BBC to reduce deniers coverage

Tommy Tainant

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
23,242
Reaction score
3,694
Points
290
Location
Y Cae Ras
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..
 

MisterBeale

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
25,769
Reaction score
6,802
Points
280
This is why you are brainwashed by the queen, the government and the establishment and Americans are smarter.
 

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,673
Reaction score
3,050
Points
1,050
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..
 
OP
Tommy Tainant

Tommy Tainant

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
23,242
Reaction score
3,694
Points
290
Location
Y Cae Ras
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.
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
60,131
Reaction score
8,962
Points
2,030
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.
That the weather has changed for 4.5 billion years is not substantial evidence to disprove the AGW junk science?



.
 

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,673
Reaction score
3,050
Points
1,050
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.
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?
 
Last edited:

polarbear

I eat morons
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
2,376
Reaction score
408
Points
140
Location
Canada
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..
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.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,345
Reaction score
7,231
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
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 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.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,345
Reaction score
7,231
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
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.
That the weather has changed for 4.5 billion years is not substantial evidence to disprove the AGW junk science?



.
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.

 

Johnlaw

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
6,798
Reaction score
2,681
Points
350
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.
 

Frankeneinstein

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2016
Messages
8,173
Reaction score
1,099
Points
280
Everyone is entitled to a point of view but it should be backed by facts to get a plaform..
Since when has europe believed everyone is entitled to a view point? when europeans decide they do not like opposing view points they shut them down, it's their history, it's in their DNA.

and as a side note, europe is not entitled to one red cent of American money nor should they get any using such nazi tactics as censorship
 

toobfreak

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
27,586
Reaction score
10,247
Points
910
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..

I guess the Brits prove once again that when you can't beat someone with the facts, just take away their voice to protest!
 

Frankeneinstein

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2016
Messages
8,173
Reaction score
1,099
Points
280
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.
I agree the debate is over, without money where do you go from here? remember when it was trump being falsely accused of silencing the media? look who it really is.
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
60,131
Reaction score
8,962
Points
2,030
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 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.
Funny jokster I have been outside today and it was gorgeous...what fucking alternative universe do you live in?



And once again a real scientist seeks the truth and doesn't close his fucking mind up like you AGW nut cases ...

.
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
60,131
Reaction score
8,962
Points
2,030
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 ?
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,896
Points
280
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.
Speaking of unsubstantiated crap...can you provide a single piece of observed, measured data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability? Or how about a single piece of observed measured data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

Those are the two foundational issues in the manmade climate change hypothesis..and neither one of them is substantiated by the first piece of actual observed, measured data. Prove me wrong...
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,469
Reaction score
4,103
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
Yuk....yuk....

Always my go-to link when the climate crusaders start saying st00pid shit....

CNN chief: People don't watch climate coverage

Where do they get that they own the landscape?

They own the big bumpy cucumber because nobody is caring about climate change:113::113:. The science doesnt transcend even a wee bit outside it's own field = it isnt mattering for dick.:flirtysmile4:
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
36,248
Reaction score
8,598
Points
1,330
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..
BBC never was a platform for deniers. It has always been a platform for believers.

You got duped again.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,345
Reaction score
7,231
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
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.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top