Guest Post by Barry Woods
The respected BBC journalist, Michael Buerk has a short podcast entitled Michael Buerk on the Climate Summit at a new blog that I have just come across called The Fifth Column. It has some thought-provoking and challenging concerns for the BBC Trust, the Guardian, media and politicians with respect to the reporting of ‘climate change’. Some extracts below, with thoughts very rarely heard from the BBC:
And actually there has been no significant rise in global temperatures for more than a decade now.” – Michael Buerk, 16 December 2011
“What gets up my nose is being infantilized by governments, by the BBC, by the Guardian that there is no argument, that all scientists who aren’t cranks and charlatans are agreed on all this, that the consequences are uniformly negative, the issues beyond doubt and the steps to be taken beyond dispute.” – Michael Buerk, 16 December 2011
“You’re not necessarily a crank to point out that global temperatures change a great deal anyway. A thousand years ago we had a Mediterranean climate in this country; 200 years ago we were skating every winter on the Thames.
I would just like to highlight and comment on a couple of extracts from the podcast. A full transcript of the podcast is included at the end of this article. I would hope that it reaches a wider audience, so that the public, media and politicians may consider a respected BBC broadcasters concerns about reporting of climate change. Which seems to many people to be more about driving an environmental cause, to the detriment of serious critical journalistic analysis of the more catastrophic AGW environmentalist claims.
“I want a genuine debate about the assumptions behind the more apocalyptic forecasts.
As recently as 2005, for instance, the UN said there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010.
That was last year.
OK – so where are they?
I would like to hear a clash of informed opinion about what would actually be better if it got warmer as well as worse.” – Michael Buerk, 16 December 2011
So who is Michael Buerk
Michael Buerk is a very well know figure in the UK, a senior BBC journalist and currently the chair of the BBC Radio 4 program – The Moral Maze and arguably one of the most respected BBC broadcasters of his generation.
He is perhaps most well-known for his series of reports of the Ethiopian famine in Africa 25 years ago and as the main presenter of the BBC’s flagship evening news program (BBC Nine O’clock News 1976 – 2000, BBC Ten O’clock News 2000 – 2010). Earlier this year Michael Buerk expressed a number of concerns about the BBC, whilst reviewing the memoirs of a fellow BBC journalist Peter Sissons.
“The veteran presenter accuses staff at the Corporation of an inbuilt ‘institutional bias’ and warns that they read the left-wing Guardian newspaper as if it is ‘their Bible’.
Reviewing a memoir by his former colleague Peter Sissons, Buerk endorses his view that the BBC is warped by the prejudices of its staff.”
“… This year Michael Buerk in his review of a fellow BBC journalists Buerk also accuses BBC reporters of an ‘uncritical love affair with environmentalism’. – Daily Mail, April 2011
Anyone who has followed the debate about climate change for any length of time, will have come across the argument put forward, that the older generation don’t care about ‘climate change’, because they are selfishly in denial of the damage their lifestyle will cause future generations. Michael Buerk expresses his resentment of this accusation in his Fifth Column podcast.
“I resent the implication that the exercise of my reason is “inappropriate”, an act of generational selfishness, a heresy.
I want a genuine debate about the assumptions behind the more apocalyptic forecasts.” – Michael Buerk, 16th December 2011
It is very much my personal opinion that anyone expressing these thoughts of ‘generational selfishness’ to Michael for his concerns, should take a moment’s pause and ask themselves why he is saying this, what are his motivations. A quarter of a century ago (1984), Michael Buerk made a series of groundbreaking reports about the famines in Ethiopia for the BBC, one of those video reports inspired Bob Geldof to start the Band Aid and Live Aid Campaigns for famine relief. Those readers in the USA, of a certain generation may remember the CBC ‘The Famine Video’ using video footage from Ethiopia, forever now associated by the Cars song ‘Drive’.
