Yet another reason not to pay your BBC TV license and to not pay attention to the Center for American Progress.
Readers may recall the nuclear reaction over the one time I appeared on The PBS Newshour. Seeing an alternate opinion caused Dunning -Kruger conniption fits and screams of “false balance” for daring to let a climate skeptic speak. Apparently, what I said upset the world view of too many “deep thinkers”. Like the climate action standard bearers at the Center for American Progress, Joe Romm and Daniel Weiss (more on them follows), readers might also recall how Gavin Schmidt refused to be on the same set with Dr. Roy Spencer.
Andrew Montford reports:
In his Mail on Sunday article today David Rose reveals that the BBC – at least in Scotland – has a new policy of protecting climatologists from challenge on air.
Josh weighs in below as well.
A BBC executive in charge of editorial standards has ordered programme editors not to broadcast debates between climate scientists and global warming sceptics.
Alasdair MacLeod claimed that such discussions amount to ‘false balance’ and breach an undertaking to the Corporation’s watchdog, the BBC Trust.
Mr MacLeod, head of editorial standards and compliance for BBC Scotland, sent an email on February 27 to 18 senior producers and editors, which has been obtained by The Mail on Sunday.
It reads: ‘When covering climate change stories, we should not run debates / discussions directly between scientists and sceptics.
More here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587072/Eureka-How-magic-doughnut-fakes-sun-save-planet-But-Chinese-thanks-billions-spend-eco-power-gravy-train.html
Josh sums up what future BBC news debates might look like.
Speaking of non-debates, The folks at the Center For American Progress decided they can’t sit in the same set of chairs with a climate skeptic.
Fox Business:
‘A discussion about the science of the stuff with Climate Depot skeptic Marc Morano (once tabbed by Media Matters as the “Climate Change Misinformer of the Year”) and Center for American Progress Director of Climate Strategy Daniel J. Weiss, who refused to debate directly with Morano, and chided us for airing his views.’
What a weasel.
I recall fondly what Weiss had to say about Climategate, he really doesn’t need to worry about Morano or any other skeptic. He’s his own worst enemy.
Gavin runs a close second in ducking weasel antics:
These antics where climate alarmists rig the news program so they don’t have to appear in a one-on-one situation where an uncomfortable question might be asked, is in my opinion, the ultimate act of cowardice and intellectual dishonesty.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well….nothing like publicly admitting the science doesn’t stand up
In retreat.
One must avoid the possibility of exposure.
David Suzuki’s massive gaff in Australia has shown many, formerly supportive, people what a phoney Dr Fruitfly really is.
BBC is totally exposed, Frank Zappa; “I am the Slime”, is public broadcasting.
For “THE CAUSE” communication is important.
They tell us so repeatedly.
But only one way communication, from them to us.
Preaching, was the old description of such “communication”.
Each of these own goals, by an increasingly shrill and desperate cult of calamitous climate, tells me only the useful idiots are left in this game.
They are like a soccer team playing an imaginary opponent, while losing horribly.
Ok, how about debate between climate scientists then? Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Michaels, they’re all clmate scientists. Gavin is NOT a climate scientist, he’s a mathematician. So where’s the false balance again?
Unfortunately you are unable, as a British resident, to not pay your TV license. It’s no longer a license fee and has been a ratified tax and is required by law to be paid to H.M. Revenue.
Whilst you may choose not to it’s a huge fine and possible jail time if you intentionally avoid it. There is no loophole.
“It only takes one to prove me wrong.” -Albert Einstein
“No one can prove me wrong.” -Gavin Schmidt.
*ratified tax since 2005
Daniel J Weiss is a weasel?
That is an insult to weasels.
Perhaps Climate Agnotologist
Stuart Varney good job.
Too bad they didn’t have more time. The more Weasel talked the more obvious it became that he had an agenda to make the world a more stupid place.
Check out this news Cast by Brian Lilley of Sun News Media on March 14, 2014, archived here:
He is a part of the MSM but on the reality edge of it.
It is fantastic.
http://bcove.me/g2wisg3t
The only type of balance those in the top heavy BBC administration care about is their bank balances.
