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.
David A. Evans says:
November 14, 2012 at 8:01 am
There is nothing there that says you must pay for owning equipment capable of receiving only if you actually use it for that purpose.
That was my situation. I had an old CRT television which I de-tuned to allow me to display the output from a consumer DVD player, but not receive broadcast TV. I also disposed of the aerial. I phoned the licencing authority at the time to check that I didn’t need a licence in those circumstances. Now I’ve got rid of the TV and only have a broadband connection.
anticlimactic says:
November 14, 2012 at 5:31 am
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.
_______________________________________
Nancy Pelosi is the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, she was Majority Leader before that. Her brother-in-law is getting big bucks from the US government in green loans. The first “try” Solyndra when belly-up so Uncle Sam forked over and even bigger loan of $737million for his next try.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043282/Nancy-Pelosis-brother-law-given-loan-bigger-Solyndra-solar-plant.html
Can you name ONE politician that did not leave office a LOT richer that they entered it? How about the government/corporate revolving door:
link 1
link 2
link 3
That is one link in the circle. The second link is that between “Activists” and corporations via “Charitable” Foundations.
The Rockefellers owned Standard oil and still own large chunks of the companies it was broken up into not to mention there interest in the banking industry.
This is JUST one of their foundations, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund
And then there is the more direct approach used by ADM of direct political contributions. (a new source with a good handle on the subject) Starvation, Obesity, and Corporate Welfare: Archer Daniels Midland and U.S. Policy
Then there is the really sneaky approach used by Rosa DeLauro, a major architect of the New US food law (she has been trying to get it passed for over 10 years) Where does her wealth come from? Why her 67% ownership in her husband’s PRIVATE consulting firm (no public info) who did work for Monsanto.
And finally there is retirement. Remember Tony Blair the UK ex-Prime Minster? Tony Blair earned £20m in just one year advising business bosses and foreign governments
Conspiracy? No just Greed for money and power.
Can someone explain to a provincial westcoaster what the deal is about the BBC. Is that like what we call PBS in the states? Or does the BBC have some sort of monopoly ? I don’t watch TV very much, and haven’t for the past 10 or 20 years.
Tom Chivers writes about BBC biased reporting……
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100189497/the-bbc-isnt-balanced-in-its-reporting-of-climate-change-but-the-facts-arent-balanced-either/
Regarding the Precautionary Principle, what does happen when the government uses science to suddenly alter agriculture and the economy? The Great Leap Forward did not have particularly good results.
So I would think that anyone wishing to apply the Precautionary Principle to agriculture and the economy must also include episodes like:
1. the Great Leap Forward;
2. Lysenko’s destruction of the food supply – “using science for the public good,”
3. along with the environmentalists’ opposition to extending Norman Borlaug’s crops and agronomy to African countries.
Evenly applied, the Precautionary Principle is meaningless.
Interesting the BBC are reporting this:
Energy policy is apparently in confusion after a Greenpeace “sting” on senior Conservative politicians. In secret filming, former cabinet minister Peter Lilley seemed to say he thought the Chancellor George Osborne had deliberately manoeuvred climate sceptic ministers into key positions. He said the legally binding Climate Change Act should be made voluntary, or simply ignored.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20328297
Webcite version (in case it changes)
Mick says:
November 14, 2012 at 10:11 am
Tom Chivers writes about BBC biased reporting……
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100189497/the-bbc-isnt-balanced-in-its-reporting-of-climate-change-but-the-facts-arent-balanced-either/
________________________________
Yeah, his view point is the same as loony Lew’s Climate Deniers are mentally deficient and therefore can be ignored.
I would like to see him say that to the face of all the PhDs who are NOT on the CAGW band wagon.
Mike, (9:56am) the BBC (British Broadcasting Company) is a long-standing public broadcasting company in the UK. It provides local and National TV and Radio broadcasting both within and outside the UK (World Service).
The key difference to your PBS is that it is funded by the UK government through a License Fee (currently £147 (US$200) per annum). This brings in roughly £3.5bn pa. Income also comes from programme and anciliary sales. Everyone (household) who watches a BBC TV broadcast must pay this License fee by law – failure to do so is punishable by a fine or ultimately imprisonment! In other words it is a “tax”.
When one buys a TV in the UK their details (name address etc) are collected by the seller and forwarded to the Licensing authority!
Like the USA we have multiple providers of TV content all of which use advertising to cover their costs. The BBC has a guaranteed income and this as you may imagine can breed complacency and lack of customer focus. Hope this helps.
WRT to the TV licence checks in England … Under Common Law the provision of a pathway or drive-way leading to the door of your house implies a right of access to your door. On my front gate I have a bright yellow notice bearing, in black print, the following. “The implied right of access to these premises has been rescinded. A postal worker on duty and a Police Officer in uniform may approach the door. All others doing so, or attempting to do so, will be treated as trespassers under Common Law.” This notice has legal authority.
