Paging Roger Harrabin…
Bishop Hill writes:
Hat tip to several readers who have pointed out Michael Buerk’s comments on the BBC Radio 4 show, the Moral Maze:
“not long ago, to question multiculturalism…risked being branded racist and pushed into the loathesome corner with paedophiles and climate change deniers“
I will not respond in kind to this kind of thing. It looks to me like a calculated attempt to provoke a violent reaction. What it really does is to show that Buerk and the BBC are devoid of any integrity. They condemn themselves out of their own mouths.
I hope they continue with this kind of thing. It makes the BBC look like it is staffed by zealots and nutters. It will win them no friends.
…
and in another piece…
Archbishop Cranmer has picked up on Michael Buerk’s contribution to the climate debate.
By equating anthropogenic climate change deniers and those who question the doctrine and policy of state multiculturalism with paedophiles – whom society, rationally or not, now ranks as the lowest form of life and quite beyond redemption – the BBC has shown itself to be intellectually deficient and morally bankrupt.
But His Grace has a question: If a qualified doctor and government adviser (unpaid) can be humiliatingly dismissed for having co-authored a paper in which a reasoned correlation was drawn between homosexuality and paedophilia, why should a BBC presenter (paid by the taxpayer) not be dismissed for purposely inciting hatred against climate change deniers and multiculuralist sceptics by juxtaposing their reasoned beliefs with the perversion of paedophilia?
UPDATE: Bishop Hill reports: His Grace has reconsidered, and a new post is now here. This follows the line of several commentators here, namely that Buerk was criticising the BBC not comparing sceptics to paedophiles.
Initially, His Grace was persuaded by Bishop Hill’s indignation at the inflammatory juxtaposition of multiculturalist sceptics and anthropogenic climate-change deniers with paedophiles. But, having reflected (and having read some of Mr Buerk’s other pronouncements on the BBC), it is evident that he is actually criticising those who propagate absolutist dogma and hold to an unquestionable creed.
…
Michael Buerk is not himself equating anthropogenic climate change deniers and those who question the doctrine and policy of state multiculturalism with paedophiles: he is lampooning those of his BBC colleagues who do so habitually. He chose paedophiles – whom society, rationally or not, now ranks as the lowest form of life and quite beyond redemption – but, were in not for Godwin’s law, he could equally have chosen Nazis.
===========================================================
Luboš Motl reports and comments on the content, plus provides a link to the audio:
Last night at 9 p.m., the BBC Radio 4 broadcast another 30-minute program about the psychology of deniers:
In denial: climate on the couch (audio, HTML)
============================================================
Where’s BBC’s voice to climate change, Roger Harrabin on this I wonder?
Archbishops question answers itself — because homosexuality is sacred — who cares whether he thinks otherwise
/sarc
‘Climate on the couch,’ inhabits a ficticious land where people are unresponsive to the message simply because fear ‘stimulates dominant behavioural norms,’ rather than the reality that they are unresponsive because they know the message is a crock. Hence, you listen to 29 minutes of crackpots talking about ‘swishing parties’ to avoid shopping for clothes at Primark, going to Marrakesh by train, or committing to 1 meat free meal a week. These things are being proposed to sell ‘the sizzle’ of climate action – selling the wonderful parts about a low carbon life instead of the austerity (apparantly, getting 8 hours solid sleep per night was touted as one of the benefits).
Unsurprisingly, nobody offered, and the host never bothers to ask, what the impact of these feelgood behaviours are going to have on global co2 levels or climate. The elephant that nobody talks about is that human civilization is built on carbon-rich power. Everything from the intensive agricultural products brought to your store by ships and trucks, to health care and every appliance and object in your house is the result of carbon rich power sources.
Thes people are just crackpots. They can ‘swish’ all they want, but that ain’t gonna change.
“The loathesome corner” LOL. Is that worse than the naughty step?
More likely Buerk was having a dig at Monbiot, who said flying across the Atlantic is ‘now as unacceptable as child abuse’.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/reviewofbooks_article/5388/
The BBC is not a monolith.
Sometimes Americans just don’t get irony.
Buerk by name
Burke by nature
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=burke
“not long ago, to question multiculturalism…risked being branded racist and pushed into the loathesome corner with paedophiles and climate change deniers“
It would be good to know the context of this statement before reaching for the whoop-ass can. Branded by whom? The BBC? Michael Buerk’s wife? The Pope? Otherwise it is unclear that Buerk is deliberately conflating skeptics with racists and paedophiles. He may be simply making a comment on the depressing state of conformity to political and social orthodoxy in the UK. His use of the D-word is slightly suspect however.
Archbishop Cranmer appears to be a blind link.
I too think Buerk was trying to be ironic here. But it was poorly executed and ill-judged – particularly in the wake of the 10:10 sceptic murder flick and the real life enviro-suicide bomber James Lee.
‘why should a BBC presenter (paid by the taxpayer)’
Surely the BBC is paid for by its licence payers – ok, maybe its another form of tax, but fortunately one I can choose to decline. No TV, no payment – but I do miss Channel Four.
Is it the BBC season for smearing those not yet converted to CAGW scientism?
If you ask me this was just another backhanded attempt at brainwashing through cognitive dissonance. Al Gore was very successful with his ‘morale imperative’. Believers are moral people and sceptics/deniers are, therefore, considered immoral.
Another prime example of this is the label of ‘denier’. Anyone who denies the Holocaust is considered morally reprehensible. By labelling sceptics ‘deniers who lie to further the cause of Big Oil’ (another dishonest behaviour), once again a cognitive dissonance is set up that needs resolving by the human psyche in those that are sceptical.