£277 million ($450 million) in playoffs for executives surplus to requirements over the past 7 years tells you a lot about those who guide the supposedly unbiased BBC.
When it comes to climate, the BBC has its own form of ‘Newspeak’, no opportunity is ever missed to disseminate their climate propaganda and brainwash the ill informed.
‘false balance’ – you can say that again!
“and breach an undertaking to the Corporation’s watchdog, the BBC Trust.”
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
(George Orwell)
So the climate (alarmist) Ssientists have gone full blown kindergarten because they have gotten their feelings hurt. They shouldn’t be mad at the skeptics, they need to be mad Mother Nature isn’t cooperating. It’s bad enough that drama created by 4-6 year olds happen every day over things as silly as peanut butter and crackers, and that it seems to have crossed over to the climate (alarmist) scientists responses. I am guessing they are tired of debating and losing the argument because their message hasn’t exactly panned out.
Anthony, FYI, positive discrimination against skeptics has not only been in force at the BBC for a number of years but is actually POLICY.
In Newswatch (a BBC television programme) on November 29th, 2010, David Jordan, the lead author of the BBC editorial guidelines, admitted that when it comes to climate change, the word ‘impartiality’ has a different meaning to the dictionary definition. In the programme, David Jordan actually says: “If both sides of the debate were to be reflected it would give the impression that both sets of views were equal and we don’t have to approach impartiality in climate change in that way”.
At one time you could view this interview here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vjxv3/Newswatch_29_10_2010
…but it seems to have disappeared now.
H/T to Paul Westhaver for providing the link to Brian lilley of Sun news. I recommend everbody watch it. Warms the cockles of your heart
Good. At least this “emperor” knows he has no clothes.
I don’t hold myself in the same category as the skeptic giants, Lindzen, Spencer, Christie, Singer, and others, but I do my small part to carry the skeptic message to my fellow chemical engineers, via speeches and blogging. I did have a brush with a famous warmist, though, Dr. Michael E. Mann, where he also ducked a TV interview. That episode from May, 2012, was written up here at WUWT; an excerpt follows:
“Just a few words about the television interviews, that Dr. Mann declined and I accepted. I was asked by a very nice young lady to step out of the convention hall into the hallway, where she confirmed that I had asked the question of Dr. Mann. She then said that was an excellent question, and a news reporter from PBS would like to interview me, would I consent to the interview? I said I would be happy to do so. I met the reporter, David, and I apologize to him that I didn’t catch the last name. He’s a very interesting and quite nice fellow. We went through the preliminaries, my name, occupation, and he asked my affiliation. I told him I’m in solo practice and was here on my own, not representing any organization. That seemed to perplex him, and I stated that I am just one of many thousands of climate skeptics. Some others wanted to attend today but could not for various reasons, so I came alone. He seemed more relieved when he asked what kind of law I practice and I told him Climate Change law.
David (Nazar) then decided he wanted to interview Dr. Mann first, then me second to get the skeptic view. He asked me to step away and return in 10 minutes. I went back to the presentation and took my seat. I could see Dr. Mann across the room, and he went out for a few minutes then returned. So, I went back out to find David and his camera-man. At that point, David told me that he did not interview Dr. Mann after all. He said, and I’m paraphrasing here, that Dr. Mann refused the interview and got angry. I believe David told him that he was to be interviewed first, then me, although I was not identified by name but by the question I asked. It could be that Dr. Mann did not want to be interviewed then have a skeptic follow him, with no opportunity to rebut. This is just speculation on my part, though.”
Links to the posts for those who may have missed it:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/19/a-first-hand-report-on-dr-michael-manns-embarrasing-disneyland-episode/
also http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/18/the-question-put-to-dr-mann-at-disneyland-today/
and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/18/dr-mann-goes-to-disneyland/
jolan says:
March 23, 2014 at 11:00 am
H/T to Paul Westhaver for providing the link to Brian lilley of Sun news. I recommend everbody watch it. Warms the cockles of your heart
Paul Westhaver says:
March 23, 2014 at 10:30 am
Check out this news Cast by Brian Lilley of Sun News Media on March 14, 2014, archived here:
He is a part of the MSM but on the reality edge of it.
