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?
Malcolm Lochhead,
Did you know that the American defense contractor Lockheed Corp. is named after one of your relatives?
Jeremy says:
Is it time for Deniobear?
Given the difficulty many commenters above have in understanding Buerk’s statement (that AGW-denial has become a topic where many think you cannot even begin to have a discussion) there is no way they will understand Deniobear!
It will light the fuse of the many here with absolutely no sense of humour. They are offended by people who agree with them, because parsing simple logic is beyond them. so goodness knows how they would react to Deniobear.
Too many of you have leapt in here. Buerk was highlighting how massively different things are placed in the same box without moral justifiaction.
And for the love of god, will you guys in the USA look up “irony”.
Malcolm Lochhead says:
February 12, 2011 at 12:02 pm
“You’ve missed Beurk’s point entirely on this one! He was showing just how irrational our society’s moral scorn can sometimes be…”
Please tell me where there has ever been such an outrageous comparability between pedophiles and so-called “deniers? please tell, please let us all know!
Where it first came up? I have not ever heard the like in my entire life.
Don’t be so damned silly!! Satirical My a*se!!
I happen to agree with Anthony that this strange statement shows that BBC is a combination of hatters and nutters.
The web tunes all of the world into local cultures apart from each other, even if there is a common language. The USA, UK, Australia all speak the same language, but its impossible for any one of us to understand the cultural nuiance of each other unless we have experienced the thinking of the culture. I can’t perceive from the statement whether it was made from personal belief or was a cut at the “official” view of the BBC. There was no “SARC” attached to the radio broadcast. So who knows. My stand though that since it was made at all shows that to some it is a true statement, and that is abhorrent. Hatters/Nutters – I don’t care, but perverse does ring true.
Just to inform, here’s an article about what Michael Buerke has said about other PC policies in the BBC:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355465/BBCs-Michael-Buerk-hits-televisions-political-correctness.html
Sorry, that’s Zealots and Nutters, not Hatters and Nutters. The meaning stays the same…
Seems a little ironic that just 3 days ago i received an email back from the BBC over my complaint off their BIAS coverage of the Climate Change debate and i quote…
“The BBC is committed to impartial and balanced coverage when it comes to this issue.”
I think they really need to look up the meaning of the words ‘Impartial’ and ‘Balanced’ again as in my book they may have slightly misunderstood them..!!!
Paedophiles,Racists,Climate-Change Deniers……..which is the odd one out?
Racists, for it it is quite possible to be racist and still be liked by others not of your opinion, provided you don’t carry out racist acts.
By contrast it is not necessary to molest children or increase your carbon footprint to be loathed as a paedo. or AGW Denier, merely having those feelings/opinions is enough.
Lucy Skywalker has piqued my interest (platonically speaking, of course). Can you give us a timeline, Ms. Skywalker?
I can say in two words what is going on at RC and the BBC. Garnishing publicity. Sagging ratings have plagued them since questions of bias have started to dawn on the public. They have to, because they got nowhere else to go. They rode too far to get home. Everyone wants too lead, but you need to have somewhere to go. Sorry about all the euphemisms (metaphors?).
If you think the BBC is biased, ask anyone you know from Canada what the CBC is like. I am certain that most who work at the CBC view skeptics in this very manner. The Universities that I am familiar with also. At least we are getting more respect on the street. I do not bring up climate change ever, but now I find people are admitting that they have serious questions about what they are being told, instead of avoiding the conversation altogether. Once more students start asking serious and informed questions in the classroom, it will be all over. Three cheers for thinking for oneself !!!
Multiculturalism and Diversity are failed religions. Failed religions of the master failed religion of liberalism.
“Please tell me where there has ever been such an outrageous comparability between pedophiles and so-called “deniers? please tell, please let us all know!”
The London Mayor Boris Johnson compared us to paedophiles, cannibals, and fat-cat bankers. In a similarly ironic vein, let me say before I unleash the firestorm on poor Boris (again).
Free speech includes speech that offends. It’s not as if nobody has ever compared the AGW-faithful to anything unpleasant, is it?
I think in this case, irony was intended, but I would not like to see such comments banned even where they are meant. The truth about AGW will eventually win out, and then all such statements will come back to haunt their authors. Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake.
“Please tell me where there has ever been such an outrageous comparability between pedophiles and so-called “deniers?”
Every politician in America has either been called a Nazi or disciple of Josef Stalin. Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, John McCain and President George Bush were all accused of being Nazis. It’s part of American discourse to blog someone is a Nazi if you disagree with their political views.
I enjoy being called a denier. I tell my liberal friends I’ll believe in climate change when Hudson Bay stops freezing over. That’s also when I’ll support Cap and Trade of CO2
I complained to the BBC about the infamous “Horizon” programme – specifically that it gave the clear impression that human activity released 7 times more CO2 than natural sources. The reply follows, and speaks for itself:
“Thanks for contacting us regarding ‘Horizon: Science under Attack’, broadcast on BBC Two on 24 January.
I understand that you feel there were factual inaccuracies in the programme, and was biased against climate sceptics.
Your concerns were raised with the producer of the programme – Emma Jay who replies as follows:
“I’m sorry you felt the film was biased. In reply can I first set out a little of the background to the film and how we approached the subject.
The purpose of this film was to examine public trust in science generally – not just in the area of climate change – reflecting both the role of scientists and the influence of the media, the internet and bloggers. There does seem to have erosion in public trust in some key areas of science – judging by some opinion poll data – and we thought this was an interesting and important area to look at.
