

I also asked for a single piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. Again...no data seems to be forthcoming. Not that I expected it. I have been asking for some observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability for decades and have yet to see it...that is because it doesn't exist.

Man made climate change is the poster child for unsubstantiated bullshit and every time I ask for a bit of observed, measured data to support the hypothesis you guys just prove my point again and again.

So since there is no observed, measured data to support the man made climate change hypothesis....it would seem that it is a political issue...not one of science...and since you seem to believe that it is real, in the face of a complete lack of actual evidence in support of it, it would appear that you are in denial over the lack of actual evidence to support your beliefs.

It is always the same with you guys...you like to talk...and call people names like denier, but when you are asked for some real data to support your claims, you just can't step up to the plate and provide it...

Being in denial over the complete lack of observed, measured evidence that supports your belief is truly sad... Let me guess...you didn't even know that there is no observed, measured evidence supporting your belief...you simply accepted it based on the fact that people who share your politics told you that it was true and you either never bothered to check, or aren't bright enough to see that you have been scammed.

 

[mamooth]

What do skeptics deny...….?

You seem confused. We're the skeptics. Skeptics look at all evidence with a critical eye, as we do. You deliberately discard any evidence that contradicts your political cult, hence you're a denier, the opposite of a skeptic.

 

[skookerasbil]

What do skeptics deny...….?

You seem confused. We're the skeptics. Skeptics look at all evidence with a critical eye, as we do. You deliberately discard any evidence that contradicts your political cult, hence you're a denier, the opposite of a skeptic.

Huh? That post makes absolutely no sense at all!

That's a totally new one in here.....an alarmist calling themselves a skeptic. Talk about utter fuckedupedness!!

 

[Sunsettommy]

What do skeptics deny...….?

You seem confused. We're the skeptics. Skeptics look at all evidence with a critical eye, as we do. You deliberately discard any evidence that contradicts your political cult, hence you're a denier, the opposite of a skeptic.

You couldn't answer the question.

 

[SSDD]

What do skeptics deny...….?

You seem confused. We're the skeptics. Skeptics look at all evidence with a critical eye, as we do. You deliberately discard any evidence that contradicts your political cult, hence you're a denier, the opposite of a skeptic.

Which evidence would that be hairball? I am still waiting for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports AGW over natural variability, or a single piece of observed evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

None exists and about the best I can get from you wackos is the same old lie making the claim that such evidence has already been presented..and I am sure that you will tell it again....lying not apparently being any big deal to you...but when I ask you to please bring a bit of it forward, you won't be able to as no such evidence exists and we will be left, once again, with the same old empty claim and no real evidence to back it up...

So go ahead hairball...tell another lie...tell us that it has already been provided...

 

[cnm]

Invincible ignorance is invincible.

 

[cnm]

Once again how much is humans causing it and how much is natural varience ?

The best knowledge available is that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change. If that's not good enough for you, you may have to invent or deny something.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Orwell tried to warn people that the crazy left wingers will censor opposing views.
Liberals are a threat to freedom and democracy.