Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BBC staff ordered to stop giving equal airtime to climate deniers

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 119 posts

Re: BBC staff ordered to stop giving equal airtime to climate deniers

#51

Post by grosslystated »

olouv wrote: post #39

I've always had mixed feelings regarding man-made climate change, seeing it as a marketed mainstream show. For me, this broad, somewhat blind, frightening threat is the ecological equivalent of the idea of terrorism. I can't help myself to think that there are a lot of other ecological issues, even more critical, and affecting our societies today. Water/soil pollution for instance does kill millions of people a year.…

> I don't think anyone wins when you remove/censor contrarian views.

I agree, and I don't think the solution is to silence discourse, but to hold everyone to the same high standard.

If you publish a paper that gets citations like the rest of the scientific community, then I heartily defend your bid to be heard on BBC, climate change denier or not.

Re: BBC staff ordered to stop giving equal airtime to climate deniers

#52

Post by muuh-gnu »

Steko wrote: post #26
pling wrote: post #11

That sucks. If someone has an opinion, it should be free to be debated. The only way we can fight ignorance in science is with public debate. If someone wants to deny it, fine (otherwise it's not science) but put the hypothesis on the table and let people actually test it and debate it publicly. The proves only that the BBC has various political opinions and agendas and is not an unbiased source (as many people surel…

"it should be free to be debated." Right but it shouldn't be subsidized and given an artificial equal weight with a vast scientific consensus of experts. That's misleading which is the opposite of what journalists are supposed to do.

Journalists arent supposed to involuntarily spread goverment mandated propaganda. If the vast scientific consensus isnt able to make their point even to journalists and have to force them to print state mandated "truth", then maybe, just maybe their point isnt defensible in the first place.

It is hard to sell "we need global socialism or we're all gonna die!" when your whole argument amounts to "when I press this button, the computer predicts the future". Appealing to empty formalities like peer review, consensus and other social-engineerable groupthink mantras simply doesnt cut it if you want money, which is what the warmists are primarily after. They want insane amounts of money and the only way they prove it is by repeatedly asserting their authority to the point that now journalists have to be bullied into obedience.

Re: BBC staff ordered to stop giving equal airtime to climate deniers

#53

Post by rstupek »

lemming wrote: post #25
pling wrote: post #11

That sucks. If someone has an opinion, it should be free to be debated. The only way we can fight ignorance in science is with public debate. If someone wants to deny it, fine (otherwise it's not science) but put the hypothesis on the table and let people actually test it and debate it publicly. The proves only that the BBC has various political opinions and agendas and is not an unbiased source (as many people surel…

People have tested it and debated it publicly, and 97% of those professionally qualified to test it and debate it are of the same opinion.

Well if 97% of those professionally qualified to test it have one opinion, wouldn't it be prudent to hear the opinions and data for the 3% who don't? Sometimes the 97% can be wrong. A classic example of this is the scientist who determined that ulcers within the stomach are caused by bacteria and not stomach acid. His opinions were beaten down by everyone doing research into how to curb stomach acid. As to the climate issue, I have no opinion as I haven't looked at the evidence myself.

Re: BBC staff ordered to stop giving equal airtime to climate deniers

#54

Post by dragonwriter »

jonnathanson wrote: post #44
tieTYT wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Devil's advocate: When's the last time a fringe* conspiracy theorist's agenda has been able to effect legislature? EDIT: Added the word "fringe". As in, a conspiracy theory that doesn't get media coverage.

In fairness, and quite unfortunately, I don't think we can call climate change deniers a "fringe." A substantial proportion of the American public denies climate change in one way or another, be it denial of anthropogenic climate change, denial of climate change altogether, or dismissal of the significance of climate change. I don't have the latest figures in front of me, but in the not-too-distant past, deniers poll…

> In fairness, and quite unfortunately, I don't think we can call climate change deniers a "fringe."

In terms of science we can.

In terms of politics or society we can not, but we can distinguish political reporting from science reporting, even on a scientific issue which has political implications.

Re: BBC staff ordered to stop giving equal airtime to climate deniers

#55

Post by rbanffy »

pling wrote: post #35
lemming wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have tested it and debated it publicly, and 97% of those professionally qualified to test it and debate it are of the same opinion.

That doesn't mean they're right or proposing different hypothesis' is suddenly forbidden. That's not science. Aristotelian physics was superseded by Newtonian Physics. That's science. I'm not suggesting that anyone will come up with a different conclusion but there's no excuse for this stupid dogma and religion getting in the way of rationality. Feynman is doing 500rpm in his grave...

> That doesn't mean they're right or proposing different hypothesis' is suddenly forbidden. That's not science.

While I agree with you on principle, it would be awkward to give precisely 99.93% of the airtime to scientists who agree we have an impact in global climate change and dividing the rest among all the possible explanations (from the "it's a natural phenomenon" to "God is doing it" and even the "we are not sure the climate is actually changing").

Re: BBC staff ordered to stop giving equal airtime to climate deniers

#56

Post by skylan_q »

iterationx wrote: post #41

Soon they'll throw you in jail for questioning it, like they do with the Holocaust. Won't that be progressive!

I've known a few people who have actually suggested that we start doing this.

People think athiesm is far too prominent, but I think we live in a time in history that will be viewed as more dogmatic than any other. "Science" is no longer a method of discovery. It's now a new God.

Re: BBC staff ordered to stop giving equal airtime to climate deniers

#57

Post by ciclano »

zeteo wrote: post #43

Hmm let's play "recognize the phenomenon": 1. An important truth will cause cataclysmic consequences because it's not recognized by the general populace. 2. The deeper aspects of this truth are in the possession of an elite. 3. Only the elite is qualified to speak about this truth. 4. The elite is self-selected and meets in regular councils that issue binding pronouncements. 5. The only solution is for the populace t…

Looks like C) a b-movie screenplay.

Re: BBC staff ordered to stop giving equal airtime to climate deniers

#58

Post by iterationx »

skylan_q wrote: post #56
iterationx wrote: post #41

Soon they'll throw you in jail for questioning it, like they do with the Holocaust. Won't that be progressive!

I've known a few people who have actually suggested that we start doing this. People think athiesm is far too prominent, but I think we live in a time in history that will be viewed as more dogmatic than any other. "Science" is no longer a method of discovery. It's now a new God.

Crichton said it best, https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/SPD/crichton.html

Re: BBC staff ordered to stop giving equal airtime to climate deniers

#59

Post by scribu »

zeteo wrote: post #43

Hmm let's play "recognize the phenomenon": 1. An important truth will cause cataclysmic consequences because it's not recognized by the general populace. 2. The deeper aspects of this truth are in the possession of an elite. 3. Only the elite is qualified to speak about this truth. 4. The elite is self-selected and meets in regular councils that issue binding pronouncements. 5. The only solution is for the populace t…

Nitpick: I think organized religion (a group of people) could be more easily compared with "the scientific establishment" (also a group of people) instead of with "the scientific method" (an abstract idea).

Re: BBC staff ordered to stop giving equal airtime to climate deniers

#60

Post by div »

logfromblammo wrote: post #38

I think this is a dangerous precedent for media coverage of science. If there is any doubt in your mind, you never read what Feynman had to say about Millikan's experimental results for measurement of elementary charge. Some scientists cheat at science, so they can be more popular. And this is why we don't trust conclusions until after they are independently repeated. If someone were to produce real, verifiable exper…

The other side is not being completely blackballed, they just get less airtime.

Also, some of the dissenters on this particular issue have a vested economic interest in their dissent, and are not really looking for truth.

Post reply on HN