BBC Staff No Longer Allowed To Give Equal Time To Skeptics

They can dress it all up and take it to dinner, but at the end of the day Warmists are scared to allow their cult to be challenged, because they pretty much lose every time they are forced to debate

(Telegraph) BBC journalists are being sent on courses to stop them inviting so many cranks onto programmes to air ‘marginal views’

The BBC Trust on Thursday published a progress report into the corporation’s science coverage which was criticised in 2012 for giving too much air-time to critics who oppose non-contentious issues.

The report found that there was still an ‘over-rigid application of editorial guidelines on impartiality’ which sought to give the ‘other side’ of the argument, even if that viewpoint was widely dismissed.

Some 200 staff have already attended seminars and workshops and more will be invited on courses in the coming months to stop them giving ‘undue attention to marginal opinion.’

Excellent. Re-education.

“The Trust wishes to emphasise the importance of attempting to establish where the weight of scientific agreement may be found and make that clear to audiences,” wrote the report authors.

“Science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views but depends on the varying degree of prominence such views should be given.”

Consensus is not science. By BBC standards, scientists like Galileo Galilei and Issac Newton would have been considered cranks and banned. Heck, a favorite of the Left, Charles Darwin, would be banned, for failing to be part of the consensus. This is the state of Progressivism in the media, banning those they do not agree with.

Of course, the hyper-progressives at Salon love this type of fascism.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

22 Responses to “BBC Staff No Longer Allowed To Give Equal Time To Skeptics”

  1. Jeffery says:

    The Teach typed: “Consensus is not science.”

    Um, well, yes it is. Science is all about consensus. By scientists. There is no “proof” of the theory of gravity, but there is consensus. There is no “proof” of the theory evolution but, there is consensus. There is no “proof” for the theory of AGW, but there is scientific consensus.

    Theories cannot be proven. Scientific evidence accumulates that either does or does not support a proposed scientific hypothesis. In the late 1800s Svante Arrhenius (and others) hypothesized that adding CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) to the atmosphere would lead to the increased retention of the Sun’s radiant energy causing the Earth’s surface, atmosphere and oceans to warm. Since that time the accumulated evidence has been overwhelming in favor of his hypothesis, which is now considered to be a scientific theory.

    So why the massive amount of time, money and effort to refute the theory of AGW but only a modest amount spent on refuting evolution? There’s money in them thar hills when it comes to burning fossil fuels, but primarily only religious beliefs involved in evolution vs biblical creationism (a few textbook publishers stand to make a few bucks).

    Why don’t the so-called “skeptics” spend their money conducting experiments? For a couple of reasons. Their political strategy is working very well (they now own the US Republican Party) and they’ve tried the science approach and failed. As I said, the data are overwhelming in favor of the theory.

    Finally, why would a news organization pit actual scientists against frothing cranks such as the Lord of Monktown?

    You Deny it, but the atmosphere and oceans are warming. The ice is melting. The sea level is rising.

  2. Better_Be_Gumballs says:

    Wow J, you really outdid yourself on this one. Smoking your meds now are we?

  3. Jeffery says:


    You responded as you typically do. With obvious irrelevancies.

    What is your understanding of the role of scientific consensus in policy making?

  4. Just when I thought I’d seen it all, Jeff goes off the reservation.

    If there’s proof that Man is mostly/solely causing this warm period, where is it?

    Notice that Jeff has no problem with Warmist fascism

  5. Better_Be_Gumballs says:

    it is not irrelevant to understand your mental instabilities. You are attempting to merge 3 different and distinct things in to one. They shouldn’t be. Science, Policy, Consensus.

    Science can help Policy, and vice-versa, but they are not the same, nor should they operate out of the same office.

    Consensus is only in the realm of Policy. Consensus is an opinion. Science helps build a consensus through the gathering of facts via experimentation and reproducability, not the other way around.

  6. Nighthawk says:

    Lets see….. CO2 levels are rising yet, there has been no significant warming for over 17 years. I thought the wonderful models had us roasting, starving and/or drowning with CO2 levels as high as they are now. I thought 350ppm was the tipping point. What are we at now? Over 400ppm?

    Let’s also not forget that rises in CO2 concentrations in the past have always followed warming periods. Never has CO2 rises preceded warming periods. Kinda tough to say that CO2 causes warming when it has never happened that way in the past.

  7. gitarcarver says:

    Um, well, yes it is.

    Ummm… no it’s not.

    Science stands or falls on its own. It doesn’t matter if 99% of scientists agree that 2+2=5.

  8. Better_Be_Gumballs says:

    “verbally” agree, GC. If the science, experiments, and data agree, then a growing understanding can be said that 2+2=5. But, just saying it is, and showing a falsified model doesn’t make it science.

    But, this does prove once again where J is coming from. He does believe words (in the scientific realm), especially his, carry extraordinary physical weight. As opposed to … you know.. reality.

  9. david7134 says:

    I have to agree with everyone, you really are starting to sound out there. By the way, you were wrong in almost everything that you said.

  10. Jeffery says:


    Thanks for the input. Rather than just say I was wrong, would you be useful and point out what is wrong and importantly, why?

