Feb 12, 2011
I am both angered and saddened.
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?
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.
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 this context associated with paedophiles, 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, criticisingmulticulturalism.
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 then ‘anti-science’, would never be associated orlabbeled 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?
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?
This article was posted: Saturday, February 12, 2011 at 2:55 am