We asked Paul Nurse to present the film. The reason for this is not just that he is the new President of the Royal Society and a Nobel Prize winner, but because he is very interested in how science and society should relate in the 21st Century.
It is this dynamic – how society and science connect, and how that is influenced by the media, both old and new, that formed the central argument of the film.
In the course of the programme Paul Nurse argued that scientists need to focus on the science and keep politics and ideologies out of the way; that scientists need to be more open in the way they do their science, and be more willing to communicate the uncertainties that are sometimes inherent in their work.
A substantial part of the film did use the example of climate science to look at this dynamic between science and society, and at the question of public trust. But I don’t accept that the film was biased in its representation of the state of the scientific debate about anthropogenic global warming. The overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific institutions accept the link; in scientific terms it is not controversial and the programme’s approach reflected that.
I fully acknowledge that, even now, not everyone accepts this view and that there is still a continuing political debate. That is why the programme included Professor Fred Singer’s views on the primacy of solar activity and James Delingpole’s views on ‘Climategate’, the perils of scientific consensus, and how peer review in science was being challenged by peer-to-peer review. These were significant parts of the film.
I hope I have been able to go some way towards addressing your concerns.”
We’re guided by the feedback that we receive and to that end I’d like to assure you that I’ve registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, programme makers, channel controllers and other senior managers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Thanks for taking the time to contact us.
Kind Regards
Mark Roberts
BBC Complaints
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints“
After listening to Buerk’s radio program it seems rather obvious his nod to climate deniers was tongue-in-cheek. As he tries to open up discussions on multiculturalism, which he does brilliantly by not imposing his views, he is obviously acknowledging the lack of open debate in the global warming arena as he wades into Britain’s favorite whipping-boy – how bout them foreigners. He is a subtle and very smart guy, very aware of what is being said around him. I would trust him to host a show on the Deniers. Compare the Buerk broadcast to that train-wreck “Deniers on the couch” or whatever.
What I never understand is why there is inordinate attention is given to utterances from this “BBC “that is a national broadcasting station in a non-entity country in Europe, when there is not equal coverage here of utterances from the national broadcasting station of the South Malaccas!
Slow down, people. I picked up a subtly ironic tone in Michael Buerk’s voice, so he deserves not to be taken too literally. Perhaps his mistake was taking the risk that the use of irony would be obvious to any listener, when it often isn’t. Aren’t most WUWT followers used to the group-thinkers who tighten their mouths with disdain when we’re foolish enough to air some sceptical views? You know, mentally classifying us with all the other disgusting groups of social deviates who threaten the fabric of comfortable well-heeled existence?
I listened to half that program.Boring.that’s 10 minutes wasted listening to people pontificate on fundamentalist Christianity,apparently England is full of it,and how mass immigration is great for a country,it’s not the immigrants that are the problem,it’s the society they are trying to fit into,is the message.Typical BBC tripe.The host may well have meant that to be a climate denier is the equivalent of being a loathsome child abuser in some people’s mind.He had no problems using the term “denier”did he?He couldn’t give the scientists who state they do not believe that the science is sound behind AGW respect?He had to lump them all into one group.
Seems like typical lefty BBC employee to me.
Well, well, Cameron has just stated “Multiculturalism has failed.” Congratulations! A brilliant observation, about on a par with, “Oops, this train has derailed and exploded.”
“GregO says:
February 12, 2011 at 8:50 am
What identifies someone as a “climate change denier”? What kind of person denies that climate changes? Doesn’t the word “climate” imply change? To think otherwise would be daft, or entirely ignorant of the geologic record, or one would have to be very young or profoundly unobservant.”
I ask myself and AGW supporters the same question. People, like myself, who are not AGW supporters do not deny climate changes (CCD). All we, or I at least, do is challenge the consensus that tiny amounts of CO2 emitted by human activities IS driving climate in a catatrophic way. So far, I see none of this.
Incidentally, in Australia, CCD is truncated to climate denier. Everytime I hear someone mention this I cry with laughter at their complete ignorance.
I wouldn’t rule out an extreme case of irony here. Mr Buerk normally comes across as independent and fair-minded and more than capable of seeing both sides of an argument. Could he be planting the idea that AGW zealotry should go the same way as multicult zealotry, in the only way that will get past the censors?
Mr Watts: as I’ve implied above this is a total non-event. This posting and subsequent comments only serve to create the impression that the sceptic community is awash with paranoia. Buerk was simply making a point about how suddenly a mainstream position – on multiculturalism – can be overturned. Until very recently multiculturalism had pariah status in “educated” circles, along with agw scepticism etc . . . . . . Whether or not he agrees that such status was deserved or otherwise by any of these categories, he was simply accurately reflecting on the way it was in such circles . . . . . To persist with supporting a clearly false interpretation of his words would be to go against all that this site has stood for until now . . . What disappoints me more though is the small percentage of commenters who actually understood his very elementary point . . . .
I’m with those who have been pointing out that what Michael Buerk was saying is that there is a certain type of person in the UK (not limited to the BBC I might add – think George Monbiot) who puts those who do not agree with “multiculturalism” are to be considered in the same category as child molesters and those who don’t buy the AGW scam, i.e as beyond the pale. He is most certainly NOT putting that forward as a view he shares.
I mention the Moonbat in particular as he is on record as believing that “when we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.“