The BBC say….”in the loathsome corner with Paedophiles and Climate Change Deniars”

Updates added:

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?

  1. Someone who denys that the planet has a climate that changes in the Earth’s history?
  2. Someone that denies that the world has wammed since the last ice age.
  3. Someone that denies that the world has warmed since the end of the little ice age.
  4. 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.
  5. Someone that questions that the late 20th century warming is definetly due to humans producing CO2. (the IPCC only say likely due)
  6. 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?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to The BBC say….”in the loathsome corner with Paedophiles and Climate Change Deniars”

  1. Jack says:

    I’m starting to calling the global warming alarmists “wackos” — that’s what they are! A bunch of wackos!

  2. Pingback: A New Low: BBC compares ‘climate change deniers’ to ‘pedophiles’ and ‘racists’ |

  3. Lex says:

    British Brainwashing Corporation at it’s best.

  4. Luboš Motl says:

    Take it from the bright side. It’s like the joke what is the difference between a pedagogue and a paedophile. The difference is that paedophile genuinely loves the children.

    The same is true when it comes to the care about the children’s future. Climate realistis genuinely care about the while the fearmongers make them detonate at school. No pressure.

  5. Pingback: Tweets that mention The BBC say….”in the loathsome corner with Paedophiles and Climate Change Deniars” | Real Climategate --

  6. Philip says:

    Yes, it was a spectacularly childish and ill-informed thing for Buerk to say, but I think it tells us more about his attitudes than about yours or mine or indeed those of anyone else who thinks it reasonable in a democracy to criticise orthodox opinion. And it’s not just about climate change: this kind of toxic and elitist attitude raises its ugly head across a whole range of issues. Please try John Redwood’s excellent recent post on the topic if you haven’t already seen it,

  7. Lynne says:

    Buerk by name…

    Perhaps he’d feel less disposed to the verbal abuse of climate realists if he opted out of the company pension scheme?

  8. Pingback: The BBC say….”in the loathsome corner with Paedophiles and Climate … | Climate Change History Explore and Learn

  9. Paul says:

    took the time to complete the BBC complaints for on that one!

  10. John Marshall says:

    I have complained as well. The more the merrier I say. Buerk is a typical BBC reporter- a First in an arts subject at some good university but absolutely no knowledge of science.

  11. kwik says:

    What is worrysome is what will follow next.

    If you want to do something bad against a group of people, step one is labeling them in a “sub-human” group.

    It is not a normal condition for young 18-19 year old youngsters to shoot his fellow man. Or starve them.Or put them into camps. But if you can label some group “sub-human” it is much easier to get the process started.

    That is why, before every war, there will be a campain nation-wide to put “sub-human” labels on your enemy.

    Remember that story just before the Iraqi war about soldiers pulling out babies from incubators and throwing them on the floor? I think it has been proven beyond doubt that this was hoax planted just at the right moment.

    Of course in times of war one could say this is legitimated; Its an infowar, and let our side win. But, no, I dont like it. I dont like it at all, nomatter if its my side, or the other side.

    If, at the same time, your government is working on putting systems in place that totally throttles the internet in case of emergency, it is really scary stuff.

    Again; You might say it is okay, because at the moment you are on the winning side.

    But you never know what will happen in the future. The times might change. Suddenly the political leadership change, and voila , you are no longer on the Team.

    An example could be that suddenly one day some religious group gets into power, as for example a part of a mixed government. They have an agenda. The bigger part of the coalition gets the defense and finance stuff, in exchange for some new dubious regulation.
    Like, from now on its forbidden for women to show a naked elbow. Or, like, CO2 is a toxic material. Or porn is forbidden ( what is the definition of porography, really? ) .

    You never know what they can come up with.

    It all falls back to how important the Constitution is as a protection of the common mans interests against the State. The State is like a fire. Keep it smal and under control, and it could be nice. But it can burn you, too.

