BREAKING: The ‘secret’ list of the BBC 28 is now public – let’s call it ‘TwentyEightGate’

UPDATES ARE CONTINUOUSLY BEING ADDED at the end of this story. Check below.

WUWT readers may recall this post last week:

The Secret 28 Who Made BBC ‘Green’ Will Not Be Named

The BBC pits six lawyers against one questioning blogger, Tony Newbery of Harmless Sky, who was making an FOI request for the 28 names. In the process, the judge demonstrates he has partisan views on climate change.

Now, thanks to the Wayback machine and we can now read the list that the BBC fought to keep secret. [Damn those mischevious bloggers ;-) ]

This list has been obtained legally. (link to Wayback document.) My heartiest congratulations to Maurizo for his excellent sleuthing!

Maurizo writes: This is for Tony, Andrew, Benny, Barry and for all of us Harmless Davids.

The list from: January 26th 2006, BBC Television Centre, London

Specialists:
Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
Claire Foster, Church of England
Saleemul Huq, IIED
Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
Matthew Farrow, CBI
Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
Joe Smith, The Open University
Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
Anita Neville, E3G
Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia

BBC attendees:
Jana Bennett, Director of Television
Sacha Baveystock, Executive Producer, Science
Helen Boaden, Director of News
Andrew Lane, Manager, Weather, TV News
Anne Gilchrist, Executive Editor Indies & Events, CBBC
Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning
Elizabeth McKay, Project Executive, Education
Emma Swain, Commissioning Editor, Specialist Factual
Fergal Keane, (Chair), Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Fran Unsworth, Head of Newsgathering
George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs
Glenwyn Benson, Controller, Factual TV
John Lynch, Creative Director, Specialist Factual
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
Jon Williams, TV Editor Newsgathering
Karen O’Connor, Editor, This World, Current Affairs
Catriona McKenzie, Tightrope Pictures catriona@tightropepictures.com

BBC Television Centre, London (cont)
Liz Molyneux, Editorial Executive, Factual Commissioning
Matt Morris, Head of News, Radio Five Live
Neil Nightingale, Head of Natural History Unit
Paul Brannan, Deputy Head of News Interactive
Peter Horrocks, Head of Television News
Peter Rippon, Duty Editor, World at One/PM/The World this Weekend
Phil Harding, Director, English Networks & Nations
Steve Mitchell, Head Of Radio News
Sue Inglish, Head Of Political Programmes
Frances Weil, Editor of News Special Events

For those who don’t know what this is about, read the back story here.

Here is the backup link to the original document just in case the original disappears:

Real World Brainstorm Sep 2007 background (PDF)

============================================================

UPDATE: Now this Climategate 2.0 email makes more sense, as they’ve just been carrying water for CRU and the eco-NGO’s all along. The meeting with the 28 was just a pep rally. From: this WUWT post:

BBC’s Kirby admission to Phil Jones on “impartiality”

Alex Kirby in email #4894 writing about the BBC’s “neutrality”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

date: Wed Dec  8 08:25:30 2004
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.xx.xx>
subject: RE: something on new online.
to: “Alex Kirby” <alex.kirby@bbc.xxx.xx>

At 17:27 07/12/2004, you wrote:

Yes, glad you stopped this — I was sent it too, and decided to
spike it without more ado as pure stream-of-consciousness rubbish. I can well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them
say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats.
—–Original Message—–

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

BBC and “impartiality”…”ho, ho” indeed.

UPDATE: ‘TwentyEightGate’ was coined by RoyFOMR in comments. I liked it enough to put in the title.

UPDATE3 –  Barry Woods writes in an email to me:

Don’t forget Mike Hulme Climategate email. why he funded CMEP, to keep sceptics OFF BBC airwaves… (below)

Mike Hulme:

“Did anyone hear Stott vs. Houghton on Today, radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really.

This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source.” (email 2496)

let us also not forget, that Roger Harrabin BBC & CMEP – (and Greenpeace Bill Hare) were also on the Tyndall board from 2002 to at least Nov 2005.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/climategate-2-impartiality-at-the-bbc/

When did Roger Harrabin step down from Tyndall advisory board?

(and he no made no mention, when reporting Climategate, of connections)

Tyndall were funding CMEP seminars for years to persuade the BBC, so not just that seminar, but years worth of lobbying

UPDATE4: Bishop Hill makes this excerpt from correspondence the “quote of the day”:

We now know that the BBC decided to abandon balance in its coverage of climate on the advice of a small coterie of green activists, including the campaign director of Greenpeace. This shows that the “shoddy journalism” of Newsnight’s recent smear was no “lapse” of standards at all. BBC news programs have for years been poorly checked recitations of the work of activists.

UPDATE5: Maurizo has added some analysis.

Summary for those without much time to read it all: Why the List of Participants to the BBC CMEP Jan 2006 Seminar is important
http://omnologos.com/why-the-list-of-participants-to-the-bbc-cmep-jan-2006-seminar-is-important/

UPDATE 6: Maurizo asked to add this -

I have not “given” the 28Gate list any importance. In fact, not one of the bloggers and journalists and commenters has “given” the 28Gate list any importance. It has been the BBC that GAVE IMPORTANCE TO 28GATE by spending so much money on lawyers. Therefore, 28Gate is important.

529 thoughts on “BREAKING: The ‘secret’ list of the BBC 28 is now public – let’s call it ‘TwentyEightGate’

  1. Specialists:
    Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director
    Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace

    O yeah thats some “specialists” right there…

    Trevor Evans, US Embassy <—- why is this guy there?

  2. Well Entwistle has now gone in a storm of controversy all about shoddy journalism, He was obviously promoted from Head of Current Affairs to Director General

    “Mr Entwistle, who stood down on Saturday night after just 54 days in the job, left the corporation with a £450,000 lump sum on top of his £877,000 pension. The payment amounts to £8,333 for every day he spent as director-general. ”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9673784/George-Entwistle-was-paid-double-to-go-quietly.html

  3. Experts? Experts in advocacy by the look of most of them.
    Well done Mr Morabito.
    Another well earned blow to the putrid BBC.

  4. absolutely gobsmacked – well done Maurizio! So now, we need to find out why some of these people were involved!

  5. This was just about the BBC’s ‘A’ list of managers at the time. Not just a few middle rankers.

    Amazing that they all found the time to spend a full day on this topic. And it explains why the BBC’s pre-Copenhagen coverage in 2009 was so vastly over-hyped….and such an embarrassment when it was the fiasco we all fondly remember.

    There must be good grounds to suggest that all of the BBC’s participants were acting in contravention of the BBC’s Charter (its ‘statutory Rules of Engagement’) by organising such a one-sided seminar and acting upon the results.

    Immense kudos to omnologos for outwitting the best ‘minds’ of both the BBC and their expensive lawyers.

  6. Wow! Maurizio just destroyed the BBC. For years they have claimed their biased coverage of climate news was based on scientific advice from the best scientists. That is a total and utter lie. It is from activists and pressure groups. The list of BBC lies just grows and grows

  7. Friends:

    I am copying this from the other thread because I genuinely would like an answer.

    Richard

    ————

    richardscourtney says:
    November 12, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    Dodgy Geezer:

    Thankyou for the list from Maurizio which you provide at November 12, 2012 at 3:29 pm in the link

    http://omnologos.com/full-list-of-participants-to-the-bbc-cmep-seminar-on-26-january-2006/

    I have a question:

    These participants are listed among “Specialists:”

    Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
    Trevor Evans, US Embassy
    Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
    Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
    Claire Foster, Church of England
    Saleemul Huq, IIED
    Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
    Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
    Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
    Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
    Anita Neville, E3G
    Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia

    Why?

    Richard

  8. An interesting assortment of specialists in that list. I wonder what qualifications are required to be deemed “a specialist”? ;->

    There are some affiliations I am not familiar with. For example, who are Tearfund, E3G, and Open University? Of course there are the usual, obvious, rent seekers: Greenpeace, New Economics Foundation, Stop Climate Chaos, Television for the Environment, etc. No wonder the BBC wanted to obscure the bias.

  9. Claire Foster, Church of England
    huh?
    Methinks that if they spent less time on saving the earth and more time on saving souls,
    the Church of England wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in…..they need to focus on the warming
    that, er, CO2 won’t put out….

  10. as big as Climategate. Tony Newbery and Maurizio should be on every TV news broadcast today. Newbery should return to the Tribunal with the list.

    keep this sticky as u say anthony. BBC Meltdown brought on by their own arrogance.

    three cheers for those who have defended the scientific method.

  11. This, from our ‘impartial’ national and world-wide broadcaster. In addition to it’s demonstrable pathetic leadership and governance, not to mention the alleged turning of a blind eye (Pudsey?) to the abuse of minors on its premises, seems designed to provoke a mass withholding of the licence tax which funds this malfeasance.

    Impartial my arse. This is cultural Marxism in action, funded by the UK taxpayers. I’d like to know if any of our money paid for the travel and subsistence for the delegates at these Eco-Taliban wank-fests.

    Good find. Well done, and very well timed.

  12. I am quietly fuming – which is annoying as I have to go to bed with this on my mind now – and be up in 4 hours or so for a long day of hard graft. This needs mass media exposure an explanation for Joe Public in the UK.
    sure the BBC can perhaps take a slight bias on some issues (e.g reporting Falkands War or something ‘British’) but this is a hundred steps too far in my opinion. This suggests downright political manipulation and deliberate misinformation to the masses………..

  13. A nicely balanced and well rounded list of individuals guaranteed to hold Aunties place in the media firmament, at the infinite generosity of the British taxpayer. Objective, accurate, critical, impartial, thorough – professional ‘green-washing’ at its elite best. Along with Jimmy Saville and the recent ‘Newsnight’ debacle, they appear to be performing consistently at the very least.
    /sarc

  14. Liz Molyneux, Editorial Executive, Factual Commissioning

    Blimey I thought the BBC had shut that position down about twenty years ago

  15. If Maurizio had only revealed this earlier then think of all the public money that could have been saved.
    At £40,000 per day for goodness knows how many days, it may even have exceeded the recent severance golden parachute given to the DG of the BBC – one of the attendees of TwentEightGate.
    I hope that you don’t get sued by the BBC, omnologos, for wasting public funds!!!

  16. Clear evidence that the biased BBC Climate Change editorial policy is based on evidence from very few Climate scientists. At least they had the authority of the Church of England present to explain how Noah mitigated the effects of catastrophic climate disruption.

  17. Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China

    Was he the bloke that stood in front of that tank in tiananmen square ?

  18. Of all the questionable names on that list, most (ie Greenpeace etc) did not surprise me, only two caused me to raise an eyebrow. The first was Claire Foster, Church of England. The second was:

    Trevor Evans, US Embassy

    A member of the US embassy was asked to advise on the official broadcast policy of an instrument of the British government?

  19. Boaden is also on the list. Currently ‘suspended’ for her role in a paedophile mess at the bbc. The bbc covered up for Jimmy Saville. Then when it comes out, the decided that the best thing to do was go on the attack to show to distract against the mess. So they attacked a Tory donor for being involved, plus throwing Thatcher into the mix. It’s all unravelled. So she’s going to be toast.

  20. another little story in the telegraph today,

    the science editor at the BBC , the one who doles out the usual crap on agw was once editor of the ten o clock news, rather than sack him the BBC moved him to another department when he was responsible for a story totally wrong about a firm called Oryx. This resulted in the longest on air apology from the BBC.

  21. Let me repeat for the slowest journos that might be reading this.

    The list has been obtained perfectly legally. It is available for all to see in the Wayback Machine. You don’t need no secret code or password and no knowledge of source code of any type.

    All you need is to find a broken link on a publicly-available page on the publicly-available IBT website and the ability to do “copy link address” with any ordinary mouse, then “paste” with the same mouse in the appropriate field in the Wayback Machine.

    If persistence is a crime, I am in for a life sentence.

  22. Note just how inclusive in their quest for diversity the BBC are, not one actual climate scientist there just every Li, Saleemul Huq and Dadi, with a hatred for the western world. Sorry but I had to say it.

  23. From the Wikipedia entry for Robert May:

    Although an atheist since age 11, May has stated that religion may help society deal with climate change. While referring to what he believes to be a rigid structure of fundamentalist religion, he stated that the co-operational aspects of non-fundamentalist religion may in fact help with climate change. When asked if religious leaders should be doing more to persuade people to combat climate change, he stated that it was absolutely necessary.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/richard-alleyne/6146656/Maybe-religion-is-the-answer-claims-atheist-scientist.html

    I guess anything goes, huh?

  24. This list appears to contain inter-related lobbyists and advocacy groups.

    Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
    Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund

    http://www.ibt.org.uk/members.php

    IBT is a membership based organisation. … one of our principal activities is lobbying, … contact IBT Director, Mark Galloway. IBT’s current membership includes the following organisations … Tearfund

  25. Another interesting fact: That well known Royal AGW campaigner Prince Charles, who is currently in SE Asia I believe ; is hoping the Savile sex scandal calms down before he gets back, as they were the very best of best of best of mates. Way beyond any rationale logic bar the scurrilous nasty stories linked to Savile’s activities that are openly claimed on dozen’s of blogs

  26. Just like the obfuscating Penns State University that is wrapped up in a scandal, so too is the BBC. Penn State, busying themselves in the corrupt business of protecting themselves in the midst of Sandusky on campus, and preventing the “hide the decline” emails from Michael Mann from being made public, set the creepy model for the latest BBC scandal.

    The entire management of BBC is resigning and getting fired in the wake of a devastating scandal.

    http://tv.yahoo.com/news/bbc-news-executives-step-aside-pedophilia-scandal-235922592.html

    The BBC, one of the left wing’s, progressive, pro-global warming fake news machines is self-destructing as all of its upper executives are implicated in covering up an expose of Jimmy Savile, while he was employed by BBC.

    If that wasn’t weird enough for you, guess where the ex-executive of the BBC, Mark Thompson, is now the CEO…. come on guess…..

    YUP ….THE NEW YORK TIMES.

    This is too weird for words.

  27. 1. Please can we all agree that this should be known and referred to as “28 Gate”?

    2. Has anyone worked out a way to get this information to Tony Newbery?

    3. Great find. Great timing.

  28. Friends:

    I write to observe that – in the shock at surveying the list – some commentators have missed that there are scientists and climate scientists among the list.

    The important points are
    1.
    The stated purpose of the meeting was to determine policy on broadcasting about AGW so there was no reason according to that purpose to invite any of those I listed in my post at November 12, 2012 at 4:01 pm: they are all advocates of AGW.
    2.
    The scientists who attended were all of one mind concerning AGW.

    Hence, the list of invited specialists demonstrates that the stated purpose of the meeting was a sham because the policy which it was claimed was determined by the meeting had been decided prior to the meeting.

    The only discussion which the entire list of “Specialists” would have would be on how best the BBC could “sell” their assertions of AGW and its dire effects. The advocates would say what was wanted and the scientists would caution on the limits of what could be advocated without legal challenge under the BBC Charter.

    The adopted policy on ‘balance’ supposedly adopted by expert discussion at the meeting cannot be justified in the light of those invited to attend the meeting. Hence, the adoption of that policy can be demonstrated to be a deliberate breach of the BBC Charter. Therefore, the list is potentially even more serious for the BBC than any of the problems now confronting the BBC.

    Richard

  29. davidmhoffer says:
    A member of the US embassy was asked to advise on the official broadcast policy of an instrument of the British government?

    The BBC is independent from govt (hoho)

    It’s charter forbids it from being influenced by foreign political policy.

    But it takes EU money.

  30. Trevor Evans, US Embassy

    I need to sleep or fall into a coma in the attempt, so I am leaving now this tiny morsel wondering if any of you guys figure out what was the US Embassy doing at a BBC seminar.

  31. More than 3,000 people a week are being prosecuted for not having a TV licence… The number of prosecutions has risen in part because many more are struggling to pay. In 2010, licence fee fines totalled just under £25million a year.
    Being charged/taxed/licensed to pay for their Global Warming Drivel™ is one thing, being fined for refusing to pay for it is insanity.

  32. The BBC is a national embarrassment. They are so left wing and at the same time so far up their corporate a**e they do not have a clue how the real world functions.
    They take a man who, as a child lived in a children’s home and was allegedly sexually abused and name and shame the alleged abuser, this is in collaboration with George Monbiot of the “Guardian”. The alleged abuser is named as a retired, former advisor and Treasurer of the Conservative Party during Lady Thatcher’s premiership.
    Of course these left wing morons could not believe their luck in having the head of such a prestigious associate of Margaret Thatcher on their plate, so they, like the cowards that they are, implicated his name in this alleged abuse. The poor man who suffered this alleged abuse, had then to go through more trauma because these collective cretins did not even have the brains to provide him with photographs to allow him to identify his alleged abuser correctly. The “abuser” was in fact totally innocent.

    Welcome to the world of the leftists, who smear and insult anyone who does not have the same views as themselves. They would be very dangerous, if they were not so stupid!

  33. Going slightly off topic now but it is instructive to see that the left who see AGW has the weapon to smash capitalism and the west over the head with -have also been traditionally-post war anyway- have always trying to abolish censorship. The deputy leader of the Labour Party Harriet Harmon many years ago when chairing the Civil Liberties Commission was actively advocating lowering the age of consent

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9614516/Jimmy-Savile-Labour-faces-embarrassment-over-former-child-sex-claims.html

  34. davidmhoffer says: @ November 12, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    …Trevor Evans, US Embassy

    A member of the US embassy was asked to advise on the official broadcast policy of an instrument of the British government?
    _____________________________
    Here is an addition to that information.

    State Magazine, November 2006
    The November 2006 issue of State Magazine, published by the U.S. Department of State in Washington, DC,

    Thinking Green
    Embassy London initiates conservation strategy pg 12

    …One of the embassy’s residential apartment buildings is benefiting from London’s first fuel cell,which uses natural gas to produce electricity and heat.This experimental fuel cell’s output is small and risks failure from contaminants in the natural gas. However,it is important for the Department to participate in green programs so its design,maintenance and operations staff can learn.

    As funds permit,the embassy motor pool will be converted from regular gasoline to LP gas,a more environment-friendly fuel.The conversion may or may not pay for itself, but is justified and being done for environmental stewardship and emissions reduction.And this summer the embassy plans to create several “green roofs”to insulate the building

    (Of course they do not care if the conversion has a payback, it is TAXPAYER money they are spending)
    ..Trevor Evans, is the ECON/EST Officer,U.S. Embassy, London
    So there is no question that Evans was a dyed in the wool greenie and so was the US Embassy. (read starting page 12) It ends ” “Our hope is to make this the greenest old U.S.embassy in the world,”said DCM Johnson

    Description of ECON (economic?) and EST

    Economic officers
    Advise U.S. businesses on the local investment climate and economic trends
    negotiate trade and investment agreements to open markets and level the playing field
    analyze and report on macroeconomic trends and trade policies and their potential impact on U.S. interests;
    and promote adoption of economic policies by foreign countries which further U.S. interests.

    Environment, Science, and Technology (EST) officers analyze and report on EST developments and their potential impact on U.S. policies and programs.

    http://chile.usembassy.gov/econ-pol.html

    GAG, I think I am going to be sick.

  35. Sorry but I have to say it: The BBC over the recent years has actively promoted the sexualisation of children under the guise of education and diversity, Children in Need will start this Friday night just wait and see the inappropriate content. It’s like certain elements are paid fantastic salaries to try and get the world to reflect their so called art. Any seen the story lines in rubbish like Eastenders-it’s like watching Elton John’s holiday videos.

  36. Dr Poshendra Satyal is Post Doctoral Research Fellow at the Crichton Carbon Centre. Prior to this, he worked as a researcher and consultant with a number of organizations in the UK (The Open University, UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Bird Life International, and Forests Monitor) and Nepal (Himalayan College of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Society of Environmental Journalists,

  37. andrewmharding says:
    November 12, 2012 at 4:51 pm
    ….Welcome to the world of the leftists, who smear and insult anyone who does not have the same views as themselves. They would be very dangerous, if they were not so stupid!
    ____________________________
    It is their handlers who are dangerous not the useful idiots.

  38. To me, one curious name on the “specialist” list seemed to be “Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer”. Hadn’t the BBC got enough producers of their own? What was the impressive track record of this “specialist” that the BBC top brass had to hear about?
    IMDB turned up nothing very dazzling but then I found that he seems to be “Media Project Manager” and “Studio Manager” for The Open University.
    Still didn’t seem that relevant, but then I noticed that he was also… for a whole 7 months in 2003…
    “Business Consultant, Television Trust for the Enviroment (sic)”

    OK, that must be it, his “expertise”.

    Cache of his Linkedin page:

    http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=%22Rafael+Hidalgo%22+tv+producer&fr=moz35&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=%22Rafael+Hidalgo%22+tv+producer&d=4574630585177680&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=1YdTW4ZlIp4gTWMtRbG5s-HfyBwWfFa3&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=Q7A9E4NsUhsC8aFztXOqrg–

  39. I was hoping to see an ‘Ocean Elder’ or two.

    whats the point in having Ocean Elders if they cant be bothered to set the Environmental policy for the BBC ?

  40. Follow the money:

    The UK’s policy lines on World Bank and IMF issues are formally decided by the Department for International Development (DFID) and the Treasury, respectively. Within DFID, the International Financial Institutions department (IFID) leads in devising the organisation’s position on these institutions (see below). In the Treasury, the International Finance department is responsible for preparing advice on the policy issues and specific country programmes brought before the Board of Directors in Washington.

    The top UK representatives at the IMF and World Bank are the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rt Hon George Osbourne MP, and Secretary of State for international development, Rt Hon Justine Greening MP. They are known as UK governors to the Fund and Bank, sitting on the ministerial committees which meet in Washington twice a year to decide on overall strategic direction for the institutions. The UK is the fourth-largest shareholder in both the World Bank and the IMF, holding 4.3 percent and 4.8 percent of votes, respectively. For comparison the US is by far the largest shareholder with 16.4 percent and 16.85 percent vote shares, respectively.

    Climate Frameworks and Carbon Markets

    Jos Wheatley: Team Leader, j-wheatley(at)dfid.gov.uk

  41. tallbloke says:
    November 12, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    davidmhoffer says:
    “A member of the US embassy was asked to advise on the official broadcast policy of an instrument of the British government?”
    “It’s charter forbids it from being influenced by foreign political policy.”

    Could this be why they were so desperate to keep this list secret? Could someone sue the BBC now claiming that the US government was directly responsible for the BBC’s global warming policy?

    It would be interesting if someone in the US FOIA this guy about this event and how he got invited and why he was invited.

  42. Aha, we have a prime mover

    Dr Joe Smith
    The Open University

    My research and teaching interests centre on the politics of environmental change. This is explored through three discrete strands of work:

    the politics of consumption, pursued through a study of biographies of food in Poland and the Czech Republic
    media representations of environmental change, centred on a programme of action research in collaboration with the BBC
    experimental reframings of environmental change, pursued mainly through the Interdependence Day project
    Through the course of my CRASSH fellowship I will be drawing on more than a decade of working with media and other organisations to offer an account of the cultural work demanded by our unfolding understanding of human-induced climate change. I will also take the opportunity to reflect on the distinctive roles and responsibilities of social science and humanities researchers in helping societies to make sense of and act on climate change.

  43. I count three climate scientists with a technical education: May, Hulme, and Dahl-Jensen of the NIels Bohr Institute. Others with an academic affiliation (Bravo, Widdicombe, Smith) have liberal arts (history, geography, philosophy of science) backgrounds.

    Of the three “technicals”, two are activists. However, Dr. Dahl-Jensen seems to be an actual boots-on-the-ground scientist (latest grant is for drilling through the Greenland ice aiming at bedrock to investigate possible lakes at the bottom of the glaciers). I expect whoever was responsible for vetting her prior to the conference has since paid the price.

  44. Congratulations to all who produced this list. The presence of the US Embassy at the meeting is staggering. The whole sham and shameful cause of climate catastrophism and media manipulation has been dealt a heavy blow.

  45. Really makes me wonder why the Beeb was fighting disclosure so hard and expensively. I don’t see any names or organizations on that list that surprise me in the slightest. Purely the usual suspects. In fact one big class of usual suspects is nearly absent from the list: corporations, investors and reinsurance firms with a monetary vested interest in pushing Green nonsense. (Only BP was there.)

  46. Mods – sorry can help out a harassed Aussie in his lunch break and correct my rushed spelling – “congratulations” and “sham”. ?

    [We jest thought you were rightin’ sum new-finagled Australeze dialect fer the rest of us English-readers…. Mod]

  47. The BBC only claimed 28 “scientific experts” attended, and I count 30. Who’s for having a laugh and guessing which 2 aren’t “scientific experts”?

  48. Really looking forward to a spreadsheet breakdown of the qualifications, political leanings, activist activities and current employment status of these charlatans. A crowd sourced summary will be very damaging to the “cause”

  49. Until now (besides what happened to Galileo) science has been nearly all about data. No opportunity for any opinions or preferences, if it was repeatable and predictable it became a theory. This meant politics was always kept as a way of running a country based on the voter’s preferences, while science was used to discover what was there already and possibly exploit its uses.

    Now scientists employed by larger groups (as opposed to working for themselves) have become political activists and encouraged others to and pushed world government policies. It has divided the world generally between the ideological left and pragmatic right, and has now merged entirely into something simply used to promote collectivist policies and treated not as an unfolding discovery which constantly changes, but a core political policy, breach of which is heresy. We have been taken back into the dark ages, and I have just completed a list of quotes going back to the 1970s of how the environmental extremists, not the nutjobs and bloggers they accuse us of being, but top world leaders of all fields- politics, science, investment etc, detailing long before the hockey stick even became erect how man made global warming will be the key to unlocking the new world order.

    So currently science no longer exists as it should do, its major aim is a political force to rebuild the world on an environmental platform, removing the traces of development and industry to bring it back to how it was before we ‘colonised’ it (yes, just like the trees colonise it or the fish colonise the sea). Of course they won’t be in the toilet with us useless eaters, they want to clear the planet of us just so they and their friends and family can have the space to live, ‘liebensraum’ in German (where have I heard that already?), while we become either their slaves or wiped out to provide the optimum population the planet can sustainably (their key word) handle.

    So yes, although climate data is no different to a nurse shoving a thermometer up your anus and reading it, it is being taken up by political activists as if measuring temperatures is a social science and must be read in psychological and societal context. As if.

  50. Should we go with 28Gate?

    I mean, wouldn’t want anyone to get the impression that there’s only been 27 before this…

  51. The only good thing out of this fraud is the fact they (BBC) base and invested their pension investments for all BBC staff into green funds all based on this CAGW crap. Last I heard they were down 2.5 billion pounds.
    Ha Ha Ha!

  52. Perfect juxtaposition for trash-advocacy veneered as junk-science.

    #16 Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International.

    #17 Ashol Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos.

    And Big Oil backing Green yet again !

  53. Gail Combs says November 12, 2012 at 5:08 pm

    It is their handlers who are dangerous not the useful idiots.

    Umm, who are their ‘handlers’?

    Who is at the top; the “Mr Big”?

    Are there more names we need to see?

    .

  54. So not a list of 28 impartial scientists but a sorry bunch of activists, vested interests and a couple of rent seeking pro AGW pseudo-scientists. I believe a quote from the infamous former Australian MP Mark Latham says it best – “A conga line of suckholes.”

    When it comes to the physics of radiative gasses, “out of their depth on a wet pavement” doesn’t adequately describe this biased bunch of social parasites. “So far out of their depth the fish have lights on their noses” would be closer to the mark. There is only one plausible reason the BBC called this load of slime in was for a strategy meeting on propaganda. They certainly could not have been learning anything about the science.

  55. I’m hoping Donna Lafamboise will weigh in with what she knows of the eco-green power structure behind the IPCC and how it relates to the BBC.

  56. Konrad says November 12, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    So not a list of 28 impartial scientists but a sorry bunch of activists, vested interests and a couple of rent seeking pro AGW pseudo-scientists. I believe a quote from the infamous former Australian MP Mark Latham says it best – “A conga line of suckholes.”

    When it comes to the physics of radiative gasses, …

    Hello Konrad. Did we have a discussion about IR Spectroscopy previously? The ‘group’ of 28 may or may not have a grasp of the subject at hand, but it is best to address them for those issues for which you have ‘actionable’, provable points or issues rather than simply riding one’s familiar hobby horse …

    .

  57. Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy

    What could be more apropos for TwentyEightGate, the Beeb, and Mr. Plowman than the tagline from a show he worked on:

  58. I seem to remember a report here on WUWT in the aftermath of that get-together from someone who either sat in on the meeting or was given an account of it from an attendee. I hope someone who’s familiar with the best ways of searching the archives here will take a look for it.

  59. Well done Maurizio. I thought the evidence might be hiding somewhere on the internet but I’m such a patzer I wouldn’t have known how to go about finding it.

    No wonder the BBC didn’t want people finding out about their illustrious “28” – they had just rounded up another bunch of “the usual suspects”.

    If I was still living in the UK (I jumped ship some years ago) I would not pay the BBC licence fee anymore. My brother was smart – he threw his TV out about 10 years ago..

  60. Lord May of Oxford argues that although it is beyond dispute that the burning of fossil fuels is thickening Earth’s greenhouse gas blanket (to levels not seen for tens of millions of years), there remain some uncertainties about the severity of particular adverse consequences and the timescales for manifestation. (My bold)

    Such certainty/uncertainty from someone so well credentialed. How can he be so certain?

    Robert McCredie May, Baron May of Oxford, is an Australian scientist who has been Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, President of the Royal Society and a Professor at Sydney and Princeton. He now holds joint professorships at Oxford and Imperial College London and is a member of the Lowy Institute’s International Advisory Council.
    (source)

  61. The “seminar had the following aims:
    · To invoke imagination to allow the media to deal with the scope of the issue” **

    The “scope of the issue” should include the drastic, destructive measures perpetrated on the nation in order to counter climate change/promote sustainability, as C. Booker points out.

    Worthless wind turbines will cost hundreds of billions, while the back up gas plants would only cost 13 billion, according to Prof. Gordon Hughes.

    The worthless wind turbines and smart meters are economically destructive, unnecessary. And don’t think for a second that it is going to work!

    **research by TonyN of Harmless Sky

  62. I remember reading that it was Roger Harrabin who organised the list of attendees, along with someone else whose name I can’t remember. I suppose as ‘Environment Analyst’ the BBC regarded it as his area of expertise, and that he would be ‘fair and unbiased’! At the time they would not know about his eco-activist hobbies.

    Richard North of EuReferendum was an attendee and I recall reading his recollection of the event but I can not find it on his website [after a brief search]. My recollection is that he thought it was a hatchet job and he was a lone voice.

    One can see why the BBC was so loathe to release this list as it was not an elite gathering, and in effect they broke their charter at the behest of activists.

  63. “UPDATE: ‘TwentyEightGate’ was coined by RoyFOMR in comments. I liked it enough to put in the title.”

    Will someone EVER come up with something original??

    REPLY: The ball is in your court – Anthony

  64. Joe Smith of the Open University is on the list and appears to (possibly) be one of the organizers, since his bio note below says he and Roger Harrabin organized a “programme of seminars that have helped BBC and other senior media decision-makers to respond to environmental change.”

