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”
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/