    The BBC is clearly a part of the State. It should have been dismantled a long time ago. Its like having a church within the government. Very dangerous.

  12. This whole “climate Change denier” Crap invented by the over payed hacks working at the “Ball Bag Club” has nothing to do with having a healthy skeptical view of the
    relatively NEW science of climate sciences, But every thing to do with the political abuse of using a tiny area of science as a dictatorial Ideology for the promotion of certain minority beliefs in catastrophic Malthusian politics.

    When I hear of the bbc behaving in this way as disgusting and completely unacceptable as it is, I know the childish name calling, false and completely unfounded associations and labels are the last attempt of a nihilistic propaganda machine grasping at straws in a futile attempt to persuade the public to roll over summit to their masters (I say this with an amused grin on my face) .

    The public are becoming more aware of the situation and becoming extremely angry with their messed up climate change ideology, failed predictions and utter disregard for the real facts being discussed by the scientific and wider community of intelligent peoples not just in the UK but all over the globe,

    If the “Ball Bag Club” want’s to hit out, slur and offend a whole community again (Yes I said Again) then it’s up to everyone no mater what side of the fence your views are held to stand up to these self important judge, jury and executioner types and hit back harder.

    As far as I’m aware, we are still living in a democracy and not some kind of bureaucratic scientific dictatorship. God forbid!

    As you can probably tell I am outraged, offended and perplexed with disbelief by the bbc and their (whats the word I’m looking for “fascist? maybe!) comments, ignorance and their unjust, disgracefully mind numbing ability to yet again dream up more ways to be so offensive to a massive community of people.

    Even if their was only one or two people as the bbc believes on the whole planet who are skeptical about anthropogenic (man made) C02 causing catastrophic effects and over powering the colossal natural forces of our planet, including solar, lunar and even cosmic influences, I would still expect the publicly funded bbc to respect that persons view without prejudice or the discriminatory attitude currently being expressed.

  13. Ian E says:

    I wonder if this should be seen as the origination of a new-media law like Godwin’s Law – eventually (and often rather quickly) any continued discussion on any issue will lead to a (negative) reference to climage change deniers?! [Modesty forbids that I term this “Ian E’s Law”!]

  14. ferdinand says:

    I don’t know a single climate change denier. Everyone knows and accepts that climate changes. We are though, AGW sceptics, – another thing altogether. Damning by association is as old as the hills and is always practised by the losers in an argument. It’s good news in a way. He knows he is wrong but can’t face reality.

  15. Q says:

    Mr. Buerk should be prosecuted under UK hate crime laws.

  16. Hal says:

    Oh, my! I can see it now. Government officials raid my house and examine my PC. Instead of finding downloaded pictures of underage children, they find my links to subversive websites like Climate Depot, Climate Audit, Junk Science, and Watts Up With That. Then they handcuff me, hang a red banner on my porch labeled ‘Denier’, and escort me to jail.

  17. Tony says:

    What grounds do we we have to not pay the licence fee? To be lumped in with paedophiles really makes me angry enough to fight the BBC.

  18. Shub says:

    The server seems to be back up. Good stuff.

  19. Me says:

    Funny, We deniers don’t have the likes of Osama bin laden and Charles Manson preaching for us but they do!

  20. ggm says:

    One day, there will be prosecutions for the AGW hoax.

    The sooner this happens, the better.

  21. Jack Cowper says:

    My complaint has just been sent.

  22. Pascvaks says:

    Funny.. If I don’t buy a “Russian Car” does that mean I’m a “deniar”? Or is it more simple than that? Like, maybe, I think there’s something a little (or a lot) better that I would rather have parked in front of my house. I’m sorry, I just don’t think of myself as an AGW “deniar”, it has more to do with the quality of the “science”, the power under the hood so to speak of the vehicle in question and how it runs. They say a picture is worth 10,000 words. Here’s one worth a little more –

  23. BWoods says:

    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

  24. West Houston says:

    “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…”

    You need not look further. Texas, which has the largest wind power capacity of any US state (10,000 Megawatts -more than Iowa and California combined (#2 &#3)) recently experienced a bitter cold wave. Electric generation was strained, thanks to cancelled coal plants. Lack of electricity complicated natural gas delivery which made for more electrical disruption. At best about half of the windmills were running, because they have no heaters to prevent blade icing. Blade icing leads to big heavy chunks of ice being thrown amazing distances at random intervals and directions.

