Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   The BBC have ordered their staff to no longer give equal time to anti-science lunatics   (salon.com ) divider line
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

9978 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Jul 2014 at 6:50 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



547 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-07 03:09:37 AM  
thank god. now if only US "news" organizations would do the same.
 
2014-07-07 03:13:49 AM  
Yea, no kidding.

But then you open the door to people saying they are being censored by the government as part of whatever conspiracy they are touting, which in turn will only bring about the other crazies.
 
2014-07-07 03:21:43 AM  
grumpycatgood.jpg
 
2014-07-07 03:25:29 AM  
And this is why freedom of speech is so important.  Now there is only one view based on psuedoscience, emotion, superstition and greed being presented. Very nice.
 
2014-07-07 03:27:52 AM  
That's swell.
 
2014-07-07 03:28:43 AM  
I am pretty sure freedom of speech is that you are allowed to voice your opinion and not be arrested for it, just so long as you aren't trying to get someone hurt or killed with your point of view
 
2014-07-07 03:31:39 AM  

voltOhm: And this is why freedom of speech is so important.  Now there is only one view based on psuedoscience, emotion, superstition and greed being presented. Very nice.


You're right, Fox News is still at it.
 
2014-07-07 03:36:02 AM  

Czechzican: I am pretty sure freedom of speech is that you are allowed to voice your opinion and not be arrested for it, just so long as you aren't trying to get someone hurt or killed with your point of view


Plus, it's worth noting that BBC is a BRITISH network and the UK does not have "freedom of speech" as the US does.
 
2014-07-07 04:08:08 AM  

Ambivalence: Czechzican: I am pretty sure freedom of speech is that you are allowed to voice your opinion and not be arrested for it, just so long as you aren't trying to get someone hurt or killed with your point of view

Plus, it's worth noting that BBC is a BRITISH network and the UK does not have "freedom of speech" as the US does.


Yep. I believe the Canadian freedom of speech laws are similiar to the UK's.

You just know though that people are going to decry this as censorship
 
2014-07-07 04:17:52 AM  

Czechzican: Ambivalence: Czechzican: I am pretty sure freedom of speech is that you are allowed to voice your opinion and not be arrested for it, just so long as you aren't trying to get someone hurt or killed with your point of view

Plus, it's worth noting that BBC is a BRITISH network and the UK does not have "freedom of speech" as the US does.

Yep. I believe the Canadian freedom of speech laws are similiar to the UK's.

You just know though that people are going to decry this as censorship


Who cares?  If they don't like it they can make their own network.
 
2014-07-07 04:28:32 AM  
TFN has a nice right to it.. Tin Foil Network..
 
2014-07-07 05:01:59 AM  

FlashHarry: thank god. now if only US "news" organizations would do the same.


And what if the US does the opposite, and bans any talk of Climate Change or Greenhouse Gasses?
 
2014-07-07 05:06:50 AM  
The United States eliminates the Fairness Doctrine: "This is wrong!  Both sides of the issue need a platform!"
Britain forces "climate deniers" off the air: "Thank you Barack Obama, for banning people I don't like!"

Got it.
 
2014-07-07 06:19:49 AM  
history-world.org
Does not approve.
 
2014-07-07 06:44:22 AM  

DrPainMD: [history-world.org image 340x275]
Does not approve.


Why the hell would Santa approve of anything? The smaller the naughty list is, the more toys he has to haul. Wood doesn't grow on trees, ya know!!
 
2014-07-07 06:48:24 AM  

Ambivalence: Czechzican: Ambivalence: Czechzican: I am pretty sure freedom of speech is that you are allowed to voice your opinion and not be arrested for it, just so long as you aren't trying to get someone hurt or killed with your point of view

Plus, it's worth noting that BBC is a BRITISH network and the UK does not have "freedom of speech" as the US does.

Yep. I believe the Canadian freedom of speech laws are similiar to the UK's.

You just know though that people are going to decry this as censorship

Who cares?  If they don't like it they can make their own network.


Are there independent stations in GB? I thought they were all sponsored by the govt.

Regardless, this is not a good move.
 