  11. Jeffery says:

    Let’s try this another way. To you, how many experimental results does it take to “prove” a scientific hypothesis? One, ten, 100? What if 97 well-conducted, peer-reviewed scientific papers reach a similar conclusion and 3 well-conducted, peer-reviewed papers reach the opposite conclusion. To you, is the scientific question still wide open? Since theories are never “proved” how can you ever reach a scientific conclusion?

    Does cigarette smoking cause lung cancer? It’s never been proven. There is epidemiological data that suggest that lung cancer occurs mostly in cigarette smokers. In vitro studies show that some components of cigarette smoke cause carcinogenic changes in cells. It’s all circumstantial and correlation. Yet, most heavy smokers never develop lung cancer. Worse, some non-smokers develop lung cancer. There was lots of money to made in cigarettes so the Deniers were very active trying to sow doubt and confusion to influence policy. Even then there was a scientific consensus about the harmful effects of smoking.

    The theory of evolution is not proven. It’s possible that a supreme being created the Earth, fossils, geological layers, the various DNA sequences in nuclei and mitochondria to make it seem as if plants and animals evolved from common ancestors over 100s of millions of years. But even though the theory is not proven, the scientific consensus is that evolution is responsible for the biological diversity on Earth.

    We still have no proof of how gravity works. We can describe the characteristics but there is no proven physical basis for it. At first glance there appear to be some exceptions to gravity, e.g., why does a thousand ton ship float but a 1 pound rock sink or why does a helium filled balloon rise? Refinements in experiments explained these anomalous findings. (The Teach would call these refinements, “excuses”). So even though the theory is unproven the scientific consensus is that gravity will keep pulling things to Earth (including most gases).

    The theory of plate tectonics is not proven but the scientific consensus is that it’s likely true. No one has collected hydrogen or helium from the Sun but the scientific consensus is that these two elements make up 98% of its mass.

    I’ve asked and it’s never been answered. What data would you find persuasive that CO2 from fossil fuels is causing the Earth to warm?

  12. Jeffery says:


    350 ppm was the CO2 concentration to keep the eventual warming to a reasonable level. Yes, we’re at 400 ppm and the Earth continues to accumulate heat from the Sun.

    Obviously, the heat does not all accumulate at once.

    If you trust the physical laws of the universe, CO2 will cause warming. What triggered the changes in atmospheric CO2 in the previous warm periods?

  13. gitarcarver says:

    I’ve asked and it’s never been answered. What data would you find persuasive that CO2 from fossil fuels is causing the Earth to warm?

    No Jeffery, you have been given that answer and you simply choose not to read it or remember it.

    That is what cultists do – they ignore everything that doesn’t fit their fantasy.

    Secondly, as people have explained to you, it is not the data that is in question, it is the conclusions from the data that people take issue with.

    We know that CO2 lags behind temperature (even by a couple of hundred years) but yet you still keep saying that warmer temps are caused by CO2. We know that there has been higher concentrations of CO2 in the past, but that doesn’t seem to matter to you.

    We point to models and say “something is not right when the data doesn’t give known results, and you seem to like to throw that out because once again, that is your little fantasy world and you’ll protect that world no matter how much reality intrudes.

    But even accepting your premise that the data supports global warming, why would scientists hide the data? Why would they manipulate the data? Why would the IPCC have data that was not accurate? Why would climate scientists walk away from the IPCC report saying the conclusions in the executive summary are not supported by the report or the data?

    Just because you keep repeating something doesn’t make it so, Jeffery.

  14. david7134 says:

    What good would it do to stipulate how you are wrong? You can be presented with facts and totally discount them and presented with fantasy and totally believe every word, as long as it is from someone on the left.

    Now, I can’t believe you made the statement about the ship and gravity. Have you ever heard of Archimedes? It would seem that you need an education and some life experience. You are right about the concepts of gravity not being proven, after all the consensus is warping of space-time. But what you are confused on is consensus in science. Consensus is obtained via a peer review process with critical analysis, free access to raw data, and reproducibility. Climate “science” lacks all those elements.

  15. Better_Be_Gumballs says:

    Well, at least J is able to think. He does have that going for him.

    Yes J, if a piece of research that had 97 out of 100 peer-reviewed journal articles suggesting A, while the other 3 suggested B, the “consensus” line of thinking might sway to A. However, B can not be discounted out of hand. In physical sciences, B is addressed even in A articles as it is turned in to the NULL hypothesis, or counter-argument for what others have found. Yet, research in to both A, B, C, D and everything else still continues on. Especially if there are lots of questions left unanswered, or if the answers only address a small or minor component of A. And, A and B authors will go back and forth with each others data, data that is publicly available and shared openly, to find out where the others were incorrect in their analyses, justifications, or results.

    Yet with climate, the so-called gurus of climate science are in the B minority. There is no 97 out of 100 in climate science. it is 5, 5, 5, 6, 2, 5, 8, 3, 9, 3, .etc.

    The fact that you still hype the 97 out of 100 myth speaks volumes as to your status of mind. The consensus on climate science is that there is a climate. It is changing. There is not much else that is fully agreed upon. We are still debating the effect clouds have!!!