    We experienced “rolling blackouts” which is a term previously used in third world countries. As Example, I cite Colombia in 1995 when all that hydroelectric money turned out to have been spent on Mecedes’ and Manciones. I was there – walking around in downtown Bogota when every shop had a gasoline generator out front, with an extension cord running back through the door.

    We ain’t too happy ’bout what happen ‘chere in Texas an’ we’s lookin’ fer sum payback!
    (to paraphrase the vernacular)

  25. West Houston says:

    Now I think on it, the Colombia experience may have been 1992…

  26. G.S. Williams says:

    It is obvious that the BBC has regressed from the best. to the worst broadcasting organisation. I have never seen such closed-minded people on air. Are the people there REAL ?

  27. Pingback: Verstu stimplarnir

  28. Pingback: BBC compares 'climate change deniers' to paedophiles

  29. “Take it from the bright side. It’s like the joke what is the difference between a pedagogue and a paedophile. The difference is that paedophile genuinely loves the children.”

    I suggest you speak to Survivors of abuse, of which there are far too many. Your comment is NOT funny – it’s disgusting.

    As is Buerks ‘throwaway’ comment, both in it’s implications by association and it’s de-humanising affect.

    As was the coverage given to the Pope, a proven protector of brutally abusive clergy, by the BBC, during his State visit, last September.

    The essential fact underlying the whole ‘climate’ debate is this : a Society that is predicated upon Power, and Power Relationships will deny the effects of those relationships, be it upon people, habitat or those others that dwell therein, and in so doing will perpetuate those abuses of Power.

    And that fundamental lack of empathy is making it all but impossible to hold serious discourse as to the future pathways that we might take, as responsible and considerate adults, towards a future that is less toxic, more nurturant for all – for people, for the habitat, for the creatures of nature.

    We humans have emerged out of nature and the ‘civilised’ lie to themselves when they assume that they are the highest form of intelligent life on Earth, the justified Rulers of Nature, the be all and end all of evolution.

  30. jack cowper says:

    Just got a response from the BBC over my complaint about what Buerk said:

    Dear Mr COWPER

    Thanks for contacting us regarding ‘The Moral Maze’ broadcast on the 9 February.

    We’re sorry if you were offended by Michael Buerk’s opening statement:

    “Not long ago to question multiculturalism, the precepts or the policies of successive governments, risked being branded racist and pushed into the loathsome corner with paedophiles and climate change deniers.”

    Michael was certainly not comparing climate change deniers with paedophiles. He was simply saying that paedophiles and climate change deniers are two such examples of groups of people who are generally viewed as being in a ‘loathsome corner’ albeit that they are completely disconnected in every other way.

    Michael was making the wider point that from time to time there are ideas in society, like multiculturalism and climate change, that become orthodoxy and to challenge those ideas is to be seen to be beyond the pale.

    However, we’re sorry if this didn’t come across as clearly as was hoped for.

    We would like to assure you that we’ve registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

    Thanks again for contacting us.


    BBC Audience Services

    NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided

    Kind Regards

    BBC Audience Services

    Will sit on this for a while and decide if I should follow up or not. Interpretations welcome.

  31. WebFerret says:

    @jack cowper, I just got exactly the same e-mail response (word for word)!

    Talk about ‘denial’ – Quote: “Michael was certainly not comparing climate change deniers with paedophile” – No?

