I do need to scotch one particularly bizarre bit of blogbabble, though. Some bloggers depict me as a puppet for the BBC’s pension fund trustees trying to boost their investments in green technology.
This is definitely going in my book – it is the most entertaining and baroque allegation I’ve ever faced. The truth is that BBC bosses issue very few diktats and most programme editors are stubbornly independent. I offered the recent Met Office stories from my own contacts and knowledge. No-one else asked me to do them. I don’t even know the pension fund trustees.
There are some very clever and inventive people out there in the blogosphere. Some are laudably engaged in a pursuit of facts about climate change and weather. Others might serve more use by trying to locate Elvis.
This is the last part of Roger Harrabin’s lame and disingenuous WUWT defence of his conduct in the Met Office-did-warn-the-government saga. I found it particularly interesting, especially as he firmly puts those who think there are links between the BBC pension fund’s eco investment policies and the BBC’s fervent climate zealotry into utter-nutter territory; exactly the sort of insults that BBC reporters routinely also lodge against those who oppose unlimited immigration and who support UKIP.
I will modestly claim that I was among the first bloggers to note the links between eco-wackery and the BBC pension fund last February, when I reported that Peter Dunscombe, the operational head of the said fund, was also then the chairman of the Institutional Investment Group on Climate Change(IIGCC), which has 47 members, managed four trillion euros’ worth of investments and had a goal of finding as many ‘climate change’ investment opportunities as possible.
The reason I wrote the story was in the public interest; it seemed to me on the one hand astonishing and foolhardy for pension fund trustees to be speculating in this way, and on the other, to be clear evidence that the BBC’s climate change fervour might be financially motivated, hence the zealotry and bigotry involved.
The second leg of the story was in October, when BBC journalists went on strike over changes in rules in their pension fund at a time when there were also concerns that the yields were not all that they might be. I speculated legitimately that this might be because of their eco investment policy. I also noted that the green focus of the fund might have intensified because, according to latest accounts, the trustees had since formally adopted a code of investment advocated by Hermes EOS, which was entirely driven by “environmentally-friendly” investments on principles dictated by the UN, arguably the world’s most eco-zealous organisation.
The final leg of the pension story is that there has been speculation over the past few days about Mr Dunscombe’s conduct. I have not had chance to check this out, but it seems that all is not well in the world of eco investment.
For Roger to dismiss these facts about the pension fund as being akin to a search for Elvis is both gratuitously insulting and fatuous. He might claim that BBC journalists are too independent to be swayed in their reporting, but that’s nonsense. I have published clear evidence that diktats have gone out from senior members of BBC staff stating categorically that the sceptics must not be given equal airtime to warmists because the warmist case has been proved. The facts speak for themselves. The BBC issues torrents of climate change propaganda, and Roger is one of the main proponents, even though his WUWT “defence” vividly illustrates that he is incapable of seeing it, or of engaging in sensible debate with those who think otherwise.
My final point in this rather long post is that Roger claims not to even know the BBC pension fund trustees. Does he actually expect us to believe he doesn’t know at all (however tenuously) Helen Boaden, the director of BBC news, who is also a trustee? It’s true that Peter Sissons says in his autobiography that he never met her in the five years he worked there while she was boss (the subject of a future post), but I cannot believe that also applies to Mr Harrabin. If I am wrong, I will be happy to correct my observations; but in the meantime, pull the other one, Roger.
Update: I note that BBC “rationalist” David Gregory, who clearly thinks he is able to tell the objective truth about science issues, has pointed out in the comments that the BBC pension fund only has investments in two green companies, and even invests in that nasty oil company BP. To him, that’s clearly game set and rational match – my post is invalidated and Harrabin, Dunscombe et al are in the clear. But Mr Gregory, this doesn’t alter the fact that, as I have pointed out in detailed posts, most of the major blue chip companies – including BP – are now fully on board the climate change scam because they see it as a wonderful way of screwing more subsidies and jacking up energy prices. Ex-BBC corporate social responsibility chief Lord Hastings exemplifies how deeply pervasive and octopus-like is this culture. I would also cite this post on former BBC news chief Richard Sambrook, now also apparently an ardent advocate of climate change strategies in a big company PR outfit. Mr Gregory’s observation also doesn’t change the point I made that not only is the pension fund run by an eco-fanatic, it also invests in accordance with the UN’s eco principles. Why has it seen fit to support such nonsense if that’s not its central goal?
I love the bit “This is definitely going in my book “.
What a prat !
Little Roger boy is getting rattled, methinks. Keep up the good work, Robin.