2014-07-07 06:52:53 AM  
The do realize that those anti-science derpers are their own staff, right?
 
2014-07-07 06:55:43 AM  

Russ1642: The do realize that those anti-science derpers are their own staff, right?


Might be time to go to bed son.
 
2014-07-07 06:56:26 AM  
I wonder how close to libel and slander the anti-science people come in the UK. Libel laws in the UK are notorious for being oppressive and used to silence opinion.
 
2014-07-07 07:01:11 AM  

Too late. The damage is done.

Shutting what remains of the barn door after the cows have left, encountered traffic, stampeded throughout the area, knocking down power poles, and burning down the barn in the resulting electrical fire, does not elicit a lot of farking praise from me.

In the case of climate change, the results are clear, at least in this country - it's too late. We can't stop it, and passing any significant act to mitigate it will only result in pushback by the dumb, easily-led folks who believe everything from "it's not happening" to "it's aliens."
 
2014-07-07 07:03:34 AM  
Why dont they order some decent food and a round of toothpaste while they be all order n sheet.
 
2014-07-07 07:04:13 AM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Regardless, this is not a good move.


Because teach the controversy?
 
2014-07-07 07:05:52 AM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: this is not a good move.


Because addlepated airheads hammering on about something they have zero knowledge of, in a field they have zero experience in,  was a good thing?

I thought this was the inviolable realm of the politico.
 
2014-07-07 07:05:59 AM  
So if I understand TFA, they're saying that if they call someone an expert in a field, they're now going to make sure that person is an actual expert in that field instead of digging up whatever Joe Schmoe has the viewpoint they want for that segment or article?
 
2014-07-07 07:06:55 AM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Are there independent stations in GB? I thought they were all sponsored by the govt.


No.

The biggest commercial satellite broadcaster in the UK is a Rupert Murdoch company. Sky News is far less derpy than Fox News, but I'm pretty sure they'll allow non-scientists a voice in scientific debates, if that's what you want.

Regardless, this is not a good move.

This move prevents the views of people who have no scientific understanding of issues being given the same weight as the views of those that do.

If you can prove that the generally accepted views of the scientific community regarding climate change are wrong, I'm sure they'll gladly have you on.
 
2014-07-07 07:09:20 AM  
I'd rather that they brought the deniers on the air and then humiliated them but this is almost as good.
 
2014-07-07 07:12:58 AM  
firstfriday.files.wordpress.com

Not warm, hot.
 
2014-07-07 07:15:30 AM  
We win!

Yay!

Only a matter of time before our voices have been silenced.

Oh wait...
 
2014-07-07 07:16:55 AM  

iron de havilland: IamKaiserSoze!!!: Are there independent stations in GB? I thought they were all sponsored by the govt.

No.

The biggest commercial satellite broadcaster in the UK is a Rupert Murdoch company. Sky News is far less derpy than Fox News, but I'm pretty sure they'll allow non-scientists a voice in scientific debates, if that's what you want.

Regardless, this is not a good move.

This move prevents the views of people who have no scientific understanding of issues being given the same weight as the views of those that do.

If you can prove that the generally accepted views of the scientific community regarding climate change are wrong, I'm sure they'll gladly have you on.


DNRTFA, or I guess I would have read this.

I'm fine with the policy change of defining the credentials of the people who are opining. This policy will affect both sides of the debate on a lot of issues, but probably in a healthy way.
 
2014-07-07 07:17:27 AM  
go be a fat idiot somewhere else!
 
2014-07-07 07:17:47 AM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Ambivalence: Czechzican: Ambivalence: Czechzican: I am pretty sure freedom of speech is that you are allowed to voice your opinion and not be arrested for it, just so long as you aren't trying to get someone hurt or killed with your point of view

Plus, it's worth noting that BBC is a BRITISH network and the UK does not have "freedom of speech" as the US does.

Yep. I believe the Canadian freedom of speech laws are similiar to the UK's.

You just know though that people are going to decry this as censorship

Who cares?  If they don't like it they can make their own network.

Are there independent stations in GB? I thought they were all sponsored by the govt.

