Guardian (UK) Announces That It Will No Longer Be Fair And Balanced

[LowDown]

Guardian (UK) Aug. 26, 2018 - "Climate change is real. We must not offer credibility to those who deny it."

In other words, skeptical viewpoints will be censored. Free speech has become too dangerous. We have to shut it down in order to save the planet.

Guardian (UK) - Feb. 21, 2012. "Drought may be the new norm for the UK."

They foresaw a permanent drought in the UK due to global warming. Shortly after this was published they had heavy rains and flooding in the UK, which was also blamed on global warming.

Guardian (UK) Feb. 21, 2004 - UK climate will be "Siberian" in less than 20 years due to climate change. Climate change will cause a global catastrophe, wars, floods, rioting, nuclear disasters, mega droughts, and natural disasters costing millions of lives.

Looks like our time is almost up. We should be having catastrophe with drought and Siberian weather, mega droughts, wars, etc., in the UK by now. (Checking) ... nope, not yet.

Guardian (UK) July 24, 2013 - "The Arctic will be ice free in 2 years. Massive release of methane to cause catastrophe."

Guardian (UK) August 21, 2016 - (Paraphrasing) OK, the Arctic isn't ice free yet, but it will be next year.

It's still not ice free in the Arctic yet. In fact, the ice in the Arctic now is the same as it was in 1950.

But if you have the temerity to raise doubts about what they or the climate scientists they quote in these articles say about the climate then they are simply going to have to censor you. The welfare of the earth depends on it.

Video link.

To be fair, most of the government climate scientists were not on board with these predictions. But, and this is the point, if they contradict the Guardian then the Guardian will censor them as climate skeptics.

 

[Praxas]

Guardian (UK) Aug. 26, 2018 - "Climate change is real. We must not offer credibility to those who deny it."

In other words, skeptical viewpoints will be censored. Free speech has become too dangerous. We have to shut it down in order to save the planet.

Guardian (UK) - Feb. 21, 2012. "Drought may be the new norm for the UK."

They foresaw a permanent drought in the UK due to global warming. Shortly after this was published they had heavy rains and flooding in the UK, which was also blamed on global warming.

Guardian (UK) Feb. 21, 2004 - UK climate will be "Siberian" in less than 20 years due to climate change. Climate change will cause a global catastrophe, wars, floods, rioting, nuclear disasters, mega droughts, and natural disasters costing millions of lives.

Looks like our time is almost up. We should be having catastrophe with drought and Siberian weather, mega droughts, wars, etc., in the UK by now. (Checking) ... nope, not yet.

Guardian (UK) July 24, 2013 - "The Arctic will be ice free in 2 years. Massive release of methane to cause catastrophe."

Guardian (UK) August 21, 2016 - (Paraphrasing) OK, the Arctic isn't ice free yet, but it will be next year.

It's still not ice free in the Arctic yet. In fact, the ice in the Arctic now is the same as it was in 1950.

But if you have the temerity to raise doubts about what they or the climate scientists they quote in these articles say about the climate then they are simply going to have to censor you. The welfare of the earth depends on it.

Video link.

To be fair, most of the government climate scientists were not on board with these predictions. But, and this is the point, if they contradict the Guardian then the Guardian will censor them as climate skeptics.

I suppose you think they should be fair and balanced to flat earthers as well. :lamo

 

[OlNate]

Guardian (UK) Aug. 26, 2018 - "Climate change is real. We must not offer credibility to those who deny it."

In other words, skeptical viewpoints will be censored. Free speech has become too dangerous. We have to shut it down in order to save the planet.

Guardian (UK) - Feb. 21, 2012. "Drought may be the new norm for the UK."

They foresaw a permanent drought in the UK due to global warming. Shortly after this was published they had heavy rains and flooding in the UK, which was also blamed on global warming.

Guardian (UK) Feb. 21, 2004 - UK climate will be "Siberian" in less than 20 years due to climate change. Climate change will cause a global catastrophe, wars, floods, rioting, nuclear disasters, mega droughts, and natural disasters costing millions of lives.

