Lord Oxburgh, the organisation’s director, was called in to head an internal inquiry into the leaked emails which included one infamous message referring to a “trick” to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.
The peer’s investigation cleared the scientists of malpractice. But critics claimed the report was a whitewash and Lord Oxburgh also failed to declare his involvement with Globe before he began his investigation.
Meanwhile Bob Ward, from the Grantham Institute, which works alongside Globe, praised a second inquiry by former civil servant Muir Russell, which also cleared the climate researchers.
He said it had “lifted the cloud of suspicion” and demonstrated that “the integrity of climate science is intact.”
Globe International’s work is paid for with donations from multi-millionaire backers and through partnerships with other environmental groups.
Globe also confirmed last night that it received direct funding from the Department of Energy and the Department of International Development (DfID). including a grant of £91,240 provided by DfID since the Coalition came to power last year.
More cash from DfID is filtered through the Complus Alliance – a “sustainable development communications alliance” of broadcasters based in Costa Rica which is also supported by the BBC World Service Trust, the Corporation’s independent charity,.
Complus, which was awarded DfID cash last year and in 2006, says it has an “ongoing relationship with Globe” helping it run “shadow negotiation” teams at international summits of world leaders.
A spokeswoman for Complus said: “The BBC is a founding member not a funding member. They can make in-kind contributions, like organising events, supporting logistics, sharing content.”
===============================================================
More here.
Also, Dr. Richard North of the EU Referendum has a synopsis of coverage that preceded the Telegraph’s, and there was a significant amount. But even a late awakening is better than none.
Bottom line for the BBC: no matter what, when you are involved in promoting monetarily, in kind, or in any way, the same people and organizations you report on, you can’t have any separation from conflict of interest.
The The BBC has zero credibility left in all matters climate reporting related, in my opinion.
While I had suspicions before, after reviewing these two posts on “contract” and “expenses” for the Oxburgh report at CA, followed by Bishop Hill’s “When is a contract not a contract?“, I believe now that these investigations were complete whitewashes, bought and paid for. It is just that simple.
h/t to WUWT reader and volunteer moderator “AndiC”
The entire corrupt Common Purpose controlled edifice is crumbling away and about time too.
The BBC is nothing but a propaganda organ for whichever British government is in power. (All British governments are essentially the same irrespective of what name they go by.)
Globe
http://www.globe.org.uk/
‘Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive’
These inquiries where blatant corruption, fraud and deception, nothing more. They were not even as honest as a whitewash!
I have concerns that my licence fee, to operate a TV set, of £135 per year helps to pay for all this BBC climate rubbish. The fee, in reality a TAX, must be paid on threat of imprisonment.
Nowhere else in the world are viewers forced to pay a tax to view any TV program, even recorded by yourself or of non BBC origin, and the monies go to an unaccountable organization, the BBC, to spend as they see fit.
I bet Sn. Conrad in Aus would just love to have implemented control of the internet, that he and his Govn’t wishes, before this little story broke. This would have been “disappeared”.
Thanks Anthony!
…I believe now that these investigations were complete whitewashes, bought and paid for. It is just that simple.
I was prepared to give the benefit of doubt to Russell and Oxburgh inquires, lest people mistake the objections as conspiracy theory. We shouldn’t mistake stupidity for malice, right?
Now, however, the evidence is in. There is absolutely no doubt left in my mind that the Climategate investigations were designed to clear the wrongdoers.
In a word, whitewash!
Unfortunately the attitude of the BBC has diverged so far from its Chartered obligations that it no longer retains any sense of its own history. Instead its policies simply reflect the predetermined dispositions of its staff, which of course often results in biased and inaccurate reporting. This is a tragedy.
An answer exists for those who feel strongly about this derliction of duty, give up watching live broadcasting, be it via the BBC or any of the independent channels. This entitles you to retain a television for watching video or perhaps a programme via iPlayer without paying for a licence. Inconvenient perhaps, but you get used to it. The satisfaction for this loss is derived from knowing you are no longer contributing to an organisation that has abandoned the scrupulously honest in favour of the partial.
Great overview Anthony. Sometimes it seems like that the battle is WUWT vs GLOBE. You’re absolutely right to point to Richard North’s exasperation about the MSM – and also to say “even a late awakening is better than none.” That’s what makes WUWT great.
Globe International
http://www.globeinternational.info/
“I have concerns that my licence fee, to operate a TV set, of £135 per year helps to pay for all this BBC climate rubbish. The fee, in reality a TAX, must be paid on threat of imprisonment.”
Chuck the telly. Withdrawal lasts two to three weeks then you get your life back.
John.
I used to like the science programme ‘Horizon’ which is made by the BBC.
Not now I don’t.
The new format and presentation is an insult.Even to a dumb bloke like me.
“The Universe,aint it great,Amazing” The presenter is like a character out of the ‘Fast Show’.
