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.
This is the letter I received from the BBC a little over 5 years ago.
http://www.tvljcensing.co.uk
Bristol BS98 1TL
Thank you for informing us recently that you do not require a TV Licence.
Our experience has shown that a small but significant minority of people who tell us that
they do not need a TV Licence, are found to require one when visited. We therefore
need to verify the position for all households who inform us that they do not have a
television, as a standard procedure. This also applies to people who have told us that
they have a television but only use it to watch pre-recorded videos.
By visiting these households we hope to identify all such evaders and we can also
ensure that those who, like yourself, legitimately need no contact from Television
Licensing are not troubled unnecessarily in the future.
Therefore, we would appreciate your co-operation when one of our TV Licensing Officers
visits you in the near future. These visits are routine and take a matter of minutes. Once
our officer has confirmed that there is no need for a TV Licence at your address, we will
ensure that you do not receive further letters or visits for at least three years. We will
then contact you again, simply to check that your circumstances have not changed – for
example, you may have moved and the new occupants might use a television.
If you now use or are planning to use a television,
please let us know before the officer visits.
If your circumstances have changed since you contacted us and you are now using or
planning to use a television, simply complete and return the form below, with this whole
letter, in the envelope provided. Remember, if you use television receiving equipment to
receive or record television programme services, you must have a TV Licence, otherwise
you are risking prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000.
A colour licence costs £131.50 and a black and white costs £44.00. You can
choose one of a number of payment options, simply call 0870 240 2934 or visit
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk All payment methods are listed overleaf, along with the
concessionary licences that we offer for people aged 74 and over or who are blind.
Yours sincerely,
I originally contacted them to tell them I owned a TV but used it only to watch videos.
I did get a visit a few months after, but since then I’ve just received the occasional letter addressed to me asking if my circumstances have changed.
I live on my own in a not very prosperous area so I’m probably not an attractive victim for the BBC’s licencing enforcers.
The British TV licence only applies to live TV broadcasts. You don’t need a licence to watch previously broadcast programs on BBC iplayer or ITV player.
I suppose that while one may complain that the BBC was controlled by such people, the question is why these people also control current government policy in most developed nations.
Is this simply blackmail by green organisations who will portray governments as enemies of the environment if they do not obey their whims, or is there a more corrupt reason? I really do not understand why governments are so willing to harm their peoples for so little effect.
Carter!….Your mums been looking for you everywhere. Get on back home before you worry her to death.
ferd berple says:
November 13, 2012 at 11:37 pm
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.”
=========
Under the Precautionary Principle, motorized vehicles should be outlawed, as they are the greatest causes of accidental death on the planet. We should walk everywhere, which is healthier. Under the Precautionary Principle, bathtubs should also be outlawed as they are the leading cause of accidental death in the home.
After cars and bathtubs are eliminated, according to the Precautionary Principle, we should then look to see what is left, and again outlaw the most dangerous items. And then repeat this process over and over until we have eliminated every risk.
Until we are living in caves keeping warm over wood fires. But of course the fumes from fires are dangerous, so we should have outlawed fire right from the day it was discovered. So really, the only answer is for us to return to the jungles. But the jungle is full of dangerous animals, which under the Precautionary Principle will first need to be eliminated to make it safe …
####################################################################
Indeed ferd. The Precautionary Principle is not a scientific principle because it is based on possibility rather than probability. Hence it is not based on risk (probability).
Let a friend tell you: Leftists care nothing for facts.
As others mentioned earlier, Richard North at EUReferendum really have found something bizarre:
“Neglecting the other delicious members, and focusing on the BBC, it seems we have a situation where the state broadcaster is a corporate member of the Media Trust which, in turn, is a member of the International Broadcasting Trust, which is paid by the Government (DFID) to lobby the … er … BBC about climate change. And so the circle closes.”
Shameless people..
As far as I recall, Zeke is a sceptic.
What he’s doing is highlighting the irrationality by direct quotes from different organisations.
Essentially putting the BBCs defence in terms they would themselves use.
DaveE.
ID deKlein says:
November 14, 2012 at 5:07 am
The British TV licence only applies to live TV broadcasts. You don’t need a licence to watch previously broadcast programs on BBC iplayer or ITV player.
=============
So, you could use a TIVO like device to record TV and then play it back sufficiently delayed to allow you to skip commercials and the license fee. And use the money saved on the license to pay for the device in one year. You would no longer be watching live TV, rather TV recorded and played back a few minutes delayed.