Looks like our time is almost up. We should be having catastrophe with drought and Siberian weather, mega droughts, wars, etc., in the UK by now. (Checking) ... nope, not yet.

Guardian (UK) July 24, 2013 - "The Arctic will be ice free in 2 years. Massive release of methane to cause catastrophe."

Guardian (UK) August 21, 2016 - (Paraphrasing) OK, the Arctic isn't ice free yet, but it will be next year.

It's still not ice free in the Arctic yet. In fact, the ice in the Arctic now is the same as it was in 1950.

But if you have the temerity to raise doubts about what they or the climate scientists they quote in these articles say about the climate then they are simply going to have to censor you. The welfare of the earth depends on it.

Video link.

To be fair, most of the government climate scientists were not on board with these predictions. But, and this is the point, if they contradict the Guardian then the Guardian will censor them as climate skeptics.

Right on! Finally a good news story. I was hoping for one today. Thanks for the share, LD.

 

[Manc Skipper]

The Guardian still has a clause in it's charter about balance. Equating science with buffonery is not balance, so has no place in a balanced newspaper...

 

[ataraxia]

Guardian (UK) Aug. 26, 2018 - "Climate change is real. We must not offer credibility to those who deny it."

In other words, skeptical viewpoints will be censored. Free speech has become too dangerous. We have to shut it down in order to save the planet.

The Catholic Church only agreed that the Earth is not the center of the Universe in the 1800s, about 3 centuries after Copernicus first suggested the idea. It went against one of the foundational doctrines they had been teaching for over a millennium. They only "forgave" Galileo for his heresy in the 1990s! Darwin's ideas on evolutionary biology were proposed in the first half of the 19th century. But in this country, even now, more people still believe in Elvis sightings at the local grocery store, alien abductions, Bigfoot sightings, and séances with the dead than in his basic evolutionary biology. Despite the massive success of vaccines in eradicating so many childhood diseases which were so prevalent just a century ago, you have large number of people still thinking that giving their kids "all-natural" herbal tea is better and safer than actually getting them vaccinated.

Climate change science is the same. The only difference is, we don't have 3 centuries for the ideas to start trickling down to the average scientifically uneducated layperson. I can see the sense of urgency and the loss of patience when an urgent crisis requiring knowledgeable people making decisions is necessary. We really don't have time for all this ignorant nonsense.

But if you have the temerity to raise doubts about what they or the climate scientists they quote in these articles say about the climate then they are simply going to have to censor you. The welfare of the earth depends on it.

This is not the opinion of a few climate scientists they quote in these articles. It is the unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet- including the scientists working for the fossil fuel companies and those working for the Trump administration.

At some point, you have to realize that we don't have time for all the large masses of the scientifically illiterate to be brought up to the speed on these ideas. It is urgent that they understand the science quickly, without thinking there is some kind of legitimate "other side" that's worth debating. There is no other side. It is dangerously ignorant nonsense which only further confuses an already very confused and bewildered lay public. I agree with The Guardian it is best just left ignored.

 

[rjay]

Guardian (UK) Aug. 26, 2018 - "Climate change is real. We must not offer credibility to those who deny it."

In other words, skeptical viewpoints will be censored. Free speech has become too dangerous. We have to shut it down in order to save the planet.
.
.
.

I must have missed the part about the Guardian (UK) Announces That It Will No Longer Be Fair And Balanced I looked throughout your post and did not see the announcement.

If they did not make such an announcement it makes one wonder about how fair and balanced this thread title is.

For the underlined: Do you think it is up to news organizations to try and provide credibility to those who have not earned it? Perhaps an organization or spokesperson should not be treated as if what they have to say holds equal weight, to that put forth from credible sources.

