David Rose of the Mail on Sunday tears the BBC a new one, thanks to an “amateur climate blogger”.
- Pensioner forces BBC to lift veil on 2006 eco-seminar to top executives
- Papers reveal influence of top green campaigners including Greenpeace
- Then-head of news Helen Boaden said it impacted a ‘broad range of output’
- Yet BBC has spent more than £20,000 in legal fees trying to keep it secret
The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds over six years trying to keep secret an extraordinary ‘eco’ conference which has shaped its coverage of global warming, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
The controversial seminar was run by a body set up by the BBC’s own environment analyst Roger Harrabin and funded via a £67,000 grant from the then Labour government, which hoped to see its ‘line’ on climate change and other Third World issues promoted in BBC reporting.
At the event, in 2006, green activists and scientists – one of whom believes climate change is a bigger danger than global nuclear war – lectured 28 of the Corporation’s most senior executives.
Then director of television Jana Bennett opened the seminar by telling the executives to ask themselves: ‘How do you plan and run a city that is going to be submerged?’ And she asked them to consider if climate change laboratories might offer material for a thriller.
A lobby group with close links to green campaigners, the International Broadcasting Trust (IBT), helped to arrange government funding for both the climate seminar and other BBC seminars run by Mr Harrabin – one of which was attended by then Labour Cabinet Minister Hilary Benn.
Applying for money from Mr Benn’s Department for International Development (DFID), the IBT promised Ministers the seminars would influence programme content for years to come.
The BBC began its long legal battle to keep details of the conference secret after an amateur climate blogger spotted a passing reference to it in an official report.
Tony Newbery, 69, from North Wales, asked for further disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The BBC’s resistance to revealing anything about its funding and the names of those present led to a protracted struggle in the Information Tribunal. The BBC has admitted it has spent more than £20,000 on barristers’ fees. However, the full cost of their legal battle is understood to be much higher.
=============================================================
Related:
BREAKING: The ‘secret’ list of the BBC 28 is now public – let’s call it ‘TwentyEightGate’
Thanks to Maurizio for that revelation.
=============================================================
Tony Newbery writes:
What is clear in the Mail on Sunday report is that funding for the 2006 BBC climate change seminar came from a government department. Also that the funds were channelled through environmental lobbyists who were organising the seminar. And it is possible that the government department that provided the funds had some input about the topics selected for the seminars. Lord Hall, as the man who encouraged Roger Harrabin to set up the seminar programme, features in this story too. However since his return to the BBC he has thrown some interesting light on the matter, contradicting just about everything that the BBC has claimed about the seminar previously. –Tony Newbery, Harmless Sky, 12 January 2014
There is more at Harmless Sky, including links to the FOI release that nails the BBC.
===========================================================
The new attention on the BBC’s 28gate seminar has been prompted by disclosure of documents showing how the [UK Government’s] Department for International Development responded to a funding request for funding from the International Broadcasting Trust a body that lobbies broadcasters on behalf of green NGOs. What we have, in essence, appears to be government paying for subversion of the state broadcaster. –Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, 12 January 2014
=============================================================
UPDATE: from comments.
Roger Harrabin was on the advisory board of the Tyndall centre, at the same time his CMEP was being funded by Prof Mike Hulme (seminar attendee) Tyndall to organise the seminars.
I’m still to curious to know whether he had stepped down or not from Tyndall , when the January 26th, 2006 seminar happened.
According to wayback machine,
Roger Harrabin was on the Tyndall Advisory (alongside Bill Hare Greenpeace) board in August 2005, (after this date, the Tyndall website changed and advisory board info was no longer available, via wayback)
the conflict of interest for the BBC seems huge, given:
Prof Mike Hulme (climategate 2 email):
“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)
Both Harrabin and Smith seemed to have thought that the CMEP seminars werevery succesful in persuading the BBC to change it stance and policies in the reporting of ‘climate change’ as described by Dr Joe Smith’s in his OU profile: (h/t DAvid Holland)
“The seminars have been publicly credited with catalysing significant changes in the tone and content of BBC outputs across platforms and with leading directly to specific and major innovations in programming,” – Dr Joe Smith
“It has had a major impact on the willingness of the BBC to raise these issues for discussion. Joe Smith and I are now wondering whether we can help other journalists to perform a similar role in countries round the world” – Roger Harrabin
We wrote about the above at Watts Up With That, when climategate 2 broke, quotes from & more detail here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/climategate-2-impartiality-at-the-bbc/
Congratulations to Tony, in finally getting all the information..
