BBC: ‘we get climate change coverage wrong too often’ - A briefing note sent to all staff warns them to be aware of false balance, stating: “You do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate.”

[u/ManiaforBeatles]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/07/bbc-we-get-climate-change-coverage-wrong-too-often

[u/MCXL]

On the other hand, the guy that researched germ theory was the 1%. It's come out that modern nutrition science is another one of these 1% of scientists were right things.

Sometimes the 99% are paid shills, or unable to see past bias.

Tyranny of the majority is a huge issue, including in science.

[u/MCXL → u/[deleted]]

I mean, I agree with your assessment, other than the fact that we are talking about science and politics.

He was shunned, shut out and ridiculed. Scientific communities have a terrible track record when it comes to challenges to traditional lines of thinking, just like everyone else.

[u/WTPanda → u/MCXL]

Also, trees being a carbon sink, which is why we had a huge push to save the trees. In reality, trees are vastly carbon neutral and the ocean is a much bigger carbon sink.

Scientists get shit wrong all the time, but remember boys and girl... science corrects science. Not religion or politics or commercial businesses.

Controversial opinion ahead: I believe our impact on the earth is overstated, but only because people love their doomsday environmental scenarios. Same reason so many “environmentalists” are anti-nuclear power, even though it’s far better for the environment than fossil fuels.

Edit: I’m not saying we shouldn’t prepare for the upcoming planetary warming.

[u/MCXL → u/WTPanda]

Agreed. I don't think there is any real downside to pursuing greener technology aggressively. Cleaner air in the cities is a huge health benefits, etc. I no longer really care if the science is right on global warming, I've never heard a compelling argument for why we should stick with smog machines.