 

[longview]

The Catholic Church only agreed that the Earth is not the center of the Universe in the 1800s, about 3 centuries after Copernicus first suggested the idea. It went against one of the foundational doctrines they had been teaching for over a millennium. They only "forgave" Galileo for his heresy in the 1990s! Darwin's ideas on evolutionary biology were proposed in the first half of the 19th century. But in this country, even now, more people still believe in Elvis sightings at the local grocery store, alien abductions, Bigfoot sightings, and séances with the dead than in his basic evolutionary biology. Despite the massive success of vaccines in eradicating so many childhood diseases which were so prevalent just a century ago, you have large number of people still thinking that giving their kids "all-natural" herbal tea is better and safer than actually getting them vaccinated.

Climate change science is the same. The only difference is, we don't have 3 centuries for the ideas to start trickling down to the average scientifically uneducated layperson. I can see the sense of urgency and the loss of patience when an urgent crisis requiring knowledgeable people making decisions is necessary. We really don't have time for all this ignorant nonsense.




This is not the opinion of a few climate scientists they quote in these articles. It is the unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet- including the scientists working for the fossil fuel companies and those working for the Trump administration.

At some point, you have to realize that we don't have time for all the large masses of the scientifically illiterate to be brought up to the speed on these ideas. It is urgent that they understand the science quickly, without thinking there is some kind of legitimate "other side" that's worth debating. There is no other side. It is dangerously ignorant nonsense which only further confuses an already very confused and bewildered lay public. I agree with The Guardian it is best just left ignored.

You analogy is correct, except for the side occupied by which players.
Galileo was the skeptic of his day and was criticized by his fellow scholars, who when they were unable to fault his logic and observations,
implied his ideas were against the teachings of the church.
This is all outlined in a letter by Galileo
Internet History Sourcebooks

Some years ago, as Your Serene Highness well knows, I discovered in the heavens many things that had not been seen
before our own age. The novelty of these things, as well as some consequences which followed from them in contradiction to the
physical notions commonly held among academic philosophers, stirred up against me no small number of professors-as if I had
placed these things in the sky with my own hands in order to upset nature and overturn the sciences. They seemed to forget
that the increase of known truths stimulates the investigation, establishment, and growth of the arts; not their diminution or destruction.

Showing a greater fondness for their own opinions than for truth they sought to deny and disprove the new things which,
if they had cared to look for themselves, their own senses would have demonstrated to them. To this end they hurled
various charges and published numerous writings filled with vain arguments, and they made the grave mistake of sprinkling
these with passages taken from places in the Bible which they had failed to understand properly, and which were ill-suited to their purposes.

The roll of the academic philosophers, in Galileo's letter is now held by those claiming a scientific consensus!

 

[ataraxia]

You analogy is correct, except for the side occupied by which players.
Galileo was the skeptic of his day and was criticized by his fellow scholars, who when they were unable to fault his logic and observations,
implied his ideas were against the teachings of the church.
This is all outlined in a letter by Galileo
Internet History Sourcebooks

The roll of the academic philosophers, in Galileo's letter is now held by those claiming a scientific consensus!

In both situations, one side has evidence, observations, and mountains of evidence. The other side has superstition, fear, intuitions, and stubborn clinging to tradition. It seems clear to me which side climate science belongs to.

 

[longview]

In both situations, one side has evidence, observations, and mountains of evidence. The other side has superstition, fear, intuitions, and stubborn clinging to tradition. It seems clear to me which side climate science belongs to.

Read more history! Galileo's theories were based on his observation, but upset the
existing academics of the day, whose ideas represented the consensus.
Galileo was the skeptic, and was skeptical based on his observations.

 

[Jack Hays]

In both situations, one side has evidence, observations, and mountains of evidence. The other side has superstition, fear, intuitions, and stubborn clinging to tradition. It seems clear to me which side climate science belongs to.

Complete blithering nonsense.

 

[Jack Hays]

. . . Climate change science is the same. The only difference is, we don't have 3 centuries for the ideas to start trickling down to the average scientifically uneducated layperson. I can see the sense of urgency and the loss of patience when an urgent crisis requiring knowledgeable people making decisions is necessary. We really don't have time for all this ignorant nonsense.