Beat me to it Grant. Totally agree. If the nerves at BBC Command & Control weren’t jangling Harrabin wouldn’t even give this a second thought.
Had the exact same thought as Grant: …”it is the most entertaining and baroque allegation I’ve ever faced“. Thereby making him a twat or a liar (no, you guessed it: both!). You may think “how can you know it isn’t?” but it’s like when people say “I never lie”…
Span,
It is the bog standard Beeboid suprcilious pomposity which is so funny.
My goodness, how they hate “blogbabble” rattling the cage of their cosy , narrow-minded, dishonest, mainstream media world.
Wonderful stuff.
Get used to it, Roger boy, we are not going away, we are here to stay and you and your sychophantic clones will just have to get used to it.
Tough !
Good post Roger. I too think that Harrabin is getting a little rattled.
thespecialone,
I hope you mean “Robin” !!!
I don’t get the impression Mr. Harrabin, like many other BBroadcastonlyC employees, really ‘gets’ the blogosphere, from tweeting endless documentary evidence of personal agenda to how the whole broad scope substantiation across multiple sources shebang works.
‘I do need to scotch one particularly bizarre bit of blogbabble,’
You don’t get to ‘scotch’ stuff by simply claiming it can’t be so ‘cos you say so. Especially when the body of written evidence stretches long and credibly and persuasively in contrast.
Then to claim, in print…
‘The truth is that BBC bosses …’
… is up there with ‘Trust me, I work in state media’. Rupert Murray being a current poster boy for that notion.
And it is now more than clear where the ex-10:10 ‘No Pressure’ PR crisis management team ended up. As an exercise in repeated hole digging, he will soon be emerging in the Forbidden City.
Mate, I’d belt up pronto, while you are sooooo behind.
ps: bad link here?: I have published evidence time and time again
Guest,
Exactly.
“Trust me, I’m a Beeboid “. How pathetic can they get ? Do they really think we are stupid ??
Grant: “Do they really think we are stupid ??”
Errm, I’m afraid so.
Looking at the website of the organisation chaired by Peter Dunscombe, IIGC – its motives become increasingly sinister.
On the “Constitution” section – its primary objective is listed as:-
“To encourage public policy solutions that ensure an orderly and efficient move to a low carbon economy and adaptation measures to climate change which are consistent with long-term investment objectives.”
So let’s get thie straight, a very senior figure in the public broadcasting organisation chairs a pressure group with a stated objective of distorting public policy – in direct contravention of the BBC’s legal charter obligation of impartiality.
I think there’s much more to come here – especially when BBC employees and unions start looking for the cash that’s disappeared into phantom “carbon trading” schemes.
JRSIHG,
The wording is so sinister it is “Stalinesque”.
It is the “to ensure” bit that sends shivers down my spine.
Take a look at Lubos Motl’s site:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/02/global-uah-amsu-january-2011-cooler.html
It can be seen that all this terrible predicted temperature rise, which will fry us all, has in fact reversed, and dropped faster than ever in the last five months. Does this mean that the warmist’s plans are currently on hold, and that all that BBC investment in its various green pension funds has been wasted, and that in fact, the global temperatures are still running more or less normal? Oh dear, what a blow…
Can we have our money back, please?
Robin, you can find a list of the top 100 companies the BBC pension fund invests in here;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/sites/helpadvice/pages/top-100-investments.shtml
It appears they do indeed have money in First Solar and Vestas Wind Systems. But they are way down the list just below Nintendo. I’ve never been given an edict to cover stories about how amazing the Wii is which would make more sense if my job was actually to somehow inflate the value of the pension fund.
Indeed the third biggest investment is in BP. You’d think if there was some top secret collusion between hacks and the pension fund we might have tried to gloss over the recent problems they had. As I recall that wasn’t the case.
Escape and evasion David?
You forgot to include the obligatory insult of course, Elvis hunting denialists etc.
You have never been given an edict about reporting on the Wii? Sorry but but the Wii is not the topic of today is it? Escape and evasion.
The BBC has yet to run a critical story on windmills, the planets most wasteful and useless energy source. The BBC has so far failed to run critical objective reports about any renewables. Now you may not be issued with written edicts but I do know that if you were to try to run a critical story about anything to do with the BBC pension investments then that story would NOT run.
So there you go David, you are part of a corrupt corporation pimping its own narrative for fiscal advantage, your pension relies on companies that would fold in ten minutes without gigantic subsidies ripped off from ordinary people, in effect your future depends on carpet baggers ripping off the poorest to feed the pensions of the BBC.
