[jarrett]

> Silencing the ongoing debate, even if one side or the other is obviously delusional, is completely contrary to the spirit of science.

A news outfit does not have the power to silence scientific debate. Real, productive scientific debate does not occur in 5-minute talk show segments. That's just entertainment. Scientific debate occurs in less glamorous venues, such as conferences, journals, and labs. And it involves a great deal more time and technical detail than what you get on a news show. News organizations don't control those venues.

Now, one can of course raise valid concerns about process in the scientific community. Much has been written along those lines as of late. But that's entirely separate from the BBC's policy, and out of the scope of this discussion.

[logfromblammo]

News influences politics. Politics influences public policy. Public policy influences funding. Funding influences research. Research influences news.

A news outlet does have the power to silence debate. Ask any "true Scotsman" libertarian (viz. not Paulians or Tea Partiers) during any election season. Ask Occupy Whatever about why no one actually addressed their grievances. Ask any number of people with legitimate but unheard issues why 24-hour news channels will choose to report deeply on shallow topics rather than broadly on a wider variety. Rupert Murdoch and Sumner Redstone haven't accumulated vast media empires because they want your voice to be heard by more people.

The actual scientific debate is not going to appear on air. The news segments would simply get people interested in learning more and contributing in some way. If you shut the consensus contrarians down now, you may be stifling future climate efforts, because the research industry has to continually struggle for funding for anything that does not have a direct and obvious military application. Any mention of science on radio or on television or in popular fiction is an advertisement for more science. The crackpots and loons give the scientific establishment an acceptable target to talk down to that will not offend the general public. That informs the public while recruiting them emotionally.

It is a rhetorical tactic, essentially making a strawman of an actual person, and not true argument, but I'm not certain rational, scientific personalities realize that the majority of research is ultimately funded by folks who couldn't tell the difference between a beaker and an Erlenmeyer flask if you make them watch Breaking Bad from start to finish. Someone has to be the pitchman for legit, non-politicized research. Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson and Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking can't be the only science celebrities.

You really do want as many actual researchers in front of the cameras as you can get, so you can find out who can both defend a thesis before their peers and effectively convey understanding to laymen. You want people to be able to name more professional theorists and researchers than Kardashians. It doesn't advance the body of knowledge, but it helps pay for salaries and equipment, and helps fill the education pipeline to keep retirement and emigration from endangering ongoing work.