5 ms·

The part about divers crying into masks hit home. It was on my bucket list to dive in the Great Barrier Reef but it’s now been declared dead. 95% of my diving h

The part about divers crying into masks hit home. It was on my bucket list to dive in the Great Barrier Reef but it’s now been declared dead. 95% of my diving has been in the last 25% of my diving career because I know I have a limited time.

radford-neal 7y ago
What? "Declared dead?" Here's a BBC report from a few days ago that says that it's in danger, but certainly "not dead yet". https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-49520949?SThisFB https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-49520949?SThisFB Since the BBC is now officially a climate alarmist organization, I think one can be sure that this report is as alarmist as one can be without blatantly disregarding easily verifiable facts.
- gjm11 7y ago
  > now officially a climate alarmist organization What exactly does that mean? (The BBC report is summarizing a report from the Australian government, and unless it's just lying its level of alarmism will pretty much track those of that report itself. So whether the BBC is "officially a climate alarmist organization", whatever that means, matters less than whether the Australian government is one. Regardless, it would be nice to know what you mean.)
  - radford-neal 7y ago
    See, for example, https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-internal-guidance-on-how-to-report-climate-change https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-internal-gu... Even when reporting on a report, it's possible to emphasize certain aspects, or misleadingly paraphrase its conclusions. I haven't looked at the original report to tell whether that has happened here.
    - gjm11 7y ago
      OK, I read it. I don't see anything there that to me seems to justify calling them "officially a climate alarmist organization". Could you elaborate on what exactly about their position you're describing by those words?
      - radford-neal 7y ago
        Well, for instance, it says that the BBC has an official position that "there is very high confidence that there will be more extreme events – floods, droughts, heatwaves etc." (Presumably, by "more", they mean an increase of substantial importance, not, say, 5%.) This seems more alarmist than the scientific consensus. Regarding the consensus, they say "The BBC accepts that the best science on the issue is the IPCC’s position". Here, you have to read between the lines. Do you think that this means they will "de-platform" people who are more alarmist than the IPCC? I doubt it. In that respect, it's always, "the latest research, too recent for the last IPCC report, shows that it's worse than we thought...".
        gjm11 7y ago
        It looks to me as if the comment about "extreme events" is an illustrative example rather than a specific statement of BBC policy. Which is just as well, because I agree that it seems to go beyond current consensus. The BBC is not proposing to "de-platform" everyone less alarmist than the IPCC so no, I wouldn't expect them to de-platform everyone more alarmist than the IPCC either. Here are some things they do say: > As climate change is accepted as happening, you do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate. Although there are those who disagree with the IPCC’s position, very few of them now go so far as to deny that climate change is happening. To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage and > There are occasions where contrarians and sceptics should be included within climate change and sustainability debates. These may include, for instance, debating the speed and intensity of what will happen in the future, or what policies government should adopt. all of which seems to allow for a considerable degree of variation away from the IPCC's position before anything like "de-platforming" is on the table. (I'd still like to know what exactly "officially a climate alarmist organization" means. By "climate alarmist", do you mean the same as "believing that climate change is real", or something else?)
4mpm3 7y ago
It's not declared dead, but some (myself included) believe it has most likely crossed a tipping point and will be dead in the lifespan of the next generation or two.

radford-neal 7y ago

What? "Declared dead?" Here's a BBC report from a few days ago that says that it's in danger, but certainly "not dead yet". https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-49520949?SThisFB https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-49520949?SThisFB Since the BBC is now officially a climate alarmist organization, I think one can be sure that this report is as alarmist as one can be without blatantly disregarding easily verifiable facts.

gjm11 7y ago
> now officially a climate alarmist organization What exactly does that mean? (The BBC report is summarizing a report from the Australian government, and unless it's just lying its level of alarmism will pretty much track those of that report itself. So whether the BBC is "officially a climate alarmist organization", whatever that means, matters less than whether the Australian government is one. Regardless, it would be nice to know what you mean.)
- radford-neal 7y ago
  See, for example, https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-internal-guidance-on-how-to-report-climate-change https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-internal-gu... Even when reporting on a report, it's possible to emphasize certain aspects, or misleadingly paraphrase its conclusions. I haven't looked at the original report to tell whether that has happened here.
  - gjm11 7y ago
    OK, I read it. I don't see anything there that to me seems to justify calling them "officially a climate alarmist organization". Could you elaborate on what exactly about their position you're describing by those words?
    - radford-neal 7y ago
      Well, for instance, it says that the BBC has an official position that "there is very high confidence that there will be more extreme events – floods, droughts, heatwaves etc." (Presumably, by "more", they mean an increase of substantial importance, not, say, 5%.) This seems more alarmist than the scientific consensus. Regarding the consensus, they say "The BBC accepts that the best science on the issue is the IPCC’s position". Here, you have to read between the lines. Do you think that this means they will "de-platform" people who are more alarmist than the IPCC? I doubt it. In that respect, it's always, "the latest research, too recent for the last IPCC report, shows that it's worse than we thought...".
      - gjm11 7y ago
        It looks to me as if the comment about "extreme events" is an illustrative example rather than a specific statement of BBC policy. Which is just as well, because I agree that it seems to go beyond current consensus. The BBC is not proposing to "de-platform" everyone less alarmist than the IPCC so no, I wouldn't expect them to de-platform everyone more alarmist than the IPCC either. Here are some things they do say: > As climate change is accepted as happening, you do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate. Although there are those who disagree with the IPCC’s position, very few of them now go so far as to deny that climate change is happening. To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage and > There are occasions where contrarians and sceptics should be included within climate change and sustainability debates. These may include, for instance, debating the speed and intensity of what will happen in the future, or what policies government should adopt. all of which seems to allow for a considerable degree of variation away from the IPCC's position before anything like "de-platforming" is on the table. (I'd still like to know what exactly "officially a climate alarmist organization" means. By "climate alarmist", do you mean the same as "believing that climate change is real", or something else?)

4mpm3 7y ago

It's not declared dead, but some (myself included) believe it has most likely crossed a tipping point and will be dead in the lifespan of the next generation or two.