Yesterday Richard North, of the blog EU Referendum, appeared on the Gaby Logan show on Radio 5 to discuss the setting up of the UEA panel to investigate Climategate. That’s pretty amazing in its own right, although one swallow does not make a summer. Richard, as would be expected, was pretty formidable, but what was fascinating about the exchanges was the contribution of Roger Harrabin. I’m including the relevant section in full because it has to be seen to be believed. Note especially his pathetic attempts at obfuscation and his rapid descent into claims of insults. What insults?
Mr Harrabin opened his contribution by stating that the CRU emails had been “stolen”. Richard rightly took exception to this, and pointed out that the latest evidence suggested an internal leak:
. . . we’ve had wonderful theories about intelligence agencies and hackers and this and that and the other – this is prejudicing the inquiry, against the reality is that it is probably an internal job and to talk about stolen emails and hackers and all the rest is, I think, distorting the debate and not helping the listener and the general public understand what has been going on.
Gaby Logan: Roger, do you take that.
Roger Harrabin: I would like to know what the better term would be? They’ve been referred to consistently as stolen emails, I know there are other theories about, that there was an inside job. The fact is that they were private emails not for publication, and the people who had them published on the internet considered them to have been stolen, they’d been referred to as being stolen. I’m not sure what else we would call them . . . This is another one of these things where you probably need a sentence rather than a word . . .
RN: Roger, sorry . . .
RH: I think this is not a helpful . . . honestly, this is not a helpful debate at the moment to talk about whether they’ve been stolen or not. A review has been set up . . . .
RN: (interjects) Well, then don’t refer to it as being stolen.
RH: Can we . . . I think we should be thinking today, and this is how this gets bogged down in arguments, please, please, it would be a change as well if we could get into a debate without having insults as well, that would be a nice change.
RN: Well, all the . . .
GL: Sorry, sorry, could we just let Roger . . .
RN: Well all the point I’m making, Roger, is stop prejudicing the debate. You are making an assumption in your terminology.
I simply love that Roger seems to think that because the emails have been called “stolen”(by him, mainly!)that this is the best way to describe them. And the point of balanced journalism is, Mr Harrabin?
So a BBC interviewer interviewing a BBC reporter as ‘the other side of the argument’. Should this be taken as the BBC saying their BBC Correspondent Roger Harrabin is biased?
It was a bit tricky telling which voice was whom, so this is a very useful transcript.
Having listened to the whole thing I do recall thinking at the time..’who the heck raised anything about insults until this berk did?’
I thought it was the other acolyte, but for it to have been the BBC stooge brought in to ‘balance’ the AGW sceptic is priceless.
There seems a concerted campaign out and about today, ironically, about there being a concerted campaign form the ‘wrong side’.
I think Mr. Harrabin just leapt ahead a bit on his crib sheet/briefing notes.
The problem with Harrabin (or one of the many) is that he is too in with the warmists.
I listened to it in utter amazement. Not sure what Richard North’s PhD is in , but I think it is science -related.
Harribin has a degree in english and is a mere journalist. Gabby Logan also a mere journalist.
Blatant BBC bias.
I wonder if the beeboids will report this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250386/Member-panel-set-investigate-Climategate-scandal-forced-resign.html
They did on Newsnight http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00qs5vb/Newsnight_11_02_2010/?t=34m24s but, more to the point, they haven’t reported this little gem http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/12/more-boulton.html concerning the “independence” of the CRU enquiry panel as highlighted by Bishop Hill. Why is this kind of thing left to bloggers to discover and inform rather than the well-paid journalists at the BBC?
<i> Why is this kind of thing left to bloggers to discover and inform rather than the well-paid journalists at the BBC?</i>
A point covered, and not in a smart way, in the piece itself. Or, rather, rather clumsily attempted to spin on the grounds that ‘it is all way too complicated and should be left only to the ‘experts’… and their mates at the end of the PR as news line.’
Being that this notion has rather been somewhat compromised by the blind of science also being shown to be plain dodgy, perhaps not the greatest defensive stance to take.
So if this is too complicated for us proles how come men with no science background (Harrabin, Shuckman and black) are able to comment on climate change? I’m far bettter qualified than some leftie moron with a degree in English.
I think we must get away from the notion that only “scientists” are qualified to comment on “science”. A reporter reports. If he’s a good reporter he reports, as far as he can, the facts and such facts as he does report should be accurate so that intelligent readers/viewers can make up their own minds. Admittedly, he might not be able to report all the facts but he should not select the facts he does disclose such that they fit a pre-judged agenda.
