Bishop Hill Cranmer on Buerk
Feb 12, 2011 BBC Climate: Sceptics 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?
Bishop Hill
Hello? The post seems to have been taken down?
Bishop Hill
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.
Reader Comments (105)
It is all very well to say that Buerk was using irony, or that this programme is really good, so we shouldn't get too excited. It is all very well to say we should save our energies for more worthy things.
In today's social climate, where anybody having anything to do with children needs to provide a police report showing he's not a paedophile, doesn't it occur to you that this remark is on the lowest level possible?
Do you fancy to start every argument you have with a warmist with 'I don't deny that the climate changes, and I'm not a paedophile'?
Because that's where this will go, make no mistake. Defending oneself against such idiocy takes away more time from talking about the science.
So I think a bit of outrage now is time well spent, rather than having this dragging on.
Fancy your kid being told in school 'your dad is a denier, he's a pedophile, it said so on the radio/in the paper'?
Thought not ...
Kolnai, Hoi Polloi
Berk is probably short for Berkeley Hunt. The Old Berkeley Hunt used to hunt in Middlesex and was familiar to Londoners who used to attend the meets.
"a swarm of nondescripts who, starting from every suburb in London, were glad to make a meet of foxhounds their excuse for a holiday on hackney or wagonette, overwhelming the whole procedure"
But I could be Pete Tong.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=22181
Well, it's just such an extraordinary thing to say I find it hard to believe that in his mind there's a category called "paedophiles and climate change deniers" and then one called "everybody else".
To continue the Radio 4 narrative, Monbiot is on Any Questions next week!
I agree with Viv. OK lets get an explanation from Buerk asap. He of course cannot say he was in any way critical of the BBC, that would threaten job and pension, so his explanation will be "interesting"
"Climate change denier" is a term used by "warmists" to mean anybody who disagrees with them. It includes "lukewarmers" - you must be a total believer - through to those who think that CO2 is irrelevant.
Suppose Buerk had said the "Flat Earth Society" and "Climate Change Deniers" - I would still be upset. But to compare us to paedophiles is well beyond the pale.
Warmists will start using it instead of "creationists".
The sooner you can get Buerk to explain the remark, the better Andrew.
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,
Seems a fairly accurate assessment of the state of things. He could perhaps have picked other examples but is anyone here trying to deny that according to those people who have been backing multi-culturalism to the hilt (and probably still do) to question it has pretty much put you (us) on a par with the BNP, paedophiles and that other group of unspeakables, "climate-change deniers"?I don't know for sure what Buerk's view is. Certainly as far as The Moral Maze is concerned he is quite happy to argue both sides in his role as moderator (unlike some BBC anchors who make little or no attempt to disguise their deep green credentials) and his intro should (IMHO) be taken in that context.
Or wait for tonight's repeat at 10.15 and see what, if anything, is said in the intro to that.
I'm afraid I don't think we're doing our broad arguments any favours by knee-jerk reactions to what is essentialy an "ad lib" remark (albeit probably a rehearsed one) designed to put the subsequent debate in context.
"Until now if you'd said this you'd have been considered unspeakable. Other people who have been considered unspeakable include ..."
I've always found Buerk a good reporter. Let's try giving him the benefit of the doubt till we know more.
Sam, I pretty much agree with what you say, but then, at the back of my mind is the recent case of the Government Adviser who is now out of a job when a book he wrote 5 years ago (presumably well before he'd been invited to be an adviser) apparently linked a given sexual orientation with paedophilia. No explanations, no argument over the facts, just a huge outcry and no job. If Michael Buerk had so much as hinted at link of that type with a PC 'in' group, he'd be looking at a P45. Why should it be acceptable, even in jest, to link a group of non-PC people. Equality runs both ways.
Cumbrian Lad says that "equality runs both ways" but I suspect he means that it should, not that it does.
Especially when it comes to who does, and who does not lose their job because the political and media elite parse something they said disapprovingly.
When will sceptics learn that are in a dirty fight with alarmists.
