BBC to reduce deniers coverage

[Wyatt earp]

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

Hey, lying bitch, it is not the left wing that is trying to shut down the press. It is the treasonous fat senile old orange clown. Shutting down the press is the first desire of a Fascist. And it is not the left wing that has a leader whose speeches are measured in lies per minute. It is not the left wing that is kissing Putin's ass. You 'Conservatives' are condoning treason, indeed, reveling in it.

So that's what you got out of the OP ? Damn you are getting senile ...


Let's go slow for you, the BBC is trying to limit speech which it is in their right according to British law.


.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Only government has the authority and capability to limit speech, through punitive measures and force of law.

Private entities have no such authority; one cannot be ‘arrested’ by the BBC and ‘tried’ in a BBC court.

And again, there are ample other means of communication available to those so ignorant and stupid as to deny the fact of climate change – no one’s speech is being ‘limited.’

Bullshit BBC is the only thing they have that reaches the masses and they are limiting free speech and who denies the climate changes?


Name me one person in the world ..


.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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

Hey, lying bitch, it is not the left wing that is trying to shut down the press. It is the treasonous fat senile old orange clown. Shutting down the press is the first desire of a Fascist. And it is not the left wing that has a leader whose speeches are measured in lies per minute. It is not the left wing that is kissing Putin's ass. You 'Conservatives' are condoning treason, indeed, reveling in it.

So that's what you got out of the OP ? Damn you are getting senile ...


Let's go slow for you, the BBC is trying to limit speech which it is in their right according to British law.


.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Only government has the authority and capability to limit speech, through punitive measures and force of law.

Private entities have no such authority; one cannot be ‘arrested’ by the BBC and ‘tried’ in a BBC court.

And again, there are ample other means of communication available to those so ignorant and stupid as to deny the fact of climate change – no one’s speech is being ‘limited.’

Bullshit BBC is the only thing they have that reaches the masses and they are limiting free speech and who denies the climate changes?


Name me one person in the world ..


.

In the Uk we have at least 4 national tv news outlets apart from the BBC.

 

[SSDD]

Funny, that would seem to be most true of impotent deniers like yourself. Why are you here, shouting into am echo chamber? Why are you not producing science to challenge the accepted theories?

Already have...by the wheelbarrow full. To bad you don't read anything that doesn't agree with your cult leaders.

So once again, you acknowledge that you can't produce a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports your belief that we are seeing man made climate change vs natural variability...I understand. Must suck to not be able to produce anything observed or measured to support your "accepted" hypothesis.

You know what eventually kills crappy hypotheses?...Lack of observed measured data to support them.

 

[SSDD]

“I won’t go on the BBC if it supplies climate change deniers as ‘balance’”

Correct.

Opposing views on an issue merit balance when both sides can support their position with facts and objective, documented evidence; those hostile to the fact of climate change can provide neither.

Quite to the contrary. It is those who believe in man made climate change who can't produce a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.

Do feel free to prove me wrong. Show me a single shred of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variably...or a single piece of observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

I am not asking for proof...I am not asking for an overwhelming body of evidence...I am just asking for a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability or some actual evidence that supports the claim that CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm up.

You seem to believe that such evidence exists so lets see a single piece of it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

“I won’t go on the BBC if it supplies climate change deniers as ‘balance’”

Correct.

Opposing views on an issue merit balance when both sides can support their position with facts and objective, documented evidence; those hostile to the fact of climate change can provide neither.

Quite to the contrary. It is those who believe in man made climate change who can't produce a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.

Do feel free to prove me wrong. Show me a single shred of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variably...or a single piece of observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

I am not asking for proof...I am not asking for an overwhelming body of evidence...I am just asking for a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability or some actual evidence that supports the claim that CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm up.

You seem to believe that such evidence exists so lets see a single piece of it.

Are you still looking for an academic who agrees with your "one-way only" flow of energy theory?

That was some good stuff.

Have you ever posted a source that DIDN'T refute your own claims?

 

[SSDD]

“I won’t go on the BBC if it supplies climate change deniers as ‘balance’”

Correct.

Opposing views on an issue merit balance when both sides can support their position with facts and objective, documented evidence; those hostile to the fact of climate change can provide neither.

Quite to the contrary. It is those who believe in man made climate change who can't produce a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.

Do feel free to prove me wrong. Show me a single shred of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variably...or a single piece of observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

I am not asking for proof...I am not asking for an overwhelming body of evidence...I am just asking for a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability or some actual evidence that supports the claim that CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm up.

You seem to believe that such evidence exists so lets see a single piece of it.

Are you still looking for an academic who agrees with your "one-way only" flow of energy theory?

That was some good stuff.

Have you ever posted a source that DIDN'T refute your own claims?