Michael Buerk has reported first hand on famine, death and suffering on a truly biblical scale caused by droughts in Africa and man actions (war, drought, politics not climate change) In light of this, the following extracts from Michael’s podcast that refer to droughts and Africa particularly drew my attention.
“….Droughts aren’t increasing. There are fewer of them, and less severe, than a hundred years ago….”
“….Where do you see reported the extraordinary greening of the Sahel, and shrinking of the Sahara that’s been going on for 30 years now – the regeneration of vegetation across a huge, formerly arid swathe of dirt poor Africa….”
I can only imagine Michael’s thoughts on those that would accuse him and others of ‘generational selfishness’ for raising concerns about the media reporting of climate change and would perhaps seek to label him as some sort of uncaring old climate sceptic for expressing his concerns about his perception of the BBC’s ‘culture of environmentalism’.
I wonder what Michael Buerk’s thoughts are, for those in the media, or politicians, or media climate scientists who advocate for the ‘climate change cause’, that seize on any natural disaster, drought, famine, flood. Then instantly pronounce it as proof of man-made climate change, then seek to use these disasters to push for climate policies, despite expert opinion that it is not possible to attribute these current extreme weather and climate events to man-made climate change.
It is perhaps a sad reflection on the BBC the fact that he is broadcasting these thoughts at a new media blog – The Fifth Column – and not at the BBC. As I would think it a perfect topic for the BBC’s – The Moral Maze.
The Fifth Column – About
Welcome to The Fifth Column
The name implies a spirit of subversion.. .
Yes, but not in the predictable, ultimately tiresome, sense of arguing with everything and everybody.
Rather in what will be the refreshing sense of saying the un-sayable or asking the un-askable when nobody is saying it or asking it because of behind-the-scenes’ deals, old pals’ agreements, eyebrow-raising scruples, or an unwillingness to offend or to be offended.
Our business will be stories, issues, controversies in the public consciousness. Which deserve more, sometimes deeper, investigation. Truth, after all, is hard to find – it’s usually subjective, and always complex.”
The Fifth Column Blog is apparently only a couple of months old, and at time of writing has only a 113 Twitter followers:
“Thought provoking podcasts on topical & controversial issues, with contributions from some of the most respected names in UK journalism as well as new talents.” Twitter Bio:
I wrote an article recently at WUWT – ‘Climategate 2.0 – Impartiality at the BBC’ explaining how I believed that the culture of environmentalism has perhaps taken hold at the BBC. It is easy for the BBC to dismiss a sceptical blogger (writing at an obviously easily perceived partisan sceptical blog) concerns about the impartiality of the BBC’s reporting on climate change.
I would just hope that The BBC Trust and the senior management at the BBC would seriously reflect on the concerns expressed about the BBC reporting on climate change, from such an experienced and respected journalist as Michael Buerk.
Podcast – Michael Buerk on the Climate Summit
Podcast Transcript – The Fifth Column –
Michael Buerk on the Climate Summit
The latest so-called Climate Summit, that’s been taking place in Durban, hasn’t made many waves. It could be because global warming seems less daunting if you can no longer afford heating bills. It could also be that we’re getting fed up with the bogus certainties and quasi-religious tone of the great climate change non-debate.
Now, I don’t know for certain that man’s activities are causing the planet to heat up. Nobody does. We simply cannot construct a theoretical model that can cope with all the variables.
For what it’s worth, I think anthropogenic warming is taking place, and, anyway, it would be a good thing to stop chucking so much bad stuff into the atmosphere.
What gets up my nose is being infantilized by governments, by the BBC, by the Guardian that there is no argument, that all scientists who aren’t cranks and charlatans are agreed on all this, that the consequences are uniformly negative, the issues beyond doubt and the steps to be taken beyond dispute.
You’re not necessarily a crank to point out that global temperatures change a great deal anyway. A thousand years ago we had a Mediterranean climate in this country; 200 years ago we were skating every winter on the Thames.
And actually there has been no significant rise in global temperatures for more than a decade now.