Fellow Licence fee paying Brits will know what I mean.
John Marshall>
No need to pay a license fee for anything except programs you watch as they are broadcast live in the UK. Buy a PVR – personal video recorder – for less than the cost of a years’ license fee, press the button that delays all the programmes by 30 seconds, and bob’s your multicoloured auntie.
A welcome volte facefrom the Torygraph. The normal reporters for this stuff would be their ‘environment correspondents’ Louise Gray and/or Geoffrey Lean whose sole journalistic abilities are their expertise in regurgitating ecofascst propaganda.
If the improvement continues I will have to consider buying the paper once again. I gave up in protest at one of Loopy Lou’s dafter prophecies of impending thermageddon
This is way beyond Yes, Prime Minister. It is positivey Orwellian and Kafkaesque.
@John Marshall
“Nowhere else in the world are viewers forced to pay a tax to view any TV program, even recorded by yourself or of non BBC origin, and the monies go to an unaccountable organization, the BBC, to spend as they see fit.”
—————————–
Wrong, same in Denmark, we have to pay TV license to own a TV, same goes for owing a PC, smart phone or any other divice with access to the internet
The BBC with a left wing bias, who would have thought it…hahahahah!
Sorry, but over here in the UK we are inured to their biased ramblings about the climate and just ignore it now. They lost any sense of balance years and years ago.
John McKay says:
April 24, 2011 at 3:46 am
Chuck the telly. Withdrawal lasts two to three weeks then you get your life back.
—————————————————————————————-
I can confirm this, having done so some 5 years ago. There isn’t any spare time in my life now for watching it.
“Among Globe’s principle backers are a charity set up by the Swedish multi-millionaire Niklas Zennstrom, founder of the internet phone service Skype, and British-born wealth fund manager Jeremy Grantham, whose personal clients include Dick Cheney and John Kerry.
Mr Grantham bankrolls the Grantham Institute at the LSE, which works alongside Globe.
He believes “weather instability” is the world’s biggest “investment problem” and his $107 billion fund pushes alternative assets including a massive portfolio of forestry.
The fund was believed to be preparing to invest in the abandoned Government sell off British forests. ”
Anyone still believing AGW is about the science or a threat to the planet?
John Marshall:
“… viewers forced to pay a tax to view any TV program, even recorded by yourself or of non BBC origin, …”
Some small but important points:
The law is quite muddled but it seems that in this internet age there is not much that you can not legally watch without a licence. Whereas it is illegal (at time of transmission) to watch or record broadcasts without a licence, one can watch any material that is recorded including anything found on the internet that is not currently being broadcast. This includes all the delayed internet content from the TV services which these days is most of it.
So we have the bizarre situation that it is illegal to watch when they intend you do (time of broadcast) but legal to watch it when you want to (time of convenience) providing you are happy to let them or someone else do the recording for you.
The law as it has come down to us is based on the notion of receiving a broadcast television service, this is quite distinct from watching a TV programme. To record a TV programme as it is being broadcast is illegal even if you never watch it, to watch a recorded programme is not illegal.
Here is a what the TV Licensing website has to say:
“Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they’re being shown on television without a valid TV Licence.”
Although this is a boiled down version of what the Act actually states, as it is the advice given by the relevant authority it is considered to be valid.
Alex
I haven’t had a telly for years. In fact, I realized that I have never had a colour tv… I had no withdrawal symptoms at all. When I do see it a someone’s house, I wonder why you would spend all that money on something so uninteresting.
The above article was published in today’s Sunday Telegraph which is much more sceptical than the Daily Telegraph.
The ST carries articles every week by Christopher Booker, but the DT publishes rubbish by the superannuated alarmist, Geoffrey Lean, every Saturday, and ‘Little Miss Cut and Paste’, Louise Grey, on an almost daily basis.
I do not think the Daily Telegraph has quite got it yet.
Now we have the backstory confirming what many of us suspected.
This will knock another 10% of AGW credibility. This seems like it might be quite a big story.
April 24, 2011 at 4:08 am
@John Marshall
“Nowhere else in the world are viewers forced to pay a tax to view any TV program, even recorded by yourself or of non BBC origin, and the monies go to an unaccountable organization, the BBC, to spend as they see fit.”
—————————–
and in France €123
I will stand corrected about many things on Climategate but the key issue to me is Michael Mann’s discredited work.
The key evidence has to come from Steve McIntyre but to the best of my knowledge he was never called as a witness.
As regards the BBC I stopped watching and listening to their news and current affairs years ago.
It was a combination of their “Guardian” view of Britain with their appalling intellectual snobbery and biase as well as their one sided view on the climate and last but not least their simply pathetic attempts to rubbish dissenters on 9/11.
They actually announced that WTC 7 came down half an hour before it did.
Just one of those things old boy…how dare you question…etc etc.
Truth, democracy and the BBC….no more….and one wonders if ever.