Don’t need any of that. All the empirical evidence agrees with me. The fact that academics believe the emperors clothes are beautiful means squat.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All the empirical evidence agrees with me.

If that is the case, then your next move should be simple:

Publish.

Link them here, after.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

“I won’t go on the BBC if it supplies climate change deniers as ‘balance’”

Correct.

Opposing views on an issue merit balance when both sides can support their position with facts and objective, documented evidence; those hostile to the fact of climate change can provide neither.

Quite to the contrary. It is those who believe in man made climate change who can't produce a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.

Do feel free to prove me wrong. Show me a single shred of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variably...or a single piece of observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

I am not asking for proof...I am not asking for an overwhelming body of evidence...I am just asking for a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability or some actual evidence that supports the claim that CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm up.

You seem to believe that such evidence exists so lets see a single piece of it.

Are you still looking for an academic who agrees with your "one-way only" flow of energy theory?

That was some good stuff.

Have you ever posted a source that DIDN'T refute your own claims?

Don’t need any of that. All the empirical evidence agrees with me. The fact that academics believe the emperors clothes are beautiful means squat.

Don’t need any of that

Of course not. It's you against the world.

All the empirical evidence agrees with me.

The fact that the Sun can be seen through the corona and the Earth can emit through the thermosphere
is more proof that you're wrong.

The fact that academics believe the emperors clothes are beautiful means squat.

Says the nude guy with no sources.

 

[SSDD]

All the empirical evidence agrees with me.

If that is the case, then your next move should be simple:

Publish.

Link them here, after.

And yet another indication that this conversation is way over your head. Clearly, you don't have any idea what the conversation between myself and toddster is about. Here, let me help you out...when I say all the empirical evidence agrees with me, I am referring to every single observation and measurement of spontaneous energy movement ever made indicating that energy flow is a gross one way movement. There are no observations, or measurements of energy moving simultaneously in two directions. If you care to contradict me, then post a single observation and measurement of energy spontaneously moving simultaneously in two directions.

 

[Wuwei]

when I say all the empirical evidence agrees with me, I am referring to every single observation and measurement of spontaneous energy movement ever made indicating that energy flow is a gross one way movement. There are no observations, or measurements of energy moving simultaneously in two directions. If you care to contradict me, then post a single observation and measurement of energy spontaneously moving simultaneously in two directions.

You are wrong. A chemical glow stick can spontaneously emit light from a cold source to a warmer object. Any kid has seen that empirical evidence. Also look up phosphorescence and fluorescence. Those are examples showing that energy will flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object while simultaneously receiving energy from the outside at any ambient temperature.

 

[SSDD]

when I say all the empirical evidence agrees with me, I am referring to every single observation and measurement of spontaneous energy movement ever made indicating that energy flow is a gross one way movement. There are no observations, or measurements of energy moving simultaneously in two directions. If you care to contradict me, then post a single observation and measurement of energy spontaneously moving simultaneously in two directions.

You are wrong. A chemical glow stick can spontaneously emit light from a cold source to a warmer object. Any kid has seen that empirical evidence. Also look up phosphorescence and fluorescence. Those are examples showing that energy will flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object while simultaneously receiving energy from the outside at any ambient temperature.

Still don't know the difference between a spontaneous and a non spontaneous process. No big surprise there. You lost it last time and you have lost it again. Not interested in further educating you. If you believe you see evidence of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm, then you are being fooled because you simply aren't understanding what you are seeing. It never happens...it hasn't been observed, it hasn't been measured. Learn what spontaneous means and learn to apply it to what you see.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

when I say all the empirical evidence agrees with me, I am referring to every single observation and measurement of spontaneous energy movement ever made indicating that energy flow is a gross one way movement. There are no observations, or measurements of energy moving simultaneously in two directions. If you care to contradict me, then post a single observation and measurement of energy spontaneously moving simultaneously in two directions.

You are wrong. A chemical glow stick can spontaneously emit light from a cold source to a warmer object. Any kid has seen that empirical evidence. Also look up phosphorescence and fluorescence. Those are examples showing that energy will flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object while simultaneously receiving energy from the outside at any ambient temperature.

Still don't know the difference between a spontaneous and a non spontaneous process. No big surprise there. You lost it last time and you have lost it again. Not interested in further educating you. If you believe you see evidence of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm, then you are being fooled because you simply aren't understanding what you are seeing. It never happens...it hasn't been observed, it hasn't been measured. Learn what spontaneous means and learn to apply it to what you see.

Still don't know the difference between a spontaneous and a non spontaneous process.

Is the Sun's surface radiating thru the hotter corona, spontaneous or non-spontaneous?

Is the Earth's surface radiating thru the hotter thermosphere, spontaneous or non-spontaneous?

If you believe you see evidence of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm, then you are being fooled because you simply aren't understanding what you are seeing.