    He and another “expert” participant, Eleni Andreadis, co-authored an article which appeared one year later in the British Journalism Review, where they celebrated the triumph of alarmism in UK media:

    “It feels like the end of an era. Despite occasional pockets of scepticism, such as Peter Glover’s article in BJR late last year, the days when journalists would report on climate change by balancing “pro” and “sceptic” voices, or by knocking the human-induced climate-change argument with prominent coverage of an alternative theory, already seem a distant memory in the UK. This marked change in the treatment of climate change in the British media has helped lay the ground for a dramatic shift in the quality of public debate around the issue. Numerous specialists credit UK journalism of the past 18 months with being leagues ahead of their U.S. colleagues in the depth and regularity of coverage….”

    “Beyond the Oozone Layer”

    Vol 18, No 1, 2007

    “Eleni Andreadis earned her Masters at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, where her thesis focused on media coverage of climate change. She has worked in documentary film-making and has contributed to a range of media, including the BBC. Joe Smith is senior lecturer in environment at the Open University, writing on environmental politics, and working as academic consultant to BBC climate-related programming. He has organised (with the BBC’s Roger Harrabin) a programme of seminars that have helped BBC and other senior media decision-makers to respond to environmental change.”

  65. So why was Iain Wright of BP there?

    ‘cuz he’s a shill trying to get governments to pony up for BP’s carbon capture and sequestration technology. Even lobbying for government regulation to support it.

    The corruption is sickening.

  66. “The point about smart meters is that they do not only enable us consumers to keep tabs on our electricity use: they also (though our Government does not like to spell this out) enable suppliers to exercise remote control over how much electricity we use. The EU knows that the windmills it wants to see covering Europe are unpredictably intermittent, and cannot guarantee sufficient power when it is needed. The answer the EU’s technocrats dream of, as we see from the Bornholm pilot project for a “European supergrid”, is that they can use smart meters to micro-manage the power we receive, right down to their ability to switch off whole categories of electricity use in our homes when there is insufficient power in the grid (what they call “  ‘intelligent’ control of household appliances” , such as dishwashers or televisions).” ~Christopher Booker

  67. A lifelong Anglophile, i had the wonderful fortune to spend six extended holidays in the UK over a three year period. Yanks get a candy coating of BBC through our PBS filter that seems “enlightened” and only slightly biased. In country, the multi-channel bilge is unsufferable, but knowing little else, the Brits accept this with the associated tenant that they are somehow superior and need not argue or defend “national” positions. As Bernard Shaw said “America and Britian are two great nations, divided by a common language”. We are now united by a common enemy, rule by neo-feudalists and their government funded, faux media spokesmouths. It is time for the “BBC Heads on Pikes” special….and a New Magna Carta.

  68. It seems that the BBC’s leading scientific minds for this seminar were almost entirely non-scientists from various areas of media, activism, and/or policy entrepreneurship.

    Yes, the great “scientific” conclave which the BBC has tried so mightily to keep under wraps turns out to be another “climate communications” propaganda exercise, not a “science” session with leading scientists.

    An article from Joe Smith of the Open University precedes the BBC’s Jan. 2006 seminar, but seems to describe the approach from other BBC/media seminars 1997 – 2004:

    “The article draws on new qualitative research in the British context. The main body of it focuses on media source strategies, on climate change storytelling in news, and the “myth of detachment” sustained by many news decisionmakers. The empirical evidence, gathered between 1997 and 2004, is derived primarily from recordings and notes drawn from a series of seminars that has brought together equal numbers of BBC news and television decision makers and environment/development specialists. The seminars have created a rare space for extended dialogue between media and specialist perspectives on the communication of complex climate change science and policy. While the article acknowledges the distinctive nature of theBBC as a public sector broadcaster, the evidence confirms and extends current understanding of the career of climate change within the media more broadly.”

    “Dangerous News: Media Decision Making about Climate Change Risk”

    Risk Analysis, Vol. 25, No. 6, 2005

  69. “REPLY: The ball is in your court – Anthony”

    I don’t have that much time on my hands, but lots of people here do. You’d think with all the big brains inhabiting this site that someone could be more original than tacking “gate” onto something. That’s been old for 30 years. You’re the media guy, is that the best you can do?

  70. Quote Anticlimactic ……
    “Richard North of EUReferendum was an attendee and I recall reading his recollection of the event but I can not find it on his website [after a brief search]. My recollection is that he thought it was a hatchet job and he was a lone voice.” End quote

    Wrong – it was a different Richard North. This Richard North calls himself a skeptic and did complain about the bias. But he is NOT the same Richard North of EUREferendum who exposed Pachauri and Africagate.

  71. anticlimactic wrote:
    Richard North of EuReferendum was an attendee and I recall reading his recollection of the event but I can not find it on his website [after a brief search]. My recollection is that he thought it was a hatchet job and he was a lone voice.

    Different Richard North:

    http://richarddnorth.com/rdn-bio/

  72. Latimer Alder said: “Immense kudos to omnologos for outwitting the best ‘minds’ of both the BBC and their expensive lawyers.”

    Due to the unique way in which the BBC is funded those are *our* expensive lawyers.

    anticlimactic,

    It’s a different Richard North who attended – Richard D North whereas EUreferendum.com is Richard A E North.

  73. So leaving aside the long list of non-expert specialists, why are the drama and comedy departments represented?

    * Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning
    * Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy

    Is it really all that important to make sure that BBC comedies and dramas include the right amount of AGW indoctrination?

  74. In view of the presence of someone from the U.S. Embassy, it should be noticed that this was in the administration of the younger Bush.

  75. Hello Jimmy Haigh, and anyone else who believes that, in the UK, the choice is between paying the licence fee, or dumping the TV:

    * you don’t have to pay;

    * they can’t “detect” what channel you are watching;

    * they have no right to enter your home.

    I have read that c. 3000 people are currently being prosecuted. I suspect that most of these believed one or more of the myths. How would they cope with 30,000? 300,000?

    Would be good to have comment from those (i.e. most) who know more than me on this “TV detector van” issue.

  76. Maurizio Morabito,

    Great stuff! Well done. I hope the pain, anguish and damage this causes al beeb in interminable. Better yet, make that terminal. My cup runneth over with hate for them. You’ve made me very happy. Joy, oh joy! Thank you.

  77. Anthony-

    If I read correctly the article tallbloke referenced above, this is a much bigger story than who attended a single seminar. Apparently a group of alarmists waged an approximately 10 year effort (beginning in 1997) to convince the BBC, through a SERIES of workshop/seminars that the risk of CAGW was so great that the BBC needed to abandon the traditional journalistic even handed approach and take an advocacy role.

    Apparently they were successful.

  78. An addendum to my post about Rafael Hidalgo:

    True he is now “Media Project Manager” and “Studio Manager” for The Open University but he wasn’t even that in 2006.
    Before the seminar there was a just over 2 year gap – not filled in on his Linkedin page – since he had been “Business Consultant, Television Trust for the Enviroment (sic)” for a massive months in 2003. No indication of even that kind of tangential climate involvement before or after that. (I say tangential because Business Consultant to a TV Trust doesn’t necessarily mean any expertise in the subject matter they deal with)

    Why on earth was he invited?

  79. Jolly farmer says:
    November 12, 2012 at 7:59 pm

    Thanks for the info. Of course the myth has always been that they can see what you are watching… (Big Brother Corporation is watching you…)

    In my brother’s case he had just had enough of bloody “Reality TV”. They’ve got another “I’m a Celebrity: Get me out of Here” going on at the moment. i have never watched any pf that garbage but the popularity of all that crap says it all about the UK at the moment.

    Celebrities? Dump them all there – and leave them there. That’s what i would do…

    There. I feel much better now.

  80. A splendid piece of back-research, – very well done Maurizio!
    The actual list reveals almost no one that you could call a scientist but plenty of advocates, urgers and the like as well as a few stooges to make up the numbers. Having people like that on your committee makes the outcome so much easier to achieve. The egg is on the BBC face yet again.

  81. Well done all involved in exposing this BBC coverup.

    This confirms what we all suspected: the taxpayer funded BBC is an advocate for government policy and UN Agenda 21 at the expense of openness and to the detriment of science. Government abuse of taxpayer funding in an attempt to steal more taxes from taxpayers and to controls people’s lives based on corruption and perversion of science.

    Your site is much appreciated Anthony. Again and again.

    A beacon for freedom and an ally in restoring scientific integrity.

    Thanks, mate.

  82. The following caught my eye:
    Trevor Evans, US Embassy

    Is there any connection between this and climategate email 3000:

    “From: Hill, Michael [[4] REDACTEDREDACTED]
    Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 8:48 PM
    To: Meardon Fiona Miss (RBS)
    Subject: RE: Proposed Renewal of U.S. Department of Energy Grant No. DE-FG02-98ER62601
    (Phil Jones’ Project – UEA Ref R14702)
    One other thing: Do continue to require payment in advance, or would reimbursement
    work? If you do need advance, do you have a bank in the United States? If so, we could
    enroll you our automated payment request system.

    Thanks,

    Mike”

  83. Nick says:
    November 12, 2012 at 4:19 pm
    Boaden is also on the list. Currently ‘suspended’ for her role in a paedophile mess at the bbc.
    ========================================================================
    Well, tickle me Elmo!

  84. @temp ….

    Trevor Evans, Officer for Environment, Science and Technology, Deputy Permanent
    Representative of the United States of America to IMO, American Embassy.

    IMO-International Marine Organization

  85. Grey Lensman says:
    November 12, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    It cannot be true

    Its not on the BBC news at all.

    ROFL

    Seriously, will this get national media attention anywhere? Drudge?

  86. “Jolly farmer says:
    November 12, 2012 at 7:59 pm”

    The “TV Detector Van” was more about the fear of being caught because people believed they actually worked the way the BBC said they did. The Ads ran on BBC!!! I never saw one in all my life in the UK. Back in the 70’s the fine was 1000 ponds I think, a lot of money to many back then, so people simply coughed up the license fee. Nice way to extract your income, hold a gun to your viewers head!

  87. Is this a Streisand effect of sorts? Who would have paid much attention that blogger dude if they had simply obliged to his request somewhere along the road, and where there had not been a court hearing with the associated media attention?

    Haaaa-haaa ! ;)

  88. Maurizio Morabito. Well done.
    Your next task, should you choose to accept it, is to find Kevin Trenberth’s missing heat.

  89. Jolly farmer says November 12, 2012 at 7:59 pm

    Hello Jimmy Haigh, and anyone else who believes that, in the UK, the choice is between paying the licence fee, or dumping the TV:

    * you don’t have to pay;

    * they can’t “detect” what channel you are watching; [_Jim: Yes, it can be done, from outside the home even]

    * they have no right to enter your home.

    I have read that c. 3000 people are currently being prosecuted. I suspect that most of these believed one or more of the myths. How would they cope with 30,000? 300,000?

    Would be good to have comment from those (i.e. most) who know more than me on this “TV detector van” issue.

    With TV sets becoming more integrated and smaller and smaller components (think: 0402 SMD parts) there is even less LO (local oscillator) leakage than normal, except ‘back’ (reverse direction) through the mixer and front end stages … newer direct conversion designs present a bit more of a challenge, but, an “LO” is still required, so, detection is still possible … since there is no such thing as a consumer device that has enough shielding to _not_ be detectable (to meet post and telecommunication or FCC RF ‘radiation’ or signal leakage specs yes; complete or 100% effective shielding: no. Even commercial RF equipment reaches a cost-effective limit at some point.)

    A ‘for example’, a Sony Walkman is receivable on a nothing-special hand-held scanner programmed for 10.7 MHz *above* the station (scanner tuned to the LO frequency) being listened-to out to 50 or 60 feet easy … an improved receiver and better antenna could extend that 5x out … UHF TV “LO” freqs like used in GB are a cinch given the smaller wavelength allowing hand-held Yagi and Log-Periodic antennas …

    In fact, the idea of ‘looking’ for receiver LOs (LO leakage, to determine audience listening preferences) has been patented for audience ‘survey’ purposes:

    REMOTE AUDIENCE SURVEY SYSTEM AND METHOD THEREFOR

    http://www.google.com/patents/EP0882338A4?cl=en

    There were a couple of competing systems fielded to ‘survey’ public listeners a few year back using this technique; I’ll post again if I run across any present-day offerings by companies providing this service.

    .

  90. David Ball says November 12, 2012 at 8:39 pm

    Joel Shore? Lazy Teenager? RR Kampen? barry? ericgrimsrud? Monty?

    Did I miss anyone?
    – – – – – – – – –

    R. Gates? William Connelly? Nick Stokes?

  91. Dunno… they may prefer this mess to the other ones.

    LONDON — The BBC struggled Monday to contain a spreading crisis over its reporting of a decades-old sexual abuse scandal as two senior executives withdrew temporarily from their jobs following the resignation of the corporation’s director general in the worst setback to the public broadcaster’s status, prestige and self-confidence for years.

    The BBC’s website said its director of news, Helen Boaden, and her deputy, Stephen Mitchell, had “stepped aside,” the latest moves since a flagship current affairs program, “Newsnight,” wrongly implicated a former Conservative Party politician in accusations of sexual abuse at a children’s home in North Wales in the 1970s and 1980s.

    http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/world/2-more-bbc-execs-withdraw-amid-crisis-661817/

    NEW YORK — New York Times Co. CEO Mark Thompson started his job Monday amid a widening scandal at his former employer, the BBC.

    In recent months, Thompson has faced questions over a decision by the BBC’s “Newsnight” program last December to shelve an investigation into child sexual-abuse allegations against renowned BBC children’s television host Jimmy Savile. That decision was made while Thompson was still in charge of the company.

    http://www.berkshireeagle.com/business/ci_21984565/n-y-times-ceo-starts-amid-bbc-scandal

  92. I’m so impressed by Maurizio – I repeat many of the above: Well done. I could be depressed by the BBC – but it’s really only what we expect after two decades of decline.

  93. Fantastic stuff, omnologos! Hats off to you! Agree – Woodward and Bernstein have nothing on you.

    The import and timing couldn’t be better – BBC just spent lots of money to keep this OUT of the press (because they KNEW THEY BUSTED THEIR CHARTER). – and now they will be faced with yet ANOTHER Coverup. Classic!

    As to the naming skerfuffle (Tony) – whilst the 28-gate is poetic, it doesn’t communicate to those folks ‘outside baseball’ what this is all about. Perhaps a a description more in keeping in line with what this is about? “UnbalancedGate”? “ClimateBiasGate”?

    It is proof of INSTITUTIONAL hijacking….

  94. Why is anybody surprised that Trevor Evans of the US Embassy is part of the BBC’s Gang of 28?

    CAGW has always been about politics–and precious little science.

    (And even in the so-called “science” there’s collusion between east and west–East Anglia and Michael Mann, et al.)

    Gosh, how I’d love another dose of Climategate right about now! The perfect Christmas would be opening* the rest of the trove.

    *hint, hint.

  95. not only BP, Insurance, but also nuclear lobbyist:

    Matthew Farrow has quite a bit online suggesting he’s a nuclear lobbyist:

    14 Aug 2010: Telegraph: Rowena Mason and Abigail Townsend: Britain is struggling to power the nuclear revolution
    About 40km south of Beijing, some of the world’s most exciting science is splitting atoms in pursuit of the nuclear physicist’s Holy Grail – the tiny, cheap reactor.
    Nuclear is actually inexpensive in comparison to offshore wind farms, according to Matthew Farrow, head of energy planning at the CBI.
    “In terms of power output and carbon saved, nuclear could be two to three times cheaper than offshore wind,” he says. “Because of this we think it should take its place alongside renewables and fossil fuels as part of a balanced energy mix.” …

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7945867/Britain-is-struggling-to-power-the-nuclear-revolution.html

    Nov 2010: ESA (Environment Services Assoc) appoints CBI’s Matthew Farrow as Director of Policy

    http://www.esauk.org/reports_press_releases/press_releases/101126_ESA_appoints_CBIs_

    i don’t think bbc wanted this list out cos it would show Big Oil & nuclear were with the Agenda. indeed Shell has been in from the early days.

  96. the big CAGW prize has always been trading CO2:

    Tessa Tennant, AsRia, is among the Specialists, in what speciality?

    Tessa Tennant, Co-founder of ASrIA, Appointed to the UK Green Investment Bank Board
    HONG KONG, 5 October 2012 (FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE)—Tessa Tennant, co-founder and first chairman of the Association for Sustainable & Responsible Investment in Asia (ASrIA), the region’s non-profit membership association for the sustainable and responsible investment industry, has been appointed as a Non-Executive Director of the UK Green Investment Bank (UK GIB).
    The UK GIB is a funding scheme initiated by the UK government and is designed to accelerate private sector investment in the UK’s transition to a green economy. Offshore wind power generation, waste processing and recycling, energy from waste generation, non-domestic energy efficiency and support for the Green Deal will be the first priority sectors for the bank.
    On the UK GIB Board Tennant joins Chairman Lord Smith of Kelvin and Deputy Chairman Sir Adrian Montague, along with five other Non-Executive Directors:
    Professor Dame Julia King
    Fred Maroudas
    Tom Murley
    David Nish
    Isobel Sharp
    Shaun Kingsbury is the Chief Executive…
    Tennant remains on the ASrIA Board and is President and co-founder of The Ice Organisation, a personal carbon management and loyalty programme. The 2012 recipient of the Joan Bavaria Award for Building Sustainability into the Capital Markets, Tennant co-founded the UK’s first equity investment fund for sustainable development in 1988. She was Chair and co-founder of the UK Social Investment Forum and of the Carbon Disclosure Project, where she is now a Trustee…

    http://www.asria.org/news/press/1349400121

  97. the fact the Church of England were specialists alongside BP, makes this appointment rather amusing:

    8 Nov: Financial Times: Church of England needs a pragmatist
    As a former oil industry executive, Bishop Welby will bring a dash of worldliness to the post of Archbishop of Canterbury and, as such, head of the Anglican communion…
    Bishop Welby will continue to straddle the material and spiritual worlds by remaining a member of the parliamentary commission on banking, which some may see as one more sign of the steady secularisation of the Anglican Church…
    Bishop Welby’s rise has been meteoric, the appointment coming barely one year after receiving his bishopric at Durham. His privileged background as the Eton and Cambridge-educated descendant of former Tory deputy prime minister Rab Butler make him an establishment candidate, albeit one who brings certain risks at a time of great upheaval…

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7851c9ec-29a4-11e2-a604-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2C4RVNXPg

    Bishop Welby, appointed last year to be bishop of Durham, worked for 11 years in the oil industry, rising to treasurer of Enterprise Oil, before deciding he was called to the priesthood…
    Before seeking ordination, Bishop Welby worked six years for French oil company Elf Aquitaine and then as treasurer of exploration company Enterprise Oil in 1984…

    http://www.news.com.au/world/justin-welby-named-next-archbishop-of-canterbury/story-fndir2ev-1226514052738

    8 Nov: Telegraph: Peter Mullen: A new Archbishop but no change at Canterbury: Justin Welby is just another Left-wing establishment bureaucrat
    He is of course an establishment man. I do not mean to suggest by that the old establishment based on the 16th century and the Elizabethan Settlement and supported by luminous divines such as Hooker, Law and Lancelot Andrewes. That wonderful creation was put to death decades ago. No, I mean the new establishment: a hierarchy among the bishops and in the Synod of Left-wing modernisers, devotees of all the secular fads such as diversity, social cohesion, political correctness and, of course, apostles of that sublime superstition, global warming…
    The bishop does speak from the highest moral ground: “One principle that seems to me to be clear. We cannot replace what was destroyed in 2008; we can only replace it with something that is dedicated to the support of human society, the common good and solidarity.” Who are this “We” who will do the replacing, we might ask? But the point to notice about what the bishop is saying here, is his supreme confidence in the objective infallibility of his own thoughts: he begins by mentioning a “principle” but proceeds only to offer his opinion. Clearly the implication must be that he regards his own private opinions as matters of principle. This is dangerous. It has been known to lead to demagoguery…

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/petermullen/100188475/a-new-archbishop-but-no-change-at-canterbury-justin-welby-is-just-another-left-win

  98. “Specialist” Andrew Simms is no stranger to the sceptic sites:

    Guardian: Andrew Simms
    Andrew Simms is a fellow of the New Economics Foundation, and the author of Ecological Debt, Tescopoly and Eminent Corporations
    122 articles, including “50 months to avoid climate disaster – and a change is in the air”, dating back to 1999.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/andrewsimms

  99. the purpose

    the purpose of the meeting was “reaching new and wider audiences” – shortly afterwards, bbc’s climate chaos series began, and david attenborough embraced CAGW:

    23 May 2006: PS-Mag: David Attenborough Kicks Off Climate Chaos, 24 May 2006, 9pm, BBC One
    By From bbc.co.uk web site
    Are We Changing Planet Earth?
    Wednesday 24 May, 9pm, BBC One
    David Attenborough draws on his life-long insights into our planet and presents his personal take on climate change. Part two follows next week.

    Songs of Praise
    Sunday 28 May, TBC, BBC One
    Sally Magnusson visits an environmental project in Oxford that has made a real difference to the local community, and meets with historian and environmentalist, Martin Palmer.

    Test the Nation – Know Your Planet
    Sunday 28 May, 8pm, BBC One
    Are you aware of climate and environmental issues? We put the country to the test in the popular quiz show.

    Can We Save Planet Earth?
    Thursday 1 June, 9pm, BBC One
    Part two of David Attenborough’s investigation.

    Five Disasters Waiting to Happen
    Tuesday 6 June, 9pm, BBC Two
    We examine five global locations and scenarios: London, Shanghai, Mumbai, Paris and Tuvalu. All have been identified by experts as vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

    The Money Programme
    Friday 2 June, 7pm, BBC Two
    The Money Programme spends a week with a family in Teesdale – the area with the UK’s highest CO2 emissions per capita.

    Panorama
    Date and time TBC, BBC One
    The Bush administration has resisted calls to engage in Kyoto, and has been accused of a systematic campaign of disinformation and harassment against the scientific community – gagging scientists, re-writing major reports, and allowing the oil and coal industries to drive policy. Panorama investigates these claims.

    Climate Change shorts
    You can also watch eight short documentaries on the affects of Climate Change via the BBC Four website. For legal reasons, these are only available if you are in the UK.

    http://www.psychicsahar.com/artman/publish/article_711.shtml

    Panorama: Climate chaos: Bush’s climate of Fear was on BBC One on June 6 2006 (links to transcript)

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/5005994.stm

  100. a coincidence worth noting:

    24 May 2006: Uni of Oxford: Oxford studies on the environment inform the Government and the BBC
    Oxford University scientists were among those playing host to the new Environment Secretary, David Miliband, on Wednesday 24 May when he visited Wytham Woods to see first hand the effect of climate change on wildlife and habitat…
    Another recent visitor to Wytham Wood was Sir David Attenborough, whose programme launches the BBC’s Climate Chaos season, **coincidentally on the same day as the Environment Secretary’s visit. Sir David is filmed in the wood talking about the sun’s energy in ‘Are We Changing Planet Earth?’ ( BBC One on Wednesday 24 May at 9pm)
    Another programme in the Climate Chaos Season features Oxford University’s Lower Carbon Futures Team Leader, Dr Brenda Boardman. Dr Boardman is in ‘The Money Programme – The Real Cost of Going Green’, where she advises a family on how to reduce their carbon effect to save them money and help the planet too (BBC Two on Friday 2 June at 7pm).

    http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2006/060524.html

  101. Just a thought, but did Helen Boaden or another claim under oath in the FOIA case that the attendees were ‘experts’? If so, isnt that perjury?

  102. Not only BBC, Australian ABC needs urgent ”Perestroika” also. All those apparatchiks named above; should have their assets frozen and passports confiscated, until is found if GLOBAL warming is for real and is cumming or not – crime shouldn’t pay!!! On taxpayer’s paid responsible jobs / abuse of privileged position – misappropriation of tax $$$ ===DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWER BETWEEN THE NATIONAL BROADCASTER AND POLITICAL PARTY, IS DEAD. Should be resuscitated!!! NO BALANCED REPORTING = NO DEMOCRACY.

  103. 12 gates to the White City? (BBC’s current affairs and factual and learning programmes HQ, including ‘Top Gear’ so not all bad!)

    There’s three gates in the East
    There’s three gates in the West
    There’s three gates in the North
    There’s three gates in the South
    That makes twelve gates to the city, hallelujah

    And it’s oh, what a beautiful
    Oh
    Oh Lord, what a beautiful city
    Twelve gates to the city, hallelujah

    Reverend Gary Davis

  104. Apologies – it looks like I was mistaken about Richard North of EUReferendum being there. Having read so many blogs it can be a little blurry in hindsight. I certainly remember reading something by someone who was there, although possibly in a peripheral role.

    If this list is picked up by certain UK newspapers it could be more bad news for the BBC. In the past they could have shrugged it off using their reputation, but now they are wounded and open to attack.

    If the papers followed this up by examining the horrible bias in their ‘science’ programs [‘Climate Wars’ and various ‘Horizon’ programs] as well as news ‘reporting’ they could spin it out for weeks or months.

    This would tie-in with the backlash against windfarms, concerns from British industry that a carbon tax and increased energy prices will make them uncompetative, concerns that a lack of a credible energy policy will lead to blackouts, etc.

    It may just fizzle out, but as someone who lives in the UK I hope not.

  105. Zoominfo: TVE network
    http://www.tve.org, 30 Aug 2011 [cached]
    Rafael Hidalgo is tve’s part-time coordinator for Latin America and the Caribbean. A graduate in electronic engineering, Rafael Hidalgo worked in the Venezuelan media for 15 years. As executive director of Artévision-USB, the production arm of Simon Bolivar University in Caracas – and tve’s partner in Caracas – he played a leading role in the ground-breaking microMACRO project, the tve Latin American Network’s series on environmental entrepreneurs. He moved to Spain to complete a Media MBA (Universidad Carlos III, Madrid) in 2002 and joined tve as microMACRO project coordinator the following year. Since 2004, he has been working at the Open University, where he has had several roles involving the management of the production of teaching materials – including audiovisual, software, multimedia and web resources – see tve partners…
    TVE: News
    http://www.tve.org, 10 July 2001 [cached]
    “Our challenge will be to adapt 60 programmes in the catalogue of the international TV Trust for the Environment into television that appeal to a diverse audience in all the countries of our continent” adds Rafael Hidalgo, chief of Venezuela’s Arte Vision.

    http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=28057353&targetid=profile

  106. Well done to Tony Newbury.
    The list is not be a big surprise, the usual environmental taliban.
    I don’t think anybody else has mentioned how the BBC is funded, i.e. by the UK public. If you live in the UK you have to pay £150 a year for the privilege of watching the BBC.

  107. given BBC’s former Director-General Mark Thompson, now at NYT, is enmeshed in the many Jimmy Savile investigations because he was D-G when the Savile Newsnight program was pulled – i can’t see how the NYT can afford to keep him, to be honest:

    12 Nov: Telegraph: James Delingpole: BBC’s latest excuse: forget Jimmy Savile, blame Nigel Lawson
    The other day I argued that, following the Jimmy Savile and Lord McAlpine disasters, the BBC will learn nothing and do nothing. Patten – I’ll bet you: and there’s no bet I’d more happily lose – will keep his well-upholstered rear stuck firmly in the Chairman’s seat. The BBC will remain, as it is now, a bastion of entrenched left-liberal orthodoxy. If you need proof, have a read of this astonishing speech just delivered to Oxford University by the BBC’s ex-Director General Mark Thompson…
    He quotes the Doran survey (“97 per cent of scientists say…”), quite unaware that it has been exposed as rubbish; he is impressed by Bob Ward whom he seeks to brandish as an expert in the field; he constructs his whole speech around the argumentum ad verecundiam – blissfully unaware throughout that by citing supposed authorities such as the Royal Society he is guilty of precisely the rhetorical fallacy he is striving to criticise.
    My favourite bit though is the one where – again unwittingly, it seems – he resorts to yet another rhetorical fallacy (the argumentum ad populum) to demonstrate that “scientists” are considered in opinion surveys to be much more trustworthy than “journalists.”
    Well given what the BBC has done over the years in its piss-poor reportage of any number of issues to discredit the cause of honest journalism, is it any wonder?
    The New York Times is more than welcome to its new editor. Frankly, they deserve each other.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100189238/bbcs-latest-excuse-forget-jimmy-savile-blame-nigel-lawson/

  108. Poor form I know but it amused me to note how many of the BBC attendees are now ex, ‘resting’ or suing …

  109. http://web.archive.org/web/20071108153956/http://www.ibt.org.uk/all_documents/dialogue/Real%20World%20Brainstorm%20Sep%202007%20background.pdf?PHPSESSID=646ac9912b785ecd5f9230ff4d8b8ac6

    The International Broadcasting Trust (IBT) has been lobbying the BBC, on behalf of all
    the major UK aid and development agencies … So far, 6 seminars have taken place. They have had a significant impact on the BBC’s output … As a result of the success of these seminars, further brainstorms are now planned for 2008.
    ==========
    Here we have it, from IBT’s own documents:

    “a significant impact on the BBC’s output”

    Their lobbying has changed what the BBC reports. A lobby group that works on behalf of aid and development agencies has directly affected what the BBC reports to the public.

    Clearly, the BBC is no longer a public institution. It is working at the IBT’s direction, on behalf of aid and development agencies, using public money to fund this effort. At a minimum this would appear to be a Breach of Trust by the BBC Trustees.

  110. Actually, that whole “INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING TRUST” document is worth reading. Just how much is BBC output being influenced by the unaccountable organisations that seek to control its agenda. As of 2007, six seminars had taken place. What was the result of the other five, and how many others have taken place since?

  111. Anita Neville is with E3G (Third Generation Environmentalism), founded by Foreign & Commonwealth Offices’s John Ashton:

    E3G John Ashton, Founding Director
    John Ashton is a Founding Director of E3G. He was the Special Representative for Climate Change to the UK Foreign Secretary from 2006 to 2012. He was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2012 Birthday Honours for services to international climate change.
    John is one of a new generation of diplomats equally at home in the worlds of foreign policy and green politics. Before moving outside government to establish E3G in 2005, John had a distinguished career in the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including founding and leading its Environment Policy Department.
    A major theme of John’s career has been China. He speaks Chinese. He was an adviser to Governor Chris Patten in Hong Kong from 1993-7. His first diplomatic assignment, from 1981-4, was as Science Attaché in the British Embassy in Beijing…
    John was the first Chief Executive of E3G in 2005-06, before returning to the UK Foreign Office as the Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative for Climate Change…
    He had the personal title of Ambassador with direct access to the Foreign Secretary. John played a key role in designing the FCO’s climate change network and strategy, with its focus on climate stability as a precondition for security, prosperity and equity, and on strategic political engagement with the emerging and other major economies.
    John has been continuously active in climate diplomacy in various capacities since 1997. He was involved in negotiating the EU 2020 package on climate change in spring 2007 and the decision in December 2008 on funding for CCS across Europe. He helped negotiate the agreement in 2005 between the EU and China to demonstrate zero emission coal technology in China, and was closely involved in the EU’s engagement with Russia over the Kyoto Protocol. He played a key role in the first UN security debate on climate change in April 2007. He was a senior member of the UK negotiating team in the UN climate negotiations from 1998-2002, and again at Copenhagen.
    John Ashton is a Visiting Professor at Imperial College London, and a Member of the Green College Centre for Environmental Policy and Understanding. He is a steering committee member of Climate Care and serves on the Advisory Boards of the Climate Institute, Washington DC; the UK Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research; the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara; and Climate Change Capital.

    http://www.e3g.org/about/John-Ashton/

    17 Oct: E3G: John Ashton speaks at Asahi World Environmental Forum, Tokyo
    John Ashton, one of E3G’s founding directors, gave a speech at the Asahi World Environmental Forum 2012 in Tokyo on the 16th October. Entitled “Climate Change and the Race for Growth”, the speech urges countries to raise climate change up the political agenda and move away from a ‘business as usual approach’ to growth. Climate policies of China, the US, the EU, the UK and Japan are also discussed…

    http://www.e3g.org/programmes/climate-articles/john-ashton-speaks-at-asahi-world-environmental-forum-tokyo1/

  112. I think that you are kidding yourselves if you think this revelation will change anything.

    For one, the timing is really bad – the beeb is so wrapped up in child abuse allegations and hypocrisy at the moment that nothing else will see the light of day – for the prurient press that is far more interesting than a deliberate skewing of editorial policy into what most of them will see as being ‘the right direction’ anyway.

