Roger Harrabin is quite the card. Here he is on the BBC this morning warning that “Environmentalists” now fear that the UK government’s draft energy bill to be published on Tuesday will end in a new “dash for gas”.

They want the bill to be guided by the government’s stated wish to almost completely de-carbonise the electricity industry by the 2030s. But there has been no guarantee such a target will be enshrined in the bill.

I’m sure that they do what this – after all their eco-lunacy knows no economic constraints. However my question is why does Harrabin feel the need to virtually cheerlead on behalf of their anxieties? Why do these Green groups matter so much that THEIR concerns come before those of the rest of us who have to cough up increasingly large amounts of money to underwrite the watermelon agenda?


Biased BBC favourite Roger Harrabin has been missing in action for a while now from the BBC airwaves. However the ever resourceful folks at Biased BBC have tracked him down and Alan has the goods.  Enjoy..

“What has he been up to? Well it seems he has been having a very nice time on an all expenses paid (not by the BBC) ‘Fellowship’…..

‘Roger Harrabin is taking unpaid leave on a Knight Wallace Media Fellowship at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.’

He is being well paid by the Fellowship….’U.S. fellows receive $70,000 – distributed as $8,750 monthly – from September through April. Stipend details vary for international fellows and are worked out on an individual basis. All tuition and course fees at the University of Michigan are paid for by the fellowship. Spouses and partners are invited to partake in university courses as well.

In addition, all fellowship trips – domestic and international – are covered. Health insurance is provided to fellows and their families, if their employer does not contribute to their insurance coverage.’

Source Link:

…all of which might lead to some amusement as to his study subject:

 ‘Roger Harrabin, environmental analyst, BBC (London); Scarcity: How many rich people can the Earth take?’

It’s the rich what are causing Global Warming with all their blooming consumption! Get rid of them! He is not the only BBC journalist to have taken this ‘life changing’ opportunity….and many of their subjects are also what you might expect. Maurice Walsh stands out for his perceptive view that the BBC aided the IRA…..’their key victory was in mobilizing public opinion in Britain and the rest of the world.’

‘Maurice Walsh, World Service news editor, BBC, London.

Irish War of Independence.

“The News from Ireland” by Maurice Walsh ’02 has been released in paperback. The Anglo-Irish war of 1919-1921 was a historical landmark: The first successful revolution against British rule and the beginning of the end of the British Empire. However, the Irish revolutionaries did not win their struggle on the battlefield – their key victory was in mobilizing public opinion in Britain and the rest of the world. In his book, Walsh recounts the work of British and American correspondents in Ireland and offers a persuasive assessment of the revolution’s place in world history as well as the role of the press and journalism in the conflict.’

For interest I list the others from over the last decade:

Sarah Robbins, senior producer, BBC World News America; The Economy of Brazil.

John Walton, senior broadcast journalist, BBC (London); Data-Driven Journalism and its Uses in Interactive Storytelling.

Roger Sawyer, deputy editor, BBC Radio (London): Reporting science in an accurate, but inclusive and comprehensible manner.

John Cary, editor, “Drive,” BBC Radio 5 Live.

How children are educated – Does a teacher’s gender make a difference?

Joanna Mills, assistant editor, BBC World Service News.

How is the way crime is covered in the media impacting society?

Patricia Whitehorne, senior broadcaster, BBC.

On-Line Social Network Sites.

Charles Partridge, managing editor, BBC Radio Lincolnshire.

What does “Local” Mean in Today’s On-Line World?

Hilary Bowden, duty editor, BBC.

User Generated Content.

Richard Lister, reporter, BBC.

Should the EU Adopt the US Constitution?

Stephen Titherington, editor, BBC World Service News (London, England).

How Science is Covered.

Alicia McCarthy, senior broadcast journalist, BBC (London).

The impact of terrorism on media, politics and people.

Pam O’Toole, reporter, BBC (London).

Migration and asylum.

Andrew Whitehead, editor, BBC (London), “The World Today”.

Origins of the Kashmir crisis in 1947.

Joanne Episcopo, arts producer, BBC (London, England).

Spanish history and Basque culture.

David Edmonds, Current Affairs editor, BBC, London.

German History/Film Studies.

