UPDATES ARE CONTINUOUSLY BEING ADDED at the end of this story. Check below.
WUWT readers may recall this post last week:
The Secret 28 Who Made BBC ‘Green’ Will Not Be Named
The BBC pits six lawyers against one questioning blogger, Tony Newbery of Harmless Sky, who was making an FOI request for the 28 names. In the process, the judge demonstrates he has partisan views on climate change.
Now, thanks to the Wayback machine and Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) we can now read the list that the BBC fought to keep secret. [Damn those mischevious bloggers 😉 ]
This list has been obtained legally. (link to Wayback document.) My heartiest congratulations to Maurizo for his excellent sleuthing!
Maurizo writes: This is for Tony, Andrew, Benny, Barry and for all of us Harmless Davids.
The list from: January 26th 2006, BBC Television Centre, London
Specialists:
Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
Claire Foster, Church of England
Saleemul Huq, IIED
Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
Matthew Farrow, CBI
Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
Joe Smith, The Open University
Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
Anita Neville, E3G
Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia
BBC attendees:
Jana Bennett, Director of Television
Sacha Baveystock, Executive Producer, Science
Helen Boaden, Director of News
Andrew Lane, Manager, Weather, TV News
Anne Gilchrist, Executive Editor Indies & Events, CBBC
Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning
Elizabeth McKay, Project Executive, Education
Emma Swain, Commissioning Editor, Specialist Factual
Fergal Keane, (Chair), Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Fran Unsworth, Head of Newsgathering
George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs
Glenwyn Benson, Controller, Factual TV
John Lynch, Creative Director, Specialist Factual
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
Jon Williams, TV Editor Newsgathering
Karen O’Connor, Editor, This World, Current Affairs
Catriona McKenzie, Tightrope Pictures catriona@tightropepictures.com
BBC Television Centre, London (cont)
Liz Molyneux, Editorial Executive, Factual Commissioning
Matt Morris, Head of News, Radio Five Live
Neil Nightingale, Head of Natural History Unit
Paul Brannan, Deputy Head of News Interactive
Peter Horrocks, Head of Television News
Peter Rippon, Duty Editor, World at One/PM/The World this Weekend
Phil Harding, Director, English Networks & Nations
Steve Mitchell, Head Of Radio News
Sue Inglish, Head Of Political Programmes
Frances Weil, Editor of News Special Events
For those who don’t know what this is about, read the back story here.
Here is the backup link to the original document just in case the original disappears:
Real World Brainstorm Sep 2007 background (PDF)
============================================================
UPDATE: Now this Climategate 2.0 email makes more sense, as they’ve just been carrying water for CRU and the eco-NGO’s all along. The meeting with the 28 was just a pep rally. From: this WUWT post:
BBC’s Kirby admission to Phil Jones on “impartiality”
Alex Kirby in email #4894 writing about the BBC’s “neutrality”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
date: Wed Dec 8 08:25:30 2004
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.xx.xx>
subject: RE: something on new online.
to: “Alex Kirby” <alex.kirby@bbc.xxx.xx>
At 17:27 07/12/2004, you wrote:
Yes, glad you stopped this — I was sent it too, and decided to
spike it without more ado as pure stream-of-consciousness rubbish. I can well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them
say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats.
—–Original Message—–
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
BBC and “impartiality”…”ho, ho” indeed.
UPDATE: ‘TwentyEightGate’ was coined by RoyFOMR in comments. I liked it enough to put in the title.
UPDATE3 – Barry Woods writes in an email to me:
Don’t forget Mike Hulme Climategate email. why he funded CMEP, to keep sceptics OFF BBC airwaves… (below)
Mike Hulme:
“Did anyone hear Stott vs. Houghton on Today, radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really.
This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source.” (email 2496)
let us also not forget, that Roger Harrabin BBC & CMEP – (and Greenpeace Bill Hare) were also on the Tyndall board from 2002 to at least Nov 2005.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/climategate-2-impartiality-at-the-bbc/
When did Roger Harrabin step down from Tyndall advisory board?
(and he no made no mention, when reporting Climategate, of connections)
Tyndall were funding CMEP seminars for years to persuade the BBC, so not just that seminar, but years worth of lobbying
UPDATE4: Bishop Hill makes this excerpt from correspondence the “quote of the day”:
We now know that the BBC decided to abandon balance in its coverage of climate on the advice of a small coterie of green activists, including the campaign director of Greenpeace. This shows that the “shoddy journalism” of Newsnight’s recent smear was no “lapse” of standards at all. BBC news programs have for years been poorly checked recitations of the work of activists.