Links to all the docs on his blog – The Harmless Sky
“Wayback when they decided what we should think”.
So you think they don’t do that anymore?
Think again.
just as scandalous. google “tony newbery” and click “news”. apart from this single article in the Daily Mail by David Rose, the MSM has reported NOTHING on this lengthy saga.
Tony Newbery is an inspiration.
give thanx for David Rose.
Roger Harrabin was on the advisory board of the Tyndall centre, at the same time his CMEP was being funded by Prof Mike Hulme (seminar attendee) Tyndall to organise the seminars.
I’m still to curious to know whether he had stepped down or not from Tyndall , when the January 26th, 2006 seminar happened.
According to wayback machine,
http://web.archive.org/web/20051112140142/http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/general/management/advisory_board.shtml
Roger Harrabin was on the Tyndall Advisory (alongside Bill Hare Greenpeace) board in August 2005, (after this date, the Tyndall website changed and advisory board info was no longer available, via wayback)
the conflict of interest for the BBC seems huge, given:
Prof Mike Hulme (climategate 2 email):
“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)
Both Harrabin and Smith seemed to have thought that the CMEP seminars werevery succesful in persuading the BBC to change it stance and policies in the reporting of ‘climate change’ as described by Dr Joe Smith’s in his OU profile: (h/t DAvid Holland)
“The seminars have been publicly credited with catalysing significant changes in the tone and content of BBC outputs across platforms and with leading directly to specific and major innovations in programming,” – Dr Joe Smith
“It has had a major impact on the willingness of the BBC to raise these issues for discussion. Joe Smith and I are now wondering whether we can help other journalists to perform a similar role in countries round the world” – Roger Harrabin
We wrote about the above at Watts Up With That, when climategate 2 broke, quotes from & more detail here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/climategate-2-impartiality-at-the-bbc/
Congratulations to Tony, in finally getting all the information..
Links to all the docs on his blog – The Harmless Sky
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=703
The well-meaning feel the ends justify the means. But most judgement in the uk and most of europe is based on emotion not reason.
Would this have any connection to the fact the BBC invested a large portion of its superannuation fund in carbon trading? How sad?
cd I don’t agree with that sentiment at all, usually the Brits are very calculating and conservative, and this all started to make money out of the fear installed in people to indulge the green energy lobby and carbon traders. Greed.
Remember guys, this is perfect story, Erin Brockhovic without the (o)(o), a pensioner blogger (Tony) fighting for what is right because it is right, a late-night blogger (me) having a look around the Wayback Machine and finding the secret list (since purged, as expected), against the Might of the BBC ultimately brought down by the IBT’s enthusiasm to tell the world all it had been doing, including the list of participants to supposedly secret meeting.
The fact that it took 14 months for such a story to make it in full to the Daily Mail shows how much of the newsmedia is not interested in news.
And especially, we have now strong if not definitive evidence that the world-famous editorial independence of BBC News is just another paternalistic scam, as it is simply enslaved to the will and whims of the Corporation called BBC, paid by the public but completely unanswerable to anybody and as already discovered, mostly a mutual-help society with large salaries and giant severance packages, not to mention the incestuous links to the Guardian.
It will all go the way of the ice delivery companies. In time.
*Would this have any connection to the fact the BBC invested a large portion of its superannuation fund in carbon trading? *
For the sake of fairness, I have to point out that that is not true — the BBC’s top investments are in: GlaxoSmithKline ;Rolls Royce ; BP ;Amazon.Com; AstraZeneca; Royal Dutch Shell;British American Tobacco.
Their silly and dishonest alarmism comes from the internal mindset, not external financial factors.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/aboutthescheme/topinvestments.html
That £20,000 to prevent anyone from finding out about what they did?
That’s called Consciousness of Guilt.
They know what they did was wrong, would be seen by a majority of the public as wrong and would be condemned.