This is not the opinion of a few climate scientists they quote in these articles. It is the unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet- including the scientists working for the fossil fuel companies and those working for the Trump administration.

At some point, you have to realize that we don't have time for all the large masses of the scientifically illiterate to be brought up to the speed on these ideas. It is urgent that they understand the science quickly, without thinking there is some kind of legitimate "other side" that's worth debating. There is no other side. It is dangerously ignorant nonsense which only further confuses an already very confused and bewildered lay public. I agree with The Guardian it is best just left ignored.

". . . I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. . . ."

Michael Crichton
CalTech Michelin Lecture, 2003

 

[LowDown]

The Guardian still has a clause in it's charter about balance. Equating science with buffonery is not balance, so has no place in a balanced newspaper...

Well, then, as demonstrated, they should be censoring themselves.

 

[ataraxia]

Read more history! Galileo's theories were based on his observation, but upset the
existing academics of the day, whose ideas represented the consensus.
Galileo was the skeptic, and was skeptical based on his observations.

So does that mean anyone who is skeptical of mainstream science is the next Galileo now? Because I know some people who think the round earth hypothesis is a conspiracy by the liberal socialists in federal government to increase our taxes.

 

[ataraxia]

Well, then, as demonstrated, they should be censoring themselves.

And doing what instead? Talking about Obama's secret Kenyan birth certificate for another 6 years straight?

 

[ataraxia]

". . . I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. . . ."

Michael Crichton
CalTech Michelin Lecture, 2003

Who is Michael Crichton? All I am getting is this:

"John Michael Crichton (/ˈkraɪtən/; October 23, 1942 – November 4, 2008) was an American author, screenwriter, film director and producer best known for his work in the science fiction, thriller, and medical fiction genres. His books have sold over 200 million copies worldwide, and over a dozen have been adapted into films. "
Michael Crichton - Wikipedia

I am sure you were thinking of a different Michael Crichton, because I can't imagine you would be quoting for us a screenwriter and film director as your authority on the philosophy of science.

 

[Jack Hays]

Who is Michael Crichton? All I am getting is this:



I am sure you were thinking of a different Michael Crichton, because I can't imagine you would be quoting for us a screenwriter and film director as your authority on the philosophy of science.

He was also a Harvard MD.

 

[ataraxia]

He was also a Harvard MD.

Medical doctors use science. They are very rarely in the business of making it. And this guy hasn't practiced medicine in decades. A medical doctor from decades ago who is now a movie maker, questioning the unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet actively working on the subject right now.

You're really trying, bless your heart.

 

[Jack Hays]

Medical doctors use science. They are very rarely in the business of making it. And this guy hasn't practiced medicine in decades. A medical doctor from decades ago who is now a movie maker, questioning the unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet actively working on the subject right now.

You're really trying, bless your heart.

Crichton died in 2008. I suggest you read the entire CalTech Michelin lecture from 2003. There's a reason CalTech asked him to speak.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Guardian (UK) Aug. 26, 2018 - "Climate change is real. We must not offer credibility to those who deny it."

In other words, skeptical viewpoints will be censored. Free speech has become too dangerous. We have to shut it down in order to save the planet.

Guardian (UK) - Feb. 21, 2012. "Drought may be the new norm for the UK."

They foresaw a permanent drought in the UK due to global warming. Shortly after this was published they had heavy rains and flooding in the UK, which was also blamed on global warming.

Guardian (UK) Feb. 21, 2004 - UK climate will be "Siberian" in less than 20 years due to climate change. Climate change will cause a global catastrophe, wars, floods, rioting, nuclear disasters, mega droughts, and natural disasters costing millions of lives.

Looks like our time is almost up. We should be having catastrophe with drought and Siberian weather, mega droughts, wars, etc., in the UK by now. (Checking) ... nope, not yet.

Guardian (UK) July 24, 2013 - "The Arctic will be ice free in 2 years. Massive release of methane to cause catastrophe."