We hear a lot about how the Arctic is shrinking, but scarcely anything about how the Antarctic is spreading, and the South Pole is getting colder.
Droughts aren’t increasing. There are fewer of them, and less severe, than a hundred years ago. The number of hurricanes hasn’t changed, the number of cyclones and typhoons has actually fallen over the last 30 years.
And so on.
There may be answers, I think there probably are – to all these quibbles – I would like to hear them.
I don’t want the media to make up my mind up for me.
I don’t need to be told things by officialdom in all its forms, that are not true, or not the whole truth, for my own good.
I resent the implication that the exercise of my reason is “inappropriate”, an act of generational selfishness, a heresy.
I want a genuine debate about the assumptions behind the more apocalyptic forecasts.
As recently as 2005, for instance, the UN said there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010.
That was last year.
OK – so where are they?
I would like to hear a clash of informed opinion about what would actually be better if it got warmer as well as worse.
Where do you see reported the extraordinary greening of the Sahel, and shrinking of the Sahara that’s been going on for 30 years now – the regeneration of vegetation across a huge, formerly arid swathe of dirt poor Africa. More warming means more rainfall. More CO2 means plants grow bigger, stronger, faster.
I would like a real argument over climate change policy, if only to rid myself of the nagging feeling that sometimes it’s a really good excuse for banging up taxes and public-sector job creation.
It’s not happening. It’s a secular issue but skepticism is heresy.
They talk the language of science, but it is really a post-God religion that rejects relativist materialism.
Its imperative is moral.
It looks to a society where some choices are obviously, and universally held to be, better than others.
A life where having what we want is not a right and nature puts constraints on the free play of desires.
To reinvent, in short, a life where there is good and bad, right and wrong.
As with all religions, whether the underlying narrative is true, has become beside the point.” – Michael Buerk, 16 Dec 2011 Transcript
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Unfortunately, the trump card in this matter is neither the science nor the truth, because those are readily and facilely manipulated by the corporate-owned mainstream media, which amount to little more than a propaganda ministry for the MIC and TPTB, who hold that trump card in the form of our MSM.
The lies need only be plausible for awhile.
The trick is to baffle, and frighten, the masses with BS, while keeping the educated people arguing about the details. We may indeed win all the battles, in detail, but lose the war.
The fact that there is no CAGW will prove to have the same relevance as the lack of WMD in Iraq. By the time the cold, hard truth becomes apparent, it’s already a done deal – a fait accompli.
DirkH says:
January 3, 2012 at 7:08 pm
“It is something about these cities that drive the people there mad; I would assume that they develop a hyperactive amygdala, a tendency for panic attacks and an increased risk of shizophrenia.”
You nailed it. Eventually, they believe that they are the “avant garde” of the The Party and that the future of humankind depends on their actions. Definitely schizophrenic.
“The fact that there is no CAGW will prove to have the same relevance as the lack of WMD in Iraq. By the time the cold, hard truth becomes apparent, it’s already a done deal – a fait accompli.”
Ah but then the internet came into full power…
I have no idea if Michael Buerk is sincere in what he wrote but I have to agree with the entire content. He does a good job of spelling out what most of us here feel.
Let him show his colors now and time will tell, but I will remain skeptical. It may be possible that CG 2.0 was a wake-up call. The question is; what was the wake-up call about.
I wonder what Michael Buerk’s thoughts are, for those in the media, or politicians, or media climate scientists who advocate for the ‘climate change cause’, that seize on any natural disaster, drought, famine, flood. Then instantly pronounce it as proof of man-made climate change…
Like the recent articles about a “hybrid shark” and the rush to proclaim it an adaptation to (inferred anthropogenic) “climate change,” such as this one:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/world-first-hybrid-shark-found-off-australia-070347259.html
Quote from the first paragraph:
“Scientists said on Tuesday that they had discovered the world’s first hybrid sharks in Australian waters, a potential sign the predators were adapting to cope with climate change.”
