In defence of Liberals

We note with interest the report in the Telegraph that a group of "liberal atheists" booed Johnny Ball from the stage for disagreeing with them on climate change.  And we don't know how to respond.  No matter how liberal Beaker Folk may be, they're never atheist.  They may not quite have a handle on what they think God is like - whether Triune, Incarnate, Immanent, plural, Monotheistic or just plain amorphous.  They may not want to judge on who Jesus was or is, whether religious beliefs impinge on human behaviour and the existence or otherwise of Heaven, Hell and Croydon.
But we're pretty sure we're liberal.
But this seems a new kind of "liberal".  Wasn't the point of being liberal that one could respect other views?  Accept that it takes all sorts?   Live and live let?  Isn't the idea of liberalness completely opposed to the idea that we should boo saintly old TV presenters offstage on the grounds - not of a disagreement on political views, not because they've turned out to be racist or sexist - but because they disagree on the interpretation of scientific evidence?  Do the "liberals" in the audience feel proud of themselves today? Do the "atheists" in the audience feel proud that they put blind faith in something and shouted down someone they disagreed with?  Can they look themselves in mirror this morning as they put on their anoraks?
There are two things that make us tentative.  One is that this is reported in the Torygraph.  Perhaps they're wrong?  Perhaps this was actually an evening for atheist fascists?  The two groups have been known to overlap, after all.  Or maybe the whole thing was mis-reported and Johnny Ball was met with polite respect as befits his outstanding contribution to British society?
We feel we should know.