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?
* Shift the argument.
* Ignore the facts.
* Name call.
S.I.N. That’s an acronym that I first heard from Herman Cain describing how people of certain ideological persuasions tend to discuss issues.
johnnb, exactly right and the media (all of them) do it all the time. I am sure only those who have this aptitude are ever allowed on the air. They must be able to defend lest anyone try to speak the truth to the audience — why do you think they also adopted the 7 second rule? Truth (about the subjects they want you to “believe” in) must not be allowed.
@Lucy Skywalker.
Lucy, on BBC Radio 4 last night they did a review on The Heretic. They slated it as being overly long at two hours with no intermission and also said that it was “boring”.
Once again the BBC are proven to be completely unbiased!
Come on people . . . . it’s only the english language . . . he is neither being ironic nor sarcastic . . and he’s certainly not personally equating sceptics with paedophiles . . . He’s making a point about how multiculturalism was once beyond supporting according to the consensus position . . . as is the case still with climate change scepticism, and paedophilia . And it isn’t meant to provoke violence against “deniers” or anyone else . . . . Real sceptics look at the evidence very carefully before reaching conclusions .. seems to me that there are fewer real sceptics on here than might be expected . . .
Thank goodness for the update; it confirms that, as I thought, people were being hysterical and dim, quite misunderstanding Buerk’s point.
There was no sarcasm in “In denial: climate on the couch”. Brainwashing expeditions in the country? Swishing parties (exchanging used clothing) at the local bar? All in the name of climate change. Someone lock the gates before these people get out.
jim hogg,
This is a site with a large proportion of scientific skeptics. Looking at the evidence as you suggest, it appears that Buerk is either completely dim-witted, or he knew what he was doing. The latter makes the most sense.
Read Don Keiller’s comment above. That also makes sense.
No, Michael Buerk is one of the good guys. He dates back to the period when the BBC had integrity and made some attempt to live up to its mandate of impartiality; his comments, designed to initiate discussion, were an implied criticism of the current left-liberal mindset.
Please listen to the program itself before commenting.
I am fed up with this obsession that “we know” that CO2 contributes to warming of the atmosphere. Well, I happen to know that if the ambient air temperature is 30 degrees F, that if I push in the cigarette lighter, and when it pops out, and I wave it around in my auto, that it will, for sure, warm the air in my auto. I also know that I would be a damn fool if I tried this to attempt to warm the air in my vehicle to a comfortable temperature.
CO2 is an insignificant factor in the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere.
I thought he was ironic.
The problem is that lefties say similar things and they mean it. Buerk’s particular problem is that he’s speaking on (and for) BBC with its loathsome record on the subject. It limits his range for making a sarcastic point, doesn’t it?
I am tired of being called names myself but let’s not lose our good humor.
I have just complained too:
Dear Sirs,
I feel that I must register this complaint with yourselves as the comment by Michael Buerk has caused great offence to me. To quote:
“not long ago, to question multiculturalism…risked being branded racist and pushed into the loathesome corner with paedophiles and climate change deniers“
I find this highly offensive in that Mr Buerk attempts to tie a link between paedophiles and those that disagree with the so called “consensus” regarding climate change.
This is open demonisation of those who do not believe in the “consensus” as your broadcasting company constantly airs.
To state that those that have a counter view to Anthropogenic Global warming are “deniers” is also a tie in to those that deny the holocaust. I take great exception to both the statement linking paedophiles and the term denier to those that have a counter view.
Neither are relevant, other than for the pure propaganda aims of the BBC. perhaps, you could check where your pension fund is invested!
Just because I disagree with the so called “consensus” does not make me a paedophile, far from it, and to insinuate that because my beiliefs on AGW are different to those who are the so called “consensus”, puts me in the same class as those convicted of abusing children is obscene.
I used to think the BBC was above reproach and would never biasly report, now I feel completely different. Your tax payer funded company are nothing more than a propaganda machine, funded by a tax backed in law. My license fee is a waste of money, I have to pay for the propaganda you feed the masses!
Do not insult me again by tarring my beliefs as those of a Paedophile.