Michael Buerk disgraceful comments means he and his like are legitimate targets.
Making such sweeping statements thru disgusting associations is a form of perversion.
We are dealing with eco-perverts.
Cumbrian Lad
You have explained in a nutshell why I and an increasing number of other much-saddened Britons now reside abroad.
The last government was incompetent at most things but its corruptness; this one is scared s**tless that it might upset somebody and its "correct" decisions (whether you agree with them politically or not, they are the government and have the right to implement certain policies which they believe right or necessary or both) are getting strewn about in the breeze as a result. Dismissing someone for his unfashionable views is small beer to them.
Had Buerk been a government employee and compared paedophiles to climate alarmists he might well have ended up getting the sack. I don't believe he was comparing climate deniers to paedophiles; he was simply using a fairly common technique to introduce a programme. As I said he could perhaps have found a better example but I think what he actually said does sum up brilliantly the mindset of the "liberal intellectual PC Guardianistas" who are the ones screaming loudest about Cameron's speech.
We shouldn't take it personally because I don't think it was intended that way. At least I hope it wasn't.
Remember Churchill's put-down of an MP: "The honourable gentleman should really not generate more indignation than he can conveniently contain."
This is apparently an example of the prevailing mindset at the BBC and elsewhere. Either nobody thought it was a stupid thing to say or it was actually considered an appropriate conjunction.
This is tricky for me. I’m not a ‘denier’ of the AGW hypothesis and the radiative physics underpinning it, but I am unconvinced that we ‘know’ as much as the consensus insists. And there’s all that politics...
But because I voice doubts about what a shocking number of people consider to be certainties or near enough, I have sometimes been accused of being a ‘denier’. On and off-line.
That’s one thing, but to get stuck in the ‘loathsome corner’ with the ‘deniers’... and now the paedophiles, well that’s quite another.
Mac is clearly fuming, and I understand why. But... Let’s remember what the Bish said. Don’t respond in kind. Rise above it and give them enough rope.
It was intended I am sure as a rhetorical device of irony, assuming that the audience are so well versed in the nuances and the absurdity of the green media spin and propaganda. Listening to the clip a few times, it is clear that it was scripted, but the delivery was so droll that even we, versed in BBC-Guardian-speak to anorak level, could not be certain. That loathsome parallel must not go unchallenged
Remember the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf. and Chicken Little
We do not do the sceptical cause any favours by taking huge offence out of turn. Instead we look to the vast majority of neutreal as if we are just as bad as those we oppose.
Was Buerk's remark presented as a statement of his or the BBC's policy or belief? No. Was he saying that some had been known to make such characterisation. Yes. Was this in the context of a orgramme about a very different subject. Yes. Was the remark central to the programme? Not in the slightest - juts used as an illustration in an introduction.
Save your fire until something real comes along. This is trivial and looks like we are searching for offences to take. Surely our shoulders are broader, and our persepectives longer than this!
The first point to consider is that equating X with Y, whether right or wrong, suggests that the person making the statement believes that the audience they’re addressing really does hold these values; if not, why bother saying it?
The second point to consider is that holocaust deniers, racists and paedophiles are usually subject to prosecution once their activities have been publicly exposed. However, to the best of my knowledge, no one has (as yet) been prosecuted for denying CAGW, so why would anyone trying to make a cogent point ever consider making the equivalence?
Now, I don’t yet know the answers to these questions, but I have a feeling they tell us more about the BBC’s worldview that the credibility, or lack thereof, of CAGW.
Dave Salt says
Wasn’t it David Roberts, writing on Grist in 2006 who said:
Clearly in the minds of some, it’s only a matter of time ;-)
Having read the article, comments and listened to the show, i am left none the wiser. Unfortunate phrasing, an impetus to critical thinking, irony or tarring with the same brush?
Who knows...other than MB and those closest to him? Maybe because i have not listened to MB for some time (currently living in a former colony), but my memories are of a pretty good, mainly balanced reporter.