Caroline Finnigan, producer/bureau manager, Havana, BBC News.

Origins of investigative and campaigning journalism in the US and Britain.

Every year the Knight Wallace Fellowship publishes the work of these journalists in its archive…..this years of course is not out….it might be interesting to come back to this at the end of the year and see what Harrabin has produced:

KWF Journal Archives



Putting the BBC in charge of a project to arbitrate the accuracy of weather forecasting organisations in the UK is a bit like Josef Mengele running research into the science of eugenics. They (from the Trustees down) long since made their collective mind up that man-made global warming is definitely happening, and that the warmist fanatics at the Meteorological Office are therefore to be believed in their fantasist modelling. Nevetheless, Roger Harrabin persuaded his bosses to shell out a bucket-load of our cash on such a project, no doubt spurred on by the corporate missionary zeal to prove wrong the hated “denialists” who dare to question warmist weather orthodoxy. Last month, as the linked report shows, Mr Harrabin announced that his pet scheme was on the verge of going ahead, and he listed an impressive array of weather organisations and forecasters who were poised to take part.

But, as the Mail reports today, they aren’t. If the report is accurate, all of the forecasters on Mr Harrabin’s list who might reasonably called sceptical about warmist zeal – including the impressive but deeply sceptical Jo Bastardi and Piers Corbyn – are instead turning their fire on the BBC for their pre-determined political views on the topic. Independent forecaster David King is quoted as saying the BBC organisation is “factional”.

Irrespective of what actually happens, it does not take a genius to work out that the project will struggle to persuade anyone that it is objective or valid. The BBC has been outrageously partisan on the subject of the weather so systematically and for so long that the corporation’s credibility in this arena is entirely shot. Andrew Montford’s masterful analysis of the warmist hijacking of the Royal Society emhpasises yet again the key role in the spreading of warmist propaganda played by Roger Harrabin – as does Autonomous Mind here. As you sow, so shall you reap.

Harrabin the denier

How wonderful it is that my debut post here on Biased BBC times perfectly with a nugget of a post over at Bishop Hill, which underlines the BBC’s reputation for telling half the story all the time.

The subject is climate change, so once again our eyes turn towards the Socratic wonder that is the BBC Environment Analyst, Roger Harrabin. Speaking as a member of what appears to have been a panel of prestige-laden experts in front of an invited audience a few months ago, Harrabin had this to say:

What we appear to have constructed in climate change is a bunch of people who say, ‘I’m really worried about the future. I’m really worried about climate change’; a small group of people who say, ‘I don’t give a damn. It’s not going to happen. Humans can’t change the planet’; and quite a lot of people in the middle who say, ‘Well actually, I don’t know. I hear these competing voices and I don’t know’.

Biased to his rent seeking, vested interest heavy core, one notices how Harrabin is yet again distorting reality. Where in his analysis is any mention of the overwhelming of climate change sceptics who say, ‘The climate is changing and always has; and scientific evidence shows it has been both warmer and cooler in the past as a result of natural factors we aren’t even close to understanding, therefore mankind’s influence could very well be grossly overstated’?

Harrabin has deliberately set out yet again to paint what passes for debate about climate change as warmists on one side and ‘deniers’ on the other, while airbrushing mainstream scepticism out of the story. This is another example of the bias at the heart of our public sector broadcaster, which consistently abuses its monopoly on ‘news’ reporting to condition the mindset of those compelled to pay for such output.

Far from climate change sceptics being deniers, the real deniers are the likes of Roger Harrabin, who load their reportage with bias and distortions and ‘educate’ fellow Beeboids to adopt the same narrative.

The BBC, it’s what they do.


Some time ago, I noted that Roger Harrabin seemed to be offering his services for hire as a speaker at greenie events, and was seemingly paid amounts up to £10,000 and more for his appearances. I can’t confirm this, of course, because I haven’t seen his financial records, but I believe it is a reasonable inference to make; he’s registered with a fee-making agency as a “performing artiste” (no less) and I don’t imagine that he is there purely for the good of his health. If he doesn’t accept payment, I will be happy to put the record straight, though he hasn’t responded to my invite to do so.