The final mention of Common Law is important: under Common Law trespass is dealt with in Magistrate’s Court. Under parliamentary legislation trespass is dealt with as a civil matter. Parliamentary legislation does not usurp Common Law.
The TV licence checkers are civilians working for a private company, they have no right whatsoever to ask your name, whether or not you own a TV nor to enter your home under any circumstances. It also pays dividends to record everything that transpires should one of these extortionists come to your door, whether or not you have a TV licence!
Zeke says:
November 14, 2012 at 11:04 am
Regarding the Precautionary Principle, what does happen when the government uses science to suddenly alter agriculture and the economy? The Great Leap Forward did not have particularly good results.
________________________________
The Percautionary Principle is old hat, the WTO is now using Scientific Risk Assessment and so is the USDA/FDA and anyone else following the WTO dictates of the Agreement on Ag.
This is the excuse the USDA used to PREVENT Creekstone from doing 100% BSE (Mad Cow Disease) testing on their beef. The USDA was afraid a false positive would harm the export market. Which is a load of crock since samples can be frozen and tested by the USDA to confirm the original test. Creekstone certainly was not going to advertise they found a positive now are they?
Long story short (I am not going to bother digging out my old links to the story) – the USDA knew they had allowed the UK to ship possibly contaminated bonemeal to the US as well as live cattle and that was AFTER the UK had identified the problem. The UK prevented sale within the country but did not ban export however they did issue a warning which the USDA ignored. Based on the Risk Assessment Report on BSE done by Harvard University the US cut testing to the bone AFTER a BSE infected cow was found in the USA. We are supposed to believe that “Traceability” and “Risk Assessment” the Phyto-sanitary measures approved by WTO, can replace quarantine and testing. Implementing this has resulted in Mexican cattle with TB showing up in border states.
As far as suddenly altering Ag especially in Africa – not a good idea. Their livestock and crops are adapted to the area. For example Heifer International will give a purebred calf to an African but he must kill/sell off his Zebu cattle. The calf generally does not survive. One African so ticked at the situation and worried about the survival of the zebu visited the USA. He had nothing good to say about Heifer International, USAID or the USDA.
I have no problem with introducing better techniques for farming in Africa but they need to be PROVEN in the area targeted. The introduction of goats WITHOUT management information about over grazing and the resulting desertification is a classic example. I will stop there…
Mike: Johnbuk gave the stats, here is a bit more to try to explain what it is (supposed to be):
The BBC is financed by a license fee required to own and operate devices which can receive their programming. Basically a radio or TV, although these days the list is more complex.
The idea is that the UK wanted a national broadcaster that would produce quality programming, and would report news and current affairs impartially. You don’t get impartiality or high quality programming if you have to depend upon investors, advertisers or the government. You end up producing and saying whatever they want, and playing to the lowest common denominator.
So the BBC has its finance collected by the government, but it is not run by the government. It has a charter which puts limits on its operations and behavior. So long as it conforms to the charter the government (nor anyone else) has any say in its programming or how it is run.
One of the most important parts of its charter is impartiality. It is required to behave impartially. If it is discussing some story, and there is more than one side to the story, they are required to present, equally, all the sides.
This makes the BBC unique in the whole world. It can produce programming without having to worry that it will be well received, it can criticize the government, it can criticize a company, and know that there will be no adverse consequences. This impartiality made (not past tense) the BBC the goto source for THE TRUTH, however unpleasant it may be for the whole world.
In practice, there was always some bias, but institutionally, they did try to to let it show.
Over the past 40 years or so, the bias has become more and more evident.
On Climate Change (nee Global Warming), they even came right out and SAID they would be biased (in contravention of the charter), and explained it away by saying that some subjects and points of view were just too ridiculous to spend time on, and that the “deniers” of global warming were such a case, and based evidence for this on on the seminar now being discussed.
If you need more background in a fairly condensed form, take a look at my attempt to explain here:
http://thoughtsoftheguru.com/2012/11/understanding-the-bbc-2006-seminar-issue/
Gail Combs says:
November 14, 2012 at 11:10 am
Mick says:
November 14, 2012 at 10:11 am
Tom Chivers writes about BBC biased reporting……
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100189497/the-bbc-isnt-balanced-in-its-reporting-of-climate-change-but-the-facts-arent-balanced-either/
_________________________________
Someone who comments regularly to his blog needs to tell Tom Chivers he forgot the /sarc tag. (I don’t have an easy way to do it)
Any new technology or resource, or even old technology, can and must be prevented or reversed if it can be shown by scientists to be a risk to the environment or the public. This is the Precautionary Principle.
