Should The BBC Do This?

[SnowBear]

38 minutes ago, RebsAbbo said:

I agree with your position on climate change. Full stop.

However, we’ve all fallen into the trap of debating climate change (not a bad thing at all & should be debated constantly) but that’s not the question asked on this thread.

My interpretation of the question ‘Should the BBC do this?’ is that the BBC have presented a ‘point of view’ as a news article & I think @GSP is asking if this is appropriate for the BBC, as it could be viewed as a biased piece (yes, we all know the BBC has its bias in lots of ways). So my comment is not on the subject of the content i.e. I’m not commenting on climate change, I’m commenting on the BBC’s approach. The article is about human psychology and how to engage with those who disagree with you. It’s not about whether climate change is or isn’t real. But that’s the takeaway that most people see.

@GSP have I understood you correctly or am I looking too deeply??

I think as its an emotive subject but equally hugely complex and went off the original question quite quickly as probably expected. The BBC are biased, have been for years. 

But it was a starting point for some interesting posts, and that's no bad thing. 

[GSP]

20 minutes ago, RebsAbbo said:

I agree with your position on climate change. Full stop.

However, we’ve all fallen into the trap of debating climate change (not a bad thing at all & should be debated constantly) but that’s not the question asked on this thread.

My interpretation of the question ‘Should the BBC do this?’ is that the BBC have presented a ‘point of view’ as a news article & I think @GSP is asking if this is appropriate for the BBC, as it could be viewed as a biased piece (yes, we all know the BBC has its bias in lots of ways). So my comment is not on the subject of the content i.e. I’m not commenting on climate change, I’m commenting on the BBC’s approach. The article is about human psychology and how to engage with those who disagree with you. It’s not about whether climate change is or isn’t real. But that’s the takeaway that most people see.

@GSP have I understood you correctly or am I looking too deeply??

Interesting views on where this is positioned here.

This is just one account of someone ‘being turned’ to believe. Are there any accounts recorded for believers becoming deniers, and don’t anyone say there haven’t been any.

In the very first instance the piece has been written by two reporters with apparent job titles would you believe “BBC Climate Disinformation Reporters”. So to me the end result will be biased, even though it tries to understand and bring in views on why people deny to try and some balance.

But reading again I found that ‘balance’ condescending. Deniers views were apparently being listened to, but in the end a we are right and you are wrong attitude is apparent. It’s like there is some sympathy, an age thing used where people are set in their ways because of era’s they were brought up in.

The science to me so far is incomplete. While some mechanics are understood, there is still a lot to discover and understand in our atmosphere and it’s relationship with earth itself. Don’t get me wrong I am all for cleaner air and doing away with fossil fuels. It’s just the abruptness in delivery and the fact there are so many people out there who do deny, for whatever reason our impact, that’s just being trodden on.

Sometimes with being older experience can be very useful when actually going through certain times, rather than reading about them in a book or the internet.

And my experience says we don’t fully understand everything yet, though we suddenly think we can control the temperature of the earth by taking away this or that.

Seems like we are reducing pollution in recent times, but the earth appears to warming at a faster rate. Is that supposed to happen?

Warning bells are ringing for me.

 

 

 

[Methuselah]

34 minutes ago, RebsAbbo said:

I agree with your position on climate change. Full stop.

However, we’ve all fallen into the trap of debating climate change (not a bad thing at all & should be debated constantly) but that’s not the question asked on this thread.

My interpretation of the question ‘Should the BBC do this?’ is that the BBC have presented a ‘point of view’ as a news article & I think @GSP is asking if this is appropriate for the BBC, as it could be viewed as a biased piece (yes, we all know the BBC has its bias in lots of ways). So my comment is not on the subject of the content i.e. I’m not commenting on climate change, I’m commenting on the BBC’s approach. The article is about human psychology and how to engage with those who disagree with you. It’s not about whether climate change is or isn’t real. But that’s the takeaway that most people see.

@GSP have I understood you correctly or am I looking too deeply??

No, I think you're probably right enough; though, to limit debate to such a narrow focus would, I think, be detrimental. But I will answer the question posed with another: Why shouldn't the BBC present a non-political point of view?

Despite many efforts from politicians to politicise it, AGW remains an essentially scientific endeavour. But the point at which science and politics coincide is always going to be blurred. And, crucially, more so in the minds of some than in those others.

 

[Methuselah]

1 hour ago, SnowBear said:

I think as its an emotive subject but equally hugely complex and went off the original question quite quickly as probably expected. The BBC are biased, have been for years. 

But it was a starting point for some interesting posts, and that's no bad thing. 