  113. Dr Andrew Dlugolecki produced a report for the Chartered Insurance Institute in the UK about climate change. He is of course entirely impartial. In an interview in 2009 about the report he said:

    “We believe climate change is already happening, and to give you an example of hot months in the UK, the kind of temperatures that we used to see once every hundred years – in other words with a one per cent risk – has now risen to about an eight per cent risk. In insurance you would normally insure against something that comes about one per cent of the time and already we’re seeing events that used to happen once every thousand years happening with a probability of one per cent. We’re seeing a big change already in the climate, a change at the levels where insurance and re-insurance has to pay attention.”

    What utter nonsense. Of course ever since he said this I don’t think we have had anything but cold wet summers and cold winters in the UK.

  114. No surprise the BBC wanted to keep the list secret! I wonder how many others did too? Perhaps that was the reason for the odd choice of judge in the case — someone who was willing to give the “right” answer?

    Even now, the BBC has links all over the place and who knows what nudge-nudge-wink-wink arrangements could have been made in an effort to preserve its appearance of impartiality.

    I found it very funny that the BBC news was reporting on Entwistle’s departure as if it was a major story. I wonder if it will do the same on this story? I think not, but hopefully one of the less biased MSM organisations might pick it up.

  115. The top secret list of the TwentyEight… all in the Wayback machine… Ahhahahaha! Idiots!

    Nice sleuthing, Omnologos!
    (Now I can see some BBC investigative journalists trying to find out who this “Omnologos” REALLY is… and where his lair is…)

  116. No one seems to have noticed the absence of Mr Richard Black from the list, the BBC science reporter notorious for being able to argue black is white (no pun intended) on all matters to do with climate.

    I had thought the reason the BBC fought tooth and nail not to disclose this list was because HRH Charlieness was involved. Anyhow, that is not the case and as has been pointed out previously here, that’s all right because the BBC Head of Comedy, the US Embassy representative, the Church of England and assorted loony environmental activists were there.

    This is just another instance of the amateurish way in which the once highly professional BBC is run these days.

  117. It would be interesting to see what was said by the BBC in their defence of the FOI case. Did they actually say use the defence of the 28 being scientists? They may have perjured themselves?

  118. Now we know why they wanted to keep the list confidential. Imagine if the Nazis had gotten a hold of that list? Talk about dodging a bullet.

  119. Charles Gerard Nelson says:
    November 12, 2012 at 4:50 pm
    More than 3,000 people a week are being prosecuted for not having a TV licence… The number of prosecutions has risen in part because many more are struggling to pay. In 2010, licence fee fines totalled just under £25million a year.
    Being charged/taxed/licensed to pay for their Global Warming Drivel™ is one thing, being fined for refusing to pay for it is insanity.

    Anything that can be licensed is fundamentally lawful anyway. Don’t pay it – fight back! Here in Australia, we used to pay a fee, but it’s since been revoked decades ago. Is your gubberment ripping you off THAT much eh? Who woulda thunk it..

  120. _Jim says:
    November 12, 2012 at 6:32 pm
    “Hello Konrad. Did we have a discussion about IR Spectroscopy previously? The ‘group’ of 28 may or may not have a grasp of the subject at hand, but it is best to address them for those issues for which you have ‘actionable’, provable points or issues rather than simply riding one’s familiar hobby horse …”
    ———————————————
    An unfinished discussion maybe, however not about spectoscopy but rather radiative cooling and convection. You will note on that thread I gave a description of an empirical experiment including a list of materials and construction instructions. I suspect you have yet to build and run such an experiment. Type, as I often say, is cheap.

  121. Of course big oil was there no doubt there to undermine the ‘science’, those evil bastards!!
    When will the AGW crowd accept they are funded by big oil?

  122. Nick says:
    November 12, 2012 at 4:19 pm
    The bbc covered up for Jimmy Saville. Then when it comes out, the decided that the best thing to do was go on the attack to show to distract against the mess. So they attacked a Tory donor for being involved, plus throwing Thatcher into the mix. It’s all unravelled.

    Out of the frying pan and into the soup.

  123. The trouble for the BBC with this list is that it directly proves coverage of AGW by the BBC was never about the science and solely about delivering a certain message. In fact the less science the better it seems, as they know facts and figures easily turn people off from a message.

    It’s a pure call to arms for a one sided message: dam the science, its for the greater good. Unfortunately history is littered with expensive and dangerous events when science has been cast aside for the greater good; this seems to be a lesson hard to be learnt.

    With the whole BBCpedo story atm, there is a risk this could get lost in the post – please make sure this is spread far and wide, and ideally to your local political representatives.

  124. And the BBC equivalent in Australia is the ABC, and they have most certainly been up to the same type of shenanigans, as evident in “the drum”

    No climate change articles since Aug 29.

    2 and a half months of silence.

    Trying to get the public to forget the carbon tax.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/thedrum/specials/climate-debate/

    So they have gone from abusing skeptics to silencing them.

    Who are they, where is the ABC list?????

    Maybe its this cannon fodder?

    http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-deniers-are-rarer-than-we-think-10670

  125. Jeff Alberts says:
    November 12, 2012 at 7:08 pm

    “REPLY: The ball is in your court – Anthony”

    I don’t have that much time on my hands, but lots of people here do. You’d think with all the big brains inhabiting this site that someone could be more original than tacking “gate” onto something. That’s been old for 30 years. You’re the media guy, is that the best you can do?

    Here are some words that rhyme with Auntie”–maybe someone can make a ruthless rhyme out of them:

    banty, bacchante, vigilante, panty, ranty, chanty, shanty, scanty, slanty, dilettante

  126. Well done, Maurizio!!!!!!
    You are one of the very rare persons who make me proud of being an “Italian”!!!!

    The “impartiality” of BBC is rivalling with that of TeleKabul here in Italy…

    For non – Italians: in Italy, we have THREE Government-owned TV, named RAI1, RAI2, RAI3.
    The RAI3 channel was designed in the late ’70s to be, in fact, “owned” and controlled by the then Communist Party (now self-renamed “Democratic Party”); in the ’80s, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, RAI3, owing to his “impartiality”, was nicknamed “tele Kabul” after the official Afghan TV, owned by the pro-Soviet puppet government…

  127. Aviva was Norwich Union, and Sir Robert Bignold, head of the Norwich Union, matched funding by

    UNEP Finance Initiative: Online Course: Climate Change Risks & Opportunities for the Finance Sector
    MENTORS’ BIOGRAPHIES
    Dr. Andrew Dlugolecki (Course mentor for weeks 1 & 2):
    Dr. Andrew Dlugolecki worked for 27 years in Aviva insurance group, in a number of senior technical and operational posts with UK and international responsibilities, retiring from the post of Director of General Insurance Development in December 2000. Modelling the effect of weather on insurance claims in the 70’s and 80’s led to his involvement with global warming from 1987 onward. He served as the chief author on Financial Services for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 1995 Assessment Report, and has been an author, reviewer or review editor in later Assessment Reports. IPCC named him as a key
    contributor when they received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. He carried out similar duties for the official UK and EU reviews of climate change. In 2009 the UK’s statutory committee on adaptation to climate change appointed him as a member with specialist knowledge on financial services. He chaired three studies of climate change by the Chartered Insurance Institute (1994, 2001 and 2009).
    Andrew is a special advisor of the Carbon Disclosure Project and has been an advisor to UNEP FI on climate change since 2001, having written, edited, or project-managed several of their reports and briefings.
    He also consults privately from his home in Perth, Scotland and includes UNFCCC as one of his clients.

    http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/training/climate/cc_course_biographies.pdf

    History of the Climatic Research Unit
    Acknowledgements
    This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
    Norwich Union (now Aviva)

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/about-cru/history

    Linkedin: David Viner
    Programmer Norwich Union / Aviva
    November 2001 – March 2003 (1 year 5 months) Norwich, United Kingdom
    Senior Programmer Anglia Campus
    January 1999 – September 2001 (2 years 9 months) Norwich
    Java, PHP, Perl programmer.

    http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/david-viner/38/255/752

    Dec 2008: Uni of East Anglia: Norwich Union (Insurance) sponsors new university chair
    Norwich Union and The University of East Anglia (UEA) have announced a new chair within the University’s School of Computing Sciences. The appointment, which is sponsored by the insurer, part of Aviva, will be the Aviva Chair in Insurance Statistics…
    The new arrangement will strengthen existing relationships between Norwich Union and the University, and will help to further advance the statistical capability within the business. The initial agreement is for three years…
    Professor Vic Rayward-Smith, Head of the University’s School of Computing Sciences, says: “We are delighted to receive this sponsorship. The funding of this chair will strengthen further the already strong relationship between two of Norwich’s most important organisations.
    “Statistical techniques are a major research area within the School and for many years, we have worked with Norwich Union helping them to analyse their own customer databases and to develop accurate pricing and marketing strategies.

    http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2008/dec/Norwich+Union+sponsors+new+university+chair+

    May 2003: Uni of East Anglia: Norwich Union signs up WeatherQuest
    The market for insurance weather services sees a new player this month, as Norwich Union sign up WeatherQuest to provide their weather claims validation information and weather forecast support services.
    WeatherQuest, with its headquarters at the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) School of Environmental Sciences, has been providing a pilot service to Norwich Union for the past six months, and following a successful review has now been signed up for a three-year service.
    “We’re delighted to be working with Norwich Union,” said WeatherQuest Managing Director, Jim Bacon. “Our experience is that over 30 per cent of weather related insurance claims are not backed up by the weather records, so we believe we’re helping Norwich Union save money as well as providing them with the daily, up to date information they need…
    With weather and climate remaining high on insurance agendas, WeatherQuest benefits from close links with UEA’s internationally renowned climate expertise, with both the Climatic Research Unit and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research also being based in UEA’s School of Environmental Sciences.

    http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2003/may/Norwich+Union+signs+up+WeatherQuest

    Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
    Project Duration: April 2001 to May 2003
    Contact: Prof. J. Palutokof
    Climatic Research Unit
    The work undertaken in this project has been extremely limited by data availability.
    •HadRM3H data were not made available until April 2002 (12 months into the project timetable) due to delays in the launch of the UKCIP02 scenarios.
    •HadAM3H data are still incomplete.
    •Access to insurance claims data has proven problematic. This is primarily due to the fragmented nature of the Aviva group (Norwich Union, Commercial Union and General Accident), a consequence of several large mergers. However, Royal Sun Alliance has provided claims data for five storms…
    There is broad scope for further work:
    includes:
    The insurance industry in particular would benefit from information regarding windstorm activity for earlier future time slices than the 2080s available currently for HadAM3H and HadRM3H e.g., for the 2020s and 2050s.
    Socio-economic scenarios designed specifically for the insurance and forestry industries, taking into account factors such as future building stock distribution, insurance coverage and forest cover, could improve the vulnerability predictions for the future.

    http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/content/final-project-overview-15

    Wikipedia: Hubert Lamb
    Climatic Research Unit
    At first his view was that global cooling would lead within 10,000 years to a future ice age and he was known as “the ice man”, but over a period including the UK’s exceptional drought and heat wave of 1975–76 he changed to predicting that global warming could have serious effects within a century. His warnings of damage to agriculture, ice caps melting, and cities being flooded caught widespread attention and helped to shape public opinion. He gained the unit sponsorship from ***seven major insurance companies, who wanted to make use of the research of the unit when making their own studies of the implications of climate change for insurance against storm and flood damage…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Lamb

  128. @Bertram Felden

    ..I think that you are kidding yourselves if you think this revelation will change anything. For one, the timing is really bad – the beeb is so wrapped up in child abuse allegations and hypocrisy at the moment that nothing else will see the light of day ….

    This revelation will certainly not change the AGW activists’ minds. If clear data cannot do this, then revealing one of the underhand tricks they used to force Climate Change down people’s throats certainly will not. But it will help in two ways:

    – it will help persuade the average viewer that the BBC is not to be trusted. At the moment the main reason the man-in-the-street ‘believes’ is that he has been told to by an authoritative source. In this case the timing is actually good – people are much more open to believing bad things about the Beeb at the moment.

    – probably more importantly, it will have a chilling effect on the pro-global-warming party’s planning. They will now be much more secretive, always looking over their shoulder, much more prone to making mistakes. They are already moving into illegal territory with Heartgate – as they keep on being exposed they will find it harder and harder to expand and keep taking over establishment bodies in the way that they have done up to now. Sunlight turns out to be a good disinfectant, and cockroaches don’t like it….

  129. What this list and the PDF on the link show beyond all doubt is that there has been – and continues to be – a concerted and determined political effort at the BBC to ‘weird’ it’s output across current affairs, entertainment, drama and comedy (in fact, across all genres) so as to favour and to highlight issues such as CAGW (hiding, of course, beneath a veneer of ‘developing world’ issues). It’s subtle; it’s organised and it’s both impartial and political in nature and intent.

    The BBC have already decided to break with their historic requirement to provide ‘impartial’, ‘balanced’ coverage to their audience – we know this not only because they have told us they took an editorial decision to ignore climate sceptics, but also because the BBC re-wrote their own Charter to change their historic requirement to provide ‘impartiality’ to something they re-named ‘due impartiality’. A sly, clever move to allow the BBC itself to decide what is and isn’t ‘due’ ‘impartial’ coverage. See, when you run a massive, publicly-funded broadcasting behemoth, untroubled by crass commercial concerns, you can pull these kind of moves and nobody blinks. After all, who is actually paying attention?

    Remember; this is a public service broadcaster, funded by what is essentially a tax on every UK household (£145.00 annually – and everyone in the UK must buy a TV license; this in turn funds the BBC to the tune of £4billion annually. If a person refuses to pay for a TV license, and doesn’t watch any BBC output, the BBC can technically have them put in prison for non-payment).

    The BBC stand exposed as a blatantly left-wing, ideologically-driven organization, determined to work to their pro-CAGW agenda in the face of mounting evidence that ‘the science’, far from being ‘settled’, is perhaps more patchy, more uncertain, than ever. The BBC are a disgrace and are in clear breach of their mandate to provide impartial, honest coverage of major issues to its audience. They know this: they are just hoping nobody else notices.

    But who will ever call them out on this? Who can? They are a huge, faceless organization, resistant to change, indifferent to their critics and with £4billion a year of public money to work with why should they ever have to give a damn..? It’s a tragedy.

  130. Well done Maurizio for tracking this down, and to Anthony for posting it. You have put a smile on the face of this old fool for the rest of the day. The blowing of tens of thousands of quid by a national broadcaster trying to hide the truth has been noted by this UK taxpayer, too.

    RBerteigasks “Is it really all that important to make sure that BBC comedies and dramas include the right amount of AGW indoctrination?” – RB, if you had to listen to them, you’d know it was, to them at anyrate. Last Christmas they did a programme about fairies for the kids and managed to invent and lever in the evil “global warming fairy”. They really are that bad.

  131. Head of Comedy present?
    Not surprising at all.
    Comedy is one of their most effective propaganda weapons. A good example is the BBC’s very popular Now Show which regularly trashes global warming “deniers”.

  132. meant to say:
    Sir Robert Bignold, head of the Norwich Union, matched funding by Lord Mackintosh, who made an appeal to raise funds to finance the building of UEA, according to page 52 of Michael Sanderson’s book, The History of the University of East Anglia. you can find Sanderson’s book if u do a search, but i can’t copy from it. Mackintosh & Norwich Union did not put up the whole amount:

    4mins 26secs: VIDEO: East Anglian University
    The first propositions for a university in Norwich had been made many years before the plans for the University of East Anglia were finally accepted. It wasn’t until national demand for university places increased in the 1960’s – as the post-war ‘bulge’ generation began to reach university age – that the government supplied a grant for the project to go ahead.
    The first half of this film, shot in 1962 – the year before UEA accepted its first students – documents an important day in the early history of the University. As regional television presenter, Dick Joice explains from Earlham Golf Course, ‘that morning’ the Lord Mackintosh, Chancellor Designate of the University had launched an appeal at Norwich City Hall, in the hope of raising an additional £1.5 million to supplement the existing government grant…

    http://www.archivealive.org/video/index/id/154

  133. BBC’s former Director-General Mark Thompson was interviewed as he arrived at his new job at the NYT. He said he didn’t like to see [snip] was the pratt that did it. Poor ‘ole dozy Entwhistle just stepped into the 6m wide cowpat that Thompson left behind. What a bastard??

  134. Maurizio Mauribito = you are the number 1.

    And one can see why the BBC didn’t want to publish the names. The list reveals that activist cranks are ensconced right in the heart of the rotten-to-the-core BBC decision making politburo.

  135. This is a summary of the IBT seminars 2004-2007. (from Maurizo)

    http://web.archive.org/web/20071108153956/http://www.ibt.org.uk/all_documents/dialogue/Real%20World%20Brainstorm%20Sep%202007%20background.pdf?PHPSESSID=646ac9912b785ecd5f9230ff4d8b8ac6

    Its interesting to see that there are 10 people affiliated with drama, and 11 with comedy. This would indicate that one of the intents was to incorporate the appropriate, politically correct content, to BBC drama and comedy series.

    I find this much more disturbing than the fact that the seminars were warmist group hugs.

    And how the heck did Richard North get to one of these?

  136. Claire Foster is national policy adviser on environmental issues for the Church of England. It pains me that the Church of England seems to be hi-jacked by every fashionable eco-cause, it pains me more that someone is paid to hold this position.

    Tearfund is another christian relief organisation. The Evangelical Alliance Relief Fund is a more full description. CAGW is a wonderful guilt-making reason to take donations for third world projects.

  137. Mike Hulme FUNDED CMEP (HArrabin, Smith) to keep sceptics OFF the BBC airwave
    (see below – earlier at Watts Up)

    Seminar attende Mike Hulme(tyndall Centre):

    “Did anyone hear Stott vs. Houghton on Today, radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source.” (email 2496)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/climategate-2-impartiality-at-the-bbc/

    The new emails reveal that not only was the CMEP being sponsored by the Tyndall Centre (UEA) to promote its agenda in the media, but at the same Roger Harrabin was on the Advisory board of the Tyndall Centre! (from 2002 until at least the end of 2005)

    “1. We invite three more members to our AB:

    Roger Harrabin (media; Radio BBC) – reserve Paul Brown (The Guardian) Bill Hare (NGO; Greenpeace) – reserves Mike Harley (English Nature)” (email 1038 – Hulme)

    Tyndall archived webpages courtesy of the wayback machine are here: Advisory board 2002, and here Oct 2005. The Tyndall website changed after this date and no longer shows a link to membership of it’s Advisory Board. The release of the second batch of climategate emails – (2496), gives one reason why the Tyndall Centre funded the Harrabin/Smith seminars – the Real World seminars of the Cambridge Media and Environment Programme

    Mike Hulme:

    “Did anyone hear Stott vs. Houghton on Today, radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source.” (email 2496)

    Mike Hulme clearly did not like this program and clearly sponsors CMEP to use its influence with it BBC seminars to change reporting at the BBC, with an apparent intent to suppress any sceptical voices. A commentator at the Bishop Hill blog tracked down the ‘woeful’ program, where Prof Philip Stott and the IPCC’s Sir John Houghton debate the “uncertainties” of climate change”, it is mentioned in a 25 Feb 2002 article by Alex Kirby, BBC online environment correspondent, there is an audio link in the article to the radio program (probably UK only, well worth a listen)

    Alex Kirby in the article quotes Stott as saying:

    “The problem with a chaotic coupled non-linear system as complex as climate is that you can no more predict successfully the outcome of doing something as of not doing something. Kyoto will not halt climate change. Full stop.” – BBC

  138. So the list reveals that it was not 28 Scientists but only 3 Pro-AGW ones and a load of advocates/lobbyists which advised on BBC ‘neutrality’!

    No wonder the list needed to stay ‘secret’.

  139. Off tangent here but looks like Lord McAlpine is going to be suing the socks of the BBC and others. George Monbot, the BBCs favourite poodle is in his sites. Now George is always chastising others on sloppy journalism. Perhaps the Guardian should sack him, they won’t, they have their own problems, a going down the drain newspaper, propped up by a car magazine.

  140. As a license fee payer why the hell am I paying for all this, all on the say so a few activists? I’m getting really pissed off now.

  141. 28 Scientists sounds like a potentially well balanced scenario.
    3 Pro-AGW Scientists, 25 Pro-AGW AGW Advocates/Lobbyists is most definitely not.

    It wasn’t WHO that needed to be hidden, its was how few and from which single viewpoint.

  142. Can we call it the BooBoosomething? E.g., The BooBooFlee, The BooBooFee, . . .

    How about Delingpole or Booker or the blog “Spiked” getting together and calling for massive civil disobedience, in the form of refusal to pay the BBC’s fee, to concentrate the BBC’s minds? The leaders should be prepared to defend themselves in court with chapter and verse of the BooBooTwee’s many sins and blunders.

  143. Scientist, expert and now specialist, the list of co-opted epithets grows.

    Believe nothing that you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless Weltanschauung congruent. Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth.

  144. Typhoon says:
    November 12, 2012 at 3:53 pm

    Where are the scientists?

    Indeed, where are the climate scientists? Yet they were swayed to go onto the CAGW bandwagon. With the weather not cooperating no wonder they fought so hard to keep the names secret. Shame on you all.

  145. Helen Boaden, Director of News
    Peter Rippon, Duty Editor, World at One/PM/The World this Weekend
    George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs

    My my their careers just rocketed after this. Perhaps more will follow their path!

    Perhaps the most appropriate attendee was Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy!

  146. OK – sanity check. I can’t count. I think it is a 6-22 split.

    Specialists – 28

    Scientists – 6
    Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
    Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
    Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
    Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
    Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
    Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University

    Lobbiyists/Advocates – 22
    Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
    Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
    Trevor Evans, US Embassy
    Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
    Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
    Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
    Claire Foster, Church of England
    Saleemul Huq, IIED
    Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
    Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
    Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
    Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
    Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
    Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
    Matthew Farrow, CBI
    Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
    Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
    Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
    Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
    Joe Smith, The Open University
    Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
    Anita Neville, E3G
    Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
    Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia

  147. Question for the BBC:

    The Met Office and the Hadley Centre were NOT at ANY of the seminars.

    which makes the BBC’s claim of top level experts totally untenable

  148. Just sent this to Radio 4’s Points of View:

    Dear Sirs,

    I admire the way in which the BBC reports on its own affairs as if by a third party – John Humpreys being a case in point.

    A brewing scandal over the 26 Jan 2006 secret meeting of a cabal of eco-activists, gravy-train politicians and BBC executives must be reported in the same impartial way.

    Climate Change sceptics have today managed to “out” the attendees. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/breaking-the-secret-list-of-the-bbc-28-is-now-public/#more-74210

    We sceptics, who are likened to holocaust-deniers by the perpetrators of the Great Global Warming Hoax, are not spoilers nor anti-science wackos. We are a worldwide group of concerned citizens questioning the scientific basis of this Doomsday Cult. The policy actions aimed at combatting a nonexistent threat are, we submit, causing the despoiling of our beauty spots with windmills; energy poverty for the vulnerable; energy insecurity for the nation and a climate of fear among the young subjected to this apocalypse propaganda at home and at school.

    The BBC must investigate this conspiracy and put rational journalists to work on opposing the Harrabin-Black faction.

  149. With the BBC reeling from other less significant scandals such as the decades long cover up of sex abuse by paedophile employees a full expose of this major crime against humanity concealed behind a simple abandonment of its Charter obligations should bring the whole nest of corruption crashing down.

  150. Quite few investors, insurance companies, BP, RWE, CBI, et strangest thingies like this “ArSia”, sitting between “sustainable” activism and investments, with a strong wiff of conflict of interest. In my eyes, not a pretty picture at all.

  151. Oliver Cromwell’s dismissal of the ‘Rump BBC’ :

    “It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place,
    which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled
    by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to
    all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would
    like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas
    betray your God for a few pieces of money.

    “Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you?

    “Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my
    horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter’d your
    conscience for bribes?

    “Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the
    Commonwealth?

    “Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil’d this sacred place, and
    turn’d the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral
    principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to
    the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get
    grievances redress’d, are yourselves gone!
    So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the
    name of God, go!”

    [actually his dismissal of the Rump Parliament 1653]

  152. Such an important decision had the likes of the following objective “specialists”. It’s worse than we thought. Wow!
    Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
    Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
    Trevor Evans, US Embassy
    Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
    Claire Foster, Church of England
    Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
    Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
    Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
    Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID

    And some important BBC attendees:
    Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
    Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
    Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning
    Sue Inglish, Head Of Political Programmes

    The BBC is doomed.

  153. Interesting BP was there. Where Exxon invested in safer wells, BP invested in politics all over the world. Where Exxon was written up something like six times for safety violations, BP was written up over a hundred, if not hundreds. When BP’s well blew in the Gulf of Mexico, BP should have faced the music, but not Exxon. However when BP is buddy-buddy with politicians, it gets results.

  154. Whilst a big congrats to those behind the detective work to find the names on this list…….i still think another meeting alluded to in the climategate e mails needs looking into who attended the Meeting at the Dorchester Hotel london which i think Al Gore set up..or am i thinking of something else???

  155. The demand of the BeeBeeFee Slayers should be for civilian oversight of the BooBooWhee, the civilians being chosen at random from the list of subscribers. I.e., for a form of demarchy. (You can look it up.)

  156. We have been lied to. No wonder they wanted to keep the list secret. Here it is from their own mouths. [my bold]

    The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is even more offensive today than it was in 1926. The BBC has many public purposes of both ambition and merit – but joining campaigns to save the planet is not one of them. The BBC’s best contribution is to increase public awareness of the issues and possible solutions through impartial and accurate programming. Acceptance of a basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of the arguments surrounding both causation and solution. It remains important that programme-makers relish the full range of debate that such a central and absorbing subject offers, scientifically, politically and ethically, and avoid being misrepresented as standard-bearers. The wagon wheel remains a model shape. But the trundle of the bandwagon is not a model sound.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/impartiality_21century/report.pdf

    The bias Richard Black chose to ignore this important paragraph.

  157. @Aussie Poostirrer

    Does B.B.C stand for British [snip] Children? or British Behind Communism?

    In the famous words of Neil Hamilton’s wife, it’s “B*gg*rs Broadcasting Communism”
    Gets both aspects of the problem in rather well…

  158. Oh no. The LIES.

    Here is the reply made by the BBC to blogger Tony Newbery who made a Freedom of Information Request to find out the names of the attendees. [my bold]

    ………The attendees at the seminar were made up of 30 key BBC staff and 30 invited guests who are specialists in the area of climate change. It was hosted by Jana Bennett, Director of Vision (then Television), BBC and Helen Boaden, Director of News BBC. It was chaired by Fergal Keane, Special Correspondent with BBC News. The key speaker at the seminar was Robert McCredie, Lord May of Oxford.

    Seminar had the following aims:

    · To offer a clear summary of the state of knowledge on the issue
    · To find where the main debates lie
    · To invoke imagination to allow the media to deal with the scope of the issue
    · To consider the BBC’s role in public debate.

    Letter from the BBC, 21st August, 2007

    http://cgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=109&doing_wp_cron

    Yeah, right. Here are some of the “specialists”. :-p
    Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
    Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
    Trevor Evans, US Embassy
    Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
    Claire Foster, Church of England
    Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
    Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables

    How can you trust the British Bias Corporation on climate issues?

  159. Congratulations to omnologos!

    To understand the context of the seminar, you need to read Rules of the game: the principles of climate change communication, published by Futerra in October 2005. The link is here:
    http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/RulesOfTheGame.pdf

    Two quotes to whet the appetite:

    “2. Forget the climate change detractors
    Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but
    unimportant. The argument is not about if we should deal with climate
    change, but how we should deal with climate change.”
    and
    “16. Create a trusted, credible, recognised voice on
    climate change
    We need trusted organisations and individuals that the media can
    call upon to explain the implications of climate change to the
    UK public.”
    Among the sponsors of this report were three UK government departments, DEFRA, DTI and the Environment Agency. This document may be worth a post on its own.

    The change in BBC policy was, and remains, in breach of its Charter. This was investigated by the BBC in the Bridcut Report, which the BBC ignored – this also may be worth a post. While everyone is on the sleuthing trail, why not look up Warm Words too? Think of it as a primer on brain washing.

  160. George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs

    Currently in the news as to whether he’s going to take the big pay-off from the Beeb he’s been offered. Leaving the sinking ship was probably one of his better decisions.

  161. Barry Woods says:
    November 13, 2012 at 2:03 am

    “Alex Kirby in the article quotes Stott as saying:

    “The problem with a chaotic coupled non-linear system as complex as climate is that you can no more predict successfully the outcome of doing something as of not doing something. Kyoto will not halt climate change. Full stop.” – BBC”

    I would love to hear Hulme’s scientific refutation of that. Now, of course he can’t.

    Anyone who calls Hulme a scientist is a liar. He’s a rent-seeking impostor.

  162. Aussie Poostirrer says:
    November 13, 2012 at 2:00 am
    “Does B.B.C stand for British [snip] Children? or British Behind Communism?”

    Broad-banging C*mmunists.

  163. Peter Miller says:
    November 13, 2012 at 12:23 am
    No one seems to have noticed the absence of Mr Richard Black from the list, the BBC science reporter notorious for being able to argue black is white (no pun intended) on all matters to do with climate.

    The list is of invitees, if Black was an organiser along with Harribin then they both would be there but not listed as they would have invited others but not themselves.

  164. Maurizio, excellent work!

    Once this is fully parsed and explained in a simplified format that a MSM journo can understand (it will have to be very simple) we may see change we can believe in. I wont hold by breath though.

    That army marching for the truth will not be stopped! I think this is going to be big.

  165. Now we have find out out what the few scientists on the list actually said to the BBC.
    I bet they didn’t get a word in edgewise with those activists.

    Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
    Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge

  166. PS: on civil disobedience wrt the BBC fee: The leaders of my proposed BeeBeeFree Party should demand “demarchy.” I.e., that a board of civilian overseers, composed of mere subscribers chosen by lot, should be established as the ultimate power at the BBC. I urge Britishers with gumption, like Delingpole, to put the castle under siege.

  167. You may remember a Prof of Genetics Steve Jones who the BBC asked to give a lecture designed to generate the idea that as “thousands of scientists” said the science was proven and the science was settled, engendered the notion of “due impartiality”. This bureaucratic slight of hand gave the BBC an effective and justifiable – in their eyes – means of denying airtime to anyone who cared to challenge the authenticity of AGW whom the lecture supposed were in the minority and therefore should not have a voice. The same Prof Steven Jones when asked to comment on the research of Prof Gerald Crabtree implying that advances in human intellect and intelligence for the first time has gone into reverse which if you care to observe the cognitive behaviour of BBC staff would seem to support the idea said this “If I was to be nasty I’d say it’s just plucking stuff out of the air,” “It’s what I call arts faculty science – where there’s an interesting hypothesis and no data to back it up”. My observation is that Prof Gerald is most likely correct otherwise how can it be possible for a supposedly well respected and sentient human being to support one hypothesis that is as yet unsupported by data whilst trashing another for the same reason. Unless of course his cronies at the BBC decided if Prof Steve Jones did the lecture then we as unthinking unintelligent mutants would automatically accept that as it was Steven Jones making the lecture that we would automatically take the opinion ‘well a man of his integrity would not tell a lie, would he?’ I wonder how much he was paid?

  168. Complaint sent to BBC regarding the above. Please do the same

    The BBC recently had an FOI request turned down requesting that the names of 28 people who attended a top level meeting convened to decide how the BBC reported “climate change”. Now that this list is in public hands, I wish to know the reasons behind the attendance of the following people.

    The first block contains the names of known activists and non-sceptical climate scientists.

    The second those who have no business whatsoever having ANY input into BBC policy on this matter.

    List 1

    Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA (Scientist and activist)
    Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace (activist)
    Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net (Activist)
    Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation – Left wing think tank
    Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China – activist
    Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos – activist
    Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables – commercial interest
    Anita Neville, E3G – activist

    List 2

    Trevor Evans, US Embassy – WHAT’?
    Claire Foster, Church of England – ditto

    The only real surprise is that Jimmy Saville is not on the list.

    There is no indication in the list of names that there was any balance in the discussions that take place – there are many reputable and well known climate scientists and scientists who do not concede the CAGW meme. Without such in attendance, and most especially with so many activists involved, I put it to you that there was never ANY possibility of future balanced reporting on climate.

  169. Conspiracy theorist thought here. Terry Wogan used to mock AGW news on his well-listened to radio 2 show. Also, his contributors, via e-mail, mocked AGW…. He has now bbeen replaced by a more compliant Chris Evans…. Just a thought

  170. Mr Watts

    I hope that your correct opinion that the BBC’s climate change coverage breaks its charter does not result in your site advocating the break up of the BBC or its sale to a foreign owner.

    The BBC has tens of thousands of decent, hard-working employees and most of what it does is good, very good or excellent. Like all organisations it has its faults, faults which exist to every great a level in the far-right press organs of the UK (notably that they are owned by tax avoiders, foreigners with no interest in the wellbeing of the UK etc etc, that they allow politicians to be depicted as nazis in general election campaigns, they allow the Deputy Prime Minister to be repeatedly grossly insulted by ‘bloggers’ using filth that no moderator could possibly allow to pass if they had but one of the moral standards apparently demanded by their owners/the Conservative Party, they demand a Free Press but censure bloggers operating within proper codes of conduct with impunity etc etc etc). It is not, however, a dead duck, nor is it an organisation which should be sold off to foreigners to satisfy some crazed far-right dictum but in reality would further the agenda of the unaccountable global financial elite who believe with a fervour in autocratic rule.

    I and many millions of people do not wish to see the BBC judged by partisan self-serving right wingers.

    I wish it to be held to the highest standards by fair-minded judges who are UK citizens.

    It is, after all, the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation, not the NEW YORK Broadcasting Corporation, the SAUDI ARABIAN Broadcasting Corporation or the KGB Broadcasting Corporation.

    I hope that will not be too much to ask for, since if it is, I may need to raise questions as to whether you are receiving funding from Rupert Murdoch. Were you bashing the BBC whilst taking the Murdoch shilling, your interest in science would have shifted to an interest in mafia-style lynch mob hangings.

    I hope and trust that that never comes to pass.

    RTJ

  171. polistra says:
    November 12, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    Really makes me wonder why the Beeb was fighting disclosure so hard and expensively. I don’t see any names or organizations on that list that surprise me in the slightest. Purely the usual suspects. In fact one big class of usual suspects is nearly absent from the list: corporations, investors and reinsurance firms with a monetary vested interest in pushing Green nonsense. (Only BP was there.)
    _____________________________________________
    BP was there so the “big Oil funded Climate Denier” campaign looks really foolish and you missed:
    Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
    Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables

    For the Brits
    Colin Challen: Chair All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change House of Commons
    For Americans
    Trevor Evans, US Embassy

    In other words both the US government and the UK government had representatives at a meeting determining what PROPAGANDA would be fed to the UK citizens. WORSE that propaganda is being dictated by a bunch of wild-eyed activists and corporations that will profit from lying to and scaring the crud out of the public.

    Lets follow a few money strings.

    In 2008, RWE npower renewables became part of RWE Innogy, one of Europe’s largest and fastest-growing renewables generating companies.

    RWE npower renewables is a leading player in the drive to generate more electricity from clean, inexhaustable energy sources – wind, rivers, the sea and the land.

    Today we are one of the UK’s biggest renewable energy developers and operators.

    Sure looks like npower renewables profited nicely from the propaganda.

    Enron, joined by BP, invented the global warming industry. I know because I was in the room. This was during my storied three-week or so stint as Director of Federal Government Relations for Enron in the spring of 1997, back when Enron was everyone’s darling in Washington. It proved to be an eye-opening experience…

    The basic truth is that Enron, joined by other “rent-seeking” industries — making one’s fortune from policy favors from buddies in government, the cultivation of whom was a key business strategy — cobbled their business plan around “global warming.” Enron bought, on the cheap of course, the world’s largest windmill company (now GE Wind) and the world’s second-largest solar panel interest (now BP) to join Enron’s natural gas pipeline network, which was the second largest in the world. The former two can only make money under a system of massive mandates and subsidies (and taxes to pay for them); the latter would prosper spectacularly if the war on coal succeeded…..

    Also see Patrick Michaels’ Why Enron Wants Global Warming

    …it is common knowledge that Enron Corporation was lobbying the Bush administration for highly profitable policies relating to the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. In fact, the tatters of Enron still want the administration to place a cap on carbon dioxide emissions so the company can broker the trading of “permits” to emit carbon dioxide under that cap….

    But what’s not run-of -the-sty is a 1998 letter, signed by Enron’s then-CEO Ken Lay (and a few other bigwigs), asking President Clinton, in essence, to harm the reputations and credibility of scientists who argued that global warming was an overblown issue. Apparently they were standing in Enron’s way.

    The letter, dated Sept. 1, asked the president to shut off the public scientific debate on global warming, which continues to this date. In particular, it requested Clinton to “moderate the political aspects” of this discussion by appointing a bipartisan “Blue Ribbon Commission.”

    The purpose of this commission was clear: high-level trashing of dissident scientists.

    …While that was happening, Enron commissioned its own internal study of global warming science. It turned out to be largely in agreement with the same scientists Enron was trying to shut up. After considering all of the inconsistencies in climate science, the report concluded: “[T]he very real possibility that the great climate alarm could be a false alarm. The anthropogenic warming could well be less than thought and favorably distributed.

    So that is the ENRON connection to the US Government and through that the US Embassy.

    And last there is Mark Galloway, Director, IBT

    The International Broadcasting Trust is an educational and media charity working to promote high-quality television coverage of the developing world. IBT aims to further awareness and understanding of the lives of the majority of the world’s people—and the issues that affect them.

    IBT’s work focuses on lobbying governments, regulators, and broadcasters; dialogue with the main public service broadcasters; research on television coverage of the developing world; and developing a slate of innovative program ideas.

    Focus: Culture, Development, Globalization, Technology, United Kingdom, Europe, Global

    Most Emailed Pages
    1. The Sustainable Development Solutions Network
    2. Do Language Policies Contribute to Poverty and Underdevelopment?
    3. How the Internet Will Transform Government (Eventually)
    4. Chinese Sexual Culture
    5. Boat Migrants to Australia Deserve Their Refugee Rights

    Has a link to Global Ethics Network: Rethinking International relations
    [The Carnegie Council Global Ethics Network connects students, teachers, and professionals to reimagine international relations. Read the Mission Statement and get involved.]

    http://www.policyinnovations.org/innovators/organizations/data/00886

  172. Traveller said: “Claire Foster is national policy adviser on environmental issues for the Church of England. It pains me that the Church of England seems to be hi-jacked by every fashionable eco-cause, it pains me more that someone is paid to hold this position.”

    It is rational behavior to promote climate catastrophe when your pension scheme is a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change – the group that have previously called for the investment markets to be fixed in favour of green investments. The BBC Trust pension scheme is also a member.

  173. I’m re-posting a comment I made at Bishop Hill:

    Harrabin, Harrabin, Harrabin.

    Seems he’s the one pulling all the strings on climate policy at the BBC.

    As Don Keller reminds us [at Bishop Hill], Harrabin is the one, along with Joe Smith, as far back as 2001, asking Mike Hulme “What should the BBC be doing this time in terms of news, current affairs, drama, documentaries, game shows, music etc” leading up to the Earth Summit in Rio. [see Climategate email #3757.txt]

    Then, within 4 years, Harrabin organises a “seminar” at which Hulme is a speaker. Management from across all of the BBC’s output is invited – you might say “news, current affairs, drama, documentaries, game shows, music etc.” and subjected to brainwashing by, basically, a bunch of activists.

    The effect of this “seminar” is so profound, that it finds its way into “From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel”, a report by the BBC Trust, no less, in 2007. With no trace of irony, the report is subtitled “Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century”. Let us be reminded what this “Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st centruy” report says on the subject of reporting climate change:

    “The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus”.

    Harrabin and Smith’s brainwave from 2001 is now BBC policy, affecting all of its output from news and current affairs to drama, documentaries, comedy “etc”. The most powerful broadcaster in the world pumping out a one-sided message on climate change through everything it does.

    By pure serendipitous happenstance, there was a prime example of this on Today on R4 this morning. I only caught the headline report, so don’t know waht was said in the more detailed piece. It was to do with oil production in the US. Apparently, by around 202, the US may well become the largest oil producer in the world. OK, whatever, you may think. On the BBC website, this story can be found in the “Business” section here:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20304848

    There is nothing (as I write) on the Environment pages.

    Now, who did the BBC have speaking about this on R4 this morning? Yup, Harrabin. And what random point did he chuck in at the end? Unbelievably, it was the zombie alarmist argument about fossil fuel “subsidies”. I couldn’t quite believe my ears, so can’t vouch for whether my recollection is entirely accurate, but it went something like: “fossil fuel subsidies will be SIX TIMES [emphasis in the original] greater than for renewables.” and “threat to the planet blah blah”. There a couple of really important points here:

    1. The “fossil fuel subsidy” meme is highly deceptive and disingenuous. At a time when the BBC is desperately trying to re-establish TRUST in its output, it seems a particularly stupid point to try to make. Harrabin must surely be aware of the highly spurious nature of this point, yet he makes it anyway. Unless, of course, he employs the Entwistle defence of “I didn’t know, I didn’t look, nobody told me.” Either way it seems he is deceitful or ignorant.

    2. How and why has Harrabin got his grubby green paws on a story from the Business news section and been able to leave his nasty, biased, anti-energy fingerprints all over it? And why is he making a spurious point on the radio about “fossil fuel subsidies” that is not covered in the web report, linked to above?

    The current BBC “T/trust” reviews need to extended to climate change coverage. And Harrabin, it seems to me, should be joining Boaden and many of the others who attended the brainwashing session in “stepping aside”.

  174. It would be really interesting to gain a set of minutes of this BBC planning meeting.
    After all, it is in the public interest and the meeting was financed by the public.
    Since the costs of adopting the BBC view of climate will break the EU it is in the interests of all Britons to be informed.
    If the British Isles adopt carbon capture and windmills this will be in the economic interest of the US, as the latter is going fracking shale oil gas and eventually nuclear, making it an energy efficient competitor of the EU including GB.
    If promoting this was the US aim via the BBC the public must be informed.
    As Gail Coombs has pointed out Trevor Evan’s job description includes
    ‘[to] promote adoption of economic policies by foreign countries which further US interests.’
    Perhaps he was there to promote US economic interest over that of the UK.
    Now that the BBC management is under scrutiny there needs be an overall enquiry into its content, competence and direction.

  175. This is not shoddy journalism. This is not investigative journalists failing to make the most elementary of checks before libeling a respected man. This is deliberate conspiracy to defraud the public. Not an insular public in Britain but the public (and Governments) worldwide.

    One may suspect that such things go on, but conspiracy almost invariably lurks in the shadows and only glimpses generally emerge. What is without precedent here is that the names of seventy- some of them are documented and out in the open for all to see. My disgust could only be deepened if the British Government now fails to commence prosecutions.

  176. Anthony, please make your post sticky.
    ——————

    André van Delft (@AndreVanDelft) says:…………………….
    Rev Dr Peter Mullen: “Can we just get rid of the BBC, please?”

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/petermullen/100189084/can-we-just-get-rid-of-the-bbc-please/

    I read through and the man seems that the good Rev Dr Peter Mullen is a ‘denier’. The Church of England is splitting.

    ….Or the arrogance with which the Corporation doesn’t even bother to deny – because realistically it can’t – its tireless promotion of the superstitious fad of global warming………….The BBC displays incompetence, partisanship and self-satisfaction in equal measure. Perhaps there was a time when it deserved our respect and even our affection, but that time is long past. These days it is a decadent institution failing in all the ways in which it is possible to fail.

    Ouch!

  177. The list is pretty much everything we knew it would be. That the BBC reportedly spent over £100000 on lawyers to keep it secret is no surprise. This cannot be allowed to fade away. The BBC must answer for this serious breach of its charter.

  178. _Jim says:
    November 12, 2012 at 6:12 pm

    Umm, who are their ‘handlers’?

    Who is at the top; the “Mr Big”?

    Are there more names we need to see?
    ____________________________________
    I have posted those types of links several times as you well know. The fact you have your head in the sand and refused to see what historians Steve Fraser and Gary Gerste point out very plainly is your problem – go look up the money connections yourself. Greenpeace and the rest do not exist in a vacuum so start digging.

    Historians Are Missing a Major Factor in Politics and History: l (2005)
    “… Over the last quarter-century, historians have by and large ceased writing about the role of ruling elites in the country’s evolution. Or if they have taken up the subject, they have done so to argue against its salience for grasping the essentials of American political history. Yet there is something peculiar about this recent intellectual aversion, even if we accept as true the beliefs that democracy, social mobility, and economic dynamism have long inhibited the congealing of a ruling stratum. This aversion has coincided, after all, with one of the largest and fastest-growing disparities in the division of income and wealth in American history….Neglecting the powerful had not been characteristic of historical work before World War II. ” http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/11068.html

  179. I agree with Roger Knights 2.22am.
    A mass campaign to withhold the licence fee should concentrate minds.
    The damage inflicted on our electricity generation is enormous, supported in no small way by the BBC’s stance on AGW.
    Will the MSM cover this scandal? I won’t hold my breath.

  180. _Jim says:
    November 12, 2012 at 6:12 pm

    Umm, who are their ‘handlers’?

    Who is at the top; the “Mr Big”?

    Are there more names we need to see?
    __________________________________
    Oh and _Jim? WHO are your handlers? Enquiring minds want to know.

  181. “Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy”
    Says it all really.
    Keeping these names secret reminds me of the classic one liner from “Dads Army”; “Don’t tell them your name, Pyke”
    Comedy from the days before the BBC was occupied by a load of upper middle class lefty parasites.

  182. @Joseph Adam-Smith says: November 13, 2012 at 3:31 am

    Don’t worry. The TVLA is in fact, Capita. They have no right to enter your property, and you can note that formally by writing to the TVLA and stating that you are withdrawing their common law right to enter your property.

    That way they can only get onto your property with a warrant.

  183. Les – you must have missed some of the earlier comments. Richard D North was in attendance; you are probably thinking of Richard A E North from EUReferendum. Different guys.

  184. dear Rhys Jaggar,

    would that be the lynching the BBC was salivating over regarding Lord McAlpine- oops, the BBC in its hatred of all things to do with Conservatism , its eyes blood red with anger, forgot to do a simple bit of investigative journalism.

  185. Rhys Jaggar:

    I am writing to refute your rant at November 13, 2012 at 4:03 am.

    I am NOT a “foreigner”, NOT adherent to “some crazed far-right dictum”, and have NOT had a penny from Rupert Murdoch. I am a left-wing socialist of the old-fashioned British kind who is – and has always been – a British Subject resident in the UK.

    And I am appalled and ashamed that the BBC has become the deplorable propaganda mouthpiece of self-serving money grubbers and activists promoting the political scam of AGW which is falsely represented as having a basis in science . The BBC has a Charter which is intended to prevent such despicable behaviour, but in this thread we are discussing the clear fact that the BBC has deliberately ignored that Charter and has acted in opposition to it.

    The BBC is in a unique position in that it is empowered by government and financed by a levy imposed by government (i.e. a tax). Without adherence to its Charter the BBC is no different from Pravda in the Soviet Union. And it has abandoned its Charter.

    This is far, far more serious than the ‘Jimmy Saville Affair’. The BBC having abandoned its Charter can have far-reaching and long-lasting effects on UK culture, governance and security.

    The BBC needs a root-and-branch reorganisation. Those responsible for the usurpation of the BBC need to be imprisoned as a warning to others who may want to usurp the BBC or any other national institution.

    And if the BBC cannot be corrected then it needs to be abolished before its corrupted condition can do additional harm.

    Richard

  186. There are lies within lies in this story.
    AFAIR, the seminar we are talking about was not originally intended to be a ‘policy-making’ meeting.

    My understanding of the history is that the BBC unilaterally dropped their Charter requirement to provide balance in reporting Global Warming, purely due to internal activists. This change was noticed by outside bloggers, who started asking questions about why the BBC was in breach of its Charter.

    So, to shut them up, the BBC responded that they had duly considered the issue, and received proper scientific advice that there was no real controversy – the science was settled. They picked a recent internal seminar (which had been held to promulgate the Global Warming message to internal BBC staff) and claimed that this comprised ‘the top scientific brains’ who had provided this policy advice. There had been NO minutes – odd, for such a fundamental policy decision.

    That was meant to shut up the bloggers, who were crying for more details. The meeting was retrospectively claimed to be under the non-attributable Chatham House Rules, which neatly made it unable to be investigated.

    Blogger Tony Newbery submitted a FOI request for the names of these august scientists who had advised the BBC to drop its impartiality position. The BBC fought this tooth and nail, finally spending a 6-figure sum on barristers and packing the Tribunal where, last Friday, the request was rejected on the spurious grounds that the BBC could consider itself to be a private organisation if it wanted to keep secrets from the public.

    Now we can see that the meeting which was claimed to be with a policy-defining group of top scientists was, in fact, an activist jolly/propaganda exercise. And trying to hide this has cost the BBC a lot of money and face.

    I wonder whether charges of perjury are in order?

    Incidentally, for UK readers I suggest that one of the things you could do is write to your MP, raising the specific question of whether the BBC should be allowed to override its Charter requiring it to provide due balance, and then claim that a secret internal meeting was sufficient to OK this. And then point out that the secret internal meeting has been found NOT to have done what was claimed, and ask what he/she intends to do about it…

  187. Beale says:
    November 12, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    In view of the presence of someone from the U.S. Embassy, it should be noticed that this was in the administration of the younger Bush.
    ___________________________________
    Who interceded on behalf of Maurice Strong to make sure Strong was the chair at Kyoto. Strong contributed to his campaign fund. As I keep saying the Right/Left crud is only a Dog and Pony Show for the Great Unwashed.

  188. I think we may have got it all wrong, here is an exclusive interview with His Charlieness on impending climate catastrophe. Obviously, sceptics were allowed to respond to these highly inflammatory comments, as required for balance by the BBC charter. My problem is I cannot find where, can someone please help.

    http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=charles%20climate%20bbc&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CE4QtwIwCA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2F18498749&ei=uk-iUPjPIsfY0QW8zIGwAQ&usg=AFQjCNHk3Cwe5OlPShExlUy91Hhw6v5e9w

  189. Patrick says:
    November 12, 2012 at 8:57 pm

    “Jolly farmer says:
    November 12, 2012 at 7:59 pm”

    The “TV Detector Van” was more about the fear of being caught because people believed they actually worked the way the BBC said they did. The Ads ran on BBC!!! I never saw one in all my life in the UK. Back in the 70′s the fine was 1000 ponds I think, a lot of money to many back then, so people simply coughed up the license fee. Nice way to extract your income, hold a gun to your viewers head!

    I worked for the NTVLRO for a year (73-74). I don’t know how they work but work they do !!
    I believe someone posted on WUWT in another thread some months ago regarding the how.

    It would be interesting if you removed all ‘broadcast receive capability’ from your house as it’s not receiving the Beeb that you are legally bound to pay for the license, rather, that you have the capability to receive broadcast programs.
    I could receive anything I want to see over the net, but here in the PROAustralia it’s all free-to-air .. we pay for our left-wing ABC (and SBS) through general taxation

  190. alexwade says:
    November 12, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    – Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International

    Wait a minute! BP is part of Big Oil!

    Why stop at BP? Why not Shell? Why stop at tobacco? Why stop at big car? Drug companies? Why not gas as well? Here is a small sample in no particular order.

    BBC Pensions – “Top equity investments at 31 March 2012″
    Investment Holding £m
    GlaxoSmithKline [big drug]
    British American Tobacco [2nd biggest tobacco co. in world]
    BG Group [big gas]
    BP [big oil]
    Royal Dutch Shell [big oil]
    AstraZeneca [big drug]
    Imperial Tobacco [big leaf]
    Rio Tinto [big mines]
    Roche Holding [big drug]
    Vale SA [big mines]
    Xstrata [big mines]
    Reynolds American [2nd biggest tobacco co. in US]
    SABMiller [big alcohol]
    Oao Gazprom [big gas]
    Total SA [big oil]
    Occidental [big oil & gas]
    Hyundai Motor [big car]
    Chevron Corp [big car]
    Philip Morris International [big tobacco]

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/sites/helpadvice/pages/top-100-investments.shtml

    Its good to see that when it comes to global warming climate change the BBC sure puts their money where their mouth is. And they have. Its what you call spreading the risk. ;-p

    Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change
    Members……..BBC Pension Trust……

    http://www.iigcc.org/about-us/members

  191. British Brainwashing Corporation…
    & from tallblokes link above, ‘Dangerous News’ – in the conclusions:
    ” In such cases the climate change science and policy community would be taking more
    control of the representation of, for example, floods
    and storms to ensure that exaggeration or ignorance
    of possible climate change links is reduced.”
    This conspiracy is no longer a theory.

  192. Here is what Antony Jay (in charge of “Yes Minister”) said in his foreword to Booker’s report:

    I joined BBC television, my first job after university and National Service, in 1955, six months before the start of commercial television, and stayed for nine years as trainee, producer, editor and finally head of a production department. I absorbed and expressed all the accepted BBC attitudes: hostility to, or at least suspicion of, America, monarchy, government, capitalism, empire, banking and the defence establishment, and in favour of the Health Service, state welfare, the social sciences, the environment and state education.

    This deep hostility to people and organisations who made and sold things was not of course exclusive to the BBC. It permeated a lot of upper middle class English society (and has not vanished yet). But it was wider and deeper in the BBC than anywhere else, and it is still very much a part of the BBC ethos. Very few of the BBC producers and executives have any real experience of the business world, and as so often happens, this ignorance, far from giving rise to doubt, increases their certainty.

    We were masters of the techniques of promoting our point of view under the cloak of impartiality. The simplest was to hold a discussion between a fluent and persuasive proponent of the view you favoured, and a humourless bigot representing the other side. With a big story, like shale gas for example, you would choose the aspect where your case was strongest: the dangers of subsidence and water pollution, say, rather than the transformation of Britain’s energy supplies and the abandonment of wind farms and nuclear power stations. And you could have a ‘balanced’ summary with the view you favoured coming last: not “the opposition claim that this will just make the rich richer, but the government point out that it will create 10,000 new jobs” but “the government claim it will create 10,000 new jobs, but the opposition point out that it will just make the rich richer.” It is the last thought that stays in the mind. It is curiously satisfying to find all these techniques still being regularly used forty seven years after I left the BBC.

    The issue of man-made global warming could have been designed for the BBC. On the one side are the industrialists, the businessmen, the giant corporations and the bankers (or at least those who are not receiving generous grants, subsidies and contracts from their government for climate-related projects such as wind farms or electric cars), on the other the environmentalists, the opponents of commercial expansion and industrial growth. Guessing which side the BBC will be on is a no-brainer, but no one has documented it in such meticulous detail as Christopher Booker. His case is unanswerable. The costs to Britain of trying to combat global warming are horrifying, and the BBC’s role in promoting the alarmist cause is, quite simply, shameful.

    • http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_263808.pdf

      See page 4.

      Now work out how the government is going to pay the state pension debts that it has hidden off the books.

      Ah yes. Contingent liability is the jargon. If we can’t pay it, we make the theft legal.

      4.7 trillion (not billion) and that’s been fiddled down.

      Mind you the BBC are so financially illiterate they still think you can pay off a deficit.

  193. Is it possible to get the minutes of these meetings/workshops? Several have mentioned an on-going series of such gatherings.

    THAT would be the final nail in the coffin–and for indivuduals attending, their coffins.

  194. Peter Miller says:
    November 13, 2012 at 5:59

    “I think we may have got it all wrong, here is an exclusive interview with His Charlieness”

    You are a bit hard on Charlie, he has a great insight into climate matters, derived from his many conversations with the trees.

  195. I do not think the media will pick up on this as long as it is described as “BBC lied about the secret meeting attendance” since it is too much of interpretation of who said what, and the BBC is sure to have used some weasel words in their descriptions. Too difficult. Better to follow the advice in the paper Tallbloke found where it is clearly stated that media has difficulties with “issues” but love stories. I think Dodgy Geezer above is on the right track with his storyline, but it is still too long.

    Why not describe it as the joke it is: “BBC hired 6 lawyers to refuse a blogger’s FOI request in court only to have the document found by another blogger on the internet a week later. It turned out the BBC had published the information on their website years ago.” Maybe that could get some traction, and perhaps raise interest in what the information was about and then what’s the significance etc.
    But you have to start simple I think.

  196. Dodgygeezer says:

    “My understanding of the history is that the BBC unilaterally dropped their Charter requirement to provide balance in reporting Global Warming, purely due to internal activists. This change was noticed by outside bloggers, who started asking questions about why the BBC was in breach of its Charter.

    So, to shut them up, the BBC responded that they had duly considered the issue, and received proper scientific advice that there was no real controversy – the science was settled. They picked a recent internal seminar (which had been held to promulgate the Global Warming message to internal BBC staff) and claimed that this comprised ‘the top scientific brains’ who had provided this policy advice. There had been NO minutes – odd, for such a fundamental policy decision.”

    This version has the smell of truth about it. An attempt to justify another part of BBC policy/philosophy being hijacked by activists. Just makes it worse – what a bunch of amateurs!

  197. jeremyp99 says:
    November 13, 2012 at 4:33 am
    @Grey Lensman says: November 13, 2012 at 2:25 am

    The odious Black, Michael Mann’s lost twin, left the BBC to save the oceans.

    Or maybe (??) to get out while the getting was good, like Thomson (presumably).

  198. An interesting side note about Greenpeace.
    “Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace”

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/03/14/peer-into-the-heart-of-the-ipcc-find-greenpeace/

    So there you have it ladies and gentlemen. The IPCC and BBC have their work influenced by an activist group called Greenpeace and yet the BBC are supposed to be objective. The IPCC is supposed to be the gold standard. What a load of bull[snip]. Colour me sceptical.

    —–
    Tony Newbery, the chap who put in the FOI comments.
    “Are these the BBC’s ‘best scientific experts’?”

    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=607

  199. RockyRoad:

    re your post at November 13, 2012 at 6:21 am

    Information has no power.
    Information is a useful tool for those with the power to use it.

    How do you suggest the information in the minutes of the meetings should be used?
    And how would it be more useful than the information about who attended the meetings?

    Richard

  200. Konrad says November 13, 2012 at 12:35 am

    An unfinished discussion maybe, however not about spectoscopy but rather radiative cooling and convection. …

    IR Spectroscopy, an established field of study and science, hinges DIRECTLY on this subject as it relates to gas molecule response to EM (electromagnetic) waves, both absorption and emission owing to the molecule’s dipole ‘moments’ because of constituent makeup-atom position within the molecule. No knowledge of IR Spectroscopy and little knowledge of any given molecule’s response to EM energy including LWIR (longwave InfraRed) …

    .

  201. Nice how commenter Rhys Jaggers, after being forced to acknowledge the depth of mendacity in the BBC, spends nearly his entire post venting his hatred at “extreme right wing” news organizations and then clearly insinuating that our host, Mr, Watts, is taking money from the Murdochs (or some other demon du jour, the specific name of the bogeyman never really matters.
    And claiming that the BBC still has to be supported because it is British, or something.

    I’ve never before seen this proposition proven so convincingly: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” (Samuel Johnson, April 7, 1775)

  202. Note that Esteve Corbera of Tyndall was present at the May 2004 IBT meeting – i.e. Tyndall in there from the very start… fine, but no balance

  203. Seems to be some confusion about the TV licence fee. It has never been to pay for or to watch the BBC. The licence fee was required by anyone to own and operate equipment capable of receiving televised broadcasts.
    The BBC were authorised by the government to collect the fee. It was never paid to the BBC but goes to a consolidated government fund. The government funds the BBC as a public service broadcaster.

    There is no mitigation in saying that you don’t watch or can’t receive BBC because that’s simply not what you are paying for. It was always an operator’s license. A few years back (2006 I think ) it became a ratified government tax ( it always was a stealth tax, they just would not admit it ) and now you require a license if you have any equipment capable of receiving live television broadcasts by any UK broadcaster. That includes Computers, tablets and other similar devices.
    You don’t need a license to watch recorded broadcasts.

    I used to sell & rent TVs. Every tv sold or rented requires that the purchaser give their details on a legal document which puts them on a database of owners which the retailer must legally send to the government via the post office. ( I don’t mean just by post but that the UK post office was in charge of receiving these document for the government ) If the address has no license they serve the reminders. If these are ignored they serve the demands. If these are ignored they send people out. If these are refused entry or not given a satisfactory explanation they send the detector van out. This just determines if a TV is being used ( easy to pick up the 15625khz emitted from the line timebase or it was in my day, but then I remember valves ;)) this is so that a search warrant can be applied for. THEN they can enter your premises and any TV capable of operation on the premises will get you a hefty fine and now it’s tax evasion.

