Category Archives: Harrabin

What can I say? Mr Harrabin is definitely back with a vengeance. His scare today – after the energy alarmism earlier in the week – is water shortages. Climate change, he faithfully recycles from a resident econut, will crucify us, either through drought or floods, or both; the solution, as always is more laws, more government, more regulation – oh, and on this one, make sure that the BBC’s beloved EU is also involved to save the day.

Shame that our Roger doesn’t read more widely and convey to his readers some actual sense about the AGW lies. There’s been a lot of it about this week, but of course, it hasn’t been reported by the BBC. This for example, a group of glacier experts rubbishing the IPCC claims that populations are going to suffer water shortages. Or this, showing that billions are being wasted on solar power. Or try this, putting into perspective the facts about ocean alkaline levels (I refuse to use the greenie word for this non-problem). Or what about this, from the Guardian, no less, that the rainforests can adapt to climate change? And this, suggesting that there is no cause for concern for about sea level rises at the current rates? He might have reported, too, on this, that so-called green jobs are being ruthlessly axed in California, despite half a billion dollars spent on subsidies. But no, our Roger is as determined as ever to find his alarmist hogwash, and then to present it as if it is the only game in town. Fingers in ears time indeed.

Roger Harrabin has been conspicuous by his absence lately, but he’s back with a bang this morning, reporting a call by international ecofascists (and the BBC best chums Friends of the Earth) to condemn millions of people into fuel poverty by ending subsidies on fossil fuel production. Funny how he was absent – and didn’t report – recent stories about how windfarms not only gobble subsidies but also are hugely inefficient. Or about how people hate windfarms. He also strangely missed this item, expertly reported by James Delingpole, about how solar panels – thanks to massive government subsidies – are disfiguring the English countryside but are virtually useless. And he also chose not to report this item by David Whitehouse (a former BBC correspondent), who eloquently points out that despite the ecofascist calls for “carbon” emission reductions, there is not a shred of evidence that the gas has had a significant effect on global temperatures. He also did not report this important broadside on the CO2/temperature alarmist scam. When will econut Harrabin ever wake up?

If anyone is tempted to believe Mark Thompson’s ludicrous assertion that BBC bias was in the past, take a look at Roger Harrabin’s attempt to discuss dispassionately the recent attack by Inter Academy Council (IAC) on the snake oil salesmen techniques of the IPCC. BBC reports about the IAC such as this one have already done their best to minimise the importance of the damning IAC verdict. Our Roger pretends in his opinion piece that he is carefully weighing up the pros and cons of how the IPCC has behaved. And to be fair, he even admits that he himself got it wrong in being so uncritical. But – try as he might to be “fair” – his true colours show at the end. He states:

When the right-wing American critics who are likely to welcome much of this report raise a glass in celebration whenever Dr Pachauri does go, they should remember who put the chairman in his current place.

It was George W Bush. This was seen by some as a move to install a compliant developing country economist who wouldn’t stand in the way of industrial growth. He arranged the appointment of a former railway engineer who proceeded to drive right over his toes.

So that’s it, then – Mr Thompson’s (now) unbiased BBC in action. Let’s spell it out: according to Mr Harrabin, critics of the IPCC are right-wing Americans, and George W.Bush was the stupid b*** who is the cause of this whole car crash.

They can’t help themselves. It’s what they do.

Roger Harrabin reports here on the Royal Society being forced to review its pro-AGW fanatcism by a revolt of members. I note, despite his uncharacteristic inclusion of some of the thoughts of those who support the revolt,that he still maintains that climate change propaganda is “very widely believed”(no doubt whose side he is on)and he still drones on about the importance of “consensus”, as if scientific truth was reached by the same process as electing a member of parliament.

I asked, last week, how long it would be before the intrepid Roger Harrabin came up with a defence of the Met office, after his Yorkshire-based colleague, Paul Hudson, dared to suggest that Accuweather’s Joe Bastardi (among others) was more accurate with his weather-forecasting than the Met and its £170m global warming lying machine (aka a supercomputer). Well, it’s taken him all week. And if you can understand his back-flipping, contortionist – nay, fantastical – reasoning, you deserve a prize. As I see it, our friend Mr Harrabin believes that when the Met Office is wrong, they are actually right, because they are nearly right; and that in any case, it doesn’t matter, because it’s getting much hotter, and their supercomputer can see that, whereas the day-to-day incidences of freezing etc, don’t really count because they are part of the ‘frying tonight’ overall trend – and on that, of course, the Met Office is always right. As for those who doubt any of this, well, according to Mr Harrabin, he doesn’t give a damn, because they don’t count, and of course, they can’t count (unlike the Met). Something like that. Me? I’ll stick with Mr Bastardi. His writing style might not be the most elegant, but his message is crystal clear and honest. The Met Office are warmist crooks.

Update: it’s reported in the Sunday Times that the BBC is fed up with the inaccuracies in Met Office forecasts, and might appoint instead the New Zealand outfit Metra. Pigs might fly, they are too enmeshed. It’s a BBC press office ruse to drive prices down because the Met’s contract is up for negotiation.

Professor Phil Jones, the man whose statistics-manipulating department at CRU is at the heart of ClimateGate, has stepped down, pending an investigation of what went on. To my amazement, the BBC is reporting the story this morning, but – true to form – the main aim of the item is to put across the professor’s point of view, that “sceptics” (climate realists) have taken his words out of context and the whole thing is a storm in a teacup.

Meanwhile, the real media gets on with reporting the facts. Bishop Hill has an item suggesting that Michael Mann and Professor Jones conspired together to knock climate realists using questionable data. And the redoubtable Lord Monckton has published a PDF report summing up the whole ClimateGate affair.

Compare and contrast that to the whitewash spouted yesterday by the BBC’s Roger Harrabin.