Then again, were the Beeb to post an article claiming that Dark Matter is real (something I'm nae in a position to know BTW!) would that amount to 'bias'? I would suspect, not!

Were they, on the other hand, to present a piece suggesting that only those of a left-wing persuasion were entitled to believe in Dark Matter, I'd be somewhat alarmed!

[SnowBear]

24 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Then again, were the Beeb to post an article claiming that Dark Matter is real (something I'm nae in a position to know BTW!) would that amount to 'bias'? I would suspect, not!

Were they, on the other hand, to present a piece suggesting that only those of a left-wing persuasion were entitled to believe in Dark Matter, I'd be somewhat alarmed!

Its all about the news titles now tbh. In the past we would have seen "Scientists claim dark matter is real" or "Scientists find evidence of...." we get "Dark matter is real".

Whether its due to journos being lazy, or to grab news headlines, or a bit of both? 

I suspect a big part is journos being lazy, no such thing as BBC English anymore and the art of writing accurate headlines has long gone. 

[Earthshine]

Climate change is as an established scientific thing as the fact the earth is spherical.

[Mixer 85]

The BBC are most certainly biased and the article is also most certainly biased.

It is clearly aimed at skeptics and only serves to further deepen the divide between alarmists and skeptics. The language used suggests that skeptics are narrow minded, ignorant, and set in their ways with old school ideas. Further to that, how they recommend one changes the minds of skeptical individuals is more akin to how you might manipulate a child. 

Perhaps the real idea behind this article is to reinforce the beliefs of the reader, the true believer. To reinforce their sense of intellectual and moral superiority. Net result….more ridged beliefs and grandstanding in the face of those ignorant narrow minded heretics.

[Methuselah]

3 minutes ago, Mixer 85 said:

The BBC are most certainly biased and the article is also most certainly biased.

It is clearly aimed at skeptics and only serves to further deepen the divide between alarmists and skeptics. The language used suggests that skeptics are narrow minded, ignorant, and set in their ways with old school ideas. Further to that, how they recommend one changes the minds of skeptical individuals is more akin to how you might manipulate a child. 

Perhaps the real idea behind this article is to reinforce the beliefs of the reader, the true believer. To reinforce their sense of intellectual and moral superiority. Net result….more ridged beliefs and grandstanding in the face of those ignorant narrow minded heretics.

Well, perhaps it's time for some of these 'sceptics' to offer up their own 'science' for consideration, then. As, so far, they have come up with precisely nothing. . . Apart from constant klyping from the sidelines: What if this, what if that, But. . . ? Come on guys, where's your science? Show us that man-made CO2 somehow behaves differently from the 'natural' kind?

The floor is yours!

[SnowBear]

1 hour ago, Ed Stone said:

Well, perhaps it's time for some of these 'sceptics' to offer up their own 'science' for consideration, then. As, so far, they have come up with precisely nothing. . . Apart from constant klyping from the sidelines: What if this, what if that, But. . . ? Come on guys, where's your science? Show us that man-made CO2 somehow behaves differently from the 'natural' kind?

The floor is yours!

Not quite sure who you are having a dig at Ed? 

I dont think any of us are questioning climate change or that co2 is different whether man made or natural. 

What isn't so clear is whether it's all down to co2, or is there other mechanisms at play, along with other human activities which could be even more important than co2. 

With the climate of our planet being as complex as it is every single aspect must be looked into, every chemical, every feedback, every action, and all that is going to take time. 

Right now we can act on co2, but we can't sit back and say that's that then, job done. 

[Methuselah]

3 minutes ago, SnowBear said:

Not quite sure who you are having a dig at Ed? 

I dont think any of us are questioning climate change or that co2 is different whether man made or natural. 

What isn't so clear is whether it's all down to co2, or is there other mechanisms at play, along with other human activities which could be even more important than co2. 

With the climate of our planet being as complex as it is every single aspect must be looked into, every chemical, every feedback, every action, and all that is going to take time. 

Right now we can act on co2, but we can't sit back and say that's that then, job done. 

It's not genuine sceptics that worry me, SB; it's the deniers. And, please, don't assume that I call sceptics 'deniers': I reserve that moniker for the likes of Piers Corbyn and Anthony Whatchacallit: they are the ones who threaten the planet. Without scepticism, science wouldn't even exist. Science is scepticism!

But it ain't denial!

[Mixer 85]

2 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

Well, perhaps it's time for some of these 'sceptics' to offer up their own 'science' for consideration, then. As, so far, they have come up with precisely nothing. . . Apart from constant klyping from the sidelines: What if this, what if that, But. . . ? Come on guys, where's your science? Show us that man-made CO2 somehow behaves differently from the 'natural' kind?

