Seen elsewhere
Twitter
Support

 

Buy

Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Cranmer on Buerk | Main | The Heretic - a review »
Saturday
Feb122011

A pivotal moment for the BBC

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.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (63)

Agreed. One shouldn't rise to the occasion on this occasion but (as a hypothetical) just when, exactly, did Mr Buerk stop beating his wife?

Feb 12, 2011 at 10:17 AM | Unregistered Commenterareoli

A too-short poll on the most popular morning radio in Melbourne Aust yesterday found 76% of callers did NOT believe the man-made global warming story.

It is possible they were driven to feel this way by biased MSM reporting.

Although it is not a legitimate response to long-term climate topics, there is an undercurrent that cyclone Yasi was over-hyped just over a week ago. I've failed to find a detailed post-cyclone report by BoM, but could have missed it.

Feb 12, 2011 at 10:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeoff Sherrington

Michael Buerk believes that the world has been taken over by women, especially so in BBC management.

Buerk by name, burke by nature.

Feb 12, 2011 at 10:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Wow!

When you get past the most brazen gutter slime of that comment the cognitive dissonance hits like a brick.

A subject that was once considered, by consensus, subject to dissent only from "a loathsome corner" is now proven worthy of sensible debate.

Had he not lumped "climate change deniers" in with paedophiles I would have been left wondering whether he was making an intended irony

Feb 12, 2011 at 10:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeckko

Looks like the Beeb thinks it can get away with such utterly despicable stuff on radio, because it is deemed to be ephemeral.

Not with today's technology, it isn't.
Another nai in the coffin for Al Beeb.

Feb 12, 2011 at 10:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

Nothing new here back in 1939-40 the
BBC ignored the Holocaust

Feb 12, 2011 at 10:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterAnoneumouse

I'm reminded of the Harry Potter books when the Ministry / Daily Prophet presented Harry Potter as a liar (to hide Voldermort's return). They wouldn't directly attack Harry, but would drop in snide comments here and there suggesting he was mentally unstable, a liar etc...

Of course real life is not a childrens story, but art has an uncanny knack of reflecting life (and vice versa).

Feb 12, 2011 at 10:29 AM | Unregistered Commentersimoncm

I am saddened by it.... no doubt a causal throwaways remark, with little thought....

...but demonstrates a culture where comments like this occur, which reaffirms that this is kind of, language to use.

http://www.realclimategate.org/2011/02/the-bbc-say-in-the-loathsome-corner-with-paedophiles-and-climate-change-deniars/

Michael Buerk and the BBC will probably think nothing of it.....

..... and that is the problem

Feb 12, 2011 at 10:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

mmmm does anyone here actually deny 'climate change'. As far as I'm aware its been happening for a couple of billion (US billion I think) years and will presumably continue for a couple more. Now catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming, on that I'm most definately a sceptic. Possibly Mr Buerke is subtely pulling the wool over some BBC eyes.

Feb 12, 2011 at 10:42 AM | Unregistered CommenterEddy

I had a very civil post on this removed from the BBC discussion site.

Feb 12, 2011 at 10:42 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeckko

With respect, isn't Michael Buerk something of a controversialist?
In other words, isn't he quite capable of implying what he doesn't mean to have a dig at some of his bien-pensant BBC colleagues?
On past form, he is certainly capable of taking such a line

Feb 12, 2011 at 10:42 AM | Unregistered CommenterSaul Jacka

The best course is for the UK skeptics to rise up and demand that this guy get fired so that, at a bare minimum, you make him grovel and apologize. His statement is outrageous and inflammatory and could lead to skeptics getting hurt. Now is the time to demand that the skeptic politicians loudly voice their outrage. Make this a cause célèbre. Force the BBC to defend him. Go on talk shows. Flex your political muscle, you will be stronger afterwards.

BTW, the House (lower federal legislative body in the USA, currently controlled by the Republicans) moved today to cut the budget for the EPA so that it will not be able to regulate USA CO2 this year. This is a huge step forward. There is a very good chance that USA skeptics will succeed in stopping the USA federal government from regulating CO2 this year (Obama probably does not want to fight this particular battle while he is fighting for reelection since regulating CO2 will hurt the economy). This year will consist of one budget battle after another between the House (originator of all USA federal spending bills).

Feb 12, 2011 at 10:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Koch

I think this is worthy of a formal complaint, quite frankly. I don't see how the perpetuation of this pattern of likening sceptics/"deniers" with holocaust deniers and paedophiles can possibly be allowed to continue. It should be highlighted, challenged and formally addressed.

Feb 12, 2011 at 10:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

and the Democrats (led by Obama).

