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.
Re. Anne Gilchrist, Executive Editor Indies & Events, CBBC
This lady has a big problem. Follow up on this and her career is toast. Then see where the ruins fall.
You want a news story then, look at her… and why?
Because CBBC =Children’s BBC.
Propaganda for kids. That’s another form of child abuse.
She’s the Jimmy Savile of the soul.
The only way the “TV Licensing Squad” can gain access to a property, is by being granted a warrant. They can also and will summons you, but to do either of these things they first of all need to know your name. The problem is that most people volunteer to give their names to TV Licensing from the very start, hence when you stop paying up, they usually end up arranging your summons with their buddies at the local magistrates. In either instance they have neither gained proof nor produced evidence that you have been watching live broadcast Tv.
Three years ago I decided enough was enough, I phoned up the Licensing office, explained how I was leaving the country for a while, she asked for forwarding details….I laughed, she asked if I would like a refund of the balance of which I had already been forcibly been made to pay in advance…….again I laughed and then said no thanks. Propaganda costs money. So a few weeks later I receive a few calls to my phone, Mr XXXXX they would state, hoping I would fall into their trap….always ask who is calling and on what business before you confirm who you are! I would simply then say “sorry….wrong number”. After a month the letters came, but no longer in my name oh no, this time addressed to Legal Occupier.
Obviously at this point, they have accepted my story, so they move onto the next victim. Issuing threats and demands in bold fonts and bright colours. So I played the waiting game, wondering what would come next, what tactics did they have to enforce their “license” upon me!? Here is the boring bit, they didn’t have any. They send four letters in a cycle,
1. Informing that not having a TV Licence is a crime and then outlining the ways to pay for one. ( for the new occupier)
2. Suspicion that you do not have a licence, and that it is a crime and then outlining the ways to pay for one. ( for the lazy new occupier)
3. Knowledge that you do not have said licence and that your details MAY be passed on to enforcement officers and then outlining the ways to pay for the…licence. ( this tends to get people “fessing up”)
4. That you are obviously avoiding paying for the licence therefore a criminal and that very shortly, you will receive a knock on the door! ( this one is my favourite)
So first thing’s first, let us ask ourselves………what details will they be passing onto their enforcement team? It certainly will not be my name, they think I am called “Legal Occupier”. The only details they have, are my address details. And those details are not mine, they are the details of a building! A building of which they have no proof of being empty or inhabited, they just assume it is inhabited! But the fact is they still need proof, so once in a while they will send round enforcer, and on the last count that has been four times in three years. On three occasions I was at work, the fourth was brilliant. Now I am not the most sociable person, especially if I am disturbed on an evening by an imbecile with an ID card, so after knock knock knock..
me…..”what?”
monkey with ID….”It appears that this house does not have a TV Licence”
me…….”and?”
monkey with ID….”I will have to take some details sir”
me…….”you know and I know that I am under no obligation to share my private details with you or your company, now as you are trespassing on private land, be off with yourself!”
monkey with ID….”it is against the law…(door shut in his face mid sentence)”
And that was that, no name, no silly law games. No detection equipment ever used in court to prosecute, no jumping out of helicopters swat style, no “you can’t evade us, we are everywhere”. Three years people, and in that time, no census, same thing, just avoid them, no contact, no telling them what they want to hear, just an endless cycle of “the four letters” and the odd visit from an ex clamper.
I know that this way will not suit everybody, some will say that they do no want to “feel like a prisoner in their own home”, I can understand that, but to wilt at the demands of a state sponsored extortion racket is no longer possible for me. If anybody cares to doubt me or the system I have tried then I suggest you pop over to….
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/
have a good read through the forums there is tons of info. Hope this helps.
Rollyfingers.
It’s a shame. A bloody shame. Speechless.
–Ahrvid
Maybe there’s a cosmic portent here. Just kidding. But 28 just so happens to be a perfect number—equal to the sum of its proper divisors—so maybe there’s something perfect about this piece of beeboid scheming, such as one might hope for, say, in a perfect storm, a storm that led to the total utter f#####g annihilation of the BBC and the extermination of all those connected with it. Now that WOULD be nice. Cosmic karma! Bring it on!
Go 28!
Yes commodities traders are a disgusting bunch and have done a lot of harm.
How Goldman Sachs Created the 2008 Food Crisis – thank you Gale, another excellent resource.
A $40 Billion investment in Renewable Energy by Goldman Sachs
by Andy Goldman on June 4, 2012
http://www.renewablegreenenergypower.com/a-40-billion-investment-in-renewable-energy-by-goldman-sachs/
But aren’t sustainability scientists with their political counterparts poised to make even the air you breath, co2 emissions, every drop of water, and every tiny watt a commodity controlled and traded by the government?
Here’s what CBBC has to say on….. Global Warming
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_1570000/newsid_1575400/1575441.stm
I forgot to add this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4610000/newsid_4614700/4614743.stm
Almost funny, except for the obvious harm caused to children aspects however has anyone else noticed that, twice now, where-ever there is a man-made global warming alarmism (e.g. Penn State University or BBC), there always seems to be a child molestation scandal over boiling in the background? There also always seem to be key senior executive-level players in one scandal also being involved in the other scandal. Compare the following –
Penn State had/has Sandusky the convicted child molester visa vee Penn State had/has their man-made global warming alarmist. In both cases, senior executives of Penn State were involved in both scandals.