UPDATE5: Maurizo has added some analysis.
Summary for those without much time to read it all: Why the List of Participants to the BBC CMEP Jan 2006 Seminar is important
http://omnologos.com/why-the-list-of-participants-to-the-bbc-cmep-jan-2006-seminar-is-important/
UPDATE 6: Maurizo asked to add this –
I have not “given” the 28Gate list any importance. In fact, not one of the bloggers and journalists and commenters has “given” the 28Gate list any importance. It has been the BBC that GAVE IMPORTANCE TO 28GATE by spending so much money on lawyers. Therefore, 28Gate is important.
Whilst a big congrats to those behind the detective work to find the names on this list…….i still think another meeting alluded to in the climategate e mails needs looking into who attended the Meeting at the Dorchester Hotel london which i think Al Gore set up..or am i thinking of something else???
The demand of the BeeBeeFee Slayers should be for civilian oversight of the BooBooWhee, the civilians being chosen at random from the list of subscribers. I.e., for a form of demarchy. (You can look it up.)
We have been lied to. No wonder they wanted to keep the list secret. Here it is from their own mouths. [my bold]
The bias Richard Black chose to ignore this important paragraph.
Oh, I nearly forgot, CONGRATULATIONS omnologos you are bad. 😉
@Aussie Poostirrer
Does B.B.C stand for British [snip] Children? or British Behind Communism?
In the famous words of Neil Hamilton’s wife, it’s “B*gg*rs Broadcasting Communism”
Gets both aspects of the problem in rather well…
Oh no. The LIES.
Here is the reply made by the BBC to blogger Tony Newbery who made a Freedom of Information Request to find out the names of the attendees. [my bold]
Yeah, right. Here are some of the “specialists”. :-p
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
Claire Foster, Church of England
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
How can you trust the British Bias Corporation on climate issues?
It’s definitely not about the science.
Just a nit: why are they thirty? Ah, never mind.
00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000
Congratulations to omnologos!
To understand the context of the seminar, you need to read Rules of the game: the principles of climate change communication, published by Futerra in October 2005. The link is here:
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/RulesOfTheGame.pdf
Two quotes to whet the appetite:
“2. Forget the climate change detractors
Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but
unimportant. The argument is not about if we should deal with climate
change, but how we should deal with climate change.”
and
“16. Create a trusted, credible, recognised voice on
climate change
We need trusted organisations and individuals that the media can
call upon to explain the implications of climate change to the
UK public.”
Among the sponsors of this report were three UK government departments, DEFRA, DTI and the Environment Agency. This document may be worth a post on its own.
The change in BBC policy was, and remains, in breach of its Charter. This was investigated by the BBC in the Bridcut Report, which the BBC ignored – this also may be worth a post. While everyone is on the sleuthing trail, why not look up Warm Words too? Think of it as a primer on brain washing.
Jolly Farmer wrote about TV licence – Sorry, we’re stuffed. Follow this link for advice: http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/phones_tv_internet_and_computers_index_e/consumer_tv_licences_e/about_tv_licences.htm . This shows what a totalitarian state Brits live in JOE A-smith
George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs
Currently in the news as to whether he’s going to take the big pay-off from the Beeb he’s been offered. Leaving the sinking ship was probably one of his better decisions.
Barry Woods says:
November 13, 2012 at 2:03 am
I would love to hear Hulme’s scientific refutation of that. Now, of course he can’t.
Anyone who calls Hulme a scientist is a liar. He’s a rent-seeking impostor.
Aussie Poostirrer says:
November 13, 2012 at 2:00 am
“Does B.B.C stand for British [snip] Children? or British Behind Communism?”
Broad-banging C*mmunists.
Peter Miller says:
November 13, 2012 at 12:23 am
No one seems to have noticed the absence of Mr Richard Black from the list, the BBC science reporter notorious for being able to argue black is white (no pun intended) on all matters to do with climate.
The list is of invitees, if Black was an organiser along with Harribin then they both would be there but not listed as they would have invited others but not themselves.
Maurizio, excellent work!
Once this is fully parsed and explained in a simplified format that a MSM journo can understand (it will have to be very simple) we may see change we can believe in. I wont hold by breath though.
That army marching for the truth will not be stopped! I think this is going to be big.
Now we have find out out what the few scientists on the list actually said to the BBC.
I bet they didn’t get a word in edgewise with those activists.