This conflict of ideas can be very powerful and, since it is unlikely that people will allow their moral compass to be upset, it is more likely that they will subconsciously align with the believers in an effort to resolve their dissonance. Avoiding discussion of facts that may challenge those beliefs is common as this has the potential to reintroduce the conflicting ideas.
IMHO, by claiming the moral high ground, the alarmists had half the battle won. Unfortunately for them, there has been dissention in their own ranks from those with sound moral values and respected careers that serve to provide honest facts without spin. This also has the power to break the dissonance as it allows people to align themselves with moral character and scepticism.
MrC
Buerk’s job is to be the devil’s avacado in the questions he asks and the statements he makes. He does not lecture on the show and neither do the other guests. But here, given that the majority of the population of this country are athiest or agnostic (or at least don’t hold any bronze-aged superstitious belief), it’s entirely appropriate.
I love the show, by the way. Along with “In Our Time”, it’s deliberately high-brow and a wonderful listen as a result.
Daniel Coen Bendit – a Green MEP and therefore a climate alarmist – is a self-confessed child molester, so any attempt to correlate climate sceptics with paedophiles falls at the first fence.
Rather the opposite I would have said.
Once again, we have a failure to focus on the science and instead ascribe non-enthusiasm for global warming propaganda to assorted psychobabble about marketing, about selfishness and about re-ignition of connection with nature, whatever that might be. The good thing about this programme is that it allowed the Radio 4 listener to hear eco-zealots in full flow.
Any opinion from the Beeb, who are supporting the leftist and Islamist takeover of Egypt in the name of “democracy” as well as giving uncritical support to rapist privacy invader Julian Assange, I don’t care.
Alexander:
“…The original buffoon was ‘Buff’ Huhne…”
Almost right, mate, the first one was “BuufHoon” the erstwhile Labour defence minister who visited Iraq in his office shoes…
The sooner “British” is removed from the BBC title, the better. Other bloggers may be unaware that we Brits are forced by law to pay for this insular entity, whether-or-not we view their stuff. This outfit could not survive in the real, competative world. No surprise that they are headed by a bunch of small-minded socialists.
Yes the BBC has gone barmy and has been like it for many years, especially with news, current affairs and documentaries, and then they redeem themselves. Last night Friday, on BBC TV 4 they had a stunning programme “Sergei Rachmaninoff: The Harvest of Sorrow”. And no messages about Russia and global warming. If you didn’t see it, you can still get it on BBC Iplayer. Worth the license tax.
OK- so it’s definitely possible he was being sarcastic…
I still don’t discount that there are actually people out there, participating in this discussion, who would nod their heads in agreement with such statements.
I’m beginning to get really cross.
It is simply not done to bracket a group of people with paedophiles, not even as a gently ironic joke (if that is what is was), nor as a conscious exaggeration to show up those who use ‘denier’ all the time.
It simply is not done, that’s all there is to it.
I am glad that most commenters on the thread so far see the BBC piece as it was meant to be seen, and ironic piece on BBC’s closed mindedness. That’s encouraging.
If irony was intended , it is very hard to hear it in the programs introduction..
The usual audience of the Moral Maze would no doubt be nodding along in agreement, without seeing any irony.
FAR too ambiguous
Here is the irony, later in the program about ideas…..
Michael Buerke goes on to say when describing David Camerons criticism of government handling of multiculturism.
“his was not an argument against the basic idea of tolerance towards thus amongst us with different cultures, IDEAS and lifestyles.”
I would like to hear an explanation from the BBC and Michael Buerk,.
I also might ask, what in the BBC’s opinion is a ‘climate change denier’ anyway..
Please define it.
Losing political fanatics frequently seek to dehumanize the objects of their ire and frustration.
For the BBC gang to do this actually a badge of honor. They are admitting that they have so little rational thought to apply to the climate issue that they are incapable of differentiating between people any longer. Think of it as the flip-side of Orwellian thought control: One result of the sort of Orwellian effort it takes to sustain the garbage of catastrophic climate change is that the believers have to turn off their their thinking ability. The BBC, filled with climate extremists and fanatics, is now experiencing this reduction in thinking ability across its culture. Soon they will not be able to differentiate between, for example, fish and birds: They will all be just animals.
CO2 obsession and the apocalyptic cult that has formed around it, has damaged the ability of science to do science and now has degraded the BBC’s ability to communicate effectively.
Incidentally, I listened to the program yesterday, and that quote was the one that gave it away as a piece of irony critical of BBC. It would be impossible to imagine BBC putting on air something as controversial as that for real.
Glad people have responded sensibly.
By the way, some posters are trying to say this was just a tongue in cheek ironic bit of fun.
This was ironic the same way 10:10 button video was ironic: not at all.
This was a deliberate attack on the humanity and legitimacy of skeptics.
I don’t really care what he “meant”, the fact remains, the BBC is crap.
Patrick Hadley says:
February 12, 2011 at 5:52 am
‘While Buerk was obviously being ironic, that does not in itself mean that his remarks were not ill-judged and offensive. On the previous week’s programme Buerk described religion as superstition when he introduced a debate about the value of religion to society with, “Are we now to base our moral and legal code on rationality rather than superstition?”’
Patrick is doing the helpful and productive thing. Buerk cannot be engaging in satire all the time and, to me, labeling religion as superstition is not satire but a moral evil.
By the way, do not confuse pedophilia and child molestation. The latter label comes with a (near) universal curse. The former label has defenders in the highest places who publish books about man-child love. As for myself, I find the anointed scholars of pedophilia to be no less repugnant than child molesters.