Isn't the beeb meant to be an organisation promoting the religion of climate change?

Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
The Homebrew Forum

Help Support The Homebrew Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
geigercntr

geigercntr

Miembro senior
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
505
Reaction score
280
Location
The North West
Apparently not...

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...r-interview-climate-sceptic-lord-nigel-lawson

The BBC has apologised for an interview with the climate sceptic Lord Lawson after admitting it had breached its own editorial guidelines for allowing him to claim that global temperatures have not risen in the past decade.

BBC Radio 4’s flagship news programme Today ran the item in August in which Lawson, interviewed by presenter Justin Webb, made the claim. The last three years have in fact seen successive global heat records broken.

The Today programme rejected initial complaints from listeners, arguing that Lawson’s stance was “reflected by the current US administration” and that offering space to “dissenting voices” was an important aspect of impartiality.

However, some listeners escalated their complaint and, in a letter seen by the Guardian, the BBC’s executive complaints unit now accepts the interview breached its guidelines on accuracy and impartiality.
Click to expand...

Cue 5 pages of the usual suspects with the usual arguments ;)
 
"Offering space to dissenting voices was an important part of impartiality"

I do hate this argument. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but all opinions are not equal. If they run a feature discussing why the sky is blue, they are not obligated to have some nutjob on air arguing that it is in fact pink. And if somebody makes a statement on air that is an outright falsehood, like this one, they absolutely should pull them up on it.
 
Tell it to the penguins. ...they all froze to death...and the sky is green...the rest is lies! Any more...and you will be shot!
 
Almost everybody is entitled to an opinion. What they aren't entitled to is for anybody to have to listen to their opinion or to give a hoot about it. Also, if you use your right to express an opinion, others have the right to express their opinion, even if it differs from your own, and also to challenge your opinion.

Dissenting voices are fine, so long as they back their opinions with research based evidence.
 
This doesn't make sense. I get that some people believe that climate change is not related to humans but surely you can't deny the rise in temperatures if the temperatures have been going up?!

If the BBC want to include someone who don't believe we are responsible for climate change to me, thats fine especially as the people running the most influential country in the world are pushing this belief.

If the BBC have someone on that is refusing to accept the scientific fact (temperature rising year on year) then surely that should be pulled up in the interview.

my view on it all is that people should stop pointing fingers and just try to find solutions. Ice caps are melting, sea level is rising, this might be part of the nature of the planet or it might be all our fault, the fact is we need to deal with what is in front of us. If Donald trump wants to scrap climate change policy then that's his decision. However he needs to implement strategies to deal with what the climate is and will be in the future.
 
I can't see why we need to 'do something about it'. It is what it is - and nothing short of breathtaking arrogance to assume we have the power, or even the right to bend the climate of the planet to our will. I don't necessarily believe the statistics anyway, it must be obvious to everyone that something much bigger than 'climate' is going on here. Anyways, remember Phil Jones 2009 and "hide the decline"? Why? These days there are countless data monitoring stations all around the world, using equipment that could only be dreamed of, say 150 years ago. And they are seriously trying to draw comparisons with tree rings and the like from centuries ago?? Get a grip. Oh and it's going to snow early next week by the way.
 
Gunge said:
I can't see why we need to 'do something about it'. It is what it is - and nothing short of breathtaking arrogance to assume we have the power, or even the right to bend the climate of the planet to our will. I don't necessarily believe the statistics anyway, it must be obvious to everyone that something much bigger than 'climate' is going on here. Anyways, remember Phil Jones 2009 and "hide the decline"? Why? These days there are countless data monitoring stations all around the world, using equipment that could only be dreamed of, say 150 years ago. And they are seriously trying to draw comparisons with tree rings and the like from centuries ago?? Get a grip. Oh and it's going to snow early next week by the way.
Click to expand...

What I meant, is deal with what the situation is and what it will be, not spend time and money trying to reverse the situation.

If the future is that every year there will be 5 hurricanes that cause untold damage then the world needs to make sure that the people that live in places that are affected, have homes that won't be destroyed.

As it stands this debate has been going on for years and it just ends up with evangelicals on either side arguing the toss whilst things could be done to manage the situation.
 
there are too many people on the planet and the continuous growth capitalist model the west has can only have one conclusion, that we use up all of the earths resources. :-(

unless we introduce birth controls, give up continuous growth model, colonise space or a combination of all 3 we're doomed, doomed I tell ya. wars over resources may slow down the population growth a bit but surely the better way is birth control :doh:

as for global warming the earth goes though warmer and cooler period over timescales longer than politicians care about so how could climate change be addressed? regardless of whether you believe humans are severely impacting on it or not?

I kinda think elon musk and jeff bezios have some good ideas for humanity's future so my next car will be a tesla and my next on-line order will be with amazon :p
 
FACT

After years if studying his own theory Darwin didnt believe it himself. He said
"to assume the eye evolved is ludicrous"

Its taught as fact when in fact its farce and therefore a belief like religion.

The basic simple fact that humans cannot reproduce with apes proves the theory of evolution is "ludicrous"
 
Russ146 said:
FACT

After years if studying his own theory Darwin didnt believe it himself. He said
"to assume the eye evolved is ludicrous"

Its taught as fact when in fact its farce and therefore a belief like religion.

The basic simple fact that humans cannot reproduce with apes proves the theory of evolution is "ludicrous"
Click to expand...

Yes I have heard similar misquotes peddled by evangelical Christians.

https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/didnt-darwin-call-the-evolution-of-the-eye-absurd/

I am no expert in biology but even I know what a ridiculous statement that is. The only reason we can not breed with apes is because our family trees separated too long ago and we are too genetically different.
I am talking millions of years, because of course the earth is not 6,000 years old :lol:
Though there is good genetic proof that we bred with Neanderthals and Europeans have a percentage of their DNA.
 
@Russ146 You have seriously misunderstood the definition of the word "fact".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top