Lord Oxburgh, the organisation’s director, was called in to head an internal inquiry into the leaked emails which included one infamous message referring to a “trick” to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.
The peer’s investigation cleared the scientists of malpractice. But critics claimed the report was a whitewash and Lord Oxburgh also failed to declare his involvement with Globe before he began his investigation.
Meanwhile Bob Ward, from the Grantham Institute, which works alongside Globe, praised a second inquiry by former civil servant Muir Russell, which also cleared the climate researchers.
He said it had “lifted the cloud of suspicion” and demonstrated that “the integrity of climate science is intact.”
Globe International’s work is paid for with donations from multi-millionaire backers and through partnerships with other environmental groups.
Globe also confirmed last night that it received direct funding from the Department of Energy and the Department of International Development (DfID). including a grant of £91,240 provided by DfID since the Coalition came to power last year.
More cash from DfID is filtered through the Complus Alliance – a “sustainable development communications alliance” of broadcasters based in Costa Rica which is also supported by the BBC World Service Trust, the Corporation’s independent charity,.
Complus, which was awarded DfID cash last year and in 2006, says it has an “ongoing relationship with Globe” helping it run “shadow negotiation” teams at international summits of world leaders.
A spokeswoman for Complus said: “The BBC is a founding member not a funding member. They can make in-kind contributions, like organising events, supporting logistics, sharing content.”
===============================================================
More here.
Also, Dr. Richard North of the EU Referendum has a synopsis of coverage that preceded the Telegraph’s, and there was a significant amount. But even a late awakening is better than none.
Bottom line for the BBC: no matter what, when you are involved in promoting monetarily, in kind, or in any way, the same people and organizations you report on, you can’t have any separation from conflict of interest.
The The BBC has zero credibility left in all matters climate reporting related, in my opinion.
While I had suspicions before, after reviewing these two posts on “contract” and “expenses” for the Oxburgh report at CA, followed by Bishop Hill’s “When is a contract not a contract?“, I believe now that these investigations were complete whitewashes, bought and paid for. It is just that simple.
h/t to WUWT reader and volunteer moderator “AndiC”
The entire corrupt Common Purpose controlled edifice is crumbling away and about time too.
The BBC is nothing but a propaganda organ for whichever British government is in power. (All British governments are essentially the same irrespective of what name they go by.)
Globe
http://www.globe.org.uk/
‘Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive’
These inquiries where blatant corruption, fraud and deception, nothing more. They were not even as honest as a whitewash!
I have concerns that my licence fee, to operate a TV set, of £135 per year helps to pay for all this BBC climate rubbish. The fee, in reality a TAX, must be paid on threat of imprisonment.
Nowhere else in the world are viewers forced to pay a tax to view any TV program, even recorded by yourself or of non BBC origin, and the monies go to an unaccountable organization, the BBC, to spend as they see fit.
I bet Sn. Conrad in Aus would just love to have implemented control of the internet, that he and his Govn’t wishes, before this little story broke. This would have been “disappeared”.
Thanks Anthony!
…I believe now that these investigations were complete whitewashes, bought and paid for. It is just that simple.
I was prepared to give the benefit of doubt to Russell and Oxburgh inquires, lest people mistake the objections as conspiracy theory. We shouldn’t mistake stupidity for malice, right?
Now, however, the evidence is in. There is absolutely no doubt left in my mind that the Climategate investigations were designed to clear the wrongdoers.
In a word, whitewash!
Unfortunately the attitude of the BBC has diverged so far from its Chartered obligations that it no longer retains any sense of its own history. Instead its policies simply reflect the predetermined dispositions of its staff, which of course often results in biased and inaccurate reporting. This is a tragedy.
An answer exists for those who feel strongly about this derliction of duty, give up watching live broadcasting, be it via the BBC or any of the independent channels. This entitles you to retain a television for watching video or perhaps a programme via iPlayer without paying for a licence. Inconvenient perhaps, but you get used to it. The satisfaction for this loss is derived from knowing you are no longer contributing to an organisation that has abandoned the scrupulously honest in favour of the partial.
Great overview Anthony. Sometimes it seems like that the battle is WUWT vs GLOBE. You’re absolutely right to point to Richard North’s exasperation about the MSM – and also to say “even a late awakening is better than none.” That’s what makes WUWT great.
Globe International
http://www.globeinternational.info/
“I have concerns that my licence fee, to operate a TV set, of £135 per year helps to pay for all this BBC climate rubbish. The fee, in reality a TAX, must be paid on threat of imprisonment.”
Chuck the telly. Withdrawal lasts two to three weeks then you get your life back.
John.
I used to like the science programme ‘Horizon’ which is made by the BBC.
Not now I don’t.
The new format and presentation is an insult.Even to a dumb bloke like me.
“The Universe,aint it great,Amazing” The presenter is like a character out of the ‘Fast Show’.
Fellow Licence fee paying Brits will know what I mean.
John Marshall>
No need to pay a license fee for anything except programs you watch as they are broadcast live in the UK. Buy a PVR – personal video recorder – for less than the cost of a years’ license fee, press the button that delays all the programmes by 30 seconds, and bob’s your multicoloured auntie.
A welcome volte facefrom the Torygraph. The normal reporters for this stuff would be their ‘environment correspondents’ Louise Gray and/or Geoffrey Lean whose sole journalistic abilities are their expertise in regurgitating ecofascst propaganda.
If the improvement continues I will have to consider buying the paper once again. I gave up in protest at one of Loopy Lou’s dafter prophecies of impending thermageddon
This is way beyond Yes, Prime Minister. It is positivey Orwellian and Kafkaesque.
@John Marshall
“Nowhere else in the world are viewers forced to pay a tax to view any TV program, even recorded by yourself or of non BBC origin, and the monies go to an unaccountable organization, the BBC, to spend as they see fit.”
—————————–
Wrong, same in Denmark, we have to pay TV license to own a TV, same goes for owing a PC, smart phone or any other divice with access to the internet
The BBC with a left wing bias, who would have thought it…hahahahah!
Sorry, but over here in the UK we are inured to their biased ramblings about the climate and just ignore it now. They lost any sense of balance years and years ago.
John McKay says:
April 24, 2011 at 3:46 am
Chuck the telly. Withdrawal lasts two to three weeks then you get your life back.
—————————————————————————————-
I can confirm this, having done so some 5 years ago. There isn’t any spare time in my life now for watching it.
“Among Globe’s principle backers are a charity set up by the Swedish multi-millionaire Niklas Zennstrom, founder of the internet phone service Skype, and British-born wealth fund manager Jeremy Grantham, whose personal clients include Dick Cheney and John Kerry.
Mr Grantham bankrolls the Grantham Institute at the LSE, which works alongside Globe.
He believes “weather instability” is the world’s biggest “investment problem” and his $107 billion fund pushes alternative assets including a massive portfolio of forestry.
The fund was believed to be preparing to invest in the abandoned Government sell off British forests. ”
Anyone still believing AGW is about the science or a threat to the planet?
John Marshall:
“… viewers forced to pay a tax to view any TV program, even recorded by yourself or of non BBC origin, …”
Some small but important points:
The law is quite muddled but it seems that in this internet age there is not much that you can not legally watch without a licence. Whereas it is illegal (at time of transmission) to watch or record broadcasts without a licence, one can watch any material that is recorded including anything found on the internet that is not currently being broadcast. This includes all the delayed internet content from the TV services which these days is most of it.
So we have the bizarre situation that it is illegal to watch when they intend you do (time of broadcast) but legal to watch it when you want to (time of convenience) providing you are happy to let them or someone else do the recording for you.
The law as it has come down to us is based on the notion of receiving a broadcast television service, this is quite distinct from watching a TV programme. To record a TV programme as it is being broadcast is illegal even if you never watch it, to watch a recorded programme is not illegal.
Here is a what the TV Licensing website has to say:
“Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they’re being shown on television without a valid TV Licence.”
Although this is a boiled down version of what the Act actually states, as it is the advice given by the relevant authority it is considered to be valid.
Alex
I haven’t had a telly for years. In fact, I realized that I have never had a colour tv… I had no withdrawal symptoms at all. When I do see it a someone’s house, I wonder why you would spend all that money on something so uninteresting.