The floor is yours!

Thanks Pete, you’ve just proven my point….grandstanding at its finest.

 

If you are of the belief that I think CO2 doesn’t contribute to global warming then you are wrong.

What exactly would you like me to prove? Would you like me to prove that CO2 isn’t melting the icecaps, prove that it doesn’t cause flooding, wildfires, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, heatwaves, fire & brimstone, cats and dogs living together…mass hysteria!! 
I would like you to prove that it does.

The debate has always been about how much warming is attributed to CO2 and the future effects of said warming.

I’m labelled as a narrow minded ignoramus for simply having an inquisitive mind and not blindly accepting every alarming utterance by MSM and political organisations who are trying to drum up public support for environmental policies that are costing trillions, costing lives and destroying environments. I fear that a once prestigious scientific field of study has now become a cesspit of greedy politicians and bureaucrats who fear not one bit about the climate or the environment. 

 

 

[Earthshine]

10 minutes ago, Mixer 85 said:

Thanks Pete, you’ve just proven my point….grandstanding at its finest.

 

If you are of the belief that I think CO2 doesn’t contribute to global warming then you are wrong.

What exactly would you like me to prove? Would you like me to prove that CO2 isn’t melting the icecaps, prove that it doesn’t cause flooding, wildfires, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, heatwaves, fire & brimstone, cats and dogs living together…mass hysteria!! 
I would like you to prove that it does.

The debate has always been about how much warming is attributed to CO2 and the future effects of said warming.

I’m labelled as a narrow minded ignoramus for simply having an inquisitive mind and not blindly accepting every alarming utterance by MSM and political organisations who are trying to drum up public support for environmental policies that are costing trillions, costing lives and destroying environments. I fear that a once prestigious scientific field of study has now become a cesspit of greedy politicians and bureaucrats who fear not one bit about the climate or the environment. 

 

I think a lot of it comes down to climate change "sceptics" feel special going against decades of research pointing towards a conclusion.  I assume you are involved in climate research?  I think all we are asking is for the peer-reviewed research showing that human induced climate change isn't real.  I don't think that's too much to ask for, do you?  Or are we getting the tinfoil hats out for this one?

[Mixer 85]

1 minute ago, Earthshine said:

I think a lot of it comes down to climate change "sceptics" feel special going against decades of research pointing towards a conclusion.  I assume you are involved in climate research?  I think all we are asking is for the peer-reviewed research showing that human induced climate change isn't real.  I don't think that's too much to ask for, do you?  Or are we getting the tinfoil hats out for this one?

Personally I don’t feel special. At times I feel alienated and put down by the moral high-grounders. I’m not involved in climate research, I’ve just spent a very long time following the subject closely. When I was younger I was deeply concerned about climate change and the more I looked into the subject, the more doubtful I became. 
 

Perhaps you wouldn’t mind clarifying precisely what you mean by climate change. Are you simply referring to the consensus that the climate has warmed approx 1deg since pre industrial times with little discernible difference on the ground, or, that the planet will continue to warm at an ever increasing rate leading to a catastrophic existential threat that can only be avoided if we reduce CO2.

It’s important that we’re clear on our definition of climate change because different people have different views. Some of us agree with Greta and some of us agree with Lindzen. 
 

Your reference to tinfoil hats is a weak  attempt to portray me as a conspiracy theorist wacko. One shouldn’t be labelled a conspiracy theorist for questioning the science that’s driving expensive government policy and transforming the way we live. 

[Gray-Wolf]

Sometimes you don't need go as far as a PHD to know some theory or other is correct...simple 'observation can, in many instances, suffice no?

 

Look at the 'flat Earth Theory?

 

Were the Earth 'flat' the Cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.........

[Derecho]

I think there is one important point the article misses. When the lady says she has given up arguing with climate change deniers, I think this is a worrying thing because if someone is saying things like 'climate change scientists are a fraud' and 'there is no such thing as AGW' then they may be convincing someone who is uninformed and is yet to make their mind up.

Scepticism is healthy but there comes a point of rationality. Flat earth theory for example and now i think the warming planet dismissal is getting close to that, i don't mind debating the extent CO2 has, as long as there is some acknowledgement it has an influence.

I think it is key to keep messaging the science out... because as the impacts of climate change become more significant, it makes greater inroads into political debate, so you'll get more people who don't know much about climate change looking to read into opinions and they could be swayed by anti-science.

Thankfully, debate here goes into the sceptical rather than denial category.

