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.
Here is the BBC Today program I was complaining about:
http://tinypic.com/r/if7doh/8
The interviewee says that (paraphrased):
“The (IPCC) predictions indicate that the severity and frequency of these extreme events will go up”.
But this statement was never challenged by the BBC interviewer – Mr Tinsel Tits himself.
R
Leo Geiger says:
March 23, 2014 at 1:19 pm
Climate scientists avoid these types of ‘debates’ for the same reason other main stream scientists avoid ‘debating’ creationists:
http://news.discovery.com/earth/should-scientists-debate-creationists-140105.htm
Debate is a sport, not the way we decide scientifically how the world works…
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Plainly you are not a trained scientist. You’ve plainly missed that “alarmists” use inaccurate computer data, and “deniers” use Mother Nature (FYI: Creationists have philosophy, not scientific data).
I’m also guessing you forgot (or never knew) about the long-lasting debate between Einstein and Hoyle regarding the Big Bang, or between Hawking and Susskind regarding information in black holes.
Debate is a necessary and critical part of science.
1) Why are you here?
2) If “Debate is a sport, not the way we decide scientifically how the world works” then can I say the same about consensus?
3) Should sceptics avoid SkS John Cook because he believes in creationism? Or doesn’t he which would make me scratch my head.
Creationism and being sceptical that man’s greenhouse gases drove were the major drivers of the warming since 1950 are two very different things. We know creationists are wrong and we know the IPCC is wrong too. 😉 Just take a look at their continued failed projection.
@5:27 Stossel: “If you make fuel cost more that hurts poor people.”
Schmidt exposes himself as the socialist he is: “Then you give ‘it’ back as a rebate.”
What is ‘it’ and WHO gives it ‘back’? Me? Did the ones who are to do the ‘giving back’ take ‘it’ from the poor to begin with? How do you give BACK something you never had in the first place Schmidt?
This is exactly the point where these socialists get AWFULLY confused. If you are going to LOWER my productivity by increasing the cost of energy then, whether backwards or forwards, I will have LESS profit to ‘give’ to anyone.
But then again maybe Gavin will step in to make up the difference in lost government revenue and take a PAY CUT to “give back” some of his cushy salary to the poor people he cares sooo much about….?
Leo Geiger says:
March 23, 2014 at 1:19 pm
Climate scientists avoid these types of ‘debates’ for the same reason other main stream scientists avoid ‘debating’ creationists:
Yeah, no. Wrong analogy there, Leo. If anything, it is skeptics who should refuse to debate the climate scientologists, but, out of fairness, and the wish for people to hear the actual truth about climate they politely offer to debate them. But, every time a climate scientologist has debated, he’s gotten his fanny kicked, and now they are just plain CHICKEN.
John V. Wright says:
March 23, 2014 at 10:42 am
Anthony, FYI, positive discrimination against skeptics
That is not positive discrimination John, that is pure and simple discrimination.
@Chip Javert –
Being a former CFO myself at two companies, but also a former academic, I can perhaps elaborate on your thought. Yes, we are paying taxes to support no end of foolishness in academia (which foolishness prompted me to leave teaching and go get an MBA. And it is telling how isolated academia, and the elites that support it, are from reality. I don’t have to tell you that in business, if you are as wrong as these people are, you’re toast in no time. Been there done that myself, when I rescued my company from certain bankruptcy and liquidation dealing with bosses who were living in a dream world and who, by their actions, presented me with at least half a dozen moments in situations where, if I didn’t get it right, 1,200 people would have been out of work within two weeks and hadn’t the least idea that that sword of Damocles was hanging over their heads. And of course I’d have been toast along with them if I didn’t get it right.
It’s really too bad that this sort of career-killing potential doesn’t apply to these mollusks who sit there under the benevolent umbrella of academic tenure while they crank out this AGW shit and get it dead wrong every bleeping time.
In an odd way, I believe these antics actually help skeptics in the longrun. Anyone watching Schmidt can clearly see the childish unwillingness to engage in debate, like a little baby who doesn’t want to be told ‘no’. He’s turning off the very people he’s trying to save.
The more he push his agenda and force people to agree with him and pretend that only he holds the answers that will save the world (but it takes money of course), the more that people will naturally resist him.