I have no problem with Harrabin being a graduate in English. The problem I have with him (and Shukman and Black) is that they pretend to “impartiality” and then pre-select the facts they report to fit the warmist agenda. Worse, when asked to comment or explain what’s happening, the answer is always in terms of “well, Climategate is unfortunate and the IPCC lapses are unfortunate and the manifest corruption of the Popperian practice of science is unfortunate but the science is sound and, if you don’t believe me here’s another list of warmist scientists and politicians who confirm that warmism is sound science!”
Fair point(s).
However, as much has been made of the ‘complexity’ and ‘difficulty in interpretation’ in this vast and complex issue, there might be more confidence in some quarters that the reporting might be less unintentionally dire if the so called ‘reporters’ had the slimmest grasp of what was being spun such that they get a sense of a bum’s rush when they are invited to be complicit in airing it.
That’s assuming competence AND integrity.
If the corporate mission is to sell settled science no matter what, then a mass comm grad from some no name poly (or one who has debated the classics amongst the hallowed halls and glittering spires) is all you need. Or a monkey, a typewriter and a thousand years.
Let’s not forget, these clowns are ‘sold’ to a gullible public as ‘expert’. What would most make of the title ‘Environmental Analyst’?
I’d suspect not someone who, after years on this patch still claims to be having trouble locating anyone outside his comfort zone who has a few pertinent questions on what he, and his mates, are stating as fact or ‘move along nows’.
Or rushing in straw men or nonsensical diversions on non existent ad homs in arguments where they are the only ones fulfilling the role of (A)GW disciples.
Let’s also recall this epitome of the journalistic craft was less than special professionally in his dealings with the fragrant activist, Jo Abbess who, I seem to recall, is not averse at waving her qualifications around to lure a hapless Beeb hack like a penguin following a shiny light.
Actually I disagree. Far too often the three idiots parrot stories that even with the most basic of research (like the Fur Seals) can be shown to be lies or serious distortions.
The BBC should have a proper science department that all stories go through for review before being put up on the BBC web site or used in reporting. Shukman, Harrabin and Black are incapable of doing this. Why isn’t Susan Watts used for this?
Seems to me that if the BBC did have a “proper” science department, we’d still be fed the same crapola. After all the UEA has a “proper” science department and we know what happened there.
I’m not a scientist but I studied some philosophy of science when I was at university. Accordingly, I have a notion that what has passed for “science” in warmism studies for the last generation is not science as it’s supposed to be practised. But that’s not really the point. Most of what used to be called “educated” people know what science is or is not. You can bet that Shukman, Harrabin and Black know what science is. Furthermore you can bet that they know that the activity behind the Hockey Team’s work is not “science” – and still they drone on about the soundness of AGW theory. The BBC has made its decision: “proper” science or not we’re all doomed unless we pay £100 billion to the politicians to throw at what exactly!
At least when closing the “debate”, Logan referred to the “leaked” emails.
It’s going to take a long time to clear up this infection. It’s worse than SARS and C-Dif put together.
It think it has similar characteristics to gonoreah too – the smell and the scabs are particularly troublesome.
“Climategate: the official cover-up continues”
(James Delingpole)
[Extract] –
“If there’s one thing that stinks even more than Climategate, it’s the attempts we’re seeing everywhere from the IPCC and Penn State University to the BBC to pretend that nothing seriously bad has happened, that ‘the science’ is still ‘settled’, and that it’s perfectly OK for the authorities go on throwing loads more of our money at a problem that doesn’t exist.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100025934/climategate-the-official-cover-up-continues/
Rush Limbaugh (the leading American political Talk Radio host) has just mentioned the BBC on his show.
He noted that the BBC’s relentless bias in favour of the manmade Warm Mongers and enever-ending propaganda for the eco-fascists may have something to do with theis:
The £12 BILLION of its pension fund invested in,,,, so-called “green technology” companies.
No conflict of interest there then.
Don’t know much about Susan Watts, but most BBC journalists don’t know their watts from their ohms nor their amps from their volts.
They are not qualified to comment on science.
And I do have a science degree !
Harrabin is not impartial everyone knows that. Why did they not just have Logan putting the alternative stance as devils advocate?
Doesn’t Harrabin break yet another BBC “guideline”.
“..our journalists and presenters, including those in news and current affairs, may provide professional judgments but may not express personal opinions on matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on such matters.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/impariality/index.shtml
Why was Harrabin there if not to put his own personal view? He was not interviewing he was part of the debate.
John
Spot on . You have skewered them there, but they just don’t care anymore !
Gabby Logan even begins with a presumption:
“..when emails were hacked into by global warming sceptics” she says.
So the BBC are not waiting for the outcome of the investigation.
I see Phil Jones who resigned from the CRU apparently ‘lost all his raw data he used for his calculations’ how convenient. No doubt Harrabin will say that the evidence is clear and we should take him at his word.