Feb 12, 2011 at 10:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Koch

Are there many references elsewhere to "climate change deniers" being classified with paedophiles in an arbitrary way like this?


My 5 minute foray into Google with

"climate change deniers" paedophile

is inconclusive, except in the matter of raising my blood pressure a bit at the level of ignorance displayed in various comment threads at the Guardian.

Feb 12, 2011 at 11:06 AM | Unregistered Commentermrsean2k

Actually, given the tendencies of many beeboids, he is perhaps saying (hoping?) that it is only a matter of time before these other 'loathsome' activities might be regarded as acceptable by the BBC! On either reading, he has shown the truly 'loathsome' credentials of those at the BBC.

Feb 12, 2011 at 11:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterIan E

For what it is worth, i have submitted the following complaint. Reply estimated to take 10 days.

"not long ago, to question multiculturalism…risked being branded racist and pushed into the loathesome corner with paedophiles and climate change deniers."
I find this statement to be offensive in the extreme and take great exception to hearing it on BBC radio. I would like to know if this is the official position of the BBC with regards to those of us who contest the certainty of the science and if not, why it was broadcast, particularly in a programme about tolerence. I look forward to receiving an explanation. Regards

Feb 12, 2011 at 11:14 AM | Unregistered Commenterpesadia

Steve K and Simon H are right. There should be a formal complaint.

Feb 12, 2011 at 11:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Tol

What's so horrible about this is the slide from scepticism ('how robust is the value for climate sensitivity to CO2?') to accusations of 'denialism' to comparisons with paedophiles.

This is exactly what the consensus has sought all along - absolute blanket delegitimisation of any dissent.

That is not science; it is politics.

Feb 12, 2011 at 11:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

This whole “climate Change denier” Cr*p invented by the over payed hacks working at the “B*B*C*” 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 “B*B*C*” 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.


(I visit this every day, I hope my opinion is not a too colorful for this forum as this is my first comment here! have a nice day everyone! :) )

Feb 12, 2011 at 11:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterSparks

Just when you thought they had reached the bottom of the barrel ...... its worth just filing this kind of comment ... what goes around comes around ....

Feb 12, 2011 at 11:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterImranCan

Hmmm. We're on a bit of a sticky wicket here aren't we? We none of us (I think) deny climate change, we all know that the climate is, and always has, changed. If we over-react to this inaccurate description, even though we know he really meant AGW deniers, we're probably going to come across as being on the defensive.
We know we're right, we just need the MSM to give us a chance to prove it!
How we manage to accomplish that is the question......

Feb 12, 2011 at 11:22 AM | Unregistered Commentermeltemian

Pesadia

"particularly in a programme about tolerence"

Nice one!

Feb 12, 2011 at 11:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterDreadnought

The irony is, that despite the political dirty tricks that have led to this kind of vile name-calling, the consensus cannot achieve what it claims will be necessary. The scale of the decarbonisation/clean energy challenge is impossibly vast, and the technologies to achieve it do not exist. The much-touted 20 – 30 year timescales are completely unrealistic, and meanwhile China, the US and India will ensure that there’s plenty more CO2 in the atmosphere.

In any other context I would look at the facts and reach the same conclusion – these people are scuppered and they are too wrapped up in themselves to notice. What lies ahead for them is an escalation of failure leading to utter disillusionment in its most literal sense.

Perhaps subliminally, there is growing recognition of just how hopeless the orthodox position actually is. Hence the increasingly shrill and vicious behaviour of the cheerleaders, and the poison now percolating through the BBC and elsewhere.

For more on the clean energy challenge, see here:

judithcurry.com/2011/02/11/scale-of-the-clean-energy-challenge/#more-2326

(Thanks to RayG for posting the link in Unthreaded).

Feb 12, 2011 at 11:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Are we sure Buerk is not implying that the BBC 'corporate view' is that climate change deniers are seen in the same light as peados, racists etc. Is it his view, maybe not? Is he actually taking a poke at the BBC itself, considering the prev line about multiculturism. I read it that he is implying the BBC is riddled with non thinking 'yes...we are all individuals' types, hence the comment.
Maybe.