Regardless, this is not a good move.


They should also make sure to give equal representation to anti-vaxxers whenever flu season comes around. Or flat-Earthers any time there's a space launch. Or one of Harold Camping's followers any time a date is mentioned after 2011 that doesn't involve coverage of the on-going Apocalypse.

Anything less is a restriction on freedom of speech.
 
2014-07-07 07:18:14 AM  

iron de havilland: If you can prove that the generally accepted views of the scientific community regarding climate change are wrong, I'm sure they'll gladly have you on.



Maybe with the exception of basic physics and very broad generalizations, there are no such things.
 
2014-07-07 07:18:43 AM  

violentsalvation: voltOhm: And this is why freedom of speech is so important.  Now there is only one view based on psuedoscience, emotion, superstition and greed being presented. Very nice.

You're right, Fox News is still at it.


Oh my god. We have a fox news joke. That is funny and well thought out comedy folks.
 
2014-07-07 07:19:04 AM  

iron de havilland: If you can prove that the generally accepted views of the scientific community regarding climate change are wrong, I'm sure they'll gladly have you on.


Why would anyone take a scientist seriously when they're constantly changing their opinions in order to suit the whims of new evidence?  If you know what you're talking about, then any future evidence will fall exactly in-line with what you have already asserted.  So who do you think knows more what they're talking about: The scientist who is constantly changing his opinion, or the person who is intelligent enough to make any evidence fit his personal narrative, no matter how inconsistent that evidence may seem?  Sounds to me like we should be giving "climate deniers" more time on television.  At least they believe in what they argue for.
 
2014-07-07 07:20:02 AM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Are there independent stations in GB? I thought they were all sponsored by the govt.


I believe that all of the broadcast networks are state-owned, but they still have independent cable and satellite channels.

No idea what percentage of Brits only have rabbit ears.
 
2014-07-07 07:20:16 AM  

Delta1212: IamKaiserSoze!!!: Ambivalence: Czechzican: Ambivalence: Czechzican: I am pretty sure freedom of speech is that you are allowed to voice your opinion and not be arrested for it, just so long as you aren't trying to get someone hurt or killed with your point of view

Plus, it's worth noting that BBC is a BRITISH network and the UK does not have "freedom of speech" as the US does.

Yep. I believe the Canadian freedom of speech laws are similiar to the UK's.

You just know though that people are going to decry this as censorship

Who cares?  If they don't like it they can make their own network.

Are there independent stations in GB? I thought they were all sponsored by the govt.

Regardless, this is not a good move.

They should also make sure to give equal representation to anti-vaxxers whenever flu season comes around. Or flat-Earthers any time there's a space launch. Or one of Harold Camping's followers any time a date is mentioned after 2011 that doesn't involve coverage of the on-going Apocalypse.

Anything less is a restriction on freedom of speech.


All coverage of the aviation industry should include rebuttal from the Man Will Never Fly Memorial Society

/Birds Fly, Men Drink
 
2014-07-07 07:22:53 AM  

Ambivalence: Mike_LowELL: The United States eliminates the Fairness Doctrine: "This is wrong!  Both sides of the issue need a platform!"
Britain forces "climate deniers" off the air: "Thank you Barack Obama, for banning people I don't like!"

Got it.

If that is what you got out of this then you are an idiot.


And equating climate modeling to hard science also proves your idiocy. The fact that the IPCC had to admit the models were consistently over estimating heat contribution proves it. Yet every farking liberal takes discussion on flaws in the models as anti science. The feedback loops are not hard science, see discussion on cloud formation. See how actual temperatures have consistently been on the lower two sigma bound of modeling.
 
2014-07-07 07:23:17 AM  

Mike_LowELL: iron de havilland: If you can prove that the generally accepted views of the scientific community regarding climate change are wrong, I'm sure they'll gladly have you on.

Why would anyone take a scientist seriously when they're constantly changing their opinions in order to suit the whims of new evidence?  If you know what you're talking about, then any future evidence will fall exactly in-line with what you have already asserted.  So who do you think knows more what they're talking about: The scientist who is constantly changing his opinion, or the person who is intelligent enough to make any evidence fit his personal narrative, no matter how inconsistent that evidence may seem?  Sounds to me like we should be giving "climate deniers" more time on television.  At least they believe in what they argue for.