Like all beeboids you like to think of yourself as ethical and full to bursting with equality and fairness, dig a little into the affairs of the BBC why dont you?
Er the facts are the pension fund is invested in green schemes predicated on A.G.W being a [totally unproven!] truth! therefore any pushing of stories pro A.G.W [and as the BBC trust state there is no other side! ] have to be balanced in the mind of the BBC employees who report on this subject that they will receive a financial benefit if the warmish side is pushed !.
The reporting of B.P’s troubles Mr Gregory especially by the BBC was totally based on the side of the environmental costs and followed the Obama and E.P.A’s line of the=
“worst environmental disaster America has ever faced”
But as yet I have been unable to find any BBC follow ups on the story covering the absence of any long term damage ! nothing like this =
Ivor Van Heerden, a marine scientist at Louisiana State University, says that we are not seeing “catastrophic impacts”. “There is a lot of hype, but no evidence to justify it,”
Also as B.P has pledged to spend $8 billion over the period from 2005 to 2015 on green projects and Nintendo are hardly not greenish are they?
“we established strict environmental control standards, with our 340 production partners all co-operating with us in our efforts.” after Greenie pence had a pop at them, their all green now
so methinks pretending to ‘side with the bad boy’s ‘ won’t cut it here !
Matthew,
It is the standard BBC “modus operandi” in all aspects of “news reporting ” to emphasise scare stories which push the Beeboids’ own political agenda. They then move on and never follow up the story if the outcome proves the original reporting to be wrong.
It is not only dishonest , it is totally unprofessional.
But, that is the BBC. A total disgrace and waste of money.
Just as Sky News, and the Times will alert viewers of the relationship with News International when reporting on certain news items, perhaps the bbc should be required to reveal their financial interests in any company about which they report.
Robin. So you are saying there is some secret BBC plan to defend climate change because we have invested the pension fund in green technology? If that was the case then surely it makes even MORE sense to go all out to defend a company like BP where so much more of the fund is actually invested?
Well clearly in the eyes of B-BBC we do not; http://biasedbbc.tv/2010/05/bp-evil-continued-series.html
I would have thought if I was going to agree to compromise my integrity for the sake of the pension fund I would at least do it for the highest reward?
I know B-BBC things we’re idiots but we’re not that stupid.
(And for the record I’ve never been told what climate change stories to cover or how to do them)
I don’t know you – are you a BBC person? If so, can you hand-on-heart convincingly deny that collectively you push the AGW mantra on behalf of the BBC for all you are worth, and conspire to either not let those who hold an alternative view speak freely (and unedited) on your programmes, or grant them a voice at all without implying ridicule? If the vast majority of the public hold the view that your organisation is flagrantly biased in this (and other things), how do you account for that? Are we(they) imagining it? And if it’s all a big, unfortunate mistake (on your part), what are you going to do to redress the balance?
Natsman,
I believe Mr. Gregory is indeed a Beeboid, or former Beeboid.
No one told you to promote all this warming malarkey? Oh. It must have been genetic engineering then. That way, they don’t have to tell them. 😀
David,
More escape and evasion? Nobody has to tell you what stories not to run because you are already keenly aware of what you can and cannot write about.
An editor does not need to order you not to run stories because if you do then they will refuse to run it. You try it David, just try doing a critical report on anything to do with the eco green CAGW fraud.
The very second I see your name on a report of the performance versus cost of wind energy or solar panels or CFC light bulb pollution I will start to listen to you.
You know whats wrong at the BBC, you are smart enough to see whats going on, you CHOOSE to stay silent, its a free choice to defend the wrongdoers.
You know the BBC has a concrete agenda set in stone regarding CAGW and eco greenery, we know you know and we know you know we know and still the Mr Integrity pure as the driven snow games are played.
David Gregory
That’s an interesting response since, as with Harrabin’s post on WUWT, your response does not address the accusation. As I read it, all RH is saying (and you are not denying) is that the man who actually runs (on a day-to-day basis) the BBC pension scheme is the same man who chairs the IIGCC and, therefore, can be assumed to fully subscribe to the CAGW theory for which the BBC – and Harrabin – assiduously propagandise.
While we’re on – and a 2 minute look at the latest accounts of the BBC Pension Fund here http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/mypension/en/report_and_accounts_2010.pdf informs us, for instance, that the top 20 equity investments comprise only 12% of the Fund (I suspect that the top whatever you link to does not comprise a significantly higher proportion). The Fund accounts also disclose that no less than £2.3 billion is invested in “pooled funds” which by their nature are difficult (but not impossible) to get a handle on. However, as usual with substantial Pension Funds of this nature, no-one – not even experienced analysts – can get much from the published figures.
