BBC bias is outrageous

OK.  So you knew that already.  But let me give you my latest example.
 
This morning I was driving over to the Brigstock horse trials (I’m a sponsor), when I put on the radio and heard Radio Four’s “From Our Own Correspondent”.  I always enjoy that show, but I was riveted when Kate Adie announced that the third item would be on the Heartland Chicago Climate Conference.  Of course I’ve just returned from that very event, where I met, and was interviewed by, the BBC’s Chief Environment Correspondent Roger Harrabin.  So arriving in the car park at Brigstock, I sat for a few minutes and listened to him.
 
Maybe I’m biased, but I felt that he was subtly seeking to debunk the whole event.  He repeated the old canard that there is a “consensus”, and that only a few scientists are sceptics – although there were probably more sceptical scientists at the Chicago Conference than there are committed Warmist scientists in relevant disciplines on the IPCC panel, and thousands of scientists around the world have protested at the so-called consensus.  He described how the audience was baying for the blood of the University of East Anglia CRU scientists (you could hardly blame them in the circumstances), and were disappointed when their hero Steve MacKintyre (who helped to debunk the infamous “Hockey Stick” graph), urged a more conciliatory line.
 
We heard little of the surprising strength of the counter-consensus, or the widely-held view that the sceptics are winning the argument, and that only those with a vested interest are still true believers.
 
But what annoyed me most was Harrabin’s description of the Heartland Institute as “substantially funded by oil interests”.  In fact Joe Bast, the President of Heartland, had set out the funding position clearly.  85% on the Institute’s funds come from private individuals and foundations (and not foundations backed by big oil).  Only 15% comes from corporates, and of that no more that 5% from energy companies.  None from big oil.  In another piece earlier in the week, Harrabin had emphasised the point that some funding comes from the tobacco industry.  This is smear and guilt by association – there is no reason to suppose that the tobacco industry takes a particular position on climate issues.
 
If Harrabin knows more about Heartland funding that its President has told us, then he should publish it.  If not, perhaps he should apologise for the smear and innuendo.
 
One last point: James Delingpole of the Daily Telegraph spoke at the Conference.  He mentioned that he is writing a book on the climate issue, and in the course of his research he has estimated the funding received by sceptics, and the funding received by Warmists (through research grants, wind farm subsidies, salaries of environmental journalists and council Climate Awareness Officers and so on).  He estimates that the Warmist side receives around 3000 times more funding than the sceptics.  Of course I can’t confirm that figure exactly, but I have no doubt it’s in the right ball-park.
 
Even big oil, which has virtually given up on funding sceptics, spends vastly more on green polices and green initiatives than on promoting climate scepticism.  It is outrageous to suggest that those courageous scientists who dare to speak out against the Warmist agenda, risking their reputations, their careers, their access to learned reviews and academic appointments, are motivated by a few dollars they might have received years ago from the oil industry.