In this case, it is far from obvious which it is, to me, at least, so i would expect some clarification to be forthcoming.
And herein lies the problem. It is, for now, down to the interpretation of each individual. But the phrase is now out there....
Dave Salt
Whoops. Forgot Prince Charles. Silly me:
BBD, all I can say is “bring it on!”
For the past five years I’ve been looking for any shred of credible real-world evidence to support the CAGW meme and, so far, I haven’t found one damned thing. Worse still, the best references I have to justify my scepticism are the IPCC’s own reports; more specifically, those from AR4 WG1. So, unless the legal system itself becomes corrupted, I have every confidence that a judge and jury would find me “not guilty” and so expose CAGW as merely a belief system (i.e. religion) and in no way a science.
NOTE: My first degree was in physics, so I believe I have at least a working knowledge of the Scientific Method and some degree of rational thought.
Dave Salt
Hopefully no misunderstanding here? I don't like the sound of 'climate Nurembergs' any more than you do.
Just been reading the WUWT thread on the same. My favourite:
Squidly says:
February 12, 2011 at 8:16 am
I don’t really care what he “meant”, the fact remains, the BBC is crap.
Dave Salt: "holocaust deniers .. are usually subject to prosecution once their activities have been publicly exposed"
When I last looked, this wasn't true of the UK, thought it is true of several european countries, most notably Germany. However, if you are described as a holocaust denier, then suing for libel may not be a good idea.
No problem, BBD.
What concerns me most, however, is the way we sceptics/deniers are forced to argue over side-issues and trivia when the basic underpinnings, or lack there of, of CAWG are so glaringly obvious to anyone with half a mind to look. Note here that I’m talking specifically about CAGW and not AGW (Cf. my previous comment in http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/2/5/the-big-cutoff.html?currentPage=5#comments).
To me, the fact that people go to such lengths to avoid any discussion or debate about the core issue (i.e. lack of real-world evidence for CO2 sensitivity >1C) is a testament to their fear and/or ignorance. That this has been going on for nearly 30 years without any tangible progress towards verification (but much to suggest falsification) of CAGW theory, merely strengthens my conviction that this is a purely political issue with not even a ‘fig leaf’ of science with which to hide the embarrassment of those who support it.
Jane, you may be right about the UK but, as you say, Germany and many other western societies do regard it as a criminal offence. My point was that, to date, no one has ever made a serious effort to criminalise the denying of CAGW and so to equate it to real and extremely serious crimes like paedophilia merely degrades the argument and makes those issuing the proposition look, to say the least, rather foolish.
The thing about free speech is that, contrary to most people's beliefs, it applies even to speech you find offensive and personally don't like. If you're not allowed to compare climate sceptics to paedophiles then you're also not allowed to compare warmists to eco-fascists, communists, watermelons, high priests, cultists, hippies, or 1984-style totalitarian police states. And it would be a rotten world if you could lose your job for expressing your honest opinion.
By all means disagree and criticise, but if that's what he thinks, I'd rather he said it openly. (If that's even what he thinks, which seems to be in some doubt.) Never say that there are things one cannot say. (Ahem... if you know what I mean.)
Ultimately truth will win out, and then all these statements will come back to haunt them. Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake.
And never lose your sense of humour, either.
An Archbishop making weird comments about paedophiles.
No connection there. Just because Priests & little boys have no connection.
Lets face it, if someone can get booted out of their job for saying 'jungle drums' when casually referring to a rumour mill, then why should someone else not be sacked for comparing those who do not agree with them to paedophiles or similar? Lampoon or not.
Sauce for the goose. Let's see some parity here.
Jane Coles
To my knowledge, denying the Holocaust in any form is a criminal offense in most of the western world, including Australia and New Zealand, with the exceptions of the USA, UK and ROI. I am not sure about Canada. I know that people have be jailed in Austria, Germany, Switzerland, France and Belgium.
Others have been expelled from or at least refused entry into Australia and New Zealand. As to whether any were jailed, I don't know.