So, in terms of the direction of present investment, we’re back to seeing who actually runs the fund. Apparently it’s Peter Dunscombe who also chairs an association of warmist-driven investment outfits which, at the very least, argues that he subscribes to all the tenets of warmism. This doesn’t make him a financial idiot: far from it. Those very public individuals who are lauded (by the BBC among others) as supporters of “sustainable”, “anti-GW” and generally anti-capitalist and left of centre enterprises and institutions and who make a very nice living thank-you-very-much are legion. I could instance George Soros: a man who is very clever and very rich but uses his money and influence in many causes which should make your skin crawl. And of course there is eco-hero Dave Vince whose fortune is, basically, a redirection of money from the taxpayer via subsidies to uneconomic (but usefully “green”) projects to his personal and corporate pockets.
It might mean nothing at all that Dunscombe is running the BBC Pension Fund – I’m sure he’s doing the best he can. I suspect that, whatever the truth of the matter, given the weight of money now diverted into CAGW-friendly enterprises, he might even be accused of under-weighting the BBC Fund in such investments. However, the result of investment in such enterprises to the rest of us will most probably be similar to the treasure invested and lost in the Darien Scheme ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/scotland_darien_01.shtml ). I’m sure the benficiaries the pension fund will bless Dunscombe for not being able (despite, possibly, his best efforts) to invest all their money in CAGW-related projects.
Of course , if the BBC pension fund is underweight in “Green ” investments , it suggests that Beeboids won’t put their money where their mouths are.
But, that won’t come as any surprise to most of us here.
Er it was the he BBC trust has stated ‘
‘ no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’.
I.e NO DEBATE so yep I would say the BBC is defending A.G.W unless you find the best way to have an argument based on science is not to let one side turn up ? and who forced that change on the BBC ? no one! The BBC cut out one side of the debate and have done nothing to rectify that fact!!
Defending BP would be wrong! as was attacking it because the American administration said so! was wrong !
Matthew,
In the mind of a Beeboid, the majority is always right, except when it is wrong !
‘This is definitely going in my book’
At risk of invoking Godwin, ‘Don’t tell ‘im, Pike!’
I know it’s all way too ‘ up against the wall when the revolution comes’ stuff reminds me of the “I’ve got a little list” by Peter Lilly so maybe Haribos a closet Con ???
Guest,
Godfrey ?
But, these Beeboids “don’t like it up ’em ” !
Harrabin:-
>>Some bloggers depict me as a puppet for the BBC’s pension fund trustees trying to boost their investments in green technology.<<
I think Harrabin is being very disingenous here. I’m not aware of anyone who has said that Harrabin is biased for this reason. All that I have been aware of is the charge that the BBC has a vested interest in perpetuating its outrageous bias in favour of AGW because of this investment.
It looks like Mr Harrabin may well be playing games with words again, as, like any good propagandist, he is fond of doing.
He must be feeling the heat though about his professional credibility to need to post such stuff. I guess the Sissons’ piece turned the flame up a notch or two.
>>Some bloggers depict me as a puppet for the BBC’s pension fund trustees trying to boost their investments in green technology.<<
I think Harrabin is being very disingenous here.
No Hippie, classic straw man to knock down.
“I don’t even know the pension fund trustees.”
Weak, weak, weak, Mr Harrabin. That will convince no one. You’d be better addressing the issues of conflict of interest, agenda, bias and impartiality.
Well said , Hippie. Spot on.
@Umbongo. But Robin’s argument makes no sense. I posted a link to the actual companies the fund invests in which also includes the amount invested. Whatever Robin says about the trustees if you follow the actual cash you can see his argurment is nonsense. The fund puts slightly more into Nintendo than solar or wind energy companies and we don’t do endless stories bigging up Super Mario. Mind you we also have plenty of shares in Apple which explains why we’re obsessed with the iphone and ipad (I’m joking!) And right there in the top three is BP. If we wanted to preserve the fund and so the share price of BP we surely would have glossed over that trouble in the Gulf? Clearly we did not. Unless of course that was a cunning double bluff? (Once again I’m joking)
@Matthew These are all points I endlessly addressed when I used to post here regularly. I refer you to them. Sadly in these days of Martin wishing AIDS on people I just don’t enjoy the banter of B-BBC like I used to so I’ll pass on getting involved in a big conversation here. If you can’t find me in the archive feel free to email me direct.
