Author Archives: Robin Horbury

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.

This former BBC man, Alex Kirby – whom I have fingered before as being linked indirectly also to the UN and Television Trust for the Environment propaganda machines – is emerging as one of the shadowy stars of the Climategate 2 emails. Mr Kirby, who, as can be seen for example here, is a long-standing strident alarmist, has for 20 years been one of the corporation’s main disseminators of climate change propaganda. This is what he told the PANOS institute:

I have a very short memory span, and every time I have to write something about climate change I have to look up the latest statements from the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) or the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) or whoever it is.

So that’s it, then, objective climate reporting, BBC style.

So what’s new? It emerges loud and clear from the Climategate 2 emails that Mr Kirby was close, very close (as was Roger Harrabin, of course) with Phil Jones and his henchmen at the University of East Anglia. So nice and cosy was the relationship that in 2004, Mr Kirby wrote to Phil Jones (email 4894) in the build up to COP-10:

Yes, glad you stopped this — I was sent it too, and decided to spike it without more ado as pure stream-of-consciousness rubbish. I can well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats.

So to the BBC, sceptics were loonies way back then. In 4655, Mr Kirby is again discussed, this time in an email to UEA climate fanatic Mike Hulme. He is recommended as the chairman of a forthcoming conference to warn of the perils of climate change. The same email also notes a discussion with Roger Harrabin about “strategy”, so Mr Kirby and Harrabin were clearly both regarded as safe and trusted pairs of hands involved in peddling the right messages.

Then in 0794, Mr Kirby is in the frame again, this time in an exchange between Mr Jones and Michael “hockey stick” Mann. It’s clear here that Phil Jones regards him so highly that he should be the first point of contact about complaints that the BBC output has not been strident enough about climate change.

This adds up to unambiguous further evidence (if any were needed) that the BBC was firmly in bed with climate hype from the very beginning. Phil Jones & Co clearly regarded Harrabin, Kirby and Black as the attack dogs of propaganda who would easily and unwaveringly do their bidding.

(Note: I haven’t linked directly to the latest Climategate emails, they can be viewed via this link)

It turns out that the Television Trust for the Environment – the BBC greenie programmes supplier whose problems I noted here – derives half its income, more than £500k, from the EU, and effectively gives its programmes away; last year it made less than £50,000 from sales. In effect, therefore, it is a propaganda arm of the EU. Not without coincidence, I suspect, its website was mysteriously taken down on the same day, October 24,that FBC Media – the other company named in the BBC report about conflicts of interest – went into administration. Bishop Hill has done sterling work in digging out the 2010 annual reports for TVE and its commerical arm that makes programmes. These show that the trustees were increasingly worried about income (the vast majority of which is through donations) and fairly drastic measures had been introduced to cut costs. This could explain the sudden departure of the website. The combination of cash problems with a sudden withdrawal of its shop window (the BBC) could have forced the trustees to take terminal fright.

What the figures reveal is the extent of conflict of interest that the funding of TVE created. The BBC relied for a major plank of its environmental programmes from an organisation that effectively was being paid for by the EU (£500K), the UN (£245K) (through a variety of its agencies), along with Oxfam, the Swedish and German governments, a couple of greenie trusts and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists – a total misnomer in that they are actually camapaigning green fanatics. Every element of this financing is from organisations that want unfettered greenie propaganda; TVE and the BBC were dutifully compliant.

Put another way, the EU and the UN have effectively bought airtime on the BBC, but their strident propaganda has been disguised as “independent” film-making. What is astonishing about the BBC’s role in this is that TVE’s funding is not secret, annual reports have been published for years. So why have the BBC trustees not realised this huge clash of interest before now? That’s because they are so much in bed with the climate change lobby, including the UN and the EU, and so much convinced that the science is “settled” that they are blind.

Update: The Mail on Sunday article by David Rose yesterday in which he detailed TVE’s activities, and revealed how Roger Harrabin had apparently received grants from the UEA, has been mysteriously pulled. Is he (or any other parties involved) taking legal action? I wait with bated breath! In the meantime, if you haven’t already done so, take a look at this contribution from Harmless Sky. Masterful.

***This has appeared at the end of the wiki TVE entry over the past couple of days – it was definitely not there Friday:

tve’s website is currently under reconstruction. Two tve programmes were included in a BBC Trust report into “sponsored programming”[6], and were found to be editorially impartial, complying with BBC Production Guidelines. One programme on eradicating the killer global cattle disease rinderpest was deemed to have a conflict of interest with the sponsor. The second programme was only found to have inadequately clear credits.