BBC finally takes steps against Climate Deniers

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

a) Why the majority of scientists are sceptical of climate change? (http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-...warming-claims & http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwc...y-Findings.pdf & http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full)

The Heartland Institute is funded by companies that have an interest in downplaying climate change. They want to rein in the EPA too (http://heartland.org/citizens-petiti...tection-agency) which they see as a waste of money because it only serves to hurt their interests. The Heartland institute also interviewed television presenters, not scientists.

The AMS survey (which did survey scientists, as stated in the beginning of the paper) linked states that (on page 5 and 6):

• 89% of respondents stated that they believe that Climate Change is happening
• 59% of those stated that they believe that Climate Change is caused by humans and another 11% said that Climate Change is affected by both human activity and natural causes.
• 6% indicated that Climate Change is not caused or affected by human activity
• 76% of respondents stated that Climate Change will be "very harmful" or "somewhat harmful"
• 30% of respondents stated that they were "very worried" about climate change and 42% said that they were "somewhat worried" about it.

the third link:

• "We find that virtually all respondents (99.4%) agree that the climate is changing."
• 36% of respondents believe that human activity is a main driving force in Climate Change
• 24% of respondents believe that Climate Change is a wholly natural phenomenon
• 17% of respondents believe that Climate Change is influenced by both human activity and natural causes
• 10% of respondents believe that the real cause is unknown
• 5% of respondents believe that Climate Change is influenced by both human activity and natural causes, but doesn't affect their personal lives even if it may pose a problem to society in general
• thus 58% (more than half) of respondents either believe that human activity is the main driving force in Climate Change, or that it is influenced by both human activity and natural causes
• the use of labels such as "Comply with Kyoto", "Fatalists" and "Regulation activists" shows a certain bias on the part of the writer.

Your sources are hardly backing your hypothesis up.

b) Why some of the supporters of climate change have been trying to suppress data that could prove wrong the 1990 study on the effects of climate change? (http://www.theguardian.com/environme...%20body%20link)

That is something worth investigating, however there have been quite a few studies published since then.

I do think climate change is happening, as it has done for millions of years. Where I find doubt is in the extent that mankind has exasperated the effects.

So you are in agreement with 6% of the respondents to the AMS study and 10% of the respondents to the sagepub study you linked. You do realize that this means your view is not representative of the scientific community surveyed in the studies you linked as evidence to back your opinion up, don't you?

[madmanx]

The BBC has made no policy changes in regards to climate change. Watch the video again and sort out the facts from the editorials of The Young Turks.

The BBC will no longer put obvious pseudo science or payed mouth pieces on their shows as a point of balance. In other words, there will be no creationists, Holocaust deniers, people against vaccines or "scientists" payed by British Petroleum to say what they tell them to say about climate change.

If you have an interesting opinion that is at least somewhat valid on climate change you will be more than welcome on BBC.

[Adam Jensen]

I did. My comment stands.

- - - Updated - - -



Point? Now we "know" that climate change is man-made... Imagine what we will "know" a 100 years from now.

We have enough evidence on anthropomorphic climate change that 97% of scientists accept it. We have little to no evidence on the contrary. I'm sure the BBC will host a scientist with strong evidence in denial of global warming, but that has to be scientific evidence, not biased statistical hocus pocus or pseudoscience or propaganda.

[Dezerte]

Not that big of a deal in Europe I reckon, iirc the majority of Europe already is at the stage of "What should be done" while the US may be a bit "Is this even real?" (generalizing here of course).

[Endus]

At this point, denying anthropogenic climate change is like denying that the Earth is round, that the Sun is the central body in the Solar System, or that evolution happens. Yes, people make those claims. No, those people do not have equal standing or relevance with the overwhelming body of scientific literature on the topic.

Even when people cite "scientists" who dispute anthropogenic climate change, they're almost always not climate scientists, and thus they aren't experts in the field to begin with. To make matters worse, they are most often geologists and the like, who work directly with oil companies, and whose livelihoods depend on that oil industry which is largely responsible for causing the damage in the first place. There's a reason the majority of the money funding opposition to climate change is coming from the industries causing the damage.

Climate change denial is essentially no different than this;
http://wispofsmoke.net/PDFs/Whitby.pdf
Or this;

[Doctor Amadeus]

At this point, denying anthropogenic climate change is like denying that the Earth is round, that the Sun is the central body in the Solar System, or that evolution happens. Yes, people make those claims. No, those people do not have equal standing or relevance with the overwhelming body of scientific literature on the topic.