Feb 12, 2011 at 11:32 AM | Unregistered Commentermikef2

There never has been a decent scientific debate about CAGW. Before that could take place, the whole area of climatology (causes, effects, and general breastbeating) was taken over, hijacked if you like, by political activists deploying PR skills to great effect. How else to explain the astonishing sums of money spent to try to make the case for CAGW, compared with the tiny sums apparently devoted to testing it? How else to explain the deviousness of the IPCC? How else to explain the climate blogs funded by PR agencies in the US, or the remarkable rise of the PR agency Futerra in the UK, where the BBC, many multinationals, and government and educational bodies are to be found amongst its clients. (Try Googling 'X Futerra', where X is, in turn, schools, BBC, government, multinational)

And so 'climatology' reverberates with spin and innuendo, with ad hominem and smear. This is not ideal for science, nor rational analysis of ideas save for deciding whether their superficial impact is pro or con the favoured cause. It is a world of soundbites, slogans, focus groups, polls and impressions, or 'images'. A bit like the world of soap powder or toothpaste sales, - the sort of areas where the PR industry honed its skills and learned to make the most of them as they moved into politics.

Feb 12, 2011 at 11:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Shade

Yes, a formal complaint is probably right. Let me speak to some people.

Feb 12, 2011 at 11:42 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

So that's where sceptics of CAGW alarmism (or climate change deniers, to use the BBC's shorthand) hang out - in '....the loathesome corner with paedophiles....'.

That's a cracker, even from the unspeakable BBC

Feb 12, 2011 at 11:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterDougS

My guess is that it was a sly crack at the BBC's attitudes.........before you all go crazy apeshit.
Perhaps someone should ask Michael Buerk first!

Feb 12, 2011 at 11:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterJack Savage

I never thought we would see the day when to dispute whether short centred Principal Component Analysis was a legitimate statistical method would result in being compared to pedophiles by the BBC.

My goodness. This is perfectly extraordinary behaviour.

Feb 12, 2011 at 12:00 PM | Unregistered Commentermichel

I agree with those above who've suggested that Buerk was not filing "deniers" along paedophiles etc but rather saying "that's how the BBC think - they're all beyond the pale".

Exhibit A is this article in the Telegraph:

Michael Buerk, the former BBC newsreader, has hit out at political correctness in television, saying that presenters should not be given jobs just because “we need another six lesbians”.

“If you’ve been hired because you are young and pretty, because you are mincingly camp, because you’ve ticked a particular ethnic box and then you are no longer young and pretty or the fashions have moved on and you suddenly don’t have a job - get over it. It’s show business,” said Buerk, during an interview with O’Reilly herself for tonight’s edition of ITV1’s Tonight programme, which will focus on ageism in television.

Buerk added: “The problem is that at the other extreme of the argument. The idea of putting people on television - which is a non-job, that is terribly well paid, where you don’t have to think too much, or work too hard - and giving people those jobs purely on the ground that we need another six Asians, or we need another six lesbians, or we need another six pensioners, is to my mind almost worse.”

Buerk is, for me, caricaturing BBC right-on opinions about multiculturalism and climate change - not necessarily parroting them. His Moral Maze comments fit this theory rather better than the alternative, which is that he's suddenly turned into a mush-brained leftist on this one issue.

Feb 12, 2011 at 12:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterMr Eugenides

If I refused to pay the licence fee, because I object to being categorised this way, refuse to pay the court imposed fine, and ended up being locked up for it, would I be a political prisoner?

Feb 12, 2011 at 12:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

Well I for one am going to call a spade, a spade.

The BBC is the propaganda department of a National Socialist movement that has invaded UK politics by the back door. There is no space to fit a penny between the policies of the main three political parties for which we are supposed to choose for election. The UK is losing democracy, there is fast becoming only one political agenda and those opposed to this agenda will be denigrated and socially repressed.
Until it is realised by the majority that the science is factual and can be settled by proof but the politics are ideologies that are endemic and unopposed within our 'democracy' the movement will continue to infiltrate every aspect of our lives.

I don't advocate revolution or societal upheaval but I am certainly not going to be dictated to or allow my children to be oppressed by the people whom I have allowed to permeate positions of power.
Call me denier if it helps to balance your principals but do not expect me to roll over and fall in line with fascist ideology. Lets hope that the blogosphere can retain it's impartiality and allow discourse to continue and spread. The more people that start to question this myth being perpetuated as the only way to save mankind the faster the truth will out.

Feb 12, 2011 at 12:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

@Saul Jacka

With respect, isn't Michael Buerk something of a controversialist?
In other words, isn't he quite capable of implying what he doesn't mean to have a dig at some of his bien-pensant BBC colleagues?
On past form, he is certainly capable of taking such a line

I'll have to agree with the above

I don't know Michael Buerk's other work, but if he has indeed form on being ironic like this in the past, then he is not expressing his own view there. Rather, he is criticising those who talk of 'climate change deniers' as though they are as bad as pedophiles. Listening to it before this post, the whole program left me with the impression that it was meant to be ironic. Although CAGW activists have been given the full access, I don't think they come out well in the program.

I may be proven wrong of course if it turns out that Michael Beurk has a record as a CAGW dogmatist on and off air.