Useful links that work for the Fifth Column site;
http://thefifthcolumn.com/blog/
For the blog
http://soundcloud.com/the-fifth-column/
For Podcasts
Let him show his colors now and time will tell, but I will remain skeptical. It may be possible that CG 2.0 was a wake-up call. The question is; what was the wake-up call about.
======
I wish to retract this statement in my post above. He apparently had a similar viewpoint or serious questions with regards to the BBC early in 2011 as noted in the Daily Mail, April 2011.
In a detective story of Donna Leon’s, her principal character tells us that he had “always been afraid of people in possession of what they believe is the truth. They’ll do anything to see that the facts are changed and whipped into shape to agree with it.”
Sums up the BBC totally.
There is no doubting Michael Buerk’s sincerity. He’s an old-school reporter (generational?) in that he reports on what he sees, not what he’s told to see. For American readers, here is that BBC News report of 10/23/84′. How times have changed, there isn’t a warning to the viewer of the distressing content, and Buerk allows space in his commentary for the images to show the horror.
The absence of CAGW TV debate in the UK is almost deafening. Especially the BBC, with numerous debating and public affairs programmes, where ‘global warming’ seems to be firmly out of bounds. It is NEVER discussed.
The most we ever get is an unexpected swipe at the issue from a panellist (either way) but the discussion is quickly bustled along to the next topic.
Some global catastrophe when we cannot even have a debate. It is a good sign.
The BBC still tries to slip-in some good old fashioned pro-CAGW nonsense when it gets the chance.
An example was the final chapter in the “Frozen Planet” series, presented as a personal opinion which never actually said “man made” global warming.
But there was no opportunity given for a 1 hour peak-viewing slot for personal opinion in reply. And ‘global warming’ was not clearly expressed as “natural”, leaving the viewer to assume cause.
I take my hat off to Michael Buerk.
I hope he doesn’t lose his pension.
I think the debate will happen in coffee houses and on street corners as folks who can not pay their heating bill huddle together or bustle to/from shared warm places… It is rather hard to sell people on climate guilt when they are freezing cold…
“Richard111 says:
January 4, 2012 at 12:11 am
I take my hat off to Michael Buerk.
I hope he doesn’t lose his pension.”
I have heard that the BBC pension fund relies on the global warming myth, and it tied up with environmental companies. If it was ever proved that man made climate change was junk, the BBC pension fund would follow, too. If it is indeed true. Can anyone confirm this?
“Paul says:
January 3, 2012 at 11:49 pm”
Brings back painful memories for my wife. That region has been long in dispute and is normally arid. It’s not too far from the Afar region, which is very dry and hot.
In BBCspeak, Michael Buerk’s words are apostasy.
Either he will be forced to recant or be cast out into the wilderness. The masses cannot be allowed to see there is anything other than the one true faith.
This has been picked up today by The Daily Telegraph.
I wonder if this is the beginning ……………… .
Robert Brown says:
January 3, 2012 at 6:18 pm
“One wonders, however, if the BBC is frantically backpedalling to cover their asses over the BBC-related content of Climategate 2.”
Yes, Robert, it IS interesting. On the BBC’s Today programme this morning, I almost fell off my chair when I heard presenter Evan Davis discussing with a representative of the British Medical Journal the desirability of having all publicly-funded research data made freely available.
The discussion was about drugs research and how some peer-reviewed journals did not publish research which showed ‘negative’ or ‘uninteresting’ results. Davis enthusiastically put forward the idea that perhaps all scientific research data should be made freely available on the internet. His comments were typical of the BBC’s generally sceptical stance towards drug companies and other commercial organisations – but, of course, he unwittingly opened the net to include ALL scientific research.
He must have felt pretty pleased with himself but I could imagine the Phil Jones’ of this world screaming “NOOOOOOOO!” and hurling themselves, slow-motion style, at the phone to upbraid Roger Harrabin and their other BBC mates to get to Davis and explain the error of his ways.
