Roger Harrabin slides seamlessly into Black’s place:
roger harrabin @RogerHarrabin
Asking if climate change caused Sandy is like asking if gravity caused an old house to collapse when it did. Ex NYT http://nyti.ms/TKJPnz
This is amusing too:
roger harrabin @RogerHarrabin DfT consults on plan to increase single carriageway lorry speed from 40 to 45 or 50 “to boost economic growth and cut congestion.
Aniol Esteban @aniolesteban @RogerHarrabin do they plan to increase number of oil spills to boost economic growth too?
roger harrabin @RogerHarrabin @aniolesteban Earthquakes and volcanoes also boost economic growth. The Philippines mud slide was good for builders and undertakers.
Aniol Esteban @aniolesteban @RogerHarrabin all in all illustrating the absurdity and dangers of growth-driven policies (which disregard environment/society)
Harrabin is one of the founders of the CMEP (No link because they don’t run a website….they wish to keep their thoughts and advice secret presumably…..which is why the BBC refuse to divulge who attended CMEP meetings that influenced BBC coverage). The CMEP which was created to ‘guide’ what the rest of the media said about climate change….er…to ensure the correct message…no, the most accurate information, was purveyed to the Public in order to inform their opinions and actions.
The problem is an ignorant public who don’t understand…and don’t want to understand because of the ‘ideological wax’ in their ears.
He founded it with Joe Smith….who said:
I see the work of the 100 months campaign as being a political device, and I see any definition of ‘dangerous climate change’ as a political act not a scientific fact.
And here are some of his latest thoughts which illustrate perfectly just how political their message is and how science takes a back seat:
‘…..Luntz took an about turn and presented anyone that would listen with line that is designed to work for people who have ideological wax blocking their ears: ‘don’t get het up about communicating science – talk about clean American energy and jobs in a new efficient, competitive economy’.
An interview with Luntz in in the Daily Beast quotes him thus: “It doesn’t matter whether it exists or not (climate change, man made)… What my position is on that issue and what anyone’s position is actually doesn’t matter when it comes to legislation.”
Putting aside the science he spotlights “the economic benefits, the health benefits, the national security benefits…”
But how could that policy and political debate move forward with a broad base of support? On another occasion Luntz argued that if you want to talk about climate impacts and actions – you must locate them – very locally. ….worked subtly to suggest that acting on climate change can also bring some very positive local and personal outcomes.
But my point is: lets not get stuck on the science. Climate change is a vast and widening body of investigation and debate: science is now barely the half of it, and in terms of political outcomes it is not the thing that counts.
On the whole the relevant voices should come not from the science community but rather from technology, design, social sciences, industry and the arts.
For their part, most journalists need to work harder to expand their contacts book and also their sense of the scope of the issue. It can be done.
….a heretical thought: might it simply not be useful or necessary to worry about the fact that nearly half of the UK population may be ‘uninformed about and uninterested’ in the science of climate change?
Skip taking people through the detail, and get them on to talking about the ‘doing’.
we’ve already invested too much in ‘communicating climate science’ and not enough in debating the politics of global risks of all kinds – whether they be environmental, economic or military.
(never mind the facts….carry on anyway)
Institutions (The BBC certainly does already) need to support these practices.
(isn’t this science acting as propagandist….working towards a political end rather than merely providing the information that others then use to decide policy)
I see the work of the 100 months campaign as being a political device, and I see any definition of ‘dangerous climate change’ as a political act not a scientific fact. That doesn’t make it any less urgent. Indeed politics is the right place for urgency once the science has provided a pretty robust risk analysis (it has).
I’m going to start a swear box – I’ll put £1 in every time I find myself thinking ‘crisis’ instead of opportunity.
Our buildings, streets, vacuum cleaners, electricity networks, sewage plants, trouser presses and mobility systems have all grown up in an age of low cost coal, oil and gas. But along with glorious freedoms the era of cheap fuel has brought with it hidden ugliness and cost. Drafty, damp and cold housing for many of the poorest and oldest; miserable and time consuming commutes in routine traffic jams; unrepairable products that break down when a small component fails; the collapse of businesses and loss of jobs as low cost freight constantly undermines locally rooted economies.
The goal of ‘global sustainability’, of integrating environment, society and economy sounds something like pursuit of a ‘global Sweden’. In other words a stable democracy, robust economy, generous welfare system, food on the table – perhaps plenty of cycle lanes and argon filled triple glazed windows.
It sounds like an imaginary place a long way away. But its not just that it doesn’t sound plausible – with apologies to Swedes – it doesn’t sound all that attractive either. My guess is that a more sustainable global society is going to be far more messy, argumentative and diverse than the formal rhetoric of sustainability implies.
Terms like climate sceptic, denier and contrarian have served to cluster anyone with some good questions about climate change science and policy into a discrete group. This has solidified into an identity.
er…..he uses the term himself….
‘And if I’m to read this as suggesting that climate contrarian voices are having a very good run of it I’d agree with that too.’
Bit of a confused piece. You need to use the quote feature to distinguish between the quotes and your commentary on them. But apart from that, yes, agreed the BBC’s climate change scaremongering is as well researched, as well supported by evidence and as politically unbiased as their allegations of ‘Thatcher era Tory child abusers’.
