Monday, 2 January 2017

Roger and out


In anticipation of tomorrow night's Radio 4 documentary Climate Change: The Trump Card from Roger Harrabin, here's a little Twitter action taking place tonight between the BBC's environment (activist) analyst and Lord Lawson/Dr Benny Peiser's Global Warming Policy Foundation:


Roger Harrabin @RHarrabin: Top #Republican fears for grandchildren as #Trump derides #climatechange. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38484730 

GWPF ‏@thegwpfcom: @RHarrabin why did you not mention that Ms Whitman is the President of a green energy lobby firm? 

Roger Harrabin @RHarrabin: @thegwpfcom She claims she is not a lobbyist. But her views on climate were formed in office

GWPF ‏@thegwpfcom: @RHarrabin her lobby firm "helps companies to promote the development and use of green energy"

Roger Harrabin @RHarrabin: Is from GWPF the lobby group, or the think tank?

GWPF ‏@thegwpfcom: @RHarrabin GWPF does not have any vested interests -your key witness has

Roger Harrabin @RHarrabin: @thegwpfcom I repeat my question. Is this tweet from Gwpf the lobby group or Gwpf the think tank?

GWPF ‏@thegwpfcom: @RHarrabin you make it look as if you are unfamilar with social media. Poor distraction

Roger Harrabin @RHarrabin: What is the answer? Which organisation am I talking to?

And on it may very well go...

Indeed, Matt Ridley, Tory peer and Times columnist (and author of some of my favourite popular science books), has chipped in too:

Matt Ridley ‏@mattwridley: @thegwpfcom Inconceivable @RHarrabin would not have mentioned it if she was a fossil-fuel lobbyist...double standards again.

GWPF ‏@thegwpfcom: @mattwridley @RHarrabin regrettably, the BBC doesn't seem to care about their manifest failure.

6 comments:

  1. HAPPY NEW YEAR TO SUE AND CRAIG AND EVERYONE AT ITBBCB.

    Ever since I first heard of man made global warming (MMGW) I thought it was lot of nonsense, used by governments as an excuse to impose new taxes such as air passender duty (APD). A coiuple of weeks ago I was catching up witha customer and old friend of mine over lunch and he said his daughter was trying to get into University of East Anglia to study MMGW, which I pooh-poohed as a lot of tuff and nonsense. Stephen, a normal rational human being, was quite convincing on the subject and made me think that maybe I was wrong. The science of MMGW has never been really openly discussed. As long ago as the late '90s Tony Blair said that the science had already been decided and that was an end of the matter. It would be really interesting to have an extended TV programme discussing the science in an open mannere, presented in a way that the layman could understand. and presenting both sides of the argument but the last organistaion you would trust to do that is the BBC. They have been MMGW propgandists ever since Blair told them the science had been decided.

    Christopher Scopes

    PS Apologies for posting as anonymous but I can't get the hang of this selcting profile!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The BBC licence fee is not collected under the threat of imprisonment to allow people to indulge themselves in this way. (Peter Hitchens it should be added to most of the items on your blog)

    Christopher Scopes

    Sorry I meant to add that to my post!

    Christopher Scopes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This post today on WUWT is worth a watch
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/02/john-christy-climate-video/

      Delete
  3. Rog desperately drumming up support here:

    https://twitter.com/rharrabin/status/816568434016260096

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rule #1 in effect? I can't quite tell.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have it from the BBC Complaints Unit that BBC presenters do not need to make sure that their statements are objectively truthful. I was told by the BBC Complaints Unit that the test of what presenters can say is whether or not listeners/viewers would be misled by something they say. And who exactly makes that judgement? Well, the BBC, of course. On you go, presenters. say whatever you like. Actually, that's not quite correct. When a few Rangers supporters objected to something a BBC presenter had said the BBC made the presenter issue an apology.Even though what the reporter had said was true. So the moral of all this is that if the BBC dislikes you their presenters can say what they like but if the BBC likes you then presenters have to be very careful. Rangers FC, by the way, or many of their supporters at least, have close connections with the Orange Order. That tells you a lot about BBC Scotland.

    ReplyDelete