Is the Handbook of Modern Sensors fooled because they don't understand how sensors work?
Why are you the only one with your unique understanding of energy movement?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All the empirical evidence agrees with me.

If that is the case, then your next move should be simple:

Publish.

Link them here, after.

And yet another indication that this conversation is way over your head. Clearly, you don't have any idea what the conversation between myself and toddster is about. Here, let me help you out...when I say all the empirical evidence agrees with me, I am referring to every single observation and measurement of spontaneous energy movement ever made indicating that energy flow is a gross one way movement. There are no observations, or measurements of energy moving simultaneously in two directions. If you care to contradict me, then post a single observation and measurement of energy spontaneously moving simultaneously in two directions.

You published yet, professor?

oh, that's right, you have zero education or experience in any of the scientific fields.

It's going to be an uphill battle for you, cry baby.

 

[Wuwei]

when I say all the empirical evidence agrees with me, I am referring to every single observation and measurement of spontaneous energy movement ever made indicating that energy flow is a gross one way movement. There are no observations, or measurements of energy moving simultaneously in two directions. If you care to contradict me, then post a single observation and measurement of energy spontaneously moving simultaneously in two directions.

You are wrong. A chemical glow stick can spontaneously emit light from a cold source to a warmer object. Any kid has seen that empirical evidence. Also look up phosphorescence and fluorescence. Those are examples showing that energy will flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object while simultaneously receiving energy from the outside at any ambient temperature.

Still don't know the difference between a spontaneous and a non spontaneous process. No big surprise there. You lost it last time and you have lost it again. Not interested in further educating you. If you believe you see evidence of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm, then you are being fooled because you simply aren't understanding what you are seeing. It never happens...it hasn't been observed, it hasn't been measured. Learn what spontaneous means and learn to apply it to what you see.

I'm using the accepted physics definition of spontaneous emission. You are obviously not.

Spontaneous_emission

Spontaneous emission is the process in which a quantum mechanical system (such as an atom, molecule or subatomic particle) transitions from an excited energy state to a lower energy state (e.g., its ground state) and emits a quantum in the form of a photon.

For example, ... there are different forms of luminescence ... fluorescence ... phosphorescence​

A glowstick uses a spontaneous chemiluminescence process... Have you ever seen a kid with a chemical glowstick? You can hold it in your hand, and it will illuminate something too hot to touch? That refutes your claim.

Are you old enough to remember some watches had radium dials that would excite a phosphor and spontaneously glow and show the numbers. You can't get more spontaneous than radioactivity. The visible illumination from a cold watch can reach your warm eyeballs. That is energy flowing spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

 

[SSDD]

Still don't know the difference between a spontaneous and a non spontaneous process.

Is the Sun's surface radiating thru the hotter corona, spontaneous or non-spontaneous?

Clearly it is non spontaneous. Why do you suppose so much money is being spent on discovering the cause of that mystery? I don't see anyone saying "clearly, it is just an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cooler object to a warmer object...do you?...other than you that is.

Is the Earth's surface radiating thru the hotter thermosphere, spontaneous or non-spontaneous?

You think the atmosphere is warmer than the surface except in rare instances of temperature inversion? Not surprising.

Is the Handbook of Modern Sensors fooled because they don't understand how sensors work?

Alas, it is you goobs who don't know how sensors work...which is one of the reasons you are so easily fooled by instrumentation.

 

[SSDD]

You published yet, professor?

oh, that's right, you have zero education or experience in any of the scientific fields.

It's going to be an uphill battle for you, cry baby.

So still nothing but impotent name calling and logical fallacies from you. Why does that not surprise me. At least wuwei and toddster attempt to argue their points..failed attempts because there is no observed, measured evidence supporting them, but attempts none the less.

You are in the weakest, most impotent and inept category of believers....you are a useful idiot. You simply yammer on about how there is manmade climate change based on nothing more than your belief and the fact that people you perceive as more intelligent as you told you that it was true.

 

[SSDD]

I'm using the accepted physics definition of spontaneous emission. You are obviously not.

Actually, you are using the only definition you could find that didn't shut your stupidity down in plain language. This one allows you to spout your nonsense based on the fact that most people simply wouldn't understand it.

Even though you clearly don't understand your own definition, it is, in essence, stating: A spontaneous process is capable of proceeding in a given direction without needing to be driven by an outside source of energy.

A glowstick uses a spontaneous chemiluminescence process... Have you ever seen a kid with a chemical glowstick? You can hold it in your hand, and it will illuminate something too hot to touch? That refutes your claim.

And like your idiot battery in a flashlight example, what, exactly do you believe is spontaneous about a kid cracking a glass cylinder inside a plastic cylinder and shaking up two chemicals? Explain how you think that is any more spontaneous than turning on a flashlight...then there is the part about the spontaneous process being able to proceed without the necessity of outside intervention. If your glow stick is actually a spontaneous process...why does it "run down"? In order to be spontaneous, it must start on its own and be self sustaining...

