THE BBC was criticised by climate change sceptics yesterday after it emerged that their views will get less coverage because they differ from mainline scientific opinion.
By Nathan Rao
In a report by its governing body, the BBC Trust, the corporation was urged to focus less on opponents of the “majority consensus” in its programmes.It said coverage should not be tailored to represent a “false balance” of opinion if one side came from a minority group.
The report was partly based on an independent review of coverage by Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics at University College, London.
Although he found no evidence of bias in BBC output, he suggested where there is a “scientific consensus” it should not hunt out opponents purely to balance the story.
He highlighted climate change as an example along with the controversy over the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine potentially leading to autism.
Humm … Can you say censorship…. It is the States Line or no Line…. No the earth is not round!! You will be burned at the stake….
â€œThe idea that because scientific opinion falls largely on one side you canâ€™t have a debate is outrageous. Because thereâ€™s a strong majority in basic science doesnâ€™t mean the issue is off the table, yet the BBC says it should be.â€ -Lord Lawson.
This is exactly right! And it is at the heart of all debate about global warming, climate change, global climate disruption, whatever they’re calling it this week. How is it that the warmists can arbitrarily decide that the debate is over, and they have won? It is a complete mockery of the scientific process. I mean is it responsible to ignore a study that goes against the concensus? A concensus that was manufactured, BTW. Just because it is PC?
â€œThe point Professor Jones makes is that the scientific consensus is that it is caused by human activity. Therefore the BBCâ€™s coverage needs to give less weight to those who oppose this view, and reflect the fact that the debate has moved on to how to deal with climate change.â€
This on the other hand is complete BS. This is the scientific equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and going NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA!!!!!!
“their views will get less coverage because they differ from mainline scientific opinion” – is NOT censorship, at least on my planet.
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA!!!!!!
Funny response Neil. He will call it Juvenile but it was funny none the less.
the good news is that we finally have proof that Robbie Boy is not from this planet. Because on the Earth (aka, Terra, Big Blue Marble, World) the action taken by the BBC absolutely does meet the definition of censorship.
According to the U.S. Legal Dictionary: Censorship is the institution, system, or practice of censoring.
Censoring is the Verb form of censor. That definition is: to examine (as a publication or film) in order to suppress or delete any contents considered objectionable or undesired.
Is it legal. I believe under the current UK legal Code it probably is. But that does not necessarily make it ethical.
So Robbie Boy what planet are you from?
PS. I picked the Legal Dictionary because we are speaking in technical legal terms. You will find that Websterâ€™s and the World English Dictionary will support my thesis as well.
Keep in mind the BBC is state-run media. When the government decides to suppress a viewpoint, it certainly is censorship and this is the problem with state-run media. Fortunately for the Brits, they also have independent television networks now, but the BBC is funded by television license fees.
I agree. I think all of us need to understand what Censorship is. Most of us have a clear view of it. It can be used for good but when used a a supressive tool it trully is an evil thing.
Dan please remember that in the UK there is absoultly nothing protecting the press or freedom of speach. The citizens of the UK have no protections from the government. It is a government that has divided its powers between the Monarchy and the Parlement. And of course every officer in their military swears an oath to the Queen not the country.
Wrong again Dano. You use a very loaded word, suppression, to describe a sinple business decision, made many times a day in all media. Nobody anywhere, even with 24/7 air time, has the time to equally expose all sides of any issue. Once again, I am exposing you all to some pretty basic logic and reasoning. Do I think the media doesn’t use their powers for propaganda purposes? Of course they do, now more than ever. But to throw around false charges when there are plenty of real issues is just silliness and irresponsibility. You on the Right LOVE to play the victim every chance you get even to the point of making stuff up, more often than not. Gets real old. Time to grow up.
It WAS juvenile (to the max) and NOT funny ( to those with an actual sense of humor). How is it that instead of responding to a point of logic, you respond so inanely? An actual response would be nice for a change, but I’m not really expecting it. I am so very tired of these inane dialogues, which is why this hopefully will be my last. To Jerk below, the statement above DOES NOT constitute censorship. But you may continue in your delusional world anyway, since nothing, not even logic, will stop you from it.