Even when people cite "scientists" who dispute anthropogenic climate change, they're almost always not climate scientists, and thus they aren't experts in the field to begin with. To make matters worse, they are most often geologists and the like, who work directly with oil companies, and whose livelihoods depend on that oil industry which is largely responsible for causing the damage in the first place. There's a reason the majority of the money funding opposition to climate change is coming from the industries causing the damage.

Climate change denial is essentially no different than this;
http://wispofsmoke.net/PDFs/Whitby.pdf
Or this;

Yeah well guess what, there are still people to this day that believe that smoking causes cancer is a conspiracy, and NO I am not kidding.

[Endus]

Yeah well guess what, there are still people to this day that believe that smoking causes cancer is a conspiracy, and NO I am not kidding.

And there's still people who think the Earth is flat, and that the world was created 6,000 years ago.

We usually ignore those people, though, because they're so obviously wrong.

[Deleted]

Not that big of a deal in Europe I reckon, iirc the majority of Europe already is at the stage of "What should be done" while the US may be a bit "Is this even real?" (generalizing here of course).

A American Senator claimed that Climate Change is not real because Mars is not heating up. This person also sits on the Joint Committee on Natural Resources and Environment and is going to set EPA rules about controlling Greenhouse gases.
http://fatlip.leoweekly.com/2014/07/...e-change-mars/

So it is not Generalization. A good amount of Americans and their Leaders believe Climate Change is a lie.

[Tierbook]

A American Senator claimed that Climate Change is not real because Mars is not heating up. This person also sits on the Joint Committee on Natural Resources and Environment and is going to set EPA rules about controlling Greenhouse gases.
http://fatlip.leoweekly.com/2014/07/...e-change-mars/

So it is not Generalization. A good amount of Americans and their Leaders believe Climate Change is a lie.

Well that guy is an idiot.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Climate change is accelerated by humans. Ever since about the middle of the last ice age the Earth has been warming. Notice last ice age because it happened before because the Earth has gotten cooler and warmer many times in its exsistance (as long as you don't buy the whole Earth is 2000 years old bullshit). But without a doubt humans have VASTLY accelerated its warming in this cycle.

Also climate deniers isn't an American stand. In fact it is a fairly small group of extremely rich people that don't want to lose the ability to get richer and there political lap dogs that really get all over the TV about this shit. I wouldn't doubt if extremely rich people in Europe, Asia, and anywhere in the world that get loaded on cash from polluting industry have a raging hard on for denial. But I wouldn't doubt for one second they also know the truth. Just don't want to face it. A big difference with the same results. Just a little worse since they more or less are willing to risk all of human civilization and even large life on Earth for pieces of paper.

[ringpriest]

Normally I don't even bother responding to deniers - they're no different from birthers or truthers, only they've got a few fossil-fuel industry billionaires as cheerleaders. But, (maybe because I'm at work for a couple more hours and bored), this particular set of idiocy ticked me off with the sheer depth of willful ignorance and deceit on display. Let's take Vedrenne's parroted lies in order:

1) It's the BBC, biased towards the Left-wing and progressive policies, as per Oliver Latham's (Centre for Policy Studies) "Bias at the Beeb" report. Don't quote what they say as fact..

One, the report (which you didn't link, not even a summary) is on bias against think-tanks, not bias at the BBC in general as you imply. Two, the report in question is extremely poorly done. (Btw, who is Oliver Latham, and what qualifications does he have to determine broadcasting institute bias?) Three, the Centre for Policy Studies is itself a pro-capitalist, anti-government "think tank" that has a history of being opposed to the BBC.

Your entire claim (I'm not going to dignify it by calling it an argument) is to misrepresent a claim from a libertarian, climate-change denying think-tank that the BBC doesn't give enough coverage to right-wing think-tanks.

2) If denying climate change makes people a cancer, then kindly explain two points;

a) Why the majority of scientists are sceptical of climate change? (http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-...warming-claims & http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwc...y-Findings.pdf & http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full).

Four, you're presenting two (very) limited surveys as "a majority of scientists". Five, you're referencing a different libertarian, climate-change denying think-tank, Six, you or your source is lying about the results of the poll of the American Meteorological Society, which found 89% of respondents recognize global warming and 59% are confident it is the result of human activity. (Btw, that same organization explicitly endorses anthropogenic global warming.) Seven, the remaining study you linked as "proof" of your claim is a study on what petroleum engineers in Alberta, Canada think about human-caused climate change. Eight, that survey of the small group of scientists working for the oil industry shows that 53% of them think that anthropogenic global warming is happening. (Though that number was split between "yeah, but maybe we can fix it" and "we're fucked".) Nine, the above makes it pretty obvious that you didn't even read through the documents you were linking.

