I am both angered and saddened.
It was no doubt just a throwaway comment, with little thought behind it.
When Michael Buerk the presenter of the BBC radio program the ‘Moral Maze’ said in his intro to a debate about Multiculturalism in the UK: BBC iPlayer link (20 seconds in)
“not long ago to question multiculturalism….
….risked being branded racists and pushed into the loathesome corner with paedophiles and climate change deniers“
am I being too sensitive?
I presume that they mean ‘man made climate change deniers’, as I know of no-one that denies natural climate change, yet the words are used interchangeably.
To many people this would be a ‘climate change denier’ blog, what ever that may mean, should I be concerned for my personal safety?
I’m just sceptical of the catastrophic, End of the World’ cult like, gloom and doom version of Anthroprogenic Global Warming. (10:10, Greenpeace, Gore, WWF, Transition Towns, etc)
In fact I might be considered part of the IPCC AGW consensus. Although, someone that thinks the lower or lowest end of the IPCC projections for temperatures are the most likely in the next 100 years based on observable evidence. But of the opinion that natural climate variability may swamp any AGW signal in the earth’s climate.
I don’t think I am being too sensitive…
…this casual use of a phrase, in the context of a manstream program, associating ideas with paedophiles, is guaranteed to make people think at least twice about being called a ‘climate change deniar’.
The fact that it is in a program not about climate change just makes it worse, it was just a comment in the introduction of a program about another taboo subject in the UK, criticising multiculturalism.
The irony is apparently lost on the presenter of the MORAL MAZE, when in the very next 30 seconds, 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.”
Why single out people that have the idea that ‘climate science’ is uncertain and politicised. Recently many scientists have said that over hyping of doom and gloom and unrealistic scenarios by lobby groups has not helped.
People can believe in any religion they like in this country, with some very strange ideas (in my mind) yet they are respected. Even a creationist (of the Earth was created 6,000 years ago kind) whilst many might think them ‘anti-science’, would never be associated or labbeled as in the same loathesome corner as paedophiles, and racists.
Not even Gordon Brown’s ‘flat earther’ ‘anti-science’ description of the denial of climate sceptics, or Ed Milliband’s ‘climate sabatouers’ went as far as putting people into the same category as paedophiles and racists.
Even IF anyone could find a TRUE climate Change deniar, – ie ‘the climate does not change for any reason it is static’, would they be that loathsome?
What is a ‘climate change deniar’ anyway?
- Someone who denys that the planet has a climate that changes in the Earth’s history?
- Someone that denies that the world has wammed since the last ice age.
- Someone that denies that the world has warmed since the end of the little ice age.
- Someone that denies that in the last 2 hundred years that there has been a rising trend in temperature, with 20-30 year periods of high rates of warming and cooling.
- Someone that questions that the late 20th century warming is definetly due to humans producing CO2. (the IPCC only say likely due)
- Someone that questions catstrophic predictions of 2o foot sea level rises, tipping points, global climate disruption, etc,etc
Or is it just a phrase, that can be used to mean what ever the person saying it chooses it to mean, to shut down any debate at any particular moment in time?
I am very upset by this but there is absolutely nothing that I can do about it. The BBC has one huge galloping cultural blindspot and would not even comprehend my sadness.
The fact that it was just a casual throwaway comment, just a few seconds worth, just makes it worse. No one in the program seemed to notice this and they were talking about tolerance.
At what point will someone point me out to my children as a ‘climate change denier’.
Should I fear that label?
(Spotted in the comments at Bishop Hill h/t Copner)
Apparently may people think that Michael Buerk was being ironic, and in the nature of the program that is possible, yet it is far too ambiguous. As they do not touch on the matter again, it is not commented on and just accepted?
Yet, even if intended as irony, it may be lost on many people that would be nodding along in agreement. Thus, this is a dangerous word game for the BBC to be playing.
I would like to know exactly what was intended by the BBC in this introduction.
What might be more enlightening of the BBC culture, is to ask the BBC, what is the definition of a ‘climate change deniar’.
I have questioned the use of wind farms as a big problem for this country, that may result in an energy gap in the future, fuel poverty and potentially blackouts. And, have publically been called a climate deniar, by activists in my town for just questioning energy policy/solutions, let alone AGW theory..
This statement, only a few seconds, even IF ironic, does not exactly help, as many will just accept it and the casual use of the phrase become common parlance.
There is some debate here about exactly what was meant, please could someone ask Michael Buerk?