Here's his idea of a neutral journalistic question.
I asked Defra and Decc if their new ministers Mr Paterson and Mr Hayes accepted the scientific evidence of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Well, the people in the impartial Harrabin's ghetto will think the question factual and neutral.
So far, he says, Defra has not replied. "But Decc responded with a statement from Mr Hayes."
We face a major challenge to keep the lights on in the most cost-effective way. In achieving this, we must not be over-reliant on any one technology, but build a balanced low-carbon mix and make the best use of Britain's domestic energy resources and skilled workforce.Fair enough. But, cautions the impartial Harrabin, it could be interpreted as an ambiguous statement that could lead to a large increase in gas use.
Both ministers would face serious credibility problems among international colleagues if they reject majority climate science.Could the impartial Harrabin be straying towards advocacy here?
He quotes the GWPF's support for Mr Paterson in particular - but once again without saying what the benefits of a policy change might be.
(It could kickstart an economic recovery and make the country more prosperous.)
As to Mr Hayes' predecessor, we learn that Mr Hendry was "popular with the renewables industry". So it was time for a change, then. As for the political future:
Mr Davey was making it clear today, though, that he still runs energy policy and that he intends to keep coalition commitments on renewables and reducing greenhouse gases. Decc sources say he believes he can persuade the Treasury that relying on shale gas is misguided.Unless Mr Hayes is left with an empty desk, one wonders what his role in the department will be. He will probably find DECC's officials unsympathetic to his broad common sense on energy.