I don’t like cross-postings as a general rule but I’ve just put this up at Bishop Hill …
I wonder if perhaps we all ought to calm down just a little and put this into context. The Moral Maze was concerning itself with multiculturalism (in the light of Cameron’s speech and also, if anyone is aware of it, a similar speech by Sarkozy — the UK isn’t the only place where politicians are starting to realise that this was an error). Introducing the programme, Buerk said (if the quote is correct) that until very recently,
Help!
The blockquote should be closed out at the end of the second line of the quote.
Please, somebody.
REPLY: Yourcomment was such an HTML train wreck, I deleted it rather than try to fix it.
read this please:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/02/a-few-pet-blogging-peeves-please-educate-yourself-with-these-issues/
Personally, I do not care if Michael Buerk was attempting irony nor sarcasm as he created a link between climate change deniers and paedophiles.
Those that listened to the radio program have been fed the line. That is all that matters to the BBC.
You’ve missed Beurk’s point entirely on this one! He was showing just how irrational our society’s moral scorn can sometimes be.
By arguing that society reviles those who criticise multiculturalsim (and climate skeptics) as much as peodophiles, his target is society, not climate skeptics!
To sum up – he might have said: “People are so morally superficial that they treat peodophiles, climate change ‘deniers’ and critics of multiculturalism as equally deserving targets of moral approbrium.
So calm down. I think he’s on our side!
There is the lefties word again…. Get out of their box(es) either L or R. Deniers is another one of their words, but you know better about that one.
Often times the same comment works in different ways and that’s probably why it was stated in the first place. A divide and conquer trick of the trade.
What is the psychology of someone ranting about global warming in the midst of a hemispheric cold wave and the third abnormally cold winter in 3 years?
Comparing climate skeptics to paedophiles? The evidence points towards comparing climate alarmists to paedophiles!
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/4812-another-violent-environmentalist-ad
Talk about a loathesome corner! What a bunch of creeps!
Atomic Hairdryer says:
February 12, 2011 at 9:47 am
“If Buerk intended irony, then he or the BBC need to quickly make a statement to that effect. Which will no doubt give the BBC some headaches as to how to phrase it to maintain their staunchly pro-AGW bias, especially after the mistakes they made in their Horizon show. Even if it were intended as irony, then the comment was remarkably insensitive and ill considered given the uncertainties known, and consistently denied by the likes of the BBC.”
Doesn’t this just nail it? If Buerk or the BBC intended irony or sarcasm, they can say so and explain the matter. Will they? The proverbial ball is in their court.
If Buerk is ‘on our side’ let’s see the colour of his money – he won’t show it because his job matters more than any moral scruples he may have. I bet he’ll NEVER do a ‘Moral Maze’ on climate scepticism.
Actually, that is the way I took it when I heard it. I experienced it as though we was saying that those people would lump climate change deniers with pedophiles, not that he thought they were.
Yeah, it’s hard enough to get readers here to recognize irony and sarcasm — to the point that the lame ” /sarc ” tag is de rigeur, often unintentionally negated (as in double-negative) as ” /sarc off “.
I’m with Buurk on this. I think he was giving listeners (undue) credit for being able to see how outré and ridiculous the equation of cc-deniers and pedophiles was, and extending that to multiculturalism disser dissers.
Sometimes the Brit prediliction for dry understated and sarcastic wit comes back and bites butt.
Have to say that Michael Buerk is much too intelligent to have made this comment deliberately and meant it. And I have seen many times that look of disgust on the faces of people who quite like you until the find out that you don’t believe in AGW. They are the ones with the problem. We occupy the moral high ground because we see through the fraud and know the truth. Let’s not get too thin skinned about this…we’re winning the argument!
@Brian H, choose your language carefully. Just by being bi-lingual ie French and English does not make you big nor clever.
Sometimes, those who rationalise too much become radishes!
When I first read what Michael Buerk had said I immediately took it as a remark that was criticising the BBC and I am amazed that anyone could think otherwise of it. Mr Buerk is one of the good guys, I cannot understand how anyone can find his remark insulting or in bad taste. He was saying that the political correctness at the BBC meant that anyone who criticised multiculturalism in any way was automatically a racist and was as much beneath contempt as paedophiles and climate change deniers, in the view of the BBC, not in the view of Michael Buerk.
Mr Buerk is on our side and anyone who has criticised him should offer him an apology.