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.
Leo Geiger says:
March 23, 2014 at 6:38 pm
You could not possibly be more wrong.
CACA advocates refuse to debate skeptics because they know that they lack even a single leg upon which to stand. There is not a single shred of actual physical evidence in support of CACA.
Back in the day (the 1990s) when a few global warming supporters would actually engage a skeptic in a discussion they invariably ended up retreating to a single defense: “But what if you are wrong and I am right?” In essence, the invoked the Precautionary Principle as the only real reason they should be listened to.
Unfortunately for them, the Precautionary Principle is not precautionary, Its implementation has usually produced great harm through inaction, making it self contradictory. This also means that it is not a principle. In truth, it is simply a load of crap that sounds altruistic to those who have lost the ability for rational thought.
There is no verifiable scientific argument for a man-made global warming crisis. There never has been. The entire meme of a global warming crisis is built upon an irrational bit of self-contradictory tripe known as the Precautionary Principle.
Warmists simply cannot debate from such a weak position. They learned that early on. The science does not support their belief system, but their belief system supports their income. They are simply choosing an income (or power, or fame or acceptance) over science. In this regard, they are not that unusual. It’s the same reason we generate electricity with light water reactors instead of the far superior thorium or breeder reactors. The people who made the decisions were just protecting their incomes.
JBJ says:
March 23, 2014 at 12:32 pm
“Severian says:
March 23, 2014 at 11:31 am
Hansen’s not a climate “scientist” either, he’s an astrophysicist.”
… And Christopher Moncton [sic] is neither a climatologist nor a scientist … so what is your point?
————————————————————————————————————-
Yes he’s a skeptic. But the point is that the BBC will effectively only allow “scientists” that do not oppose the AGW hypothesis. In effect the BBC are implying that any other “scientists” climate or otherwise who do oppose it are just skeptics. That is they are no different to the skeptic Monckton whether he is a scientist or not. So their policy allows a non-scientist like Al Gore, or an astrophysicist Hansen and their ilk a voice – its actually not a policy based on ‘scientists versus skeptics’ they are promoting but ‘AGW proponents versus non-believers’.
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2014-03-23/anti-science-those-who-wish-debate-climate-threatened-death-or-jail
Documents the threats used to try to shut contrarians up.
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:…
Do they? If anything, I think it’s the other way round.
“ralfellis :
March 23, 2014 at 1:23 pm
The BBC are Past Masters at giving disinformation, and then covering up for their dissemination of misinformation.”
—
Mr. T is a lovely chap, but his record is not impressive, and still seems trapped in a singular groove…
“…I do not believe there are grounds to uphold your complaint.
…that was not the impression I took…
.. I think it was clear…
I think this would have …
…my research appears to indicate…
…believe there is evidence…
It is very likely …
It is likely …
There is medium confidence …
However, I don’t think that means the interview was likely…
I don’t think it is reasonable…
…but, as before, I don’t think it is reasonable..”
Doesn’t really ‘do; definitive, does he?
So, as you have found, dealing with the BBC complaints system, even to directorial level, gets you from the get-go into matters of ‘belief’, even more noticeably when dealing with scientific method.
Oddly, the ‘belief’ that prevails is decided upon by a BBC employee whose abilities in assessing such things seems on par with the rest of the organisation and agenda-driven top down imposition on editorial. Hence a complaints system designed to default reject every single attempt to nail them down or seek a sensible answer as long as possible. Bizarrely, this attrition technique can then get used by them to accuse the complainant of wasting their time, and close the thing down. It would be funny if not so serious.
When it comes to matters of information and education on the BBC, its value at best may be best summarised here:
“However, I do think it would have been better if it had been made clearer” .
Ya think? Awesome.
Peter Martin (@junkkmale) says: March 24, 2014 at 2:20 am
Hence a complaints system designed to default reject every single attempt to nail them down or seek a sensible answer as long as possible. Bizarrely, this attrition technique can then get used by them to accuse the complainant of wasting their time, and close the thing down. It would be funny if not so serious.
___________________________________
Yeah, I know it is fairly worthless complaining, but I do it just to demonstrate that we do not all agree with the BBC consensus. If they had 1,000 complaints a day, it might make them think again.
I have another ongoing complaint that has gone to the D.G. They said they had told the truth (Antarctica is warming). I said they had deliberately told only a small part of the truth, which can be akin to telling a lie (only a small part of Antarctica is warming). They said ‘a truth is a truth’ (Antarctica is warming).