Well done - had to chuckle at that...
 
2014-07-07 07:24:20 AM  

Egoy3k: I'd rather that they brought the deniers on the air and then humiliated them but this is almost as good.


Not almost as good - this is better. Subsidising these shiatty ideas in the marketplace of ideas only artificially increases their value.
 
2014-07-07 07:25:50 AM  

traylor: iron de havilland: If you can prove that the generally accepted views of the scientific community regarding climate change are wrong, I'm sure they'll gladly have you on.


Maybe with the exception of basic physics and very broad generalizations, there are no such things.


No, there is pretty much a complete consensus unless you inlcude scientists wholly or partially funded by the oil and gas industry.
 
2014-07-07 07:29:39 AM  

BMFPitt: IamKaiserSoze!!!: Are there independent stations in GB? I thought they were all sponsored by the govt.

I believe that all of the broadcast networks are state-owned, but they still have independent cable and satellite channels.

No idea what percentage of Brits only have rabbit ears.



Nope.

We have somewhere around 75 broadcast channels and only a minority of them are run by the BBC. Most of them are just crappy re-runs, and a number of those are godawful shopping channels, but there is no government monopoly on broadcasting here.

Hell, you can get Sky 'News', RT and Al Jazeera here for free. (Sky News is owned by the same people as Fox News. It's a little less derpy, but it's still not quite right. RT is just funny!).
 
2014-07-07 07:30:19 AM  

FlashHarry: thank god. now if only US "news" organizations would do the same.


And give up the ratings? NEVER. Those "debates" are one of the few things that bring the eyeballs and the clicks. Because people like to watch train wrecks. And, boy, are those debates train wrecks.
 
2014-07-07 07:30:20 AM  
I think it would be more interesting to have a dedicated time each week to let these folks air their views. You could call it "Derp Hour", or "Welcome to Whargarble!" or some such.

/dnrtfa
 
2014-07-07 07:32:53 AM  

BMFPitt: IamKaiserSoze!!!: Are there independent stations in GB? I thought they were all sponsored by the govt.

I believe that all of the broadcast networks are state-owned, but they still have independent cable and satellite channels.

No idea what percentage of Brits only have rabbit ears.


In fact I just looked at the dates - ITV was our first non-BBC, non-government TV broadcaster, and they've been going since 1955!
 
2014-07-07 07:32:55 AM  

MyRandomName: And equating climate modeling to hard science also proves your idiocy. The fact that the IPCC had to admit the models were consistently over estimating heat contribution proves it. Yet every farking liberal takes discussion on flaws in the models as anti science. The feedback loops are not hard science, see discussion on cloud formation. See how actual temperatures have consistently been on the lower two sigma bound of modeling.


And your science degree is in... what now?
 
2014-07-07 07:37:19 AM  
 
2014-07-07 07:38:17 AM  
cdn.memegenerator.net
 
2014-07-07 07:38:53 AM  
Good
Now there will be time to discuss the exact chemical make up of chemtrails and who exactly is putting them in the air
 
2014-07-07 07:41:59 AM  

MyRandomName: And equating climate modeling to hard science also proves your idiocy. The fact that the IPCC had to admit the models were consistently over estimating heat contribution proves it. Yet every farking liberal takes discussion on flaws in the models as anti science. The feedback loops are not hard science, see discussion on cloud formation. See how actual temperatures have consistently been on the lower two sigma bound of modeling.


what's your field of study?
 
2014-07-07 07:42:59 AM  

log_jammin: MyRandomName: And equating climate modeling to hard science also proves your idiocy. The fact that the IPCC had to admit the models were consistently over estimating heat contribution proves it. Yet every farking liberal takes discussion on flaws in the models as anti science. The feedback loops are not hard science, see discussion on cloud formation. See how actual temperatures have consistently been on the lower two sigma bound of modeling.

what's your field of study?


Conservapedia.
 
Displayed 50 of 547 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report