    Sorry for all the parenthesis, it’s easier than fixing the grammar as I have afterthoughts and remember bits to stick in. Shoddy I know.

  204. This is also a good time to point out that this is far from the biggest scandal tearing at the heart of the BBC today; there is the twin Paedophilia scandals.

    Part 1: First, top managers and apparently most middle managers knew full well that Jimmy Savile [snip. Please put “alleged” or “acccused” when referring to someone, unless they have been found guilty in a court of law. — mod.]

    Part 2: At the same time as the BBC management was engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to hide the [snip] in their midst, a man who was their friend, they hatched a scheme to spread false [snip] rumours (in the rumours of a broadcast allegation) about a politician who they did NOT like. The BBC has now been forced to formally apologize for broadcasting a willfully false report to that effect.

    So, to recap: at the SAME TIME as the BBC was covering up [alleged] paedophile activity by it’s OWN performer(s), evidence for which was undeniable, they invented and broadcast FALSE rumours about someone simply because they did not approve of his political views.

    This is an evil, irredeemably evil organization. It deserves to be split up, destroyed, the buildings burned to the ground and the land sewn with salt.

  205. BP’s stake in the cAGW panic:
    In secondary recovery efforts, wherein depleted oil fields are flushed to recover residual oil, CO2 works best of all techniques. There are billions of barrels of North Sea oil that are left behind as reservoirs deplete through the course of normal production, and CO2 is the most efficient means of producing this residual oil, if injected into the reservoir in the secondary recovery effort. But CO2 is not readily available. Thus BP’s interest in suppressing skeptic viewpoints and fostering the cAGW panic, and thus they position themselves to ride the wave while reaping BILLIONS in profits from their ever so clean and green “Carbon Storage and Capture Technology” which they like to tout. They hope that the panic will provide will provide the opportunity to hook the needed CO2. So why did BBC invite British Petroleum’s Ian Wright, CO2 Project Manager, to the BBC conclave which confirmed the policy of suppressing the skeptical viewpoint? It does not take a genius to see what is going on. Money greases the skids everywhere. Don’t expect the present Government to make a big squawk about BP. Of course, BP is not the only business that plays the panic-mongering for profit. Greased palms are a big part of the concert of cAGW panic mongering.

  206. With regard to Claire Foster, digging through some of the drivel she’s spewed on her websites
    produced this gem, which could explain some of her viewpoints/background, and could well
    parallel that of the BBC “thought shapers”…
    (Un)ethical dimension

    Some people have just too much time on their hands…..so much time, so little thinking…

  207. WOW. The BBC is biased and corrupt. Who would have thought such a thing? .Sorta like saying MSNBC or the New York Times are biased…

  208. omnologos says:
    November 12, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    Move aside, Bernstein. Move aside, Woodward.

    Tonight, I am you.

    Very true!

    And also: Move aside Main Stream Media – The blogosphere is the now the real media and the protector of liberty

  209. So how much of my licence fee went to pay for 6 lawyers to defend against 1 pensioner requesting information (which should be publicly available) on who attended a BBC meeting on climate change, information we find later IS publicly available?

    On top of that we find one of the judges at the Tribunal didn’t think they should opt themselves out and disclose they are partial and a climate change campaigner and have even publicly posted offensive words such as climate change ‘denier’ on the Internet!

    Believe me there is more to be found if we follow the stench.

    H/T to Omnologos and Anthony, this is why we love WUWT.

  210. One of the attendees, Robert May, was president of the Royal Society at one point. I have lunched with him and he cited my work in one of his talks years ago. He is brilliant and articulate. He made his fame on population modeling of ecosystem dynamics and stability. This is virtually the only research he ever did, on this one topic, AFAICR. He studied some area of physics, certainly not climate. He has no research on or training in any area of climate or geology. He is an example of someone, having achieved fame who then feels entitled to pronounce on any topic.

  211. Let us not forget prior to all this celebration the BBC managed to get some idiot judge to pronounce that the tax payer funded BBC is a PRIVATE organisation and therefore not subject to the FOIA!!!!
    It looks as if the BBC lost the battle but has won the war.[?]

  212. I would not like to be Dr Michael Mann’s cat tonight. It is going to get kicked all over the living room.

  213. The global cap-and-trade idea was supposed to work like this: get everyone committed/obligated, then those who have developed the idea get to profit in two ways: you invest in the businesses that will eventually receive the business activity that will be required in order to monitor and reduce emissions, or you invest in the carbon market, or you have a steady job in the bureaucracy overseeing all of this.

    Global cap and trade has not yet sailed.

    There is an active Plan B, however: The United Nations’ Principles of Responsible Investing. You can look up UNPRI and read all about it.

    Long story short: BBC for a long time has had their employee retirement funds in “green” investments. Those investments do well if a bureaucracy / regulation industry develops around being green. Therefore the BBC has been doing what it could to make big money in its retirement investments by promoting adoption of these various green schemes. what has been invested in specifically I do not know, but this info should make it pretty easy to go look at their portfolio over time, and correlate green investment with green white-wash in their coverage of these issues. Solar, wind, I don’t know. Were they in either of the carbon credit exchanges? I don’t know. But what I do know is they are signatories of the UN principles of responsible investing, and have been evlauated as such:

    http://blueandgreentomorrow.com/2012/08/11/the-principles-of-responsible-investment-a-short-series-principle-four-promotion/

    Et cetera.

    Once this financial interest is known and recognized, you have a blatant conflict of interest that ought to be disclosed whenever the “green” “global warming” topics are covered.

    The UN has been pushing countries across the globe to be signatories. To have their public-employee retirement funds be “PRI” compliant. simultaneously, they have been striving to get all of these countries to go green, thus building the market.

    It is like musical chairs/get in on the ground floor, while it is relatively cheaper. You will spend some of your taxpayer dollars going green, but that is just pass-through; you will have a stronger public employee retirement system.

    The most awesome thing about this plan is that – get this – anthropotomac global warming does not have to be true in order for these nations to make money off of it – there just has to be the critical mass of buy-in and legal entrenchment/national commitment from enough nations to make this a perpetually active industry.

    In my opinion, this may have been the sales pitch the the many nations that have signed on as Responsible Investors

    Al Gore’s investment firm, Generation Investment Management LLP, caters to these large investors. And, at their website, you can get some leads into this story I am telling. Including Gore’s green investment firm getting to handle The UK Environment Agency investment fund.

    http://www.generationim.com/news/

    At that link, you can get directed to a story about nations as signatories, and the corresponding growth in green investment.

    I would post direct links to these couple of press release or news stories, but GIM has them as links to pdfs and tose don’t copy and paste well.

  214. Jeff Alberts says:
    November 12, 2012 at 6:49 pm

    OK, I’ll bite.

    The BBC, out to create
    A “consensus” that warming’s our fate,
    Paid “experts” to fly in,
    For one day of lyin’.
    They went out through Gate 28.

  215. davidmhoffer says:
    November 12, 2012 at 6:56 pm
    So why was Iain Wright of BP there?
    ‘cuz he’s a shill trying to get governments to pony up for BP’s carbon capture and sequestration technology.
    =========
    oil companies want to get paid to pump CO2 into the ground to extract oil. right now they pump CO2 into the ground at their own cost.

  216. Rhys Jaggar says:
    November 13, 2012 at 4:03 am

    “I hope that will not be too much to ask for, since if it is, I may need to raise questions as to whether you are receiving funding from Rupert Murdoch. Were you bashing the BBC whilst taking the Murdoch shilling, your interest in science would have shifted to an interest in mafia-style lynch mob hangings.”

    Pathetic Jaggar, truly pathetic, even from you. How does the bile taste?

    Aside from trolls like Jaggar, at least some of the Brit press is picking this up:

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/sebastian-payne/2012/11/revealed-who-decides-the-bbcs-climate-change-policy/

  217. Spen @ 7:33 am:

    I was about to make a similar comment. I was amazed that the judge declared the BBC to be a “private organisation”. Oh really? It is funded by a compulsory tax (the TV licence fee) on everyone who wishes to use a TV, irrespective of whether or not they use it to watch the BBC. The BBC occasionally make some good programmes, but these are few and far between these days. The Remembrance Sunday at the Cenotaph was one, HM The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee service another. However, they made the biggest stuff-up of the Diamond Jubilee Pageant you could ever imagine and thoroughly wrecked it for anyone not present in London. As well as the obligatory obeisance to “climate change” we are deafened by horrible loud muzak shutting out commentary, endless shots of presenters walking, talking and waving their arms in a strange sort of semaphore, loads of itsy-bitsy little-girl-voiced, trivial weather presenters….oh, the list goes on and on. They infuriate me and they are using our money to do it.

    The BBC are supposed to have a statutary duty to give unbiased reporting and intelligent, educational programming. My hat. Lord Reith must be turning in his grave.

  218. Rhys Jaggar says: “I and many millions of people do not wish to see the BBC judged by partisan self-serving right wingers.”

    The Jaggar doth protest too much, methinks. Just guessing there Jaggar, but it is okay if the BBC is judged by partisan self-serving Left Wonkas?

    PS: Got any evidence of those “millions of people” or is that number like the claimed number of scientists who believe in AGW, a load of poppycock ?

  219. zootcadillac says:
    November 13, 2012 at 7:03 am

    Most of what you say is correct but the licence fee is applicable not to owning a receiver capable of viewing broadcast TV but to actually watching broadcast TV.

    I could watch TV on my PC but I do not. I can not, (in theory,) be fined for that capability, only if I actually do it.

    In one of the incessant reminders I get it says…

    It is against the law to watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on TV – whether you’re using a TV set, computer, mobile phone or anything else.

    I do like the way they assume that I, and presumably anyone else, cannot survive without a TV…

    WHATEVER YOU’RE WATCHING,
    HOWEVER YOU’RE WATCHING IT,
    YOUR HOME NEEDS A TV LICENCE.

    Pure intimidatory tactics. they must prove you’re watching live TV. If they get a warrant and insist on trying to view TV in my home, I will record myself telling them that it is illegal and please desist from trying to make me break the law. (It’s my responsibility that they don’t.) I will, before allowing them access, even with a warrant, insist that they leave any portable viewing devices outside.

    They started their latest investigation of me on the 23rd of October 2012.
    Good luck with that then. ;-)

    DaveE.

  220. State run news media will never be “balanced.” “Balanced reporting” or the “Fairness Doctrine” is simply an idea that statists use to pass laws restricting free speech or mandating requirements on free speech, when exercised by citizens and the institutions they own.

    But since balanced state run media was tried, now you have your experimental results.

  221. One of the IBT members is Islamic Relief, a charity organisation. But hold on:

    UBS closes Islamic Relief account over terror risk
    November 9, 2012
    The U.K. based Muslim charity Islamic Relief has had its account closed and zakat donations to its account blocked by Swiss bank UBS due to counter-terror concerns. Islamic Relief is the world’s largest Islamic non-governmental organization, and Israel has previously accused it of funding Hamas.
    UBS’s action is similar to the decision made by Minnesota banks to cease remittance services to Somalia. The risk that such transactions will be used for terrorism is simply too great a risk for the banks to bear.
    (…)

    http://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/ubs-closes-islamic-relief-account-over-terror-risk/

  222. Now we see that the State has no impartiality, no balance, and no qualifications to legislate or regulate free speech in any country.

  223. Why don’t we simply apply the Precautionary Principle to all communication?

    The argument could run something like this: Someone might say something wrong about Post Normal sustainability science, which is for the public good, or someone may say something untrue that other people will believe that might bring the public or the environment harm, so simply reverse and remove all discussion entirely.

    Waivers issued to friends of the “environment” and “responsible journalism” practitioners.

  224. @ Rhys Jaggar, Speak for yourself.

    As a BBC licence fee payer, I would be delighted to see the biased, corrupt BBC broken up.

    But that is not just my view, according to several opinion polls a clear majority of the UK public no longer think that the BBC is trustworthy. They are overtly biased.

    You claim that they should not be judged by “right wingers”? Well that just shows how much left wing bias is institutionalised within the BBC. Why do you not want them judged by left wingers?

    IF the BBC is as loved as the lefties claim, then the BBC should be broken up into separate voluntary subscription only services. BBC news and current affairs, BBC drama, BBC films, BBC comedy, BBC light entertainment, BBC natural history etc… and allow those who love “dear old aunty beeb” to pay for her.

    But it would allow those who despise the lecherous old pervy Uncle Beeb to not fund his biased lies.

    The BBC is NOT a beloved institution anymore. It has been slowly taken over by a narrow clique of identically believing politically correct metropolitan thinkers who preach diversity in all things except diversity of thought or opinion. It is NOT fit to hold a broadcast licence. Even Rupert Murdoch would be better placed to run the BBC than the current bunch of traitors.

    The BBC should be drastically reformed to return to true impartiality or be broken up entirely, or be scrapped as not fit for purpose.

  225. Rhys Jaggar says:
    November 13, 2012 at 4:03 am
    “Mr Watts

    I hope that your correct opinion that the BBC’s climate change coverage breaks its charter does not result in your site advocating the break up of the BBC or its sale to a foreign owner.
    […]
    It is, after all, the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation, not the NEW YORK Broadcasting Corporation, the SAUDI ARABIAN Broadcasting Corporation or the KGB Broadcasting Corporation.”

    Hey buddy, as a German, I’m forced to fund a similar abomination, the German public media, so let me tell you, when I wish for the defunding of the BBC it’s not because I want to meddle with the affairs of the Brits but because our local public broadcasters are as warmist, insane and generally inefficient as the Beeb – and should be defunded just the same. I’m not using them anyway, I know what they say.

    BTW, you sure it’s not the KGB Broadcasting corporation?

  226. Of course, the list is diverse.

    It is merely an interdisciplinary combination of researchers and social scientists and artists who are working together for the public good, in an effort to create a sustainable planet.

  227. Do any of these invited attendees have links to The Carbon Trust?

    I understand the BBC has invested heavily in The Carbon Trust in the hope of filling its pension black hole.

    It would look awfully grubby is it seemed they’d chosen an editorial direction in order to line their own pockets…

  228. Specialists:……………Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation……………

    Andrew Simms writes an irregular piece for the Guardian called something on the lines of ‘100 months to save the world’ and counting down.

    Guardian – Friday 1 August 2008
    “Because in just 100 months’ time, if we are lucky, and based on a quite conservative estimate, we could reach a tipping point for the beginnings of runaway climate change.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/01/climatechange.carbonemissions

    I also read:

    Andrew writes regularly for the national press and is on the boards of Greenpeace UK, the climate campaign 10:10 and The Energy and Resources Institute Europe. He worked for many years for international development organisations, writing extensively on issues of climate change and poverty reduction.

    http://www.neweconomics.org/about/andrew-simms

    As the list says he is one of the

    “30 invited guests who are specialists in the area of climate change”……..”· To offer a clear summary of the state of knowledge on the issue”

    http://cgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=109&doing_wp_cron

    I am amazed the he and a rep of the Church of England among others were relied upon to make such an important editorial decision regarding the future of humanity. Disappointing stuff.

  229. OK. What we have here is clearly a serious violation of public service principles.
    Now for the obvious follow up question:
    Who at BBC (and/or elsewhere) is/are responsible for arranging this spectacle of AGW-likeminded specialists? The specialists themselves can ofc. be accused of keeping this blunt bias under the radar but who is/are the main culprit(s)?

  230. Zeke says November 13, 2012 at 8:32 am (my bold)

    “…It is merely an interdisciplinary combination of researchers and social scientists and artists who are working together for the public good, in an effort to create a sustainable planet.

    Assuming you didn’t neglect a /sarc tag…The thing is, who is to say what the ‘public good’ is? And what business is it of the BBC to a: decide on that, and b: to think they can take my money to create their own propaganda.

  231. @Bosse Johansson
    ” I do not think the media will pick up on this as long as it is described as “BBC lied about the secret meeting attendance” since it is too much of interpretation of who said what, and the BBC is sure to have used some weasel words in their descriptions. Too difficult. …..Why not describe it as the joke it is: “BBC hired 6 lawyers to refuse a blogger’s FOI request in court only to have the document found by another blogger on the internet a week later…

    Thank you for your comments – you are quite correct that the ‘joke’ is a simpler story.
    But the problem is that it is over too quickly – it can just be ignored by the Beeb, who could laugh with you. If you have grounds for suggesting that the BBC lied to a Tribunal you are on different ground all together. The BBC are being pinned to the wall over the Savile affair, and so a second formal accusation of lying is likely to resound with the viewing public at the moment. I agree that it needs to be put simply, but I believe that it should be run with…

  232. Rhys Jaggar says:
    November 13, 2012 at 4:03 am

    =============

    The apologist’s are cranking up the spin.

    Too little, too late, the game is over.

  233. Snotrocket:

    It is best to do as others have and to ignore the series of posts coming from “Zeke”. If you bite his hook then there is no knowing onto what the thread will be diverted.

    Richard

  234. Les Johnson says:
    November 13, 2012 at 2:01 am
    …And how the heck did Richard North get to one of these?
    _________________________________
    Wrong Richard North

  235. The “public good” is determined by sustainability scientists and policy makers, who must pass legislation in cases where uncertainty is high but where the public might be harmed by some technology or resource.

    The role of science is to determine environmental risk. The politicians apply the Precautionary Principle to protect the environment and the public.

  236. A few thoughts and responses to earlier comments:

    1 – Way up thread, someone asked what ‘Open University’ was. For those unfamiliar with the UK and BBC output, The Open University is a genuine university although it operates in a unique manner. Undergraduate students enroll and undertake their courses by distance learning (mostly part time), with some of the course material traditionally provided as televised lectures shown overnight on the BBC. Open University degrees are comparable in standard and status with those of any other UK University. Post-graduate and research work is undertaken in a manner similar to any other University (I had an interview for a PhD place there – it was weird being in a University with no students and very few teaching facilities, not helped by it being in Milton Keynes, possibly the oddest town in Britain).

    2 – I’m not surprised by the presence of a number of environmental advocates and similar within the list of ‘Experts’. I am though surprised at just how few scientists there were. Someone listed the following above:
    Scientists – 6
    Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
    Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
    Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
    Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
    Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
    Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University

    Now I make that TWO active scientists: Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, a specialist in ice measurments, and Steve Widdicombe, a biologist/ecologist involved in ocean acidification research.
    Professor May was a zoologist, and appears now to be mainly interested and active in the politics of science.
    Mike Hulme is sort of the British equivalent of Roger Pielke jr – interested in the science/policy interface more than the pure science.
    Michael Bravo similarly is more about politics and humanities than anything that passes my description of science (see http://www.geog.cam.ac.uk/people/bravo/ ).
    Eleni Andreadis – a political science student, who was completing her Masters degree at the time of this seminar (appears to be a co-worker with Dr Smith of Open University).

    3 – I think the bigger issues about this are not that the BBC sought and obtained partial advice regarding climate change (hardly a shock to anyone here), but relate to the financial workings involved in:
    A – Fighting FOI release of the list of delegates for a document that turned out to be publicly accessible.
    B – Probably more seriously, the indirect manner that this seminar was Government funded and so allowed the DFID (through funding the IBT, the hosts of this seminar) to influence BBC editorial policy.

    4 – If this is to become a serious issue in the MSM, it needs to be picked up by someone other than Booker, Dellingpole or David Rose (Mail on Sunday). These guys are too easy for the mainstream to ignore because of their past history on climate change issues.

  237. richardscourtney says:
    November 13, 2012 at 9:01 am

    Explain specifically which comment you think is a diversion, please. Don’t you think the BBC has failed to report the scope of the issue, by not reporting on the economically destructive policies perpetrated on the public? It seems the omissions are the other half of the failed reporting to me.

  238. mischevious = mischievous, though so many people pronounce it incorrectly now, they might as well change the spelling.

  239. Roger Knights says:
    November 13, 2012 at 2:22 am

    Can we call it the BooBoosomething? How about Auntie B’s great BooBoo.

  240. cd_uk says:
    November 13, 2012 at 2:16 am

    As a license fee payer why the hell am I paying for all this, all on the say so a few activists? I’m getting really pissed off now.
    _______________________________________
    Seems like a great rally cry to just plain kill the BBeast. Why should citizens pay for government indoctrination from idiots who as Delingpole says…

  241. Regarding the idea of the government deciding what information you need to hear, and fixing up a healthy diet for you, as decided by their media dieticians:
    Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law buddy of Obama, was our Regulatory Czar. Sunstein has a couple views: first, he steps beyond our founding father principles to decide that they wanted a govt that was founded upon citizens who could be involved in govt – voting etc. – if and only if adequately knowledgeable on the issues of the day, and in the old days, there was not much interference to being up-to-date, so the founding fathers did not express this dimension of tehir views much, and instead focused on the liberty and direct aspects of involvement, such as electoral college, etc.

    Having decided that the founding fathers had a tacit necessity for any citizen to be sufficiently informed on a range of issues, Sunstein makes the case that nowadays, each of us can stick ourselves in a media echo chamber, and so fail to be fully informed. Especially in need are those who disagree with Sunstein on issues such as global warming (see his ‘conspiracy theories’ writing).

    So, he arrives at the “liberal” view that we ordinary people do not know better, so the govt has to develop media to feed us, so that we are sufficiently informed to participate in participatory democracy, or deliberative democracy.

    This is where the ‘progressives’ are headed.

    Here is a quote from 2001, with link if intersted:

    http://bostonreview.net/BR26.3/sunstein.php

    “The basic issue here is whether something like a “public sphere,” with a wide range of voices, might not have significant advantages over a system in which isolated consumer choices produce a highly fragmented speech market. The most reasonable conclusion is that it is extremely important to ensure that people are exposed to views other than those with which they currently agree, that doing so protects against the harmful effects of group polarization on individual thinking and on social cohesion.”

    More is in other sources, such as infotopia, a book of his.

  242. Many who are fortunate enough not live under the BBC regime probably cannot appreciate that whether the names are made public or not is as far away from the point as it is possible to get. The FOI battle was always about the BBC, as it is with all institutons in the UK, keeping itself unaccountable, period. Serfs need to be reminded of their place, often.

    Simples.

  243. @Bosse Johansson
    ” I do not think the media will pick up on this as long as it is described as “BBC lied about the secret meeting attendance” since it is too much of interpretation of who said what, and the BBC is sure to have used some weasel words in their descriptions. Too difficult. …..Why not describe it as the joke it is: “BBC hired 6 lawyers to refuse a blogger’s FOI request in court only to have the document found by another blogger on the internet a week later…”

    Some possible titles:
    “BBC spend millions in lawyer fees to hide a file that was in the web.”
    (some British put a FOIA for how much money spent in that case)

    “British Court denies a FOIA request for a BBC file that was online.”

  244. Rhys Jaggar says:
    ………………………It is, after all, the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation, not the NEW YORK Broadcasting Corporation, the SAUDI ARABIAN Broadcasting Corporation or the KGB Broadcasting Corporation.

    I hope that will not be too much to ask for, since if it is, I may need to raise questions as to whether you are receiving funding from Rupert Murdoch…………..

    Then they should stop broadcasting around the world spreading propaganda regarding co2.

    For your information I used to work at the BBC Television Centre in White City, London.

  245. This doesn’t help Michael Mann’s case against Mark Steyn.

    If cover-ups of paedophilia and climate porn go hand in hand at the BBC (so to speak), why should Penn State be any different?

  246. Richard LH says:
    November 13, 2012 at 2:34 am

    OK – sanity check. I can’t count. I think it is a 6-22 split.

    Specialists – 28

    Scientists – 6
    Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
    Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
    Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
    Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
    Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
    Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    AHHHhh but are they CLIMATE scientists. The Oregon petition gets chucked because it is not CLIMATE scientists, the 97% poll was massaged to only include well published CLIMATE scientists, Goose and Gander and all that.

    Robert May, Oxford University – Professor of Zoology – Not a climate scientist.

    Mike Hulme UEA – Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences, BSc in Geography, PhD in Applied Climatology, Not exactly a heavy weight in physics and math but we will count him (1)

    Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen – Reconstruction of climate records from ice cores and borehole data, Continuum mechanical properties of anisotropic ice. Ice in the solar system, M.Sc. in Geophysics, Copenhagen University; Ph.D. in Geophysics, Copenhagen University. (2)

    Michael Bravo, University of Cambridge – Ph.D., History and Philosophy of Science, Cambridge University 1992, M.Phil., History and Philosophy of Science, Cambridge University 1987, B. Eng., Telecommunications Engineering, Carleton University 1985 Not exactly a heavy weight either. I would not count him as anything but an “advisor” on the HISTORY of science.

    Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs – leads the PML strategic science area Marine Life Support Systems, marine ecologist. one of his papers is Predicting the impact of ocean acidification on benthic biodiversity: What can animal physiology tell us? Not a climate scientist just a Activist in a labcoat but I will count him as (2 1/2)

    Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University – I had trouble finding this person. but Bishophill did find her. Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University was actually an undergraduate “specialising in documentary film making.” So not a scientist at all.

    So you sort of could maybe make a case for 3 maybe 4 CLIMATE scientists but that is really stretching things.

  247. Zeke says:
    November 13, 2012 at 8:32 am

    “It is merely an interdisciplinary combination of researchers and social scientists and artists who are working together for the public good, in an effort to create a sustainable planet.”

    Bravo! Funniest thing I’ve read in a long time.

  248. Philip Foster (Revd) says:
    November 13, 2012 at 2:45 am

    Oliver Cromwell’s dismissal of the ‘Rump BBC’ :
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Oh that lends itself to this so well with a slight change of a few words, especially with the Church of England sitting in on the scam.

  249. Gale Combs says:
    November 13, 2012 at 9:45 am

    Roger Knights says:
    November 13, 2012 at 2:22 am

    Can we call it the BooBoosomething? BBC, three strikes and you are OUT, or is that too American?

  250. Zeke says November 13, 2012 at 9:13 am

    “The “public good” is determined by sustainability scientists (Who??) and policy makers, who must pass legislation in cases where uncertainty is high but where the public might be harmed by some technology or resource.”

    With great respect to RichardsCourtney (I won’t continue FTT)- and none to you, Zeke, that is just a crap-load of b*llox and spoken by an anti-democracy fool! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

  251. I hope you are not serious on this.
    There has to be some denial of access to broadcast on such an influential medium.#
    WUWT/CA and many other sites prevent posts on e.g. barycentre, etc. Or if sufficiently controversial have vast disclaimers in the headers.

    Would it be sensible to have programmes made by birthers, flat earthers, area 51ers, moon landing disbelievers.
    You would seem to want a programme put out without BBC editorial control with no comments from the other side. That way leads to broadcasting madness. How many more MMR vaccine disinformation deaths would there be? How many dieing from alternative therapies that do not work?
    Would you give pressure groups access to such a medium in an uncontrolled manner such as you are suggesting?
    Reading the comments here is just unbelievable!

  252. Roger Knights says:
    November 13, 2012 at 2:52 am

    The demand of the BeeBeeFee Slayers should be for civilian oversight of the BooBooWhee, the civilians being chosen at random from the list of subscribers. I.e., for a form of demarchy. (You can look it up.)
    ___________________________________
    The demand should be to kill it completely. Anything else lends itself to the type of abuse we have just seen. Viewers should KNOW who is pushing what POV from the advertisers.

  253. Sergei, Your comment would make sense if the BBC had hosted a competent discussion about AGW. However, in practice what they did was about the same as allowing the wolves to decide on the shepherding schedule.

  254. I would feel sorry for the British subjects of this command and control of thought monster called the BBC, but I’m too sad about the same process in play in the U.S. and the White House. An iron curtain has descended over the truth and reasonable thinking and policy making. The doors and windows are being cemented shut as we whisper online.

  255. [“UPDATE4: Bishop Hill makes this excerpt from correspondence the “quote of the day”:

    We now know that the BBC decided to abandon balance in its coverage of climate on the advice of a small coterie of green activists, including the campaign director of Greenpeace. This shows that the “shoddy journalism” of Newsnight’s recent smear was no “lapse” of standards at all. BBC news programs have for years been poorly checked recitations of the work of activists.”]

    There is another dimension to this which BH has overlooked…..

    The DG has gone, Patten is still tottering, but interestingly it’s descended into old scores being settled. The voices of Savile’s victims were previously silenced by Newsnight editor Peter Rippon dropping the story; now they are almost drowned out by the noise of media scores being settled. Newsnight staff who regarded Rippon as a David Brent figure are rejoicing at his comeuppance; Panorama staff are rejoicing at getting one over their rivals at Newsnight.

    And over at ITV, which broke the story the BBC had spiked, it’s trebles all round for the man who commissioned the documentary – ITV director of television Peter Fincham, who was forced to quit as controller of BBC1 in 2007 after the row involving Brenda and photographer Annie Leibovitz. He has had to wait five years for revenge, but better late than never…

  256. Rhys Jaggar says:
    November 13, 2012 at 4:03 am

    Mr Watts

    I hope that your correct opinion that the BBC’s climate change coverage breaks its charter does not result in your site advocating the break up of the BBC ….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I suggest you contemplate the words of a man I hold in very high high esteem Dr. W. Edwards Deming.

    “Quality starts in the boardroom.”

    The BBC is a news organization and as such holds a very important place in society. ALL the people who work at the BBC had the option of doing investigative journalism and making up their own mind. They had the option of LEAVING as I have done more than once when the company I worked for proved dishonest.

    2,500 are expected to DIE from the cold before Christmas and an estimated 40,000 more people are expected to die between December and March in the UK than would be expected from death rates during other times of the year. Those people you are trying to protect have DIRECTLY responsibility for those deaths and they should be booted out in the cold cruel world instead of mollycoddled.

    Activist should be held responsible for the results of their activism and BBC is no longer a news corporation but an Activist propaganda broadcaster that has been caught in the act.

  257. sergeiMK:

    I am only writing in response to your post at November 13, 2012 at 10:29 am because there may be onlookers who are misled by it.

    The subject of the BBC bias under discussion is the AGW-hypothesis. AGW is pseudoscience of precisely the same kind as the issues which you list.

    And the subject of this thread is the nature of the meeting which decided to adopt the policy of promoting AGW to the exclusion of scientific reality.

    Importantly, the BBC clearly ignored its Charter to adopt the bias.

    Richard

    PS I will not reply to any response you make to this post. This thread is too important for it to be side-tracked by nonsense from trolls.

  258. RE one of of the “science experts” Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen

    It seems she has been making the rounds with Al Gore doing presentations. Anyone who refuses to condem Gore for gross scientific ignorance clearly is not an expert in anything but propoganda.
    here’s a link to one of their presentations, scroll down for article. Claims of ice free arctic by 214 headline the presentation.

    http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.ca/2009/12/arctic-ocean-may-be-ice-free-by-2014.html

  259. Zeke says: “The ‘public good’ is determined by sustainability scientists and policy makers, who must pass legislation …” “The politicians apply the Precautionary Principle to protect the environment and the public.”

    Zieke Heil!

  260. http://www.iigcc.org/index.aspx

    “The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a forum for collaboration on climate change for European investors. The group’s objective is to catalyse greater investment in a low carbon economy by bringing investors together to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors. The group currently has over 50 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, and represents assets of around €4trillion. A full list of members is available on the membership page”.

