Roger Harrabin.  What to make of him?  Liar, fraud, dishonest, untrustworthy, propagandist, in the pay of the climate lobby?  You decide.

Harrabin has just broadcast the first of his alarmist tracts on climate change designed to soften the listener up to accept, if not demand, action on climate change from politicians at the Paris climate talks.  The tone of the programme was every bit as insidious, malignant and dishonest as you might have expected from the BBC’s climate propagandist.

First, perhaps he reads this site….I have consistently reminded people that Harrabin is a climate change campaigner and not a science journalist, and definitely not a scientist….The most obvious evidence to use is what comes out of his own mouth…

‘I have spent much of the last two decades of my journalistic life warning about the potential dangers of climate change’

However today he changed that to…

‘A topic I have reported on for more than 1/4 of a century’

Like to think we have at least a small effect on his reporting…even if it is only to hide his own propensity for pro-climate change propaganda.

Interesting that the first programme was about ‘the science’…a subject that Harrabin and his climate lobby chums previously decided was settled and that the only question was how we should deal with the consequences of climate change.  So why the change, why does he now want to look at the science?  Well, he doesn’t.  There was no evidence whatsoever put forward to prove climate change was man-made…what we got was a definite statement from Harrabin at the end that ‘the world is warming and it is largely driven by man’.

Harrabin started with a cheap shot by trying to paint sceptics as idiots, uneducated, ill-informed and religious, right-wing nutters having selected, as an example of a ‘denier’, a US Republican who didn’t believe in ‘Evolution’…thus proving her intellectually incapable of understanding the science….the science that Harrabin himself studiously avoids.  Are there any climate alarmists who don’t believe in Evolution?  Harrabin didn’t tell us, picking his targets carefully to bolster his own narrative.  Could have chosen the current Pope of course…pretty certain he believes in God’s creationism…

Pope Francis has given the climate movement just what it needed — faith

What a nutter…obviously can’t believe a word he says….jut so lacking in credibility.

Then again belief in man-made climate change does seem to be more about ‘faith’ that fact.

Interesting that Harrabin feels able to use the words ‘denier’ and ‘denial’ throughout the piece in relation to sceptics, and the phrase ‘Lukewarmers’ uttered with a sneering condescension….loves the term ‘mainstream scientists’ though….uses it like a weapon or Kryptonite, perhaps even Holy Water, to vanquish all foes.

We were supposed to learn about the ‘science’ of climate change from wine and the effects of a changing climate upon it…but of course all that tells us is that the climate is changing, at least short term.  What it doesn’t tell us is why and by who or what.

Harrabin had on Matt Ridley who is in the moderately sceptical camp…but only to dismiss every thing he said….Harrabin let him speak and then wheeled in the ‘mainstream scientists’ to dismiss him out of hand….one told us Ridley was ‘a good story teller’….another suggested that his assertion that 1.5 degrees was a possible limit to warming was not at all viable (despite 1.5 degrees being in the IPCC’s own range of predictions)…he then came up with his own ‘viable’ possibility…of 6 degrees.

Harrabin denied there was a ‘pause’ in warming insisting that the heat had vanished into the oceans….question…why now all of a sudden, why not before 1998 then?  What suddenly made the oceans start absorbing all that heat…and where is the increase in water vapour that that would produce?…the BBC tells us there is no discernable increase….water vapour being the most effective planet warmer…so why the pause?  Logic suggests that the oceans, if they are warming, are doing so at the same rate as ever, and  that the ‘pause’ must be caused by something else other than heat absorbtion into the oceans.

Harrabin moans that the IPCC’s remit wasn’t to predict short term climate…and so they missed the pause….so how can they attribute current warming, short term, to any cause and claim that it as a long term scenario?

Harrabin contrarily then told us that the planet is subject to natural, short term fluctuations (unpredictable presumably?) that meant scientists missed the pause….how then can he attribute the pause to heat being ‘hidden’ by ocean warming if the ‘pause’ is the result of natural fluctuations such as solar energy increases?

He also dismisses the rise in ice in the Antarctic as the result of global warming producing more snow.  Neat how it all works out.

Harrabin declares we will definitely be getting 2 degrees plus warming and, cue the sad music, the poor will be suffering from extreme weather, they already are apparently…despite there not being an increase in extreme weather.  Don’t let the facts spoil a good story Roger.

Harrabin is quite happy to accept the ‘most scary scenarios’ or at least push them as a possibility despite there being no evidence.

I find Harrabin entirely untrustworthy and unconvincing.  This wasn’t about the science, it wasn’t journalism, it was a pro-climate lobby message.  Nothing new then from him.

