Michael Buerk enters the fray on the climate debate showing just how conservative and ill-informed you have to be to make it as a newsreader. My two cents worth is :
It's a bit rich for a BBC newsreader to spout "I don’t want the media to make up my mind up for me." Where does Buerk get "... the issues beyond doubt and the steps to be taken beyond dispute" from ? Mr Buerk posits that there probably are answers to all his quibbles and if he researched properly he would find that is so. On the whole Buerk is ruminating on tedious canards.
One statement in particular indicates that Buerk's polemic is biased towards misinforming the public "I would like to hear a clash of informed opinion about what would actually be better if it got warmer as well as worse." The trouble with that is whilst it would get better for a small few , the aggregate effect on humanity would be negative. There is no informed opinion that disputes that ergo Mr Buerk's desire to hear such a clash of opinions is on the face of it misleading.