    Did you catch that: Four trillion Euros!
    Remember the phrase “to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors”

    http://www.iigcc.org/membership.aspx

    Members of the IIGCC include (I trimmed the list a bit):

    BBC Pension Trust
    Bedfordshire Pension Fund
    BT Pension Scheme
    Corporation of London Pension Fund
    Environment Agency Pension Fund
    Greater Manchester Pension Fund
    Kent County Council
    London Borough of Hounslow Pension Fund
    London Borough of Islington Pension Fund
    London Borough of Newham Pension Fund
    London Pensions Fund Authority
    South Yorkshire Pensions Authority
    The Church Commissioners for England
    The Church in Wales
    Universities Superannuation Scheme
    West Midlands Metropolitan Authorities Pension Fund
    West Yorkshire Pension Fund

    To be a bit more specific as to the BBC AGW Bias:

    http://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/news/1440290/iigcc-calls-urgent-changes-encourage-institutional-investment


    Professional Pensions | 19 May 2009 | 01:00

    Categories: Investment

    Carbon markets need urgent changes in order to encourage institutional investment and the development of a low-carbon economy, the Institutional Investor Group on Climate Change says.
    The group is calling for strong price signals and caps on carbon emissions that will encourage scarcity and demand.

    IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe said: “The credibility of emissions trading schemes would be greatly improved with a robust price signal as well as clear and frequent communication from the regulator on trading data and improved transparency over direct government participation in schemes.”

    Catch that: “IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe…”

    The BBC is the Chair of this Carbon Trading driven investment scheme!

    Recall: “to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors”

    I would say that the BBC has a major non-Scientific reason for their Human Induced Global Warming Bias.

    If this Human Induced Global Warming thing does not pan out then perhaps a lot of BBC pensioners will be ‘left out in the cold’.

    It is despicable how these charlatans of science are playing with the lives and futures of so many trusting people. These trusting people should pick up the phone, call their MP and get to the bottom of this before their pensions go the way of the dot-com or housing bubble.

    It looks like a clear conflict of interest between the BBC and the public that they are supposed to serve.

  261. Perhaps the real troll is the one who is trying to spin this event as a single offense against the Charter – and gain control of the range of the thread – rather than allowing a full discussion of the systemic problems involving science, political advocacy, environmentalism, renewables peddlers (BP) and state run media.

  262. The BBC doesn’t need to be scraped just make it private and allow them to advertise. I see the Straw trolls are out defending the indefensible as usual.

  263. sergeiMK;
    Reading the comments here is just unbelievable!
    >>>>>>>>>>>

    What’s unbelievable is that temps have not risen for 15 years and the BBC is not reporting it, seal level acceleration doesn’t exist and the BBC isn’t reporting that, accumulated cyclone energy had been in decline for a few decades and the BBC doesn’t report that, the antarctic is setting new records for ice, nada from the BBC, Keith Briffa just published an update to his tree ring studies that destroys his own hockey stick graph and restores the MWP but not a whisper from the BBC.

    I could go on sergieMK, for a very long time. These are documented facts that fly in the face of the CAGW meme. If compelling new documented facts and science appear regarding MMR, then I would expect them to be reported, just as I expect the overwhelming new data and science that contradicts the predictions and science of the CAGW meme to be reported.

  264. What would be really nice now is for someone to do an FOIA on the BBC pension fund to find out how much they have lost in their green/renewables investments.

    My guess is that knowledge might bring a little balance into the BBC demanded by their members. No more screwing around with our pensions on trendy no hoper investments.

  265. The crisis that is engulfing the BBC at present is due to Newsnight, the premier news show, broadcasting an expose claiming that a senior member of the Thatcher Government was a paedophile. It was totally untrue, and the most basic journalistic checks were not carried out.
    One of the most prominent Twittees who “outed” Lord McAlpine was George Monbiot. Might his judgement of the former Treasurer (and very effective fundraiser) of the Conservative Party during the Thatcher years have something to do with it?
    In both the BBC’s and Monbiot’s case, this is the flip-side of the Peter Glieck affair. They both appear to be very quick to accept evidence that confirms their prejudices, and attack any evidence that poses the slightest challenge. I posted on this yesterday.

  266. Sergi: I think you are taking a rather narrow view of the problem. The refusal to air dissenting views is one thing, and in certain cases, you may have a point, but I would argue that is not the case here.

    However, look at the bigger picture. Look at the intent of the meeting, if you need it spelled out, go take a look at the link provided by Tallbloke. Then look at who attended that meeting from the BBC.

    What they did was not just deny an airing to dissenting views, but embedded their propaganda in every branch of BBC output. Every program you watch pushes the global warming meme, and every program you watch denigrates anyone who disagrees with that idea.

    This is Goebbels type propaganda at its most extreme.

    Dig further, and you see that it it not because they truly believe that we are all going to roast to death, but they see this as an excuse for global societal engineering, pushing host of liberal agenda items, most importantly redistribution of wealth and destruction of western (capitalist) civilization.

    These are evil people, with an evil purpose.

  267. The International Broadcasting Trust, who organised the seminar, have infiltrated the BBC and Channel 4 much more than just this one seminar would indicate.

    They even boast “We have continued to work in partnership with Channel 4 and the BBC, holding regular meetings to discuss how they plan to implement the international aspects of their remits. We have also worked with other broadcasters including Sky News. “

    Supposedly the BBC is an independent organisation.

    The IBT’s funders include the usual suspects, like WWF, Oxfam, CAFOD and UNICEF.
    More info below.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/the-bbc-the-international-broadcasting-trust/

  268. Michael Roberts says:
    November 13, 2012 at 7:10 am

    James Delingpole’s & “What’s Up With That” 28-Gate: How To Blow Things Out Of Proportion | Milton Redfearn
    _______________________________________
    Redfearn is a political Analyst for the UK government: http://www.blogger.com/profile/11709687989944660647

    Less than 24 hours and the whitewash is already starting.

  269. I may have engaged in a little advocacy, but at least I can assure you that I received no gifts, grants, plane tickets, parties, academic standing, honorary degrees, or other sweets from the Devil for my advocacy.

    ~control f Zeke

  270. The BBC has LIED in a formal public report about the meeting on Jan. 26, 2006.

    This meeting was said to shape a dramatic shift in BBC policy, according to the BBC’s own News Director.

    Hardly any actual scientists were present at this epochal policy meeting….. Never mind climate scientists, never mind high level or leading scientific minds of our time.

    There needs to be a formal public inquiry with all testimonies under oath and made public.

  271. Brilliant brilliant stuff. Well done!

    See? This goes to prove activism isn’t good for anything. We could have told ‘em that!

  272. Well done Maurizio, but I think we all owe a big vote of thanks to Tony Newbury, a British pensioner with a modest little blog, who set the ball rolling by taking on the might of the BBC. As noted in a post above, he has now asked the BBC to confirm that the list is the one he was asking for. I suspect that the Beeb will be having further interaction with Mr Newbury before this is over.

    I seem to remember reading somewhere that the BBC is the biggest international broadcaster in the world. To the person above who complained about ‘foreigners’ getting involved in the discussion, my response is that the BBC got itself involved when it decided to broadcast its propaganda all over the world.

  273. Slightly off-topic but related to that other Beeb incident, I read that one of the people who could be sued by Lord McAlpine is George Monbiot himself. He tweeted something about McAlpine being a paed, and has now apologised for it. Another potential defendent is the wife of the speaker of the house of commons.

  274. DirkH says: @ November 13, 2012 at 8:31 am
    BTW, you sure it’s not the KGB Broadcasting corporation?
    ________________________________________
    Since you asked….

    The ‘Innocents’ Clubs’
    How did it come about that much of the British intelligensia, for decades, was persuaded of the moral superiority of Communism, and of its inevitability as the future political system of the world? One man, virtually unknown and unnoticed, can claim the dubious distinction of being the prime mover….

    Most of this army of workers in what Münzenberg called ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ had no idea they were working for Stalin. They were led to believe that they were advancing the cause of a sort of socialist humanism. The descendents of the ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ are still hard at work in our universities and colleges….

  275. Johanna said:

    I seem to remember reading somewhere that the BBC is the biggest international broadcaster in the world. To the person above who complained about ‘foreigners’ getting involved in the discussion, my response is that the BBC got itself involved when it decided to broadcast its propaganda all over the world.

    Well, yes. But lets also take to task the people that facilitate the distribution of the propaganda in the USA.

    Some abuse directed at The (so called) Discovery Channel would not be go amiss.

  276. Zeke says:
    November 13, 2012 at 8:32 am

    Of course, the list is diverse.

    It is merely an interdisciplinary combination of researchers and social scientists and artists who are working together for the public good, in an effort to create a sustainable planet.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    And if anyone actually believes that I have this bridge, with slight hurricane damage I want to sell.

  277. pdxrod says:

    November 13, 2012 at 8:31 am

    Speaking of ’28′, did anyone hear the joke going around the BBC? “Q. What’s good about sex with 28 year olds? A. The fact that there’s twenty of them.”

    *
    LOL! I fell out of my chair! :)

  278. Zeke says November 13, 2012 at 8:32 am (my bold)

    “…It is merely an interdisciplinary combination of researchers and social scientists and artists who are working together for the public good, in an effort to create a sustainable planet.
    ___________________________________________
    Snotrocket says: @ November 13, 2012 at 8:52 am

    Assuming you didn’t neglect a /sarc tag…The thing is, who is to say what the ‘public good’ is? And what business is it of the BBC to a: decide on that, and b: to think they can take my money to create their own propaganda.
    ___________________________________________
    Well having 40,000 to 50,000 die this winter from lack of warmth as a direct result of your propaganda certainly isn’t a “public good” unless you are a Malthusian intent on wiping out a the ‘useless eaters.’ Does that describe you Zeke?

  279. We are in a battle. The thing that disturbs me is this talk about the Beeb did this or the Beeb did that.

    No no no. Organizations, such as the Beeb, don’t do anything that can be stuck on them. Orgs are designed to catch the blame and deflect it away from the guilty individuals.

    Saying the BBC must answer for serious breaches of this or that is missing the point. It plays into the hands of our enemy. It eases the way for the Claire Fosters and Kevin McCulloughs, the Beeb catching the blame, while they go about their nefarious way.

    Each person on that list is a lying crooked SOB of one type or other. They rely on the Beeb to fly cover over their individual crimes.

    Dig in and follow the individual. We know they are all corrupt. That corruption isn’t restricted to their dealings with the Beeb. In their personal lives they are just as crooked, the crimes are just waiting to be found.

    Don’t focus on the Beeb. Play the man, not the ball.

  280. Zeke says:
    November 13, 2012 at 9:13 am

    The “public good” is determined by sustainability scientists and policy makers, who must pass legislation in cases where uncertainty is high but where the public might be harmed by some technology or resource.

    The role of science is to determine environmental risk. The politicians apply the Precautionary Principle to protect the environment and the public.
    ________________________________________
    I am repeating this for a reason.

    Notice that the public, the individual, is not represented in any way shape or form. It is Scientists and Policy Makers who hand wisdom down from on high and the Politicians (Lawmakers) who implement it.

    No wonder Zeke feels the Great Unwashed need to be fed propaganda so as not to interfere with the process!

  281. papiertigre:

    Your post at November 13, 2012 at 1:02 pm concludes saying

    Dig in and follow the individual. We know they are all corrupt. That corruption isn’t restricted to their dealings with the Beeb. In their personal lives they are just as crooked, the crimes are just waiting to be found.

    Don’t focus on the Beeb. Play the man, not the ball.

    I agree that we should bring responsible individuals to account, but we MUST ‘play the ball’.

    Replacing the string section of an orchestra does not stop the orchestra playing the same tunes.

    Richard

  282. richardscourtney says:
    November 13, 2012 at 6:45 am

    RockyRoad:

    re your post at November 13, 2012 at 6:21 am

    Information has no power.
    Information is a useful tool for those with the power to use it.

    How do you suggest the information in the minutes of the meetings should be used?
    And how would it be more useful than the information about who attended the meetings?

    Of course information has power–the pen is mightier than the sword, expecially if your pen is connected to a vast audience on the Internet.

    Take for example the contents of the Climategate emails & related documents. If all you had was a list of email addresses from that trove, it’s no biggie. What matters is the content–and disecting and disseminating that or what the 28 BBC Clowns et al discussed and decided is the meat of the matter.

  283. sergeiMK says:
    November 13, 2012 at 10:29 am

    I hope you are not serious on this.
    There has to be some denial of access to broadcast on such an influential medium.#
    WUWT/CA and many other sites prevent posts on e.g. barycentre, etc. Or if sufficiently controversial have vast disclaimers in the headers.

    Would it be sensible to have programmes made by birthers, flat earthers, area 51ers, moon landing disbelievers….
    _________________________________
    As a matter of fact yes. There have already been TV programs on just such subjects. The editorial question is are these topics of debate within a segment of the public? Can a decent program be made on the subject? PERIOD.

    Now on to CAGW. CAGW is not only a major subject of debate, it has far reaching consequences in each of our daily lives and there for ALL parts of the debate even barycentre should be presented.

    Just because I may think birthers, flat earthers, area 51ers, moon landing disbelievers…. are crackpots DOES NOT mean I have the right to shutdown their freedom of speech especially when they have paid through their taxes for an impartial reporting media. If they are crackpots let them fall flat on their face in public. As someone already said sunlight is a great disinfectant.

  284. I certainly hope that Tony Newbery continues with his Appeal. He should now ask for COSTS on a full reimbursement basis, as if he were a recently called barrister (say 200 pounds an hour) because it is now clear that the Beeb was *lying* to the FOI Commission about this list. The *list* was not exempt: it was already public and it was the Beeb who made it public by posting it.

    The Beeb then lied about it being otherwise available.

    And there is ANOTHER FOI request which should be filed forthwith. One which asks for the amount expended in legal fees etc. in defending the indefensible.

    And I would not be surprised if there could be criminal penalties for having made false declarations about the availabilty of an exemption from disclosure.
    Way to go TONY! and MAURIZIO

    ( Pity you spell your last name wrong, though Tony! )
    Geoff Newbury

  285. The phrase we all heard about President Bush was “Bush lied and people died!”

    I guess we can’t say for sure that “the BBC lied and people died!”

    However we can honestly say “the BBC lied and the kids got bleeped!”

  286. Rhys Jaggar says:
    November 13, 2012 at 4:03 am
    ===============

    I think you may see the writing on the wall with regards to the BBC. Prior to your comment I had not thought of the BBC being broken up but your bringing it up got me to thinking about it.

    It appears that the corruption and the long term bias within the BBC is too extensive for repair and perhaps the best solution would be to break up the monopoly and let the cards fall as they may. From the rubble will arise a new or several credible entities.

    The BBC is not too big to fail, it should be allowed to fail as it’s too big and corrupt.

  287. I have merely repeated the words of the National Science Foundation:

    “Human beings live in a new age, many scientists believe, one called the Anthropocene, in which human effects on Earth’s systems are powerful regulators of how those systems function. Or how they are beginning to break down.”

    Everything I have written is straight from the NSF, Gale. What the BBC has done here fits exactly with the elite academic efforts to use science for the public good and create a sustainable future. And I have done this in order to familiarize others with the language and to provide a broader context of the abuse of science in political advocacy, that is: to terrify people about the water, electricity, crops, gasoline, cattle, and air they use.

    http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=125599&WT.mc_id=USNSF_51&WT.mc_ev=click

    There is no daylight between sustainablility and climate science. They are conjoined twins. They have the same methodology, claims, goals, and funding and they both always work in the politicians’ favor. And there is also very little daylight, I believe, between over-populationists and eugenics. Who will live and who will die, in the name of environmental sustainability?

  288. The question at the heart of the matter is – should the BBC ever be willfully impartial. To this question, the identity of the 28 is something of a non sequitor.

    Yes, they were not esteemed scientists – mostly not scientists at all. Yes, they were mostly activists and yes, it is clear that the meeting was convened to provide the packaging for a message that had already been decided upon.

    But what if the names revealed a truly august body of the most esteemed scientists? Would that mean the BBC was justified in “no longer giving equal weight to skeptical voices?”

    The answer is an unequivocable no. No, the royal charter states specifically, they must be impartial. That means effectively, they must take no position on any subject; they must take no sides in any debate; they must report as they find, and therefore must not exclude any one side or favour any other side, no matter how compelling they believe the case to be.

    They should no more be taking an advocacy in AGW than, say, in the question of whether time existed before the big bang, or whether the standard model of particle physics is correct, or whether states should borrow to “stimulate economies”.

    It is not – or should not be – the business of the BBC, a publicly funded broadcasting conglomurate, to tell us whether cAGW is real or not, or what, if any, actions we should take to deal with it.

    Yet, they have tried to justify this advocacy by talking about the weight of evidence in favour of it, while all the time forgetting that that line of reasoning is unacceptable. Even if their theories were true, they would still have broken the Royal Charter and strangely, this simple fact was never picked up by the BBC trust at the time. A woefull failure of the watchdog to watch.

  289. “In view of the presence of someone from the U.S. Embassy, it should be noticed that this was in the administration of the younger Bush.”

    A president who was routinely undermined by the State Department. Nice try.

  290. I see the new economics foundation is present. Serendipitously I wrote about the new economics foundation’s rather horrific vision for the future called The Great Transition recently. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/values-and-vocational-creating-citizen-drones-via-education- worldwide/ and how it fits with the UNESCO and UNEP vision a dramatically restructured economy and society.

    A post GDP world with an “equal partnership between the public and private sector” all over the world. Now I have already squashed this vision but does anybody really think that government bureaucrats who try to avoid FOI requests to cover up their shenanigans can really be relied upon to “co-produce well-being for all?”

    It’s all an attempt to eliminate any barriers to the predator state. All over the globe.

    That’s what I was working on today when I saw this list had come to light.

  291. Zeke says:
    November 13, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    I may have engaged in a little advocacy, but at least I can assure you that I received no gifts, grants, plane tickets, parties, academic standing, honorary degrees, or other sweets from the Devil for my advocacy.
    _________________________________________
    Zeke, Most of us here care about the environment. What we do not like is to see people frightened to death so the likes of ENRON, Shell, BP, GE, and a host of others can line their pockets. link

    Here is a similar situation in the USA dealing with Agriculture.
    How Goldman Sachs Created the [2008] Food Crisis
    How Archer Daniels Midland Co made a fortune with the help of politicians
    Some of the background figured out by bloggers/independents
    link 1
    link 2
    link 3

  292. Pointman says:
    November 12, 2012 at 4:40 pm
    Tune into the blogosphere and drop out of the MSM…
    You’re so right Pointman, the former MSM is more and more LSM

  293. I hve been sending messages to the bbc newsnight email address.

    The automatic disclaimer:

    “This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
    If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
    Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
    Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
    Further communication will signify your consent to this.”

    is good for a laugh. Automatic reply from bbc newsnight “may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.”

  294. Ally E. says:
    November 13, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    Brilliant brilliant stuff. Well done!

    See? This goes to prove activism isn’t good for anything. We could have told ‘em that!
    ____________________________________
    Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Activism is fine in its place. It is when it becomes a multi-million dollar industry whose real reason for existence is to make money by scamming people that it turns into an evil entity.

    Sadly many of the rank and file are truly good at heart and are as much a victim of the money/power grubbers as the people they scam.

  295. Unlike most name lists (phone book, convention index, ….) these are not alphabetical by last name. Unless they’re in the order individuals signed up or were assigned, someone made some interesting decisions. Robert May, (whoever he is, is #1 on the specialist list, #17 by last name). Mike Hulme, #2 on the specialists list would be #14 by last name. Minor, but odd.

  296. As an example of the regard in which BBC grandees hold themselves, no better example would be the resignation announcement of George Entwistle, which included the line, “I have decided to do the honourable thing . . .”

    Only someone seriously up himself would embellish “I have decided to resign” with a reference to the act’s honour quotient. The first thing that popped into my head when I watched him deliver the line was Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons.” Although I see from Entwistle’s payout he’ll have no trouble keeping himself well supplied with spoons.

  297. Re. Anne Gilchrist, Executive Editor Indies & Events, CBBC

    This lady has a big problem. Follow up on this and her career is toast. Then see where the ruins fall.

    You want a news story then, look at her… and why?

    Because CBBC =Children’s BBC.

    Propaganda for kids. That’s another form of child abuse.

    She’s the Jimmy Savile of the soul.

  298. The only way the “TV Licensing Squad” can gain access to a property, is by being granted a warrant. They can also and will summons you, but to do either of these things they first of all need to know your name. The problem is that most people volunteer to give their names to TV Licensing from the very start, hence when you stop paying up, they usually end up arranging your summons with their buddies at the local magistrates. In either instance they have neither gained proof nor produced evidence that you have been watching live broadcast Tv.

    Three years ago I decided enough was enough, I phoned up the Licensing office, explained how I was leaving the country for a while, she asked for forwarding details….I laughed, she asked if I would like a refund of the balance of which I had already been forcibly been made to pay in advance…….again I laughed and then said no thanks. Propaganda costs money. So a few weeks later I receive a few calls to my phone, Mr XXXXX they would state, hoping I would fall into their trap….always ask who is calling and on what business before you confirm who you are! I would simply then say “sorry….wrong number”. After a month the letters came, but no longer in my name oh no, this time addressed to Legal Occupier.

    Obviously at this point, they have accepted my story, so they move onto the next victim. Issuing threats and demands in bold fonts and bright colours. So I played the waiting game, wondering what would come next, what tactics did they have to enforce their “license” upon me!? Here is the boring bit, they didn’t have any. They send four letters in a cycle,

    1. Informing that not having a TV Licence is a crime and then outlining the ways to pay for one. ( for the new occupier)
    2. Suspicion that you do not have a licence, and that it is a crime and then outlining the ways to pay for one. ( for the lazy new occupier)
    3. Knowledge that you do not have said licence and that your details MAY be passed on to enforcement officers and then outlining the ways to pay for the…licence. ( this tends to get people “fessing up”)
    4. That you are obviously avoiding paying for the licence therefore a criminal and that very shortly, you will receive a knock on the door! ( this one is my favourite)

    So first thing’s first, let us ask ourselves………what details will they be passing onto their enforcement team? It certainly will not be my name, they think I am called “Legal Occupier”. The only details they have, are my address details. And those details are not mine, they are the details of a building! A building of which they have no proof of being empty or inhabited, they just assume it is inhabited! But the fact is they still need proof, so once in a while they will send round enforcer, and on the last count that has been four times in three years. On three occasions I was at work, the fourth was brilliant. Now I am not the most sociable person, especially if I am disturbed on an evening by an imbecile with an ID card, so after knock knock knock..

    me…..”what?”
    monkey with ID….”It appears that this house does not have a TV Licence”
    me…….”and?”
    monkey with ID….”I will have to take some details sir”
    me…….”you know and I know that I am under no obligation to share my private details with you or your company, now as you are trespassing on private land, be off with yourself!”
    monkey with ID….”it is against the law…(door shut in his face mid sentence)”

    And that was that, no name, no silly law games. No detection equipment ever used in court to prosecute, no jumping out of helicopters swat style, no “you can’t evade us, we are everywhere”. Three years people, and in that time, no census, same thing, just avoid them, no contact, no telling them what they want to hear, just an endless cycle of “the four letters” and the odd visit from an ex clamper.

    I know that this way will not suit everybody, some will say that they do no want to “feel like a prisoner in their own home”, I can understand that, but to wilt at the demands of a state sponsored extortion racket is no longer possible for me. If anybody cares to doubt me or the system I have tried then I suggest you pop over to….

    http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/

    have a good read through the forums there is tons of info. Hope this helps.

    Rollyfingers.

  299. Maybe there’s a cosmic portent here. Just kidding. But 28 just so happens to be a perfect number—equal to the sum of its proper divisors—so maybe there’s something perfect about this piece of beeboid scheming, such as one might hope for, say, in a perfect storm, a storm that led to the total utter f#####g annihilation of the BBC and the extermination of all those connected with it. Now that WOULD be nice. Cosmic karma! Bring it on!

    Go 28!

  300. Yes commodities traders are a disgusting bunch and have done a lot of harm.

    How Goldman Sachs Created the 2008 Food Crisis – thank you Gale, another excellent resource.

    A $40 Billion investment in Renewable Energy by Goldman Sachs
    by Andy Goldman on June 4, 2012

    http://www.renewablegreenenergypower.com/a-40-billion-investment-in-renewable-energy-by-goldman-sachs/

    But aren’t sustainability scientists with their political counterparts poised to make even the air you breath, co2 emissions, every drop of water, and every tiny watt a commodity controlled and traded by the government?

  301. Almost funny, except for the obvious harm caused to children aspects however has anyone else noticed that, twice now, where-ever there is a man-made global warming alarmism (e.g. Penn State University or BBC), there always seems to be a child molestation scandal over boiling in the background? There also always seem to be key senior executive-level players in one scandal also being involved in the other scandal. Compare the following –

    Penn State had/has Sandusky the convicted child molester visa vee Penn State had/has their man-made global warming alarmist. In both cases, senior executives of Penn State were involved in both scandals.

    BBC had/has Jimmy Saville the deceased BBC child molester visa vee BBC had/has their man-made global warming alarmism. In both cases, senior executives of the BBC are involved in both scandals.

    Credit to ‘omnologos’ for pointing out that key BBC players are involved with the BBC’s ongoing man-made global warming alarmism scandal and the BBC’s ongoing child molestation scandal.

  302. Robin says:
    November 13, 2012 at 2:05 pm
    …. Now I have already squashed this vision but does anybody really think that government bureaucrats who try to avoid FOI requests to cover up their shenanigans can really be relied upon to “co-produce well-being for all?”…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The Soviet Union was the experiment on that and it failed. Any type of society that rewards its producing class with theft and scorn will fall. It was tried in the 1620’s with a group whose religious beliefs should have made it succeed and it STILL failed miserably.

    Since it is close to the American Thanksgiving, that true story should be retold.

    …In his ‘History of Plymouth Plantation,’ the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” The crops were small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.”

    In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, “all had their hungry bellies filled,” but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first “Thanksgiving” was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

    But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, “instead of famine now God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” Thereafter, he wrote, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.” In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn….

    …writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization.

    This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

    This “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

    To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

    Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results….
    SOURCE

    So ask yourself this. If socialism has been tried again and again over centuries AND FAILED, why the heck are we so intent on trying it again? Cui bono? I think this 1911 cartoon of ‘a bearded, beaming Karl Marx standing in Wall Street with Socialism tucked under his arm and accepting the congratulations of financial luminaries J.P. Morgan, Morgan partner George W. Perkins, a smug John D. Rockefeller, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Teddy Roosevelt ‘ It is not humanitarianism but greed for power and money that is the driving force and if you look you can see it today.

    Note: This is not to say humanitarianism does not exist. It does and it is one of the noble urges that makes us human. The problem is that it gets used, twisted and corrupted by those with hidden agendas of greed for money and power. The BBC is a classic example of that.

    On another blog one commenter commented that it is the sociopaths that are most likely to rise to the top in power. It is an idea that the socialists on this blog need to keep in mind.

  303. Ian Blanchard says:
    November 13, 2012 at 9:17 am
    A few thoughts and responses to earlier comments:

    1 – Way up thread, someone asked what ‘Open University’ was. For those unfamiliar with the UK and BBC output, The Open University is a genuine university although it operates in a unique manner. Undergraduate students enroll and undertake their courses by distance learning (mostly part time), **with some of the course material traditionally provided as televised lectures shown overnight on the BBC.** Open University degrees are comparable in standard and status with those of any other UK University.
    =================================================================
    ** Point of accuracy
    Up to ~10 years ago, yes. Then superceded by video tape > CD >DVD >online.
    I’m an alumni* of the Open University – BA maths, currently doing MSc maths. I can confirm the statement about standard, it’s tougher than my local brick university (I informally give help and advice to a few of its students in exchange for beer and a lot of laughs at my local pub, so I can make that judgement).

    *I used to be a proud alumni. However the influence of the earlier mentioned academic post-holders at the OU has become more and more obvious in the OU’s publications for students, and some of the non-maths teaching material I’ve seen. I’m no longer proud.

  304. Zeke says:
    November 13, 2012 at 9:13 am
    “The role of science is to determine environmental risk. The politicians apply the Precautionary Principle to protect the environment and the public.”

    If the government applied the precautionary principle then it would be expanding the production of CO2 on a massive scale…

  305. The IBT is clearly an influential and partisan organisation and represents the bias it purports to be against. An example is the following submission to the BBC Trust, demonstrating extremist and autocratic viewpoints:

    Submission by the International Broadcasting Trust to the BBC Trust’s
    Science Impartiality review

    Some quotes:

    In this paper we look in detail at the way in which climate change has been
    reported across the BBC and we make a series of practical proposals…

    Journalists and programme makers should resist ‘debate’ framings –
    putting up opposing ‘pro’ and ‘sceptic’ climate change science opinion
    – that carry with them the implication of a balanced debate between
    equally informed players.

    …this return to a ‘debate’ framing is a retrograde step in terms of
    appropriate representation of the science, and even packaging and marketing
    a programme in this way may help to further delay comprehensive debate of
    actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

    There have been many other instances in advance of the Panorama over the
    last six and more months where broadcasters have sought to convene a
    ‘climate change debate’ despite the distortions such a framing creates in the
    public mind.

    It is difficult to identify an appropriate collective noun: some deny a well established body of
    science, but it has been suggested that the ‘denier’ term appears to be a rhetorical device that seeks guilt by association with holocaust denial. This is a shrill and inappropriate move. At the same time ‘sceptic’ is problematic as scepticism is a quality pursued in all good scientific and journalistic practice. ‘Contrarian is the term applied in this paper as it suggests a conscious decision to take a position contrary to the mainstream of opinion.

    This is particularly important where public service broadcasters give space to climate contrarian claims on the science that have not been peer reviewed. They must demand of it the same rigour that climate science which feeds into the IPCC has been subjected to.

    Alex Lockwood suggests, borrowing a term from computer science, that
    ‘climate disinformation online is a form of cultural and political malware every
    bit as threatening to our new media freedoms, used not to foster a forum for
    open politics but to create… a “multiplicity of fragmented publics” that harms
    not only our democracy, but our planet.’ (Lockwood 2008).

    Polling suggests that attitudes have shifted amongst a significant
    minority of the public, with an increase of around 10% in the proportion of the
    US and UK populations that are sceptical of climate change over the last
    couple of years (see Leiserowitz 2010 for US figures and Spence et al 2010 for
    UK figures)

    Editors and programme makers have sought to allow this body of
    the population to hear their views represented. While there are many areas of
    political or ethical debate where such balancing is desirable, we argue that in
    the case of reporting of scientific knowledge where there is a high degree of consensus amongst legitimate authorities, this leads to perverse outcomes
    and serves to mislead the public.

    http://www.ibt.org.uk/all_documents/Submissions%20Key/Response%20to%20the%20BBC%20Trust's%20science%20impartiality%20review.pdf#view=FitV

  306. Zeke says:
    November 13, 2012 at 1:49 pm
    “Everything I have written is straight from the NSF, Gale. What the BBC has done here fits exactly with the elite academic efforts to use science for the public good and create a sustainable future.”