    Well in my view, it most certainly is stated by this remark – Quote:”being branded racist and pushed into the loathsome corner with paedophiles and climate change deniers”

    How very dare the BBC ‘class’ someone who is understandably sceptical of the whole “Global Warming”, “Climate Change”, “Carbon Trade” money making scam, (or whatever else they decide to call it), in the same ‘mould’ as a paedophile.! – absolutely outrageous and shameful.

    This is nothing short of propaganda by the BBC and totally irresponsible. It serves only to prove just how bias the BBC have become (if indeed they ever were truly impartial!)

    When I’m asked to pay more money (taxes), I like to thoroughly check the facts of what is being purported for validity before I hand over any more hard earned cash! And so far this CO2 thing does not add up IMO!

    I am perfectly free to hold an opinion. It is NOT illegal (yet – lol) to question the presented ‘facts!’ on CO2, ‘climate change’ and ‘carbon trading’, in other words be sceptical about the ‘feed’ of information from politicians, particularly when so much money is involved.

    BUT it IS illegal to be a paedophile! – go figure!: where is the similarity that would allow an ‘impartial’ body (The BBC) link these together – if not a deliberate distortion of fact!?

    I have registered my complaint strongly and await to fall out!

  32. Harry says:

    I agree that people who believe climate science is uncertain and politicized should definitely NOT be put into the same category as pedophiles. It is ridiculous to be singled out in such a way.

    In my opinion, the evidence is just not there and more data is needed. For example, scientists have always led us to believe that tree rings are a sign of global warming as they represent temperature changes over the years. Yet there is simply no evidence to support this! It is caused by Lunar Cycles and Solar Flares (of which there is to be the largest one on Monday night). For anyone else who is interested in this kind of thing, I would suggest this website:

    It’s an informative read for anyone, like me, who questions what we are told about climate change and global warming.

  33. jackcowper says:

    Thanks Web Ferret

    I agree. I was thinking about complaining that using the climate change denier tag is not just false but saying it is as loathesome as being a Peadophile – words just fail me. It’s really dissapointing that BBC has taken this line. I will follow this up with them over the weekend.

  34. Al Gore's Left Boot says:

    Michael Burke’s comment is certainly ill-judged, unfortunate in a lot of ways. It’s not a result of some BBC editorial policy to bash AGW Skeptics. For all its faults the BBC is bound to reflect the consensual view in its mainstream programming, and that view is that AGW is real.

    Some of the comments on here are just as defamatory in their own way and certainly not a little hysterical.

    Dispute the science by all means but please keep a grip on reality while you do it if you want anyone to take you seriously.

  35. BWoods says:

    There is a consensus view on a scientific theory…

    There is no consensus view about using a label used to stop a debate, and linking it with criminal and hideous practices..

    So individuals question, a label used to denigrate people with this view, as being the equivalent to racists and paedophiles (which will always be shameful and hideous), if you cannot see the distinction I am saddened even further.

    I speak for myself, anybody else here has put their own thoughts.

    As someone, who has been called a deniar to my face, by activists, questioning my suitability and my wife as being a parent, by eco-activists, because of even daring asking questions.

    Well I’m angry..

    The question was WHY in your video do you show graphics of plants withering and dying at CO2 levels at 385-390 CO2ppm.. ie NOW

    Why are people wearing face masks at CO2 level of 400ppm?

    THat is scientifically rubbish and alarmist propaganda, this in my local church and town hall surrounded by people I know, friends and local councillors sponsoring it.

    That was the Transition Towns video, endorsed by Sir John Houghton IPCC, he even gave a hour speech supporting Transition Towns in my church warning of those fossil fuel, tobacco tactic deniars!

    There is consensual view to use the term climate change deniers, this is a politically and activist label foisted onto people to close down any debate.

    The fact that it has become so casually used, to label thinking that is both legal and whilst a minority one about a scientific theory, is offensive.