FrankK says:
November 14, 2012 at 6:09 am
==========
You nailed it!
ferd berple says: November 13, 2012 at 11:37 pm
=============
Sorry, with regards to my comment immediately above, fred berple nailed it!
“So, you could use a TIVO like device to record TV and then play it back sufficiently delayed to allow you to skip commercials and the license fee. And use the money saved on the license to pay for the device in one year. You would no longer be watching live TV, rather TV recorded and played back a few minutes delayed.”
No, use that logic in court and you would lose and get yourself a fine and a criminal record.
The law states you need a licence if you have equipment which allows you to receive TV transmissions as they are broadcast. The TIVO device receives signals as they are broadcast, so you need a TV Licence.
ferd berple says:
November 14, 2012 at 7:06 am
Sorry, doesn’t work that way. From an earlier post of mine.
DaveE.
Armagh Observatory says:
November 14, 2012 at 7:46 am
That is also incorrect.
There is nothing there that says you must pay for owning equipment capable of receiving only if you actually use it for that purpose.
If capability was the criteria, every computer owner with broadband would be liable.
DaveE.
@Carter says: November 14, 2012 at 2:44 am
Oh dear, you have shot yourself in the foot, haven’t you. The Guardian are back-pedalling like crazy over this non-story; see Guido Fawkes blog for more details.
In general the list looks like it consists of primarily “useful idiots”. However, I suspect the string pullers would want to have a representative there. Might be interesting effort to ferret out such a person (or persons).
‘Kev-in-Uk says:
November 12, 2012 at 3:54 pm
The BBC – Bloated Barstewards Corporation! I am ashamed to be British!’
Personally, I am ashamed that the BBC is British!
Re having a licence if the equpment is capable of receiving it: this also applies to HAM radio equipment and may have been the precedent. Merely being in possession of working amateur radio equipment means you have to have a licence for it. It is a bit like sitting in your own car on the side of a highway. Either you have to have a driving licence or a ruddy good explanation of how you got there!
Stephen Brown says:
November 13, 2012 at 11:45 pm
James Delingpole has written about The List in the Daily Telegraph.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100189491/28-gates-later-the-bbcs-nightmare-gets-worse-and-worse/
________________________________________
OH Thankyou I have been waiting to read that.
Did you see what the Fenbeagle posted?
What Was Discussed at Secret BBC Climate Seminar
http://order-order.com/2012/11/14/exclusive-what-was-discussed-at-secret-bbc-climate-seminar-coverage-exaggerated-the-risk-of-climate-change/
which leads to this Academic paper on Scribd
Dangerous News: Media Decision Making about Climate Change Risk by Joe Smith
http://www.scribd.com/doc/113210217/Media-Climate-Change
Risk Analysis, Vol. 25, No. 6, 2005
As you can see, there is a lot of confusion over this licensing thing.
From the licensing website…
There is no requirement to licence a device not used to view or record live TV broadcasts.
As I stated above, if capability were the criteria, all owners of computers with broadband, owners of TV enabled mobile phones or any video recording equipment with receiving circuitry would be liable.
I don’t know the situation with HAM radio but I can see a difference.
Amateur radio equipment cannot be used for any other purpose. All the equipment I’ve mentioned can be used for purposes other than viewing or recording live broadcasts.
It is up to Crapita to prove that live broadcasts are being viewed or recorded.
DaveE.
Ryan says:
November 14, 2012 at 2:28 am
There was a time whent he BBC was run by smart Marxists. Now it is run entirely by stupid Marxists.
_________________________________
The Peter Principle RULES!
I have no TV, never have had one. I use my PC occasionally to watch TV material that is available for replay usually for up to a week. No probs.
@JohnD says: November 14, 2012 at 6:12 am
Let a friend tell you: Leftists care nothing for facts.
==========================================
Or as a blogger put it earlier this year.
“For the Left, the truth is what they want it to be”
What he or she said.
Good point about the wretched Precautionary Principle not being scientific in that it deals with possibilities rather than probabilities.
Parallel to this is the fact that the IPCC is an interGOVERNMENTAL panel and is not a place where science takes place.
Carter, Carter, where are you?
Delingpole has a message for you.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100189684/greenpeace-and-the-guardian-yet-again-sticking-up-for-the-bad-guys/
The BBC have made some excellent programmes over the years:
There’s Downton Abbey? Oh! That’s the ITV;
Cracker? ITV again.
Inspector Morse? … ITV
The Jewel in the Crown? ….ITV
Snog, Marry , Avoid! That’s got to be BBC? Yes! That’s the BBC!!!