Author Archives: Robin Horbury

Richard Black continues to churn out BBC groupthink about the need to cut CO2 emissions as if Climategate has not happened and the IPCC AR4 report is still the gold standard of reliability. What’s fresh about his wearying latest tirade is that he’s found a new group of climate change fanatics to support his assertion that whatever we are doing, it’s not enough; nothing less than the end of industry is required. This one’s called Sandbag (what a nice, twee, right-on lefty name – I wonder which brand focus group thought that one up?); the cast of eco-agitators – not one of them a sceintist as far as I can see, but hey, what does that matter? – includes one from the BBC’s own in house climate change agency, our old friends Futerra – to whom the BBC sends its staff for indoctrination. How cosy.

Reports like this and this, which suggest that the flying restrictions over UK and European airspace are panic reactions based on EU bureaucracy and Met Office incompetence. Our chums in White City and elsewhere simply love EU regulations – and though they have begrudingly mentioned disquiet at the flying ban – the chances of them doing a proper investigation of what has gone on are close to zero.

For an example of BBC bias at its sneery, snidey best, have a listen to The World This Weekend here – the relevant item is at about 35 minutes into the programme and is by a reporter called John Manel. His target was alleged flaws in UKIP’s immigration policy. He claims basically that the party is so stupid that it doesn’t know what it is doing. In order to set up his premise, he talks to a chap called Will Sommerville, who he describes as follows:

Will Sommerville has worked as a civil servant in the Cabinet Office on immigration, for the left-leaning think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research, and for the Commission for Racial Equality. He is now a senior policy analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, based in Washington DC.

Who better to give and independent view of UKIP policy? Mr Manel’s next tack is to sneerily talk to party figures and he edits the whole sequence into something which – hey presto! – Mr Somerville then says won’t work. And in a final twist of the tale of bias, Mr Manel frames his reporting to suggest that this particular UKIP member is so venal and naive that he won’t apply the policy to his own family; in other words, that old chestnut – if all else fails throw in ad hominem attack, especially if it is on someone who the BBC perceives to be right-wing.

This was a particularly biased report aimed at showing that UKIP are stupid, nasty, xenophobic racists. That’s the BBC’s default approach to the party. In coverage of UKIP so far, the leopard hadn’t shown his spots; but it was only a matter of time before reports like this surfaced.

The BBC is very keen to tell us in detail why Lord Oxburgh and his panel of cronies have exonerated in a rushed report the University of East Anglia climate change fabricators. Their reasons for the whitewash – which can be paraphrased as the need to perpetuate the lies – are trumpeted loudly, while the sceptic community gets, as usual, only a nodding mention, 74 words out of 760. Here, for the record and for starters, are some of the concerns of “sceptics” that the BBC has chosen not to tell us. They are from Steve McIntyre, of Climate Audit, the man who for almost a decade has been painstakingly revealing the tricks and lies of those who have been so rapidly absolved:

The Oxburgh report ” is a flimsy and embarrassing 5-pages.

They did not interview me (nor, to my knowledge, any other CRU critics or targets). The committee was announced on March 22 and their “report” is dated April 12 – three weeks end to end – less time than even the Parliamentary Committee. They took no evidence. Their list of references is 11 CRU papers, five on tree rings, six on CRUTEM. Notably missing from the “sample” are their 1000-year reconstructions: Jones et al 1998, Mann and Jones 2003, Jones and Mann 2004, etc.)

They did not discuss specifically discuss or report on any of the incidents of arbitrary adjustment (“bodging”), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data, mentioned in my submissions to the Science and Technology Committee and the Muir Russell Committee.

Update: Richard North, as perceptive as usual, has very useful commentary on the Oxburgh findings; he skillfully underlines what the BBC should have said if it had been serious about properly analysing the findings, rather than rushing to a whitewash defence of climate change science. Particularly damning is Oxburgh’s observation about the failure of the CRU cronies to use statisticians, which suggests that in the most fundamental sense, Phil Jones et al were out of their depth. And let’s spell out what that means: the temperatures that the UN replied upon for the AR4 report were arrived at without adequate statistical analysis, even though what was involved was a series of stastical projections. It beggars belief. Steve McIntyre, of course, has been saying this all along – but now Oxburgh has concurred, albeit with qualifications. The house of cards looks more and more precarious, especially if you also read this.

