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.
British Brainwashing Corporation…
& from tallblokes link above, ‘Dangerous News’ – in the conclusions:
” In such cases the climate change science and policy community would be taking more
control of the representation of, for example, floods
and storms to ensure that exaggeration or ignorance
of possible climate change links is reduced.”
This conspiracy is no longer a theory.
Here is what Antony Jay (in charge of “Yes Minister”) said in his foreword to Booker’s report:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_263808.pdf
See page 4.
Now work out how the government is going to pay the state pension debts that it has hidden off the books.
Ah yes. Contingent liability is the jargon. If we can’t pay it, we make the theft legal.
4.7 trillion (not billion) and that’s been fiddled down.
Mind you the BBC are so financially illiterate they still think you can pay off a deficit.
Is it possible to get the minutes of these meetings/workshops? Several have mentioned an on-going series of such gatherings.
THAT would be the final nail in the coffin–and for indivuduals attending, their coffins.
Peter Miller says:
November 13, 2012 at 5:59
“I think we may have got it all wrong, here is an exclusive interview with His Charlieness”
You are a bit hard on Charlie, he has a great insight into climate matters, derived from his many conversations with the trees.
I do not think the media will pick up on this as long as it is described as “BBC lied about the secret meeting attendance” since it is too much of interpretation of who said what, and the BBC is sure to have used some weasel words in their descriptions. Too difficult. Better to follow the advice in the paper Tallbloke found where it is clearly stated that media has difficulties with “issues” but love stories. I think Dodgy Geezer above is on the right track with his storyline, but it is still too long.
Why not describe it as the joke it is: “BBC hired 6 lawyers to refuse a blogger’s FOI request in court only to have the document found by another blogger on the internet a week later. It turned out the BBC had published the information on their website years ago.” Maybe that could get some traction, and perhaps raise interest in what the information was about and then what’s the significance etc.
But you have to start simple I think.
Dodgygeezer says:
“My understanding of the history is that the BBC unilaterally dropped their Charter requirement to provide balance in reporting Global Warming, purely due to internal activists. This change was noticed by outside bloggers, who started asking questions about why the BBC was in breach of its Charter.
So, to shut them up, the BBC responded that they had duly considered the issue, and received proper scientific advice that there was no real controversy – the science was settled. They picked a recent internal seminar (which had been held to promulgate the Global Warming message to internal BBC staff) and claimed that this comprised ‘the top scientific brains’ who had provided this policy advice. There had been NO minutes – odd, for such a fundamental policy decision.”
This version has the smell of truth about it. An attempt to justify another part of BBC policy/philosophy being hijacked by activists. Just makes it worse – what a bunch of amateurs!
Or maybe (??) to get out while the getting was good, like Thomson (presumably).
An interesting side note about Greenpeace.
“Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace”
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/03/14/peer-into-the-heart-of-the-ipcc-find-greenpeace/
So there you have it ladies and gentlemen. The IPCC and BBC have their work influenced by an activist group called Greenpeace and yet the BBC are supposed to be objective. The IPCC is supposed to be the gold standard. What a load of bull[snip]. Colour me sceptical.
—–
Tony Newbery, the chap who put in the FOI comments.
“Are these the BBC’s ‘best scientific experts’?”
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=607
RockyRoad:
re your post at November 13, 2012 at 6:21 am
Information has no power.
Information is a useful tool for those with the power to use it.
How do you suggest the information in the minutes of the meetings should be used?
And how would it be more useful than the information about who attended the meetings?
Richard
IR Spectroscopy, an established field of study and science, hinges DIRECTLY on this subject as it relates to gas molecule response to EM (electromagnetic) waves, both absorption and emission owing to the molecule’s dipole ‘moments’ because of constituent makeup-atom position within the molecule. No knowledge of IR Spectroscopy and little knowledge of any given molecule’s response to EM energy including LWIR (longwave InfraRed) …
.
Nice how commenter Rhys Jaggers, after being forced to acknowledge the depth of mendacity in the BBC, spends nearly his entire post venting his hatred at “extreme right wing” news organizations and then clearly insinuating that our host, Mr, Watts, is taking money from the Murdochs (or some other demon du jour, the specific name of the bogeyman never really matters.
And claiming that the BBC still has to be supported because it is British, or something.
I’ve never before seen this proposition proven so convincingly: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” (Samuel Johnson, April 7, 1775)
Reblogged this on Ruth Wasmuth Memorial Website and commented:
Other References:
“Revealed: who decides the BBC’s climate change policy” by Sebastian Payne, The Spectator, November 13, 2012.
Note that Esteve Corbera of Tyndall was present at the May 2004 IBT meeting – i.e. Tyndall in there from the very start… fine, but no balance
Seems to be some confusion about the TV licence fee. It has never been to pay for or to watch the BBC. The licence fee was required by anyone to own and operate equipment capable of receiving televised broadcasts.
The BBC were authorised by the government to collect the fee. It was never paid to the BBC but goes to a consolidated government fund. The government funds the BBC as a public service broadcaster.
There is no mitigation in saying that you don’t watch or can’t receive BBC because that’s simply not what you are paying for. It was always an operator’s license. A few years back (2006 I think ) it became a ratified government tax ( it always was a stealth tax, they just would not admit it ) and now you require a license if you have any equipment capable of receiving live television broadcasts by any UK broadcaster. That includes Computers, tablets and other similar devices.
