3 ms·

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,

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?)

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?)