On ‘false balance’ : Years ago, long before the “97% of scientists” propaganda, I arranged a meeting with a journalist (not ABC) in Canberra to explain to him how the climate ‘scientists’ had got it wrong. He listened OK, but explained that nothing like that would get published by his organisation because their policy was to balance published scientific information according to the perceived balance among scientists. In the case of climate science, the perception was that scientists overwhelmingly supported the mainstream view, and therefore his organisation would publish only articles and opinions that supported the mainstream position.
The way to get on air is to go into “breath-taking crisis” mode yourself. Ignore global warming, talk about the devastation of the coming Ice Age. The other option is to ignore the media, which I do, go straight to the internet and dominate the discussion.
“Mr MacLeod wrote that the reason the Trust decided that there should be no attempt by the BBC to give equal weight to opposing sides on climate change was that sceptics’ views were ‘based on opinion rather than demonstrablescientific validity’.”
As opposed to the “demonstrablescientific validity” of climate modeling.
Anthony, theirs a red rag to a bull here if ever I’ve seen one.
There’s a word in there almost as big as the famous Mary Poppins word and l love it.
And then the say,
“All viewpoints continue to be given due weight in our output” – A BBC spokesman
Normally I’d be confused with so many demonstrablescientific clap trap statements issued by the BBC ….but not this time.
I saw that Stossel interview when it was live. The alarmists are very immature.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I’m not a “birther” of a “9/11 Truther,” I don’t believe aliens are probing people with the government’s approval, I don’t think climate scientists are in some big conspiracy to disinformation the public. But, I got a little uneasy after I read the article here about the 2012 solar blast that narrowly missed earth. That article said if the US grid went down it could be 4-10 years before it was back up. Bear with me here.
We have a very large environmental movement backed almost globally by governments. Within this movement are environmentalists with different agendas:
Less or no burning of fossil fuels.
Less global population.
Alternative energy use.
A return to a more natural environment.
The silencing of skeptics, or jail, or death.
Less global population. (That should be mentioned again)
Some groups overlap in ideals, but many hold an ends justify the means attitude.
Toss in the US government pushing the CAGW meme and their rise in weapon and ammo purchases as well as their militarization of local police forces. I don’t know about those things in other countries, people from outside the US could look into those things where they live. But it got me thinking, what could take care of all the goals of the various environmentalists in one fell swoop? The grid going down would be a good one. It’s a shame I don’t trust my own government, but it is what it is.
I know it sounds like the tv show Revolution, but many people fell like we’re already living out 1984. I read a Forbes magazine article from 12/16/13 in my doctor’s office. There was an article about rich people building bunkers, titled Billionaires’ Bunkers. Insane, high tech bunkers with family treasures tucked away, food and water for many years, with projects on 4 continents, it mentioned the bunker for the US Congress.
Do I start to make my tin foil hat now or should I become a prepper? Scary times. Anyone else ever have concerns like this?
The BBC were willing to put the BNP on a programme. There was a lot of pressure for them to do so, but they finally relented, though there was no policy on not having the BNP on a show. It was the death knell for the BNP as the publicity showed the public what they really were. But until then the progressive left believed that it was wrong to give a platform to extremists.
So “climate deniers” are worse than the BNP in the eyes of the BBC?
A.D. Everard says:
March 23, 2014 at 1:02 pm
Paul Westhaver says:
……..
Thank you for this, Paul. Seriously excellent viewing. It was good to see the petition signed by scientists (31,000+) get a mention. Wonderful stuff. 🙂
_____________________________________________________
Oh you are very welcome. This National News in primetime in Canada broadcast was stunning in it’s unique inversion of what the MSM is usually doing. I was uproariously enjoying every minute. WRT to the petition project, Yes indeed! That NEVER gets a mention. At least now there is a National News Source in Canada that has some reach getting the “skeptic” word out to the general public.
Sun News is growing as well, unlike the other news services, which are imploding.
I tried to post this comment today on the Guardian – it was not allowed!
“Isn’t there a law against spreading alarm and despondency?”
I now very rarely see or hear any BBC output. When I do, it immediately (within seconds) reveals it’s agenda & I turn it off as not worthy of my time. When I meet friends with family or acquaintances working with the BBC & I gently point out the collapse of the BBC’s integrity I am viewed with utter disbelief. Still, the end cannot be too far away, what with the arrival of narrowcasting quickly destroying broadcasting as an economic activity on the one hand and the cost of their final (vastly inflated) salary pensions eating up a more & more significant proportion of their License Fee income on the other. They are not long for this world. No, I will not pay any more in the form of an increased License Fee.