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
PS: on civil disobedience wrt the BBC fee: The leaders of my proposed BeeBeeFree Party should demand “demarchy.” I.e., that a board of civilian overseers, composed of mere subscribers chosen by lot, should be established as the ultimate power at the BBC. I urge Britishers with gumption, like Delingpole, to put the castle under siege.
You may remember a Prof of Genetics Steve Jones who the BBC asked to give a lecture designed to generate the idea that as “thousands of scientists” said the science was proven and the science was settled, engendered the notion of “due impartiality”. This bureaucratic slight of hand gave the BBC an effective and justifiable – in their eyes – means of denying airtime to anyone who cared to challenge the authenticity of AGW whom the lecture supposed were in the minority and therefore should not have a voice. The same Prof Steven Jones when asked to comment on the research of Prof Gerald Crabtree implying that advances in human intellect and intelligence for the first time has gone into reverse which if you care to observe the cognitive behaviour of BBC staff would seem to support the idea said this “If I was to be nasty I’d say it’s just plucking stuff out of the air,” “It’s what I call arts faculty science – where there’s an interesting hypothesis and no data to back it up”. My observation is that Prof Gerald is most likely correct otherwise how can it be possible for a supposedly well respected and sentient human being to support one hypothesis that is as yet unsupported by data whilst trashing another for the same reason. Unless of course his cronies at the BBC decided if Prof Steve Jones did the lecture then we as unthinking unintelligent mutants would automatically accept that as it was Steven Jones making the lecture that we would automatically take the opinion ‘well a man of his integrity would not tell a lie, would he?’ I wonder how much he was paid?
Reblogged this on madperspective and commented:
According to BBC, to be an climate specialist, you can sit in literally any field and still qualify! Not surprising, since everyone has an agenda these days!
Complaint sent to BBC regarding the above. Please do the same
The BBC recently had an FOI request turned down requesting that the names of 28 people who attended a top level meeting convened to decide how the BBC reported “climate change”. Now that this list is in public hands, I wish to know the reasons behind the attendance of the following people.
The first block contains the names of known activists and non-sceptical climate scientists.
The second those who have no business whatsoever having ANY input into BBC policy on this matter.
List 1
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA (Scientist and activist)
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace (activist)
Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net (Activist)
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation – Left wing think tank
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China – activist
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos – activist
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables – commercial interest
Anita Neville, E3G – activist
List 2
Trevor Evans, US Embassy – WHAT’?
Claire Foster, Church of England – ditto
The only real surprise is that Jimmy Saville is not on the list.
There is no indication in the list of names that there was any balance in the discussions that take place – there are many reputable and well known climate scientists and scientists who do not concede the CAGW meme. Without such in attendance, and most especially with so many activists involved, I put it to you that there was never ANY possibility of future balanced reporting on climate.
Conspiracy theorist thought here. Terry Wogan used to mock AGW news on his well-listened to radio 2 show. Also, his contributors, via e-mail, mocked AGW…. He has now bbeen replaced by a more compliant Chris Evans…. Just a thought
Mr Watts
I hope that your correct opinion that the BBC’s climate change coverage breaks its charter does not result in your site advocating the break up of the BBC or its sale to a foreign owner.
The BBC has tens of thousands of decent, hard-working employees and most of what it does is good, very good or excellent. Like all organisations it has its faults, faults which exist to every great a level in the far-right press organs of the UK (notably that they are owned by tax avoiders, foreigners with no interest in the wellbeing of the UK etc etc, that they allow politicians to be depicted as nazis in general election campaigns, they allow the Deputy Prime Minister to be repeatedly grossly insulted by ‘bloggers’ using filth that no moderator could possibly allow to pass if they had but one of the moral standards apparently demanded by their owners/the Conservative Party, they demand a Free Press but censure bloggers operating within proper codes of conduct with impunity etc etc etc). It is not, however, a dead duck, nor is it an organisation which should be sold off to foreigners to satisfy some crazed far-right dictum but in reality would further the agenda of the unaccountable global financial elite who believe with a fervour in autocratic rule.
I and many millions of people do not wish to see the BBC judged by partisan self-serving right wingers.
I wish it to be held to the highest standards by fair-minded judges who are UK citizens.
It is, after all, the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation, not the NEW YORK Broadcasting Corporation, the SAUDI ARABIAN Broadcasting Corporation or the KGB Broadcasting Corporation.
I hope that will not be too much to ask for, since if it is, I may need to raise questions as to whether you are receiving funding from Rupert Murdoch. Were you bashing the BBC whilst taking the Murdoch shilling, your interest in science would have shifted to an interest in mafia-style lynch mob hangings.
