Isn’t there also a risk that our media becomes totally dominated by cranks and sensible voices are kept off air completely?
-
-
-
if only there was some way for producers to not book the cranks in the first place...
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I’ve never understood that logic from the media. They don’t then turn to someone to ask them about the pro-child slavery argument following each story!
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Imagine two homeopaths debating on BBC Radio Today prog whether a medicine with 0% active ingredients and the same solution diluted to 10% of that (i.e. 0/10 % active ingredients) is more effective. And the Today presenter concluding that the debate continues :-)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If everyone said no, wouldn’t that leave the only voices being heard as the climate deniers?
-
or the BBC not running the piece?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Surely it is better to debate with one's opponents than to try to silence them and crush debate? Disagree profoundly with your stance. Agree with your view of climate change but want to hear the other view too
-
We should not be debating facts with people who are wrong. This is not a debate.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Climate change is happening, debating is one of he strongest ways of winning the public, a lot of people don’t believe in it, and in a democracy everyone should get to air their opinions. if he is an expert he should be able to inform and discredit the denier by the facts
-
Sadly being right is only a small advantage in a debate, being good at rhetoric is far more important; a desire to be honest and accurate can be made into a disadvantage. There are good reasons why science uses journals rather than debates.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.