Are you old enough to remember some watches had radium dials that would excite a phosphor and spontaneously glow and show the numbers. You can't get more spontaneous than radioactivity. The visible illumination from a cold watch can reach your warm eyeballs. That is energy flowing spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Again...not a spontaneous process. You just jump on any shiny object you happen by and present it as evidence don't you? Have you ever, even once in your life, bothered to actually check something out before you say it?

Radium is manufactured commercially by the electrolysis of their molten salts...what exactly do you think is spontaneous about that?

You know...there is a reason that you don't seem to be able to put up a single argument that proves that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm...Care to know what it is? IT IS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN YOU IDIOT!!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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..

When they can't argue against a point, Progressives resort to book burning

 

[Wuwei]

I'm using the accepted physics definition of spontaneous emission. You are obviously not.

Actually, you are using the only definition you could find that didn't shut your stupidity down in plain language. This one allows you to spout your nonsense based on the fact that most people simply wouldn't understand it.

Even though you clearly don't understand your own definition, it is, in essence, stating: A spontaneous process is capable of proceeding in a given direction without needing to be driven by an outside source of energy.

A glowstick uses a spontaneous chemiluminescence process... Have you ever seen a kid with a chemical glowstick? You can hold it in your hand, and it will illuminate something too hot to touch? That refutes your claim.

And like your idiot battery in a flashlight example, what, exactly do you believe is spontaneous about a kid cracking a glass cylinder inside a plastic cylinder and shaking up two chemicals? Explain how you think that is any more spontaneous than turning on a flashlight...then there is the part about the spontaneous process being able to proceed without the necessity of outside intervention. If your glow stick is actually a spontaneous process...why does it "run down"? In order to be spontaneous, it must start on its own and be self sustaining...

Are you old enough to remember some watches had radium dials that would excite a phosphor and spontaneously glow and show the numbers. You can't get more spontaneous than radioactivity. The visible illumination from a cold watch can reach your warm eyeballs. That is energy flowing spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Again...not a spontaneous process. You just jump on any shiny object you happen by and present it as evidence don't you? Have you ever, even once in your life, bothered to actually check something out before you say it?

Radium is manufactured commercially by the electrolysis of their molten salts...what exactly do you think is spontaneous about that?

You know...there is a reason that you don't seem to be able to put up a single argument that proves that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm...Care to know what it is? IT IS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN YOU IDIOT!!!!!

Ah, yes. Resorting to ad hominem attack when you know you are wrong.
You resort to reinventing physics when you it doesn't fit with your own preconceived idea.

Here is the scientific definition again.

Spontaneous emission is the process in which a quantum mechanical system (such as an atom, molecule or subatomic particle) transitions from an excited energy state to a lower energy state (e.g., its ground state) and emits a quantum in the form of a photon.

For example, ... there are different forms of luminescence ... fluorescence ... phosphorescence...​

If you want to talk about science you must use the scientific definitions. You can't make up your own definition. The above definition says nothing about what preceded the observation of luminescence. If you think something man-made can never be spontaneous after the fact, then you are saying no reaction produced in a laboratory is spontaneous because lab experiments are man made. Prior non-spontaneity, my friend is not in the scientific definition of spontaneous. You are not speaking science; you are trying to reinvent your own version of fake science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still don't know the difference between a spontaneous and a non spontaneous process.

Is the Sun's surface radiating thru the hotter corona, spontaneous or non-spontaneous?

Clearly it is non spontaneous. Why do you suppose so much money is being spent on discovering the cause of that mystery? I don't see anyone saying "clearly, it is just an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cooler object to a warmer object...do you?...other than you that is.

Is the Earth's surface radiating thru the hotter thermosphere, spontaneous or non-spontaneous?

You think the atmosphere is warmer than the surface except in rare instances of temperature inversion? Not surprising.

Is the Handbook of Modern Sensors fooled because they don't understand how sensors work?

Alas, it is you goobs who don't know how sensors work...which is one of the reasons you are so easily fooled by instrumentation.

Clearly it is non spontaneous.

Tell me more about this non-spontaneous radiation from the Sun.

Why do you suppose so much money is being spent on discovering the cause of that mystery?

Who is spending money to discover why the Sun radiates? You?

You think the atmosphere is warmer than the surface except in rare instances of temperature inversion? Not surprising.​

I think the thermosphere is hotter than the surface. You don't? Not surprising.​

​

Alas, it is you goobs who don't know how sensors work..​

The Handbook of Modern Sensors, your source, said they work by both absorbing and emitting radiation, at the same time. You're the only goob who thinks energy is always and everywhere only moving one way.
Or, in the case of equilibrium, not moving at all.
​