Everyone should restraint themselves for the moment. It might be a good idea to listen to the program as though it was meant to be ironic and satirical. Yes, it makes a difference. Don't run the risk of this making reaction look like a faux outrage. Real outrage is certainly deserved if Michael Buerk really meant it.

It won't look good burning some creative, covert climate skeptic on the stake out of a general resentment towards the BBC.

Feb 12, 2011 at 12:21 PM | Unregistered CommentersHx

I'm with Mr Eugenides, sHx and Jack Savage. I simply do not feel insulted by this, is ANYONE here a climate change denier. If MB wanted to say pedoes and climate skeptics, he could have. My suspicion is that he is having a dig at the Beboid CAGW airheads.

Feb 12, 2011 at 12:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterEddy

I concur with the view that perhaps Michael Buerk was being a little tongue in cheek (though perhaps given the reaction, not sarky enought), and would give him the benefit of the doubt. However, the programme itself is supposed to generate controversy, and often results in quite heated argument. I would suggest that the Bishop sound out the possibility of having the programme debate the issue of what a denier is, or whether it is a moral defensible position to doubt CAGW. The format of the programme allows a speaker to put their case reasonably cogently, and the panel chosen to be both pro and against. I can't think of another BBC format that allows as good an unedited platform.

Feb 12, 2011 at 12:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

The issue is not so much with the 'deniers' since anyone who really expects that climate to be stationary (or something which we can control) is arguably not making a significant contribution to the science (although it is still offensive), it is the implication that skepticism is the same as denial - a message which is calculate to shift opinion without needing any justification.

Feb 12, 2011 at 12:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterSean Houlihane

I have to say I am astonished at the mealy-mouthed comments defending Buerk. [Are you all ZBD in drag?!] There is one and only one interpretation of his words and I am angrier than I have ever been with the BBC. Fortunately the audience for the MM is very small and probably almost entirely composed of people who are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves.

My complaint to the BBC is polite and rational but I am demanding that Buerk explains his comments on air and apologises to everybody who chooses to challenge the "consensus" on AGW.

Feb 12, 2011 at 12:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Hewitt

Here's an opportunity for Roger Harrabin to set the record straight. As he pointed out in a WUWT post, he doesn't like folks emailing him on weekends, so I'll reserve my email suggesting he denounce such ugliness until Monday

Feb 12, 2011 at 12:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnthony Watts

Mac

"burke by nature"

I think you mean 'berk', short for Berkshire hunt, which brings the Culture Secretary to mind, but I'd better stop there...

I'll get my anorak.

Feb 12, 2011 at 12:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Thanks for covering this. I heard the program in the car and found it offensive, particularly since it was done so casually. It was almost a throwaway line in the introductory speech.

Frankly it doesn't matter for this offensiveness whether there is a scientific consensus or whether alarmists or sceptics are right. The point is people who take a different view - even a wrong view - are NOT loathsome.

We don't consider people who have unusual views on other topics, say MMR, or homeopathy, or crystals, to be comparable to pedophiles.

Feb 12, 2011 at 12:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterCopner

Anthony Watts

I'd leave it until Monday on safety grounds. Opinion about whether or not MB should be crucified or lauded for taking a sly dig at BBC group-think is divided...

Nice to see you here again BTW.

Feb 12, 2011 at 1:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

I think this is a little unfair on Buerk. Having listened to the clip he is simply making an observation of what goes on around him, without placing any value judgements on it.

And his observation that 'the world has been taken over by women, especially so in BBC management.' is a good one too. The feminisation of the BBC - in which everything is viewed through a touchy-feely emotional prism, rather than tested with a more masculine intellectual rigour - is the main cause of the corporation losing its worth to most Britons. Buerk could just have easily have said 'the BBC has become emasculated' - and that's something confirmed to me every time I tune in (and the reason I quickly tune out again), regardless of the sex of the presenter.

Feb 12, 2011 at 1:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter S

Mr Eugenides

I would agree with you, but for two small, tiny objections.

Multiculturalism and climate change denial - these are all sociopolitically defined conditions, or crimes, or ideas, whatever you want to call them. Paedophilia is in a slightly different category. If tomorrow, the world global average temperature starts cooling and does so for the next thirty years, you might even find a handful of those on the consensus side, agree to some of the points sceptics have been making.

You are not going to see such a thing happen with paedophilia. It is a perversion, afflicting only a small proportion of individuals. Its criminality is compound - it involves the issue of sexual consent, as well, which the young cannot give. These things are not going to change with time.

Why mix up these things the way Buerk did?