It says a lot about the world we live in that corrupt oil bosses and lobbyists can use an argument like 'climate change scientists are part of a gravy train' when the scientists are choosing passion for what they are studying over money, I had less then £5 in my account when I moved out of my home towards the end of my climate change PhD!

[Methuselah]

14 hours ago, Mixer 85 said:

Thanks Pete, you’ve just proven my point….grandstanding at its finest.

 

If you are of the belief that I think CO2 doesn’t contribute to global warming then you are wrong.

What exactly would you like me to prove? Would you like me to prove that CO2 isn’t melting the icecaps, prove that it doesn’t cause flooding, wildfires, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, heatwaves, fire & brimstone, cats and dogs living together…mass hysteria!! 
I would like you to prove that it does.

The debate has always been about how much warming is attributed to CO2 and the future effects of said warming.

I’m labelled as a narrow minded ignoramus for simply having an inquisitive mind and not blindly accepting every alarming utterance by MSM and political organisations who are trying to drum up public support for environmental policies that are costing trillions, costing lives and destroying environments. I fear that a once prestigious scientific field of study has now become a cesspit of greedy politicians and bureaucrats who fear not one bit about the climate or the environment. 

No, not really, as I wasn't referring to your good but to the likes of Corbyn and Watts et al; none of whom have seldom, if ever, produced any proper peer-reviewed Climate Science in support of their claims. Seemingly, Deniers (not sceptics, for about the ten-thousandth time!) need only shout 'CONSPIRACY' or 'FAKE NEWS' or 'ENCROACHMENT' or 'MSM' or whatever for their opinions to be believed.

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by Ed Stone

[kold weather]

14 hours ago, Mixer 85 said:

The debate has always been about how much warming is attributed to CO2 and the future effects of said warming.

I’m labelled as a narrow minded ignoramus for simply having an inquisitive mind and not blindly accepting every alarming utterance by MSM and political organisations who are trying to drum up public support for environmental policies that are costing trillions, costing lives and destroying environments. I fear that a once prestigious scientific field of study has now become a cesspit of greedy politicians and bureaucrats who fear not one bit about the climate or the environment. 

 

The thing is there is really quite strong agreement now that Co2 is doing a huge amount of the heavy lifting when it comes to temperatures. Countless models/scientific experiments have constantly come back with the same conclusion for decades, and I know that isn't really the point your making here.

I suppose the question that must be fired back at any sceptic or even denier is what other mechanism can explain what we've been seeing in the last 50 years in particular that could have such a dramatic influence AND matches as well with the vast swathe of scientific evidence we already have.

For example I can see UHI being raised as an issue, and I can certainly see some logic behind that, though how much of a % of the earths land do the cities that are big enough to cause a clear UHI foot print actually take up?

Still the oceans are also heating up, at a slower pace than land (due to oceans being better at absorbing heat) and there are clearly no UHI across the oceans, so Co2 must be driving that process to a large degree out there.

@Quicksilver1989 unfortunatly I think we have lived/living through an era where experts views aren't really worth that much. Nothing sums it up better than Gove back in 2016 saying the "country has had enough of experts." Many people want the status quo to just continue as the alternative means their lives will have to at some point drastically alter and its easier for them to deny it than acknowledge change is needed, and will ignore experts and go along with whatever is easiest to conform to their mindset rather than accept the cold hard truth that experts are screaming at them.

At some point, the weight of evidence, both theortical and practical (floding, heatwaves, storms, etc) will hit so hard they will change tact. Sadly by then it maybe too late.

Edited July 27, 2022 by kold weather

[cheeky_monkey]

On 25/07/2022 at 03:44, GSP said:

An article, before it is taken off, on how you should talk to climate change denier’s, and ‘tips’ with how to engage with them.

Climate change: How to talk to a denier

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

Tips about how to engage with people who think climate change is a "hoax".

 

if you needs tips on anything ..the BBC is the last place i would look ..CLOWNS 

Edited July 27, 2022 by cheeky_monkey

[GSP]

11 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

if you needs tips on anything ..the BBC is the last place i would look ..CLOWNS 

Too true! They need an eye keeping on as despite what they say I don’t trust them. In fact all their carefully edited clips and pics, bias, influencing, agenda’s etc, they only serve now to try and divide and disrupt this country.

And now they have a piece constructed by a couple of their reporters with their job titles “Climate Disinformation Reporters”!
I’d like to know what other job titles they have in different areas and bet they would raise more than eyebrow.

[cheeky_monkey]

10 hours ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

I think there is one important point the article misses. When the lady says she has given up arguing with climate change deniers, I think this is a worrying thing because if someone is saying things like 'climate change scientists are a fraud' and 'there is no such thing as AGW' then they may be convincing someone who is uninformed and is yet to make their mind up.

