LAPDOG HARRABIN

Roger Harrabin, like the lackey he is, faithfully reports the House of Commons whitewash about the University of East Anglia leaked emails. Not a whisper of a challenge or alternative view to that the committee involved has laughingly claimed that the science behind climate change is intact – even though it did not have the competence or remit to do so. One day, politicians will wake up with a revolution on their hands because they are so drastically out of touch with public opinion and are treating with malicious contempt their constituents. For genuine opinion about what people think of the House of Commons report, you have to look elsewhere, for example, the comments here. In the meantime, the BBC will be making no efforts to report the true picture on climate change, or anything else that’s outside their liberal-lefty worldview.

Update: for an excellent assessment of why Harrabin’s account is so dishonest and disingenuous see Frank Furedi here at Spiked.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to LAPDOG HARRABIN

  1. ChrisM says:

    Sky have just shown a much more balanced view including a good interview with Lord Lawson

       0 likes

  2. Martin says:

    Classic BBC Radio 5. Camp male beeboid spouting hatred about MURDOCH even being told off by Campbell for not calling him Mr Murdoch. So the phone in this morning is “Are you paying too much for Sky?”. I guess the meow meow drugged up beeboids can’t see the irony of the state funded broadcaster doing a phone in about the price of a competitor that you’re not forced to pay for, but they won’t do a similar debate about the value of the useless BBC.

       0 likes

  3. John Anderson says:

    Nigel Lawson was given the chance to comment on the Today programme – and he put the boot in.  The whole “enquiry” took just one day,  only 5 members took part in considering the “report” (and there was one MP strongly dissenting,  the central criticism was that many “climate scientists” appeared as a matter of course to avoid releasing tgheir data and methods,  that this secrecy was reprehensible and gave rise to the Freedom of Information Act requests which the Today interviewer had “besieged” the UEA – and that the University had illegally blocked those requests.

    The UEA Vice Chancellor was given an easy ride,  the introduction was patsy-soft,  but Lawson was forthrightly critical of the UEA and in effect of the Commons Committee.  Perhaps it is a slight change that Lawson should have been brought on the programme.   Time was,  the whitewash would have been complete.

       0 likes

  4. John Anderson says:

    Useful article suggesting that all the various temperature data sets are pretty spurious – and overlapping especially with CRU at East Anglia.   Garbage in, garbage out.

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/

       0 likes

  5. DJ says:

    Forget the environmental stuff – even if the Earth really was about to turn into a ball of fire, the BBC’s behaviour would be reprehensible.

    Publicly funded scientists conspired to mislead the public, a picked panel of MPs said ‘frauds fine by us!’ and the Beeboids are OK with that? Were they all absent from journlaism school the day they taught journalism? Cases like this are why we have a free press. If all they’re going to do is gobble up whatever the government doles out, why do they even need to employ more than 50% of the journalists working in Britain today? Surely Jack Stoat, copy boy for the Harltepool Echo can do a good enough job of copying out government press releases?

       0 likes

  6. Umbongo says:

    I gather from the Today website (and John Anderson above) that Llord Lawson was on Today which is, I suppose, some improvement on what the BBC usually does. I think though that we can expect that the results of this enquiry (+ the upcoming conclusions of the internal inquiry at East Anglia Tech) will be used by Harrabin, Black and Shukman as the definitive confirmation that the MMGW assertion is supported by “science”. Expect to see rather less (if that’s possible) of sceptical comment on the BBC between now and the election – and even less after that whichever of the three warmist parties wins.

       0 likes

    • John Anderson says:

      Yes.  The Commons “enquiry” was a farce,  ending in a whitewash by most of the handful of Committee members who bothered to consider the report.

      The Muir Russel enquiry looks fairly stacked already.  Big question still unanswered – will it be in public ?

      The Royal Society enquiry is even more stacked,  ludicrously so,  from the Chairman down.

         0 likes

  7. Tomfiglio says:

    Isn’t the use of “alternate” in phrases like “alternate point of view” incorrect in British English? Should be “alternative point of view”. Just saying…

       0 likes

  8. John Anderson says:

    Even the Guardian – Fred Pearce – has a fairer review of the Commons whitewash than Harrabin :

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/31/hacked-climate-email-inquiry-phil-jones

       0 likes

  9. ap-w says:

    One of the radio highlights of the year so far was the Toady presenter asking Lord Lawson if he “at least” had some sympathy for the CRU for being “bombarded” with Freedom of Information requests. Without missing a beat he said “None whatosever”, before very cogently making the point thst scientists should always show the evidence with which they have been working so that FOI requests should not be necessary.

       0 likes

  10. Guest says:

    Can’t say I view Lawson as the best advocate for well-informed or reasoned counter AGW argument, which I suspect is why he is more welcome chez Aunty. For some odd reason he was part of this ‘enquiry’ of all the talents and on occasion did not help much. At least he is usually put against a beard in a tweed jacket who can only scream, so his inherent civility can compensate.

    That said, it does seem telling that pretty much every AGW supportive entity I am reading seem to be foresquare behind the finest Parliamentarians money can buy in feeling the head of a reprehensibly-behaving science outfit should now get back on with the job (where have I heard that before?) as soon as possible.

    Unclear where our national broadcaster may stand on this odd notion of reward for failure in public service, but it is one that seems to be gaining traction around the various old boy networks in the politico-media ‘establishment’.

       0 likes

  11. Phil says:

    Does it really matter what rubbish Harribin tells the Eastenders, Casualty and celebrity dancing competition watching sections of our society? They aren’t interested in what he says.

    Perhaps Harribin is so demented and evangelical about his cult/faith that he really thinks he can get converts from among the trash TV watching people of this country? I doubt it. He’s probably just in it for the money. As a journalist for a government financed broadcaster he has to go along with government line on eco-hysteria if he wants to make a living.

       0 likes

  12. Tom says:

    Harrabin lays himself open to personal attacks due to the brazen nature of his dogmatic advocacy dressed as reportage – his behavior stinks. He can believe what he likes – but pushing unsubstantiated assertions as “truths” is being noticed and won’t be forgotten.    

    I haven’t looked at the CVs of the MPs on the “investigation” but given the amount of lolly at stake in the colossal  cap n trade / carbon trading fraud they’re either up for the deception like Eliott Morely and David Chaytor over at GLOBE or utter witless berks – even at this late hour, it’s disappointingly obviously a rich mix of the two – on the way to the trough of public monies again. 

    The reaction of our elected representatives to the “crisis” and hysteria that’s consequently manufactured around warbal gloming, sorry, duh, climate change  by a useful idiot media reminds me of retiring Treasury Select Commitee Chairman John McFall’s statement last year that “there’s no evidence of speculation in the oil market” …. does anybody in the mainstream actually have a clue? really ?  

       0 likes