Mr Gregory, that certainly wasn’t Martin’s finest hour, but noone put ‘like’ by it whereas they did with the rebuke he received. Please dont make out that extremely objectionable comment by Martin to be the norm here.
But when he continually equates homosexuality with paedophillia that’s just a bit of fun?
Mr Gregory, this isn’t a Correctnick site. Anyone who takes offence at someone expressing opinions they dont like is recognised for the closet totalitarian they are.
People who genuinely care about the welfare of children do not shy away from the fact that paedophilia is far higher in homosexuals than heterosexuals.
We don’t all think the same on here – unlike genetically engineered Beeboid warmists! – and as the hippie has pointed out, we don’t all agree with every objectionable comment that is posted here.
I don’t agree with every objectionable comment on the BBC, but I still have to pay for it.
At least I don’t have to pay for B-BBC.
Martin’s comment was beyond the pale, even by the robust standards of the blogosphere. And the resultant reaction that transpired is well summarised in the two responses already here.
However, suddenly cherry-picking such a thing out of the blue to distract from the actual topic and excuse further involvement, having dipped in to engage, briefly, is not exactly helping the case being put, frankly, no matter how much one can admire entering a less than supportive environment to debate.
And, sadly, pretty typical of the techniques one needs to get used to abounding when arguments start crumbling.
I am still recalling Mr. Paxman ranting ‘…but what about white peadophiles; they are as bad!!!’ on Newsnight recently as some kind of ‘two wrongs’ get out clause, when out-debated by a young bloke from an activist group that appears to have evolved from a bunch of football hooligans. At that point I knew he’d lost the plot.
Tarring with insultingly inclusive brushes may appeal to the MSM and broadcast only mindests and their groupies, but it does not cut it with well-reasoned argument on specific topics on disciplined blogs visited by a vast majority of intelligent, independent posters.
Such sorry victimhood attempts cut very little ice when so clumsily deployed. What the heck does that comment have to do with the BBC’s (A)GW stance?
You have some good points, if mostly not addressing the key ones raised. It may be better to stick with those to make them and, who knows, even persuade a bit.
I disagree. I think civilised debate is a very useful thing. The level of conversation has moved downhill here since I used to post and I think that harms your cause.
@Umbongo. But Robin’s argument makes no sense. I posted a link to the actual companies the fund invests in which also includes the amount invested. Whatever Robin says about the trustees if you follow the actual cash you can see his argurment is nonsense. The fund puts slightly more into Nintendo than solar or wind energy companies and we don’t do endless stories bigging up Super Mario. Mind you we also have plenty of shares in Apple which explains why we’re obsessed with the iphone and ipad (I’m joking!) And right there in the top three is BP. If we wanted to preserve the fund and so the share price of BP we surely would have glossed over that trouble in the Gulf? Clearly we did not. Unless of course that was a cunning double bluff? (Once again I’m joking)
@Matthew These are all points I endlessly addressed when I used to post here regularly. I refer you to them. Sadly in these days of Martin wishing AIDS on people I just don’t enjoy the banter of B-BBC like I used to so I’ll pass on getting involved in a big conversation here. If you can’t find me in the archive feel free to email me direct.
DG:-
>> If we wanted to preserve the fund and so the share price of BP we surely would have glossed over that trouble in the Gulf?<<
Just in case anyone missed it, as Matthew has already stated, this was the BBC in ‘bigging up Obama’ mode who chose to lay into BP over this – and for anti-British motives as well, clincher for the BBC.
So the BBC will do anything to boost the pension fund. Apart from critisise Obama? That makes even less sense than Robin’s initial post.
You appear to be wilfully distorting debate Mr Gregory. If you can quote one person who has said ‘the BBC is biased in favour of AGW because of its pension fund green investments’ please do.
Your colleague Mr Harrabin is not a screamingly bent journalist in coverage of AGW to protect the BBC’s green investments, he is screamingly bent journalist because he has no professional integrity. No matter how much you or he try to throw out red herrings to distract people from the fact, the fact remains glaringly obvious.
David,
You seem intent on diverting the debate and not answering the questions put to you, here it is in simple terms.
The BBC refuses to run critical reports on wind energy, the BBC pension fund has investments in wind energy firms and it is run by a known eco extremist with a vested interest in renewables.
The Wii and Nintendo are profit making companies that do not need or require massive state subsidies to survive, they can take the criticisms on the chin HOWEVER wind energy firms exist on subsidies, they would go bust very quickly if subsidies were removed and that might happen IF the BBC ran critical reports about the truly horrendous record of wind power.