That’s why the Climate Change Priesthood want to shut up the Skeptics; they’re afraid they’ll lose the argument. They fear that because they know the theory is weak and lacks enough accurate and strong evidence.
jakee308 says:
January 12, 2014 at 5:56 am
That £20,000 to prevent anyone from finding out about what they did?
That’s called Consciousness of Guilt.
They know what they did was wrong, would be seen by a majority of the public as wrong and would be condemned.
That’s why the Climate Change Priesthood want to shut up the Skeptics; they’re afraid they’ll lose the argument. They fear that because they know the theory is weak and lacks enough accurate and strong evidence.
The BBC would be there reporting and describing The Emperor’s New Clothes in glowing terms while preventing that impertinent child’s claims from being reported.
Ref my FOI request to the BBC
Background
The seminar was conducted under the Chatham House Rule to enable free and frank
discussion, something that is necessary for our independent journalism. Some information
regarding this event was posted on a website in 2007 without the permission of the BBC,
and later taken down. It has recently become apparent that this information is still available
on an internet archive. However, this does not impact on the decision of the Tribunal nor
the reason the BBC defended its decision not to disclose the material sought under the FO
Act.
In total, £18,665 plus VAT of £4,091 was spent on legal fees.
Please note however that the majority of Freedom of Information work is carried out in-
house within the BBC. The Information Policy and Compliance team, which deals with
many aspects of FOI, does not charge out for its work and we therefore do not hold
information relating to the individual costs of in-house work.
“What we have, in essence, appears to be government paying for subversion of the state broadcaster. –Andrew Montford”
Come on, who in the world expects a state broadcaster to not be a propaganda organ for the regime. What exactly the regime is is matter of debate – Welfen, Eurocrats? Surely not the elected government.
The key issue, now, is will there be a proper independent commission to determine exactly what happened?
omnologos
Try writing a script for this story. I’m sure the powers that be in Hollywood would be fighting over it. /sarc…. and the many activist actors would be fighting to play the lead./sarc …..or if you went low budget can you imagine the hype this would generate at Cannes Film Festival./sarc……who knows just maybe skepticism would go “a vant gard” . Please forgive my poor French.
In 2005 the UN redefined what the term “:sustainability’ meant to expressly encompass economic and social transformation. This is part of an explosion of activities in 2006 laying out the desired transitions to be pushed in the name of AGW necessity. The big corporations are all being pushed to see themselves as components of a common good Mindset supposedly bound to focus on a triple bottom line.
We are all better off knowing what is being pushed in the name of Sustainability.
“Mr. Benn” I think should be “Mr. Bean.”
😉
To be fair to the BBC 20K does not buy you very much barrister and solicitor time in the UK.
Now if someone, who has access and the PW, could check for any details that might be deep in the FOIA regarding communications with IBT, BBC, Harrabin or any other of the regular suspects… There may be more to the story.
omnologos: We remember who broke the story. It is deeply annoying that the reporters (+1 to them for having finally reported on Tony Newberry) are not acknowledging your contribution.
I am speculating, they must be afraid of the Wayback Machine themselves and prefer to keep the public in the dark about it. I myself did not know about it until you pointed it out.
By the way, I was then able to recover most of my experimental data I thought I had lost more than 10 years ago. The crawlers visited the machine where it was stored while it was still alive. How cool is that?
This scandal can’t possibly be true, I haven’t seen anything on BBC news reporting it or denying the report / sarc.
A moratorium on sarcasm! Please! /sarc
oops!
Liberal elites (er, “progressives”) think they are so competent at running their own lives, that they have the right to run the lives of the little people too. If you disagree too vocally, they also have the power to call upon men with guns to shut you up. A glimpse of life in the Socialist Utopia.
Rick Bradford says: January 12, 2014 at 5:56 am “Their silly and dishonest alarmism comes from the internal mindset, not external financial factors.”
Your list shows the Investments now, not a few Years ago, when I distinctly remember seeing investment in “Carbon”, but I can’t remember, but see these
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/156703/8bn-BBC-eco-bias
http://biasedbbc.org/blog/2011/12/28/bbc-pension-fund-hires-green-advisers/
http://australianclimatemadness.com/2010/02/07/bbc-pension-fund-invested-in-climate-companies/
http://biasedbbc.proboards.com/thread/897
http://www.climategate.com/follow-the-money-bbc-exposed-in-biggest-climate-racket-on-planet
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9055183/BBC-admits-receiving-millions-in-grants-from-EU-and-councils.html
OT Anthony, but those guys and gals from the Russian Ship are still sitting on the Australian Ice Breaker at Casey Station, rockin and rollin with the waves and discomfort of being at sea. Karma!
