Response to BBC Complaint:

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.

Regards

BBC Audience Services

This site is getting nearly unusable. Severn or Eight attempts to do a simple post get web timeouts or simply no response from the buttons. I succeded with persistence but something is seriously broken.

ZedsDeadBed

Thank you for the reply. Most appreciated.

That last post was for Truro Zed.

If Eric Steig thinks its bad then it is rubbish.

One can criticise either, but in the absence of any published papers giving a different figure,

Absense of other research does not valididate rubbish research.

By the way, I posted a link to some peer reviewed research on warming not being too bad and you went off on one of your days off saying you would look at it and post back. You never did, it was in the post you called me discursive, which I take as a compliment by the way.

Discursive: Proceeding to a conclusion through reason rather than intuition.

BOFA; Zed; All

Sorry to dredge up Anderegg 2010 again, but this is priceless.

Roger Pielke Jnr wrote about the paper on his blog here:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/06/new-black-list.html

And in comments we find this (emphasis mine):

Eric said... 26

Wow. Roger, you know I disagree with you on many things, but not on this.
What the heck where they thinking? Even if the analysis had some validity -- and from a first glance, I'm definitely not convinced it does -- it's not helpful, to put it mildly. I'm totally appalled.

Tue Jun 22, 07:36:00 AM MDT

Roger Pielke, Jr. said... 27

-26-Eric

Thank for the comment, but since we get many "Erics" around here, it'd be useful to know which one you are ;-)

Tue Jun 22, 07:41:00 AM MDT

Eric said... 29

Roger: Sorry for being ambiguous:

Eric Steig.

Tue Jun 22, 07:45:00 AM MDT

Ouch.

This is kind of old news, but it was new to me: a video from 2008 on teaching teachers how to teach climate change. More on it here: http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2011/02/classroom-climate-conditioning-at-work.html

Zed

Not still on about the Anderegg paper are you? The one even Spencer Weart said should never have been published?

It's the old '9 out of 10 cats' argument, and really, it's worthless.

Sod what 'the scientists' believe - stick to quantitative analysis of quantitative data. This paper is pseudo science that tries to render qualitative assumptions into quantitative form.

It's on a level with oh, IPAT and junk like that. Find another argument. Bored with hearing this from you and it's weak, too.

I guess the PM item on Australian Climate change is going to get a rocket from Prof Beddington then, and no doubt an additional kick from the Equalities Commission?

Ross H

Anderegg 2010. Better than Doran 2009 in my opinion. One can criticise either, but in the absence of any published papers giving a different figure, it's the one any person who values methodical research should go with.