Try running a story on how little actual net power windmills are producing, how the payback of outlays was inflated and how organized crime now thrives on the feed in tarrif scam.
Escape and evasion as practiced by Harrabin and now you does you no credit at all, you dont need to answer our questions at all but at some point in time you will have to answer to your conscience.
As I’m sure you know moving around investments wholesale in a massive fund – like the BBC Pension Fund – is akin to turning round a container ship in the English Channel: it’s slow and ponderous. The BBC Fund has until the recent past (AFAIAA) been managed to maximise both present income and future value – which might be conflicting objectives but that’s what the financial “experts” advise on. An £8 billion fund is not going to dump its investment book and re-invest everything in Ecotricity (were it public). Investments and decisions on investments are a long-term game.
The substance of Robin’s allegations (I think, and I tend to agree) is that now a warmist is in charge of the fund, future investments will be directed towards those projects and companies which subscribe to the warmist belief whether they are actually members of the church or simply believe they can get some profit out of it . Accordingly, Big Oil is no longer – if it ever did – financing climate scepticism (except maybe a few thousand $US to the Heartland Institute for instance). It’s noting where the big money (taxpayers’ money) is going and following it. Investing in Big Oil by the BBC Pension Fund is both a sensible investment (warmism aside) and, as it happens, supporting a warmist agenda. Shell doesn’t care where it makes money out of energy. If some politician (encouraged by the BBC) opts to throw billions of taxpayers money at an economically (but not, because of the subsidy, financially) crap project why shouldn’t Shell get involved?
This is not a “conspiracy”. It’s the way the world works: just follow the money. The “money” in this case – and, it bears repeating, substantially taxpayers’ money – is being splurged on grossly uneconomic projects (of which wind-energy is the most egregious) on the excuses of CAGW, “peak oil” or whatever. The BBC by deciding – and editing its reporting and analysis accordingly – that CAGW etc are indisputable is acting as a propagandist not an “impartial” news organisation. In 10/20 years’ time the BBC Pension Fund will be, much more than now, invested in CAGW-related stocks. Why? Because that’s what the man in charge believes in. Any BBC employee would know this, including Harrabin.
I don’t know if Harrabin’s “journalism” is self-edited purely to take into account the good or otherwise of the BBC Pension Fund. I doubt it because he doesn’t have to. Harrabin’s journalism is self-edited because he is a “believer” and missionary for the same thing the day-to-day administrator of the Fund believes in. I couldn’t care tuppence what happens to the BBC Pension Fund as long as I’m not taxed to meet its shortfall.
Oh Mr Gregory can you as an impartial BBC type pop over to the horizon office and tell them they really should issue a retraction of Mr nurses and Dr Bindschadler’s assertion that human C02 is emitted at a rate of 7:1 against natural sources ?? when the actual figure is closer to 1:27 and as Dr Bindschadler has now agreed that the graph from the Arcti climate impact assement doesn’t support the claim he made in the Horizon programme it should be sooner rather than never ! you know for balance !!
Matthew,
You forget. The BBC don’t do science. It is too difficult for them to understand.
I have no idea who commissions prorammes or how they decide what runs when, but it smacks of an agenda when we are treated to a series of BBC hatchet-jobs on “enemy targets” – first Delingpole, then Monkton, then EDL. Next up, Booker?
Where is the BBC-commissioned expose of Greenpeace Activists in the Kingsnorth trial? The Met Office? Windfarm and Carbon-trading scams? We are waiting… Muslim Brotherhood anyone?
No, the BBC remains spiritually the Broadcasting arm of The Guardian. Its like watching a tennis match with only one player in it.
I think this is ludicrous – I simply don’t believe Harrabin speaks/write rubbish because he’s financially corrupt; he does it because he’s an idiot. Harrabin shills for the AGW lobby because he’s a genuine idiot, with a bunch of other institutionalized group-think idiots who are all far too invested in the AGW storyline to recant. Put simply, there’s almost certainly no way back now for Harrabin. For the BBC, alas, there probably is. But without Harrabin. I almost feel sorry for him.
Actually you may have a point about Haribo there 😀 !
Reconstruct,
Harrabin may not be financially corrupt, but he is making a hell of a lot of money out of “Global Warming” and I would be surprised if he is doing it to benefit humanity.