Again, the guy could not see the folly of his argument, which is why it has gone to the D.G.
Ralph
I watched the movie 1984 this weekend. It’s a good movie. But I was thinking about the climate change debate during the entire move seeing all sorts of similarities. What does BBC have to fear about being completely open about things?
When you consider that the BBC’s arch alarmist, Roger Harrabin, has no expertise or qualifications in his subject you can understand why the BBC goes down this road. According to Wikipedia Harrabin attended Cambridge but no mention of any degree. I think he dropped out.
Leo Geiger says:
March 23, 2014 at 6:38 pm
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.
So you object to tv show debates. Fine. The problem is, no matter what the format, your climate scientologists always lose. Always have, always will. Your attempt at shielding them behind the excuse that it’s because they aren’t well-versed in debating technique, or some such nonsense is laughable. It is because they don’t have actual science, only the appearance of it, which quickly gets uncovered, making them easy targets for the actual facts. Reality always trumps ideology. Funny that.
***
NRG22 says:
March 23, 2014 at 3:32 pm
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?
***
Something on TV recently about the single-family underground “bunkers”, which are very expensive. By far the most customers were politicians/bureaucrats/gov employees in the Wash DC area.
I stopped watching the NewsHour once Gwen Ifill’s role as Obama promoter became crystal clear (with her book on the ‘era of Obama’ whose publication date was inauguration day) so I missed your 2012 interview and have only read the edited transcript now. I was particularly struck by the remark, “He doesn’t claim to be a scientist; he attended Purdue,” which reminded me of the famous line from “Faulty Towers,” “that’s Manuel, he’s from Barcelona,” used by Basil Faulty as a wink-wink comprehensive explanation.
As is so typical with left-wing reporting, they took heed to warn their target audience of your suspect credentials (avert your eyes, children!) i.e. that you are known to harbor banned ideas and that you have nefarious supporters who are “right wing,” including the worst of the worst, those awful Heartland Institute people, “a conservative … non-profit that is one of the leading groups that doubt….” Goodness, what could be more damning? You’re probably a second cousin once removed of the evil Koch brothers too, but PBS’s geneological scouting couldn’t be completed by air time, I guess.
Anyway, it was a very amusing and still relevant blast from the past!
The “sink” error was particularly amusing. Did anyone at PBS actually understand that you were using a scientific term, that you were not referencing New Age psychometrics …?
Now if we could only get Mother Nature in “sync”! The Washington DC forecast for tomorrow is snow! Again SNOW!
This was great —
Fred W. Manzo says: March 23, 2014 at 12:54 pm
“You can always tell a scientist is present because he can’t stop explaining the various puzzles still facing his field of inquiry. Ask him a tough question and he’ll be happy to discuss it with you forever. Give him a new perspective and he’ll be overjoyed. Set before him a new problem and he’ll be estactic. When you meet someone who refuses to answer your questions, refuses to show how he got his results, refuses to examine a new problem and insists there is only one right answer and there will always be only one right answer in his field of study you know that whatever else is involved you are not talking to a scientist, no matter what he claims or how many letters he lists after his name.”
zootcadillac says:
March 23, 2014 at 10:21 am
“Unfortunately you are unable, as a British resident, to not pay your TV license”
…
Not only that; if you live in an area of the UK where one cannot receive BBC Television programmes (e.g. the hills of Mid Wales) unless paying a third party (like BSkyB) one is still threatened by jail if one refuses to pay for a “service” one cannot receive.
Unfortunately our left leaning so-called conservative Prime Minister supports the ongoing taxation levied by the BBC.
Let’s recap….
They got the schools.
They got the media.
They got the government bureaucracies.
They got the NGOs.
They got the unions, including the UCS. (save yourself Kenji)
It does make one curious as to what’s holding them back?
Mostly, I wonder what happens next?
cn
zootcadillac says:
“Unfortunately you are unable, as a British resident, to not pay your TV license. “
Wanna bet?
No debates between “…scientists and sceptics (sic).” Carefully chosen words. They skeptics are mainly scientists, often with better credentials than those of the Chicken Little brigade.
Leo Geiger 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.
It appears that you are not ‘versed’ at all.
Here is just one example of a real scientific debate, held at Oxford Union.
I have more, if you’re interested.
Chuck Nolan says: March 24, 2014 at 9:50 am
They got the NGOs.
_________________________
Most of the recruits for the NGOs working in the Philippines disaster, came from hippy communes. Says it all really.
R