Bishop Hill Roger throws down the gauntlet
Nov 20, 2014 BBC Climate: Parliament This morning Roger Harrabin has written something about the Green Climate Fund, the latest wheeze for moving money from the pockets of poor people in rich countries to those of rich people in poor countries, while allowing environmentalists to take their cut. No surprise there.
What was interesting was the way he describes the GWPF:
Benny Peiser from the fossil fuel lobby group GWPF said international climate finance for low carbon development was "a detrimental use of aid money".
A couple of days ago I wrote to Roger about his coverage of the ODI report into fossil fuel subsidies, pointing out that it was essentially a work of fiction. He was apparently too busy to look into the problems with it.
Go figure.
Bishop Hill
GWPF are being fairly blunt
@RHarrabin 'Char comm ruled it wasn't a think tank' - yet another Harrabin lie.
As is Ben Pile:
@RHarrabin Withdraw the lie, and give a fair, truthful description of the GWPF. IT is not an insult to point out that you have lied.
Bishop Hill
The article has now been stealth edited:
Benny Peiser from GWPF said international climate finance for low carbon development was "a detrimental use of aid money".
Reader Comments (114)
Harrabin, is just a clown but cunning with it, and who knows well on which side his bread is buttered.
Whereas, the BBC are a menace to Britain, its culture, traditions, mores and society in general.
Furthermore, it [the BBC] is basting, slowly roasting the nation in the snake oil lies; of left wing dogmatism, the obscenity of political correctness gone mad and it then while holier than thou preaching all pious and sanctimony and ever given to slamming Christianity......while boldly peddling that other far more mendacious eastern ideology - if you please.
The BBC, hides its undergarments which are soiled in the excreta of hypocrisy, paedophilia cover up - of serial proportions and ongoing peculation and expenses scams, and payments errors which defy all correct procedure and proper auditing. Yes, it is funded by the EU - but these are only our taxes via, a different name but it is apt that the corrupt BBC gains from the now renowned, no! infamous Brussels Kleptocracy.
Kill the BBC off and NOW.
The following posted at Harribin's blog:-
"Benny Peiser from the fossil fuel lobby group GWPF said international climate finance for low carbon development was "a detrimental use of aid money".
This is a false statement the GWPF is not a fossil fuel lobby group and Mr Harriban is aware of this. No doubt the BBC would not wish false statements to be made in its name?
"Rogisco" would probably also play with the number 3 on his shirt.
@Paul
Richard North has been banging on about this for some time now.... Anyone know what's happened to his eureferendum blog which has disappeared?
It's a shame if it has gone. Richard North is an exceptionally good researcher. Unfortunately, he has two major weaknesses - he won't listen to any other point of view apart from his own, and when he is challenged on this he won't explain his position, but simply responds with insults. I have stopped going to EUReferendum for this reason...
The BBC is NOT the Greenpeace Blog
Loose, inaccurate & loaded language like " the fossil fuel lobby group GWPF" is one expects on the Greenpeace blog
- The public funded platform of the BBC is a wholly different context ..such misleading spin isn't appropriate or legal from a BBC "journalist" as @Steve points out
- If it was any other cause/topic the description would just be quickly corrected to something accurate
- Seems it's just cheap spin that Roger accurately thinks he can get away with and such green activists like him have a habit of never admitting a mistake for pathological fear letting the side down.
But this one action is just an indication of systematic misleading for Climate Alarmism by Roger Haw Haw
- I hope that the other BBC staff realise that RH's actions harm the public's confidence in the BBC* such that eventually more of them will end up redundant.
* The evidence for the publics falling in confidence is the Roger Black ECIU Green teams own research that shows the public don't believe them "Study shows widespread misconceptions about energy and climate change"
its not the BBC turning a blind eye to overpaid leftwing scumbags like this Harrabin: it is the BBC BEING such leftwing scumbags like Harrabin.
And they "survive" via paying themselves out handsome salaries and indefinite entitlements from a coerced Goebbelsian Schutsstaffel tax.
I wonder when/why/where a societal majority was found to THIEVE away money out of my pocket for years on end??
Maybe one of our "fine" career shittipants politicians can one day formulate an answer on that one eh ..Hmmmm
The BBC IS the problem, together with all the rest of the red rat public media fascist institutes in Europe.