The above article was published in today’s Sunday Telegraph which is much more sceptical than the Daily Telegraph.
The ST carries articles every week by Christopher Booker, but the DT publishes rubbish by the superannuated alarmist, Geoffrey Lean, every Saturday, and ‘Little Miss Cut and Paste’, Louise Grey, on an almost daily basis.
I do not think the Daily Telegraph has quite got it yet.
Now we have the backstory confirming what many of us suspected.
This will knock another 10% of AGW credibility. This seems like it might be quite a big story.
April 24, 2011 at 4:08 am
@John Marshall
“Nowhere else in the world are viewers forced to pay a tax to view any TV program, even recorded by yourself or of non BBC origin, and the monies go to an unaccountable organization, the BBC, to spend as they see fit.”
—————————–
and in France €123
I will stand corrected about many things on Climategate but the key issue to me is Michael Mann’s discredited work.
The key evidence has to come from Steve McIntyre but to the best of my knowledge he was never called as a witness.
As regards the BBC I stopped watching and listening to their news and current affairs years ago.
It was a combination of their “Guardian” view of Britain with their appalling intellectual snobbery and biase as well as their one sided view on the climate and last but not least their simply pathetic attempts to rubbish dissenters on 9/11.
They actually announced that WTC 7 came down half an hour before it did.
Just one of those things old boy…how dare you question…etc etc.
Truth, democracy and the BBC….no more….and one wonders if ever.
Bud Moon says:
April 24, 2011 at 4:37 am
“The above article was published in today’s Sunday Telegraph which is much more sceptical than the Daily Telegraph.”
I think this always confuses the heck out of any non-Brit especially as they use the same website. Sort of a multiple personality disorder. Why don’t they re-brand and call one the Telegraph and the other the Hpargelet?
“John Marshall says:
April 24, 2011 at 2:34 am”
One used to have to pay the fee (Tax) even if you had only a mains powered radio. It is, and always has been, a money grab. It, literally is, a Govn’t propaganda tax. Even adverts threatening conviction and a GBP1000 fine in the 70’s using their “detector vans”…looking back I now understand why some believed communism, Russian style, would have worked in the UK.
We have a global crime ring.
They use the media to toss in the words “Save the Planet” to give everyone’s ego a big warm feeling, toss in the words “And It’s All You and Your Family’s Damn Fault” to give you a huge guilt trip so not to complain or blow the whistle, then use shadow organizations of various types to influence governments, agencies and universities to route your money from your hard work into their pockets, mainly as always further research of this AGW problem, billions of it. It’s happening people. They are now moving into the global corporations.
AGW has already been proven non-existant by an atmospheric physicist, formally NASA scientist, named Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi three years ago, peer reviewed and published. Never hear about it. Now that is strange, isn’t it.
the Complus Alliance – a “sustainable development communications alliance” of broadcasters based in Costa Rica which is also supported by the BBC World Service Trust, the Corporation’s independent charity,.
Is it just me wondering why they are based in Costa Rica?
@John Marshal
Nowhere else in the world? Try South Africa. the same applies here. The SABC is second only to the receiver of revenue when it comes to strong arm tactics to enforce compliance. One may not even possess any equipment capable of displaying a video, even if no TV feed is connected, without paying the licence fee. Sometimes it seems as if even a death certificate is not enough to stop demands for payment. And just try to prove that you no longer own an offending device! Aaargh!!
“Dave Brittania says:
April 24, 2011 at 4:00 am
I used to like the science programme ‘Horizon’ which is made by the BBC.
Not now I don’t.
The new format and presentation is an insult.Even to a dumb bloke like me.
“The Universe,aint it great,Amazing” The presenter is like a character out of the ‘Fast Show’.
Fellow Licence fee paying Brits will know what I mean.”
Well Yes and No. I don’t have a TV in the UK, and have once or twice attempted to watch this “The Universe” show elsewhere, which is particularly inept and clumsily presented by what seems to be a hack of some sort.
The BBC produces inferior standards even compared to CH4, and i’m sure this is a long term plan of the board of governors of the BBC to eradicate interest or intelligence from popular transmissions.
I do not know if the BBC has always been an inferior broadcaster and entertainment channel.
The BBC seems to do best as an entertainment organisation.
John McKay says: April 24, 2011 at 3:46 am
Chuck the telly. Withdrawal lasts two to three weeks then you get your life back.
View from the Solent says: April 24, 2011 at 4:21 am
I can confirm this, having done so some 5 years ago. There isn’t any spare time in my life now for watching it.
Ditto’s, ditto’s. I unplugged three years ago, and don’t miss it the least. Superbowl, maybe, but that’s what neighbors are for.
The question nobody is asking is….?
Why Now?
Why is someone else – an ‘investigative journalist’ doing this now in the Telegraph…
The Telegraph knows all about most of this a year ago, Booker, Delingpole and Norths and Bishop Hill.
so why the story, again and now?
When I last checked the list, the BBC was responsible for more of the alarmist articles than any other source in the Warmlist:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
How dare there exist environmental think tanks! Think tanks should be right wing (sorry, I mean “sensible”), and sponsored by the Koch brothers. The idea that anyone else should have the right to set up organisations which might have CAGW views, and that they should get government funding, is awful.
Lets face it, if you happen to not like CAGW and your surname rhymes with dumkopf, then you can probably use government money to employ staffers to help you work against CAGW. But it doesn’t work the other way round.
On the web version they are hardly pushing the story – the headline on the from page reads “Climate lobby group funded by tax-payers” – if I wasn’t actually looking for it i would have gone straight past.
While I do have concerns regarding the BBCs bias on climate science, I think the licence fee is well worth the money for what you get. We in the UK get programmes on demand from iplayer which are high quality and well worth watching. We don’t have to sit through hours of brain numbing adverts which interrupt viewing, and we don’t have to suffer the indignities of being presented with the right wing propaganda machine that passes for Fox news.
£135 per year for BBC versus £400 for Murdochs trashy channel? No contest. I’ll take the BBC every time despite it’s faults. Wonder of the Universe can be crass,but there are many other science programmes well presented and researched. Lets face it, would you prefer “Americas next top model” with advertisements, or David Attenborough and many like him?
YAWN! If it is not a revelation that Koch brothers or the Heartland Institute are funding, it is boring. Move on.
/sarc
Typo in title – Climatgate is short an “e”.
Erik says:
April 24, 2011 at 4:08 am
@John Marshall
“Nowhere else in the world are viewers forced to pay a tax to view any TV program, …
Wrong, same in Denmark, we have to pay TV license to own a TV, […]
Given that we’re always one step ahead around here in Portugal, we pay a TV tax if we have electric power; it comes in the power bill (no, you cant say you dont own a TV set). That does away with the need of spending money buying a TV set.
“Dave Brittania says:
April 24, 2011 at 4:00 am
I used to like the science programme ‘Horizon’ which is made by the BBC.
Not now I don’t.
The new format and presentation is an insult.Even to a dumb bloke like me.
“The Universe,aint it great,Amazing” The presenter is like a character out of the ‘Fast Show’.
Yep, ex-popstar Dr Brian Cox gets on my nerves too.
Thanks for the mention. What particularly annoys me is the attempt to “own” the subject, which is more than just bad manners – it also makes it a dead-end call.
The particular strength of the blogosphere is the willingness to acknowledge previous work, and link to it. Thus stories benefit by becoming an ongoing narrative, with many hands adding to them and developing the subject. When the MSM enters the fray, however, they can never admit that they are late entrants, and acknowledge their sources. In this case, it was the Register that broke the story – it was their scoop. The BBC dimension was picked up by me … and then others … including Booker, added their own.
In academic circles, where your work leapfrogs others, you reference your sources. On the blogosphere, you cross-link. But the MSM feels itself so high and mighty that it is exempt from these courtesies. And that, probably, is why the MSM is failing and blogs such as WUWT do so well – and deservedly so.
“icecover says:
April 24, 2011 at 4:52 am
This will knock another 10% of AGW credibility…”
____________
Huh?
