If someone actually argued this: ...you all seem to dislike president Trump because you think he is against homosexuals......but you really love Saudi Arabia who kill them out of hand!! they presented a pair of premises which are likely both inaccurate and/or incomplete. It is NOT likely that many views are so simplistic. Being against Trump would likely have many components, and it is unlikely that anyone 'loves' Saudi Arabia no matter how LGBT people are treated there. Sort of a false dichotomy.

As to the example of a climate denier being 33% of a panel, it would be easy to simply note that panelist X is representing what is commonly understood to be a minority viewpoint in order to BE fair. If the panel is about whether there is serious human activity involved in climate alteration, fair balance on the panel would be necessary... but if the panel discussion assumes human caused climate change is true and is merely exploring 'how' and 'how much', then panelist X might not be included at all, and IF included would be only there to quibble about various data...etc.

   Fairness in matters like air time will always be qualified by the awareness that not all possible 'sides' of all issues can be adequately squeezed into limited time constraints. Fairness might be aided by a list of where to go for a wider discussion.

   In situations involving public concerns about awkward issues it can always end up like certain Mudcat discussions, and descend into complaints ABOUT the very format and control of the 'field of play' and whether the deck is stacked as to who gets to say what for how long in which medium....

We can sort of define 'fairness' abstractly, but for some parties, fair is when their side gets better press. Cue Trump tweets....