Might I also make the point that if a MP or government minister sought to pass a law that they will derive a financial benefit from no matter how small ! then all the hounds of BBC war would be rightly let loose on them and so I also wish to know that some who is telling me things are this way and that [but only from one side] and that I should expect to be taxed more! stop driving/ flying /eating meat/using a plastic bag and having a chrissy tree is not doing better than me [ 0%] out of it !
Well, they would probably let slip the dogs of war . . . . if it was a Conservative MP or minister.
We know from bitter and very extended recent experience, that they have a very different standard when the offender has managed to badge himself as ‘Labour’.
I would like to say Thanks to Mr Gregory for popping past it’s nice that someone over the fence waves at us on here occasionally!
I, for one, have to agree with David Gregory here (thanks for stopping by, David!). While I support Robin’s contention that it’s completely true that orders came down from on high that the BBC was no longer going to allow anything like equal time for climate skeptics (we’ve seen the evidence over and over about denying air time to “opponents of the concensus”), I don’t see any evidence that they’re doing it for monetary reasons.
In fact, I would suggest that, as Warmism is akin to religious belief, the Beeboids promote it to the bitter end simply because they believe in it. They want to save the world, believe with all their hearts that we are doomed if we don’t do something NOW, and view skeptics as destroyers of the earth. This is, of course, all tied up in the larger political desires of the far Left to shut down so much of modern society, but that’s an argument for another time.
It’s pretty clear that, like so many issues of the Left, they consider this to be a moral position, and base their own self-identity on it. How can one wishing to save the world not be of stout, moral character? Ergoa believer is on the side of the angels, and a skeptic is by definition immoral, destructive. If someone like Harrabin was ever to accept that there are simply too many errors in the scientific work to allow anyone not emotionally involved to believe that we have only a few months or years to save the planet, he would have to completely reasses how he views himself. How likely is that to happen without years of therapy?
It’s a relgious belief, and these people base the way they see themselves on holding such well-meaning beliefs. If they deny the “science”, then their own morality is called into question. It’s a difficult mindset to break.
It’s a personal dilemma, no question. But I do think that Harrabin, Black, BBC producers, and all the rest of them have a deeply felt, personal belief that we are doomed and that it’s their duty to inform us how to save ourselves. Very much like a religion, really. They do this out of the goodness of their own hearts, and not because of any tenuous connection to the ups and downs of a pension fund. They would behave in the exact same manner even if the BBC’s pension fund had no investment in green anything.
None of this makes what Harrabin and Co. are doing any less dangerous, wrong, and unprofessional. It’s just a different opinion on the motivation behind their actions.
Having said all that, I hope Dr. Gregory can find a moment to discuss with us whether or not Harrabin has been dishonest with the public about the Met’s forecasting failure for the winter.
David thanks for that. Years ago when I used to pop by pretty regularly I did say pretty early on that it wasn’t fair for me to comment directly on other BBC staff or BBC policy on a public forum. I’m happy to talk about the job I do and offer insight into general newsgathering but have no authority or indeed knowledge beyond that.
David Gregory – Yes, I realize that, but surely this falls under the aegis of “newsgathering”. The Met said one thing, and Harrabin said another. There must be a way to discuss the particulars on a non-personal level.
As a science correspondent, I assume you have more knowledge in this area than in, say, whether or not the Muslim Brotherhood could be both conservative and moderate.
David P,
I hope you are right and agree with you that “Warmism” is a religion. However, I have my doubts that warmists are motivated by altruism.
DP
I agree with you in the sense that the BBC Pension Fund is a side issue. That a warmist apparently runs the fund is interesting, not necessarily because he will throw the BBC Pensioners’ piggy bank at Ecotricity but because of what it implies. IMHO it is a symptom of the creeping corruption which political greenism is visiting on the world. The BBC PF is not the only institution where financial greenism prevails: the fact that the IIGCC exists and can speak for such enormous resources is evidence of the influence of greenism.
Part of the problem – and to return to the reason this blog exists – is that the BBC’s environmental journalists no longer report as journalists. It may be, as you say, that they are true believers in the warmist religion and it would shatter their self-image to give any credence to the infidel. Unfortunately, their belief is translated by them – and their editors – into a refusal even to report the existence of infidels as rational beings and the infidels’ unbelief as having rational grounds.
I find this deeply disturbing since the BBC has a legal duty – which is the sole reason why it might deserve to be supported by the taxpayer – to report impartially. In a non-CAGW news item, there was no need, for instance, when reporting events in Egypt, for the BBC reporters to opine that the Moslem Brotherhood is not “extreme”. This is so self-evidently ridiculous that it defeats the whole notion of an “impartial” report and undermines the listeners’ faith in the rest of the BBC’s reportage from there (or anywhere). If Bowen can say and believe that, what other rubbish is he spouting? More to the point, what is he suppressing in the interest of his personal beliefs?
