Skip to content

Harrabin Complaint

February 4, 2021

By Paul Homewood



I have just sent the BBC this complaint about Harrabin’s latest report on the Cumbria coal mine:



It would help if we could get a number of complaints made, as I believe this tends to get noticed more at the BBC.

If you want to complain, you can do it on line here:


It only takes a few minutes, and you need to specify you want a reply. Please try and use your own wording.

You will also need the link to the original report, which is here.



  1. Skipper permalink
    February 4, 2021 6:23 pm

    Well said and will do

  2. psychedelia smith permalink
    February 4, 2021 6:24 pm


    This is a complaint about your journalist Roger Harrabin and his relentless bias against anything that might remotely help us out of our forthcoming catastrophic UK energy crisis. His frankly unhinged, vitriolic, fact-free attacks on the new coal mine at Whitehaven are an ongoing disgrace and as a licence fee payer we do not consent to having our money spent on propaganda.

    This being a specific and commonly egregious example:

    As a publicly funded broadcaster you are required to present all of the facts on something as important as this to the public.

    Our energy supply situation has been ignored for years and is now a dire threat to UK society. We are currently heading for regular blackouts. Relying solely on consistently unreliable tax payer subsidised wind energy is not an option. This coal mine will be essential for helping keep the lights and heating on in the UK, businesses running and the economy recovering. It will provide thousands of jobs, help bring us greater energy security and will literally save lives.

    If Roger Harrabin’s sole concern is global warming then he needs to publish scientific evidence that this coal mine will increase the mild 1C of warming we have seen over the past 120 years. He also might address the fact that China increased their coal capacity by three times the rest of the world in 2020 while the UK put out just 1% of all global emissions.

    I have been following Roger Harrabin for a while now. His reports on the climate are opinion based, anecdotal, fact-free and flatly ignore both current and historical weather and climate data preferring instead to whip up groundless fear, panic and doom. That you continue to allow him to operate this agenda is entirely unacceptable.

    In all respects Roger Harrabin is a broken product BBC and we do not see why we should continue funding him. We request his removal from the BBC immediately. He is in flagrant breach of your charter.

  3. Alexander Gwynn permalink
    February 4, 2021 6:35 pm

    Excellent..I support you 100%… Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THATSent: 04 February 2021 18:23To: alecgwynn@gmail.comSubject: [New post] Harrabin Complaint Paul Homewood posted: "By Paul Homewood     I have just sent the BBC this complaint about Harrabin’s latest report on the Cumbria coal mine:      It would help if we could get a number of complaints made, as I believe this tends to get noticed mor"

  4. Alexander JC Gwynn permalink
    February 4, 2021 6:36 pm

    Excellent..I support you 100%

  5. Thomas Carr permalink
    February 4, 2021 6:36 pm

    Will do. I have signed a petition in favour of the coal mine.

  6. Chris permalink
    February 4, 2021 6:37 pm

    Probably worth sending to a few papers.

    I listened to some US green person tell the BBC what Boris should do re the coal mine – the local MP’s argument was perfectly sensible as to why U.K. coming coal was needed.

    Would like to put the Geol Soc debacle in the press too.


    Sent by CJ Matchette-Downes


  7. Jeff Stubbs permalink
    February 4, 2021 6:39 pm

    Deservedly so. It’s outrageous they can be so biased and unbalanced. No explanation about what the high grade coming coal is for. Joyous videos of demolishing coal plants thirty years ago. I’m sending my complaint in this evening. Thanks for all you do, Paul. Jeff

    Sent from my iPad


  8. Chris Matchette-Downes permalink
    February 4, 2021 6:40 pm

    ….coking coal was needed.

    From: Chris Sent: 04 February 2021 18:38 To: NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT Subject: Re: [New post] Harrabin Complaint

    Probably worth sending to a few papers.

    I listened to some US green person tell the BBC what Boris should do re the coal mine – the local MP’s argument was perfectly sensible as to why U.K. coming coal was needed.

    Would like to put the Geol Soc debacle in the press too.