BBC had/has Jimmy Saville the deceased BBC child molester visa vee BBC had/has their man-made global warming alarmism. In both cases, senior executives of the BBC are involved in both scandals.
Credit to ‘omnologos’ for pointing out that key BBC players are involved with the BBC’s ongoing man-made global warming alarmism scandal and the BBC’s ongoing child molestation scandal.
Robin says:
November 13, 2012 at 2:05 pm
…. 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?”…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Soviet Union was the experiment on that and it failed. Any type of society that rewards its producing class with theft and scorn will fall. It was tried in the 1620’s with a group whose religious beliefs should have made it succeed and it STILL failed miserably.
Since it is close to the American Thanksgiving, that true story should be retold.
So ask yourself this. If socialism has been tried again and again over centuries AND FAILED, why the heck are we so intent on trying it again? Cui bono? I think this 1911 cartoon of ‘a bearded, beaming Karl Marx standing in Wall Street with Socialism tucked under his arm and accepting the congratulations of financial luminaries J.P. Morgan, Morgan partner George W. Perkins, a smug John D. Rockefeller, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Teddy Roosevelt ‘ It is not humanitarianism but greed for power and money that is the driving force and if you look you can see it today.
Note: This is not to say humanitarianism does not exist. It does and it is one of the noble urges that makes us human. The problem is that it gets used, twisted and corrupted by those with hidden agendas of greed for money and power. The BBC is a classic example of that.
On another blog one commenter commented that it is the sociopaths that are most likely to rise to the top in power. It is an idea that the socialists on this blog need to keep in mind.
Ian Blanchard says:
November 13, 2012 at 9:17 am
A few thoughts and responses to earlier comments:
1 – Way up thread, someone asked what ‘Open University’ was. For those unfamiliar with the UK and BBC output, The Open University is a genuine university although it operates in a unique manner. Undergraduate students enroll and undertake their courses by distance learning (mostly part time), **with some of the course material traditionally provided as televised lectures shown overnight on the BBC.** Open University degrees are comparable in standard and status with those of any other UK University.
=================================================================
** Point of accuracy
Up to ~10 years ago, yes. Then superceded by video tape > CD >DVD >online.
I’m an alumni* of the Open University – BA maths, currently doing MSc maths. I can confirm the statement about standard, it’s tougher than my local brick university (I informally give help and advice to a few of its students in exchange for beer and a lot of laughs at my local pub, so I can make that judgement).
*I used to be a proud alumni. However the influence of the earlier mentioned academic post-holders at the OU has become more and more obvious in the OU’s publications for students, and some of the non-maths teaching material I’ve seen. I’m no longer proud.
Zeke says:
November 13, 2012 at 9:13 am
“The role of science is to determine environmental risk. The politicians apply the Precautionary Principle to protect the environment and the public.”
If the government applied the precautionary principle then it would be expanding the production of CO2 on a massive scale…
The IBT is clearly an influential and partisan organisation and represents the bias it purports to be against. An example is the following submission to the BBC Trust, demonstrating extremist and autocratic viewpoints:
Submission by the International Broadcasting Trust to the BBC Trust’s
Science Impartiality review
Some quotes:
In this paper we look in detail at the way in which climate change has been
reported across the BBC and we make a series of practical proposals…
Journalists and programme makers should resist ‘debate’ framings –
putting up opposing ‘pro’ and ‘sceptic’ climate change science opinion
– that carry with them the implication of a balanced debate between
equally informed players.
…this return to a ‘debate’ framing is a retrograde step in terms of
appropriate representation of the science, and even packaging and marketing
a programme in this way may help to further delay comprehensive debate of
actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
There have been many other instances in advance of the Panorama over the
last six and more months where broadcasters have sought to convene a
‘climate change debate’ despite the distortions such a framing creates in the
public mind.
It is difficult to identify an appropriate collective noun: some deny a well established body of
science, but it has been suggested that the ‘denier’ term appears to be a rhetorical device that seeks guilt by association with holocaust denial. This is a shrill and inappropriate move. At the same time ‘sceptic’ is problematic as scepticism is a quality pursued in all good scientific and journalistic practice. ‘Contrarian is the term applied in this paper as it suggests a conscious decision to take a position contrary to the mainstream of opinion.
This is particularly important where public service broadcasters give space to climate contrarian claims on the science that have not been peer reviewed. They must demand of it the same rigour that climate science which feeds into the IPCC has been subjected to.
Alex Lockwood suggests, borrowing a term from computer science, that
‘climate disinformation online is a form of cultural and political malware every
bit as threatening to our new media freedoms, used not to foster a forum for
open politics but to create… a “multiplicity of fragmented publics” that harms
not only our democracy, but our planet.’ (Lockwood 2008).