    My latest post demonstrates the groupthink mentality behind this, by those in positions of power influence and political influence.

    with Andrew Simms comment…

    Andrew Simms Nef Bio: 10:10 Campaign Board Member, New Economic Foundation (NEF), Greenpeace UK board member, co-author of The Green Deal Report, founder of the 100 Month initiative, Trustee of TERI Europe(alongside Rajendra Pachauri, Sir John Houghton and Sir Crispin Tickell)

    Or like Jonny Ball experienced.

  36. Al Gore's Left Boot says:

    Get a grip people!

    Just because some AGW supporters get too heated, don’t do it.

    This is a debate for minds – what works? Hysteria about BBC conspiracies, or rational debate? If Dawkins can put up with the mists then you have to stop being so damn reactionary.

    Are you genuine skeptics, or reactionary old buggers who don’t want to believe they’ve buggered the whole planet?

  37. WebFerret says:

    Lets get one thing straight first – The Facts:

    AWG is the ‘alleged’ global warming due to mans contribution of CO2 production into the atmosphere.

    “Climate Change Deniers” by the very title, suggests people who deny that the climate changes at all (it must therefore be static!)

    The so called ‘Scientific Consensus’ of the theory of AWG is purported by a small number of climate scientists and is in no way representative of ALL climate scientists – the science is far from settled!

    AWG is simply a theory – it is NOT scientific fact – Changes in current climate temperatures due to AWG can currently neither be proven or dis-proven as fact.

    The Earth’s climate has been forever changing over millennium due entirely to perfectly natural processes of events.

    If man imagines for one minute that they can control those events/the climate (volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, solar activity ect) then we really have lost the plot! IMO.

    The amount of CO2 man does emit, is infinitesimally small to that of natural occurrences (don’t forget about the thousands of constantly active sea-floor volcanic eruptions spewing sulphur and CO2 into the oceans to be released later by the Suns evaporation of our seas whilst tectonic plates constantly move apart!)

    Methane (a gas 10 times as powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2) is released naturally from the Earth and animals – yet this is not mentioned as a major problem compared to that of the CO2 story. (perhaps got something to do with the fact that factories and cars don’t emitting this gas!? – difficult to tax!)

    Carbon Trading (or Cap & Trade) does nothing to reduce man made CO2 emissions – countries simply pay $ to produce whatever levels they wish.
    Example: A Developed Country (DC) is allocated 11 Gtons of CO2 emissions (but produce 20 Gton) & a 3rd World Developing Country (3WDC) are given the same quota (who only produce 2 Gtons). Now DC produces 20 Gtons of CO2 annually, but 3WDC only produce 2 Gtons. So 3WDC sell their ‘share’ of 9 Gtons to DC – allowing DC to produce the 20 Gtons legally and 3WDC get the $. But who pays for the DC allocation – the energy bill payer of course (wonder why all your energy bills are increasing!? – not to mention taxation to pay for the various subsidies offered, that I’m not going to go into now.) – BUT OVERALL THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REDUCTION IN THE TOTAL CO2 PRODUCED!

    I am not a “Climate Change Denier” and have no axe to grind politically – but I do object to being “ripped-off” and trying to have the “wool pulled over my eyes” by governments and political parties and I feel this is exactly what is happening with the subject of AWG.

    If the BBC where truly impartial and did in fact offer ‘balanced’ reporting, then clearly, sticking to the above facts (as we know them), they would refer to the sceptical among us as “sceptics” and not some misconceived politically motivated term such as “deniers”! and allow for proper debate.

    Unfortunately, IMO, far too much money has now been ‘invested’ in the illusion that CO2 taxation will “save the planet” (pensions, businesses, renewable energy ect and making some people very rich indeed) that the change to what should be happening, in providing cheap affordable ‘clean’ energy and preparing for the inevitable natural changes in our climate, will be along time coming.

    In summary – what the BBC has broadcast is tantamount to political propaganda, nothing less – it’s absolutely shameful.

    It will be interested to see how they ‘wriggle’ out of this one! – but I’m sure they will!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s