But what I wanted to point out is that the government and environmental actions of the past have also caused great harm and risk to humanity. I gave three historic examples of starvation and death which was the result of government and environmentalists’ involvement in agriculture and the economy: Lysenko, Great Leap, and prevention of Borlaug’s crops to Africa.
Therefore, if one scientist testifies before Congress, and argues for the application of the Precautionary Principle to growers in the US in order to prevent some advancement in agronomy because it might cause harm to the environment or to the public, another scientist ought to stand up and testify in Congress of the historic risk to the poor and to the public of government meddling in agriculture. In this way, the Precautionary Principle would be evenly applied, because it takes into consideration the destruction and waste that has been introduced by government regulations, which resulted in starvation.
Example:
FARM NEWS
Rice agriculture accelerates global warming
http://www.seeddaily.com/reports/Rice_agriculture_accelerates_global_warming_999.html
Should rice growers be required to change their planting dates in order to reduce methane?! Or to drain the paddies in mid-season?! Is high yield rice growing really, really a threat to the environment?!
Philip Peake:
Excellent summary from you at November 14, 2012 at 12:48 pm.
Having read that, perhaps those who previously had no understanding of the unique nature of the BBC will now also understand my assertion in my post at November 12, 2012 at 4:42 pm which said
and will also understand my post at November 13, 2012 at 5:26 am which included this.
Again, thankyou for your superb post.
Richard
“Stephen Brown says:
November 14, 2012 at 12:16 pm”
I recall on the UK TV show “Nationwide” in 1974 a song called “Statutory Right of Entry” that certainly had more than two “workers” with a right of entry to your home, let alone the external pathway. I have tried looking for the lyrics, so far no luck.
Zeke says: “Any new technology or resource, or even old technology, can and must be prevented or reversed if it can be shown by scientists to be a risk to the environment or the public.”
Which does not apply to man-made CO2, because there is no man caused Global Warming.
But let us go ahead an apply the Precautionary Principle in the case of AGW.
In doing so we should prevent AGW Climatologists from using: 1) the press, 2) computers, 3) electronic media, 4) tax payer funding, and 5) public transportation (to name); since AGW Climatologists are a risk to the public with their needless calls to reduce CO2. There needless calls are resulting in public power shortages and high prices that the poor can not afford. Further AGW Climatologists’ bogus claims are used by power hungry politicians to enact regulations, which are used to control the public versus benefiting the public.
The BBC have shown that they are biased on the subject of “climate change” why should we then all pay a license fee to maintain the BBC, let the green activists pay to maintain the BBC.There is another side to the global warming debate that the BBC is trying to ignore that is put forward on websites like this one .How can AGW climatologists think they are being skeptical when they only allow one point of view on this subject,where does “We could be wrong” or “you could be wrong” fit into the “science” of climatology.What if instead of getting warmer by 2100 it is colder then then this would show that AGW is wrong and there is every chance that it is wrong.
Is the BBC covering up something else?
The Telegraph reports that a BBC worker’s son was killed in the recent Israeli airstrike on Gaza
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/9679461/Baby-son-of-BBC-worker-killed-in-Gaza-strike.html
It is reported that the BBC World Editor circulated this note
“Our thoughts are with Jihad [that is the BBC worker’s name] and the rest of the team in Gaza.
This is a particularly difficult moment for the whole bureau in Gaza.
We’re fortunate to have such a committed and courageous team there. It’s a sobering reminder of the challenges facing many of our colleagues.”
..but the BBC News only mentions that there was a strike that killed a number of people. You’d have thought that they’d mention that it was a BBC employee who lost family.. unless the strike had hit its intended target correctly…
@Patrick says: November 14, 2012 at 6:05 pm
re “statutory”. I think you will find Common Law trumps Statute.
Agree with Richard Courtney, Philip Peake’s item (12:48) is an excellent summation of the whole issue.
Roger Knights says:
November 13, 2012 at 11:01 pm
Hi Roger
Just a quick comment to say that I have been advocating government via Jury-Style selection along with the ‘catch-22’ .. those who volunteer to ‘rule’ over the people (which is the opposite outlook to what we need), should be banned from public office of any kind.
I also advocate that all public employees should be paid net of tax with no deduction (it’s only recycling tax-money in the most inefficient way). That should remind us all, especially those in public service, where their money really comes from..
Bit OT maybe – sorry mods
The world is flat. Does anyone want to interview me? To offer a balanced perspective to all those who say it is spherical?
Extract from Peter Sissons’ memoirs published in UK Daily Mail 2009 (updated 2011) describing experiences at BBC regarding reporting of cimate change…..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html
“jeremyp99 says:
November 15, 2012 at 12:46 am”
If that was the case, then authorised 3rd parties would not have right of entry. And yet they do.
Thanks Johnbuk and Philip for the informative replies. Sounds like a mess or as my wife is fond of saying “dogooders running amuk” I will remain skeptical while freezing here in western Nevada.