Guardian (UK) August 21, 2016 - (Paraphrasing) OK, the Arctic isn't ice free yet, but it will be next year.

It's still not ice free in the Arctic yet. In fact, the ice in the Arctic now is the same as it was in 1950.

But if you have the temerity to raise doubts about what they or the climate scientists they quote in these articles say about the climate then they are simply going to have to censor you. The welfare of the earth depends on it.

Video link.

To be fair, most of the government climate scientists were not on board with these predictions. But, and this is the point, if they contradict the Guardian then the Guardian will censor them as climate skeptics.

So...

They are finally admitting they censor. They have all along. They are among the most biased publications out there. It's sad that so many people read that tabloid.

 

[Lord of Planar]

To be fair, most of the government climate scientists were not on board with these predictions. But, and this is the point, if they contradict the Guardian then the Guardian will censor them as climate skeptics.

This is what the true believers don't understand. There is no consensus that AGW is a problem. Those who fail to fall in line with the agenda, and open their mouths about it, are punished in one or more ways.

Just look at how every scientists that opposes the consensus view is punished.

Science is suppose to be free of such retribution for being skeptical. Science is suppose to challenge existing views.

 

[Quaestio]

I suppose you think they should be fair and balanced to flat earthers as well. :lamo

Science isn't a democracy, nor is it "fair".

 

[Quaestio]

You analogy is correct, except for the side occupied by which players.
Galileo was the skeptic of his day and was criticized by his fellow scholars, who when they were unable to fault his logic and observations,
implied his ideas were against the teachings of the church.
This is all outlined in a letter by Galileo
Internet History Sourcebooks

The roll of the academic philosophers, in Galileo's letter is now held by those claiming a scientific consensus!

^^^^^

Complete blithering nonsense.

 

[longview]

So does that mean anyone who is skeptical of mainstream science is the next Galileo now? Because I know some people who think the round earth hypothesis is a conspiracy by the liberal socialists in federal government to increase our taxes.

No, it was your analogy that you incorrectly applied! Galileo was the outsider and the skeptic, of the consensus opinion of academics of the day.

 

[Jack Hays]

^^^^^

You don't know the history, that's apparent.

 

[HonestJoe]

You conveniently forgot to link your examples. Let me help. ;

Guardian (UK) Aug. 26, 2018 - "Climate change is real. We must not offer credibility to those who deny it."

Climate change is not a matter for debate. We must not offer credibility to those who deny it | Letters | Environment | The Guardian - That was from their letters section and so is only the opinion of the writers, not the publication.

Guardian (UK) - Feb. 21, 2012. "Drought may be the new norm for the UK."

Drought may be new norm for UK, says environment secretary | Environment | The Guardian – … says the Environment Secretary” Reporting a direct quote of a public statement by a government minister.

Guardian (UK) Feb. 21, 2004 - UK climate will be "Siberian" in less than 20 years due to climate change.

Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us | Environment | The Guardian (closest I could find to your headline) – This time quoting a Pentagon report, again not expressing editorial opinion.

Guardian (UK) July 24, 2013 - "The Arctic will be ice free in 2 years. Massive release of methane to cause catastrophe."

Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist | Environment | The Guardian – An interview with a scientist with the headline being a paraphrase of his opinion.

Guardian (UK) August 21, 2016 - (Paraphrasing) OK, the Arctic isn't ice free yet, but it will be next year.

‘Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’ | Environment | The Guardian - A follow-up interview with the same scientist challenging him on his earlier predictions (exactly as you’d want). Again, the headline is reporting his statements.

But if you have the temerity to raise doubts about what they or the climate scientists they quote in these articles say about the climate then they are simply going to have to censor you. The welfare of the earth depends on it.

Where is your evidence of the Guardian censoring anyone (note – a random video link with no commentary isn’t evidence)?

This isn’t really consistent with your claim of the Guardian announcing it won’t be fair and balanced, especially since your examples here go back up to 17 years.