    Sent by CJ Matchette-Downes

  9. Christopher Hall permalink
    February 4, 2021 6:48 pm

    Done my complaint. Thanks for prompt.

  10. Christopher Hall permalink
    February 4, 2021 6:50 pm

    Here is the text of my complaint. Expecting the usual brush off.


    Poor reporting in the news resulting in bias 

    BBC One news was reporting on the refusal of the government to reverse its decision to allow a new coal mine in Cumbria. Although the local mayor was allowed to say it was a coking coal mine, all the emphasis was on the opposition by a host of « environmental » organisations.
    The new underground mine will clearly be designed with minimal impact on the visual environment and has a high level of local support. It will provide employment in a deprived area of the UK.
    The coal will be used to make steel, not to generate electricity. At present coking coal for steel has to be imported. There is no substitute for coal in the majority of steel making. Importing coal from overseas only « exports » whatever problems the opposers foresee and in fact add to the carbon footprint by the energy used in transporting it.
    The UK continues to require steel. Steel is an integral part of everyone’s life. It is grossly hypocritical to spout green rhetoric whilst importing either steel or coking coal for our steel industry.
    The BBC gave far too much credence to the position of those opposing the mine and showed bias and lack of impartiality by failing to give the other side of the picture. A picture which actually must conclude that overall, this mine will provide positive benefits to the UK, its economy and the overall global carbon emission situation. 

  11. psychedelia smith permalink
    February 4, 2021 6:52 pm

    Oh and thanks for the BBC feedback form the other week Paul. Here’s a megamix of what they got..

    (Why did you give the BBC a score of 1?)

    What used to be a reliable dependable product is now fundamentally broken. Before I say the following I need you to understand that I don’t affiliate with any particular political ideology or tribe, I just believe in liberty, fairness, balance, rationality and rigorous science but it is clear to most people now that the BBC are the official mouthpiece of a nasty little divisive leftist bourgeoise cult. Their output no longer serves any purpose apart from to stoke division and further their own self-aggrandising goals. Their overall news output has less balance, substance and fact than a press release from the Kim dynasty and their reporting over the pandemic and their fanatical support for lockdowns is an ongoing disgrace. These lockdowns are predicted to cause more UK deaths than WW2 but all we see from the BBC is the orchestrated attacking and smearing of anyone who dares to question these insane policy decisions. The BBC’s moral compass is smashed beyond repair and their output is a cheap flatulent cocktail of finger wagging junk science crisis porn mixed with ‘wokeist’ patronising bilge.
    Quite honestly I’d rather watch a live toilet feed from Wetherspoons.

    The BBC abandoned any pretence of scientific or political impartiality long ago. One of the most constantly egregious examples of their bias is their reporting on climate change. We never hear any facts from the BBC that might remotely put anything into historical perspective or reduce the hype. All we get is provocative baseless fear mongering about record temperatures and rising sea levels.

    15 years ago the BBC were reporting the Maldives would be underwater by now. Instead they’re busy building 15 new airports to go with their massive new international runway on Male. BBC climate hero Leonardo Di’Caprio loses so much sleep over rising sea levels and global warming he’s just bought a giant beach front resort in Belize. Sea level rises give BBC global warming idols Barack Obama and Al Gore such terrifying nightmares they’ve both bought huge sea front mansions on the East and West coasts respectively. According to satellite data sea levels are still rising at around 3mm a year with no evidence of acceleration. Yet this is a fact we will never hear from the BBC. Currently archeologists are finding agricultural equipment and tools thousands of years old under melting glaciers in Norway neatly demonstrating that temperatures were warmer in the past with no industrialisation. We have not heard a thing about this on the BBC.
    Last week both Spain and Korea broke their coldest temperature records but again, we heard not a peep from the BBC. Wasn’t it only about ten years ago the BBC were telling us that children in ten years time “won’t know what snow is”?

    If the BBC were truly impartial it would be presenting both sides of a global warming debate and allowing guests on who would put things into perspective and try to balance the standard view that we’re all about to die in a giant CO2 induced climate fire storm.