Then this would put them in the negative number realm. AGW never had 10% credibility to begin with. 😉
Telly chucked five years ago. Didn’t suffer withdrawal symptoms. It was pure RELIEF! Still get letters typed in red from the licensing authority. I bin them, unopened. They can come and ‘detect’ any time but they never do.
Lord Oxburgh has been or still is associated with the following interests.
Honorary president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association
Chairman of Falck Renewables
(wind energy firm)
Former advisor to Climate Change Capital
Former Chairman of D1 Oils, plc (biodiesel producer)
The investigation was utterly unbiased from the start. Nothing to see here, move along folks. ;O)
50 millionth organisation and counting….so that’s where so much money goes
This problem of funding controlling science in climate issues is also a problem in the origins life dept. also. To question the validity of Darwin is a death nail in your scientific funding and your scientific carrier!
BBC pensions are heavily invested into carbon schemes. The BBC is a member of the The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC).
http://www.iigcc.org/about-us/members
The investigation was utterly unbiased from the start. Nothing to see here, move along folks. ;O)
BBC World Service Trust, the Corporation’s independent charity.
The investigation was utterly unbiased from the start. Nothing to see here, move along folks. ;O)
The UK’s oversite boards have gone after other scientists whose research is filled with holes (on purpose or just plain not well done) and have levied hard fines and restrictions on such persons. Unless there is a compelling background story not to. I think influence is top down and usually starts at top governmental positions and coalitions. And it will entirely depend on the beliefs of those persons and coalitions as to which kind of science the UK will seriously investigate. They are certainly not going to promote an investigation that would end up stealing their tax teat away.
As for the US, the above goes without sayin it.
John Marshall says:
April 24, 2011 at 2:34 am
I have concerns that my licence fee, to operate a TV set, of £135 per year helps to pay for all this BBC climate rubbish. The fee, in reality a TAX, must be paid on threat of imprisonment.
Nowhere else in the world are viewers forced to pay a tax to view any TV program, even recorded by yourself or of non BBC origin, and the monies go to an unaccountable organization, the BBC, to spend as they see fit.
Mods: sorry if getting somewhat off-topic, but I believe this is important and relevant.
John, don’t pay it, it’s as simple as that. I personally never have, and never will, pay for a TV licence. I cannot bring myself to accept any notion that my government grants me permission to watch a TV in return for a fee. I wouldn’t care if the BBC were uncorrupt and clean as a whistle – I still would not pay for a licence to watch TV because the concept is so morally repugnant. It is no less ridiculous than a “licence to read books” – and yet people accept it almost unquestioningly.
FACT: The BBC licencing people have no right of entry into your house. So, if like me you don’t quite have the courage of your convictions to go to prison for your principles, you can still watch TV, unlicenced, in the privacy of your own home (away from street-facing windows, obviously) and deny entry to any licencing officer who calls. The point is you would be exercising your free right to watch TV – you don’t need to recognise anyone’s permission for that – whilst also denying your funding to this corrupt organisation. I have turned the BBC Gestapo away on three occasions – the last time was about 10 years ago now, and they don’t bother coming anymore. If everyone could do this…
Barry Woods says: April 24, 2011 at 6:11 am
The question nobody is asking is….?
Why Now?
Good question Barry,
Was wondering the same thing myself.
Stephen Rasey provides explanation to the question.
‘Hansen’s climate universe is CO2 centric. What if the real climate system not driven primarily by CO2 concentrations. Then by choosing a poor model, Hansen is forced into every increasing complexity, epicycles on epicycles, to explain observed behavior.’ Theo Goodwin and jorgekafkazar add comment.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/23/on-ocean-heat-content-pinatubo-hansen-bulldogs-cherrypicking-and-all-that/#comment-647071
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
And could not account for lack of temporal ambiguity.
Noise.
The journalists (as SRacey points out above) are forced into ever increasing complexity? More prudent to pursue previous truths written?
John Marshall says:
April 24, 2011 at 2:34 am
Nowhere else in the world are viewers forced to pay a tax to view any TV program, even recorded by yourself or of non BBC origin, and the monies go to an unaccountable organization, the BBC, to spend as they see fit.
Sweden also has a TV tax to support the public SVT programs. You don’t even have to own a TV, a computer or VCR/DVD player will leave you open to the Swedish TV tax. A while back there was even talk by the SVT people of taxing businesses with CCTV(I am not joking).
Was there any whitewash left in the shops after Lord Whitewash finished?
Just another case of overpaid bureaucrats being allowed to spend other people’s money badly. This is the only thing governments and quasi-government organisations do well.
The only time this changes is in a total war situation, when you have no choice but to get real managers in to run things properly.
BBC waste and its army of overpaid top heavy ‘mananagement’ bureaucrats enforcing left wing biases on everything is something us Brits have just grown used to – shame on us.
And as noted, Richard North comment above manners and etiquette.
Lack of referencing to the original source(s), but owning the scoop displays a complete nonchalance for [professional] journalist’ Code of Ethics.
paul revere says:
April 24, 2011 at 7:51 am
Actually, it is worse than than. One does not have to question Darwinian evolution. One can simply question its account of the Neanderthals. Then, if you are on the wrong team, your coffin is nailed closed. If you are on the right team, you are published and celebrated.
I take it that everyone knows that Darwinians cannot quite figure out what to do with the Neanderthals. Some prominent theories are that we killed them as aggressors, we killed them inadvertently through competition, or we married them. Not a lot of difference among those theories.
Bernie says: “This is way beyond Yes, Prime Minister. It is positive(l)y Orwellian and Kafkaesque.”
Yes, exactly. We’re all being excessively taxed during hard economic times in order to fabricate pseudoscientific global warming proctoganda and force it upon us with the intent of then confiscating even more of our life’s earnings. The media and the government and academia need to be told to stick it where it came from, folded into a cone and turned sideways.
“Huth says:
April 24, 2011 at 7:36 am”
Those vans were pure propaganda, really I mean that. A good old “scare” tactic as there were simply not enough to catch the “offenders”. As much as I can recall my life in the UK, neither my parents, their parents nor thier offspring paid the fee. Never ever saw one of those “vans”, just the ads. Not a surprise because in the “adverts” on non-commercial TV showed a “Commer BF” van which was massively unreliable (A Big Fail? Oh yeah).
A long, long, time ago. In a galaxy far, far…oh wait, wrong story. In the US, back in the day, any person wishing to persue the office of President (or any political office for that matter) had to be nominated. It was not allowed, as it is now, for people to just “announce” their candidacy. The way this worked is that a hopeful would find a printhouse that published a newspaper with like political views. The paper would distribute the would-be candidates propaganda and if he could afford it, when (because money wins) there was enough support drummed up in this fashion he would be nominated for the office by his supporters.
My point: there has never been, and most likely never will be a MSM (print or broadcast) that is not biased, or skewed to a particular political vein and agenda. That is how they originated, it is the environment (those that hold the purse strings) they have evolved (have created) from: to support and promote a particular political agenda / world view, and in a word it is their ilk.
So with many of the above I agree, and it is a sad state of affairs: chuck the TV or watch it at your own risk. Or, to all of us (and it would seem ALL of us) that have to pay for it, “buyer beware” For the more extreme of heart and mind perhaps it’s time to once again break out the old muzzle loaders and mobilize the largest free militia on the planet. Oh how I long for the days of only 3 TV channels in B&W…life was so simple back then. 😉
Thanks for featuring this story, Anthony. It is heartening to see another investigative journo join the climate investigation on the Sunday Telegraph with James Dellingpole and Christopher Brooker.
The story has been ‘out there’ in various chunks since the apalling ‘Climategate’ pseudo-enquiries, but this article joins the dots superbly.
The Posters on this thread who rabbit on about chucking the TVs have missed the point.
There is this guy who made it his life’s work to critically follow the BBC. Although he does go over the top sometimes he has some particularly well founded examples of BBC’s bias. Google: Biased BBC and you’ll find biased-bbc blogspot.
It’s illuminating for those who aren’t aware of their actions.