BBC’s Six-Year Cover-Up Of Secret ‘Green Propaganda’ Training For Top Executives

• Date: 12/01/14
• David Rose, Mail on Sunday

The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds over six years trying to keep secret an extraordinary ‘eco’ conference which has shaped its coverage of global warming,  The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

The controversial seminar was run by a body set up by the BBC’s own environment analyst Roger Harrabin and funded via a £67,000 grant from the then Labour government, which hoped to see its ‘line’ on climate change and other Third World issues promoted in BBC reporting.

At the event, in 2006, green activists and scientists – one of whom believes climate change is a bigger danger than global nuclear war  – lectured 28 of the Corporation’s most senior executives.

Time for a new one of these. This is where you detail the pernicious bias from the BBC.

Well, no real surprise. The BBC have adopted their default mode and sought to distance Islam from the acts of Islamic terror that defaced the City of Lights on Friday evening. Instead we get lots of nice images of International landmarks to show how the “international community” is showing solidarity. I’m surprised the BBC have not been able to find a pic of a MOSQUE draped in the French colours. Coughs. The BBC have also been a tad quiet on the fact that France has pretty strict gun control laws, the sort they constantly agitate for in the US. If only someone had told the IS savages, eh? At times like this, BBC and SKY are a disgrace but only ONE of them forces us to pay for the garbage it churns out.

Why did Miliband lose the election?  Possibly because he didn’t have the right man on side…Nick Robinson for instance, unfortunately put out of action during the election by ill health.

Robinson, starting on the Today programme tomorrow, was a young Conservative but that might have been hard to ascertain if you listened to his BBC outpourings which, to me at least, seemed to lean towards favouring Labour.

It seems I’m not alone in that conclusion.  In the Sunday Times Lynn Barber says ‘It seems to me blindingly obvious from his book that he was much fonder of Ed Miliband than of David Cameron’.

Also….’At one point someone offers Robinson the job of top Labour spin doctor, which they would hardly have done if they didn’t believe he was on their side.’

Robinson replied to this suggestion…’The person who offered it to me certainly thought that I was, not necessarily on their side, but willing to help their side.’

A young Conservative gone native inside the Bubble.

Switched on the radio, first thing I heard was Anna Foster  (around 07:55) worrying that many people believe the Front National in France will get more support.  She didn’t define who those ‘many people’ were of course….let me do it for her….BBC journalists, the Guardian and Muslim agitators.  Why is the BBC completely unconcerned about the ‘worries’ of those who might vote for the Front National….the BBC dismisses them as racist Islamophobes who have no reason to be concerned.

Foster had two Muslim women on to tell us what a living hell their lives were due to Islamophobia….Foster described them merely as ‘French women’ when she closed the discussion….which is odd, as the whole point was that they were ‘Muslim’.

Foster wondered if ‘the anger [in France about the terrorist attacks] will be tapped into to improve the lot of immigrants’.

Wasn’t it immigrants who launched this attack?

A curious slant then by the BBC…again it is the ‘immigrants’ who are the victims, French racism the problem driving the immigrants to terrorism.

Listening to Nolan and a caller says the killers were not Muslim….silence from Nolan, silence, silence, then he tells us…

‘That’s the most poignant thing you can say…that they are not Muslim’

Trouble is that isn’t true is it Stephen Nolan?  That’s a lie.  A lie that is intended to prevent a particular course of action….such as that suggested by Hollande’s declaration that this attack was an act of war.

Nolan’s conclusion is that the clever response would be not to respond…not to over react…by over react he means military strikes against Islamic State.

The Spectator’s thoughts on that?

‘There will be many sage, chin-stroking, warnings against an ‘over-reaction’ to this atrocity. Of course. And yet it is not possible to avoid reacting to this act of war. Obliterating Islamic State, wherever it is to be found, is not liable to be a sufficient response but it is a necessary part of any response. Because if we did not know before now – and if we did not, it was because we were wilfully denying a grimly observable reality – we know now. There is no compromise that can be struck with the mindset behind these murders.

They may hate us for what we do but, more significantly, they despise us – all the western world – for who we are and how we live. This is so obvious by now that it risks seeming banal but it demands restating because, even now, even after all this, there remain too many people who deny the truth.’

And of course the real victims of the attacks are Muslims…the ‘backlash’ you understand.

The real victims?  These are the real victims…..

From the Independent:

Here’s what a Charlie Hebdo cartoonist drew after the second Paris terror attack in a year…

[liveblog]

‘The people who died tonight were out living, drinking, singing. They didn’t know they had declared war.’

‘Terrorism is not the enemy. Terrorism is a mode of operation. Repeating ‘we are at war’ without finding the courage to name our enemies leads nowhere. Our enemies are those that love death. In various guises, they have always existed. History forgets quickly.’

The Mail reports in a big headline….

Jihadis sneaked into France as fake Syrian refugees: Fresh security concerns over Europe’s borders as authorities reveal killers including a 15-year-old prowled streets in three coordinated teams

Stephen Nolan on 5Live on other hand tells us that we must treat such knowledge with restraint…in other words hide the truth in order not to put a dent in the BBC’s narrative about immigration….remember how quick the BBC were to produce a report that tried to deny a link betweeen a Syrian immigrant and the Jihadis.