    Isn’t this the exact argument made by hitler, stalin and countless others as they murdered hundreds of millions? Just because the “elite academics” believe something doesn’t make it true… In fact if we look at history when you have “elite academics” using “science for the public good and create a sustainable future.” I would say thats the scariest thing there is.

  307. The Tyndall Centre should not receive global warming research funding if they are just using this funding to lobby the BBC and other media organizations.

    Wake me up when there is some actual warming. Tyndall can get some money when there is some actual warming.

    The government funding has become nothing but funding more lobbyists. No government should fund lobbyists who do nothing but lobby the government for more funding.

  308. Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
    Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning
    Elizabeth McKay, Project Executive, Education
    Emma Swain, Commissioning Editor, Specialist Factual
    Glenwyn Benson, Controller, Factual TV
    John Lynch, Creative Director, Specialist Factual
    Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy

    Entertainment? Drama? Education? Factual TV (They didn’t invide anyone from Bullshit TV department?) Comedy? One would think that the other 50% who haven’t abandoned the CO2 Control Knobs would up and leave after this kind of stuff. I hope we haven’t gotten down to the case hardened followers at this percentage.

  309. On the nsf, the behavioral sciences division dominates the hard sciences now. People also assume that STEM is an acronym for the individual subjects instead of a con Judith Ramaley came up with to obscure the shift away from subject knowledge to “problem solving” with complex real life problems never taught before.

    I have also described already how both the Belmont Challenge/Future Earth Alliance and USGCRP 2013-2021 intend to use education and the behavioral and social sciences to create a belief among students in AGW regardless of actual temps or the real causes.

  310. Someone called at my house the other day about the fact that i don’t have a TV license and i told him the truth that I don’t have a TV so I did not watch TV.I could not understand why this person needed to come into my house to verify that I was not using a TV when they can detect if you are using a TV so I did not let him in.They get more active if you don’t have a TV license for more than two years I was told and that I could be prosecuted for not having a license.I refuse to pay a TV license to support the climate activists controlling the BBC.
    It seems that the only benefit we get from technology is to sit and watch the rubbish they produce for us at great expense .Lawyers are preparing to make loads of money from the Jimmy Seville fiasco in compensation claims from alleged victims even before he has been proved to be guilty of these claims in the same way they have pushed up the cost of car insurance by encouraging people to make false claims for compensation,It really is a mad world we live in today.

  311. George UMT-5,
    Robert May, would be number one on the list because of his credentials. Check them out…

    http://www.zoo.ox.ac.uk/people/view/may_r.htm

    He would exert enormous influence over the other 27. It would be very difficult to argue against him.
    As we saw earlier with Anthony and PBS, the media are suckers for qualifications. Perfectly reasonable,I guess, it certainly saves them thinking too hard.

  312. Absolutely epic stuff – we do have a new Woodward and Bernstein – its Christmas early and let’s get the BBC whilst they’re down.

    I’ve seen 50+ intv with themselves interviewing themselves over the last 3 days and patting themselves on the back as totally incredible people that are the very best at everything they do, and when they screw up = they are the best to talk about themselves.

    That Entwit never gave a press intv and refused to appear on anything other than the BBC when Director General, and their Acting DG walked out of a TV intv with Sky has clearly passed them by.

  313. Re: richardscourtney @
    November 13, 2012 at 1:16 pm

    But their team is running low on pitchers. We are deep in their bullpen. Even they tacitly admit as much, otherwise why spend money, time, and resource, to keep the list a secret? It’s because several of their number have been cashiered as crooks.
    The Global Warming Advostocracy is eroding. Mike Hulme’s and Robert May’s opinions are recognized as manure.
    The team is quickly running out of violin players for their orchestra.

  314. You start talking about withholding license fees, they will come back at you with a campaign to save Big Bird, or rather Faulty Towers, or whatever touchie feelie, momentarily popular, government subsidized programming they deem as necessary for the continued survival of western civilization.

    The point being the Beeb would love to be in that argument because they will win it, everytime.

    If instead we bring down one two or ten of the people on the list, attacking their individual debaucherys, then the Beeb’s position will be weakened, and we will win.

  315. Our CBC is infamous for parroting the BBC, and they are all over the child abuse scandal.I believe they will cover this story, of BBC busted for orchestrated propaganda, as well as they covered the CRU emails. Crickets…….I just checked CBC News site, not a whisper will check again tomorrow and then start abusing their comments .We canadians were just told our federal budget deficit will be 26 billion this fiscal year, CBC gets over 1 billion in govt money, what say we make the deficit 25 billion?

  316. Incredible! The lawyers must be laughing all the way to the bank. $160,000 of British taxpayers hard-earned cash spent on preventing disclosure of a bunch of names only to have someone finding them on the Internet! If some one wrote a script outline like this it would be dismissed as a fantasy. What incompetence !!

  317. papiertigre says:
    November 13, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    You start talking about withholding license fees, they will come back at you with a campaign to save Big Bird, or rather Faulty Towers, or whatever touchie feelie, momentarily popular, government subsidized programming they deem as necessary for the continued survival of western civilization.

    The point being the Beeb would love to be in that argument because they will win it, everytime.

    Only if the BBC-fee withholders have the aim of bringing down or cutting back the BBC will they be in a losing position. If their demand were the more moderate one I’ve made upthread–i.e., for an BBC oversight board consisting of randomly chosen subscribers (= demarchy)–they would hold a winning hand. That’s because, if such an oversight board had been in place in the past, abuse victims and/or whistle-blowers would have alerted it to the Savile scandal early on, nipping it in the bud. That is an overwhelming argument in the current context.

    What’s needed to make this happen is for a left/right alliance (e.g., one led by Brendan O’Neil (of Spiked) and Delingpole), allied with with a few mid-road, big-name backers, to make a splashy announcement that they won’t be paying the fee until such a board is established. This could really catch on. If it doesn’t, nothing (much) would be lost.

    If this protest is successful, and if the oversight board is seen to be a success, it could pave the way for subsequent general strikes aimed at instituting civilian review boards over other governmental bureaucracies and Quangos, starting with the national joke, Met Office. Other similarly derided entities would be next up, e.g., the NHS.

    Later on, general strikes could demand that increasing authority (e.g., hiring and firing, then budget setting, then policy-making) over these bureaus be transferred from Parliament to civilian oversight boards. Bit by bit, a true democracy–one not dependent on professional politicians–would emerge from the phony democracy that outrages and oppresses us. Little by little, the scope of parliament’s authority would be cut back. The House of Commons could eventually be eclipsed by Houses of Commoners.

    The world would be turned upside down, the meek having inherited it. (The random representatives of civilian overseers would have had greatness thrust upon them; they would not have had to scratch and scramble up the greasy pole to get it.) So, Goodbye, Grandee Government!

  318. PS: Strike when the iron is red-hot!–as it will be in a month, when the full extent of the BBC’s complicity in the Savile affair emerges, and (probably) the press digs up other incredible in-house scandals.

  319. Zeke says:
    November 13, 2012 at 9:13 am
    “The role of science is to determine environmental risk. The politicians apply the Precautionary Principle to protect the environment and the public.”
    =========
    Under the Precautionary Principle, motorized vehicles should be outlawed, as they are the greatest causes of accidental death on the planet. We should walk everywhere, which is healthier. Under the Precautionary Principle, bathtubs should also be outlawed as they are the leading cause of accidental death in the home.

    After cars and bathtubs are eliminated, according to the Precautionary Principle, we should then look to see what is left, and again outlaw the most dangerous items. And then repeat this process over and over until we have eliminated every risk.

    Until we are living in caves keeping warm over wood fires. But of course the fumes from fires are dangerous, so we should have outlawed fire right from the day it was discovered. So really, the only answer is for us to return to the jungles. But the jungle is full of dangerous animals, which under the Precautionary Principle will first need to be eliminated to make it safe …

  320. Philip Clarke says:
    November 13, 2012 at 10:50 am

    No it was in fact the extraordinarily sceptical author Richard D North, the man who has forced several embarrassing apologies and retractions in the UK press with his inaccurate and defamatory pieces on the IPCC and climate scientists.

    Well you got the name right. On the other hand, RAE North who has written accurate articles on the IPCC, Pachauri, TERI and climate scientists which he has not retracted although the cowardly Failygragh has retracted articles he researched for C. Booker with the most abject non apologies. In other words, they did not concede any inaccuracy, just that they would not fight and would rather retract.

    DaveE.

  321. PPS: O’Neil & Delingpole’s first step should be to issue a call for artists to create a gigantic paper maché sculpture of the Three Monkees of see/hear/speak no evil fame. This should be varnished to rain-proof it, then planted in a park in front of the BBC building, or perhaps placed atop a nearby building. (Ideally, it would be snuck onto the edge of the front of the BBC building’s roof at night.)

    A dedication ceremeny should be held that, when televised by ITV, would double the mockery of the BBC. The dedication speeches would be brief, climaxing with slogans like these, which could also be painted at the base of the sculpture and used as “campaign slogans” subsequently:

    “End the monkey business at the monkey house!”
    “These monkeys can’t manage the monkey house—and they shouldn’t be allowed to try!”
    “’No Evil’—That’s a good one!”
    “They scratched each other’s backs,”
    “Conspiracy of silence,”
    “’Dabba dabba dabba’—Is that all you have to say?”

    In the meantime, here’s an idea for a cartoon: Sgt. Schulz (a character in “Hogan’s Heros”) saying his famous tag-line, “I know nothing!”—the caption reads, “Entwhistle’s alter ego?” Or maybe no caption, but a halfway blend of the faces of Schulz and Entwhistle.

    (I hope O’Neil & Delingpole read this or it’s brought to their attention.)

  322. Has no one bothered to count? There are 30 “specialists” listed. Even Richard LH @ November 13, 2012 at 2:34 am says, “Lobbiyists (sic)/Advocates – 22”, then lists 24 people.
    What is the dissemination of this in the UK? Others have said BBC has not reported it, and obviously will not. Will any UK MSM do so? Will any significant numbers except those reading skeptical blogs know of it? Has any blog other than those skeptical on CAGW; US, UK, Aus, EU; reported this?
    What is the BBC’s legal liability? Some there necessarily lied in their FOI refusal. Were the BBC attorneys aware this was actually public information? Can the court itself be impeached?
    Except to those personally involved this is far more important than a sex scandal. This is a direct assault on integrity, objective reporting, respect for truth, freedom of information, and diametrically opposed to the BBC charter. Even supposing CAGW were true, the BBC doing this would be horrendous.
    I’ve followed so many links I can’t say where, but somewhere it was made clear that no minutes were kept, because this was only a conference on policy in retrospect as a fraudulent way to avoid replying to the FOI request.
    Has any U. S. MSM reported this? I gave up on the portion of the entertainment industry referred to as news media years ago.
    I’ll try to answer my own questions, but there are only so many hours I can spend on this. I’ve followed so many links and links from them I’m worn out. I haven’t even been able to read all the comments as I usually do. How in blazes does Mr. Watts keep up with everything and keep this blog going?!!!

  323. The newest on BBC scandal: BBC crisis: George Entwistle pay-off is beyond reach of auditors

    …the NAO yesterday confirmed that it is unable to launch an “immediate” inquiry unless the BBC Trust refers itself to the spending watchdog.

    The government’s spending watchdog has limited powers to scrutinise the BBC under an agreement intended to protect the corporation from political interference.

    Lord Patten, the chairman of the BBC, admitted that he gave Mr Entwistle a payoff worth twice as much as he was entitled to to so he would go quietly.

    The Prime Minister yesterday gave his support to Lord Patten despite admitting that the payout was “hard to justify”.

  324. Gale Combs says: November 13, 2012 at 5:42 am

    …As I keep saying the Right/Left crud is only a Dog and Pony Show for the Great Unwashed.

    Gale, thank you for all your posts here. Sometimes I used to think you went OTT with the “conspiracy in high places” stuff but the more I simply follow my own path, the more I find to corroborate all this. Yet I still believe in the power of ordinary people to counter this with good energy and intuitive application.

    I don’t think we’ve seen a US president who’s lived out his term, who was not a puppet, since Eisenhower, whose parting speech was to leave a cryptic message for people about what he knew was already starting to happen. I’ve been doing a lot of background reading, like The Day After Roswell (Philip Corso), The Source Field (David Wilcock) and Messages (Stan Romanek), which taken all together with yet more, and reinforced by my own logical/scientific thinking and prayer/meditation, have helped me gain a far better understanding of this “bigger picture” of which climate alarmism and cover-ups is but one facet.

    I’ve just been to an amazing conference of the “Breakthrough Energy Movement” where people are all aware of all this. This is the place where people really are being silenced the worst, but still believe in the power of good over evil and still come through with incredible stories.

  325. Robert A. Taylor says:
    November 14, 2012 at 12:13 am

    ————————————————-

    Thank you Robert. I wonder if you should get together with Richard Courtney, Tony Newbery, or Maurizio Morabito, and enlarge this sphere of interest / concern / info. It is important.

  326. Are we sure the list of attendees wasn’t typed by the Gaurdian and where it says ‘specialists’ it should have spelt ‘special interests’

    H/T ‘Lightrain’ at Jo Nova

  327. Carter,

    I wasted over 7.5 minutes on your Greenpeace propaganda. I am somewhat stupider as a result of that twaddle. Please try to raise your game. There is no ‘scandal’, it is just politics as usual.

  328. mfo says:
    November 13, 2012 at 4:40 pm

    The IBT is clearly an influential and partisan organisation and represents the bias it purports to be against. An example is the following submission to the BBC Trust, demonstrating extremist and autocratic viewpoints:

    Submission by the International Broadcasting Trust to the BBC Trust’s Science Impartiality review
    Some quotes:

    Editors and programme makers have sought to allow this body of the population to hear their views represented. While there are many areas of political or ethical debate where such balancing is desirable, we argue that in the case of reporting of scientific knowledge where there is a high degree of consensus amongst legitimate authorities, this leads to perverse outcomes
    and serves to mislead the public.

    http://www.ibt.org.uk/all_documents/Submissions%20Key/Response%20to%20the%20BBC%20Trust's%20science%20impartiality%20review.pdf#view=FitV

    Here’s the counter to that claim:

    Where Consensus Fails – The Science Cannot Be Called ‘Settled’

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/25/where-consensus-fails/

    Guest Post by Thomas Fuller

    Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch have just published the findings of a survey conducted with practicing climate scientists. The survey was conducted in 2008 with 379 climate scientists who had published papers or were employed in climate research institutes and dealt with their confidence in models, the IPCC and a variety of other topics. The survey findings are here: http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/GKSS_2010_9.CLISCI.pdf

    Most of the questions were asked using a Likert Scale, which most of you have probably used in filling out one of the numerous online surveys that are on almost any website. “A set of statements was presented to which the respondent was asked to indicate his or her level of agreement or disagreement, for example, 1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly disagree.

    The value of 4 can be considered as an expression of ambivalence or impartiality or, depending on the nature of the question posed, for example, in a question posed as a subjective rating such as “How much do you think climate scientists are aware of the information that policy makers incorporate into their decision making process?”, a value of 4 is no longer a measure of ambivalence, but rather a metric.”

    The total number of respondents is large enough to make statistically significant statements about the population of similarly qualified climate scientists, and the response rate to the invitations is in line with surveys conducted among academics and professionals. What that means is that we can be fairly confident that if we conducted a census of all such scientists the answers would not be very different to what is found in the survey’s findings.

    Typically in a commercial survey, analysts would group the top two responses and report on the percentages of respondents that ticked box 6 or 7 on this scale. Using that procedure here makes it clear that there are areas where scientists are not completely confident in what is being preached–and that they don’t like some of the preachers. In fact, let’s start with the opinion of climate scientists about those scientists, journalists and environmental activists who present extreme accounts of catastrophic impacts.

    The survey’s question read, “Some scientists present extreme accounts of catastrophic impacts related to climate change in a popular format with the claim that it is their task to alert the public. How much do you agree with this practice?”

    Less than 5% agreed strongly or very strongly with this practice. Actually 56% disagreed strongly or very strongly. Joe Romm, Tim Lambert, Michael Tobis–are you listening? The scientists don’t like what you are doing.

    And not because they are skeptics–these scientists are very mainstream in their opinions about climate science and are strong supporters of the IPCC. Fifty-nine percent (59%) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “The IPCC reports are of great use to the advancement of climate science.” Only 6% disagreed. And 86.5% agreed or strongly agreed that “climate change is occurring now” and 66.5% agreed or strongly agreed that future climate “will be a result of anthropogenic causes.”

    Even so, there are areas of climate science that some people want to claim is settled, but where scientists don’t agree.

    Only 12% agree or strongly agree that data availability for climate change analysis is adequate. More than 21% disagree or strongly disagree.

    Only 25% agree or strongly agree that “Data collection efforts are currently adequate,” while 16% disagree or strongly disagree.

    Perhaps most importantly, only 17.75% agree or strongly agree with the statement, “The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is adequate.” An equal percentage disagreed or strongly disagreed.

    Only 22% think atmospheric models deal with hydrodynamics in a manner that is adequate or very adequate. Thirty percent (30%) feel that way about atmospheric models’ treatment of radiation, and only 9% feel that atmospheric models are adequate in their treatment of water vapor–and not one respondent felt that they were ‘very adequate.’

    And only 1% felt that atmospheric models dealt well with clouds, while 46% felt they were inadequate or very inadequate. Only 2% felt the models dealt adequately with precipitation, and 3.5% felt that way about modeled treatment of atmospheric convection.

    For ocean models, the lack of consensus continued. Only 20% felt ocean models dealt well with hydrodynamics, 11% felt that way about modeled treatment of heat transport in the ocean, 6.5% felt that way about oceanic convection, and only 12% felt that there exists an adequate ability to couple atmospheric and ocean models.

    Only 7% agree or strongly agree that “The current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of turbulence,” and only 26% felt that way about surface albedo. Only 8% felt that way about land surface processes, and only 11% about sea ice.

    And another shocker–only 32% agreed or strongly agreed that the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases emitted from anthropogenic sources.

    As Judith Curry has been noting over at her weblog, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the building blocks of climate science. The scientists know this. The politicians, propagandists and the converted acolytes haven’t gotten the message. If this survey does not educate them, nothing will.

    Doubt should be higher now. Another survey should be done, using the same questions.

  329. FAO D Böehm

    ‘There is no ‘scandal’’, but it is a Delingpolegate, so he as been hoist by his own petard! Hahahaha

  330. You can be sure that Canada’s CBC and ozzie ABC slavish commitment to the CAGW cause is underpinned by the same type of cabal – undoubtedlymany of the same organizations. They are offspring of the BBC with the same taxpayer funding format.

    The need for all this clandestine manipulation of journalism and its mirror image in the universities and government agencies that was revealed in Climategate, certainly lays bare the basis for the settled science and the strength of the evidence.

    Ryan says:
    November 14, 2012 at 2:28 am
    “There was a time whent he BBC was run by smart Marxists. Now it is run entirely by stupid Marxists.”

    Ryan’s remark is the best of the bunch, but it could be broadened to include the UN, complicit government agencies, and the universities. Thank goodness that they have proved to be stupid, more Dr. Evil than Dr No. Let’s keep unraveling this corrupted, amoral rat’s nest. How can so many people remain committed to this cancer.

  331. In response to DaveG..
    Theoretically speaking Having so much invested into superannuation green funds would make the more bias.
    and they loosing money doesn’t necessary means they lost money. They might had a great head start if their fund invested in companies that received generous grants and tariffs.

    Say started at 10 got boosted to 20. Lost 2.5. Pull out at 15.. = profit ^^

  332. My family is doing just fine with no TV, public or private. The Internet has become the vote-with-your-feet resource for finding those small islands of unprogrammed truth and information. Keep up the good work WUWT.

  333. oh there is defiantly one lie.. Perjury????

    No notes was kept about the meeting. Where did this list come from.

  334. This is the letter I received from the BBC a little over 5 years ago.

    http://www.tvljcensing.co.uk
    Bristol BS98 1TL
    Thank you for informing us recently that you do not require a TV Licence.
    Our experience has shown that a small but significant minority of people who tell us that
    they do not need a TV Licence, are found to require one when visited. We therefore
    need to verify the position for all households who inform us that they do not have a
    television, as a standard procedure. This also applies to people who have told us that
    they have a television but only use it to watch pre-recorded videos.
    By visiting these households we hope to identify all such evaders and we can also
    ensure that those who, like yourself, legitimately need no contact from Television
    Licensing are not troubled unnecessarily in the future.
    Therefore, we would appreciate your co-operation when one of our TV Licensing Officers
    visits you in the near future. These visits are routine and take a matter of minutes. Once
    our officer has confirmed that there is no need for a TV Licence at your address, we will
    ensure that you do not receive further letters or visits for at least three years. We will
    then contact you again, simply to check that your circumstances have not changed – for
    example, you may have moved and the new occupants might use a television.
    If you now use or are planning to use a television,
    please let us know before the officer visits.
    If your circumstances have changed since you contacted us and you are now using or
    planning to use a television, simply complete and return the form below, with this whole
    letter, in the envelope provided. Remember, if you use television receiving equipment to
    receive or record television programme services, you must have a TV Licence, otherwise
    you are risking prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000.
    A colour licence costs £131.50 and a black and white costs £44.00. You can
    choose one of a number of payment options, simply call 0870 240 2934 or visit
    http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk All payment methods are listed overleaf, along with the
    concessionary licences that we offer for people aged 74 and over or who are blind.
    Yours sincerely,

    I originally contacted them to tell them I owned a TV but used it only to watch videos.
    I did get a visit a few months after, but since then I’ve just received the occasional letter addressed to me asking if my circumstances have changed.

    I live on my own in a not very prosperous area so I’m probably not an attractive victim for the BBC’s licencing enforcers.

    The British TV licence only applies to live TV broadcasts. You don’t need a licence to watch previously broadcast programs on BBC iplayer or ITV player.

  335. I suppose that while one may complain that the BBC was controlled by such people, the question is why these people also control current government policy in most developed nations.

    Is this simply blackmail by green organisations who will portray governments as enemies of the environment if they do not obey their whims, or is there a more corrupt reason? I really do not understand why governments are so willing to harm their peoples for so little effect.

  336. ferd berple says:
    November 13, 2012 at 11:37 pm

    Zeke says:
    November 13, 2012 at 9:13 am
    “The role of science is to determine environmental risk. The politicians apply the Precautionary Principle to protect the environment and the public.”
    =========
    Under the Precautionary Principle, motorized vehicles should be outlawed, as they are the greatest causes of accidental death on the planet. We should walk everywhere, which is healthier. Under the Precautionary Principle, bathtubs should also be outlawed as they are the leading cause of accidental death in the home.

    After cars and bathtubs are eliminated, according to the Precautionary Principle, we should then look to see what is left, and again outlaw the most dangerous items. And then repeat this process over and over until we have eliminated every risk.

    Until we are living in caves keeping warm over wood fires. But of course the fumes from fires are dangerous, so we should have outlawed fire right from the day it was discovered. So really, the only answer is for us to return to the jungles. But the jungle is full of dangerous animals, which under the Precautionary Principle will first need to be eliminated to make it safe …
    ####################################################################
    Indeed ferd. The Precautionary Principle is not a scientific principle because it is based on possibility rather than probability. Hence it is not based on risk (probability).

  337. As others mentioned earlier, Richard North at EUReferendum really have found something bizarre:

    Neglecting the other delicious members, and focusing on the BBC, it seems we have a situation where the state broadcaster is a corporate member of the Media Trust which, in turn, is a member of the International Broadcasting Trust, which is paid by the Government (DFID) to lobby the … er … BBC about climate change. And so the circle closes.

    Shameless people..

  338. As far as I recall, Zeke is a sceptic.
    What he’s doing is highlighting the irrationality by direct quotes from different organisations.
    Essentially putting the BBCs defence in terms they would themselves use.

    DaveE.

  339. ID deKlein says:
    November 14, 2012 at 5:07 am
    The British TV licence only applies to live TV broadcasts. You don’t need a licence to watch previously broadcast programs on BBC iplayer or ITV player.
    =============
    So, you could use a TIVO like device to record TV and then play it back sufficiently delayed to allow you to skip commercials and the license fee. And use the money saved on the license to pay for the device in one year. You would no longer be watching live TV, rather TV recorded and played back a few minutes delayed.

  340. ferd berple says: November 13, 2012 at 11:37 pm
    =============
    Sorry, with regards to my comment immediately above, fred berple nailed it!

  341. “So, you could use a TIVO like device to record TV and then play it back sufficiently delayed to allow you to skip commercials and the license fee. And use the money saved on the license to pay for the device in one year. You would no longer be watching live TV, rather TV recorded and played back a few minutes delayed.”

    No, use that logic in court and you would lose and get yourself a fine and a criminal record.

    The law states you need a licence if you have equipment which allows you to receive TV transmissions as they are broadcast. The TIVO device receives signals as they are broadcast, so you need a TV Licence.

  342. ferd berple says:
    November 14, 2012 at 7:06 am

    Sorry, doesn’t work that way. From an earlier post of mine.

    It is against the law to watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on TV – whether you’re using a TV set, computer, mobile phone or anything else.

    DaveE.

  343. Armagh Observatory says:
    November 14, 2012 at 7:46 am

    The law states you need a licence if you have equipment which allows you to receive TV transmissions as they are broadcast. The TIVO device receives signals as they are broadcast, so you need a TV Licence.

    That is also incorrect.

    It is against the law to watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on TV – whether you’re using a TV set, computer, mobile phone or anything else.

    There is nothing there that says you must pay for owning equipment capable of receiving only if you actually use it for that purpose.

    If capability was the criteria, every computer owner with broadband would be liable.

    DaveE.

  344. @Carter says: November 14, 2012 at 2:44 am

    Oh dear, you have shot yourself in the foot, haven’t you. The Guardian are back-pedalling like crazy over this non-story; see Guido Fawkes blog for more details.

  345. In general the list looks like it consists of primarily “useful idiots”. However, I suspect the string pullers would want to have a representative there. Might be interesting effort to ferret out such a person (or persons).

  346. ‘Kev-in-Uk says:

    November 12, 2012 at 3:54 pm

    The BBC – Bloated Barstewards Corporation! I am ashamed to be British!’

    Personally, I am ashamed that the BBC is British!

  347. Re having a licence if the equpment is capable of receiving it: this also applies to HAM radio equipment and may have been the precedent. Merely being in possession of working amateur radio equipment means you have to have a licence for it. It is a bit like sitting in your own car on the side of a highway. Either you have to have a driving licence or a ruddy good explanation of how you got there!

  348. Stephen Brown says:
    November 13, 2012 at 11:45 pm

    James Delingpole has written about The List in the Daily Telegraph.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100189491/28-gates-later-the-bbcs-nightmare-gets-worse-and-worse/

    ________________________________________
    OH Thankyou I have been waiting to read that.

    Did you see what the Fenbeagle posted?
    What Was Discussed at Secret BBC Climate Seminar

    http://order-order.com/2012/11/14/exclusive-what-was-discussed-at-secret-bbc-climate-seminar-coverage-exaggerated-the-risk-of-climate-change/

    …An academic paper containing evidence from previous seminars shows that “specialists” and BBC bosses admitted their editorial stance could be exaggerating the risks of climate change. An anonymous documentary maker explains: “shots might be set up this way, with the member of the public saying I’m suffering (from global warming) even if the causal link cannot be directly drawn”. According to one media specialist, “on account of the weak understanding of science, there are now instances of coverages that exaggerate the risk of climate change… this is unthinkable in spheres such as economics or politics”. Unbelievably, these unnamed journalists are admitting exaggerating the risks of climate change…

    which leads to this Academic paper on Scribd
    Dangerous News: Media Decision Making about Climate Change Risk by Joe Smith

    Risk Analysis, Vol. 25, No. 6, 2005

    ABSTRACT
    This article explores the role of broadcast news media decision makers in shaping public understanding and debate of climate change risks. It locates the media within a “tangled web” of communication and debate between sources, media, and publics….The empirical evidence, gathered between 1997 and 2004, is derived primarily from recordings and notes drawn from a series of seminars that has brought together equal numbers of BBC news and television decision makers and environment/development specialists. The seminars have created a rare space for extended dialogue between media and specialist perspectives on the communication of complex climate change science and policy. …. Particularly significant is the disjuncture between ways of talking about uncertainty within science and policy discourse and media constructions of objectivity, truth, and balance. The article concludes with a summary of developments in media culture, technology, and practice that are creating opportunities for enhanced public understanding and debate of climate change risks. It also indicates the need for science and policy communities to be more active critics and sources of news.

    ….This article is based on qualitative material drawn from a series of seminars that represent an extended body of inter-actions between media decision makers and environment and development specialists…. It throws light on media decision making by concentrating on key moments in the process of mediation wherein the science, policy, and politics of climate change are transformed into the broadcast stories that do so much work in public discourses of environmental risk….

  349. As you can see, there is a lot of confusion over this licensing thing.

    From the licensing website…

    You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it’s being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.

    There is no requirement to licence a device not used to view or record live TV broadcasts.

    As I stated above, if capability were the criteria, all owners of computers with broadband, owners of TV enabled mobile phones or any video recording equipment with receiving circuitry would be liable.

    I don’t know the situation with HAM radio but I can see a difference.

    Amateur radio equipment cannot be used for any other purpose. All the equipment I’ve mentioned can be used for purposes other than viewing or recording live broadcasts.

    It is up to Crapita to prove that live broadcasts are being viewed or recorded.

    DaveE.

  350. Ryan says:
    November 14, 2012 at 2:28 am

    There was a time whent he BBC was run by smart Marxists. Now it is run entirely by stupid Marxists.
    _________________________________
    The Peter Principle RULES!

  351. @JohnD says: November 14, 2012 at 6:12 am
    Let a friend tell you: Leftists care nothing for facts.
    ==========================================

    Or as a blogger put it earlier this year.

    “For the Left, the truth is what they want it to be”

    What he or she said.

  352. Good point about the wretched Precautionary Principle not being scientific in that it deals with possibilities rather than probabilities.

    Parallel to this is the fact that the IPCC is an interGOVERNMENTAL panel and is not a place where science takes place.

  353. The BBC have made some excellent programmes over the years:
    There’s Downton Abbey? Oh! That’s the ITV;
    Cracker? ITV again.
    Inspector Morse? … ITV
    The Jewel in the Crown? ….ITV

    Snog, Marry , Avoid! That’s got to be BBC? Yes! That’s the BBC!!!

  354. David A. Evans says:
    November 14, 2012 at 8:01 am
    There is nothing there that says you must pay for owning equipment capable of receiving only if you actually use it for that purpose.

    That was my situation. I had an old CRT television which I de-tuned to allow me to display the output from a consumer DVD player, but not receive broadcast TV. I also disposed of the aerial. I phoned the licencing authority at the time to check that I didn’t need a licence in those circumstances. Now I’ve got rid of the TV and only have a broadband connection.

  355. anticlimactic says:
    November 14, 2012 at 5:31 am

    I suppose that while one may complain that the BBC was controlled by such people, the question is why these people also control current government policy in most developed nations.