    They BBC might start by analysing the premise that we are currently in a “climate emergency” at 413ppm, yet we exist in one of the lowest periods of CO2 in the Earth’s history. Then they could go on to tell us why there was no climate ‘tipping point’, runaway warming or mass global extinction 30 million years ago when CO2 levels were around 12-15 times higher than they are today. The BBC have been telling us for years that 425ppm is the CO2 tipping point into runaway warming and no return. So if the BBC were truly agenda-less, impartial and interested in actual science, I’d like to see them explain to their viewers why this didn’t happen in the past when there were much higher levels of CO2. Then maybe the viewers could make up their own minds as to whether they are facing another ‘mass extinction’ instead of being force fed a nasty diet of Nostradamus flavoured catastrophe porn by the BBC.

    The fact that the BBC have an unspoken ban on anyone who questions the AGW orthodoxy or anyone who is critical of the unfolding humanitarian disaster of lockdown is enough for me. I’m out. Your product is broken beyond repair and I’m no longer funding it.

    • Vernon E permalink
      February 5, 2021 11:18 am

      All correct but random ranting across the water front doesn’t get anywhere. Like all dealings with the BBC and government including planning objections the only things they read are specific, supported and unchallengable objections.

  12. February 4, 2021 6:54 pm

    I would love to hear a live debate on the Beeb between Paul and Horrorbin; the latter would be comprehensively demolished. Will complain – again as done it before but maybe if they get enough complaints this time someone will notice.

    • Mack permalink
      February 4, 2021 8:00 pm

      Hairbrain would run a mile from a fair and proper debate. When he once bewailed the ‘unprecedented’ nature of modern man made global warming on his FB page by using flourishing rose trees in his January garden as an example, I pointed out that it was so unprecedented that Samuel Pepys had made the very same observation, albeit @350 years earlier, and that was bang in the middle of the depths of the Little Ice Age, long before the Industrial Revolution. Yup, totally unprecedented. Needless to say, he blocked me from making any further inconvenient observations.

  13. Phoenix44 permalink
    February 4, 2021 6:58 pm

    Sent something similar, pointing out that political opinions from scientists are not science but politics and thus the BBC has a statutory duty to balance them. Hiding behind the political opinions of scientists by pretending they are science is not acceptable and the BBC needs to start separating what they might believe is “settled Climate science” and the political views of those scientists and the activists who believe the science is settled.

    We can only win by getting politics back to where it belongs, partisan, not proven, opion and NOT science.

  14. Aaron Halliwell permalink
    February 4, 2021 7:02 pm

    Harrabin’s website report is certainly terribly biased. However, perhaps there are some at the BBC who cling to old reporting values.

    The report on North West Tonight this evening (Thus) pitted James Hansen and a young environmental campaigner against the Mayor of Copeland and the local MP, Trudy Harrison.

    I’d say the Mayor and Trudy won hands down!

    • mikewaite permalink
      February 4, 2021 10:31 pm

      I saw it, they did.

    • Colin Grice permalink
      February 6, 2021 10:26 pm

      You often find the local BBC and other media are less afflicted with the London based obsessions spouting from thee closed circles of academia

  15. Ben Vorlich permalink
    February 4, 2021 7:42 pm

    I’d already submitted a complaint when I read this.

    One thing that amuses me is the scowls that permanently adorn the features of Harrabin, Heap, Shukman and their ilk. I assume it’s to convey the seriousness of the situation

  16. Charles Robert Bradshaw permalink
    February 4, 2021 8:13 pm

    Paul, done. Not likely to produce a significant change in BBC’s behaviour.

  17. Ian W permalink
    February 4, 2021 8:30 pm

    As the coal will be coking coal for steel making, one of the byproducts from making coke is hydrogen – supposedly the fuel of the future. Actually in the past it was known as coal-gas or town-gas and was piped to homes for heating and cooking. This could be done again and should please the ‘greens’ if dressed up in the right language.

  18. February 4, 2021 8:43 pm

    Complaint made.

  19. Coeur de Lion permalink
    February 4, 2021 9:03 pm

    Will complain tomorrow. This will be my fifth containing Harrabin. I always refer to his illegal conspiracy of September. 2006 ably described by Andrew Montford in ‘The Propaganda Bureau’. I always suggest he be sacked for bringing contempt onto the BBC. Replies are the usual ‘ignorance, puerile sophistry and disdain’

  20. Is it just me? permalink
    February 4, 2021 9:04 pm

    Done. In my own words? Very much so!

  21. David Howkins permalink
    February 4, 2021 9:28 pm

    Complaint submitted to BBC

  22. February 4, 2021 9:38 pm

    I have done mine but not as good as some on here.

  23. Robert Jones permalink
    February 4, 2021 9:44 pm

    My complaint has just gone to the BBC. I threw in a gratuitous complaint about the Climate Change Committee for good measure.

  24. February 4, 2021 10:42 pm

    I see people here saying they have complained to the BBC
    I expect none of them will follow through
    The BBC will basically throw you complaint in the bin and light another cigarette using a crisp tenner from your licence fee.

    With BBC complaints have to keep going hard right through to the last stage of the process

    • February 4, 2021 11:00 pm

      It’s no use saying ‘a nasty man who I don’t like was quoted’. The BBC bod will look at your long complaint, assume you are just venting and call you a Green-inker.
      If you are lucky they’ll glance and pick the weakest part of you mail, like where you gave AN OPINION, and use that part to dismiss the whole thing.

      IMHO short complaints which actually specify which parts of the Editorial Guideline have been broken stand more chance. For one thing that shows more respect for the people who have to read complaints.

  25. February 5, 2021 12:14 am

    this @bbcNWT video will expire at 7pm on Friday
    The seg intro is at 9 minutes And really begins at 9m20s
    and it wraps up with the reporter quoting FoE
    ‘bad for the Climate Summit’ at 12m25s

    The Clueless Climate Kid thinks the coalmine is for an energy project.

  26. February 5, 2021 6:17 am

    Yet again the BBC is going to enforce impartiality!

    In a statement, The BBC explained that impartiality is the bedrock of the broadcaster: “Full commitment to impartiality is the bedrock of the BBC and what our audiences expect.”


  27. Paul Brooks permalink
    February 5, 2021 8:06 am

    This appeared on the BBC News front page last evening then disappeared overnight:

    Not even on the ‘science’ page when I checked

    BBC doubling down with more activist biased reporting

    • February 5, 2021 8:43 am

      I notice that there is no authorship of the article. Obviously another unqualified, biased and anonymous “environment correspondent”.

  28. Neil Turner permalink
    February 5, 2021 9:32 am

    Hi Paul.
    A few years ago, after many complaints to the BBC had been ignored, I asked them under FOI for the total number of complaints received over the previous 5 year period, how many upheld, how many rejected.
    Long story short, they refused under the Biden ruling as they claimed it involved ‘art, journalism or literature’. I appealed, involved my MP, etc. They threatened me with legal costs, eventually caved in.
    Bottom line was 1.25 million complaints, of which only 0.014% were upheld at old stage 2, Editorial Control Unit.
    Youve more chance of being hit by a meteorite than getting a complaint upheld.
    Id be happy to pass the report to you if it’s of interest.

    • Ben Vorlich permalink
      February 5, 2021 12:41 pm

      I’m not telling my wife that number. She always tells me my complaints will fail. I say it does me good to get it off my chest.

      These days I always respond and send the ball back over the net. Again no success but the only way to counter the flood is a drip drip response

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        February 5, 2021 3:14 pm

        I won my battle with Harrabin over his misleading use of 2012 CFD base prices without mentioning that they were 2012 prices, not current or future ones. So that’s 1 out the 175.

        It did take persistence of course, and sticking to argument on facts.

      • A man of no rank permalink
        February 5, 2021 4:19 pm

        As instructed, my complaint has gone in to the BBC. As Neil says it will just get ignored. This is why I troll the Mail and Express online news to make comments and click the like button. I find that punchy short sentences get most attention:
        Green policies will make paupers of working people.
        Landslide beckons for the party stating there is no Climate Emergency.
        Forget car ownership, Spanish holidays, affordable heat and food.
        Your grandchild’s job will be sent to China.
        Would love to receive more ideas.
        And by the way, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of support for ‘Climate Emergency’ in these Comments sections.

  29. Gillespie Robertson permalink
    February 5, 2021 9:43 am

    One really significant element of which most commentators appear ignorant is that “coking” coal is NOT the same as the “thermal” coal used to generate elecricity. It has the relatively rare characteristic of becoming hard coke when heated in the absence of oxygen. Coke is an absolutely essential ingredient for the smelting of iron ore in a blast furnace into molten iron which is then converted into steel. Its rarity means that most coking coal needs to be imported except when economically viable UK resources like this one turn up. Another powerful reason for this project to go ahead — unless we want no more iron-making in the UK.

  30. JohnP permalink
    February 5, 2021 10:52 am

    WUWT had a piece a few days ago pointing out that coking coal was an essential item in the production of silicon for use in manufacturing solar panels. Presumably Boris doesn’t want to include solar panel manufacturing amongst his green jobs bonanza.

    Complain submitted.

  31. Andrew Fairfoull permalink
    February 5, 2021 11:03 am

    Complained to the woke BBC, about their biased reporting. This organisation does not believe in free speech or freedom of thought and should be privatised ASAP!

  32. February 5, 2021 12:47 pm


    [Please stick to facts, not Ad Homs – Paul]

  33. John189 permalink
    February 5, 2021 1:07 pm

    I sent in my complaint this morning. I agree with stewgreen’s comments above – when you write the complaint it’s a bit like playing chess. You have to nail your case. Anticipate how the BBC will try to dismiss your points. Ensure you leave them with nowhere to go!

  34. February 5, 2021 1:13 pm

    But Harrabin is “saving” the planet, how can he be wrong?

    The item made the main news with Justin Rowlatt in charge, he did include other opinions but left telling us that if such things went ahead we would all “suffer”.

    Repent, repent all you non believers.

  35. REM permalink
    February 5, 2021 2:13 pm

    Trouble is it’s everywhere. The Times has the same story today under a headline “Johnson feels the heat over coal mine”. It describes Hansen as a “respected climate scientist”, adding that 70 organisations, including the RSPB, Wildlife Trusts, CPRE, Oxfam, Save the Children, Christian Aid and Care International, have all written to the PM asking him to intervene. With this level of unquestioning bias in what used to be trusted media operations it is impossible, now, to believe anything they produce or publish. I had already given up on the FT and the Telegraph. That’s The Times gone now. There’s nothing left. But they will be front runners with the moans when it all goes pear-shaped.

  36. David permalink
    February 5, 2021 3:16 pm

    I would like to pay tribute to all the people here who still have stamina to listen to the BBC. Many months ago I gave it up because of the fury induced by the constant idiotic referral to climate change on both TV and Radio four. My mental health could just not take any more.

  37. fretslider permalink
    February 5, 2021 3:31 pm

    Thank you, your complaint has now been submitted…

  38. Jack Broughton permalink
    February 5, 2021 5:38 pm

    I was amused that the BBC was crowing yesterday about the Chinese News prog being banned (I’d never even heard of it anyway), they then started criticising Russia Today as being biased. I do watch that and Al Jazeera to get other view-points and both cover many countries and issues while the BBC is totally insular and biased – no climate debate, no Saudi debate, no Israel criticisms allowed: USA’s puppy, unfortunately ITV is identical.

  39. miket permalink
    February 5, 2021 5:47 pm

    Thought I had given up on the complaining to the BBC game in 2010 after a two year contest. However very happy to support this coordinated bunch of complaints.

  40. BLACK PEARL permalink
    February 5, 2021 6:06 pm

    Stopped watching ANY MSM TV long ago and much happier 🙂
    Complaining to the BBC and pointing out their misinformation / propaganda is usually a waste of time, much like writing to my MP who just quotes back the usual propaganda (a cardboard cut out would be as useful & a lot cheaper)

    Full marks to Paul and any others who doggedly keep at it.
    Got silenced by them a long time ago when I outragedly compared Harrabin to a green parrot to one of his colleagues.
    I thought it not not unreasonable !
    Too thin skinned I guess

  41. February 6, 2021 3:57 am


  42. ianprsy permalink
    February 6, 2021 9:13 am

    Added one more to the totality.

  43. Duncan McNeil permalink
    February 6, 2021 4:56 pm

    I went to the BBC website to complain about this article. On finding that the size of complaint form was limited, I decided to go old school and send in an actual letter. The content of the letter is reproduced below. I would like to provide you with a copy of their non-reply as a jpeg. Is this possible?

    Why do I have to pay for the bias displayed and perpetuated by the BBC in almost every programme and article about climate change that it publishes?

    According to the The Royal Charter for the continuance of the British Broadcasting Corporation, the BBC has to provide high-quality, impartial, accurate, factual programming of the highest editorial standards with a range and depth of analysis and content using the highest calibre presenters and journalists. In doing so it should be championing freedom of expression, so that all audiences can engage fully with major local, regional, national, United Kingdom and global issues and participate in the democratic process, at all levels, as active and informed citizens.

    In relation to that statement I have examined in detail a recent article (23/1/21) by Roger Harrabin, a BBC environment analyst. (here) Climate change: Six questions about the Cumbria coal controversy.

    The first elementary mistake made by Mr.Harrabin is that he actually asks seven questions.

    The headline “Pressure is growing on the prime minister to ban a new coal mine in Cumbria.” implies a groundswell of popular support does not want this mine to go ahead. It turns out to be “green groups” and “a spokesperson for islands at risk from climate change”.

    Why is the mine controversial?
    This paragraph starts with 2 sentences the substance of which is “ councillors approved the bid, the scheme did not contravene planning rules and would help diversify jobs.”

    The next 9 sentences rails against the use of coal containing phrases such as “the dirtiest of the fossil fuels driving up global temperatures, alliance of nations to relinquish coal,opening a new mine sends the wrong signal, [not] the morally correct choice. The UK continues to dig more coal,risks undermining climate talks”
    This paragraph does not appear to be very impartial or balanced.

    So why didn’t the government block the mine?
    “Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick could have over-ridden the council, … but he put out a notice saying he would not block permission because it was a “local” issue. The government later told me there were no grounds to block the application under planning law. A spokesperson said leaving the decision to the council aligned with the Tory principle of having decisions taken at the lowest possible tier of government. Environmentalists were furious, defining climate change as the ultimate global problem.”

    I have changed the order of the sentences here to emphasise that there is agreement between the local and national government view on planning law. Then there is the spurious sentence about some unnamed “ Environmentalists” being “furious” whilst taking the time to create their own definition of climate change for the article. I say spurious unless this is Mr. Harrabin’s version of balanced reporting, although it is somewhat lacking in in-depth analysis.

    Was the government under pressure to approve the mine from its own MPs?
    “Yes…. the MPs argued that well-paid manual jobs shouldn’t be turned away.”
    “The local Copeland MP Trudy Harrison is the prime minister’s bag-carrier … and it’s hard to conceive that she did not drop a word in his ear”

    Mr Harriban implies here that it is wrong for MPs to argue to support jobs in their constituency which is a somewhat strange position for anyone to take. I am also sure that there is no official position as “the prime minister’s bag-carrier” and it is pure conjecture about “dropping a word in his ear.”

    Are the local MPs prioritising jobs over climate change?
    “They insist they’re not.” And nothing in this paragraph contradicts that statement.

    “The key to the debate, they say, is that the mine will produce coking coal, which is needed for steel. The government is phasing out thermal coal for power stations by 2025 but has not announced any plans to phase out coking coal.
    The advisory Climate Change Committee says the UK must stop burning coking coal by 2035 in order to hit climate targets. I understand the committee fears if the mine goes ahead its owners and workers will lobby irresistibly to keep it running after that date.
    But the MPs fear that technology to create virgin steel using non-coal methods such as hydrogen won’t be ready by 2035. Mark Jenkinson, Tory MP for nearby Workington, told me: “It’s better for the environment to dig coking coal from Workington than from Wyoming, because it saves on emissions from transport. We can’t let other countries pick up the tab for emissions on our behalf.”