Point well made @Dodgy Geezer. There is a touch of arrogance. Funny when climategate one first made news he dismissed it out of hand so I put up a comment that he was wrong and it was a potential game changer. Following that he couldn't get enough of the story. Perhaps he's merely forgot to renew his ownership of the website. Who knows?
@guirme
...I have formally complained to the BBC - I would urge all readers to do so. I strongly resent the licence fee, which I am compelled to pay, being used for propaganda purposes...
...
Er.. No, you're not compelled to pay it. I don't, and haven't for some years now.
The reason is that everything I need is on the web. The BBC no longer provide expert analysis of any issue - they simply regurgitate what comes to them over Reuters, or copy 'trending' information off blogs. I simply read the blogs, and get the data a few days earlier.
Films and TV shows, if you want to see them, are all available on iPlayer for no license fee. I'm not that interested in sports, so there really is no reason for me to keep funding a bunch of lobotomised London lefty lunatic lemmings....
@Stacey that BBC page must be swarming with dramagreens already the comment you mentioned has -8 likes (minus !)
That kind of stuff is how Harrabin and the Dramagreens help kids themselves that their fantasy view of the universe is realityand this has +6 likes
Michael Hart: ""Rogisco" would probably also play with the number 3 on his shirt."
Isn't #2 the "Left Back" position? ;-) (Or have I missed the significance to #3?)
@HP The BBC Eco-Warriors Team used to have a... Left Black playing for them
(until Richard Black left to become an openly paid full time climate-alarm lobbyist)
Who are these poor developing countries receiving money from UK taxpayers for climate action?
There are some obviously worthy causes on the list:
India – funding the mission to Mars is obviously something of a priority for Indian taxpayers therefore the Indian Ministry of Environment & Forests has to look elsewhere.
Saudi Arabia – with the crude oil price dipping to below $80 the Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources is being forced to seek outside assistance.
Syria – the Director of Atmosphere Safety Directorate at the Ministry of State for Environment Affairs is clearly having a bit of problem protecting the poor in Syria from climate change.
Members of the Ban Ki Moon High Level Climate Finance Panel set up to think of ways to garner $100 billion a year by 2020, included Lord Stern, George Soros, Chris Huhne and Christine Lagarde, now of the IMF.
“The Advisory Group emphasized the importance of a carbon price in the range of US$20-US$25 per ton of CO2 equivalent in 2020 as a key element of reaching the US$100 billion per year.
The higher the carbon price, the steeper the rise in available revenues and the stronger the mutual reinforcement of abatement potentials and different measures.”
Among the proposals put forward by the group were taxes on aviation jet fuel, airline passenger tickets, and "bunker fuel," the heavy diesel fuel used by maritime shippers.
Revenues from carbon taxes were also proposed based on a tax on carbon emissions in developed countries raised on a per-ton-emitted basis."
"High Level Climate Finance"
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/high_level_climate_finance.html
http://sppiblog.org/news/a-nest-of-carbon-vipers
No Harry, right back is 2. Left back is 3.
Harrabin, the BBC, and that ilk are responsible for rapidly rising electricity prices. The EIA details the growing gap between EU and USA prices.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=18851
And yet, Harrabin insults those who wish energy were cheaper and more reliable. It is a mad, mad world.
Blobster
@Paul
.. There is a touch of arrogance.....
It is easy to fall into that trap when you really know what you are talking about. As he does. What you have to remember is that you are publicising data and opinions on a blog in order to transmit them to people and get them accepted more widely - not so that you can gain a coterie of adoring disciples. Having people tell you how clever you are is very enjoyable (so people tell me!) but that's not really where the prize is....
Isn't #2 the "Left Back" position? ;-) (Or have I missed the significance to #3?)
Nov 20, 2014 at 2:53 PM | Harry Passfield
Perhaps it's time that Roger should be promoted to "Left Outside."
Au contraire Paul,
Although as we are told large numbers of Ukip supporters are" Dave's", neither we nor Ukip is not too thick to appreciate the value and to take advantage of this kind of foolish waste of money.
My dislike of BBC bias overtook my appreciation of their entertainment output years ago. Today I just cannot wait to see the BBC lose its funding. People like Harrabin regularly remind me of that.