    Is this simply blackmail by green organisations who will portray governments as enemies of the environment if they do not obey their whims, or is there a more corrupt reason? I really do not understand why governments are so willing to harm their peoples for so little effect.
    _______________________________________
    Nancy Pelosi is the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, she was Majority Leader before that. Her brother-in-law is getting big bucks from the US government in green loans. The first “try” Solyndra when belly-up so Uncle Sam forked over and even bigger loan of $737million for his next try.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043282/Nancy-Pelosis-brother-law-given-loan-bigger-Solyndra-solar-plant.html

    Can you name ONE politician that did not leave office a LOT richer that they entered it? How about the government/corporate revolving door:
    link 1
    link 2
    link 3

    That is one link in the circle. The second link is that between “Activists” and corporations via “Charitable” Foundations.

    The Rockefellers owned Standard oil and still own large chunks of the companies it was broken up into not to mention there interest in the banking industry.
    This is JUST one of their foundations, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund

    Friends of the Earth…………$1,427,500.00…..1994 – 2001
    David Suzuki Foundation …$1,085,000.00…..1998 – 2001
    Greenpeace …………………..$1,080,000.00…..1997 – 2005
    Environmental Defense ………$994,363.00…..1993 – 2001
    Ocean Conservancy …………..$970,000.00…..1997 – 2001
    American Oceans Campaign ..$865,000.00…..1996 – 2001
    Sierra Club …………………………$710,000.00…..1995 – 2001

    And then there is the more direct approach used by ADM of direct political contributions. (a new source with a good handle on the subject) Starvation, Obesity, and Corporate Welfare: Archer Daniels Midland and U.S. Policy

    …During the Watergate investigation, Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox indicted then-ADM CEO Dwayne Andreas for giving $100,000 in illegal contributions to Hubert Humphrey’s 1968 Presidential campaign. But Andreas was nothing if not bipartisan. Richard Nixon’s secretary Rose Mary Woods, testified that during Nixon’s 1972 campaign Andreas handed her an envelope containing $100,000 in $100 bills. Between 1975 and 1977 Andreas gave $72,000 in ADM stock to the children of David Gartner, senator Humphrey’s chief of staff at the time, whom President Jimmy Carter in 1977 named to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (he was later forced to resign when the details of the ADM gift came to light).

    ADM continues to lavish huge sums on candidates for high office. During the 1996 Presidential campaign ADM gave $100,000 to Bob Dole’s Better America Foundation, provided numerous free rides on ADM’s corporate jets to Senator and Mrs. Dole, and gave over $1.5m in soft money to the Republican National Committee….

    Then there is the really sneaky approach used by Rosa DeLauro, a major architect of the New US food law (she has been trying to get it passed for over 10 years) Where does her wealth come from? Why her 67% ownership in her husband’s PRIVATE consulting firm (no public info) who did work for Monsanto.

    And finally there is retirement. Remember Tony Blair the UK ex-Prime Minster? Tony Blair earned £20m in just one year advising business bosses and foreign governments

    Conspiracy? No just Greed for money and power.

  356. Can someone explain to a provincial westcoaster what the deal is about the BBC. Is that like what we call PBS in the states? Or does the BBC have some sort of monopoly ? I don’t watch TV very much, and haven’t for the past 10 or 20 years.

  357. Regarding the Precautionary Principle, what does happen when the government uses science to suddenly alter agriculture and the economy? The Great Leap Forward did not have particularly good results.

    So I would think that anyone wishing to apply the Precautionary Principle to agriculture and the economy must also include episodes like:
    1. the Great Leap Forward;
    2. Lysenko’s destruction of the food supply – “using science for the public good,”
    3. along with the environmentalists’ opposition to extending Norman Borlaug’s crops and agronomy to African countries.

    Evenly applied, the Precautionary Principle is meaningless.

  358. Interesting the BBC are reporting this:
    Energy policy is apparently in confusion after a Greenpeace “sting” on senior Conservative politicians. In secret filming, former cabinet minister Peter Lilley seemed to say he thought the Chancellor George Osborne had deliberately manoeuvred climate sceptic ministers into key positions. He said the legally binding Climate Change Act should be made voluntary, or simply ignored.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20328297

    Webcite version (in case it changes)

  359. Mick says:
    November 14, 2012 at 10:11 am

    Tom Chivers writes about BBC biased reporting……

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100189497/the-bbc-isnt-balanced-in-its-reporting-of-climate-change-but-the-facts-arent-balanced-either/

    ________________________________
    Yeah, his view point is the same as loony Lew’s Climate Deniers are mentally deficient and therefore can be ignored.

    I would like to see him say that to the face of all the PhDs who are NOT on the CAGW band wagon.

  360. Mike, (9:56am) the BBC (British Broadcasting Company) is a long-standing public broadcasting company in the UK. It provides local and National TV and Radio broadcasting both within and outside the UK (World Service).
    The key difference to your PBS is that it is funded by the UK government through a License Fee (currently £147 (US$200) per annum). This brings in roughly £3.5bn pa. Income also comes from programme and anciliary sales. Everyone (household) who watches a BBC TV broadcast must pay this License fee by law – failure to do so is punishable by a fine or ultimately imprisonment! In other words it is a “tax”.
    When one buys a TV in the UK their details (name address etc) are collected by the seller and forwarded to the Licensing authority!
    Like the USA we have multiple providers of TV content all of which use advertising to cover their costs. The BBC has a guaranteed income and this as you may imagine can breed complacency and lack of customer focus. Hope this helps.

  361. WRT to the TV licence checks in England … Under Common Law the provision of a pathway or drive-way leading to the door of your house implies a right of access to your door. On my front gate I have a bright yellow notice bearing, in black print, the following. “The implied right of access to these premises has been rescinded. A postal worker on duty and a Police Officer in uniform may approach the door. All others doing so, or attempting to do so, will be treated as trespassers under Common Law.” This notice has legal authority.
    The final mention of Common Law is important: under Common Law trespass is dealt with in Magistrate’s Court. Under parliamentary legislation trespass is dealt with as a civil matter. Parliamentary legislation does not usurp Common Law.
    The TV licence checkers are civilians working for a private company, they have no right whatsoever to ask your name, whether or not you own a TV nor to enter your home under any circumstances. It also pays dividends to record everything that transpires should one of these extortionists come to your door, whether or not you have a TV licence!

  362. Zeke says:
    November 14, 2012 at 11:04 am

    Regarding the Precautionary Principle, what does happen when the government uses science to suddenly alter agriculture and the economy? The Great Leap Forward did not have particularly good results.
    ________________________________
    The Percautionary Principle is old hat, the WTO is now using Scientific Risk Assessment and so is the USDA/FDA and anyone else following the WTO dictates of the Agreement on Ag.

    This is the excuse the USDA used to PREVENT Creekstone from doing 100% BSE (Mad Cow Disease) testing on their beef. The USDA was afraid a false positive would harm the export market. Which is a load of crock since samples can be frozen and tested by the USDA to confirm the original test. Creekstone certainly was not going to advertise they found a positive now are they?

    Long story short (I am not going to bother digging out my old links to the story) – the USDA knew they had allowed the UK to ship possibly contaminated bonemeal to the US as well as live cattle and that was AFTER the UK had identified the problem. The UK prevented sale within the country but did not ban export however they did issue a warning which the USDA ignored. Based on the Risk Assessment Report on BSE done by Harvard University the US cut testing to the bone AFTER a BSE infected cow was found in the USA. We are supposed to believe that “Traceability” and “Risk Assessment” the Phyto-sanitary measures approved by WTO, can replace quarantine and testing. Implementing this has resulted in Mexican cattle with TB showing up in border states.

    As far as suddenly altering Ag especially in Africa – not a good idea. Their livestock and crops are adapted to the area. For example Heifer International will give a purebred calf to an African but he must kill/sell off his Zebu cattle. The calf generally does not survive. One African so ticked at the situation and worried about the survival of the zebu visited the USA. He had nothing good to say about Heifer International, USAID or the USDA.

    I have no problem with introducing better techniques for farming in Africa but they need to be PROVEN in the area targeted. The introduction of goats WITHOUT management information about over grazing and the resulting desertification is a classic example. I will stop there…

  363. Mike: Johnbuk gave the stats, here is a bit more to try to explain what it is (supposed to be):

    The BBC is financed by a license fee required to own and operate devices which can receive their programming. Basically a radio or TV, although these days the list is more complex.

    The idea is that the UK wanted a national broadcaster that would produce quality programming, and would report news and current affairs impartially. You don’t get impartiality or high quality programming if you have to depend upon investors, advertisers or the government. You end up producing and saying whatever they want, and playing to the lowest common denominator.

    So the BBC has its finance collected by the government, but it is not run by the government. It has a charter which puts limits on its operations and behavior. So long as it conforms to the charter the government (nor anyone else) has any say in its programming or how it is run.

    One of the most important parts of its charter is impartiality. It is required to behave impartially. If it is discussing some story, and there is more than one side to the story, they are required to present, equally, all the sides.

    This makes the BBC unique in the whole world. It can produce programming without having to worry that it will be well received, it can criticize the government, it can criticize a company, and know that there will be no adverse consequences. This impartiality made (not past tense) the BBC the goto source for THE TRUTH, however unpleasant it may be for the whole world.

    In practice, there was always some bias, but institutionally, they did try to to let it show.

    Over the past 40 years or so, the bias has become more and more evident.
    On Climate Change (nee Global Warming), they even came right out and SAID they would be biased (in contravention of the charter), and explained it away by saying that some subjects and points of view were just too ridiculous to spend time on, and that the “deniers” of global warming were such a case, and based evidence for this on on the seminar now being discussed.

    If you need more background in a fairly condensed form, take a look at my attempt to explain here:

    http://thoughtsoftheguru.com/2012/11/understanding-the-bbc-2006-seminar-issue/

  364. Gail Combs says:
    November 14, 2012 at 11:10 am

    Mick says:
    November 14, 2012 at 10:11 am

    Tom Chivers writes about BBC biased reporting……

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100189497/the-bbc-isnt-balanced-in-its-reporting-of-climate-change-but-the-facts-arent-balanced-either/

    _________________________________
    Someone who comments regularly to his blog needs to tell Tom Chivers he forgot the /sarc tag. (I don’t have an easy way to do it)

  365. Any new technology or resource, or even old technology, can and must be prevented or reversed if it can be shown by scientists to be a risk to the environment or the public. This is the Precautionary Principle.

    But what I wanted to point out is that the government and environmental actions of the past have also caused great harm and risk to humanity. I gave three historic examples of starvation and death which was the result of government and environmentalists’ involvement in agriculture and the economy: Lysenko, Great Leap, and prevention of Borlaug’s crops to Africa.

    Therefore, if one scientist testifies before Congress, and argues for the application of the Precautionary Principle to growers in the US in order to prevent some advancement in agronomy because it might cause harm to the environment or to the public, another scientist ought to stand up and testify in Congress of the historic risk to the poor and to the public of government meddling in agriculture. In this way, the Precautionary Principle would be evenly applied, because it takes into consideration the destruction and waste that has been introduced by government regulations, which resulted in starvation.

    Example:
    FARM NEWS
    Rice agriculture accelerates global warming

    http://www.seeddaily.com/reports/Rice_agriculture_accelerates_global_warming_999.html

    Should rice growers be required to change their planting dates in order to reduce methane?! Or to drain the paddies in mid-season?! Is high yield rice growing really, really a threat to the environment?!

  366. Philip Peake:

    Excellent summary from you at November 14, 2012 at 12:48 pm.

    Having read that, perhaps those who previously had no understanding of the unique nature of the BBC will now also understand my assertion in my post at November 12, 2012 at 4:42 pm which said

    The adopted policy on ‘balance’ supposedly adopted by expert discussion at the meeting cannot be justified in the light of those invited to attend the meeting. Hence, the adoption of that policy can be demonstrated to be a deliberate breach of the BBC Charter. Therefore, the list is potentially even more serious for the BBC than any of the problems now confronting the BBC.

    and will also understand my post at November 13, 2012 at 5:26 am which included this.

    The BBC is in a unique position in that it is empowered by government and financed by a levy imposed by government (i.e. a tax). Without adherence to its Charter the BBC is no different from Pravda in the Soviet Union. And it has abandoned its Charter.

    Again, thankyou for your superb post.

    Richard

  367. “Stephen Brown says:
    November 14, 2012 at 12:16 pm”

    I recall on the UK TV show “Nationwide” in 1974 a song called “Statutory Right of Entry” that certainly had more than two “workers” with a right of entry to your home, let alone the external pathway. I have tried looking for the lyrics, so far no luck.

  368. Zeke says: “Any new technology or resource, or even old technology, can and must be prevented or reversed if it can be shown by scientists to be a risk to the environment or the public.”

    Which does not apply to man-made CO2, because there is no man caused Global Warming.
    But let us go ahead an apply the Precautionary Principle in the case of AGW.

    In doing so we should prevent AGW Climatologists from using: 1) the press, 2) computers, 3) electronic media, 4) tax payer funding, and 5) public transportation (to name); since AGW Climatologists are a risk to the public with their needless calls to reduce CO2. There needless calls are resulting in public power shortages and high prices that the poor can not afford. Further AGW Climatologists’ bogus claims are used by power hungry politicians to enact regulations, which are used to control the public versus benefiting the public.

  369. The BBC have shown that they are biased on the subject of “climate change” why should we then all pay a license fee to maintain the BBC, let the green activists pay to maintain the BBC.There is another side to the global warming debate that the BBC is trying to ignore that is put forward on websites like this one .How can AGW climatologists think they are being skeptical when they only allow one point of view on this subject,where does “We could be wrong” or “you could be wrong” fit into the “science” of climatology.What if instead of getting warmer by 2100 it is colder then then this would show that AGW is wrong and there is every chance that it is wrong.

  370. Is the BBC covering up something else?
    The Telegraph reports that a BBC worker’s son was killed in the recent Israeli airstrike on Gaza

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/9679461/Baby-son-of-BBC-worker-killed-in-Gaza-strike.html

    It is reported that the BBC World Editor circulated this note
    “Our thoughts are with Jihad [that is the BBC worker’s name] and the rest of the team in Gaza.
    This is a particularly difficult moment for the whole bureau in Gaza.
    We’re fortunate to have such a committed and courageous team there. It’s a sobering reminder of the challenges facing many of our colleagues.”

    ..but the BBC News only mentions that there was a strike that killed a number of people. You’d have thought that they’d mention that it was a BBC employee who lost family.. unless the strike had hit its intended target correctly…

  371. Roger Knights says:
    November 13, 2012 at 11:01 pm

    Hi Roger
    Just a quick comment to say that I have been advocating government via Jury-Style selection along with the ‘catch-22′ .. those who volunteer to ‘rule’ over the people (which is the opposite outlook to what we need), should be banned from public office of any kind.

    I also advocate that all public employees should be paid net of tax with no deduction (it’s only recycling tax-money in the most inefficient way). That should remind us all, especially those in public service, where their money really comes from..

    Bit OT maybe – sorry mods

  372. The world is flat. Does anyone want to interview me? To offer a balanced perspective to all those who say it is spherical?

  373. “jeremyp99 says:
    November 15, 2012 at 12:46 am”

    If that was the case, then authorised 3rd parties would not have right of entry. And yet they do.

  374. Thanks Johnbuk and Philip for the informative replies. Sounds like a mess or as my wife is fond of saying “dogooders running amuk” I will remain skeptical while freezing here in western Nevada.

  375. @Karen Hoffhein

    “The world is flat. Does anyone want to interview me? To offer a balanced perspective to all those who say it is spherical?”

    No great need. I have just contacted the Royal Geographical Society, who say that your beliefs are completely without scientific foundation, and eccentric to the point of idiocy. So we won’t be including you on our program. If you want, I can send you a copy of their letter and you can talk to them.

    Note the difference between the way I am dealing with you and the way the BBC would deal with you. I have conferred with an authoritative source, and given you full details of the reason that I am rejecting your proposal. By contrast, the BBC would have claimed to have contacted ‘top experts’, then fought a costly legal battle to prevent you finding out exactly whom I had taken direction from. Finally you would have found out via a blogger that I had been to a party run by the ‘Doughnut-Shaped Earth Society’, and agreed that I would consider them the experts, and allow no other proposals to be aired on my TV station…..

  376. “The world is flat. Does anyone want to interview me? To offer a balanced perspective to all those who say it is spherical?” Karen H.

    Karen, here’s just one science thread to the contrary, from the last 20 years:

    Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark publishes on a link between high energy cosmic rays and clouds in the mid 90’s, suggesting a link to climate. Is denounced by the IPCC chair as being “Naive and irresponsible”.

    British physicist Jasper Kirkby subsequently proposes a CERN experiment CLOUD, “cosmics leaving outdoor droplets” to investigate the link between galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and cloud formation, using a CERN particle beam and a chamber whose atmosphere can be tightly controlled. Gets and then loses funding, circa ’98, after publicly stating his opinion that the effect could account for from one half to all off the warming attributed to feedbacks driven by anthropogenic CO2.

    German/Canadian geochemist Jan Veizer creates an ocean temperature record spanning 500+ million years by analysing oxygen isotope ratios in fossil strata. It correlates very poorly with CO2, and Veizer considers abandoning his research as it isn’t correlating very well with anything known to affect climate. Instead, an Israeli astrophysicist from Israel, Nir Shaviv, who had been investigating GCR and any other possible effect on the Earth supernovae might have, found a near perfect correlation between his plot of Carbon 14 creation (by GCR in our upper atmosphere) and Veizer’s temperature curve, and their 2003 paper, “Celestial driver of phanerozoic temperature” was the result.

    Svensmark and associates perform a simple experiment, SKY, in a Copenhagen basement lab, in essence, CLOUD only using natural background radiation and publishes results. Armed with that, Kirkby’s CLOUD funding is restored circa 2007, the apparatus constructed and the earliest results have been published. The science is solid and we’re at least a decade behind where we should be, all because of catastrophic AGW alarmists who interfered in the scientific process.

    None of the folks mentioned above are flat earthers, a designation more descriptive of the alarmist crowd. And not one was invited to any BBC AGW reporting policy steering meetings.

  377. >>>kguy
    >>>Snog, Marry, Avoid! That’s got to be BBC? Yes! That’s the BBC!!!

    Awww, I like Snog, Mary, Avoid — it clearly demonstrates how the liberal Department for Education has completely failed an entire generation of children, and produced ignoramuses who are an embarrassment to a traditional ignoramus.

    .

  378. It is worse than johnbuk says: November 14, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    In the UK we have to pay the BBC its license fee if we watch or record ANY tv channel on ANY platform.

    So if I were to watch or record via a terrestrial, cable, satellite or smart phone, I have to pay to do so, even if I do not watch the BBC…….

  379. Karen Hoffhein says:
    November 15, 2012 at 6:26 am

    The world is flat. Does anyone want to interview me? To offer a balanced perspective to all those who say it is spherical?

    How about?

    There has been no statistically significant warming of the world in 16 years. Does anyone want to interview me? To offer a balanced perspective to all those who say it has?

    Do you deny this observation? The longer it goes on the worse it gets. Dig into this particular issue and you will see that if it continues for a few more years then your goose is cooked. It’s over. Don’t believe me, look into the issue over the next few days and you will see my point.

  380. @Karen Hoffhein

    “The world is flat. Does anyone want to interview me? To offer a balanced perspective to all those who say it is spherical?”

    Not sure you even understand this point of view. it was originally used by skeptics to show that a consensus is often wrong. Later it was used by alarmists to claim that skeptics are stupid because it’s like thinking the world is flat. See the irony?

  381. Karen Hoffhein says:
    November 15, 2012 at 6:26 am
    The world is flat. Does anyone want to interview me? To offer a balanced perspective to all those who say it is spherical?

    Ah yes, someone repeating some propaganda they’ve heard. A clear indicator we have a member of the “there’s one born every minute” club.

    You see Karen, the problem with your attempt at an analogy is that it is fallacious. Those that repeat this kind of nonsense only make themselves look bad. Now that you’ve been educated by a couple of comments above what will you do? … As if I didn’t know.

  382. Did the Climate Orthodoxy’s ‘thought police’ take Climate Etc’ off line?

    Soon after I posted a comment, ‘Climate Etc.’ was taken off air by WordPress. When the site came back, my comment had been deleted, but apparently no other changes.

    There’s more about the sequence of events here http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/14/policy-rhetoric-and-public-bewilderment/#comment-267886

    The now deleted comment said:

    The thirteen part Clearing up the climate debate written by Australia’s top climate scientists, demonstrates they are up to their necks in activism.

    ‘Part One’ provides links to the thirteen Parts (scroll to the end of the article). And a list of the signatories that endorsed this compendium. It’s a list of who’s who of Australia’s top climate scientists.

    https://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808

    It is clear from the contributions written by these top climate scientists they are activists and extremists.

    I went first to ‘Part Four’ (written by Mike Sandiford) to try to find out what they say about the consequences of AGW. Why are the scientists saying it is catastrophic?

    https://theconversation.edu.au/our-effect-on-the-earth-is-real-how-were-geo-engineering-the-planet-1544

    It’s about the evilness of humans, the damage plastic bags are doing and the like.

    Nowhere in the thirteen Parts, written by Australia’s top climate scientists, could I find any persuasive case for dangerous or catastrophic climate change.

    Don’t miss ‘Part 13’ the wrap up by a well known climate activist!
    https://theconversation.edu.au/the-false-the-confused-and-the-mendacious-how-the-media-gets-it-wrong-on-climate-change-1558

    Did my now deleted comment cause Climate Etc to be taken down for a day?

    Did the editor of ‘The Conversation’ lodge a complaint with WordPress about my comment?

    Did Professor Stephen Lewandowski or his legal team lodge a complaint with WordPress about my comment?

    What really caused Climate Etc. to be taken down soon after I posted my comment, and why has my comment been deleted?

    Will we ever know?

    How powerful are the climate orthodoxy’s thought police?

  383. Jimbo says: ”UK folks here is your chance to add your name to the petition to scrap the British Bias Corporation.”

    Should apply also for the Australian’ ABC botanical name (The Lefty’s Trumpet) Australian Brainwashing Corporation

  384. I accidentally put this in the wrong thread, so for everyone following this one:
    OOPS! I accidentally used “fr**dul**t” in a previous post. Lesson: cool off first. Thanks for posting it anyway. I abase myself before the moderator.

    I am a U. S. citizen who listens to BBC World Service via NPR. I intend to bring this and the sex scandal to their attention as forcefully as I can, and demand full reporting of both. I also intend to contact the New York Times, especially about Mark Thompson. I am tired from WUWT-TV and the normal hassles.

    People in the UK or have “news” provided by the BBC should contact the individuals involved, the attorneys on both sides, the BBC hierarchy, the judge in the case, each of the “specialists”. They should point out some at the BBC necessarily did not tell the truth, the actual policy of the BBC directly violates their charter, and is contrary to their announced policy. They should point out Mark Tompson was paid twice his normal severance fee, “so he would go quietly.” Appropriate quotes from the charter and policy statements should be included. This should be done by both e-mail and snail mail with dated proof of delivery. I don’t know what this is called in the UK.

    I am in the process of compiling such quotes. The trouble is this is only tangentially about WUWT’s purposes. Does anyone know where I could post them? I do not want to clog WUWT with extraneous material.

    Unfortunately I quickly discovered the BBC was “privatized” in 1997, so technically FOI does not apply. This is foolish as the BBC is funded by taxes via The Secretary of State. Lawyers have always been able to “strain gnats while swallowing camels”. I suggest people in the UK contact their MPs and ask them to apply FOI to the BBC because of this, also to all other tax funded organizations.

  385. Philip Tomas (@BadScience) says:
    November 15, 2012 at 12:34 am
    Is the BBC covering up something else?
    The Telegraph reports that a BBC worker’s son was killed in the recent Israeli airstrike on Gaza.

    It is reported that the BBC World Editor circulated this note
    “Our thoughts are with Jihad [that is the BBC worker’s name] and the rest of the team in Gaza.”

    The worker’s name. My, my. Sure about that? Sorry, but any parent who calls their child ‘Jihad’ is hardly going to be a moderate.

    This is another trouble with the BBC, is that it has become a left-wing political pressure group, publicly funded to the tune of nearly £2 billion. In recent cases we had Orla Guerin, the BBC reporter in Israel who was the greatest anti-semite since Joseph Goebbels. And it showed in her reports too. We finally got her shipped off to Pakistan, where the only violence against Muslims was by, err, other Muslims. Now we have a UK enquiry into press standards, where the octopus linking all of the enquiry is Common Purpose – a strongly left wing pseudo Masonic society. And the BBC has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds sending executives to Common Purpose training seminars.

    The BBC is no longer a media company, it is a political pressure group funded by us to covertly undermine our lives. It is high time it was closed down.

  386. This is a conspiracy. Document all of this. Twenty years from now all of these folks can and should be sued for damages. Perhaps an American relative of some of the 2,700 dying each year from “fuel poverty” brought on by these wretched people can sue here too. Can you imagine a class-action or RICO (“Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations” Act) suit? Decades after asbestos was used innocently the manufacturers, miners, and industrial users were collectively sued for damages, bankrupting many… The BBC might be out of reach but the individuals aren’t. Neither are Greenpeace and WWF, etc…

  387. @Jimbo: I think there is a problem with scrapping the BBC. That ends up throwing out the baby with the bath water. As I am certain you are aware, there is a distinct lack of independent, unbiased media in this world. For around 50 years the BBC was bright light in that universe. Something for others to aspire to.

    The idea of a media/broadcasting organization that is truly independent and can produce programming that doesn’t have to depend upon ratings and ad revenue for its existence, doesn’t have to be produced with an eye to minimum expenditure/quality for maximum revenue, can report news and current affairs without having to worry about offending shareholders, advertisers or the government is something we should want to encourage.

    The BBC’s problems, as with many other current problems is due to what can only be described as piss-poor management by the BBC trust and the board of governors before that. They allowed, and perhaps even encouraged the continued employment of people with an agenda. More egregious still, they didn’t react when those agendas started to drive content and values within the organization, possibly because they agreed with them.

    Yes, the BBC has always attracted and employed upper class twits, but in general they used to be able to control their impulses and desires and work for the common good of the BBC and its audiences across the world.

    Now we have direct evidence that the BBC trust managers conspired to hide a deliberate act contrary to the charter, either by wilfully lying in commissioning/producing the wagonwheels paper, or by not doing their duty in fully reviewing it and asking the somewhat basic and easy questions.

    What really needs to happen is a clean-out of virtually every employee that has had a hand in producing content in contravention of the charter, and hopefully some form of legal action against current and past governors/trust members for gross dereliction of duty.

    I am totally in favor of tearing down the BBC as it stands, but equally in favor of re-building it according to principles laid down in its charter.

    Funding is really a separate issue. The current scheme seems to be unworkable. There are other possibilities, which don’t include ad revenue (at least, not ads shown on the BBC).

  388. I just found this comment on Tips & Notes

    Pointman says:
    November 16, 2012 at 1:41 am

    If the BBC really wants to test that blithe proposition that everyone is happy to pay a television tax to them, because they somehow revere the venerable institution, then make it a voluntary rather than a compulsory contribution, and see what happens.

    They’d be gone within a year and forgotten within another.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/some-direct-questions-for-the-bbc-that-itll-never-answer/

    Here’s an idea. The UK should pass a law requiring TVs to have a “dongle” that blocks the receptions of BBC broadcasts unless it is refreshed by having an RFID passed nearby it that certifies that a license fee for the upcoming period has been paid. That way, BBC-avoiders wouldn’t have to pay anything, and enforcement costs would drop.

  389. Did I hear someone ask where were the scientists and then someone else noted Dorthe Dahle Jensen was at least a boots on the ground scientist? Same old boots and all by the sounds of it-
    “From the Earth’s point of view, [climate change] isn’t the problem. The problem is people.”

    Well you gotta admit you are a problematic lot of people here at WUWT.

  390. Silver Ralph
    “The worker’s name. My, my. Sure about that? Sorry, but any parent who calls their child ‘Jihad’ is hardly going to be a moderate”
    So your point is? An innocent child deserves to die because of his name? Your comment is disgraceful. Apologies mods for going off topic but the sneering at the killing of an innocent child is unconscionable. I realise we are a broad (rational, secular and science respecting) church here but there are limits.

  391. “From the Earth’s point of view, [climate change] isn’t the problem. The problem is people.”

    That is bordering on a fascist totalitarian statement. The “Earth’s point of view” could just as easily be substituted by “For the Purity of the Fatherland”. It frames things by appeal to a moral absolute that is not open to debate rather than the challenge itself: “from humankind point of view our challenge is to understand and to collectively manage the impact our activities have on the environment in order to balance our needs with long term sustainability and protection of our natural heritage”.

    Extremely scary.

  392. Philip Peake re Scrapping the BBC
    I think the answer to this conundrum is actually staring us in the face. The question is, why do a fair number of UK citizens wish the BBC to exist? Your comment here encapsulates the issue I think:
    “The idea of a media/broadcasting organization that is truly independent and can produce programming that doesn’t have to depend upon ratings and ad revenue for its existence, doesn’t have to be produced with an eye to minimum expenditure/quality for maximum revenue, can report news and current affairs without having to worry about offending shareholders, advertisers or the government is something we should want to encourage.”

    I suspect however the issue will be overtaken by events, indeed it already is. TV broadcasting just as the MSM is on borrowed time – the internet is the new medium and I suspect there will be several “providers” who will identify the need and attend to it.

    The MSM and BBC have conspired to write their own suicide note (you’ll have read a poll today that suggests “79% did not trust senior BBC figures to tell the truth”). The rest of the MSM, given their lamentable performance over CAGW et al will be no loss.

  393. “the MSM is on borrowed time – the internet is the new medium ”

    Have you seen the size of the BBC website?

    Alexa Traffic Rank
    Global Rank 48
    Rank in GB 5
    435,835
    Sites Linking In

  394. Tallbloke – yes, I’ve seen the BBC website, I’ll even confess I visit it regularly (good for sport).
    Interesting position, you run a blog, imagine the costs running a huge site like that! You’ll be aware there have been murmurings for some time now about the perceived iniquity of this situation.

  395. Now the UK has moved from analogue to digital broadcasting all the BBC’s output is delayed relative to real time. Can someone explain the legal difference between a BBC broadcast delayed, say, 2 seconds and one on Iplayer? Which, of the plethora of different ways the BBC broadcasts, at different broadcast delays, is the one any legal judgement of reception licence requirement would hinge on?

  396. Don’t blame the BBC quite as much, but the UK ‘establishment’ or political class instead. The latter went ‘green’ en mass and took this ideology serioulsy from mid-1980s onward,; many in government even thought that environmentalism would restore competitive advantage in business! [It did encorouge innovation and research.) There were money and reputations to be made from this ‘virtue’, and votes to be won. The little people, the ‘hardworking families increasingly without decent jobs and schools even, were generally ignored, especially by the Liberals and soon deserted by the Labour Party. The BBC merely reflects a very selfish society enjoying being tickled by approaching catastrophe, and also wanting to do good for the ‘Planet’….. Would it be a ‘better’ place without the BBC? I have strong doubts. By the way, one way of avoiding paying that fee , it not to have a TV.

Comments are closed.