The Asian world doesn't seem to care, nor does the Latin world.
Don Pablo
David Irving was refused an entry visa into NZ in 2004 on the grounds of his views on the Holocaust.
As far as I know, no one has been jailed in NZ or Australia on these grounds, nor do I know of any laws that would enable this.
Latimer Adler, I agree. I think you have summed this up very nicely.
Much ado about nothing .... if you ask me
@ Latimer Alder "We do not do the sceptical cause any favours by taking huge offence out of turn. Instead we look to the vast majority of neutreal as if we are just as bad as those we oppose. (...) . This is trivial and looks like we are searching for offences to take. "
Totally agree.
Whether we think MB was being ironic or not (and if he was, he might have signalled it a bit better), it would be nice if the BBC would stop conflating natural climate change with the alleged man-made variety. They are supposed to be good at plain speech (on the airwaves, if not the boardroom) so I think some of our ire should be directed at their apparent inability to distinguish between the two.
All I think anyone should do now, is to politely challenge anyone that uses the term ‘climate change deniar’
Just ask, what do you exactly mean by that?
Please be clear… (examples above)
At the very least, lets us ask for a distinction bewtween ‘climate change’ (natural) and ‘man made climate change’
As to deny natural ‘climate change’ would make you the equivalent of a flat-earther.
Yet, the only ‘flat-earther’s in the UK appear to be the DECC (UK, Department of Energy and Climate Change) by their definition of ‘climate change’
from the Glossary:
“Climate Change:
The process of changing weather patterns caused by the increased number of greenhouse gases in the global atmosphere as a result of human activity since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.”
A guide to carbon offsetting for the public sector’ – Department of Energy and Climate Change
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/what%20we%20do/a%20low%20carbon%20uk/co2_off_setting/1_20100115105713_e_@@_aguidecarbonoffsettingen.pdf
The BBC have compared those who express scepticism about catastrophic man-made global warming to racists and paedophiles.
It is something that sceptics cannot ignore or laugh off. You have to fend off such sweeping and disgusting associations by exacting punishment on those who utter such words.
Michael Buerk should be taken to task.
Michael Buerk should be made to apologise.
The BBC should distance itself from such comments.
The BBC should suspend Michael Buerk.
The BBC should sack Michael Buerk.
I appreciate what Latimer Alder is saying, but I remain convinced that we need clarification from Buerk and/or the programme's producers about the intended meaning of literally grouping "climate change deniers" with paedophiles. If it transpires that the grouping was intentional then certainly a formal complaint should be made.
I don't think that any grouping with paedophiles should be done flippantly, nor do I think it should be taken lightly. I think that this is important. When Hansen likened sceptics to holocaust deniers, it should have been properly addressed. Because it was not sufficiently addressed and because the US government employee Hansen has been allowed to continue his vitriolic campaign against reason without any consequence, the term "denier" is now widely synonymous with climate scepticism.
I'd suggest that no-one here should be accepting of a future where a climate sceptic is commonly referred to as a "paedo".
More haste, less speed, or come across like Merchant Bankers.
@Simon Hopkinson
You can rest assured that no one here shall ever accept "a future where a climate skeptic is commonly referred to as "paedo". No more agit-prop please. This is not 'the thin edge of the wedge' stuff that skeptics should get upset about.
It is bad enough to be labeled a "denialist". Climate dogmatists have so far gotten away with that name-calling marvelously in mainstream media.
But even the worst of the CAGW zealots wouldn't have the guts to call any skeptic "paedo". And if they did, and if that somehow made it into the mainstream media, then you can slap them with a civil law-suit if you wish.
They'd fast lose credibility in the eyes of the community at large if they begin spreading around such smears, the climate dogmatists.
What was it that Churchill said? "The honourable gentleman should really not generate more indignation than he can conveniently contain." That applies to both sides.
sHx, I'm much in agreement. I don't think there is any benefit to our jumping up and down about this, or our moaning incessantly that we were once lumped with paedophiles in a one-liner from a BBC programme. But, at the same time, that doesn't mean that the question needs not be asked of Buerk and if necessary that a complaint be filed.