My delusional view is supported by the delusionl references I used. Please explain to me how we are to ever have a reasonable discussion with or without humor if all you do is call the opposing view illogical and delusional. I took time to defend my thesis that it is Censorship and you felt it required an answer. Please explain how it is not. Keep in mind that censorship is inhearently a bad thing. It has valid and legal uses. For instance. Do you think we are getting all the fact about the raid of OBL’s compound. No, and nor should we. Censors have redacted the reports inorder to protect INTEL and operatives…ect. That being said. When a censorship policy is inacted it brings with it huge responsibilities for the censor not to abuse that power. Here in the U.S. it is an extreamly delicate situation because of the Freedom of Speach clause (FoS) in the Consitution. However, FoS does not apply to non goverment entities like the Wall Street Journal. They can legally censor there employees. Even though it is legal it may not be ethical. There is a difference between the two. This site is a private site not a government one. That is why Dan can censor who he and the site feels nessary. It may not be ethical but it is not againt the law.
So Robbie boy please grow up and start acting like an adult. Laugh ant the hummor even if it is juvenile (to the max) and start arguing the issues and points. I find you very funny. You are what keeps me coming back.
Have a great day on Mars (or what ever planet you are on), Talk to ya soon.
So alternative reality and facts are ok as long as you agree with them?
[comment deleted – moderator]
Hypocracy: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
I did not come right out and say that he is a hypocrite. I said I was implying that he is a hypocrite because of what he said previously, which was this;
“You people are fascinaitng and horrifying at the same time. I just wanted to expose you for who and what you really are via alternative reality and facts.”-RNH.
So now he says this;
“â€œtheir views will get less coverage because they differ from mainline scientific opinionâ€ – is NOT censorship, at least on my planet.”-RNH
In my opinion I think that is very hypocritical.
I don’t understand why you deleted that, it’s not a cuss word, or vulgar. Perhaps it’s mildly insulting, but no more insulting than “You people are fascinaitng and horrifying at the same time.” But you let that slide?
Nobody on this site as well as scientific research knows for certain if “Global warming” is a fact. Why not hear both sides? Of course we all know why. This article speaks volumes.
Joe you just stepped into something a lot of people step into. No one denies that global warming is a fact. What is at issue is: is it happening now, is it anthropogenic, and if so is it going to be the catastrophe that has been predicted by the IPCC? Global warmings, and global coolings have been going on in a cyclic manner for 4 1/2 billion years.
Try spelling a word correctly before pontificating, please.
Is that all you got left? Spelling zingers, really?
I responded to it because you are Mr. Anal… looking up the exact wording/definition for everything (and then twisting it to fit your own need/purpose). I just thought it was amusing. Sorry oh wise instructor and masochistic hall monitor. BTW- I was in no way hypocritical, not on this planet anyway. LESS COVERAGE still means COVERAGE. And that, oh infallible one, is NOT censorship. It is a business (as usual) decision per the freedoms, as such, for businesses to conduct their own business. Are you against that? If so, we could then have a really good and interesting discussion.
I agree. That’s my point. It is not a fact but seems to be by certain people in the media. Why don’t we hear both arguments? I only see, read, hear one side. If there an agenda that we all should be aware of? Trust your judgment Neil.
Well according to the story above, wer’e seeing just why we don’t hear both sides of the argument. In fact they think wer’e hearing too much of the sceptic view already.
This is hillarious!
Excellent! Loved it. Should be a PSA for all to see!
“In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earthâ€™s atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earthâ€™s atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.”
Dr. Richard Lindzen did this work years ago, but I’m glad to see a reminder published. I added the story to GCS. Thanks for the tip.
Two years ago almost to the day.
“JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) â€” Just five years ago, Charles Monnett was one of the scientists whose observation that several polar bears had drowned in the Arctic Ocean helped galvanize the global warming movement. Now, the wildlife biologist is on administrative leave and facing accusations of scientific misconduct. The federal agency where he works told him he was on leave pending the results of an investigation into “integrity issues.”-“
the BBC has never asked me for my opinion on global warming, the royal wedding, nor any other issue. If you would say that means my views are being censored by the mainstream news media, you are just putting an awful lot of freight on the head of that one poor word “censor.” If not, then surely the fact that a news organization makes decisions about whose opinions to report (“both sides” is a silly phrase, there are thousands of sides on any issue, more on one as complicated as AGCC) is not in itself evidence that they are practicing censorship. Of course you may believe that there is not a sufficient scientific consensus on this issue to warrant the BBCs decision, and you can believe that it is the scientific consensus but it is nevertheless wrong, but surely you believe there is SOME level of scientific consensus beyond which the BBC can and should stop taking a dissenting view seriously: The moon landing never happened, aliens harvested my organs, the earth is flat, something? In arguing that simply by making such a decision the BBC is practicing censorship, you are giving up on arguing that the facts do not merit their decision IN THIS CASE. Is it because you do not believe you need to make it or because you fear you have no better argument than the fact that the BBC is not taking what you say seriously?
Wow, that’s a straw dog argument. Why? Because I would not say you were being censored if you were never asked for an opinion by anyone. I can tell you’re a Liberal by the fact that you started out by setting up a false premise. I mean, who are you? Why would any news organization give a turd about what you think? As long as you think what they want you to think. And that is exactly the point.
When you hear the term “both sides” it is not implying that there are only two sides to an issue. What it means is that there is a prevailing view on the positive side, and that there is a prevailing view on the negative side. Not that there isn’t more than one view on either side. It is just referring to the fact that there is going to be one view on either side that has the strongest arguments.
On the “complexity” of the global warming/climate change/global climate disruption, or whatever they are going to call it next week. What did you call it? AGCC? Is that Anthropogenic Greenhouse Climate Change? That’s a new one! So I guess it should be;
On the “complexity” of the global warming/climate change/global climate disruption/anthropogenic greenhouse climate change, or whatever they are going to call it next week. It’s really not at all complicated. The IPCC said the planet is warming, and will continue to warm. The facts from obsevational and statistical data say that the IPCC has no idea what it’s talking about. See? Easy Peasy.
And we’re not talking about a handfull of nutcases that say the Earth is flat, or the Moon landing didn’t happen, or 9/11 was an inside job! No, it is a constant flow of information from thousands of sources such as scientists, peer reviewed studies, statistical and observational data that says that the predictions from the IPCC and their flawed, and unreliable computer models is BS.
Finally, I actually don’t give a rat’s rear what the BBC does, or does not do. I just don’t like being pissed on, and then told that it’s raining by news organizations, or drive by bloggers who hit and run on message boards, and websites such as you on this one.
Absent the BBC why isn’t this on our “Tele” as the call it in England? Read this on Drudge. Just where are our “investigative reporters”? Forgot, trying to ask Obama what he’s eating tonight! Will never change until there is real change.
You are so quick to call someone wrong. But when proven wrong you keep up the same mantra. What is wrong with you. The BBC has adopted a policy of giving less time to a certain view. That is censorship at face value. To say otherwise is ignorant. If you want to argue that their actions are ethical then do so. But you lose creditability in your arguments if you can not remain with in the accepted definition in accordance with valid sources such as Webster’s, Encarta, New Word English, ectâ€¦ I also donâ€™t see where demanding that words be applied in accordance with their standard meaning is being anal. Their has to be a mutual agreed upon language complete with meanings and syntax that drives any reasonable discourse. I agree we should limit spelling errors but we should be brave enough to accept the misspelling of a word or an obvious typo as a simple oops. But, when we totally murder the definition / meaning of a word then that is a different issue.
