UK Government Report Whines About Giving “Climate Change” Skeptics Air-time
Why yes, yes, climate change believers are all about the fascism and restriction of speech
(Wired UK) The UK Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee has recently delivered a report on the state of climate knowledge and communication in the country. Although it doesn’t spare the government from criticism, the report notes that most of the public looks to the BBC to provide authoritative coverage on science. The report concludes that in this case, the BBC’s news division is failing its readership and viewers. Rather than providing authoritative information, the BBC is succumbing to false balance, and its director of Editorial Policy and Standards gave testimony on science coverage that appears to be incoherent.
Warmists really do not like when Citizens are allowed to hear contradictory facts when it comes to “climate change”, as this undermines their political science and ability to dictate how Citizens will live their lives.
In the UK, the major political parties largely accept the scientific evidence for climate change; official skepticism is limited to a few parties on the conservative fringe. As such, the report starts with the acceptance of the conclusions reached by the majority of scientists: the Earth is warming, and humans are the main factor driving that warming.
Fascinating, especially the part where the elected officials haven’t given up their own fossil fueled lifestyles and gone “carbon neutral”.
The UK does not have the same press freedoms we have here in the US, yet the report is heavily upset that skeptics are given any time in the news.
“It is not clear to us,” the committee concluded, “how a ‘journalistic point of view’ which presumably emphasises accuracy, can be at odds with a scientific approach whose prime objective is the establishment of empirical fact.”
Yet, Warmists are expressly giving their point of view, quite often based on hysteria and scaremongering, not scientific fact. A prognostication using failed computer models is not science. Nor is constantly changing past data.
The committee also examined the country’s newspapers, where it found that most of the inaccuracies appeared in opinion columns rather than news pieces. But the two most frequently mentioned offenders, the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, declined to send anyone to meet with the committee. Both papers sent written statements indicating that they counted on their readers to note which pieces were reporting and which were opinion, a stance that left the parliamentarians “very disappointed.”
Really, this is just a part of the Warmist campaign to shut down debate. Here in the US, many papers refuse to publish anything that goes against the “consensus”. In the UK, it is the government attempting to shut down debate.
And, certainty, what is debatable is the policies that result from or are proposed due to Warmists prognostications and (unscientific) reports.
Putting together a list of the most Googled conservatives is more difficult than you’d think. You have to come up with an initial list of conservatives. The original list was...Read More
I’m shocked that the Washington Post has allowed this op-ed to be published, which blows away so many of the
(Comments now open. Something went goofy while posting using iPhone after it missed it’s scheduled posting time) Why, yes, they