The election continues, with all three main parties steadfastly refusing to discuss properly their insane, bigoted advocacy of massive new taxes on energy. Meanwhile, the BBC continues to report the agenda of greenies with relentless bias. Take this story about greenie fanatics stopping the import to Kenya of GM maize on the ground that it might contaminate the soil. Such supersititious rot would put Matthew Hopkins (the Witchfinder-General) to shame, but the reporter doesn’t waste an ounce of effort looking for alternative views. Tens of thousands are at risk of starvation in Kenya because of cyclical drought, but the BBC has green issues to pursue and that is all that matters.

Anyone who has visited Africa knows that one of the main problems of the continent is inadequate power supplies. As well as endless power cuts, tens of thousands of Africans die every year through house fires that are caused because they don’t have access to electricity and use crude torches instead. So when the World Bank decides to help (and act sensibly for once) with the building of a major new power plant, it should be unqualified good news. Not for the BBC; its main concern in its reporting of the topic is what “environmentalists” think.

Richard Black has filed his take on the Parliamentary “investigation” into the Climategate emails. Naturally, he thinks it’s a wonderful outcome showing the integrity of the climate change community. As a sop, he mentions a couple of important sceptics and that they are not happy with the “whitewash” conclusion. But there’s no doubt who’s side he’s on:

in parts of the opinion spectrum, anything that did not result in mass resignations and a conclusion that man-made climate change is a myth and a fraud would be so regarded.

This can only be construed as a contemptuous dismissal of those whom he sees are against him. The men he quotes, Steve McIntyre and Benny Peiser, actually want something very different from what Mr Black claims. They are simply seeking an honest and open debate about the science involved and a proper re-appraisal of the data that has been twisted by those at East Anglia and elsewhere to support political theories. And that is what MPs are so disgracefully busting a gut to block.

If you question me, take a look at this astonishing story of how important research doubting the UEA temperature record, by Steve McIntyre’s colleague Ross McKitrick, was kept out of peer-reviewed journals by the academic climate change community. Those will be the so-called scientists that the House of Commons committee so cravenly backed.

Have you ever wondered why Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s environmental analyst, is such a fanatical warmist, to the extent that he faithfully reports every utterance of warmist zealots? Could part of the reason be financial? He is registered with this speaker agency and demands fees of between £5,000 and £10,000 to chair sessions at plush conferences on climate change themes. He modestly describes himself as follows:

Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s Environment Analyst, is one of the world’s leading journalists and broadcasters on the environment and energy, and a distinguished speaker, host and moderator. Roger Harrabin is a distinguished and influential figure in the British media who has won many awards for broadcasting on issues related to sustainable development.

Recent events that he has chaired include a conference organised by the Royal Society of Arts and the Soil Association on this theme:

The politics of food and farming are on the agenda as never before. Up to 30% of the average consumer’s carbon footprint can be put down to our current, intensive food and farming systems. The UK Government has signed up to a target to reduce our emissions by 80% by 2050 – but has so far resisted tackling the ‘elephant in the room’ of food and farming.

Also on the panel was (Lord) Peter Melchett, a former director of Greenpeace in the UK who once faced criminal charges for allegedly tearing up GM crops. Mr Harrabin has thus chaired a panel in which at least one participant may fairly be described as a greenie extremist and activist.

The pattern continues. Mr Harrabin has been a very busy boy on the conference circuit. He chaired this event in Prague (an EU climate change-fest); this one in February (the World Sustainability Conference); the annual conference of the Combined Heat and Power Association(another group trying to make as much cash as possible from global warming subsidies); a session in Milan at the Power-Gen Europe conference; this conference in London on Green Strategy; and finally, is due at this one, to be held held by the Economist in June.

Thus the BBC’s “environmental analyst” is making oodles of cash – tens of thousands of pounds – by using his privileged BBC position to persuade conference organisers to hire him. All of the events he chairs have a common thread in that they are greenies or warmists trying to foist their views on the rest of us or make as much money as they can out of the massive subsidies that the EU and our government spray about for anyone on the right bandwagon. Put another way, Mr Harrabin makes bucketloads of cash out of the alarmism he spreads and has a therefore a major vested interest in it. His actions stink.