Roger Haw Haw reassuringly biased
the Skeptics biggest recruiting tool is dramagreens like him, with their deception, bullying, unfairness etc.
People who hadn't paused for thought, when they come up against such dirty propaganda tricks ..stop and think and start checking their facts.
- Likewise UKIP's biggest recruiting tool is that it is so obvious that certain BBC staff are so passionate about fighting UKIP
- probably works the same with with the Oz Liberal Party and the ABC's fanatic bias against it
A small observation. I have noticed on many occasions how BBC 5 Live use very early morning news bulletin to push green news. 6 and 7am seems to be their preferred chosen times, yet magically by 8am such articles seem to vanish.
I have often wondered if it's a combination of subconsciously waking the population to on-message green propaganda or just filling light news mornings until proper news starts coming through.
On this morning's programme Davey claimed we'd built £29b of new Renewables since 2010. If so, how come we've got a capacity margin crisis?
Paging the Panorama team
- Reporter John Sweeny has stood up to the Scientologists, busted the Fake Sheikh
but has he got the balls to handle Harrabin & the Greenblob ?
The premise of Interstellar is a bizarre Eco-apocalypse. A Blight is killing crops, somehow that decreases oxygen and increases nitrogen. Were does extra nitrogen come from? Plant decay would increase carbon dioxide to a few percent.
The sci-tech is pretty bad: large rocket lifts of inside building, small rocket planes lift off without fuel tanks, nobody dies from radiation given off by black holes, etc.
I was just on my way to complain to Aunty Beeb when I noticed that the article cited now says (claimed Last updated at 07:33):
<quote>Benny Peiser from GWPF said international climate finance for low carbon development was "a detrimental use of aid money"</quote>
I think there is an interweb thingey that tracks changes but can't find it - anyone?
(I do think Harrabin is a man out of his time; 1970's Soviet Weekly always comes to mind when I read his stuff)
Gareth is 100% correct. The Beeb has "corrected" the article. No explanation at all why they did this and no comment from harrabin. I can only assume that the only reason they altered it, was that their 'briefs' told them it was potentially libellous.
Here, Gareth.
I found it by searching Yahoo, using the title, and clicked on the "cached" version. Google's cached version was later and didn't contain the phrase. I don't know how long the cached versions remain, so I would take a copy or screen capture quickly.
Capell.
The now shelved new development at Kingsnorth - coal generation would have cost £1.7 billion producing 1.6GW [guaranteed].
...... £29 billion COULD provide us with oodles and lots of guaranteed lecky - provided: you don't spend it building bird mincers and sundials. Thank you for Britain's blackouts, Ed Miliband, Chris Huhne, and least of all - potatoEd Davey.
Gareth, I've posted a link, but it seems lost in moderation at the moment. I have a copy. You can find it by searching using Bing/Yahoo using the title and then clicking on "cached". The Google cached version is only the later version.
Harragate.
Rojja Bin-Hazza
Unsheathes his little scimitar to slash at the truth and hack at the hopes of the world's poorest.
I'm sure the Islington Toffs, assorted African dictators, not to mention Putin and Sir Reginald Sheffield will be really grateful.
Perhaps a BBC sustained only by wind and solar power would bring fresh air and enlightenment?
Nov 20, 2014 at 3:10 PM | Chairman Al
Al, add to that list, the Republic of South Africa whose President Zuma appropriates enormous quantities of public funds to build luxury homes and compounds for himself and his broad family.
Apparently there is a clamor there to have him removed from office for corruption and conspiracy.
So yesterday Harrabin was tweeting
"P.S withdraw the insult or this conversation stops"
Then some time yesterday evening he took his own advice, edited the article and withdrew the insult. And the article was closed to further comments.
GWPF:
"...the group does not disclose their funding sources, they claim to be “funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts.” The organization also claims that it does not “accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.”
Strange thing though is that only about 1.6% of its contributions appear from individual members (less than £9k from an annual take of £500k in 2010). Anyone here any idea on where the balance of their contributions come from?
Thanks michael hart & Joe Public - complaint now sent:
"The Think Tank GWPF was wrongly described in the article by BBC journalist Roger Harrabin as a "fossil fuel lobby". It is not, and describing it as such is a distortion of fact which is likely to mislead readers. For readers who are aware that the GWPF is not a "fossil fuel lobby" it is likely to undermine trust in the BBC.