“David, UK says:
April 24, 2011 at 8:09 am”
As I say now, down under, maaaaate, hi five to that! However I challenge your stance “they” do not have right of access to your home. You will be surprised “who” has statutory rights to enter your home, even ramblers in the right places, have “right” to “pass through” your home.
“Excerpt: Lord Oxburgh, the organisation’s director, was called in to head an internal inquiry into the leaked emails which included one infamous message referring to a “trick” to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.”
The statement is false. Global temperatures did not decline. The issue is over whether a series of tree ring data should have been included in whole or left out rather than used partly.
Get over the Climategate thing guys. It has been thoroughly investigated by six committees and the participants have been exonerated. The evidence didn’t depend on one data set in any event and the word “trick” is just a shorthand word used commonly in the science community. There is nothing devious about the word at all.
“CLimategate” has already served its PR purpose confusing many and slowing the change process which will inevitably occur nevertheless.
Sadly, the general public has become so apathetic, most people who hear about this won’t even care.
Hugh Pepper,
You’re simply carrying water for these whitewashes. Being their apologist means never having to use critical thinking.
Here’s the way it is: without an adversarial investigation, in which an opposing party has the right to freely ask questions, your so-called “exoneration” is just a cover-up.
When the venue allows for someone representing the defrauded public to cross examine hostile witnesses, then the truth will come out. In the Oxburgh and similar
inquirieswhitewashes, those questions were deliberately barred. How do you explain that, other than admitting that the good old boys closed ranks to protect their lucrative gravy train?“The Posters on this thread who rabbit on about chucking the TVs have missed the point.”
Ok Alexander, I’ll buy it. What point have we missed?
John.
[snip. ~dbs, mod.]
[snip. ~dbs, mod.]
Dave Brittania says:
It was on Horizon about 10 years ago that I first saw Dr. James Hansen. He said NASA tried to muzzle him. The show ended with flames coming out of the ocean due to methane calthrates. That show made look into AGW a lot deeper and I ended sceptical.
Gaylon says:
April 24, 2011 at 8:41 am
“… there has never been, and most likely never will be a MSM (print or broadcast) that is not biased, or skewed to a particular political vein and agenda. That is how they originated, it is the environment (those that hold the purse strings) they have evolved (have created) from: to support and promote a particular political agenda / world view, and in a word it is their ilk”
———–
Perhaps. But never before in history has there been so much collusion between international corporations, left-wing leaning political parties and the mainstream media in suppression alternative points of view, censoring unwanted ideas, and pursuing a common agenda. Why so many media outlets have tied their wagon to the propaganda of multinational corporations is a minor puzzle – except, of course, 1) that fighting climate change (shudder – what self-delusion!) is seen as the morally correct thing to do – a dreadful further perversion of political correctness; and 2) so many media outlets have financial stakes in carbon credit schemes, including the BBC (http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/02/bbc-pension-funds-linked-to-climate-policy/) and not to mention Rupert Murdoch’s embrace of global warming alarmism.
On the side of ‘moral correctness’ Toronto’s Globe and Mail has been calling for the different political parties in Canada’s ongoing election campaigns to re-embrace the problem of global warming, even though this issue is currently almost non-existent for the electorate (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/the-international-climate-change-battle-begins-at-home/article1993495/).
It has also joined the Boreal Business Forum, a group sponsored in part by American charitable foundations and empowered by the membership of Greenpeace and other environmental NGOs. According to the Financial Post’s editor Peter Foster, ‘the boreal forum includes German multimedia giant Axel Springer AG, Time Inc., and Hearst Corp. These media giants are apparently happy to subscribe to the view that the oversight of markets, shareholders and the law is insufficient to stop companies from destroying the environment. They don’t seem to grasp that they are knitting the fair-trade rope for their own hanging.” See http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/21/peter-foster-lost-in-the-corporate-borealis/
The media in the past, at least, was more independent with fewer vested interests in shoring up an official propaganda war. I am thrilled that the Sunday Telegraph is showing some (belated) journalistic integrity, and glad that the message the Climategate inquiries were a whitewash being spread by new voices. I did not need this latest article to know that the Climategate inquiries were whitewashes (anyone who has read the e-mails already knew that) but this is definitely an article that will be printed out and posted on the office door for the ‘skeptics’ to see.
I am continuing having difficulty getting to your website and can only go through backdoor routes. Typing in Wattsupwiththat.com sends me to a wiki page with the message “wiki does not exist”. I did a virus scan, turned off my computer, and used bing instead of google. Same result. The link icon on my computer has now changed as well for the main page.
Pam I have no trouble probably your DNS provider try opendns.org I think
And you don’t believe in conspiracy theories …?
Is the Biased Broadcasting Corporation biased? Is grass green?
Did you know that the BBC sends executives to Futerra, an uber-Green PR company, who design Green propaganda for corporations? Check out the Futerra ‘clients’ list.
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/NewRules:NewGame.pdf
Did you know that the BBC invited its executives to a secret meeting with climate executives, back in 2007, and decided then to wholeheartedly promote Global Warming.
http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2007/06/bbc-bias.html
Justin Webb of the BBC said: “If we think that we have a role and something to say, we should have the guts to say it and stand behind it.” Well, yes, but you are using MY money to fund YOUR propaganda, matey.
This is why Peter Sissons, a senior BBC newsreader, said that the BBC was a Climate Change propaganda machine.
http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/bbc-became-a-propaganda-machine-for-climate-change-zealots/
Do anything you can, to bring the Biased Broadcasting Corporation to heel. Write to them. Write to the Offcom regulator. Write to the BBC Board. Write to your MP. And do not buy this Global Warming licence, that costs £135 per year !
.
>>paul revere says: April 24, 2011 at 7:51 am
>>To question the validity of Darwin is a death nail in your scientific
>>funding and your scientific carrier!
Do you think that writing a paper declaring that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created all of the Earth’s biosphere 5,000 years ago is going to earn you a Nobel? Dear me, its back to the Dark Ages, chaps. (How on earth does the US still retain a lead in aerospace and electronics?)
Tell you what, if you can write a paper successfully explaining who created the Creator, then I can guarantee you a Nobel.
.
Hugh Pepper says:
April 24, 2011 at 9:24 am
“Get over the Climategate thing guys. It has been thoroughly investigated by six committees and the participants have been exonerated. The evidence didn’t depend on one data set in any event and the word “trick” is just a shorthand word used commonly.”
How about that? A classic Climategate [snip – same rule for everyone, no calling someone the d-word. ~dbs, mod.] Finding one is sort of like finding a drugstore selling handmade malts to people seated at the counter.
Benefit of the doubt probably does apply here.
Must be hell being caught telling a lie to cover for the un truths of someone else and to be ratted out unexpectedly by a third party.
Ralph asked: “How on earth does the US still retain a lead in aerospace and electronics?”
College engineering programs all too often consist of memorizing formulas. We can build gizmos and widgets galore. It is maintaining democracy that worries me. Democracy without civility and critical thinking skills is like doing science in the blogsphere.
vigilantfish says:
April 24, 2011 at 10:09 am
“Perhaps. But never before in history has there been so much collusion between international corporations, left-wing leaning political parties and the mainstream media in suppression alternative points of view, censoring unwanted ideas, and pursuing a common agenda.”
Excellent post! My hat is off to you. For those of us who have been around for a while, the fact that the media is ideology bound today is both novel and disheartening. Only fifteen or twenty years ago, many of us knew personally journalists whose professionalism was as rock solid as that of the ordinary Federal Judge. Today, journalists do not understand the concept of professional integrity. What is disheartening is that the change happened so quickly and so fully.
Global inhabitants please wake up, see Lord Turnbull on THE REALLY INCONVENIENT TRUTH, it says it all, please send this on to all politicians in the hope of shaming them:
http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2711-lord-turnbull-the-really-inconvenient-truth.htmlhttp://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2711-lord-turnbull-the-really-inconvenient-truth.html
Whitewash or Blackwash?
For people having trouble with Google, try Duckduckgo. Either the standard or the SSL version will get you where you want to go – and as a side benefit, no tracking.
I’ve swapped over – I’m (well according to MSM, a gun nut, I reload and shoot competitively) I got tired of the targeted (pun intended) advertising from Google.