I find the anti-AGW political programme equally absurd. Germany the US & the UK have committed themselves to such outrageous expense in implementing these policies (Hundreds of BILLIONS of Dollars) and have set such great store by it as to make it the foundation of their foreign policy. Assad, Putin & the rulers of Iran have had a field day with their real-politique. What are the US, UK & Germany going to do when China flexes it’s muscles, Russia takes back even more of its previous vassal states & Israel & Iran start a fight to the death? Hope that the wind keeps blowing & the sun keeps shining?
I expect more, much more, from Statesmen than Obama, Cameron & Merkel are currently delivering. They must face reality.
By being unwilling to debate/ discuss the various issues of Global Warming, it only serves to reinforce my scepticism. Surely, if they were so convinced of their beliefs, they would be only too happy to show how solid their Science is. I can’t imagine a proper scientist running scared from a debate with someone who, for example, claimed that Newton’s law of universal gravitation was wrong. So I’m thinking, if someone was to warn us to get out of the way of a big boulder falling on our heads, and we don’t have time to discuss the merits of the gravity science That might be considered a reasonable piece of advice. But if we look up and see NO Boulder, then there’s no need for alarming evasive action. The alarmist however is adamant that there could be a boulder one day, so let’s leap off the edge of a cliff to save ourselves. Then there is every need to have full open discussion.
By not discussing the issues might not prove or disprove Global Warming, but it certainly proves the lack of confidence in the alarmist world.
Gavin Schimdt behaved like a child. I was even embarrassed for him. Pathetic really.
The point apparently sailed right over your head.
The BBC is making a distinction between “climate scientists” and “sceptics”, as if all “climate scientists” have the same message. The point is that Schmidt, Hansen, and others who are called “climate scientists, aren’t, but many labeled as “sceptics” ARE “climate scientists”.
So, they’re saying only the “right sort” of academics/researchers will be allowed to spout their message regarding climate change, and not the unapproved academics/researchers, regardless of whether either are “climate scientists”. In other words, their statement is an outright lie.
Chip Javert says:
I’m versed well enough to know the kinds of “debates” you get on a TV show bear absolutely no resemblance to actual scientific debate. I would recommend a historical examination such as Crelinsten’s “Einstein’s Jury” as a good illustration of the latter, to highlight the stark differences with the former.
Anyone who thinks main stream scientists in any field are “afraid” of debate, don’t like hearing other opinions, or fear they might be proven wrong is off the mark. The problem they usually have is just the opposite. They are well versed in contrarian opinions and feel the evidence so overwhelming and convincingly supports their position that they tend to walk into these things ill prepared for the reality of what it actually is, without appreciating a TV “debate” has little to do with evidence and much more to do with optics, personality, and rhetorical technique.
Most scientists might be good at science but tend to be lousy at public relations, which is what these things really are. Just showing up can lend their credibility to whomever they are sitting across from and can help perpetuate false balance. The facts are largely irrelevant.
I am familiar with an astronomical organization that banned creationists from speaking at their meetings. It wasn’t because the astronomers were “cowards” or “intellectually dishonest” that they didn’t want to open up the floor to this kind of ‘debate’.
And are people seriously criticizing scientists for being reluctant when asked to appear on Fox’s “Green Tyranny”….to represent the “tyranny” side???
Leo Geiger, anybody with eyes to see knows that evolitionists regularly debate creationists in the media. Here in the U.S. hardly a week goes by but that a prominent and broadly heard show broadcasts such a debate. Similarly with atheists and religionists. The fact is that the climate “scientists” will never debate a “skeptic” in the light of day. Your claims that they refuse due to their superior argument is fatuous.
Jimbo says: “1) Why are you here?”
Is that a metaphysical question?
I sometimes ask that myself when I post a comment here, since from time to time it results in a bit of name calling and insults being directed my way. I suppose mostly I am doing my small part in helping WUWT maintain a high page view and low ‘bounce’ rate.
please keep trying to debate to let others know that skeptics are intelligent, real, and decent people.
johnofenfield put “it’s”, and a bowl of popcorn went flying like some circus act.
Political science sucks. The not-seeing,;-) not-debating political BS has got to end.
And as far as religious texts go, 6,500 years ago, the old testament said, (it is a good history archive) ” garden of eden “. Temps were higher then. But, they won’t admit to that.