Climate change "sceptics" get too much air time

[Allezfan]

That's why the other scientists are arguing with them, for the likes of us. But if the BBC is being told to limit exposure to the counter argument then we'll be stuck with the current theory. That's why I posted the original link because I was concerned that dissenting voices were being silenced.

The argument is that a minority view is given too much air time, I think.

So if 19 out of 20 scientists say one thing you woudl expect to hear than view 19 times more than the alternate, instead both views are given the same airing by the BBC to try and be impartial. Professor Steve Jones, in your link, seems to argue that the result is lies and inaccuracies being presented unchallenged in the name of not silencing dissenting voices. Which, if it is happening, I think we can also agree isn't good.

 

[Allezfan]

Also remember the injections thing? The government and all its scientists said that the MMR jab was safe, some other guy said actually no it gives you autism, the press give both sides equal time, loads of parents panic and refuse to give their kid the jab and as a result a bunch of people die of chicken pox.

And then later it turns out the government was entirely right all thsi time and the other guy had simply made up his results. If the media had been more responsible about not giving airtime to every dissenting voice, lives would have been saved.

 

[Tubey]

Also remember the injections thing? The government and all its scientists said that the MMR jab was safe, some other guy said actually no it gives you autism, the press give both sides equal time, loads of parents panic and refuse to give their kid the jab and as a result a bunch of people die of chicken pox.

And then later it turns out the government was entirely right all thsi time and the other guy had simply made up his results. If the media had been more responsible about not giving airtime to every dissenting voice, lives would have been saved.

On the flip side, it was once believed that Rupert Murdoch haters were irrational and that there was nothing empiric about News International and obviously there were no illegal activities happening.

The world was definitely flat once too.

 

[Allezfan]

On the flip side, it was once believed that Rupert Murdoch haters were irrational and that there was nothing empiric about News International and obviously there were no illegal activities happening.

The world was definitely flat once too.

That's a myth actually. The flat world view was always a minority, even back in the dark ages most scholars knew it was round.

 

[Tubey]

That's a myth actually. The flat world view was always a minority, even back in the dark ages most scholars knew it was round.

Bah you know I knew that, but forgot in the moment because it sounded like a great soundbyte. ^^ Was on QI I think wasn't it?

 

[ToffeeMark]

The argument is that a minority view is given too much air time, I think.

So if 19 out of 20 scientists say one thing you woudl expect to hear than view 19 times more than the alternate, instead both views are given the same airing by the BBC to try and be impartial. Professor Steve Jones, in your link, seems to argue that the result is lies and inaccuracies being presented unchallenged in the name of not silencing dissenting voices. Which, if it is happening, I think we can also agree isn't good.

Great, a professor reviewed the arguments. Oh wait, what's he a professor in?

"He is one of the world's top six experts on the genetics of snails (and the other five agree) and has also studied the genetics and evolution of fruit flies and humans"

It's all part of the smoke and mirrors man. Smoke and mirrors.

This is all you need to know about Professor jones:

http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/bbc-prof-steve-jones-and-the-push-for-censorship/

 

[Allezfan]

Bah you know I knew that, but forgot in the moment because it sounded like a great soundbyte. ^^ Was on QI I think wasn't it?

Aye, certainly where I remembered it from.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

I wish climate change would get it's act together - it's feckin freezing here

 

[zed]

I'm not an expert but I dipped into global warming in the mid nineties at uni. Back then it was the "theory" of global warming caused by man made co2. Now it's supposedly FACT. No it's not, it's still a theory and it's still bollox.

throughout our history mankind has apparently always dabbled in the hysterical ` the worlds gonna end` tripe, its just the 2000 AD version we are getting now. taxing the population in the case of global warming (make a fart noise here) is a poor excuse for legalized extortion, but hey its working for them

 

[Hibbert&Ernie]

To be fair, as much of an anarchist as nature is, it hasn't spilled mercury and toxic waste into the oceans, and isn't responsible for hideous volumes of radioactive material contaminating beaches and seas and parts of the former soviet union.
Everyone should use bicycles, then you'd all appreciate the tour a lot more. Lazy gets.

 

[zero]

To be fair, as much of an anarchist as nature is, it hasn't spilled mercury and toxic waste into the oceans, and isn't responsible for hideous volumes of radioactive material contaminating beaches and seas and parts of the former soviet union.
Everyone should use bicycles, then you'd all appreciate the tour a lot more. Lazy gets.

Let's be honest lad, The tour is just the french version of the London marathon that's why nobody appreciates it because nobody can be arsed watching dozens of men riding a bike around France. There is absolutely no excitement in it.

I'd rather watch curling or bowls.