Roger Harrabin has responded to the clear evidence that he (and the BBC)were bunged thousands of pounds to work with climate “scientists” at the UEA to indoctrinate BBC journalists about climate alarmism. Sadly I haven’t the time to dissect his “I’m right, you’re wrong” response in full – and commenters at Bishop Hill have already done a magnificent job. I urge you to read his weasel words in full. What I will say is this:

1.Mr Harrabin clearly inhabits a parallel universe, where he still bloody-mindedly refers to a “consensus” among scientists for his authority for peddling propaganda. He seems totally oblivious, still, to the irony that the BBC event that decided there was such a consensus was stuffed full of warmist bigots (invited by him and his eco fascist colleagues)who had only one agenda, namely to spread more alarmism.
2.He tells us, in effect, that the reason he accepted the UEA cash and organised the seminars, and then went on to virtually exclude sceptics from talking on BBC programmes was because his bosses in BBC News (Tony Hall and then Helen Boaden), as well as the trustees, sanctioned it. Well that’s OK then. Bosses at the BBC are always right and don’t have agendas. Do they?
3.Mr Harrabin then tells us that HSBC, Vivendi, WWF, Economic and Social Research Council, Dept of Environment, Shell, as well as the Tyndall Centre for climate research, were all keen to have a “better” public debate about climate change”. Like hell they were. Those that didn’t have a direct axe to grind (eg the eco fascists at WWF) were clearly keen to get their snouts into the climate change subsidy trough and to ensure that the BBC was doing its bit to spread approporiate alarmism.

What’s terrifying about this missive is its total disregard for the obvious. Mr Harrabin still believes he’s done nothing wrong and is not even aware of the stench his actions have generated. And clearly those above him have not moved one iota, either.

Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to WHO ME, GUV?

  1. My Site (click to edit) says:

    the irony that the BBC eventthat decided there was such a consensus was stuffed full of warmist bigots (invited by him and his eco fascist colleagues)who had only one agenda’

    The next edition of the BBC Ediotorial Gudielines is thus suggested…



  2. John Anderson says:

    There seem to be sugestions that Harrabin has swanned off on unpaid leave,  on a Fellowship in the US.   Is this so ?

    As Robin Horbury says – the comments at BishopHill tear Harrabin’s statement apart.  I hope David Rose at the Mail,  whose article last week caused this BBC response,  comes out with another broadside.   Aiming at Helen Boaden as well this time,  as she has now endorsed Harrabin’s hypocrisy.


  3. Roland Deschain says:

    At what point will all this trigger a legal challenge by someone with deep enough pockets?  I know many here advocate simply not paying the licence fee, but I don’t feel this is a realistic option for me.  (I’ve been through the arguments before and won’t repeat them here.)

    On a day when the might of trade union muscle is being felt, I wonder what scope there is for a licence-payers’ “union” which might have more financial clout to take on the BBC.  Annual subscription, say, £145.50.


  4. matthew rowe says:

    The Harrabin statement/ liars charter  is a giggle! I love the bit about how many sceptics patted his head and gave him a sugar lump at these seminars, also how none have wanted to take away from his good work by publishing their names or where they attended !


  5. Chris says:

    Erm, don’t you mean Harribin and UEA?


  6. Dogstar060763 says:

    Meanwhile Richard Black continues to trot out his pro-AGW propaganda (without a hint of irony) untroubled by anything so trivial as allowing the public to comment on his missives. It’s really not good enough – the BBC have a p*sspoor record of allowing the right of reply to pieces they consider above reproach or (god help us) public opinion posted by their appratchiks on their website. It’s selective – and never more so than when they know they will come in for a right kicking.

    Disgraceful and undemocratic. Never mind the fact we are all forced to pay – on pain of imprisonment for refusal to do so – for these people to write such nonsense in the first place.


  7. John Anderson says:

    Robin’s post links to the deadpan defence of the BBC’s biased treatment of the Global Warming debate by Alison Hastings,  Chair of the BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee.  
    Now that ClimateGate 2 has shown us the close links between Harrabin and UEA,  one of the driving forces behind Climate Alarmism, shouldn’t the BBC Trust look again at all this – and re-assess the biased report by Steve Jones earlier this year ?


  8. George R says:

    Yes, HARRABIN is nowhere to be seen now on BBC-greenie sites.

    Is he being protected by BBC-NUJ as an endangered specimen in the present political cold environment, which has been brought on by his own fog?

    I’m sure he’s not going under an assumed name such as ‘Carpenter’ at the BBC-greenie lobby webpages:

    “CO2 climate sensitivity ‘overestimated'”

    By Jennifer Carpenter Science reporter,



  9. John Anderson says:

    Harrabin tries to present himself as a balanced journalist.   This further snippet from the ClimateGate emails suggests that he was a pretty rabid Warmist :


    The whole Global Warmism thing has been a gravy train for journalists as well as scientists.


    Helen Boaden has a lot to answer for.  Not just Harrabin – Kirby appeared to have been totally rabid.  The ClimateGate II emails surely require a BBC Trust investigation ?


    • George R says:

      Yes, and as we know, such is the devious clandestine, secretive, undemocratic nature of BBC-greenies and their protective hierarchy, that a massive cover-up is in operation on HARRABIN.

      And so many Beeboids who claim to welcome the ‘transparency’ of Leveson, don’t adopt it.

      How many times can we say it?: ‘HYPOCRITES.’


  10. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Well, there really is a consensus among scientists: the ones who created the whole thing all agree that it’s real and must not be questioned.