It’s silly to talk about the “overwhelming advantage” big oil has in the communications area. Look up Complus, who they are and who’s behind it. Here’s their reach, largely through TAXPAYER FUNDED ORGANIZATIONS:
•TV features on sustainable development reach 20 million homes in Africa through Reuters Africa Journal on a weekly basis. •300 million homes in 170 countries were reached through BBC documentaries on glacier melting, conditional cash transfers and climate change effects on small islands (Slippery Slopes, Cash In Hand and The President’s Dilemma).
•Climate Thinkers series reaches over 500 million viewers worldwide during UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. BBC World TV broadcast a series of 18 short films tapping into the minds of the world’s leading climate change scientists, policy makers and civil society organizations at the front line of climate change seven times per day over eight days (December 2009). This series was also broadcast on national TV in Africa and India.
•Small Islands, Big Impact documentary reaches 50 million South Asian homes. The short film, based on an exclusive interview with President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives, was distributed to 25 broadcasters throughout Asia/Pacific and uploaded onto YouTube. The documentary was produced by TVEAP.
•Over 150 broadcasters screen material from ground-breaking policy event on climate change. Video news release and coverage of legislative consensus at the GLOBE Legislators’ Forum in Copenhagen (October 2009) ahead of the COP 15 broadcast on BBC’s flagship news programme Newsnight, BBC Radio 4, BBC World Service Radio (UK), Rai (Italy), TFI (France), CBC (Canada), TV2 (Denmark), and Deutsche Welle (Africa), among others.
“Big oil” just can’t compete with big government! It’s not a fair fight!
banjo says:
April 24, 2011 at 7:17 am
“Dave Brittania says:
April 24, 2011 at 4:00 am
I used to like the science programme ‘Horizon’ which is made by the BBC.
Not now I don’t.
The new format and presentation is an insult.Even to a dumb bloke like me.
“The Universe,aint it great,Amazing” The presenter is like a character out of the ‘Fast Show’.
“Yep, ex-popstar Dr Brian Cox gets on my nerves too.”
Me too – and if you want the best laugh listen to ‘Down the line’ spoof radio phone in show on BBC where they do a great skit of him. Starts at 8.35 minutes and lasts the rest of the show. Funnily enough it’s mainly the Fast show team;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b010dp1c/Down_the_Line_Series_4_Episode_6/
Patrick Davis says:
April 24, 2011 at 8:29 am
“Huth says:
April 24, 2011 at 7:36 am”
Those vans were pure propaganda, really I mean that. A good old “scare” tactic as there were simply not enough to catch the “offenders”. As much as I can recall my life in the UK, neither my parents, their parents nor thier offspring paid the fee. Never ever saw one of those “vans”, just the ads. Not a surprise because in the “adverts” on non-commercial TV showed a “Commer BF” van which was massively unreliable (A Big Fail? Oh yeah).
I actually did see the vans. I worked for the GPO. They used antennae to detect the carrier oscillator from the TV. They were not as accurate as claimed but could detect a TV.
Theo Goodwin says: April 24, 2011 at 10:55 am
vigilantfish says:April 24, 2011 at 10:09 am
[“Perhaps. But never before in history has there been so much collusion between international corporations, etc —
Excellent post —Today, journalists do not understand the concept of professional integrity. What is disheartening is that the change happened so quickly and so fully
—————————————————————————
How true Theo but the cause IMO is that competition in the communication ‘business’ has destroyed the journalist. It’s what ‘sells’ newspapers that counts now – and it’s not integrity – its sensationalism and crap. In short, newspapers are owned by businessmen not journalists and businessmen are only interested in the ‘bottom line’. Enter the cut and pastes Louise Gray’s – end of story.
Douglas
John McKay, IMHO the problem is not the TV set but the lies and propaganda that are being produced and disseminated by powerful politico/business cartels with a worldwide reach. Chucking your TV does nothing to fix the problem apart from deny the authorities your licence fee which might be effective if millions of citizens do it but otherwise seems to fall into the category of an almost pointless but no doubt an individually satisfying gesture.
The BBC. Last middle class gravy train left in the uk. They wont let go of it that easily
BBC; Boobs Broadcasting Crap.
The BBC have always sort to undermine and control the thoughts and broadcast content of the UK, they have NEVER been trust worthy and NEVER will be till they are closed down and become a footnote to history.
here is a very small sample of their audacity!
In the 1950’s and 60.s the BBC drove around our cities and towns with scanner Vans/trucks looking for people without Radio and TV licenses (My mother would panic at the sight of them) they were hated and despised by the people of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland this hatred of the BBC brought us together in a common bond = the dislike and mistrust of of the elitist who dictated this kind of crap that still goes on to this day. My family was poor and struggling to pay for rent, a bag of coal for one little miserable fire place and food!! never mind pay the BBC for crappy content that most of us disliked, but was the only source of entertainment we could get or afford!!
During world War Two the Nazis did the same scary thing looking for radios and signals from the resistance in every part of occupied Europe (in similar looking vans) the penalty was death and torture in stead of a steep fine, but the intention was the same sinister goal, to control the populace what they could listen too, do and the control of the broadcast content and in turn the minds of people.
Evidence of this came home to me loud and clear when in the 1960’s Pirate Radio Stations, Radio Caroline, Radio London started broadcasting Rock N Roll and Pop music 24 hours a day from ships in international waters.
It was a fantastic time and we went wild with the simple joy of it, it represented freedom (sounds so strange today) the BBC and the Elitist socialist establishments were totally Pi#*$ Off and finally arrested and closed down the Pirate Radio Stations with Gestapo tactics.
It was disgusting and angers many people young and old who lived through the 60’s and remember this was the height of the British music invasion of the world. The Beatles, Stones and 100’s of other groups and yet we in the United Kingdom were denied the simple pleasure of listening to them.
So don’t wonder about the UK governments Labor or Conservative or the socialist BBC they are all on the same page when is comes to control, spin and lies and the Global warming hoax and Climategate cover ups are simple a continuation of the same of BBC lies, cover-up, crap/creed.
Yee, ha! Great to see this. Anyone who has ever watched the BBC or read Richard Black’s incessant AGW propaganda knows how bent over they are.
But funny… when I first looked at the story and photo I assumed those gorillas were the BBC’s scientific advisors. Probably close enough. Just give them some bananas and they’ll grunt anything you want.
Must say though… kind of miss their daily climate doomsday reports with a truly limp promoter/reporter named David Shukman. Even the way he said ‘glaciers’ was funny.
This heat on the BBC must be having its effect. The daily AGW doomsday report is gone but replaced by the more subliminal drum beat of ‘extreme’ weather coverage. They seem to find something to cover every day, thanks to ubiquitous cellphone cameras. Look, it is raining in Peru! This all adds up to brainwashing to support the new ‘restless climate syndrome’ story, or whatever they choose to call it.
Coverage now appears to be almost exclusively trivia related to the upcoming twit bonding ceremony and anti-Qadaffi propaganda (the UK government is no doubt rather embarassed about just sucking up to him to help out BP).
You haven’t been to Norway, I think. It is exactly the same here.
Hugh Pepper, go read ClimateAudit and come back wiser and better informed.
This is from a man who is now a convicted thief.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/07/elliot-morley-admits-mp-expenses-fraud
Look at what his (previous) position was.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7680624.stm
Daily telegraph (weekday) app is certainly sposored by the Carbon Trust. Might explain the bias there too. Don’t forget ad revenues are massively down for newspapers.
This is from a self-confessed thief, a thief stealing from the public purse whilst in public office:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7680624.stm
Here’s his comeuppance:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/07/elliot-morley-admits-mp-expenses-fraud
Please note what office this criminal held in the Globe organisation.
+++ quote
Dave says:
April 24, 2011 at 4:04 am
John Marshall>
No need to pay a license fee for anything except programs you watch as they are broadcast live in the UK. Buy a PVR – personal video recorder – for less than the cost of a years’ license fee, press the button that delays all the programmes by 30 seconds, and bob’s your multicoloured auntie.