The real problem for Buerk is not that he dragged in 'climate change deniers' into this, but that he would use paedophilia in any sort of passage intending provocative irony at all. It is easy to do so. Buerk is losing it if he is employing these techniques.

I would been happy and called it an irony overload if Buerk was making a program where he was defending 'climate change deniers' by noting how the chattering class was attempting to make them loathsome by lumping them with racists and paedophiles.

The second thing of course is that, it is fashionable it appears, to hold scientifically tenable opinions but yet not examime CAGW in any detail. We just saw a recent bout of examples - Simon Singh, David Allen Green, Ben Goldacre. Why not that be the case here?

Then again, society's manufactured obsessive fear with paedophiliac criminals (as real as the problems remains) deserves to be attacked more directly in and of itself. See here for example (warning - good stuff, but slightly strong language).

Feb 12, 2011 at 1:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

I realise we vile 'deniers' are a bit hypersensitive in the face of all the muck that has been flung, but I'm saddened to see such a collective failure to appreciate Buerk's sly irony for what it was.

Feb 12, 2011 at 1:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterGCooper

Wow, from "numpty" to "nonce" in less than a week!

Is it just me or do I detect yet another concerted effort by the 'establishment' to misdirect our attention?

Time marches on – several decades with many, many billions of dollars/euros/pounds spent – and they still don’t seem to have any substantial real-world evidence to support their CAGW meme. It makes me wonder just how long can this farce can be maintained before we get a “Mubarak moment”.

Feb 12, 2011 at 2:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave Salt

Well,,, they are loosing the propaganda war and becomes desperate.

We all have problems with the fact that Public service has changed its role and has become the tool of the political correct dictatorship.Its role is nomore to scrutinaze gouvernments and politics.It has changed to be the tool to persuade and indoctrinate the voters to surrender criticism of gouvernments who the now so obviously serve. Public service and MSM is now the biggest threat and opposition against democratic open debate and has become the gatekeeper for the political correct dictatorship.
The western political elit as well as PS and MSM stand and falls with CAGW doctrine.
To ciritizice CAGW is to question the hole political elite.Thats why they are using any tricks availeble.

They understand that if we dont belive CAGW we can have no trust in them.The biggest problem is that we allready lost all trust and its unrepearable.BBC SVT (swedish) has gtotally lost it!!! Exactly like Stalin they are attacking us sceptics as beeing "contra revoliutionaries" ro mentaly sick distubed or pedophiles. They have no boundaries whats so ever. Thier power and and positions and benefits are at stake thats why they fighting ugly it has absolutely NOTHING to with science. The are fighting to make it SEEM that politics is based on science and not the truth thats its the other way around.

They have gone to far and has no escape plan whats so ever.We now have a problem with taking care of the millions that now has become climate treat dependant in so many different ways.Economic prestige and menatlly dependant... itrs millons who have become dependant. The UN stands and falls with its IPCC misscarriage.The only way to percide the fraud is to expand it.To falsify daily climate measurements is the next step they have to take.Histrory has alklready been tampered with no its the present and furure that has to be tampered with.Whos in charge of the climate records?? Anyone you trust?

Feb 12, 2011 at 3:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterSlabadang

Irony? even sly irony?

I cannot identify any other possible sardonic utterance in the whole 44 min debate. It is a factual debate, in the Religious & Ethics category, not "have I got news for you" where I would expect to find Irony, there was no change of tone or cadence in the presenters voice to indicate Irony, unless someone can convince me that a factual ethical debate about multiculturalism is the traditional place for dead pan irony, there is no evidence for irony.

Had the program been debating scepticism I could see a weak case, but not in this instance.

Feb 12, 2011 at 3:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

If irony was intended , it is very hard to hear it in the program..

The usual audience of the Moral Maze would no doubt be nodding along in agreement, without seeing any irony.

FAR too ambiguous

I would like to hear an explanation from the BBC and Michael Buerk,.

Feb 12, 2011 at 3:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

mrsean2k

My 5 minute foray into Google with

"climate change deniers" paedophile

is inconclusive, except in the matter of raising my blood pressure a bit at the level of ignorance displayed in various comment threads at the Guardian.

I got About 34,200 results (0.21 seconds) using your search terms.

I don't consider that inconclusive. It's rather rabidly rampant in my estimation.

And looking through the list of the first two pages, I found at least one similar reference in 2008, so it is not just a recent thing.

U.K. Bishop Compares Those Who Ignore Climate Change to Austrian 'Horror Dad'


BH It would also be nice of Square Peg in a Round Hole got the "server time outs" fixed. It is happening more and more frequently. I suspect that they are overloaded.

Feb 12, 2011 at 4:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>