Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
John The Pessimist

Hpcers To Be Banned By Bbc?

Recommended Posts

We're not cranks anymore though are we, we're pretty mainstream. It's disconcerting, annoying even, I'll have to find myself a new contrarian view to validate my self esteem as a free thinker.

In all seriousness though, I do think if 85% of the scientific establishment agree on a view, it's only fair that the other 15% are proportionately represented and I think that's what the report is arguing for, proportion.

But still, who gives the BBC the authority to decide who's right or wrong, it's not the blinking Gestapo. Well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.’

So that'll be little or no change from the current situation.

However 200 + staff will have had the opportunity to attend some freeloading jollies mainly at TV licence payers' expense.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mainly relates to climate change deniers and other 'nutters'. How soon before anyone that rejects orthodox views will be banned?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10944629/BBC-staff-told-to-stop-inviting-cranks-onto-science-programmes.html

'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.’'

I wonder if they're termed 'reeducation camps'?

Edited by Sancho Panza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we get the BBC to stop getting 'estate agents' onto the news and calling them 'property experts?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not cranks anymore though are we, we're pretty mainstream. It's disconcerting, annoying even, I'll have to find myself a new contrarian view to validate my self esteem as a free thinker.

In all seriousness though, I do think if 85% of the scientific establishment agree on a view, it's only fair that the other 15% are proportionately represented and I think that's what the report is arguing for, proportion.

But still, who gives the BBC the authority to decide who's right or wrong, it's not the blinking Gestapo. Well...

You mean such as when 85% of scientists believed the earth was orbited by the sun? Or that vaccination was impossible and devilry?

"Science advances one death at a time"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we get the BBC to stop getting 'estate agents' onto the news and calling them 'property experts?'

If i were being cynical id say Its like asking jimmy saville to comment on children's paegeants.

The bbc frequently tells what i should think and what i should not say.

They are making people angry as far as i fan tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bbc only give four-fifths of the story....have to go elsewhere to find the other side of the story to create a whole. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this means we get less of the idiot Farage on the telly then I'm right behind it.

Presumably you''d also 'be behind' having less of the laughable Clegg and Camoron et all as well?

Edited by Errol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean such as when 85% of scientists believed the earth was orbited by the sun? Or that vaccination was impossible and devilry?

"Science advances one death at a time"

Yes I mean exactly like that. Religion on the other hand, does not advance at all. Edited by Digsby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all seriousness though, I do think if 85% of the scientific establishment agree on a view, it's only fair that the other 15% are proportionately represented and I think that's what the report is arguing for, proportion.

Just so long as it is a qualified opinion that is simply reported on, rather than wheeling out the likes of kirsty allsop or an estate agent and asking them about the economics of house prices. And 'reporting on', BBC, means passing on the information without the infection of the opinions of 'professional readers' via the medium of a sad or happy face, or an inane comment to their co presenter afterward.

"House prices up! So thats good for the economy then! On to the weather"

*facepalm*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah those asides to the co presenter at the end of an item are so annoying. They're supposed to be reporting on the news not opining on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be glad to be banned by the BBC! They generally fail to Educate, Inform and Entertain, now , unlike "Round the Horne!, which was smashing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not cranks anymore though are we, we're pretty mainstream. It's disconcerting, annoying even, I'll have to find myself a new contrarian view to validate my self esteem as a free thinker.

In all seriousness though, I do think if 85% of the scientific establishment agree on a view, it's only fair that the other 15% are proportionately represented and I think that's what the report is arguing for, proportion.

But still, who gives the BBC the authority to decide who's right or wrong, it's not the blinking Gestapo. Well...

Except that the proportion of climate scientists who accept AGW is nearer 100%

What next? Creationists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that the proportion of climate scientists who accept AGW is nearer 100%

What next? Creationists?

I wasn't talking about any particular topic, and wasn't arguing for anything more than proportionate representation - and in the case of AGW I agree, the consensus is such that it is as much as scientific fact as anything (in that scientific fact = the consensus view), and contrarian views have no place in science programmes about climate change. That is why I am broadly agreeing with the report, tongue in cheek remark aside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't talking about any particular topic, and wasn't arguing for anything more than proportionate representation - and in the case of AGW I agree, the consensus is such that it is as much as scientific fact as anything (in that scientific fact = the consensus view), and contrarian views have no place in science programmes about climate change. That is why I am broadly agreeing with the report, tongue in cheek remark aside.

Thanks for clarifying.

I actually think the BBC are so untrustworthy that every time they run an item on climate change, the number of AGW sceptics in the general public increases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clarifying.

I actually think the BBC are so untrustworthy that every time they run an item on climate change, the number of AGW sceptics in the general public increases.

It does feel that way sometimes. Only last week a member of this very forum said words to this effect "man-made climate change is still very much in doubt".

No it isn't, the only thing in doubt in the mind of somebody with that opinion is whether the scientific community is interested in truth over convenience.

And while, yes, sometimes old ideas die hard (the example given by wherebee above about sun orbiting the moon, from a different era when many scientists still thought they were gods creation thus the centre of the universe), the fact is that the truth is all that the scientific community is interested in.

That's not to say that everything accepted as scientific fact is in truth fact, but that it represents the greatest and most rigorous human endevour to establish fact, which deserves some respect.

There may be so called scientists that are not interested in truth - they are not scientists. That is why science is a democracy, the more participants the greater the chance that truth is discovered, and that is why each of us should accept the scientific consensus as fact, unless we ourselves are scientists in posession of contrary evidence, in which case we should be engaged directly with other scientists, otherwise we should be keeping our misinformed and misguided opinions to ourselves instead of posting on forums like this with unfounded claims.

As you can see, it's something close to heart (and I've had a couple of glasses of red)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does feel that way sometimes. Only last week a member of this very forum said words to this effect "man-made climate change is still very much in doubt".

No it isn't, the only thing in doubt in the mind of somebody with that opinion is whether the scientific community is interested in truth over convenience.

And while, yes, sometimes old ideas die hard (the example given by wherebee above about sun orbiting the moon, from a different era when many scientists still thought they were gods creation thus the centre of the universe), the fact is that the truth is all that the scientific community is interested in.

That's not to say that everything accepted as scientific fact is in truth fact, but that it represents the greatest and most rigorous human endevour to establish fact, which deserves some respect.

There may be so called scientists that are not interested in truth - they are not scientists. That is why science is a democracy, the more participants the greater the chance that truth is discovered, and that is why each of us should accept the scientific consensus as fact, unless we ourselves are scientists in posession of contrary evidence, in which case we should be engaged directly with other scientists, otherwise we should be keeping our misinformed and misguided opinions to ourselves instead of posting on forums like this with unfounded claims.

As you can see, it's something close to heart (and I've had a couple of glasses of red)!

Ah, Philosophy of Science. Trouble is, there are many many examples in the past hundred years that scientists are just human and won't change from the views that put the paycheck in the Bank. I believe strongly in the scientific process, and am a strong pro-environmentalist, have a maths and science background, and yet despite reading lots and lots on global warming still cannot be convinced. I'd like a testable theorem (i.e. one model/prediction that has timeframes and verifiable data) that will settle it - but no such luck.

Instead i see a lot of words used that I KNOW (from my own career) are very useful in getting people to believe something that is not 100%true, to benefit someone else. I use them. I recognise them. I see a lot of behaviours that I KNOW from my experience demonstrate people saying you must do A when they dont really believe A (recent example: greenpeace paying for air commutes).

I also see the BBC as one of the least trustworthy organisations in the media. The fact they support the GW side makes me highly, highly suspicious..... B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.