The BBC isn’t reporting the link between immigration and the attack in Paris as a story in its own right but has slipped the news into its live feed.….

Syrian passport holder passed through Greece – minister

Posted at 16:38

A Greek government minister says the holder of a Syrian passport found at the scene crossed into the European Union through the Greek island of Leros in October.

Deputy public order minister Nikos Toskas, said in a statement:

On the case of the Syrian passport found at the scene of the terrorist attack, we announce that the passport holder passed from Leros on October 3 where he was identified based on EU rules … We do not know if the passport was checked by other countries through which the holder likely passed.

Attackers ‘self-contained cell back from Syria’

Posted at 15:46

The Paris attackers were members of a self-contained cell and had travelled to Syria, the BBC’s Frank Gardner reports, citing Whitehall sources.

‘Egyptian and Syrian passports found on attackers’

Posted at 14:36

An Egyptian passport and Syrian passport were found on two attackers at the Stade de France, according to the French newspaper La Liberation.

Looking very much like the ‘rumours’ of Islamists using the migrant flow as cover to enter Europe was true.  A truth the BBC tried to deny and even now looks like wanting to play down.  This is an important and dangerous fact that needs to be dealt with not brushed under the carpet.  There is also an issue with the make up of the migrants as a whole…the vast majority being Muslim…just how many, not Jihadis now, will turn to that method of propagating their views?  Not something that should be ignored as the consequences will be far more serious than what is happening already.

Spot the difference between how the BBC reports Jeremy Corbyn’s intended, and now cancelled, speech….

The BBC…

The Labour leader was set to say: “For the past 14 years, Britain has been at the centre of a succession of disastrous wars that have brought devastation to large parts of the wider Middle East.

“They have increased, not diminished, the threats to our own national security in the process”.

And BT…

Jeremy Corbyn cancels Islamic State speech after Paris attacks

The terror attack in Paris has forced Jeremy Corbyn to cancel a planned speech in which he would have suggested that British bombing operations against Islamic State (IS) had contributed to an increased threat to national security.

The Labour leader had been due to speak out against a “succession” of conflicts which date back 14 years – taking in current operations against the extremist group as well as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Extracts from the speech released in advance indicated he would use his strongest language yet to criticise the UK’s involvement in the fight against IS in Iraq, linking it to the wars begun in 2001 in Afghanistan under Tony Blair’s premiership.

He has previously said the UK should “look again” at its participation in the bombing campaign against IS.

In the speech to Labour’s East of England conference he was expected to say: “For the past 14 years, Britain has been at the centre of a succession of disastrous wars that have brought devastation to large parts of the wider Middle East.

“They have increased, not diminished, the threats to our own national security in the process.”

He was due to call for “a different kind of foreign policy – based on a new and more independent relationship with the rest of the world”.

Why did the BBC miss that bit about the Islamic State out of its report?

Will the BBC be asking him about his old Islamist/Marxist mates at Stop the War who tweeted this…

Why is John Rentoul being attacked for this tweet when clearly Corbyn had such a sentiment in mind for his speech?…

“Will (Jeremy) Corbyn say France made itself a target?”

And indeed Corbyn’s response included this condemnation of Western foreign policy…

‘It’s vital at a time of such tragedy and outrage not to be drawn into responses which feed a cycle of violence and hatred.”‘

Remember Corbyn’s Labour wanted to get STW’s opinion before deciding Labour’s policy on Syria….

Labour’s foreign policy is a debased joke

Another milestone has been passed. Labour’s Corbynite journey on foreign policy has exited tragedy and entered the realms of farce.

This evening, the BBC’s Ross Hawkins reports that the shadow minister for foreign affairs, Catherine West, addressed the Stop The War coalition meeting in parliament, saying,

“Obviously in the summer before Russia was involved we were thinking the government might bring forward a proposal and we were preparing mentally for that. However since 30 September I think that’s more remote and obviously if that proposal does come forward then we will need to speak to you and talk to you about what your view is on that.”

There it is. in black and white. A commitment that Labour would consult with Stop the War before deciding its Syria policy.

How dare she.

Here’s Stop the War’s John Rees from 2006 indulging in paroxysms of Orwellian doublethink by backing Saddam Hussein as a champion of the oppressed that he was oppressing,

“Socialists should unconditionally stand with the oppressed against the oppressor, even if the people who run the oppressed country are undemocratic and persecute minorities, like Saddam Hussein.”

Corbyn pathetically comes up with this anodyne and essentially worthless statement…

Jeremy Corbyn MP ‏@jeremycorbyn 3 hrs3 hours ago

The horrific events in Paris were an attack on all multicultural & multi-faith societies. Solidarity to all affected