I threw a tantrum and they just ignored me

Oh dear, oh dear; a poor little greenie got upset and the world did not stop revolving to sort out his problem.? The curious thing is that this little throwing-the-rattle-out-of-the-pram debacle was actually written up as an opinion piece by the tantrum thrower himself?in the??extreme far left newspaper? The Guardian.

Rupert Read, a philosophy teacher at the University of East Anglia tells us: Quote.

Like most Greens, I typically jump at opportunities to go on air. Pretty much any opportunity: BBC national radio, BBC TV, Channel 4, Sky ? I?ve done them all over the years, for good or ill. Even when, as is not infrequently the case, the deck is somewhat stacked against me, or the timing inadequate for anything more than a soundbite, or the question up for debate less than ideal.

But this Wednesday, when I was rung up by BBC Radio Cambridgeshire and asked to come on air to debate with a climate change denier, something in me broke, and rebelled. Really? I thought. This summer, of all times?

So, for almost the first time in my life, I turned it down. I told it that I will no longer be part of such charades. I said that the BBC should be ashamed of its nonsensical idea of ?balance?, when the scientific debate is as settled as the ?debate? about whether smoking causes cancer. By giving climate change deniers a full platform, producers make their position seem infinitely more reasonable than it is. (This contributes to the spread of misinformation and miseducation around climate change that fuels the inaction producing the long emergency we are facing.)

From a public service broadcaster, this is simply not good enough. […]

BBC Cambridgeshire is based in Cambridge, the science capital of the UK. I expected better from it, especially after the well-publicised ruling this year that the way that the BBC has been promoting climate change deniers on air is no longer acceptable.

In the end, the broadcast went ahead without me. Much of it wasn?t bad. The scientists interviewed were excellent. But the framing of the debate was awful, and framing is everything, so far as the message that most listeners receive is concerned. The presenter introduced the segment by asking, ?Is climate change real?? The journalist doing vox pops bombarded ordinary people with canards such as, ?Maybe it?s just a natural cycle?? And, of course, a climate change denier was given a huge and undeserved platform on an equal basis to his opponent.

In August 2018, this is unacceptable and it seems that quite a lot of people agree with me.

However, here?s the exciting thing. If we get more momentum behind the idea of refusing to participate, it will force a change of coverage methods by the BBC, which experts have been calling for for years. For if we all refuse to debate with the climate change deniers on public platforms, and press the BBC to catch up with the 21st century, it will be forced to change its ways, because the BBC cannot defend the practice of allowing a climate change denier to speak unopposed. If we truly want to see change on this issue, we need to be willing to let it know exactly how we feel. So, now I?m going to get on with filing my official complaint to the BBC?[?]??End of quote.

Where to start with this muppet’s hurty feelings?

“The science is settled”? /Tui.? Almost weekly new discoveries about climate influences are reported.

“It is 2018, a debate is unacceptable.”? Yup, you are right on that one, as we found out in New Zealand when debate with Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux was closed down.

I objected to the BBC and they still went ahead without me.? I was offered the opportunity to use reason and debate to absolutely destroy the ridiculous arguments being put forth by the climate sceptics but chose not to. So, I am lodging an official complaint.?I work at the University of East Anglia! Don’t they know who I am?? ?—?Time to grow up, Rupert.

“If we all refuse to debate with the climate change deniers on public platforms.”? If we all stand with our fingers in our ears and chant “la la la la, can’t hear you” that will show how strong and robust our facts and figures really are and those climate sceptics will be forced to see the error of their ways.

“A climate change denier was given a huge and undeserved platform on an equal basis to his opponent.”? Well, that is clearly not fair or reasonable.? Didn’t Orwell teach us that some are more equal than others?

Rupert teaches philosophy but seems not to understand the concept.? Philosophy?is a way of thinking about the world, the universe, and society. It works by asking very basic questions about the nature of human thought, the nature of the universe, and the connections between them.? How can a closed mind work in a field that is based on questions?