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.
pdxrod says:
November 13, 2012 at 8:31 am
Speaking of ’28′, did anyone hear the joke going around the BBC? “Q. What’s good about sex with 28 year olds? A. The fact that there’s twenty of them.”
*
LOL! I fell out of my chair! 🙂
BREAKING: the News Director of the BBC has been fired!
Helen Boaden has been suddenly replaced…. By another member of the BBC’s Gang of 28:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/11/13/the-new-head-of-bbc-news.html
(28 seminar attendees from the BBC side, 30 attendees from the NGO/activist world, with a tiny sprinkling of token scientists)
Zeke says November 13, 2012 at 8:32 am (my bold)
“…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.
___________________________________________
Snotrocket says: @ur momisugly November 13, 2012 at 8:52 am
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.
___________________________________________
Well having 40,000 to 50,000 die this winter from lack of warmth as a direct result of your propaganda certainly isn’t a “public good” unless you are a Malthusian intent on wiping out a the ‘useless eaters.’ Does that describe you Zeke?
28gate?
Surely ’28 Names Later’.
We are in a battle. The thing that disturbs me is this talk about the Beeb did this or the Beeb did that.
No no no. Organizations, such as the Beeb, don’t do anything that can be stuck on them. Orgs are designed to catch the blame and deflect it away from the guilty individuals.
Saying the BBC must answer for serious breaches of this or that is missing the point. It plays into the hands of our enemy. It eases the way for the Claire Fosters and Kevin McCulloughs, the Beeb catching the blame, while they go about their nefarious way.
Each person on that list is a lying crooked SOB of one type or other. They rely on the Beeb to fly cover over their individual crimes.
Dig in and follow the individual. We know they are all corrupt. That corruption isn’t restricted to their dealings with the Beeb. In their personal lives they are just as crooked, the crimes are just waiting to be found.
Don’t focus on the Beeb. Play the man, not the ball.
Zeke says:
November 13, 2012 at 9:13 am
The “public good” is determined by sustainability scientists and policy makers, who must pass legislation in cases where uncertainty is high but where the public might be harmed by some technology or resource.
The role of science is to determine environmental risk. The politicians apply the Precautionary Principle to protect the environment and the public.
________________________________________
I am repeating this for a reason.
Notice that the public, the individual, is not represented in any way shape or form. It is Scientists and Policy Makers who hand wisdom down from on high and the Politicians (Lawmakers) who implement it.
No wonder Zeke feels the Great Unwashed need to be fed propaganda so as not to interfere with the process!
Got it
“28 Shades of BBC Hypocrisy” :- the only thing being buggered in this is the science..
papiertigre:
Your post at November 13, 2012 at 1:02 pm concludes saying
I agree that we should bring responsible individuals to account, but we MUST ‘play the ball’.
Replacing the string section of an orchestra does not stop the orchestra playing the same tunes.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
November 13, 2012 at 6:45 am
Of course information has power–the pen is mightier than the sword, expecially if your pen is connected to a vast audience on the Internet.
Take for example the contents of the Climategate emails & related documents. If all you had was a list of email addresses from that trove, it’s no biggie. What matters is the content–and disecting and disseminating that or what the 28 BBC Clowns et al discussed and decided is the meat of the matter.
sergeiMK says:
November 13, 2012 at 10:29 am
I hope you are not serious on this.
There has to be some denial of access to broadcast on such an influential medium.#
WUWT/CA and many other sites prevent posts on e.g. barycentre, etc. Or if sufficiently controversial have vast disclaimers in the headers.
Would it be sensible to have programmes made by birthers, flat earthers, area 51ers, moon landing disbelievers….
_________________________________
As a matter of fact yes. There have already been TV programs on just such subjects. The editorial question is are these topics of debate within a segment of the public? Can a decent program be made on the subject? PERIOD.
Now on to CAGW. CAGW is not only a major subject of debate, it has far reaching consequences in each of our daily lives and there for ALL parts of the debate even barycentre should be presented.
Just because I may think birthers, flat earthers, area 51ers, moon landing disbelievers…. are crackpots DOES NOT mean I have the right to shutdown their freedom of speech especially when they have paid through their taxes for an impartial reporting media. If they are crackpots let them fall flat on their face in public. As someone already said sunlight is a great disinfectant.
I certainly hope that Tony Newbery continues with his Appeal. He should now ask for COSTS on a full reimbursement basis, as if he were a recently called barrister (say 200 pounds an hour) because it is now clear that the Beeb was *lying* to the FOI Commission about this list. The *list* was not exempt: it was already public and it was the Beeb who made it public by posting it.
The Beeb then lied about it being otherwise available.
And there is ANOTHER FOI request which should be filed forthwith. One which asks for the amount expended in legal fees etc. in defending the indefensible.
And I would not be surprised if there could be criminal penalties for having made false declarations about the availabilty of an exemption from disclosure.
Way to go TONY! and MAURIZIO
( Pity you spell your last name wrong, though Tony! )
Geoff Newbury
The phrase we all heard about President Bush was “Bush lied and people died!”
I guess we can’t say for sure that “the BBC lied and people died!”
However we can honestly say “the BBC lied and the kids got bleeped!”
Rhys Jaggar says:
November 13, 2012 at 4:03 am
===============
I think you may see the writing on the wall with regards to the BBC. Prior to your comment I had not thought of the BBC being broken up but your bringing it up got me to thinking about it.
It appears that the corruption and the long term bias within the BBC is too extensive for repair and perhaps the best solution would be to break up the monopoly and let the cards fall as they may. From the rubble will arise a new or several credible entities.
