Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
durbster said:
The point you're missing, deliberately or not, is that fringe views don't pass the quality control aspect of broadcasting, which is why nobody on climate change as you see it.
To be reported by the news, there has to be - at the very minimum - a reliable source and some credible evidence. You have neither, I'm afraid.
To be reported by the news, there has to be - at the very minimum - a reliable source and some credible evidence. You have neither, I'm afraid.
Durbs you should be a stand up comedian - that was a gem.
OK, in support of the Beeb, there was this rare as hen's teeth rather more balanced interview and feedback from some time ago. There should imho be more of this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23405202
I understand Judith Curry had an interview scheduled with Neil, but this was cancelled - mores the pity.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23405202
I understand Judith Curry had an interview scheduled with Neil, but this was cancelled - mores the pity.
durbster said:
Ali G said:
It's a specious argument to suugest that imapartiality of BBC reporting should be assessed through benchmarking against the reporting of other media outlets, when the imapartiality needs to be assessed against the Governing Charter.
The point you're missing, deliberately or not, is that fringe views don't pass the quality control aspect of broadcasting, which is why nobody on climate change as you see it. To be reported by the news, there has to be - at the very minimum - a reliable source and some credible evidence. You have neither, I'm afraid.
Any small pressure group if they are dogged enough to keep pressing (and many Single Issue Fanatics are at least that focused) has the ability to make something "newsworthy" without the need to prove they are a reliable source or that they have some credible evidence of anything except their own opinions.
And, being impartial, that can apply to all side of discussion although the people who seem to be most dogged and persistent and hunt in packs tend towards the social left - a place more likely to see groups formed and so an army (sometimes a small platoon) for mutual support.
The same happens, but in lower numbers of both individuals and groups, on the extreme "right" as it is known.
The middle has many individualists who like to stay individual - so fewer active "pressure" groups, very few, and short periods of influence before they implode through loss of interest or infighting.
Perhaps it would informative to spend a few day considering news stories and assessing their sources. Not just Climate related stories - all sources of news to see how it works in the modern press release cut and paste world.
Consider that someone somewhere in the WHO thought they could appoint Mugabe as a health Ambassador and one might start to wonder about the quality of other newsworthy sources. But at least they got high volume high visibility responses so in that sense the press release and the decision that drove it had some positive results.
How about diesel cars?
I'm pretty sure that 10 or 15 years ago the information sources that drove the British public towards the European preference for diesel power were considered to be "a reliable source and some credible evidence. "
If operating now they might be considered the Mugabes of motoring.
Nothing is as black and white as you like seem to like to see it, durbster.
Nothing.
Can’t find any warming so let’s go for extra cooling........millions of years ago 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-...
LongQ said:
durbster, surely you don't really believe that do you?
You find it unbelievable that Britain's TV news might have some basic standards about what they choose to broadcast?LongQ said:
Nothing is as black and white as you like seem to like to see it, durbster.
Nothing.
Eh? You'll have to explain what's black and white here because I've no idea what you're talking about. Nothing.
And with respect, I'm afraid you completely lost me with your wandering ramble about Robert Mugabe and diesel cars.
Ali G said:
durbster said:
The point you're missing, deliberately or not, is that fringe views don't pass the quality control aspect of broadcasting, which is why nobody on climate change as you see it.
To be reported by the news, there has to be - at the very minimum - a reliable source and some credible evidence. You have neither, I'm afraid.
Well I think that you may have to define 'fringe views' and then justify why excluding 'fringe views' does not impair impartiality.To be reported by the news, there has to be - at the very minimum - a reliable source and some credible evidence. You have neither, I'm afraid.
durbster said:
Ali G said:
durbster said:
The point you're missing, deliberately or not, is that fringe views don't pass the quality control aspect of broadcasting, which is why nobody on climate change as you see it.
To be reported by the news, there has to be - at the very minimum - a reliable source and some credible evidence. You have neither, I'm afraid.
Well I think that you may have to define 'fringe views' and then justify why excluding 'fringe views' does not impair impartiality.To be reported by the news, there has to be - at the very minimum - a reliable source and some credible evidence. You have neither, I'm afraid.
Yes I know she's on the naughty step at the moment, but really?
durbster said:
LongQ said:
durbster, surely you don't really believe that do you?
You find it unbelievable that Britain's TV news might have some basic standards about what they choose to broadcast?LongQ said:
Nothing is as black and white as you like seem to like to see it, durbster.
Nothing.
Eh? You'll have to explain what's black and white here because I've no idea what you're talking about. Nothing.
And with respect, I'm afraid you completely lost me with your wandering ramble about Robert Mugabe and diesel cars.
I am sure that Britain's TV news does indeed have some basic standards about what they choose to broadcast. Very basic and likely very choosy.
But then very malleable too.
Who remembers the Jo Abbess effect?
Ali G said:
durbster said:
Ali G said:
durbster said:
The point you're missing, deliberately or not, is that fringe views don't pass the quality control aspect of broadcasting, which is why nobody on climate change as you see it.
To be reported by the news, there has to be - at the very minimum - a reliable source and some credible evidence. You have neither, I'm afraid.
Well I think that you may have to define 'fringe views' and then justify why excluding 'fringe views' does not impair impartiality.To be reported by the news, there has to be - at the very minimum - a reliable source and some credible evidence. You have neither, I'm afraid.
Yes I know she's on the naughty step at the moment, but really?
durbster said:
Curry doesn't dispute AGW, so no.
That's encouraging!She does however question the more extravagant claims of catastrophe and whether policies adopted are appropriate does she not?
And as a consequence has been branded 'denier' by the more vociferous activists.
Perhaps the Beeb could permit such opinions to be aired - it might even be seen as providing balance!
durbster said:
Ali G said:
durbster said:
The point you're missing, deliberately or not, is that fringe views don't pass the quality control aspect of broadcasting, which is why nobody on climate change as you see it.
To be reported by the news, there has to be - at the very minimum - a reliable source and some credible evidence. You have neither, I'm afraid.
Well I think that you may have to define 'fringe views' and then justify why excluding 'fringe views' does not impair impartiality.To be reported by the news, there has to be - at the very minimum - a reliable source and some credible evidence. You have neither, I'm afraid.
robinessex said:
durbster said:
Ali G said:
durbster said:
The point you're missing, deliberately or not, is that fringe views don't pass the quality control aspect of broadcasting, which is why nobody on climate change as you see it.
To be reported by the news, there has to be - at the very minimum - a reliable source and some credible evidence. You have neither, I'm afraid.
Well I think that you may have to define 'fringe views' and then justify why excluding 'fringe views' does not impair impartiality.To be reported by the news, there has to be - at the very minimum - a reliable source and some credible evidence. You have neither, I'm afraid.
Both would be political opinions and statements and nothing very much to do with science on that basis.
Of far greater concern to politicians will be the virtue signalling, funding arguments amongst government departments and being seen to be wielding "power" - political power of course but in this context also power related to the energy demands the country needs to satisfy in order to function. In the short term - i.e within the limits of a politicians term of office - only the departmental budget factors and the virtue signalling are relevant.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff