Response To Roger Harrabin
By Paul Homewood
The Telegraph have published this letter from Roger Harrabin:
I have submitted this to the Telegraph in reply:
Dear Sir
Roger Harrabin’s defence of the BBC’s coverage of climate change highlights everything that is wrong with it. (Letters – 14th August).
He makes claims about wildfires, but omits to mention that they have been declining worldwide in recent years. He talks of record temperatures in America, but forgets to mention that the vast majority of US State records were set before the 1940s.
He talks of catastrophic floods, but offers no evidence that these are anything out of the ordinary. As for the loss of Antarctic sea ice, which so concerns him, he does not mention that it was at a record high extent as recently as 2014.
In contrast to the BBC’s apocalyptic view of climate change, the IPCC regularly finds no evidence that floods, droughts or hurricanes are getting worse.
Meanwhile all of the scare stories promoted by the BBC over the years, such as an ice free Arctic and catastrophic sea level rise, have failed to materialise.
For years the BBC has exaggerated the threat of climate change, failed to report evidence to the contrary and used every bit of bad weather as evidence without ever providing the full context.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Brilliant! Let’s see how he wriggles out of that!
It’ll be interesting to see if the DT publishes this response to Harrabin’s doom mongering
Indeed………..
Why wouldn’t they? They frequently run climate doom sceptical articles
“Catastrophic floods after unprecedented rainfall are killing people in China” is hokum by Harrabin.
An ex-BBC Enviro Analyst really ought to learn about China’s weather.
WikiP informs:
“The heaviest rainfall was recorded along the Banqiao Dam where 1,631 mm (64.2 in) of rain fell, 830 mm (33 in) of which fell in a six-hour span. These rains led to the collapse of the Banqiao Dam, which received 1-in-2000-year flood conditions …”
The Climate wankers are getting desperate. More and more persons in the street realise that they purvey absolute bull faeces.
We must continue exposing their nonsense.
“Dr” Roger Harrabin. English Graduate.
“Honorary” science doctorate.
Is that better or worse than “unsubmitted PhD Thesis almost Dr” Bob Ward of the Grantham Institute?
I note he is writing as if from St Catharine’s. He is thankfully no more than an Honorary Fellow.
https://www.caths.cam.ac.uk/directory/roger-harrabin
I note they accord him no other title.
I wrote – in comments – that he was guilty of misrepresentation as his readers may not know that his Doctorate was honorary and not in any of the sciences. As such, I claimed, his was guilty of misrepresentation.
He has a degree in English. He knows no science.
Similarly, didn’t the Nobel committee issue a ‘correction’ statement after Dr Michael Mann falsely claimed he was a Nobel prize winner?
For the record, in 2012, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to … the EU.
I wrote this to the Telegraph, though they didn’t publish it.
Yack of Doom
Sir
The great propagandist is at it again (‘The climate threat’, Letters, August 15). There are so many wild and alarmist inaccuracies in Roger Harrabin’s assertions that it would take up the space of an entire letters page to rebut them all. I will, therefore, content myself with questioning his definition of the word ‘unprecedented’ as it relates to recent rainfall in China. Even his hysterical erstwhile chums at the BBC confirmed that the rainfall was the worst in 140 years – which means not only that it has happened before, but that it occurred at a time when the industrial revolution was in its infancy and could not possibly be held accountable.
It is also worth noting that Harrabin signed off his letter as ‘Dr.’ in a clear attempt to bolster his credibility. However, his doctorate is honorary and he is, therefore, no more entitled to use that prefix than was the late Diana, Princess of Wales.
Rory Mulvihill
Naburn
York
07860 840296
Rory, that’s delicious
Thanks, Foxbarn
Foolish false claim for competence to be inferred from the use of “Dr” explains the lack of intellectual rigour. Failure to substantiate as Paul points out says something about journalism. Too much trouble to get it right suggests pressing deadlines or an expectation that the second rate is good enough. If The Telegraph does not publish ‘they’ are complicit in the nonsense.
As we have come to learn from the ascendancy of Attle….h the BBC have seldom shown much concern for checking the facts when it comes to bringing experts onto the pay roll. Nepotism and tacit acceptance of claimed scientific ability have been an easier way of adding specialists to their team.
Excellent letter Mr Mulvhill.
A splendid reply.
Apparently Roger doesn’t even know that cutting emissions enough to matter will take none of the CO2 already added out of the atmosphere to lower global temperatures. But, like the pandemic travel lockdowns it will have serious and damaging effects on global economies.
It will be very interesting to see if this letter gets published….
The Telegraph often publishes sceptical articles and letters. I had one published a whole back.
Well said, Paul. As usual, you are the moderate voice of reason and hard facts amongst the media hysteria led by the BBC.
“They say that we must..
“they” are scientists. They do not understand politics or economics and are not in a position to make our choices for us. That Harrabin thinks climate scientists should decide what we should do is by far the weakest part of his argument.
I hope you use the word ‘scientists’ loosely? The scientists I admire practice true, professional, empirical science, not hysterical, computer modelled bilge
THE THREE RULES OF GROUPTHINK
1. ILLUSION
A group of people come to share a belief that is not based in reality: an illusion.
2. CONSENSUS
As the belief does not match external reality, the group of people resort to hanging onto the only thing they have, a consensus between them that the illusion is reality. From this point, the illusion’s main justification becomes this “consensus”.
3. INTOLERANCE
Any external person to the groupthink with a different view needs to be silenced because the “consensus” becomes the only defence of the illusion. Therefore the groupthink group resorts to censorship, intimidation, and “cancelling” all critical opinions.
The automatic mindset when you want to believe something that you know may be untrue – if everyone holding an alternative view is eliminated then you have 100% agreement, so it must be true, surely?
spot on!
This sums up the current situation perfectly
Not sure about the “hang on”. Their faith in the climate catastrophe narrative is deeply embedded and is not going to be dislodged by mere “facts”. Think of faith in a religion whose tenets can similarly be discounted by even the most rudimentary objective test of their veracity. Adherents have no problem as somewhere in their wiring is a trigger that says my faith is all so I don’t care what you say to the contrary; ultimately what I have faith in trumps all.
I don’t understand it either but it appears to be the situation we face with climate change. It makes me wonder if there are areas in each of our own make-up which are unassailable to contrary facts and we just don’t countenance them or even recognise them for what they are – in one ear and out the other! As a human trait it could even have an evolutionary advantage.
Why climate catastrophism stands out are its policy consequences that are so hugely damaging (which reads like feeble understatement of the year!)
Harribin’s list is juvenile.
It reminds me of the Kinston Trio’s whimsical “Merry Minuet,” 1959.
They’re rioting in Africa
They’re starving in Spain
There’s hurricanes in Florida
And Texas needs rain
The whole world is festering with unhappy souls
The french hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles
Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch
And I don’t like anybody very much!!
But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud
For man’s been endowed with a mushroom-shaped cloud
And we know for certain that some lovely day
Someone will set the spark off
And we will all be blown away!!
They’re rioting in Africa
There’s strife in Iran
What nature doesn’t so to us
Will be done by our fellow man
Please don’t be too surprised if your letter is not published.
Why not? The Telegraph frequently runs climate doom sceptical articles and letters
Quite right. The headmaster of Eton was given a good rinsing in 2 letters in the Sunday Telegraph under the heading “Wokeness at Eton” 4 days ago.
Even if Roger Harrabin refuses to believe the facts, perhaps he can tell us what proof he has that man has made these so called extreme weather conditions about which he postulates.
He can’t, he won’t, he will continue peddling the alarmist narratives that he is paid to do
English graduate, not a scientist
So right! There has to be a more balanced reporting of these events, allowing consideration of other mitigating factors. This is clearly anathema to these so-called experts. What has happened to science that a theory should always be challenged, yet is now occupied by fanatics of a particular point of view ? I find it disgraceful
During last night and early this morning 16th August, all Wind Farms were collectively providing 0.07 GW which was 0.3% of Electricity to the National Grid; Gas 60%; Coal 1.6%; Biomass 5.4%; Nuclear 16.3%; Solar 0%, Hydro 1.1%
What do we do Mr Starmer when you carry put your threat to stop ALL Gas by 2030? Just shut down the Country? Will the BBC and other disingenuous News media ever ask the right questions?
that’s 84.7%, what provides the remaining 15.3%?
French Cable 6.23%; Norway Cable 5.52%: Pumped 0.55% Unmetered Wind farms 0.1%; Taken from http://www.gridwatch .templar.co.uk
Thanks Frank
Yes indeed, I regularly comment on a similar vein: WHY is no one – NOBODY, banging he drum about this ?
Even on the News this morning, I saw Mr HERON standing at the road edge (harbour wall? ) having given up on ponds and seashores. maybe he was sending a subtle message: NO WIND
Great letter Paul – I do believe that more people are waking up to this nonsense and that includes within the media. However, we still keep hearing on the TV that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels yet very few challenge this. Even Farage tonight let the environmentalist get away with this claim. For the most sceptical media coverage of this topic I recommend Julia Hartley-Brewer on TalkTV in the morning.
Agree – the Eon TV advert is a perverse gluttony of deceit and misinformation
Great response Paul
Of course this will fall straight into the Telegraph shredder, but do continue outing their lazy misinformation – we must all work to keep truth & fact in the public domain
The current Editor is a climate crisis supporter from the letters and articles published. I hope Paul’s letter appears but I somehow doubt it.
As an aside, I have family members who have frequented dubai over the years, not me you understand, I could’nt think of anywhere worse, however they have always mentioned that the sea is too warm to swim in and that the pool complexes all have to cool the water to a reasonable temperature.
just sayin’
Professor Jim Skea, the UN’s new head of the IPCC, told the German newspaper Der Spiegel, “We should not despair and fall into a state of shock if global temperatures were to increase by this amount [1.5 degrees C]”
Two of the BBC’s previous predictions which have not materialised :
In 2009 the BBC presicted that Arctic summer ice would disappear by 2013.
In 2019 the BBC reports that the Great Barrier Reef was dying.
JB:
The BBC seems a bit slow. The Great Barrier Reef has been pronounced dead by “scientists” since 1971, and regularly ever since. Its a great way of attracting funding from politicians.
Actually it has a record level of coral growth this year.
Are lie detectors likely to be sensitive to the BBC’s contributors’utterances?
Roger Harrabin.
“He is an honorary Fellow at St. Catharine’s College, Cambridge….. and has received an honorary Doctorate of Science from Cranfield University.”
He studied English at St Catharine’s College, Cambridge. Who needs to get a science degree and then spend 3 years doing research to get a Ph.D. when you can get an honorary one from a University? What did he do to justify this?
Well, Jeremy Grantham’s stooge, Bob ‘fastfingers’ Ward, studied Paleopiezometry for his PhD. But failed.
I have never heard of anyone who succeeded in such a wierd field and can’t imagine how ancient groundwater pressures could be measured or even estimated, or what use they might have. (And I speak as one who took and used current piezometric readings very regularly to check slope stability.)
Obviously, I stand to be corrected. But wonder if this study was actually measuring his gullibility.
None of which has ever stopped him from pouring ignorant abuse on the very best and wisest Real Scientists, including Lindzen, Plimer, Ball, Bob Carter and many others.
Martin, I don’t know for sure but suspect that Bob Ward was studying paleo-stress in metamorphic and structural geology terrains using such features as dislocation densities, sub-grains, twinning in minerals rather than palaeo groundwater levels. The same term is used in both fields.
Thanks, Paul. Your explanation at the very least seems feasible.
Of course, the alternative “Paleopiezometry”, (had I been a great expert in that field), would have made the very large soil structures (spoil heaps and lagoons, but also large impounding reservoir dams) for which I was directly responsible, not a jot safer.
Although new knowledge always attracts me, anyway. Learn something new every day.
I note, anyway, that as in most areas of knowledge and intelligence, Bob Ward failed.
Bob Ward describes it as an unsubmitted PhD thesis
About as useful as a chocolate teapot then?
Yes, Bob describes his PhD as “unsubmitted”.
Certainly, he would say that. Wouldn’t he?
Perhaps his tutor wasn’t very encouraging. Perhaps his Gaffer Jeremy told him that he didn’t need a PhD, because he was a consumate liar anyway.
The fact remains that he is, and always will be, as close to being “Doctor Bob” as I am to being elected Pope Martin VI.
I am happy to point this out because he is such an eggregious and nasty little twerp.
There is no green ‘transition’ to renewable energy. China and India are playing us for fools
In 2022, the human race burned more coal, oil and gas than ever before
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/16/renewable-energy-green-transition-power/
According to the IEA ‘Coal Market Update July 2023’
Global coal demand reached a new all time high in 2022 and a new global record of 10,440 TWh of electricity was generated using coal, that is 36% of the world’s electricity.
China accounts for more than 50% of the world’s coal use with its power sector alone consuming 33%. Add India and their global share rises to 70% meaning China and India together consume more than double the amount of coal as the rest of the world together. They expect China, India and the Asean region to be consuming 76% of the world’s coal by 2024.
I sent the following to the DT, it wasn’t published.
‘Regarding ‘The Climate Threat’ response to Charles Moore from Dr Roger Harrabin. Is it only me that would love to see a debate between him and Mr Paul Homewood?’
Harrabin doesn’t do debate. He gets very angry, and tries to talk over the top of anyone who disagrees with him. It is of course why it was necessary for him to ensure that there was no debate. He can appear vaguely rational to the uninitiated when he is not subject to challenge.
I find Harrabin’s use of the word bizarre odd, to say the least, with respect to a temperature recorded in a country that has a pretty extreme North/South extent, particularly compared to its East/West one, but I do have a science degree……
But not an English one. Therein lies the problem. LOL 🤣
I wondered where I went wrong!!
The BBC has no integrity – it’s morally finished.
Perhaps of interest or just to make you boiling mad….(note how he relies on modelling) He answers a question….
Michael Tobis
·
Climate blogger at http://planet3.org PhD atmospheric and oceanic sciences University of Wisconsin – Madison 1996; thesis in ocean climate modeling.
Question:-
It is often said that 97% of scientists agree that human activity is causing global warming. Who are the 3% of scientists that do not agree, and what is their evidence?
This is a good question.
There are a priori two possible answers for you to consider
1) the 97% are operating with a herd mentality and the 3% have deeper understanding
2) the 97% are roughly correct and the 3% are not really expert in the material
I strongly believe that #2 is the truth. Here are some points for you to consider in evaluating the question.
A – Do the 97% present a coherent theory of how climate works? In fact, we do; the most direct proof is the success of weather/climate models in creating a realistic global climate map as an emergent process of small scale physics.
B – Do the 3% present a coherent theory of how climate works? In fact, they do not. Different critics of the climate mainstream make entirely different arguments against it. There are people who question this or that aspect of the theory, but they present no alternative. Nobody has created a weather/climate model which creates a realistic global climate map which does NOT respond to accumulating greenhouse gases. There is no coherent theory of how the planet might work where greenhouse gas emissions are not causing increasingly dramatic climate change.
C – The motivations of the 97%. Some people suggest that the 97% say what we say as a consequence of funding – that we would get no funding if we “went against the dogma”. While I can tell you from personal experience that this is wrong, you may be disinclined to believe me. But consider what people advancing this idea are really asking you to believe instead. It is difficult to imagine the motivations of the politicians who would push such a thing, because the upshot of the situation is to inconvenience the vast majority of the public, something politicians don’t do without good reasons.
Also a little examination of history will show that the idea that politics drove the science is simply not what happened. A very basic bit of evidence for this is that the science academies of pretty much all countries that have research communities have been sending increasingly strong warnings since about 1990. It’s difficult to imagine a conspiracy working so effectively in parallel across dozens of different countries!
D – The motivations of the 3%.
Consider that in matters of public interest, it is much easier to get public attention by being in the smaller group – the press is likely to seek you out in the interest of “balance”. People who have moved away from real science and into a sort of pundit role, earning their way not through research but through public speaking, will be disproportionately attracted to the minority position as long as there is an audience eager for their reassuring words.
E – Finally, please consider that 3% might be a gross overestimate. Consider that there is not historically an academic discipline of “climatology”; when polling experts you have to trust that the people declaring themselves to be experts really are experts. It’s difficult in such opinion estimation to exclude people who really want their opinions counted. Actual experts would consider an exercise like this a distraction, while political players would be attracted to it like bears to honey. This would indicate that the 3% is not really representative.
So in answer to your question, I think it is no longer possible for *anyone* who is up to date on the science of climate to argue that humans are not dramatically changing the climate. In my view, whether the people who are wrong constitute 3% or 10% or 1% of some roughly determined group isn’t important. Their position is no longer tenable. The evidence against them is overwhelming. They aren’t real experts at all, but are disgruntled fringe characters of various sorts.
Michael Tobis relies on a concoction of completely false premises for his argument.
A. The prediction quality of climate models is consistently poor, The list of failed predictions is long, suggesting that the modelling is inadequate.
B. One of the major criticisms of climate models is that it is not possible to model chaotic complex systems adequately for predictive purposes, so the failure to produce a model that works (as already identified under A) tends to support the sceptic position, which is backed by real science on the nature and unforecastability of chaotic complex systems. “Sceptic” science that doesn’t depend on complex chaotic models, yet is based on detailed physical calculations has produced some stunningly accurate results: see e.g. Wijngaarden & Happer, who incidentally explicitly calculate a much reduced role (if still one that expects them to contribute some rise in temperatures) for increases in greenhouse gases compared with the black box climate model assumptions that parameterise black box assumptions that run too hot rather than calculate the details. It is climate models that ignore this science.
C. Politicians are interested in power. They do not care for the condition of those they rule, unless it threatens their power base. Science has established an international network – not least via the IPCC – that ensures funding of climate science that agrees with the general thrust of the political direction the IPCC takes. The purpose of the IPCC is itself political, and not scientific – it is to undermine capitalism, and to redistribute global wealth, as its own officials admit. “Science” is there merely to provide an allegedly secure rationale for political action. Politicians have been quick to seize on climate science as a way to secure their own power bases, which is why most political parties pretend to be the leaders in this area. Roles in international politics allow domestic politicians to fail upwards. Alarmist propaganda, as suggested by H L Mencken’s famous aphorism is key in this political process. The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
D. It is extremely hard for anyone who doesn’t espouse the “mainstream view” to get any attention whatsoever out of mainstream media – and even most specialist media. OTOH, any alarmist claim (the more lurid the better) is guaranteed banner headlines no matter how tenuous the underlying assumptions.
E. It is well known that the original 97% figure was constructed by discarding thousands of papers that offered a neutral view rather than espousing climate alarmism, leaving a mere handful carefully selected to produce the desired conclusion. Once this meme was established, and once the culture of cancelling the careers of anyone who disagreed followed, those who still do disagree tend not to do so openly, paying at least lip service to maintain their jobs and positions. Statistical prestidigitation is at the heart of climate alarmism, whether it is in adjusting historical records or measuring the degree of belief in modern Lysenkoism. As the list of failed predictions grows and the modelling proves no more accurate, it is likely that the real numbers who doubt the model conclusions is itself growing. In any case, as Einstein pointed out majority scientific opinion can be overturned by a single new theory backed by observation.
Inverting the truth and inviting the public to subscribe to the new fiction is a favourite propaganda tactic. At least that is something that Tobis appears to have learned.
One of Harriman’s fellow advocates is the MD of the International Monetary Fund Kristina Georgieva. IMF research extends far beyond finance these days. She offered this “Our research shows restoring whale populations worldwide would remove as much carbon from the atmosphere as 2 billion trees … we have estimated a substantial economic value: about $2,000,000 per whale”.
The next time the IMF trots out a warning, on eg dollar debt, be aware that the fund has distracted itself from its important work on whale population to bring you this news.
Whale populations see, to be under threat from offshore wind farm development. I hope they are taking that into account.
Great response to doomster Harrabin. To assist with my reply to a similar letter in my local press, can someone direct me to the IPCC report(s) which said There’s almost no evidence for any global trend in hurricane strength” and “no significant observed trends” in the number of global hurricanes each year”
“There is little evidence that flooding is getting worse”
“little proof that droughts are becoming worse globally.” Also what is the best rebuttal of the infamous Michael Mann “Hockey stick” graph.