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.
There is exactly one right-wing newspaper that has anything even remotely like a national presence: the Washington Examiner – and it has essentially zero influence on the national consciousness. Harriban is a liar and seeing imaginary demons.
Maybe if he meant that there are many newspapers in the US that are right-wing as compared to the Socialist Worker…..
I think they really mean Fox News David. Everything is the fault of Fox and those ‘terrible tea party’ people.
Can’t they all just go away and let Barry be? Why not allow Barry to be President for life (just as the BBC would like Gordon Brown to be Prime Mentalist for life here) after all he is “THE ONE”
I see on second reading that Harriban was really speaking of newspapers in the UK influencing Cameron. So facts may be ignored if printed in the Telegraph or Mail. Typical. No wonder he holds a key position at the BBC.
Funny how this religious fanatic is concerned about oil companies with a ready checkbook for political advertizing, but not about similar activity from the multi-billion dollar “Green” industry. Again, typical.
So massive scientific fraud is magically not happening because so-called right-wing newspapers are the only ones reporting it. Nice logic, scumbag.
Harrabin’s use of “right wing press” in the way he does lays bare his bias. He should be dismissed. A genuine and impartial reporter should take his place. The BBC will just lose even more credibility by continuing to employ him. Is there no one in the BBC who sees the danger signs building up? Has the hive mind gained complete control and is it even now working out how to get rid of Andrew Neil?
The Today problem had an ‘interview’ with the deputy of the IPCC. HE, far from apologising for the ‘error’ went on to say that it re-inforced the AGW argument.
He also referred to the ‘error’ as a ‘mistake’.
One or two interruptions but he was allowed to make his point over and over again so BBC standards have been preserved.