I also suggested that his colleague Richard Black was similarly making money. That led to yelps of protest (and, in due course, a BBC solicitor’s letter) that he did not allow his integrity to be thus prostituted, and I accept that Mr Black does not similarly hire himself out. But this rather begged the question of why, if Mr Black thinks it is so wrong to be a hired gun, Mr Harrabin is seemingly happy to be so. Oh hum, such are the complexities of being a BBC environmental activist.

I’ve been digging a little bit deeper in this patch, and it doesn’t stop there. Our Mr Harrabin is also listed as a speaker with an outfit called Green Business Events (GBE). This is a body which frightens me to the core, and – I submit – shows the extent to which greenie madness has taken hold of the establishment, with activists persuading each other on a regular basis that they are on a righteous crusade to save the world. In reality, it’s a conspiracy of rich companies finding new ways of extracting the maximum amount of money out of subsidies, grants and taxes under the guise of “corporate social responsibility”. Said GBE holds an annual “Green Strategy” screw-the-poor, love-in conference (which our Roger chaired in 2009), and also monthly “Green Mondays” around the country in which 200 or so of the senior management acolytes (chillingly called “corporate climate change leaders”) of this religious-fervour group get together in rather plush venues to crow about their save-the-world policies.

(Incidentally, the whole shooting match was founded by a young whizz-kid called Ben Patten. He seems to be on a good money-making wheeze. His qualifications for running this climate change extravaganza? A dreaded MBA and a degree in, er, ancient history. He thus has as many scientific qualifications as Mr Harrabin).

When I found GBE, I was gripped with a mixture of abject horror and fascination; horror that such a group actually exists and fascination that so many companies, organisations and arms of the government have actually willingly signed up to this brainwashing process. What it means is that there is now a shadowy momentum (as well as the declared mainstream political agenda) towards entrapping us all in the climate change machine, subscribed to by the most powerful organisations in the land.

Mr Harrabin’s involvement reveals something far more worrying. It shows that the BBC not only seemingly allows him out as a hired gun, but also does not care if he is directly associated with an organisation that has a declared partisan goals. Groups like GBE might claim be saving the world; in reality, they are ramming a political agenda down our throats and are working flat out behind the scenes to subject to us to fuel poverty, to invest billions in crackpot wind schemes, to reverse the industrial revolution, and to ensure that the developed world transfers billions of pounds to the corrupt pockets of developing world dictators. The BBC should be ashamed of itself.

Update: Mr Harrabin (having been complicit in spreading the Met Office’s climate change propaganda), is now professing indignance at their conduct in keeping quiet about the recent cold snap. Pot. Kettles. Black. (h/tip B-BBC readers)


…is this sort of journalistic inquiry by the quietly brilliant blog Harmless Sky. Here, it rips apart the idea that green energy – and in particular wind power – is gaining traction as an industry. The stark reality is that people aren’t investing their cash in wind power because it’s not a viable proposition. Share prices have slumped despite the ridiculously massive government subsidies. This reality check ought to be high on the agenda of the latest round of UN climate talks, which opened today, and the BBC should be analysing such issues with robust fierceness. Instead, Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s resident greenie parrot, spouts the usual eco-nut nonsense about his peoples’ worries that “agreement” (ie more measures to hobble the developed world)will not be reached. Oh, and our investigative-journalist-of-the-year Roger has apparently deliberately also ignored (for now at least) the hottest news about the UN talks: that IPCC boss Patchy Pachauri is under investigation again.


I’ve listened to Roger Harrabin’s second and final programme about climate change available here (due to be broadcast on R4 tonight). Obviously B-BBC readers will make up their own minds whether the programme could be regarded as balanced, but I have deliberately chosen this out-of-context phrase from Mr Harrabin because in my view his whole construct was deeply flawed. Yes he interviewed so-called sceptics, and yes, he conveyed elements of their perspective. But this was only a classic BBC lip-service ploy to convey fairness. The reality was that, on balance, he was snidely scathing about all those who disbelieve in the warmist fantasies, and at the same time, went out of his way to build credence for alarmists, both by allocating them more space and by talking of them reverentially as “mainstream” and “establishment” scientists. He gave his carefully chosen “sceptics” some space, but knocked them down by a combination of snide innuendo, highly selective editing, and by failing to put across their ideas in a way that showed them respect. The whole exercise reminded me of a Mafia chief saying he must be right because most those in his orbit agreed with him. All very unsurprising – it’s what Mr Harrabin does, after all – but people I know were asking me at the weekend if these two programmes showed he might be having second thoughts about his warmist zeal. The answer is clearly a resounding ‘no’. And he and the BBC are as committed to their green religion as they always have been. In future months the corporation will wheel Uncertain Climate out as an example of them giving “sceptics” airtime. But it was a charade.