The BBC is not too big to fail, it should be allowed to fail as it’s too big and corrupt.
I have merely repeated the words of the National Science Foundation:
“Human beings live in a new age, many scientists believe, one called the Anthropocene, in which human effects on Earth’s systems are powerful regulators of how those systems function. Or how they are beginning to break down.”
Everything I have written is straight from the NSF, Gale. What the BBC has done here fits exactly with the elite academic efforts to use science for the public good and create a sustainable future. And I have done this in order to familiarize others with the language and to provide a broader context of the abuse of science in political advocacy, that is: to terrify people about the water, electricity, crops, gasoline, cattle, and air they use.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=125599&WT.mc_id=USNSF_51&WT.mc_ev=click
There is no daylight between sustainablility and climate science. They are conjoined twins. They have the same methodology, claims, goals, and funding and they both always work in the politicians’ favor. And there is also very little daylight, I believe, between over-populationists and eugenics. Who will live and who will die, in the name of environmental sustainability?
The question at the heart of the matter is – should the BBC ever be willfully impartial. To this question, the identity of the 28 is something of a non sequitor.
Yes, they were not esteemed scientists – mostly not scientists at all. Yes, they were mostly activists and yes, it is clear that the meeting was convened to provide the packaging for a message that had already been decided upon.
But what if the names revealed a truly august body of the most esteemed scientists? Would that mean the BBC was justified in “no longer giving equal weight to skeptical voices?”
The answer is an unequivocable no. No, the royal charter states specifically, they must be impartial. That means effectively, they must take no position on any subject; they must take no sides in any debate; they must report as they find, and therefore must not exclude any one side or favour any other side, no matter how compelling they believe the case to be.
They should no more be taking an advocacy in AGW than, say, in the question of whether time existed before the big bang, or whether the standard model of particle physics is correct, or whether states should borrow to “stimulate economies”.
It is not – or should not be – the business of the BBC, a publicly funded broadcasting conglomurate, to tell us whether cAGW is real or not, or what, if any, actions we should take to deal with it.
Yet, they have tried to justify this advocacy by talking about the weight of evidence in favour of it, while all the time forgetting that that line of reasoning is unacceptable. Even if their theories were true, they would still have broken the Royal Charter and strangely, this simple fact was never picked up by the BBC trust at the time. A woefull failure of the watchdog to watch.
“In view of the presence of someone from the U.S. Embassy, it should be noticed that this was in the administration of the younger Bush.”
A president who was routinely undermined by the State Department. Nice try.
I see the new economics foundation is present. Serendipitously I wrote about the new economics foundation’s rather horrific vision for the future called The Great Transition recently. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/values-and-vocational-creating-citizen-drones-via-education- worldwide/ and how it fits with the UNESCO and UNEP vision a dramatically restructured economy and society.
A post GDP world with an “equal partnership between the public and private sector” all over the world. Now I have already squashed this vision but does anybody really think that government bureaucrats who try to avoid FOI requests to cover up their shenanigans can really be relied upon to “co-produce well-being for all?”
It’s all an attempt to eliminate any barriers to the predator state. All over the globe.
That’s what I was working on today when I saw this list had come to light.
Zeke says:
November 13, 2012 at 12:01 pm
I may have engaged in a little advocacy, but at least I can assure you that I received no gifts, grants, plane tickets, parties, academic standing, honorary degrees, or other sweets from the Devil for my advocacy.
_________________________________________
Zeke, Most of us here care about the environment. What we do not like is to see people frightened to death so the likes of ENRON, Shell, BP, GE, and a host of others can line their pockets. link
Here is a similar situation in the USA dealing with Agriculture.
How Goldman Sachs Created the [2008] Food Crisis
How Archer Daniels Midland Co made a fortune with the help of politicians
Some of the background figured out by bloggers/independents
link 1
link 2
link 3
Pointman says:
November 12, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Tune into the blogosphere and drop out of the MSM…
You’re so right Pointman, the former MSM is more and more LSM
I checked out Richard D North’s website and found this:
http://richarddnorth.com/2012/04/rdn-at-a-climate-change-conference/
Note my comment and his reply at the bottom
I hve been sending messages to the bbc newsnight email address.
The automatic disclaimer:
“This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.”
is good for a laugh. Automatic reply from bbc newsnight “may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.”
Ally E. says:
November 13, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Brilliant brilliant stuff. Well done!
See? This goes to prove activism isn’t good for anything. We could have told ‘em that!
____________________________________
Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Activism is fine in its place. It is when it becomes a multi-million dollar industry whose real reason for existence is to make money by scamming people that it turns into an evil entity.
Sadly many of the rank and file are truly good at heart and are as much a victim of the money/power grubbers as the people they scam.
Unlike most name lists (phone book, convention index, ….) these are not alphabetical by last name. Unless they’re in the order individuals signed up or were assigned, someone made some interesting decisions. Robert May, (whoever he is, is #1 on the specialist list, #17 by last name). Mike Hulme, #2 on the specialists list would be #14 by last name. Minor, but odd.
As an example of the regard in which BBC grandees hold themselves, no better example would be the resignation announcement of George Entwistle, which included the line, “I have decided to do the honourable thing . . .”
Only someone seriously up himself would embellish “I have decided to resign” with a reference to the act’s honour quotient. The first thing that popped into my head when I watched him deliver the line was Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons.” Although I see from Entwistle’s payout he’ll have no trouble keeping himself well supplied with spoons.
Wow, the BBC fail yet again. Goes to show it’s all political to these guys. They are anti-science.