In the same way, the BBC continues to report climate affairs as if those who have not swallowed the CAGW mantra whole can be dismissed as crazies. It reports all science (and this is where Dr Gregory should be worried) on the basis that “science” is exemplified by what corrupt academics in the world of “climate science” do (and Climategate indicates that corruption exactly). Perhaps Dr Gregory can enlighten us as to exactly why the BBC reportage of climate science seeks to portray unbelievers as idiots (or worse) and their concerns as entirely mischievous.
Agree completely, Umbongo.
I agree too, maybe we could equate the pension fund story rebuttal by David G is perfectly valid but doesn’t really address much of the issue (as David P says) just in the way that the BBC’s Skeptic focus on Monckton doesn’t really address much of that issue.
Superb post , Umbongo. I raise my hat to you !
DP, if these beeboids genuinely had confidence in their belief in AGW they would have no problem submitting their beliefs to objective scrutiny on a level playing field.
It’s a left wing scam. That’s why they promote it and try to shut down oppostion.
Another aspect is that they are so signed up to AGW that if the day ever comes when AGW is irrefutably disproved (and my mind is open on whether or not the evidence is there to do that, I’m a sceptic, not a rejectionist) they know that they are going to look like incredible fools. This is something that their intellectual conceit just cannot bear. They’ve embraced a cause for reasons of posturing ego, wanting to make themselves look morally superior to others. The major reason why I’m sceptic is horrifying warmist intolerance at dissenting scientific opinion being heard.
I wonder if Mr Gregory would advise us if Mr Harrabin is a friend of his and he is here on his behalf?
Welcome to the Skeptic Tank David. Whilst its a bit pongy here sometimes, its generally an honest pong.
As its been judged newsworthy that TFL staff and partners get free transport, BA cabin crew perks, can we assume you as a BBC staffer are spared the license fee?
I ask only because the biggest pong in the Tank is not basically the daily spectacle of the BBC in lockstep with the Guardian acting as the broadcasting arm of the Labour Party, its the fact we are legally obliged to pay for such blatant partiality. As far as I am concerned, the only truthful thing in the Guardian is the date, but then I don’t have to pay for it.
BBC staff all pay the Licence Fee. Indeed as I understand it if you don’t pay it then you can be dismissed.
Or worse still, imprisoned !
Fed bullshit 24/7, charged for the pleasure, on pain of imprisonment for non-compliance. Really democratic, don’t you think? I wonder if those poor Egyptians demanding “democracy” fully comprehend what they may be letting themselves in for…
‘I’ll pass on getting involved in a big conversation here’
It’s a bit hard to track chronologically, but it would appear that the toys have been gathered up and the pram rejoined, at least until the next temporary ‘I’m off’ drama person exit, stage left.
I disagree.
Entirely your right. Doesn’t make you correct, mind.
I think civilised debate is a very useful thing.
No argument. And, looking at the calibre of polite engagement here (ie: setting Scott or Dez off to check out the archives for unconnected examples of unpleasant posting is not really going to much beyond digging a deeper hole, especially as the % that can be laid at their door might rather backfire), who do you think disagrees with you?
The level of conversation has moved downhill here since I used to post and I think that harms your cause.
In your view. Entirely valid, of course. If a somewhat narrow, oddly selective one, perhaps? And including the impossible to resist attempt at a tribal collective inclusive. Who, or what, is ‘your’ ’cause’?
Anyone who tries to lump every individual on a free and open blog with the odd extreme seems to have a poor grasp of free speech and the internet. Or is trying to wilfully rationalise a deluded ‘get out’ back door for when the going doesn’t suit.
And yet, you didn’t ‘used to’, you have and are still posting here. Go figure.
But it would be good to get back to the point of the thread. BBC moderators excise posts as OT for much less.
There is a new one with a series of factual issues –
WATER OFF A DUCK’S BACK…
– that really warrants sensible, objective discussion. Maybe you would like to offer a response there without the cherry picking, red herrings, strawmen and faux outrage distractions?
I truly admire that you do engage outside the comfort zone, but as many here I am sure duel without the warm fuzzies of a massive corporation behind them on such as CiF with much less courtesy deployed, and without flouncing off in a huff at every ad hom, there is a limit to the slack that can be expected just to get a viewpoint in defence of the BBC that can be better informed.