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.
I would not like to be Dr Michael Mann’s cat tonight. It is going to get kicked all over the living room.
The global cap-and-trade idea was supposed to work like this: get everyone committed/obligated, then those who have developed the idea get to profit in two ways: you invest in the businesses that will eventually receive the business activity that will be required in order to monitor and reduce emissions, or you invest in the carbon market, or you have a steady job in the bureaucracy overseeing all of this.
Global cap and trade has not yet sailed.
There is an active Plan B, however: The United Nations’ Principles of Responsible Investing. You can look up UNPRI and read all about it.
Long story short: BBC for a long time has had their employee retirement funds in “green” investments. Those investments do well if a bureaucracy / regulation industry develops around being green. Therefore the BBC has been doing what it could to make big money in its retirement investments by promoting adoption of these various green schemes. what has been invested in specifically I do not know, but this info should make it pretty easy to go look at their portfolio over time, and correlate green investment with green white-wash in their coverage of these issues. Solar, wind, I don’t know. Were they in either of the carbon credit exchanges? I don’t know. But what I do know is they are signatories of the UN principles of responsible investing, and have been evlauated as such:
http://blueandgreentomorrow.com/2012/08/11/the-principles-of-responsible-investment-a-short-series-principle-four-promotion/
Et cetera.
Once this financial interest is known and recognized, you have a blatant conflict of interest that ought to be disclosed whenever the “green” “global warming” topics are covered.
The UN has been pushing countries across the globe to be signatories. To have their public-employee retirement funds be “PRI” compliant. simultaneously, they have been striving to get all of these countries to go green, thus building the market.
It is like musical chairs/get in on the ground floor, while it is relatively cheaper. You will spend some of your taxpayer dollars going green, but that is just pass-through; you will have a stronger public employee retirement system.
The most awesome thing about this plan is that – get this – anthropotomac global warming does not have to be true in order for these nations to make money off of it – there just has to be the critical mass of buy-in and legal entrenchment/national commitment from enough nations to make this a perpetually active industry.
In my opinion, this may have been the sales pitch the the many nations that have signed on as Responsible Investors
Al Gore’s investment firm, Generation Investment Management LLP, caters to these large investors. And, at their website, you can get some leads into this story I am telling. Including Gore’s green investment firm getting to handle The UK Environment Agency investment fund.
http://www.generationim.com/news/
At that link, you can get directed to a story about nations as signatories, and the corresponding growth in green investment.
I would post direct links to these couple of press release or news stories, but GIM has them as links to pdfs and tose don’t copy and paste well.
Jeff Alberts says:
November 12, 2012 at 6:49 pm
OK, I’ll bite.
The BBC, out to create
A “consensus” that warming’s our fate,
Paid “experts” to fly in,
For one day of lyin’.
They went out through Gate 28.
davidmhoffer says:
November 12, 2012 at 6:56 pm
So why was Iain Wright of BP there?
‘cuz he’s a shill trying to get governments to pony up for BP’s carbon capture and sequestration technology.
=========
oil companies want to get paid to pump CO2 into the ground to extract oil. right now they pump CO2 into the ground at their own cost.
Rhys Jaggar says:
November 13, 2012 at 4:03 am
“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.”
Pathetic Jaggar, truly pathetic, even from you. How does the bile taste?
Aside from trolls like Jaggar, at least some of the Brit press is picking this up:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/sebastian-payne/2012/11/revealed-who-decides-the-bbcs-climate-change-policy/
Spen @ur momisugly 7:33 am:
I was about to make a similar comment. I was amazed that the judge declared the BBC to be a “private organisation”. Oh really? It is funded by a compulsory tax (the TV licence fee) on everyone who wishes to use a TV, irrespective of whether or not they use it to watch the BBC. The BBC occasionally make some good programmes, but these are few and far between these days. The Remembrance Sunday at the Cenotaph was one, HM The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee service another. However, they made the biggest stuff-up of the Diamond Jubilee Pageant you could ever imagine and thoroughly wrecked it for anyone not present in London. As well as the obligatory obeisance to “climate change” we are deafened by horrible loud muzak shutting out commentary, endless shots of presenters walking, talking and waving their arms in a strange sort of semaphore, loads of itsy-bitsy little-girl-voiced, trivial weather presenters….oh, the list goes on and on. They infuriate me and they are using our money to do it.
The BBC are supposed to have a statutary duty to give unbiased reporting and intelligent, educational programming. My hat. Lord Reith must be turning in his grave.
Rhys Jaggar says: “I and many millions of people do not wish to see the BBC judged by partisan self-serving right wingers.”
The Jaggar doth protest too much, methinks. Just guessing there Jaggar, but it is okay if the BBC is judged by partisan self-serving Left Wonkas?
PS: Got any evidence of those “millions of people” or is that number like the claimed number of scientists who believe in AGW, a load of poppycock ?
zootcadillac says:
November 13, 2012 at 7:03 am
Most of what you say is correct but the licence fee is applicable not to owning a receiver capable of viewing broadcast TV but to actually watching broadcast TV.
I could watch TV on my PC but I do not. I can not, (in theory,) be fined for that capability, only if I actually do it.
In one of the incessant reminders I get it says…
I do like the way they assume that I, and presumably anyone else, cannot survive without a TV…
Pure intimidatory tactics. they must prove you’re watching live TV. If they get a warrant and insist on trying to view TV in my home, I will record myself telling them that it is illegal and please desist from trying to make me break the law. (It’s my responsibility that they don’t.) I will, before allowing them access, even with a warrant, insist that they leave any portable viewing devices outside.
They started their latest investigation of me on the 23rd of October 2012.