Like other contributors to Anthony’s excellent blog, I doubt whether the BBC has had a conversion or realised that it needs to correct the bias that has so damaged its journalistic integrity and reputation these last few years. More likely that this is just an Evan Davis ‘gaff’ and even now the thought police have the hapless presenter in front of them, waving a copy of Animal Farm at him and explaining patiently that some researcher disciplines are more equal than others and he really must exercise more care in the future.
We will see. But I applaud Michael Buerk’s brave stance and wait to see if he is cast into the outer darkness or if this is the start of a wider BBC repositioning exercise.
While we are on the subject of thoughtful media coverage, check out the Daily Telegraph’s comment piece on the Eurofanatics.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8990067/The-Eurofanatics-should-join-the-Marxists-in-the-dustbin-of-history.html
The author, Bruce Anderson, makes the point that the massive errors made at the start of the European project – which now threaten global financial instability and recession, were caused by a RELIGIOUS-style persuasion that the proponents were right in their assertions…despite the fact that they were self-evidently not.
Neither me nor most of my friends – ordinary joes like me who are builders, printers, training professionals etc. – could understand how the Euro project could possibly work in practice. Common sense showed that a unified Europe and democracy could not co-exist together – and that a single currency for all nations would end in disaster because individual countries would not have the safety valve of being able to deflate their economies.
Anderson shows that even though ordinary people had these fears, we were overridden by the mainstream media who were swept up in the religious fervour or the Euro proponents who utterly convinced that they were right.
There is a direct read-across to the global warming “the science is settled” debate. The Euro project and the global warming scam are closely-related in the way that they both depend on religious-type fervour to override the commonsense practicalities of real-world observation.
Did someone leave a window open? I detect a draft of fresh air.
Ohp… Look — over there! A hybrid shark!
Lest ye forget
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/12/quote-of-the-week-bbcs-ugliest-moment-yet/
I am a kind soul and now assume that Mr Buerk was deliberately highlighting the issue by saying
“not long ago, to question multiculturalism…risked being branded racist and pushed into the loathesome corner with paedophiles and climate change deniers“.
If so I withdraw my crude insult from the above comments.
oldseadog
do you have a link?
“As recently as 2005, for instance, the UN said there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010.
That was last year.
OK – so where are they?”
Come on people. Haven’t you been paying attention? They’re hiding in the deep ocean.
This seems to come from June 2008.
“The BBC Pension Fund stands to gain from a big investment in wind and solar power as demand for conventional energy outstrips supply. A recent report issued by the fund shows that six of its 100 biggest investments are in companies that specialise in the manufacture of wind turbines or solar panels. ”
http://www.schemexpert.com/My-Scheme/Documents/(view)/40573
(I found out the date via a comment on another blog – these schemexpert people are no friends of telling you how old their writing is, it seems)
Vestas was at 87 EUR in June 2008 and is at 7.8 EUR now, so that money is probably lost.
Might explain the 2 bn GBP hole in the funds reported a year ago.
There seems to be a bit of a losers’ attitude to anti-AGW, anti-EU, anti-one-world-order folks this new year.
They all seem to be saying: ‘we all know it’s rubbish, but it’s going to stay’.
Let’s see now:
1. The Americans don’t have to vote for Obama – they may decide to though.
2. Financiers don’t have to bail out the Euro – they may choose to though.
3. Governments don’t have to continue funding the IPCC – they may choose to though.
The will of the people is with those lacking faith despite being in the ascendancy.
What is it that these proponents of freedom, democracy and interdependency have to lack faith about, eh?
There have been too many false dawns and too many tipping points for me to get really excited about this particular opinion. Michael Buerk is entirely correct of course, but that just means yet another heretic gets insulted as part of some vast “right-wing fossil-fuel-funded denial machine” that we know doesn’t exist.
What I’d like is the password to the all.7z archive and then I can write the real story of the Hockey Stick and the wholesale corruption of scientific ethics and the collapse of peer review. When people lose confidence in science and the scientific method, they won’t just disbelieve everything, they’ll believe in anything.