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”
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.