It is fantastic.
http://bcove.me/g2wisg3t
Perhaps this great video could be a separate post?
I know failure to debate is “alarmist” policy 101. However, to actually watch an adult like Schmidt publicly behave in such an manner is stunning. Refusing to talk until Spencer left the TV stage was childish and should have been both personally and professionally humiliating (to Schmidt). Stossel did a great service by highlighting this silly little man.
I’m just a working slob (ex-CFO, etc) so I really don’t understand “academic culture”, but I assumed guys like me got taxed to support tenured ivory tower academics (like Schmidt) so they could (among other things) research, argue and test tough and/or important issues.
At least in Schmidt’s case, I guess not (yea, I know he works for tax-payer funded NASA, but it’s still research).
One reason modern civilization crawled out of the Middle Ages was acceptance of a theory & data-based scientific method. All Schmidt needed to do was discuss how real data supports his theory better than it supports Spencer’s. Instead, he babbles on about “sky is falling” hypotheticals based on derived data from computer models that obviously can’t predict Mother Nature. This is not debate – it’s making it up as you go along.
Climastroligists never have, and never will win any debate. They are too encumbered by misrepresentations, pseudoscience, and lies. They know they can’t win, so have to make up bogus excuses. It’s pathetic.
It’s all a further demonstration of the real motive behind AGW, which isn’t climate or the environment at all – it’s leftist autocracy and elitist kleptocracy. Of course dissent can’t be allowed in the dictatorship which the AGW crowd seeks to establish and maintain.
At some point, AGW and its exponents need to be attacked on civil rights grounds. Here in the USA we have the First Amendment, but not sure what basis there is in the UK, Canada, Australia, or the European Union countries.
Wow! Wouldn’t this be considered a human rights violation in some countries? I believe it would be under the Canadian Human Rights Act in Canada. It is a clear statement of discrimination under both “groups” and individuals but who knows how it would be applied here, never mind what the law is in Britain for a government Crown Corporation.
To John V. Wright:
I’m not an expert at it, but I have heard that the WayBac Machine captures most or all “disappeared” stuff on the ‘net.
See if you can give it a whirl, and get a link to an archive copy.
Mark H.
“zootcadillac says:
March 23, 2014 at 10:21 am
Unfortunately you are unable, as a British resident, to not pay your TV license. ”
—-
To clarify, you of course can… so long as you do not watch live TV as it is broadcast.
DVD’s etc via the set & catch-up online… fine.
However, granted, BBC/TVL/Capita don’t like that, and can make life tiresome trying to promote misinformation on the actual obligations via credulous media, and indeed can go further by trying to gain access to your home to try and get you to prove your innocence. On occasion with police support that can seem ill-informed.
This may be set to change, thanks to the new bill introduced, that will take a year to rattle about, making all these shenanigans civil rather than criminal.
BBC/TVL/Capita don’t like this either.
Because it sets a (devil always in detail) precedent that things can change, and the BBC has resisted that for decades, perhaps explaining all the fixes it gets itself into, but seem unaccountably, and uniquely, to survive.
As it likely will this one, where senior management imposes on editorial, flat out contradicting the army of anonymous ‘BBC spokespersons’ claiming this would never happen each day it clearly does.
However, one day what the BBC says will not tally enough with what it always actually does so often and so far, the dam will burst and the entire public of the UK will cease accepting a very compromised version of objective information and education, in clear breach of the Charter obligations.
It possible even a few of the PPE grads in Parliament, and especially on ‘The Future of the BBC’ committee currently convening, may twig too.
It’s not just about finding a new way to uniquely fund the BBC. It is about spotlighting what this money gets used for and how.
Currently, little of value or integrity.
Hansen’s not a climate “scientist” either, he’s an astrophysicist.
And so it goes. This all for show. The end has been predetermined. The debate is truly long since over, not because there are no counter arguments, rather because debate will not be allowed. Our only hope is the internet. What do we have that might go viral?