So as I have previously shown â€œcensorshipâ€ is the proper word for what the BBC is doing. I will now show that they are â€œsuppressingâ€ the opposing view as well. In Encarta the third definition of suppress is: to prevent information or evidence from becoming known, or written material from being published. That is what the BBC is doing. OK, OK I hear you at your computer yelling and screaming that they are not cutting it all off. They are still going to cover it, some. You are correct. I would love to have the logical discussion if they are ethical in how they report the news but there is o doubt that they are suppressing the flow of information to their audience. We are nor whining about it we are calling it what it is. Censorship. My question to you is this. If the science is settled then why is gained by suppressing the flow of information. Here is an analogy: If you are Driving under the speed limit what fear should you have of getting a speeding ticket. Translated: If the AGW premises is valid why should they fear the opposing view.
To end this post I will say this. The BBC has a right as a business to enact any policy they want to enact. They operate under the common laws of the UK and this current policy is probably legal. However since the BBC is a world wide news source Dan, Neil, and I have the right to question the ethics of this policy of suppressing opposing views. Just as you would have the right to support it. I just wish in that support you would bring objective assertions rather than subjective opinions.
I’m anal because I have this silly idea that words mean things.
Poor misunderestimated Neil.
Wow, is that your famous logic and reasoning at work?
You know I re-read the post from RNH above and I had to laugh.
“you are Mr. Analâ€¦ looking up the exact wording/definition for everything (and then twisting it to fit your own need/purpose).”-RNH.
Somehow looking up the exact meaning of a word is twisting it to suit my own need/purpose!!!??? Huh? Huh: Used to express interrogation, surprise, contempt, or indifference.
I guess Neil that any dissenters of “Global warming,” absent RH, are all “Anal?” According to R Hood we are. Been called worse. Back on point. Where have you read this in America absent the Drudge Report? Enough said.
Wrong again boy. I specified Neil as anal, and it fits. Why must you radical hyperbolize and become drama queens at the drop of a hat? Reality not to your liking so you gotta make crap up? Guess so. And Neil- you (oh why do I keeep playing these childish games with you childish people? (There Joe, there’s finally a plural swipe for ya to cry about-or should I call you Paul, not that it matters, you sound exactly the same either way). FYI to Neil, you did twist the definition of censorship to suit your needs. I know you don’t believe that, but that is the unreality you like too live in, apparenlty. And that is one definition of childish, just sayin’.
How did he twist it RBH… HOW!!!! come on you make blanket statements all the time and never back them up. That is being intelectually dishonnest.
And for your information I am the one who calle it censorship not Neil. He agreed with me. I have defended my use of the word and its meaning. But of course we are twisting it to mean something else. Well how are we wrong? Tell us. Your toung is sharp but you logic is dull. I often tell you that I read your posts because they make me laugh. Well it is true. However you may think I am laughing with you. No. I laugh at you.
“Neil, you did twist the definition of censorship to suit your needs. I know you donâ€™t believe that, but that is the unreality you like too live in, apparenlty.”-RNH
I’d like to know when I did that, how I did that, and where I did that. Because I’m pretty shure that I didn’t. Oh, and RNH,what was that you were saying to JAK about spelling?
You can’t even recognize or admit another very obvious bias?! It was when you equated whole censorship with a media entity giving LESS (not ZERO) coverage to one given viewpoint, and they even provided the reasoning behind that decision, which they didn’t need to do. I keep forgetting- you don’t “get” logic…. And Joeboy Paul gives another biased faux-victim view of the “real” world below. I am so done with you argumentative children. As of now. Have fun in your little radical rascals playpen.
You show you ignorance once again. Where in the reconigized definations does censorship require total supression of political speach. IE to ban the use of a specific term is sensorship. In the ’60s southeren news papers used the “N” word as a descriptor. It was banned from use. That is a censor police and and example of ethical censorship. To limit the discussion on any topic is censorship. Can you not see that. I think that the BBC is being Journalisticly Unethical by limiting the discussion of the sicence of AGW. It is not a closed matter. As I discussed in a rational conversation with an environmentalist yesterday. The computer models that have lead countried to spend millions to limit CO2 output have been shown to have inaccurate results. The science is showing that the theories of AGW are false. YES the GLOBE IS WARMING. But, what is actually causing it is not a closed matter. To censor the opinion of other scietists by limiting there voice in a public form is unethical.
In reality Rob, you are attempting to censor us here by casting us as illogical demented right wingers that don’t know what we are talking about. That is an attempt to discredit our opinions and facts inorder to support yours. Sorry you don’t like it but that is the way it is. And yes I do it to. Again I am laughing as I write this.
You know, it’s weird. I went back and looked at all my posts to this story and I am not seeing where I did what you say I did. I think you may be confusing someone elses comments with mine.
I think you are losing it.
Oh I know I butchered that one… I have fat fingers and was trying to be fast. I have so much real work to do this time of year that I don’t have time for my guilty pleasures of responding to RNH.
I was not talking about you JAK. I know you are not the world’s greatest speller, but neither am I. I have to re-read everything I write and I make a lot of corrections to my own writing. And even then I still miss things. If I did not take the time to do that, one may not tell a difference from mine to yours.
What I was saying is that RNH is losing it. He is swearing up and down that I said something that, after carefully re-reading all of my posts, I did not say.
I still butchered it. I have noticed that on several strings lately Robbie Boy has jumped around and credited the wrong people with what is said. I do believe that this lends credit to the theroy that RNH is not a singular person. I am almost posiative that he/she is a screen name that is maintained by a left wing activist group. When I blog over at Forbs I see this quite often but it is very obvious. With RNH it is much harder to see.
That is a theory I have postulated before, but there is really no way to prove it.
Twisted thoughs equal twisted minds? This Rob boy will never change. Is it Joe Biden that is speaking? Forgot, we are not to say “Terrorist” for example according to the MSM and this Rob guy seems to buck the trend and lambasts everyone that does not agree with constant asinine put downs? That’s right, I forgot, Liberals can say bombastic statements with no whisper by the MSM but a conservative cannot and if so will be put on a stick in a fire pit and blasted over the intire world. May have to go back and hide from those bad conservatives? They obviously say evil things, but what a liberal says is never reported and accepted as standard behavior.
Double standard????? Will let you decide. “Muzzeling sceptics” was the issue raised, remember??
As to the Rob “Boy” guy posts, we now see why we are in the conundrum we are in. With his mind-set, there will never be real discourse absent accepting his “playpen” ideas and I stress “Playpen,” His own words. Isn’t that where children play?
As Al Gore said “Case Settled.” By the way, where has old Albert been hiding lately? England I assume, or in his mansion? Wonder why??
RNH is a plant pure and simple. Let’s leave it at that.
Oh? Is he relatated to Robert Plant? Just kidding!
Global warming is a fact
“Writer and editor with focus towards environmental issues and problems”
Global warming is a fact. You are right! It is indeed a fact. So is global cooling. Both have been going on in a cyclic manner for 4 1/2 billion years.
Just what exactly is your point?
Daniel is pushing his BLOG. Other than that he has no point. OBTW his BLOG is full of alarmist propaganda.
I know, I looked. I was tempted to comment on one of the stories there, but then I noticed I would have been the only commentor.
No. “Richard” Plant. Just kiddin’ as well!
What no “comment deleted”? Just gone? Come on! Richard Plant was a German writer who was gay. Is it not logical that RNH would have more in common with him than Robert Plant? I’m not saying, or implying that RNH is gay, I really would not care if he was. Besides I’m just trying to prod RNH into commenting after he’s said he would not be commenting anymore. I know he’s reading this. He can’t -not comment. It’s in his DNA. He’s addicted!
Yes, Mr. Esteban, alleged writer and editor, you have “Issues and problems,” explaining with no facts behind your statement.
Facts schmacks! Good ol’ W didn’t need no stinking facts! (oops, old news, so sorry!)