If someone invoices me incorrectly, I can phone to rant at them for an hour or I can drop them a short note pointing out the discrepancy and politely asking them to address it at their earliest convenience. I invariably default to the latter, but for the sake of (bank) balance and accuracy I never forget to let them know about their error.
@Simon Hopkinson
"I'm much in agreement. I don't think there is any benefit to our jumping up and down about this, or our moaning incessantly that we were once lumped with paedophiles in a one-liner from a BBC programme. But, at the same time, that doesn't mean that the question needs not be asked of Buerk and if necessary that a complaint be filed."
If this is the line you're going to take, Sir, then we are in much disagreement.
Go ahead, and file a complaint to the BBC if you wish, but no-more agit-prop, please. I don't think any real skeptic would be supportive you. Not in this particular instance.
This issue has been something of a litmus test separating the real skeptics from the ones who call themselves skeptics for cosmetic reasons.
sHx - Feb 13, 2011 at 7:08 PM
This issue has been something of a litmus test separating the real skeptics from the ones who call themselves skeptics for cosmetic reasons.
-
Indeed. True sceptics and cosmetic sceptics. Right-thinking sceptics and wrong-thinking sceptics. Orthodox sceptics and heretical sceptics.
BTW; which one are you?
@Simon
"Indeed. True sceptics and cosmetic sceptics. Right-thinking sceptics and wrong-thinking sceptics. Orthodox sceptics and heretical sceptics.
BTW; which one are you?"
The one who can see and recognise the absurd.
sHx: The one who can see and recognise the absurd.
-
Well, yes. Reductio ad absurdum was the arrow, but I suspect it missed its primary target. Maybe it will overshoot and hit something interesting on its way.
It was daft George Monbiot who compared Atlantic fliers with paedophiles (he flew to Canada himself later)
Global warming means that flying across the Atlantic is now as unacceptable as child abuse
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1999/07/29/meltdown
The end of a thread is supposed to be governed by Godwin's Law. Which dates from 1989. Do I see Buerks Law a-looming?
Then we are indeed in disagreement. I think there is a hole in our understanding of Buerk's programme introduction and I think it needs resolving. Buerk can resolve this, and I see no reason why he should not do so, or be asked to do so. Although my initial reaction was that a complaint should be filed, I have since repeatedly modified my position. Buerk's explanation precedes any necessity for a formal complaint, and it can be hoped that a formal complaint would not be necessary. Hoped, not assured, which is the purpose of seeking clarification.
No sceptic needs permission or the support of "the consensus of sceptics" to feel strongly, or not so strongly, about a specific point or issue. Neither do any of us need herding into a designated pen.
This appears to be some silly nonsense that makes no sense.
"repeatedly modified" should be "repeatedly stated my modified position".
A useful way to make a low level enquiry, avoiding the indignation of a formal complaint, would be to write to 'Feedback' on radio 4. A 'did he really mean that' question might well provide us with the knowledge we seek.
Cumbrian Lad, that sounds like a good avenue and the right question. :)
@simon
"Well, yes. Reductio ad absurdum was the arrow, but I suspect it missed its primary target. Maybe it will overshoot and hit something interesting on its way."
You have a way with words.
@Simon Hopkinson
You talk too much.
"This appears to be some silly nonsense that makes no sense."
You don't have to buy it.
"Cumbrian Lad, that sounds like a good avenue and the right question. :)"
Finally, something we can all agree on. This should have happened before anybody got in to hysterics. Fortunately, the hysteretic threshold behaviour (tipping point) wasn't breached.
the misuse of the words "climate change" should stop immediately.
everyone knows the climate has changed, is changing and will change.
it should be possible to force the MSM to argue for "manmade global warming" or shut up.
as soon as anyone uses CC when they mean CAGW or AGW, i switch off. it's time to end this nonsense once and for all.
You should hear me in the pub after a couple of pints :o)