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

BBC staff told to stop inviting cranks on to science programmes

BBC Trust says 200 senior managers trained not to insert ‘false balance’ into stories when issues were non-contentious

BBC journalists are being sent on courses to stop them inviting so many cranks onto programmes to air ‘marginal views’

The BBC Trust on Thursday published a progress report into the corporation’s science coverage which was criticised in 2012 for giving too much air-time to critics who oppose non-contentious issues.

The report found that there was still an ‘over-rigid application of editorial guidelines on impartiality’ which sought to give the ‘other side’ of the argument, even if that viewpoint was widely dismissed.

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 approve.

Political of course

undue attention to marginal opinion
we worry of the suggestible
the straight and normal dominion
no more tenderizing the digestible

we didn’t beat the beaten path
wasting all this TV power
for an entertaining contrary laugh
not nutters we allow

we’re the BBC thankyou
an Attenborough type thing
part of the nature of who’s who
don’t tell there’s loons watching

A sad day for science, a good day for left wing eco terrorists!

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

“Science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views but depends on the varying degree of prominence such views should
be given.”
The Trust said that man-made climate change was one area where too much weight had been given to unqualified critics.
In April the BBC was accused of misleading viewers about climate change and creating ‘false balance’ by allowing unqualified sceptics to have
too much air-time.”
=================================================================================================

Through the late 1990′s and early 2000′s the conclusion that global warming is real was scientifically acceptable.
The next stage is usually peer review and scrutiny and this is where the theory runs into problems.

The standard scientific method goes:

Observations->Hypothesis->Experiment->Analysis

Observations: A warming/CO2 concentration correlation and CO2 absorbs IR spectra

Hypothesis: Emissions cause global warming

Experiment: Climate Model

Analysis: Model simulations comparison to observations

In the following graph (Nature climate change)
a, 1993–2012.
b, 1998–2012.
The grey bars are warming based on 117 CMIP5 model simulations for the time periods stated &

the red hatchings are the actual observed warming from the HadCRUT4 data set

Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years

Nature Climate Change 3, 767–769 (2013) Doi:10.1038/Nclimate1972
Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years
John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett & Francis W. Zwiers
Published online 28 August 2013

nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309

Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval).
This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model
Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To illustrate this, we considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations
of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models.

We find an average model simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on
the model average).

The observed rate of warming is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations provide warming trends within the range of
observational uncertainty.
=======================================

seems the difference is prominent & “deserves plenty of air time”

anyhow, I’m glad the alarmists will have their air time reduced so the viewers aren’t misled.

Observer, there was a time when you annoyed me intensely, but now you are just a small irritant and troll. The reason being Global Warming is now regarded as a serious threat by global powers who are now working hard on the problem. This means you and your global warming deniers have lost. Whoever is paying you Observer they should really consider your effectiveness, as now you must be an embarrassment to them. Still I suppose for what it is worth, Tony Abbott is still an ally. :)

PermeateFree said:

Observer, there was a time when you annoyed me intensely, but now you are just a small irritant and troll. The reason being Global Warming is now regarded as a serious threat by global powers who are now working hard on the problem. This means you and your global warming deniers have lost. Whoever is paying you Observer they should really consider your effectiveness, as now you must be an embarrassment to them. Still I suppose for what it is worth, Tony Abbott is still an ally. :)

jesus, are you listening to yourself?

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Observer, there was a time when you annoyed me intensely, but now you are just a small irritant and troll. The reason being Global Warming is now regarded as a serious threat by global powers who are now working hard on the problem. This means you and your global warming deniers have lost. Whoever is paying you Observer they should really consider your effectiveness, as now you must be an embarrassment to them. Still I suppose for what it is worth, Tony Abbott is still an ally. :)

jesus, are you listening to yourself?

Unlike you, Yes!

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Observer, there was a time when you annoyed me intensely, but now you are just a small irritant and troll. The reason being Global Warming is now regarded as a serious threat by global powers who are now working hard on the problem. This means you and your global warming deniers have lost. Whoever is paying you Observer they should really consider your effectiveness, as now you must be an embarrassment to them. Still I suppose for what it is worth, Tony Abbott is still an ally. :)

jesus, are you listening to yourself?

seriously, you need help. surely someone has told you this

Unlike you, Yes!

but seriously perm, you are demented.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

jesus, are you listening to yourself?

seriously, you need help. surely someone has told you this

Unlike you, Yes!

After all this time pushing your misinformation, you turn out to be just an embarrassment. Still sooner or later it was bound to happen.

PermeateFree said:

After all this time pushing your misinformation, you turn out to be just an embarrassment. Still sooner or later it was bound to happen.

I do beg your pardon, what misinformation? is there something you don’t like about the chart & Paper? LOL

Nothing embarrassing other than your denial of the facts

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

After all this time pushing your misinformation, you turn out to be just an embarrassment. Still sooner or later it was bound to happen.

I do beg your pardon, what misinformation? is there something you don’t like about the chart & Paper? LOL

Nothing embarrassing other than your denial of the facts

You are a card Observer. :))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Please don’t keep going Observer, it is so embarrassing seeing you doing your normal stuff. Go get another job for goodness sake.

.PETA fucking who?
.
.
.
.

.

No Ralf, climate change has had no impact on my life
.
.
.
.

Room with a view