+++end quote
Sorry Dave ; if you own equipment capable of receiving television signals you are legally required to have a Television Receiving licence for the property (-ies – one for each) where such equipment is kept/used. Note that recent amendments mean you also need a Licence if you receive your television live over the internet. Since we no longer have common law; the use of a delay system would probably be found to be irrelevant too.
This is interesting:-
http://www.myreader.co.uk/msg/1210848.aspx
They are all in it together!
Patrick Davis says:
April 24, 2011 at 9:04 am
As I say now, down under, maaaaate, hi five to that! However I challenge your stance “they” do not have right of access to your home. You will be surprised “who” has statutory rights to enter your home, even ramblers in the right places, have “right” to “pass through” your home.
I don’t understand what you are trying to say by all these words and phrases in “inverted commas.”
It is a fact that in the UK the TV licencing people do not have any legal right of entry to your home. If there is sufficient evidence to suggest that a crime is taking place, then only the police, with a warrant, have legal right of entry. But simply not having a TV licence is not considered sufficient evidence for the police to invade your home to search for warm television sets.
Is “that” too “hard” for “you” to “understand” Patrick? 😉
…except the scientists were not trying to ‘…”hide the decline” in global temperatures.’ They were “hiding the decline” in a regional proxy on display in a graphic. Why can’t ‘The Telegraph’ get this basic fact straight?
Theo Goodwin says: April 24, 2011 at 10:55 am
Excellent post —Today, journalists do not understand the concept of professional integrity. What is disheartening is that the change happened so quickly and so fully.
———–
Theo, a compliment from you makes my day!
It seems that the only people fooled by the whitewashes were the participants themselves.
Not a big surprise, but the problem remains that the participants include the political elite of most western nations.
You know what they say… “Incest is best…” Hmmm wait a minute, criminals and sicko’s say that… These guys must be related. 😉
Bump:
The Telegraph is a year behind the Sunday Telegraph. Chris Booker wrote about this on 27th March 2010.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/04/hail-msm.html
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/04/last-word.html
The real question is what prompted Jason Lewis to write this article at this time?
MAKING COMPLAINTS TO THE BBC
Do you want to complain to the BBC?
One thing to get straight from the start: – responsibility for the BBC’s editorial content within their Editorial Guidlines rests ultimately with the Director-General, as Editor-in-Chief. This may save complainants a great deal of frustration as the vast Kafka-like bureaucratic monster that the BBC has become will have you pushed from pillar to post as each department asserts that their department is not the one to deal with your complaint, and fobs you off to yet another department or the BBC’s “complaints” web page.
Having had a long experience of dealing with BBC producers and editors, I can say with some authority that complaints are routinely ignored, dismissed, or, as in the case of emails, deleted by one of their army of “screeners” who filter out all adverse comments from their boss’ Inbox.
So write a letter to this bloke, who’s supposedly running the BBC –
Mark Thompson, BBC Director-General
Broadcasting House
Portland Place
London
W1A 1AA
UK
Tel: 020 7580 4468
Fax: 020 7637 1630
Contact the BBC directly –
The BBC Trust
“Your complaint is important to us. The BBC Trust ensures BBC programmes are high quality. If you have a complaint please use this process.”
– Sir Michael Lyons, Chairman of the BBC Trust.
Re. AGW bias:
Last year, Alison Hastings said this:
“The BBC must be inclusive, consider the broad perspective, and ensure that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected. In addition, the new guideline extends the definition of “controversial” subjects beyond those of public policy and political or industrial controversy to include controversy within religion, science, finance, culture, ethics and other matters.”
Contact her directly –
Alison Hastings
BBC Trust Unit
180 Great Portland Street
London
W1W 5QZ
UK
Tel: 03700 100 222
Textphone: 03700 100 212
Email: Send your complaint https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/
For the record, I have written to Alison Hastings myself about the BBC’s coverage of AGW, and I can tell you that she did not reply. Instead, I got a letter from her Correspondence Manager, Bruce Vander. He said that the Trust has no role in editorial matters, which are the domain of the BBC’s management. He said The Trust’s role is to set out the overall framework, known as the BBC’s Editorial Guidlines, which set out the values and standards that all BBC output should meet. He also pointed me to the complaints page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints and said the Trust conducts regular impartiality reviews of BBC editorial content. The current impartiality review concerns science coverage, including “global warming,” and its findings are due to be published later this year.
From all that, I conclude the way to complain is firstly via the complaints page, then to the management, then finally to the Director-General himself.
The BBC will only change their behaviour on this subject if they get a regular avalanche of complaints from the public. They are an insulated, self-serving, arrogant, incestous bureaucracy which ignores the very public it proclaims itself to serve. The more you let them get away with it, the more they will get away with. If the BBC knows their biased and unfair treatment of AGW and the participants in their programs will invoke a storm of objections from viewers and listeners, they may well alter the content of their programs to make them less biased and unfair.
Also write to the BBC Complaints department –
BBC Complaints
PO Box 1922
Darlington
DL3 0UT
UK
There are three stages to the BBC Complaints process. Within 30 working days of the transmission or event you can either:
make a complaint via this website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml#code
Call BBC Audience Services on 03700 100 222
(UK-wide rate charged at no more than 01/02 geographic numbers; calls may be recorded for training)
or write (as above) to BBC Complaints, PO Box 1922, Darlington DL3 0UR
There is also the BBC “Feedback” program which will accept complaints online –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/feedback/contact/
or write to –
Feedback
PO Box number 67234
London
SE1P 4AX
Tel: 03 333 444 544
feedback@bbc.co.uk
Good luck if you complain to “Feedback”. I have never got any sort of reply or airing of my complaints to “Feedback” about this issue, and I’ve been doing it for years.
You can also complain to the broadcasting regulator Ofcom http://www.ofcom.org.uk/ about editorial standards in radio and television broadcasts (but not about online items or the World Service). Ofcom takes complaints about BBC issues except impartiality, inaccuracy and some commercial issues which remain the responsibility of the BBC Trust. Visit the Ofcom website to read about its remit and how to complain.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BBC Statement
We monitor and report in public on the complaints we receive and learn from them to improve our programmes and services.
Stage 1: What happens first when I make a complaint?
We aim to reply to you within 10 working days depending on the nature of your complaint. We also publish public responses to significant issues of wide audience concern on this website.
If we have made a mistake we will apologise and take action to stop it happening again.
If you are dissatisfied with our first response, please contact the department which replied explaining why and requesting a further response to the complaint. If you made your original complaint through this website, you will need to use our webform again. You should normally do this within 20 working days.
Stage 2: If I’m not satisfied with this second reply, what can I do next?
If you consider that the second response you received still does not address your complaint, we will advise you how to take the matter further to this next stage. You should normally do this within 20 working days
If it is about a specific item which you believe has breached BBC editorial standards and it was broadcast or published by the BBC, it will normally be referred to the Editorial Complaints Unit. The Unit will independently investigate your complaint (normally in writing), decide if it is justified and, if so, ensure that the BBC takes appropriate action in response.
Other complaints at this stage will normally be referred to management in the division responsible. For full details of the BBC’s complaints processes please visit the BBC Trust website http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact/complaints_appeals/appeal_trust.shtml
Stage 3: If I still think the BBC has got it wrong what can I do?
The BBC Trust ensures complaints are properly handled by the BBC and that the complaints process reflects best practice and opportunities for learning.
Within 20 working days of your response at Stage 2, you may ask the BBC Trust to consider an appeal against the finding. If the BBC Trust upholds an appeal it expects management to take account of its findings.
You can write to the BBC Trust at 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ. Full details of the complaints and appeals processes are on the BBC Trust website.
We aim to treat every complainant with respect and in return expect equal consideration to be shown to our staff who handle complaints.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Email other BBC programs directly:
Storyville
storyville@bbc.co.uk
Broadcasting House
broadcasting.house@bbc.co.uk
Newsnight Investigations
NewsnightInvestigations@bbc.co.uk
Newsnight
newsnight@bbc.co.uk
Horizon
horizon@bbc.co.uk
Emma Jay
Producer/Director BBC Vision Productions (Horizon)
emma.jay@bbc.co.uk
The Today Program
todaycomplaints@bbc.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BBC apparatchiks
Commissioning Editors
The British Broadcasting Corporation
BBC White City
201 Wood Lane
London
W12 7TS
UK
http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning
Knowledge
George Entwistle
Controller, Knowledge Commissioning & Controller, Editorial standards (BBC Vision)
(Encompasses the new genre areas within the umbrella of Knowledge)
Emma Swain
Head of Knowledge Commissioning
emma.swain@bbc.co.uk
Emma Swain’s role is to provide creative leadership to the team of commissioning editors, supporting the indie and inhouse producers. She will not make individual commissioning decisions, and will report to George Entwistle.