You misrepresented a pair of (limited) polls that don't show what you and the climate-change deniers you quote claim they do.

b) Why some of the supporters of climate change have been trying to suppress data that could prove wrong the 1990 study on the effects of climate change? (http://www.theguardian.com/environme...%20body%20link).

Ten, if you mean "Climategate" then say "Climategate". Eleven, you're throwing around loaded words ("some supporters", "prove wrong", "supress data") while ignoring the multiple independent reviews that found "no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct" and, "nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame.". (Yes, the scientists in question ought to have been more forthcoming with their data.)

I do think climate change is happening, as it has done for millions of years. Where I find doubt is in the extent that mankind has exasperated the effects.

I don't give a damn what you think, and neither should anyone else, given your flagrant display of ignorance.

[breadisfunny]

A American Senator claimed that Climate Change is not real because Mars is not heating up. This person also sits on the Joint Committee on Natural Resources and Environment and is going to set EPA rules about controlling Greenhouse gases.
http://fatlip.leoweekly.com/2014/07/...e-change-mars/

So it is not Generalization. A good amount of Americans and their Leaders believe Climate Change is a lie.

i think this takes the cake for the dumbest thing i have ever heard from a senator.

[Adam Jensen]

A American Senator claimed that Climate Change is not real because Mars is not heating up. This person also sits on the Joint Committee on Natural Resources and Environment and is going to set EPA rules about controlling Greenhouse gases.
http://fatlip.leoweekly.com/2014/07/...e-change-mars/

So it is not Generalization. A good amount of Americans and their Leaders believe Climate Change is a lie.

What the everloving fuck? The hell does Mars have to do with Earth?

- - - Updated - - -

Well that guy is an idiot.

That's an insult to idiots.

[breadisfunny]

What the everloving fuck? The hell does Mars have to do with Earth?

- - - Updated - - -



That's an insult to idiots.

maybe someone replaced him with a rock? wait i think thats an insult to rocks.

[Deleted]

Stupidity should always be silenced. And yes, I do mean straight up outright censorship. We censor sex and violence, so we sure as hell can censor stupidity. You've got freedom of speech as long as you're not a fucking moron. You're expected to know the law and know how to drive a car in order to have a license. You should be expected not to be a dumbass to have freedom of speech.

[Kujako]

Stupidity should always be silenced. And yes, I do mean straight up outright censorship. We censor sex and violence, so we sure as hell can censor stupidity. You've got freedom of speech as long as you're not a fucking moron.

Huh... never thought of using the "think of the children" argument used against stupid. Could work.

[ringpriest]

What the everloving fuck? The hell does Mars have to do with Earth?

The Senator in question was likely trying (and failing) to perpetuate the once-popular denialist claim that "global warming is caused by the sun, because other planets and moons are warming!" That claim is, naturally, based on ignorance and misrepresentation; it is readily debunked in detail.

[Adam Jensen]

The Senator in question was likely trying (and failing) to perpetuate the once-popular denialist claim that "global warming is caused by the sun, because other planets and moons are warming!" That claim is, naturally, based on ignorance and misrepresentation; it is readily debunked in detail.

And also completely ignores that the other planets and moons have completely different environments than ours and each others . . .

[ringpriest]

Stupidity should always be silenced. And yes, I do mean straight up outright censorship. We censor sex and violence, so we sure as hell can censor stupidity. You've got freedom of speech as long as you're not a fucking moron. You're expected to know the law and know how to drive a car in order to have a license. You should be expected not to be a dumbass to have freedom of speech.

Much as I sympathize with the sentiment, I think that's going too far. I do think that deniers (and anti-vaxxers) ought to be treated as dangerous conspiracy theorists and not as "dissenting viewpoints" by both the mainstream media and more private venues such as this discussion board. Which appears to be the direction the BBC is moving. Yay!

[Celarent]

I miss those brief days when science was based on reproducible evidence, not "consensus" over projections and theories, and scientists proudly defended their claims instead of trying to eliminate those presenting conflicting data.

The terrible irony of people like that poor woman is that they turn science into dark-age superstition.