Polling suggests that attitudes have shifted amongst a significant
minority of the public, with an increase of around 10% in the proportion of the
US and UK populations that are sceptical of climate change over the last
couple of years (see Leiserowitz 2010 for US figures and Spence et al 2010 for
UK figures)
Editors and programme makers have sought to allow this body of
the population to hear their views represented. While there are many areas of
political or ethical debate where such balancing is desirable, we argue that in
the case of reporting of scientific knowledge where there is a high degree of consensus amongst legitimate authorities, this leads to perverse outcomes
and serves to mislead the public.
http://www.ibt.org.uk/all_documents/Submissions%20Key/Response%20to%20the%20BBC%20Trust's%20science%20impartiality%20review.pdf#view=FitV
Zeke says:
November 13, 2012 at 1:49 pm
“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.”
Isn’t this the exact argument made by hitler, stalin and countless others as they murdered hundreds of millions? Just because the “elite academics” believe something doesn’t make it true… In fact if we look at history when you have “elite academics” using “science for the public good and create a sustainable future.” I would say thats the scariest thing there is.
The Tyndall Centre should not receive global warming research funding if they are just using this funding to lobby the BBC and other media organizations.
Wake me up when there is some actual warming. Tyndall can get some money when there is some actual warming.
The government funding has become nothing but funding more lobbyists. No government should fund lobbyists who do nothing but lobby the government for more funding.
BBC…Penn State…..makes you wanna puke.
Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning
Elizabeth McKay, Project Executive, Education
Emma Swain, Commissioning Editor, Specialist Factual
Glenwyn Benson, Controller, Factual TV
John Lynch, Creative Director, Specialist Factual
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
Entertainment? Drama? Education? Factual TV (They didn’t invide anyone from Bullshit TV department?) Comedy? One would think that the other 50% who haven’t abandoned the CO2 Control Knobs would up and leave after this kind of stuff. I hope we haven’t gotten down to the case hardened followers at this percentage.
On the nsf, the behavioral sciences division dominates the hard sciences now. People also assume that STEM is an acronym for the individual subjects instead of a con Judith Ramaley came up with to obscure the shift away from subject knowledge to “problem solving” with complex real life problems never taught before.
I have also described already how both the Belmont Challenge/Future Earth Alliance and USGCRP 2013-2021 intend to use education and the behavioral and social sciences to create a belief among students in AGW regardless of actual temps or the real causes.
Someone called at my house the other day about the fact that i don’t have a TV license and i told him the truth that I don’t have a TV so I did not watch TV.I could not understand why this person needed to come into my house to verify that I was not using a TV when they can detect if you are using a TV so I did not let him in.They get more active if you don’t have a TV license for more than two years I was told and that I could be prosecuted for not having a license.I refuse to pay a TV license to support the climate activists controlling the BBC.
It seems that the only benefit we get from technology is to sit and watch the rubbish they produce for us at great expense .Lawyers are preparing to make loads of money from the Jimmy Seville fiasco in compensation claims from alleged victims even before he has been proved to be guilty of these claims in the same way they have pushed up the cost of car insurance by encouraging people to make false claims for compensation,It really is a mad world we live in today.
By this (BBC) standard, I qualify as a “climate expert”. Nice.
Very interesting CIA document from 1974 Maurizio. Even more so than the BBC list. Great work. Here is the PDF from your website but this need a post of its own here !!! First the climate science and second the certainty of a cooling world.
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
It’s 28 more reasons the UK’s TV license needs to be done away with.
George UMT-5,
Robert May, would be number one on the list because of his credentials. Check them out…
http://www.zoo.ox.ac.uk/people/view/may_r.htm
He would exert enormous influence over the other 27. It would be very difficult to argue against him.
As we saw earlier with Anthony and PBS, the media are suckers for qualifications. Perfectly reasonable,I guess, it certainly saves them thinking too hard.
Absolutely epic stuff – we do have a new Woodward and Bernstein – its Christmas early and let’s get the BBC whilst they’re down.
I’ve seen 50+ intv with themselves interviewing themselves over the last 3 days and patting themselves on the back as totally incredible people that are the very best at everything they do, and when they screw up = they are the best to talk about themselves.
That Entwit never gave a press intv and refused to appear on anything other than the BBC when Director General, and their Acting DG walked out of a TV intv with Sky has clearly passed them by.
Re: richardscourtney @ur momisugly
November 13, 2012 at 1:16 pm
But their team is running low on pitchers. We are deep in their bullpen. Even they tacitly admit as much, otherwise why spend money, time, and resource, to keep the list a secret? It’s because several of their number have been cashiered as crooks.
The Global Warming Advostocracy is eroding. Mike Hulme’s and Robert May’s opinions are recognized as manure.
The team is quickly running out of violin players for their orchestra.
You start talking about withholding license fees, they will come back at you with a campaign to save Big Bird, or rather Faulty Towers, or whatever touchie feelie, momentarily popular, government subsidized programming they deem as necessary for the continued survival of western civilization.
The point being the Beeb would love to be in that argument because they will win it, everytime.
If instead we bring down one two or ten of the people on the list, attacking their individual debaucherys, then the Beeb’s position will be weakened, and we will win.