You don’t need a license to watch recorded broadcasts.
I used to sell & rent TVs. Every tv sold or rented requires that the purchaser give their details on a legal document which puts them on a database of owners which the retailer must legally send to the government via the post office. ( I don’t mean just by post but that the UK post office was in charge of receiving these document for the government ) If the address has no license they serve the reminders. If these are ignored they serve the demands. If these are ignored they send people out. If these are refused entry or not given a satisfactory explanation they send the detector van out. This just determines if a TV is being used ( easy to pick up the 15625khz emitted from the line timebase or it was in my day, but then I remember valves ;)) this is so that a search warrant can be applied for. THEN they can enter your premises and any TV capable of operation on the premises will get you a hefty fine and now it’s tax evasion.
Sorry for all the parenthesis, it’s easier than fixing the grammar as I have afterthoughts and remember bits to stick in. Shoddy I know.
This is also a good time to point out that this is far from the biggest scandal tearing at the heart of the BBC today; there is the twin Paedophilia scandals.
Part 1: First, top managers and apparently most middle managers knew full well that Jimmy Savile [snip. Please put “alleged” or “acccused” when referring to someone, unless they have been found guilty in a court of law. — mod.]
Part 2: At the same time as the BBC management was engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to hide the [snip] in their midst, a man who was their friend, they hatched a scheme to spread false [snip] rumours (in the rumours of a broadcast allegation) about a politician who they did NOT like. The BBC has now been forced to formally apologize for broadcasting a willfully false report to that effect.
So, to recap: at the SAME TIME as the BBC was covering up [alleged] paedophile activity by it’s OWN performer(s), evidence for which was undeniable, they invented and broadcast FALSE rumours about someone simply because they did not approve of his political views.
This is an evil, irredeemably evil organization. It deserves to be split up, destroyed, the buildings burned to the ground and the land sewn with salt.
That’s the line, wws. Go look at the Grauniad CIF etc., they’re all singing that tune.
James Delingpole’s & “What’s Up With That” 28-Gate: How To Blow Things Out Of Proportion | Milton Redfearn: http://greyscaleadventures.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/james-delingpoles-whats-up-with-that-28.html
Our band of alarmists is very quiet. I wonder why?
BP’s stake in the cAGW panic:
In secondary recovery efforts, wherein depleted oil fields are flushed to recover residual oil, CO2 works best of all techniques. There are billions of barrels of North Sea oil that are left behind as reservoirs deplete through the course of normal production, and CO2 is the most efficient means of producing this residual oil, if injected into the reservoir in the secondary recovery effort. But CO2 is not readily available. Thus BP’s interest in suppressing skeptic viewpoints and fostering the cAGW panic, and thus they position themselves to ride the wave while reaping BILLIONS in profits from their ever so clean and green “Carbon Storage and Capture Technology” which they like to tout. They hope that the panic will provide will provide the opportunity to hook the needed CO2. So why did BBC invite British Petroleum’s Ian Wright, CO2 Project Manager, to the BBC conclave which confirmed the policy of suppressing the skeptical viewpoint? It does not take a genius to see what is going on. Money greases the skids everywhere. Don’t expect the present Government to make a big squawk about BP. Of course, BP is not the only business that plays the panic-mongering for profit. Greased palms are a big part of the concert of cAGW panic mongering.
With regard to Claire Foster, digging through some of the drivel she’s spewed on her websites
produced this gem, which could explain some of her viewpoints/background, and could well
parallel that of the BBC “thought shapers”…
(Un)ethical dimension
Some people have just too much time on their hands…..so much time, so little thinking…
WOW. The BBC is biased and corrupt. Who would have thought such a thing? .Sorta like saying MSNBC or the New York Times are biased…
omnologos says:
November 12, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Move aside, Bernstein. Move aside, Woodward.
Tonight, I am you.
Very true!
And also: Move aside Main Stream Media – The blogosphere is the now the real media and the protector of liberty
So how much of my licence fee went to pay for 6 lawyers to defend against 1 pensioner requesting information (which should be publicly available) on who attended a BBC meeting on climate change, information we find later IS publicly available?
On top of that we find one of the judges at the Tribunal didn’t think they should opt themselves out and disclose they are partial and a climate change campaigner and have even publicly posted offensive words such as climate change ‘denier’ on the Internet!
Believe me there is more to be found if we follow the stench.
H/T to Omnologos and Anthony, this is why we love WUWT.
One of the attendees, Robert May, was president of the Royal Society at one point. I have lunched with him and he cited my work in one of his talks years ago. He is brilliant and articulate. He made his fame on population modeling of ecosystem dynamics and stability. This is virtually the only research he ever did, on this one topic, AFAICR. He studied some area of physics, certainly not climate. He has no research on or training in any area of climate or geology. He is an example of someone, having achieved fame who then feels entitled to pronounce on any topic.
Let us not forget prior to all this celebration the BBC managed to get some idiot judge to pronounce that the tax payer funded BBC is a PRIVATE organisation and therefore not subject to the FOIA!!!!
It looks as if the BBC lost the battle but has won the war.[?]