Krishan Arora
Independents Executive
krishan.arora@bbc.co.uk
Krishan doesn’t commission projects, but is the liaison between independent producers and the BBC.
Mary FitzPatrick
Executive Editor Diversity
mary.fitzpatrick@bbc.co.uk
Mary is also not a commissioner, but she works with commissioners and the like, and independent production companies to improve on-screen portrayal and diversity.
Documentaries
Charlotte Moore
Commissioning Editor, Documentaries
Room 6060
BBC TV Centre
Wood Lane
London
W12 7RJ
UK
charlotte.moore@bbc.co.uk
Emma Willis
Commissioning Executive Producer
emma.willis@bbc.co.uk
Maxine Watson
Commissioning Executive Producer
maxine.watson@bbc.co.uk
Addition to comments on media ………….
In May 2007 in Australia the major media corporations formed a coalition titled Right to Know
http://static.townsvillebulletin.com.au/FreeSpeech/jointstatement.html
John Hartigan (CEO and Chairman News Ltd) in October 2007 Andrew Olle Media Lecture
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/john-hartigans-speech/story-e6frg996-1111114685633
Home page: http://www.australiasrighttoknow.com.au/
Speeches avail in pdf and can be sourced in left hand column.
Frankly, the story needs restating. WHERE is the outrage at being lied to! Deceived! The peoples trust abused!
Here are three details from Booker’s column from 27 March, 2010:
“What Lord Oxburgh kept quiet about, however, is that he is also a director and vice-chairman of…Globe International. The name stands for “Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment”, and it describes itself as a worldwide network to lobby governments to take more drastic action on climate change.
Globe clearly knows how to pick its men. Its UK parliamentary team also includes Elliot Morley MP, Globe’s former president… ”
OUTRAGE! please.
sHx says: April 24, 2011 at 3:16 am
“I was prepared to give the benefit of doubt to Russell and Oxburgh inquires,”
At the time of Climategate I believed these inquiries were being run by honest people who were mistaken.
That presumption was clearly wrong: at least some of the people involved in these inquires knowingly lied and/or hid their personal involvement and prior bias and to be frank it all stinks rotten like the MP’s expenses scandal.
vigilantfish says: April 24, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Theo Goodwin says: April 24, 2011 at 10:55 am
Excellent post —Today, journalists do not understand the concept of professional integrity…
Yes, I forgot, the phone hacking scandal shows the press our up to their armpits in corruption so it would be a bit of the pot calling the kettle black for them to criticise the politicians and scientific “elite”.
David. There is much less freedom in Australia. My experience there was that it was/has become akin to a dictatorship where governments/police have much more rights than individuals. They can enter your house for any reason even local council authorities, for any reason.
Anthony Watts says:
April 24, 2011 at 10:33 am
Pam I have no trouble probably your DNS provider try opendns.org I think
———————————————————————————–
It’s http://www.opendns.com/
Easy to install, I’ve used it for several years.
Ted says: “In the 1950′s and 60.s the BBC drove around our cities and towns with scanner Vans/trucks looking for people without Radio and TV licenses (My mother would panic at the sight of them)…”
…It was revealed about two years ago in a radio program and a subsequent TV program that these vans actually detected nothing. The real panic was caused by the BBC “adverts” declaring that they had the technology to detect unlicensed televisions in your house – the most memorable line being “We know where you are”. It was BBC lying propaganda, which had the sole purpose of inducing enough panic in anyone with an unlicensed television at the sight of one of these vans in their area to make them rush to the Post Office and buy a license.
What was in these vans? A wooden shelf for an oscillator (which most of the public never knew could not actually detect an unlicensed television but was used as set decoration because it looked the part), some cabling, and some fold-away chairs for “operatives” while they waited for the moment when they would spring out the back doors, clipboard in hand, and march officiously up to some unfortunate’s door to demand production of their television license. The whole thing was a massive psychological campaign of lying propaganda with a bit of street theatre thrown in so as to keep the public scared enough to keep buying television licenses.
Alexander.
“IMHO the problem is not the TV set but the lies and propaganda that are being produced and disseminated by powerful politico/business cartels with a worldwide reach.”
I totally agree and for that very reason I “chucked” the television, it would be pointless paying the licence fee and just ignoring it.
The remainder of your post does not merit further discussion, IMHO of course.
John.
Ralph says:
April 24, 2011 at 10:36 am
“Tell you what, if you can write a paper successfully explaining who created the Creator, then I can guarantee you a Nobel.”
You just proved my point! I never said a creator created it! I only said that to question the validity of darwin is a carier ender. There are many problems in Darwin theory but you can’t even hint at this or you will be axed. Just as in Climategate, the emporer (Darwin’s theory) has no clothes.
Kate
Would you do a video on all that? I think you have hit U-tube material there, if you can show how nonresponsive BBC is in its complaints departments.
We seem to need assurances from authorities, media and the like for our own takes on even the most obvious things like a whitewash. This is why whitewashes are done with impunity. This is why propaganda works so well. The majority can be convinced of oxymoronic hypotheses like the increasing cold is being caused by warming and the increasing warming is also caused by warming. The warmist scientists breathe a sigh of relief when they learn that the inquiries exonerated the AGW scientists and that even if they were to have made huge manipulations of the data, the science is sound. Those making the inquiry know that the thinking person knows they are blatant frauds, but they also know that the thinking person is in the minority. I’m not so relieved that the Telegraph now thinks it was all a whitewash because I know they already knew that from the beginning – but now they are smelling blood of a dying beast and have to position themselves to come out of it all nice and clean.
@Lucy Skywalker 6:54 am
Hi Lucy. Thanks for the idea.
The problem with the BBC is that it has become completely detached from reality on this subject, seemingly listening only to itself, its supporters in other media organisations, and fellow travelers from various pressure groups, politicians, and regulators. Trying to get any sort of dialogue with the BBC on this issue reminds me of visiting a friend’s child who had a brain disorder. It mattered not what you did or said to him, he would just ignore you and carry on playing, singing, and talking to himself until he wanted to notice you or somebody else in the room, which was quite a rare occasion as I remember him.
The BBC reminds me of that.
Would any YouTube video change anything at the BBC? I’d like to think so, but what are the chances?
Kate, that’s exactly why I thought, U-tube. Bypass the official route that is broken down. I think a lot of the MSM have detached themselves… look at the difference between, say, Monbiot and the comments after his pieces, even those that are allowed. There is a whole message needs to get out – “If you want to communicate successfully, take heed of your critics and give them air space. If you don’t, you are tampering with the lynchpin of democracy and justice, freedom of speech, and you will – eventually – pay the price, because people actually care about truth in the end.”
Lucy Skywalker @ 11:32 am “… a lot of the MSM have detached themselves…”
…Most British media organisations are either corrupt, don’t really care about reporting the truth anymore, or are just plain scared of facing the consequences of going against the “consensus”. Look at the BBC. It’s nothing but a gigantic bureaucracy, totally incestuous, self-obsessed, and terrified of upsetting politicians, because it’s the tax-raising AGW-loving ministers that control the BBC’s purse-strings. And let’s not forget the little matter of the £800+ million black hole in the BBC’s pension fund. This is the same BBC pension fund that has massive investments in Carbon Trading firms.
The first priority of any bureaucracy is to survive, and its second priority is to expand its power and influence, and the last thing, right at the bottom of its list of priorities, is to serve the public as the public deserves and needs to be served. In the face of all that, what can a YouTube video achieve? It would be opposing the closed ranks of the entire British Establishment. It would be like fighting gravity – very brave and noble, but doomed.
