Back in July, Roger Harrabin discussed climate sceptics’ concerns that the Oxburgh report into the conduct of the University of East Anglia eco-campaigners involved in Climategate had not been carried out properly, principally because there were allegations that the papers considered by the report team had been selected by the so-called scientists under investigation. In a typical Mr Harrabin analysis, he pretended to be objective, but made it very clear what he thought about the allegations:
The scientific establishment is not used to having its proceedings pulled apart by gadfly inquisitors, often armed with Freedom of Information e-mail chains. Privately, some senior scientists say they find this relentless probing to be nit-picking, mistrustful, obsessive and corrosive of public trust.They see it as a waste of time, and therefore of public money.
Spool forward to today. These “gadfly (Harrabin-speak for nuisance?) inquisitors” who are “corrosive of public trust” have burrowed into the answers given by Lord Oxburgh to a House of Commons select committee and found that his lordship was at best being disingenuous and evasive in his answers in explaining the background to the inquiry. First, he and his team spent the grand total of just seven and a half hours in Norwich investigating the background to Climategate with the scientists involved, and second, it looks increasingly like the list of papers chosen for the inquiry analysis was selected by the scientists under investigation, namely Phil Jones and his East Anglian team. More on the problems is here – a brilliant exposition by Tony Newton, of Harmless Sky.
In short, the fears of those “gadflies” that Mr Harrabin was so quick to dismiss have proved to be substantiated; and the Oxburgh report looks increasingly like it was little more than a devious charade. I could go on, there is much more to this sordid tale of an establishment stitch-up. The point is that our Roger was yet again on the side of the villains, and as quick as ever to condemn his hated “sceptics”. I’ve looked carefully to see if there are any signs of the BBC reporting these latest Oxburgh developments; so far, surprise, surprise, there are none – not a peep. That oft-used BBC approach: bias by omission.
Privately, some senior scientists say they find this relentless probing to be nit-picking, mistrustful, obsessive and corrosive of public trust.They see it as a waste of time, and therefore of public money.
*********************************************
Like they give a toss about public money. They could always prove me wrong though by campaigning against windmills erected in places where it’s not very windy and which deliver 5% of stated capacity. Not holding my breath.
Another excellent post, Mr Horbury.
Methinks the wheels are starting to fall off the wagon.
Andrew Montford’s “review of all the Climategate pseudo-reviews” is due out in a few days’ time. It will, I imagine, draw all these threads together, showing what a despicable travesty the various enquiries have been – all at taxpayer expense, of course.
But Harrabin will still try to muddy the waters, will trey to defend the indefensible. I find the man very biased in the way he presents climate issues, but his coverage of the enquiries is far worse.
Where does the boundary lie between journalistic bias and outright dishonesty ?
`Where does the boundary lie between journalistic bias and outright dishonesty ?’
Spot on, as usual, John — though I should remind you of the line of argument used on the Today show last week by John Humphreys (who’s never normally shy of interrupting someone even when he knows cack all about the context), namely that because the BBC has found some climate change scientists who know more about the subject then he does, we HAVE to take what they say at face value.
Plus you have that cast-iron guarantee from Harrabin that the science is all settled. So what’s the problem ?
The Oxburgh report didn’t actually look at the “science” at all, did it?
That’s the key point – the original rushed hearing by the parliamentary Select Committee just before the election was told by the UEA that one of the enquiries (which Oxburgh led) WOULD look at the science.
So Stringer and hopefully other parliamentarians will realise that parliament was misled. And then they see the dire performance by Oxburgh – and things could start unravelling.
None of the enquiries have been “on oath”. But further parliamentary hearings require de facto “on oath” evidence, parliament can get very stroppy if it is deliberately misled or lied to.
It is the ProVice Chancellor, the smooth Acton, who might now get the fiercest grilling. He did not go down very well last time round, this time he would not get away with slipperiness, there is far more known about it all.
And Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) will next week provide a lengthy forensic analysis of all the reviews. He will certainly tear Oxburgh apart.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/9/10/more-oxburgh-reaction.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/10/oxburgh_science_select_committee/
and even the Guardian is sounding cross :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/08/uea-emails-inquiry-science
NONE of this gets reflected by the BBC. They have a full team dealing with it all, they KNOW the importance.
I rather hope Andrew Montford has a swipe at the laxity of most of the media – especially the BBC.
……………….
Meanwhile the cynicism about the “scientists” continues :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1310860/Ryanair-boss-Michael-OLeary-says-global-warming-doesnt-exist.html
……………
I liked the comment somewhere about avoiding confusion between the UEA and the UAE. One is a dysfunctional place rooted in a crazy religion – the other is a state in the Middle East.
“Controversial Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary has risked the wrath of environmentalists by denying that climate change exists.”
Sounds rather similar to the Pastor in the US.
Note the tone by the Mail – are they too getting frightened by the “wrath of the environmentalists” – who also have not been elected by anyone. The day we stop listening to loud mouth pressure groups and more to people we can elect and throw out the better this country will become.
The Mail like the BBC don’t seem to be reflecting the public.
“At last, a man who has the minerals to stand up and say it as it is,well done Mr O’Leary you’ve made my day.”
Steve, Newark on Trent Rating 196
The BBC have agendas and angle news stories to advance these agendas. What more really needs to be said?
It’s not just the LBC, there doesn’t seem to be any reference (that I could see) to this nonsense in the press, either, other than in the usual blogs. They’re quick to report Charlie-boy as being “baffled” by us sceptics, though, bless his cotton, wool-shroud socks…
“The scientific establishment is not used to having its proceedings pulled apart by gadfly inquisitors, often armed with Freedom of Information e-mail chains”
So in essence Harrabin is saying that the “scientific establishement” when lobbying the governemnt to totally destroy our power stations and put very expensive useless medieval windmills over the whole of the beautifull British countryside, should be able to do this in secret.
No wonder Harrabin fits in well with his comrades at the BBC.
“Through FOI requests, we have obtained the actual schedule of the Oxburgh panel” blogs Mr McIntyre.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/09/08/oxburgh-tricks-the-committee/
And this is the type of thing that Harrabin moans about. God forbid his alarmist shrill should be found out for what it is.
“the Oxburgh report looks increasingly like it was little more than a devious charade.”
Well excuse me for saying; this ridiculous charade (Oxburgh’s flimsey) was a farce and like the CRU as bent as an ellipse.
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/climategate-phil-jones-admits-temperatures-are-not-unprecedented
Vain plea to ‘reporters’: please try to resist rushing to reprint press releases that refer to things that are ‘unprecedented’ when… they have happened before.
It just makes you, and the folk you are on speed dial terms with, look silly.
Just wondering… is Richard Black seeking other employ… or merely enjoying the extended school hols that seem to be the rage chez Aunty these balmy summers?
The only two main BBC blogs I am aware of on the enviro beat are his and Ethical Man’s, and it’s like nothing in this supposedly vital beat has happened on weeks.. or months.
Or maybe it’s just that going back to ‘broadcast only’ with the odd post and run ‘analysis’ via Rog the Dodge is… ‘safer’?