I hope and trust that that never comes to pass.
RTJ
polistra says:
November 12, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Really makes me wonder why the Beeb was fighting disclosure so hard and expensively. I don’t see any names or organizations on that list that surprise me in the slightest. Purely the usual suspects. In fact one big class of usual suspects is nearly absent from the list: corporations, investors and reinsurance firms with a monetary vested interest in pushing Green nonsense. (Only BP was there.)
_____________________________________________
BP was there so the “big Oil funded Climate Denier” campaign looks really foolish and you missed:
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
For the Brits
Colin Challen: Chair All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change House of Commons
For Americans
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
In other words both the US government and the UK government had representatives at a meeting determining what PROPAGANDA would be fed to the UK citizens. WORSE that propaganda is being dictated by a bunch of wild-eyed activists and corporations that will profit from lying to and scaring the crud out of the public.
Lets follow a few money strings.
Sure looks like npower renewables profited nicely from the propaganda.
Also see Patrick Michaels’ Why Enron Wants Global Warming
So that is the ENRON connection to the US Government and through that the US Embassy.
And last there is Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
Traveller said: “Claire Foster is national policy adviser on environmental issues for the Church of England. It pains me that the Church of England seems to be hi-jacked by every fashionable eco-cause, it pains me more that someone is paid to hold this position.”
It is rational behavior to promote climate catastrophe when your pension scheme is a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change – the group that have previously called for the investment markets to be fixed in favour of green investments. The BBC Trust pension scheme is also a member.
I’m re-posting a comment I made at Bishop Hill:
Harrabin, Harrabin, Harrabin.
Seems he’s the one pulling all the strings on climate policy at the BBC.
As Don Keller reminds us [at Bishop Hill], Harrabin is the one, along with Joe Smith, as far back as 2001, asking Mike Hulme “What should the BBC be doing this time in terms of news, current affairs, drama, documentaries, game shows, music etc” leading up to the Earth Summit in Rio. [see Climategate email #3757.txt]
Then, within 4 years, Harrabin organises a “seminar” at which Hulme is a speaker. Management from across all of the BBC’s output is invited – you might say “news, current affairs, drama, documentaries, game shows, music etc.” and subjected to brainwashing by, basically, a bunch of activists.
The effect of this “seminar” is so profound, that it finds its way into “From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel”, a report by the BBC Trust, no less, in 2007. With no trace of irony, the report is subtitled “Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century”. Let us be reminded what this “Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st centruy” report says on the subject of reporting climate change:
“The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus”.
Harrabin and Smith’s brainwave from 2001 is now BBC policy, affecting all of its output from news and current affairs to drama, documentaries, comedy “etc”. The most powerful broadcaster in the world pumping out a one-sided message on climate change through everything it does.
By pure serendipitous happenstance, there was a prime example of this on Today on R4 this morning. I only caught the headline report, so don’t know waht was said in the more detailed piece. It was to do with oil production in the US. Apparently, by around 202, the US may well become the largest oil producer in the world. OK, whatever, you may think. On the BBC website, this story can be found in the “Business” section here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20304848
There is nothing (as I write) on the Environment pages.
Now, who did the BBC have speaking about this on R4 this morning? Yup, Harrabin. And what random point did he chuck in at the end? Unbelievably, it was the zombie alarmist argument about fossil fuel “subsidies”. I couldn’t quite believe my ears, so can’t vouch for whether my recollection is entirely accurate, but it went something like: “fossil fuel subsidies will be SIX TIMES [emphasis in the original] greater than for renewables.” and “threat to the planet blah blah”. There a couple of really important points here:
1. The “fossil fuel subsidy” meme is highly deceptive and disingenuous. At a time when the BBC is desperately trying to re-establish TRUST in its output, it seems a particularly stupid point to try to make. Harrabin must surely be aware of the highly spurious nature of this point, yet he makes it anyway. Unless, of course, he employs the Entwistle defence of “I didn’t know, I didn’t look, nobody told me.” Either way it seems he is deceitful or ignorant.
2. How and why has Harrabin got his grubby green paws on a story from the Business news section and been able to leave his nasty, biased, anti-energy fingerprints all over it? And why is he making a spurious point on the radio about “fossil fuel subsidies” that is not covered in the web report, linked to above?
The current BBC “T/trust” reviews need to extended to climate change coverage. And Harrabin, it seems to me, should be joining Boaden and many of the others who attended the brainwashing session in “stepping aside”.
Me:
What about ‘The 28 Steps’?
Richard