Roger Harrabin, a strange conflicted, tormented soul unable to square the ethics of being a professional journalist with his desire to campaign for the climate change lobby.
He’s settled for the green blob.
Harrabin admitted he was a climate change campaigner:
I have spent much of the last two decades of my journalistic life warning about the potential dangers of climate change.
Harrabin knows many of the Public are sceptical about climate change, especially when they see their bills falsely inflated by green taxes. He goes so far as to suggest Sceptics should be brought in from the cold and given a hearing…here and here he toys with the idea…and yet still manages to slip in a few sneers for the Sceptics and some cheerleading for the likes of the CRU’s Phil Jones.
Even today Harrabin whilst luring in an unsuspecting ‘sceptic’ to the BBC can’t help trying to discredit that ‘sceptic’ whilst supposedly taking him seriously.
The Today programme announced to us that the IPCC was about to reveal its latest thinking on climate and would tell us that we will suffer irreversible climate change if we continue pumping out CO2…..the Today programme tells us that such reports are ‘resisted by a very vocal minority’.
So you get the idea….sceptics are noisy, a minority, a bit of a nuisance and…no mention of just how credible they are….but we are told Sceptics are coming into line with mainstream thinking.
Hmmmm…..isn’t it more true to say that the ‘settled mainstream science’ is being forced by facts on the ground to admit that they have got things serously wrong and it is they who are now coming into line with the sceptics rather than sceptics now ‘agreeing’ with the mainstream?
On the Today show Harrabin spoke to Nic Lewis (15 mins) whom he pointedly called ‘Mr Lewis’ in an attempt to persuade us that he is not a scientist and has little real authority to speak on the subject of climate change.
Harrabin ‘interviews’ Lewis but we don’t actually hear the interview just Harrabin’s interpretation of it…here he tells us the three points that apparently sceptics and the ‘Mainstream’ agree on….
- CO2 from humans has contributed to warming the planet.
- The current pause will end…sometime because of CO2.
- If we double CO2 emissions it will result in a rise of 1.7°C
I rather think all those points could easily be contested.
That last point for instance….Harrabin goes on to say that the range of likely temperatures given by Lewis matches the IPCC’s.
No, it doesn’t. Harrabin is spinning, this Today report is all about trying to make out that sceptics have suddenly seen the light and have slowly come to the same conclusions as the IPCC. They haven’t.
Here is Nic Lewis’s own report from March this year in which he says….
‘…a lower observationally-based temperature range of 1.25–3.0°C, with a best estimate of 1.75, for a doubling of CO2. By contrast, the climate models used for projections in AR5 indicate a range of 2-4.5°C, with an average of 3.2°C.’
In other words his range of temperatures is far below that of the IPCC…and the figure for temperature when CO2 levels double is almost half that of the IPCC…1.75 and 3.2 °C respectively….not as Harrabin claimed both agreeing on 1.75.
Again here Lewis says the same:
The CMIP5 [IPCC] models ultimately warm on average about 3.2° C when the concentration of CO2 is doubled. This is approaching twice the level suggested by the best observational studies
Lewis tells us that:
Virtually all the models that the IPCC uses in its report have been running too hot over periods as long as 35 years, long enough to judge them on a climatic timescale
Harrabin himself last year reported the IPCC’s doomladen predictions:
Harrabin admits that that was only a theory…it may be that climate is not as sensitive to CO2 as ‘mainstream scientists’ told us…..it maybe we get no temperature rise above 2.5° C but he says ‘that is very optimistic…and we will probably see much worse.’
Mainstream scientists, he tells us, suggest that 2 – 4.5° C is more likely and ‘there is little reassuring about that’
2-4.5° C? So an average of 3.2 not 1.7 as Harrabin today claimed the IPCC suggests.
Harrabin slips in a cheap couple of sneers telling us that ‘Mr Lewis’ is a Cambridge educated mathematician with a career in financial consulting…though unlike most sceptics he’s published his findings in scientific journals.
Harrabin doesn’t mention that he also studied physics at Cambridge and is a highly skilled statistician as well as having spent many years studying climate change.
Harrabin curiously omits to mention that Lewis is also an expert reviewer for the IPCC….so credible enough for them to utilise his expertise.
We might ask just how many times Harrabin has published his scientific research in science journals…the answer would of course be never….Harrabin being an English graduate.
By his own standards Harrabin should not be reporting on climate change due to his lack of paper credentials….and yet he consistently attacks sceptics for their apparent lack of professional qualifications.
Harrabin demonstrates his own lack of understanding by confusing CO2 emissions with CO2 concentrations….from Nic Lewis himself via Bishop Hill:
As you know, Roger Harrabin’s piece on global warming that included excerpts of his interview with me aired at 7.15 this morning on Radio 4.
Unfortunately, his piece confusingly muddled up both CO2 emissions with CO2 concentrations and equilibrium climate sensitivity with the transient climate response level.
For an English graduate words and meaning must surely be something you could grapple succesfully with…so even in his own field of expertise Harrabin can’t cut it. Not too good with either numbers or words it seems.
Harrabin’s Today report was pure spin that tried to undermine the Sceptic case by saying that they were now agreeing with the IPCC.
However Nic Lewis has never been a ‘sceptic’ in the sense that Harrabin uses. Lewis believes that man-made CO2 is warming the planet but that the planet is not as sensitive as the IPCC makes out…but in fact he goes further than the IPCC….
In AR5 the IPCC felt even more certain (95% certain, compared to 90% inAR4) that humans have caused most (more than 50%) of the warming since1950. The media treated this as the major conclusion of AR5, but it is in fact a relatively trivial finding. The high-quality observationally-based estimates for climate sensitivity discussed in this report assume that virtually all the measured warming (not just since 1950, but over the last 100–150 years) is due to humans.
The far more important question now is how much warming is likely in the future under various scenarios.
Curiously when you read the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s blurb they say almost the exact same thing….they accept global warming is happening but that they disagree with the level of warming and the policies adopted to combat it…..
The Global Warming Policy Foundation is unique. We are an all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity which, while open-minded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated.
We are in no sense ‘anti-environmental’. There is a wide range of important environmental issues, which call for an equally wide range of policy responses. Our concern is solely with the possible effects of any future global warming and the policy responses that may evoke.
And yet Lord Lawson is banned by the BBC from appearing.
So we have a climate sceptic who isn’t really a sceptic but whose positon is presented by Harrabin as the new dawning of reality in the sceptic’s camp as they merge with mainstream thinking. Harrabin spins the figures to make it appear the IPCC is correct on likely future temperature scenarios. Harrabin sneers at sceptics.
In summary we have Harrabin spinning like mad, misleading listeners and trying to discredit sceptics….what’s new in his approach to reasoned debate on climate change? Nothing.
BBC’s Mr Climate Change and £15,000 grants from university rocked by global warning scandal
Did anyone hear Stott vs. Houghton on Today, radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source