Scepticism is healthy but there comes a point of rationality. Flat earth theory for example and now i think the warming planet dismissal is getting close to that, i don't mind debating the extent CO2 has, as long as there is some acknowledgement it has an influence.

I think it is key to keep messaging the science out... because as the impacts of climate change become more significant, it makes greater inroads into political debate, so you'll get more people who don't know much about climate change looking to read into opinions and they could be swayed by anti-science.

Thankfully, debate here goes into the sceptical rather than denial category.

It says a lot about the world we live in that corrupt oil bosses and lobbyists can use an argument like 'climate change scientists are part of a gravy train' when the scientists are choosing passion for what they are studying over money, I had less then £5 in my account when I moved out of my home towards the end of my climate change PhD!

i agree that sceptism is healthy and there should never be a consensus on anything when it comes to things we dont know for certain..for me and its just my opinion based on what i know and what i can see is that global warming is happening and has been happening really since the 1850s..what i dont see is the catastrophes that are being portrayed and rolled as fact and that we are all doomed are happening to the extent we are being told...storms.. deadly tornadoes ..fierce hurricanes..floods and famine devastating heat waves etc that are threating millions. These instances have always happened and haven't increased in severity or frequency over the last 100 years..even though the planet is warming..the number of people dying due to flooding, drought,  starvation  excessive heat is at a all time low..so observations do not match the narrative yet the same narrative keeps getting rolled out unchallenged..so for me the narrative of global warming =equals death and destruction on a global scale  i just don't see it in fact all i see is a warmer planet is a more benign one.

[kold weather]

13 hours ago, cheeky_monkey said:

 These instances have always happened and haven't increased in severity or frequency over the last 100 years..even though the planet is warming..the number of people dying due to flooding, drought,  starvation  excessive heat is at a all time low..so observations do not match the narrative yet the same narrative keeps getting rolled out unchallenged..so for me the narrative of global warming =equals death and destruction on a global scale  i just don't see it in fact all i see is a warmer planet is a more benign one.

Its an interesting point, a study was done on this using 2000-2019 as a baseline and using excess deaths:

Quote

Professor Guo,  from the Monash University School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine,  said this shows global warming may “slightly reduce the number of temperature-related deaths, largely because of the lessening in cold-related mortality, however in the long-term climate change is expected to increase the mortality burden because hot-related mortality would be continuing to increase”

Effectively at the moment the areas that you cause high mortality due to extreme cold is reducing due to rising temperatures, and that is more than off setting the increasing in deaths due to heatwaves.

Eventually though if the zones of extreme temperatures expand too much and becomes too significant though the offset from decreasing cold deaths will be matched and exceeded by heat deaths.

And of course none of that takes in to consideration floods/sea level rises which in themselves cause significant problems, as well as famines caused by grain failures due to high heat and drought, etc.

But it does show that simply heat = more deaths isn't really true, its much more nuanced than that. 

Edited July 28, 2022 by kold weather

[Snowy L]

On 25/07/2022 at 17:11, Mixer 85 said:

Are there actually many “deniers” out there? Or is this just a woefully insulting broad brush term to describe skeptics? 
I would describe myself as a skeptic of the mainstream narrative, and after spending many years studying and following the subject closely I’m even more resolute in my skepticism.

I'm not a denier but if someone tries lecturing me to turn into a herbivore, bonus stupidity points if they have been against nuclear energy for the past few decades, then they deserve a smack. The country could have been powered by ultra low carbon energy by now instead of micromanaging every aspect of peoples' lives, after solar panels that don't work when it's too hot or windmills that don't work when it's windy enough or break when it's too windy somehow didn't solve our energy problems.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Snowy L

[keithlucky]

It's doesn't matter what your opion on GW the stupid comments made by the bbc ,For example what was said today,  concerning, the drought in Kenya no rain for 3yrs is caused by global warming,I grew up when Kenya neighbours Ethiopia in the 1970s drought, 80 thousands people died and Thousands of animals died due the severe drought.So try BBC try to stop your Hysteria.

[GSP]

It’s refreshing to see such a number of balanced posts, and the BBC themselves should take note of a bigger picture rather than providing and provoking headlines and ‘pieces’ similar to the Express.

“BBC Climate Disinformation Reporters”! Really! Sorry, there are nearly two sides of the coin here BBC and your bias ‘shines through’ once again.

Trusted source? No way, not any more! That’s why people ARE seeking other sources of information now.

Edited July 28, 2022 by GSP

[cheeky_monkey]

deleted

Edited July 28, 2022 by cheeky_monkey