Good luck with that then. 😉
DaveE.
State run news media will never be “balanced.” “Balanced reporting” or the “Fairness Doctrine” is simply an idea that statists use to pass laws restricting free speech or mandating requirements on free speech, when exercised by citizens and the institutions they own.
But since balanced state run media was tried, now you have your experimental results.
Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
Yeah. The world is just full of “eco-weepers”
One of the IBT members is Islamic Relief, a charity organisation. But hold on:
UBS closes Islamic Relief account over terror risk
November 9, 2012
The U.K. based Muslim charity Islamic Relief has had its account closed and zakat donations to its account blocked by Swiss bank UBS due to counter-terror concerns. Islamic Relief is the world’s largest Islamic non-governmental organization, and Israel has previously accused it of funding Hamas.
UBS’s action is similar to the decision made by Minnesota banks to cease remittance services to Somalia. The risk that such transactions will be used for terrorism is simply too great a risk for the banks to bear.
(…)
http://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/ubs-closes-islamic-relief-account-over-terror-risk/
Now we see that the State has no impartiality, no balance, and no qualifications to legislate or regulate free speech in any country.
Way to go Maurizio, you rock buddy!
Why don’t we simply apply the Precautionary Principle to all communication?
The argument could run something like this: Someone might say something wrong about Post Normal sustainability science, which is for the public good, or someone may say something untrue that other people will believe that might bring the public or the environment harm, so simply reverse and remove all discussion entirely.
Waivers issued to friends of the “environment” and “responsible journalism” practitioners.
@ur momisugly Rhys Jaggar, Speak for yourself.
As a BBC licence fee payer, I would be delighted to see the biased, corrupt BBC broken up.
But that is not just my view, according to several opinion polls a clear majority of the UK public no longer think that the BBC is trustworthy. They are overtly biased.
You claim that they should not be judged by “right wingers”? Well that just shows how much left wing bias is institutionalised within the BBC. Why do you not want them judged by left wingers?
IF the BBC is as loved as the lefties claim, then the BBC should be broken up into separate voluntary subscription only services. BBC news and current affairs, BBC drama, BBC films, BBC comedy, BBC light entertainment, BBC natural history etc… and allow those who love “dear old aunty beeb” to pay for her.
But it would allow those who despise the lecherous old pervy Uncle Beeb to not fund his biased lies.
The BBC is NOT a beloved institution anymore. It has been slowly taken over by a narrow clique of identically believing politically correct metropolitan thinkers who preach diversity in all things except diversity of thought or opinion. It is NOT fit to hold a broadcast licence. Even Rupert Murdoch would be better placed to run the BBC than the current bunch of traitors.
The BBC should be drastically reformed to return to true impartiality or be broken up entirely, or be scrapped as not fit for purpose.
Rhys Jaggar says:
November 13, 2012 at 4:03 am
“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.
[…]
It is, after all, the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation, not the NEW YORK Broadcasting Corporation, the SAUDI ARABIAN Broadcasting Corporation or the KGB Broadcasting Corporation.”
Hey buddy, as a German, I’m forced to fund a similar abomination, the German public media, so let me tell you, when I wish for the defunding of the BBC it’s not because I want to meddle with the affairs of the Brits but because our local public broadcasters are as warmist, insane and generally inefficient as the Beeb – and should be defunded just the same. I’m not using them anyway, I know what they say.
BTW, you sure it’s not the KGB Broadcasting corporation?
Of course, the list is diverse.
It is merely an interdisciplinary combination of researchers and social scientists and artists who are working together for the public good, in an effort to create a sustainable planet.
Do any of these invited attendees have links to The Carbon Trust?
I understand the BBC has invested heavily in The Carbon Trust in the hope of filling its pension black hole.
It would look awfully grubby is it seemed they’d chosen an editorial direction in order to line their own pockets…
Specialists:……………Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation……………
Andrew Simms writes an irregular piece for the Guardian called something on the lines of ‘100 months to save the world’ and counting down.
I also read:
As the list says he is one of the
I am amazed the he and a rep of the Church of England among others were relied upon to make such an important editorial decision regarding the future of humanity. Disappointing stuff.
OK. What we have here is clearly a serious violation of public service principles.
Now for the obvious follow up question:
Who at BBC (and/or elsewhere) is/are responsible for arranging this spectacle of AGW-likeminded specialists? The specialists themselves can ofc. be accused of keeping this blunt bias under the radar but who is/are the main culprit(s)?
Zeke says November 13, 2012 at 8:32 am (my bold)
Assuming you didn’t neglect a /sarc tag…The thing is, who is to say what the ‘public good’ is? And what business is it of the BBC to a: decide on that, and b: to think they can take my money to create their own propaganda.
@Bosse Johansson
” 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. …..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…”
Thank you for your comments – you are quite correct that the ‘joke’ is a simpler story.
But the problem is that it is over too quickly – it can just be ignored by the Beeb, who could laugh with you. If you have grounds for suggesting that the BBC lied to a Tribunal you are on different ground all together. The BBC are being pinned to the wall over the Savile affair, and so a second formal accusation of lying is likely to resound with the viewing public at the moment. I agree that it needs to be put simply, but I believe that it should be run with…
Rhys Jaggar says:
November 13, 2012 at 4:03 am
=============
The apologist’s are cranking up the spin.
Too little, too late, the game is over.
Snotrocket:
It is best to do as others have and to ignore the series of posts coming from “Zeke”. If you bite his hook then there is no knowing onto what the thread will be diverted.
Richard
Les Johnson says:
November 13, 2012 at 2:01 am
…And how the heck did Richard North get to one of these?
_________________________________
Wrong Richard North