    At this point, Mr.Harriban could have introduced some government figures such as in 2019 the UK imported 6,529,000 tonnes of coal (of which 2,177,000 tonnes were coking coal) from countries such as the USA, Russia,South Africa and even as far away as Australia. He could have then elaborated on the complex questions that arise from discussions involving the merits of using local resources versus importing resources from around the world with the associated carbon footprint implications. And does he really have to use the word fear twice in this section when no-one is actually afraid?

    What do environmentalists say?
    “Environmentalists have long called for a moratorium on new fossil fuels, because already far more has been discovered than the world can burn without causing dangerous climate change.

    The same unnamed environmentalists reappear to make a statement that is not supported by empirical science.

    When John Sauven, from Greenpeace, heard that approving the mine was considered a ‘local’ decision he said: “Let’s hope China doesn’t take the same view – or the world will be toast”.
    This is an astonishing statement fot Mr.Harriban to introduce. It is a well documented fact that China has plans to build the equivalent of one coal fired power station every month for the next 5 years and beyond. So why has he included this ludicrous statement from Greenpeace? And why does Mr.Harriban continue quoting five more sentences from such a biased and ill-informed source?
    There then follows four more sentences wherein the government opposition parties unsurprisingly oppose the government decision. Part of which is “Decarbonised steel is the future” which is absolutely correct. Decarbonised steel is the future .not the present. and probably not anytime in the next 25 years.

    What are the implications for UK steel production including resource security?
    Oops, sorry, MrHarriban seems to have forgotten to seek a balance to the unnamed environmentalist’s view (as usual). He could have contacted the steel industry, who could explain that there is no way currently that we can make steel without coking coal. He could have asked the County Council or the mine owners for their points of view. Maybe next time.

    Did the pressure from MPs influence the decision?

    This paragraph is basically a rehash of the earlier two questions where Mr.Harriban tries to imply political shenanigans rather than taking the opportunity to do an in-depth analysis of this situation.

    Did anyone do wrong?

    Wrong? In what context? Everything preceding this question has implied political motives underlying all decisions. Instead of investigating the scientific and environmental aspects of this situation, under which this article is catalogued, Mr. Harriban has concentrated on social and political views favouring, as usual, his unnamed environmentalists and the totally biased views of Greenpeace.

    “as the UN climate summit looms closer, the government’s ambitions across the board will be increasingly scrutinised to see if it’s walking the climate walk.” finishing the article on politics from a biased point of view

    May I remind you, according to the The Royal Charter for the continuance of the British Broadcasting Corporation, the BBC has to provide high-quality, impartial, accurate, factual programming of the highest editorial standards with a range and depth of analysis and content using the highest calibre presenters and journalists.

    I have taken the time to detail why I think this article is a travesty of your charter and hope you take the time to consider my points and address them in your reply,

  44. avro607 permalink
    February 6, 2021 10:20 pm

    To Hugh Peters above.There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 causes Global Warming or the ill defined Climate Change.
    If there was empirical evidence of their misplaced beliefs,then why do they not publish for the whole world to examine,and dissect.
    Also, if you believe the R.SOC.,then they have presumably rewritten the laws of Thermodynamics.
    Hottels work is still in the Engineers Handbook by the way,and Schack(1962) went as far to say that only at Temps. of 3000 deg C
    would CO2 have any effect.
    Also,physicist Freeman Dyson,who held the Einstein chair at Princeton Uni.,was one of the first of the 30,000 signatories (scientists and engineers) to the Oregon Petition.
    The only power source to this planet is the sun.
    That’s it.

  45. avro607 permalink
    February 7, 2021 1:20 am

    Test for missing comment @22.12.Ah well;lost in the ether.

  46. February 8, 2021 3:51 pm

    Sorry Paul missed this will construct a narrative.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: