A BBC presenter argued that the documentary entitled “Climate Change: The Inconvenient Facts,” which attempts to explain global warming anomalies, is very balanced, because the presentation doesn’t feature any skeptic voice.
Excuse me, but isn’t that the definition of unbalanced and biased? They only provide one side of the debate. According to Breitbart:
Climate Change: The Inconvenient Facts, which is due to be broadcast on Radio 4 this coming Tuesday, features presenter Tom Heap speaking to a panel of ‘experts’ on how to explain away anomalies in climate models, such as the growth in Antarctic sea ice and the slow down in global warming since 1998.
After climate scientist Michael Mann took to Twitter to complain that the BBC was “actively promot[ing] misinformation” about man-made climate change, one member of the panel, UCL physicist Helen Czerski, responded that the show is “v. balanced in sense that there is no “skeptic” voice.”
Here are some Twitter exchanges between people and Helen Czerski:
Helen Czerski – “And actually, it’s v. balanced in sense that there is no ‘skeptic’ voice.”
Tom Nelson – “@helenczerski So how does ‘no skeptic voice’ equal ‘fair’ representation of climate evidence?”
Helen Czerski – “The balance of evidence is clear. Public now needs to decide what to do, not to repeat last century’s debate”
Matthew Stockford – “Helen, I am not sure I would agree with you. BBC is hideously biased. Never skeptic view.”
Helen Czerski – “The skeptic view is represented more often than is justified by the evidence for that view.”
Like so many other issues, there is no real debate that’s allowed. They struggle to make it sound like the debate is over, and the science is “settled.” They frame their discussion around solutions to a problem they’ve invented, instead of debating whether or not there is a problem to begin with.
Whether the planet is warming or cooling or remaining stable is one thing to discuss. But trying to cast blame on one group of people or another for whatever unfavorable climate conditions we might have to endure in the future is entirely different. It doesn’t matter what the planet is doing, these alarmists will always make it sound horrific and offer dire apocalyptic predictions. If it’s not an “ice age” we’re headed for, it’s droughts and famines and prostitution caused by global warming that we’re headed for. One extreme or the other. Or both at the same time. There’s no middle ground with them.
They can’t allow any voice of reason among them that might balance out the hysteria they’re peddling. They want people to be so frightened by the prospects of an environmental apocalypse, and so enraged at conservatives, that these people are willing to give up everything for a tiny dose of fake security.