I missed this and am indebted to the wonderful Ozzie blog Greenie Watch for pointing it out. Don’t faint, but the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit has actually upheld a complaint against Roger Harrabin. Here it is:

ECU Ruling: BBC News at 10, BBC1, 25 January 2010
Publication date: 19 July 2010


In a report on calls for Dr Rajendra Pachauri to resign as Head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the BBC’s Environment Correspondent referred to him as “the UN’s top climate scientist”. A viewer complained that this was inaccurate and misleading, as Dr Pachauri’s scientific qualifications and credentials were in a field unrelated to climate science.


Although the phrase was intended as journalistic shorthand for the occupant of the most prominent international post connected with climate science, the implication that he was himself a climate scientist was materially misleading in the context of this report. Upheld

Further action

The Editor of BBC News at 10 is reiterating to his team the importance of accuracy in the introduction of our contributors.

What the complaint ruling doesn’t say of course, is that Mr Harrabin, along with Richard Black, worship at the altar of the IPCC and the execrable Dr Pachauri daily, and report his every utterance with the reverence that the BBC normally only shows to Islam. For a truer picture of the Indian railway engineer, see Richard North’s latest blog here.


I note that Roger Harrabin has not yet responded to my invitation to explain the BBC’s eco-freakery. Could it be that – like all his warmist colleagues – he is afraid to? Meanwhile, eco-nonsense pours incontinently out of every BBC orifice; this story about polar bears reaching ‘a tipping point’ (I’m pinching myself; you can’t believe some of the things you find yourself writing) has all the hallmarks of such a scare story, namely, overpaid so-called scientists with nothing better to do, inane handling of limited information, the use of modelling to ‘prove’ a dodgy hypothesis, and last but not least, no inclusion by the BBC reporter of any opinion to the contrary. WUWT sums the limitations in a paragraph:

After reading this BBC article on modeling the “tipping point” of polar bear populations, it seemed this photo summed it up well, especially since modeling was substituted in lieu of “nearly non-existent data”. I wonder how the bears survived the Roman Warm Period, or the Medieval Warm Period?

I know I drone on about this, but what does it actually take for the idiots who write this stuff to realise how stupid they are? Or are they so ideologically motivated that they have lost all reason?


In Roger Harrabin’s latest article about what he calls the “hue and cry” surrounding the Rajendra Pachauri “manhunt” (not betraying your feelings much there, Roger) the BBC’s environment analyst says that he’s been having difficulty getting in touch with one of the co-chairs of the IPCC working group which oversaw the inclusion of the discredited Himalayan glacier info:

Professor Parry has repeatedly refused to answer my questions about the genesis of the errors, and his out-of-office assistant now says he is travelling for a month.

A lame excuse by Parry, and the fact that Harrabin mentions it suggests he’s not convinced.

When Andrew Montford of Bishop Hill fame tried to find out some fairly straightforward information about the BBC’s involvement in Harrabin’s Cambridge Media and Environment Programme, here’s how the BBC explained its tardy response to his FOI request:

I am writing to advise that unfortunately we are not in a position to provide you with a response to your requests for information made under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This is due to the fact that Roger Harrabin has been abroad and then on leave for much of the last six weeks and is now tied up with pressing stories.

Well, it’s just so difficult keeping in touch these days isn’t it?

UPDATE. It’s unrelated to the above post but I can’t resist sharing this headline: Hackers Steal Millions in Carbon Credits

The madness of it all in six words.

Harrabin’s Black and White World

The indefatigable Richard North has a dismissive take on the BBC’s latest article about Pachauri and Glaciergate. His point that the Beeb’s bias comes as much from what it leaves out could also apply to the most recent of Roger Harrabin’s Notes.

For the second “note” running (see previous one here) Harrabin has expressed his anguished concern over recent developments in America. He says that Scott Brown’s election “certainly puts the nail in the coffin of Democrat hopes for a full climate bill this year” but once again fails to point out that some Democrat politicians oppose such legislation too. He states that the “fossil fuel industry is poised with banknotes at the ready” to take advantage of the recent Supreme Court ruling on political advertising, but neglects, as ever, to mention the huge sums of money swirling around the warmist lobby, much of it provided courtesy of Western taxpayers. And there’s certainly no mention of the money that flows into Pachauri-linked enterprises, some of it thanks directly to the false claims about Himalayan glaciers. Harrabin takes at face value the spin that the inclusion of this material in the IPCC report was just an unfortunate “inexplicable blunder”; heaven forbid that a BBC environment correspondent would dare to suggest that there could be a link between dodgy climate research and financial gain by leading warmists.

As with the BBC line that Obama’s woes are down to Fox News, Harrabin apportions similar blame for the problems facing the warmist cause:

Part of the answer lies with the media – particularly right-wing newspapers

Mr Cameron has re-branded his party as “vote-blue-get-green”, but many of his back-benchers rank climate change as a very low priority. A couple of his Cabinet members are likely to be outright climate sceptics, and more may be driven that way if right wing newspapers continue chasing stories about the IPCC’s failings.

[Note to Harrabin – check BBC style re “right-wing newspapers” or “right wing newspapers”]

That last line seems to imply a lack of interest on Harrabin’s part in “chasing stories about the IPCC’s failings” – ie they’re the realm of the right-wing press. It’s worth remembering that some of the Conservative-supporting newspapers have often been slow to run stories critical of the AGW orthodoxy.

For Harrabin it’s all about good versus evil, with the scientists (incorruptible truth-seekers, noble of intent), the Democrats, and the NGOs on one side and the evil fossil fuel lobby, the Republicans, and the right-wing media on the other. It’s biased, simplistic and wrong, but it’s the sort of world-view that helps people like Harrabin get through the day.

Update. Andrew Neil goes where Harrabin fears to tread.

Copenhagen Guest Blogger

(This is a guest blog from BBC environment correspondent Richard Blackbin in Copenhagen.)

Why can’t more people be just like me?

The question first came to mind on the plane to Copenhagen as I caressed my cheek with my Guardian COP15 84-page pull-out supplement.

If more people were like BBC environment correspondents, I reflected, then the world would be a better place because people like me understand things so much better than ordinary folk.

Gazing out from the window at the frosty city landscape while we circled the airport, another thought struck me: perhaps I should have worn a little more than a Greenpeace T-shirt, Bermuda shorts and Birkenstock sandals.

I asked the stewardess if there was a clothes shop in the terminal building where I could purchase some sturdy boots and a reasonably priced winter coat made from sustainable natural products, but she didn’t seem to understand.

“Have you at least heard of Fair Trade in Denmark?” I asked, pointedly.

“Sir, I can’t understand a word you’re saying when you’ve got your thumb in your mouth,” she replied, rather too harshly for my liking. Maybe she was one of those “conservative women” one sometimes hears about. I was quite shaken, and decided not to press the issue. I would jolly well find a shop myself, I thought.

As things turned out, I didn’t have to.

There I was shivering by the baggage carousel waiting for my duffle bag (small size, made from sustainable Romanian hemp) when who should I see but Marmaduke Quimly-Farquharson, one of Oxfam’s go-getting young press officers. We have shared many thousands of air miles together travelling the world to exotic locations for various climate conferences. Indeed, we’d both been on the same flight just then but thanks to all this frightful recent scrutiny about BBC expenses I’m no longer able to travel up in first with all my pals from the NGOs.

In one of the many acts of kindness one often experiences at these events (populated as they are by caring planet-loving types and not old right-wing white men with their sceptical views) Marmaduke offered to lend me a coat on condition that I give Oxfam a bit of a mention now and then during my reports. I agreed, of course. “After all, we’re in this together!” I said.

“Indeed we are!” he replied. “Why quite can’t more people be just like you, Richard?”

My thoughts exactly.