    And, we are still debating why those in charge of the land-based thermometers have to keep on changing historical datasets, on a seemingly daily basis. if you can’t agree on a historical dataset, how can you agree on the results?!?!

    The doctors at a Maryland Hospital were sure that parents were mistreating their child. They had the state come and take the child and put it in the care of the state. The doctors had a consensus opinion that they then pushed upon the child care workers, who then pushed that opinion upon the judges. The parents wanted another opinion because the consensus opinion did not make sense. They were shoved out.

    Turns out, the child really is sick. A minority opinion finally prevailed when the data was analyzed with an unbiased frame of mind. The child, after a year or two, was finally allowed back with the family. ( I am hoping the family sues that hospital closed!)

    If you trust the physical laws of the universe, CO2 will cause warming.

    It did, its done it. Its over with. You forget the other more major players by focusing on CO2.

    What triggered the changes in atmospheric CO2 in the previous warm periods?

    Glad you asked that J. As no one really knows, no one really can say what is causing it now. Are we adding more CO2 to the atmosphere than would be here naturally? Yes. It is beyond the scope of what would be here, based on historical trends? NOPE. If CO2 can naturally rise to 7-9,000ppm without man doing anything, then it is of such trivialities that we are at 401ppm. It is such a small blip on the changes of CO2 over time that it is INSIGNIFICANT to the p-value of 0.01.

    And, I’m done with this post.

  16. The theory of plate tectonics is not proven but the scientific consensus is that it’s likely true.

    Only you would go down that road. The science has shown that it is a scientific fact, not consensus. It’s only un-scientific cranks like you that would think it is wrong. However, this shouldn’t stop you from trying to disprove it. That’s the way science works. You probably buy into all the 9/11 Truther nonsense.

  17. Jeffery says:


    The evidence supporting the theory of plate tectonics is overwhelming – fossil distribution, geologic layers, the current boundaries, the physics of crust formation and absorption.

    Nice try on 9/11. The truther movement, along with the anti-science, vaccine-autism promoters are left wing wackos.

  18. gitarcarvef says:

    Nice try on 9/11. The truther movement, along with the anti-science, vaccine-autism promoters are left wing wackos.

    Ask yourself who believes in AGW more?

    Those on the leff like yourself? Or those on the right?

    Man, you are having a bad, but probably normal night for you.

    It sucks to be you in these debates because you get killed.

  19. The Neon Madman says:

    Science is most certainly NOT settled by a concensus of anybody, including scientists themselves.

    The essence of the scientific method is that a theory is developed to explain observed events and make testable predictions. If the testable predictions become true, that is evidence in support of the theory. If the predictions are false, that is evidence that invalidates the theory.

    Theories are not proven to be true – but they can be proven to be false. Nothing proves the theory of gravitation, but an innumerable amount of experiments support it. On the other hand, no one has ever shown a prediction based on the theory of gravitation to be false. Ever.

    Now apply this to AGW. What are the specific, testable predictions made by the theory of AGW? (If there aren’t any, then it isn’t even a theory, but we’ll let that go for now). What are the results of these testable predictions? Do any fail?

    Unless this is the process used to examine and test AGW, it isn’t scientific, no matter how may people agree on any part of it. Period. Full stop.

  20. Jeffery says:


    Thanks for the excellent summation of the scientific method.

    “Now apply this to AGW. What are the specific, testable predictions made by the theory of AGW? (If there aren’t any, then it isn’t even a theory, but we’ll let that go for now). What are the results of these testable predictions? Do any fail?”

    Testable predictions of the theory of AGW are: Primary: Increase in atmospheric CO2 proportional to CO2 emissions; Warming (this includes land, oceans and atmosphere) Secondary: Results from warming such as ice sheet melting, glacier melt, sea level rise; ocean acidification from CO2

    Regarding causation: To paraphrase the entertaining Bill Clinton, “When you find a turtle on a fencepost, you can figure it’s not a natural process.”

  21. Better_Be_Gumballs says:

    Ummm.. sure, you can test for a warming ocean, or a warming atmosphere – with the NULL being – No Change.

    Just because you find A…. (warming oceans let’s say)… does not mean anything. Sure you found A, but.. why did you find A? What are the likely reasons? What are some unlikely reasons? Did you test for those?

    But then, once you find B (a melting glacier) does not mean you can tie A to B. You can not say A caused B. You can at best say there is a correlation.

    Same can be said for measures of high CO2 and boiling water. When CO2 rises on or around a stove, water will warm and could potentially boil. The two are not linked however.

    So, please do more study as you clearly are overpayed at your job if this sort of basic stuff stumps you.

  22. Jeffery says:


    Again, scientific theories can not be proven only falsified. The data supporting the theory of AGW is overwhelming and there has been no solid evidence to disprove it. That’s not to say that the theory is true.

    The testable predictions are that the oceans, land and atmosphere are warming as the CO2 concentration increases. The increased CO2 is from fossil fuels.

    At present there is no better explanation for why the Earth is warming.

    Thanks for the gratuitous cheap shot. BTW, it’s spelled “overpaid”, genius.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5376 access attempts in the last 7 days.