‘as well supported by evidence and as politically unbiased as their allegations’
Considering the actual trust in their educational and informational output now vs. that they seem to feel is more representative (uniquely, their own) of the public they claim they represent, not too tenable.
Lorry speeds. A reflex action by the greenies. 40mph probably increases fuel consumption as those unfortunate enough to be behind inevitably use more fuel. Lower gears, stop start use of the throttle etc. Not that Harrabin would understand this.
No no no.
Everybody knows that travelling at 20mph uses one-third of the petrol that is used travelling at 60mph. Isn’t it obvious?
You right wingers don’t even know the basic science!
/sarc
I think I might have just had a “woosh” over the head moment, but doesn’t taveling at 20mph only get you one third of the distance 60mph would for the same time duration and fuel consumption? Obviously NOT taking into account other factors.
I am afraid that you do not understand basic science – or even how a car works. At 20 mph you will be 3rd gear and so will be using more fuel than traveling at 60 mph in 5th gear.
This is one of the reasons why 4x4s use more fuel than a conventional car – they are lowered geared so the engine revs a little harder.
Nothing illustrates the BBC’s left-wing bias quite like the ‘science’ of global warming. The movement, from the IPCC downwards, is dominated by watermelon pressure groups (green on the outside, red on the inside) with that mega-billion dollar conglomerate the World Wildlife Fund in pole (!) position.
They argue – sorry, no, tell us – the science is settled so they can move on swiftly to implementing their eco-socialist solutions of ‘sustainable development’ and ‘social justice’ through a shadowy network of activist groups such as the CMEP, overseen at the top by the UN who supply the necessary framework and funding. It is the greatest threat to democracy we’ve seen since Hitler and the sooner everybody wakes up to it the better.
Meanwhile, to keep the ‘settled’ science simmering gently in the background, the BBC bombard us with all kinds of alarmist guff which couldn’t be further from real science if you tried.
They need a bloody good rogering on this – the non-Harrabin variety, that is.
The sad thing is, the buggers WILL implement it. Now O’Bummer has
fiddledwon another stint in the White House, despite avoiding the “climate issue” during the run-up to the election, he’ll move heaven and earth to appease the greenies, despite the true science that’s evident for the sane world to see.“Climate change is our fault and we must stop it” will become rife throughout, and we won’t be at liberty to do sod all about it.
As the world cools, and the current sunspot minimum continues (probably abetting or causing the start of the next Little Ice Age), they’ll press their agenda, and continue trying to kid us all into believing the opposite is happening with fiddled statistic, lost data and suspect computer modelling, whilst taking our cash and curbing our freedoms. And we let it happen. Shame on them, shame on us.
The President doesn’t need to appease anyone any more. He actually supports the Warmist agenda because it shares the same neo-Marxist origins as His own ideology. The eco-fascists in the EPA have already put in place plenty of crushing regulations that are going to reduce our energy output significantly in the coming years, as well as lead to higher unemployment. That horse left the stable a very long time ago, and there’s nothing we can do about it for four years. If failed venture corporatist Chu steps down, he’ll only be replaced by somebody even more dangerous.
It’s so sad that this kind of scenario is exactly what all of us warned about years ago, but were told that we shouldn’t worry just because the whole thing was driven by political ideology before the science was invented.
http://blackswhitewash.com/2012/01/05/richard-black-influencing-world-policy/#comment-211
That’s a great link and should be compulsory reading for every member of Parliament and the Lords, not to mention everyone who reads B-BBC (that includes you, Nicked).
This story is infinitely bigger than anything that’s blown up this week because it shows the BBC’s complicity in a movement which by its own admission is about shaping a new political system for the world.
The thing is, which politician would want to listen? Or perhaps putting it another way, which politicians don’t already know?
“Aniol Esteban @aniolesteban @RogerHarrabin all in all illustrating the absurdity and dangers of growth-driven policies (which disregard environment/society)”
Sounds suspiciously like the NoGrowth movement to me.
http://beyondgrowth.co.uk/
Because it is obvious that industry never does anything to improve society.
If I understand this post correctly, you are confirming my understanding about our socialist enemies in that they follow the Saul Alinsky teaching of ‘The Issue is Not the Issue’; ie. they will pretend to believe in, support, expatiate about just about anything if it furthers their plan for socialist utopia. The socialists/greens/fascist/marxist whatever they might call themseves, couldn’t give a damn about global warming, manmade or otherwise. What they care about, and only that, is how to help the socialist cause. If an issue ceases to be beneficial to them and their ilk, they’ll abandon it without any regrets. So, they are inherently deceitful and one has to question just about everything they say and do; for ulterior motives. And keep reminding oneself that The issue; ie the thing they are ostensibly agitating either for or against; is not the Issue; ie the thing they are actually working to achieve.
And while I remember, a few years ago, when Radio 4 Extra was still Radio 7, the bbc aired a short propaganda piece in support of the Fabian Society; just before childrens programmes were to start – at about 6.30am if I recall correctly.