Generations to come will look back on this time and laugh at us. “How could they ever have believed in that “global warming” claptrap?” they will say, regarding our generation as being possessed and damned.
About 30 years ago there was a programme (UK spelling!) broadcast by the BBC on the Horizon science series called ‘When Polar Bears Swam in the Thames’.
It was probably a bit topical then as a result of all the alarmist stuff about global cooling and the approaching new ice age.
I remember it as being well researched and evenly presented. It had little to do with what might happen any time soon in the UK. It just showed how much had changed over many thousands of years. The nearest polar bears are now on Svarlbard, north of Norway.
I am surprised it has not been shown again – the BBC could then claim to have shown how much global warming there has been and that they have known about it for years… (sarc off)
NOTE: THIS IS SPAM, AND NOW THE SUBJECT OF THIS POST
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/25/climate-craziness-of-the-week-greentabs-for-gasoline/
– Anthony
==============================================
Hello,
I was just on your web site today and I love it. I am also an Eco Green Company
proud owner and we both have something very unique in common. My company’s
philosophy is “Be Part Of The Solution …Not The Pollution.” I am looking
to form an alliance with a company like yours that has the same vision and
mission for our families and world for the future.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
I am not going to try to sell you anything but to see if both our companies can
work together and support each other’s business and help our neighbors and
the world at hand. I have been in business with my husband Tom for over 13
years and one of our main objectives is to introduce innovative, cost savings
Eco friendly proven products to our clients and friends. We have such an opportunity.
As business owners, we are always looking to the future and trying to capture the
opportunities that are ahead of the “TREND” and are positioned perfectly in today’s
world economy that also supports the “Eco Green” movement.
We have such an opportunity in GreenFootGlobal.com/freegas.
Getting more to the point:
——————————————————————————————————————————-
The “credibility and “reputation” of our Drive Green, Save Green product is as follows:
1. The engineering and chemistry of our product has won the “Nobel” prize.
No other company world wide can say this.
2. EnviroTabs is EPA registered.
3. EnviroTabs has a world wide “Patent”.
4. EnviroTabs reduces harmful emissions up to 85%……YES!!! 85%.
5. EnviroTabs increases your MPG up to 38%…(tremendous gas savings).
6. EnviroTabs lowers your maintenance costs
(truck oil changes are now at 40,000+ miles between oil changes)
………………..and so many more documented benefits….see the links below.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
At Greenfoot Global, our goal is to reduce the world�s dependency on fossil fuels
and also reduce emissions in at least 10% of the world�s vehicles. By using and
promoting EnviroTabs �, you can do your part to help the planet. In looking at your
web site and the great Eco service and product you offer, it seems that our
Drive Green, Save Green product complements your company’s mission and I
would ask you to consider an alliance in marketing and advertising our product.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
You will find additional info in the links below. I know that you are really busy and
taking on another opportunity may be the last thing you want to do. But if it makes
money from day one and lines up with your mission ……..then you need to take a
serious look at it. This has a world wide impact and opportunity and is ahead
of the “TREND”.
Let’s talk soon to discuss how we can form an alliance with your business today
and the other opportunities you may have tomorrow. Or you can email with your
interest and questions.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
The following are some good links & info (a small sample of what we are about):
Copy & Paste the links below if needed
1. Intro Video
2. How It works Questions & Answers (the science starts at 2.37…one of my favorites..)
3. GFG Math Class…can I make money?
4. Testimonials
5. Testimonials #2 ….You Have To See This…Real Business Owners and People
http://www.youtube.com/djkmarkets#p/u
Thank you and have a great Eco green day.
PS: Visit my website below.
Sue
Sue & Tom Gregan
http://www.GreenFootGlobal.com/freegas
412-366-4563
“See You At The Pump”
Go Green, Drive Green, Save Green, Make Green
Hello,
I was just on your web site today and I love it. I am also an Eco Green Company
proud owner and we both have something very unique in common. My company’s
philosophy is “Be Part Of The Solution …Not The Pollution.” I am looking
to form an alliance with a company like yours that has the same vision and
mission for our families and world for the future.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
I am not going to try to sell you anything but to see if both our companies can
work together and support each other’s business and help our neighbors and
the world at hand. I have been in business with my husband Tom for over 13
years and one of our main objectives is to introduce innovative, cost savings
Eco friendly proven products to our clients and friends. We have such an opportunity.
As business owners, we are always looking to the future and trying to capture the
opportunities that are ahead of the “TREND” and are positioned perfectly in today’s
world economy that also supports the “Eco Green” movement.
We have such an opportunity in GreenFootGlobal.com/freegas.
Getting more to the point:
——————————————————————————————————————————-
The “credibility and “reputation” of our Drive Green, Save Green product is as follows:
1. The engineering and chemistry of our product has won the “Nobel” prize.
No other company world wide can say this.
2. EnviroTabs is EPA registered.
3. EnviroTabs has a world wide “Patent”.
4. EnviroTabs reduces harmful emissions up to 85%……YES!!! 85%.
5. EnviroTabs increases your MPG up to 38%…(tremendous gas savings).
6. EnviroTabs lowers your maintenance costs
(truck oil changes are now at 40,000+ miles between oil changes)
………………..and so many more documented benefits….see the links below.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
At Greenfoot Global, our goal is to reduce the worlds dependency on fossil fuels
and also reduce emissions in at least 10% of the worlds vehicles. By using and
promoting EnviroTabs ®, you can do your part to help the planet. In looking at your
web site and the great Eco service and product you offer, it seems that our
Drive Green, Save Green product complements your company’s mission and I
would ask you to consider an alliance in marketing and advertising our product.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
You will find additional info in the links below. I know that you are really busy and
taking on another opportunity may be the last thing you want to do. But if it makes
money from day one and lines up with your mission ……..then you need to take a
serious look at it. This has a world wide impact and opportunity and is ahead
of the “TREND”.
Let’s talk soon to discuss how we can form an alliance with your business today
and the other opportunities you may have tomorrow. Or you can email with your
interest and questions.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
The following are some good links & info (a small sample of what we are about):
Copy & Paste the links below if needed
1. Intro Video
2. How It works Questions & Answers (the science starts at 2.37…one of my favorites..)
3. GFG Math Class…can I make money?
4. Testimonials
5. Testimonials #2 ….You Have To See This…Real Business Owners and People
http://www.youtube.com/djkmarkets#p/u
Thank you and have a great Eco green day.
PS: Visit my website below.
Sue
Sue & Tom Gregan
http://www.GreenFootGlobal.com/freegas
412-366-4563
“See You At The Pump”
Go Green, Drive Green, Save Green, Make Green
Re Duncan at 3.42 pm on 24 April – the Carbon Trust may sponsor the Daily Telegraph App now, but for how much longer when their own funding base changes?
I’d be interested to see a breakdown of funding given to organisations with positions on each side of the carbon case, particularly by the UK government and the EU Commission. I suspect the bias is heavily towards the AGW lobby,, but is there any evidence out there to show that I am wrong?
As a British tax payer I find this account most disturbing and I shall certainly be writing to my MP regarding this matter.
One of the comments on the linked Telegraph article says:
Recall that part of the Climategate leak was the metadata of “Harry” the programmer, who stated that having lost many years of temperature data, he would ‘make it up’ as he went along. Years of fabricated temperature data was invented out of whole cloth, showing non-existent warming.
I’ve read some of the emails, but I don’t remember anything that would indicate quite what is being said here. Could anyone point me to the specific email(s) that this comment is referring to?
TonyG,
The Harry_read_me file contained this comment.
John Marshall says:
I have concerns that my licence fee, to operate a TV set, of £135 per year helps to pay for all this BBC climate rubbish. The fee, in reality a TAX, must be paid on threat of imprisonment.
I find this, and the following comments about various “license fees”, to be quite troubling. A license to watch television? What’s next, a license to buy books? A license to have a glass of wine with your steak (that also needs a license)?
Not all that far-fetched – look at the hollering about how cattle farming is so bad for the environment.
What’s most troubling is how easily this is accepted.
More on this story from the National Post:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/26/lorne-gunter-former-politicians-plotting-to-sell-climate-change-scare/