Although the description was removed in a later revision of the article, I believe its use is characteristic of this journalist, who often seems to write more as a Green lobbyist than as an independent and unbiased reporter. I would request that the BBC apologise on behalf of Mr Harrabin and ensure that his output is monitored for accuracy and lack of bias."
According to Auntie their daily complaints report "is one of the most widely read reports in the BBC" - presumably so they can have a good scoff at the witterings of the plebs...
Whether we like it or not GWPF are referred to as and widely understood to be a fossil fuel lobby group.
Disclosing its funding sources would put this to bed and so prompt Roger H and BBC to apologize for this slight. Suggest with the message above we also send a note to GWPF to ask for greater clarity. I suspect they would do it more readily for yourselves than they would a request from the BBC?
Before/After Screenshot of the secret change to remove the loaded smear phrase "from the fossil fuel group"
I would say it is misleading to make such critical changes without explanation
Screenshot of the top of page to show timing
..Just in case anyone else didn't do it @Michael Hart
Another tack: from what I can see (on Wiki) Roger H only studied English. Helpful admittedly if you want to become a journo. Just because he has been following this area and interviewing climate scientists for 20yrs does not cover his lack of formal science background.
Position that with Benny Peiser's background -
"Peiser studied political science, English, and sports science". Two more instances of "science" than Roger H.
Ah yes, the stealthy, the Right Horrible Harrabin
GWPF:
"...the group does not disclose their funding sources, they claim to be “funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts.” The organization also claims that it does not “accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.”
Strange thing though is that only about 1.6% of its contributions appear from individual members (less than £9k from an annual take of £500k in 2010). Anyone here any idea on where the balance of their contributions come from?
..posted again as I think that this may have been missed. This could settle this one.
Whether we like it or not GWPF are referred to as and widely understood to be a fossil fuel lobby group.
Disclosing its funding sources would put this to bed and so prompt Roger H and BBC to apologize for this slight. Suggest with the message above we also send a note to GWPF to ask for greater clarity. I suspect they would do it more readily for yourselves than they would a request from the BBC?
..and again. Throwing back the gauntlet.....:)
When do we expect anything from BBC?
Can't find anything obvious to funding sources on GWPF site. However this is their email address
email: info@thegwpf.org
so maybe in tandem we can request info.
so it seems the phrase "last updated" on bbc.co.uk news stories is just decoration as stories can be materially altered without it that acknowledged time changing
,, I wonder what "BBC Style Guide" & "editorial code" say on the matter ?
(DNFTT ..but people who wonder why GWPF need to protect individual donors from threat, might want to search for the times that Greenpeace and al sent "We know where you live" messages to skeptics )
Whack a mole
The main funder of the GWPF is Michael Hintze .
But they know where GWPF are (its on their website) and that seems to have kept them safe? Seems a shame that the ravings of a hot headed activist prevents the scoring of a moral victory over RH & BBC.
I'd suggest then that just the name of the individual and no address or of it's an organisation or trust then that address of an energy company is freely available anyway. List only those contributions over say 10k? That should suffice. Will see what they say and get back here..
Thanks Entropic Man.
Post must have crossed whilst was busy....will take a look.
20 November 2014 Last updated at 07:33.....
In the walls of the cubicle there were three orifices. To the right of the speakwrite, a small pneumatic tube for written messages, to the left, a larger one for newspapers; and in the side wall, within easy reach of Winston's arm, a large oblong slit protected by a wire grating. This last was for the disposal of waste paper. Similar slits existed in thousands or tens of thousands throughout the building, not only in every room but at short intervals in every corridor. For some reason they were nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building.[5]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole
Update on Nov 21, 2014 by Bishop Hill
The article has now been stealth edited
'Stealth edit' makes it seem a wee bit too evolutionary and acceptable in professional news terms.
It's really not.
The BBC trumpets trust and transparency at the drop of a senior executive's spokesperson's hat, yet they keep running propaganda and only change it when totally held to account and forced to.
And then in the most weaselly, 'hope no one will notice' manner possible. And in the age of the internet, archive caches, page grabs, etc, thereby making things worse.