From the Tony Newbery Harmless Sky I see:
Further down his post I read:
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
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/breaking-the-secret-list-of-the-bbc-28-is-now-public/
If the BBC were a witness in court they would have been thoroughly discredited. The BBC and the Guardian will pay a heavy price for their CAGW nonsense.
This quote from the Mail article is interesting. A listing of outside attendees to the BBC seminar includes: “Andrew Simms of the New Economics Foundation, who argued there were only 100 months left to save the planet through radical emissions cuts”
So this was in 2006, 100 months from 2006 would be, lets see… NOW!
Since nothing has been done to reduce the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, the warmist disaster should be upon us. Except that it isn’t.
Anybody who has any dealings with Mr. Simms should feel free to point this out to him at any opportunity.
I said it before, I’ll say it again, We need a list of discredited reporters and journalists who either willfully or unwillingly allowed themselves to be programmed by the greens.
They aren’t journalists, they are public relations people.
We need to know who they are.
According to Dorthe Dahl-Jensen’s own CV she “Participated in the Advisory Board for BBC global Warming 2006” would that be the very same event?
Which case seems like the secrecy had escaped DD-J
CV at http://cms.ku.dk/nat-sites/nbi-sites/cik/
Thanks….Jimbo.
Rick Bradford is correct. The BBC is a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change Ltd. They have invested a large portion of the pension fund there.
http://www.iigcc.org/files/…/IIGCC_EC_EU_ETS_Consultation_28_Feb.pdf
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/156703/8bn-BBC-eco-bias
Here is Richard Black on quoting them. No conflict of interest there. It’s a bloody scandal I tells ya.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15352764
This is not from any personal exprience, but my next door neighbor in Florida once complained
to me that the gray water used in our lawn watering system got on his car and damaged the finish.
Any observer of mainstream media has suspected such plots for a long time.
I wonder if there are any analogs to this in US media, like MSN?
Harrabin => he is the model of a useful tool for censorship
John
Shocking state of affairs, Harrabin should be just that (Binned) and the BBC needs to root out these middle class left leaning lentil scoffing do gooders and sack the lot with out pay offs or pensions.
Publically funded broadcasters should be unbiased and Apolitical, This whole stinking country has been corrupted by these chattering middle class nobodies, who when given influence and a bit of power become Deity like with opinion and expect the people who pay for them to be in such position’s to adhere and follow like school children.
The BBC ‘s attitude is the same with subjects such as immigration and the European Union
despite poll after poll showing the British people not wanting EU membership and a stop to unrestricted immigration. moral cowards!! the lot of them.
The usual suspects will all debunk ’28 Gate’ as a baseless smear whipped-up by the ‘oil-funded deniers’ and the BBC will, as always when under fire and clearly in the wrong, simply ignore it all.
This is how the BBC operates – and never more so than when it comes to The Holy Consensus. It is now beyond all reasonable doubt that the BBC sees CAGW as a political project close to its socialist heart – and nothing must be permitted to get in the way of that. Not even the facts.
As a UK citizen (or is it ‘subject’?) I see this every night on the BBC news, I hear it every morning over my Cornflakes as I listen to the Today Programme. They never – and I really mean NEVER – miss an opportunity to slip in a sneaky CAGW meme whenever they think they can get away with it (which is, of course, most of the time). For the BBC, CAGW is a permanent, on-going project and all departments (and, I kid you not; this includes, comedy, light entertainment, online, radio drama and every other imaginable department within the £3.5bn pa publicly-funded broadcasting behemoth) are expected to make an effort to reinforce the climate line adopted by the Corporation’s upper-echelon Politburo.
Still, small consolation, but in the end all mighty empires ultimately fall to shadows and dust, right?
Did anyone notice the Chinese delegate at the table?
And has anyone noticed how well China has done out of this scam as we destroy our industry and send our industry to China?
Now, I wouldn’t do a Lewandowsky and suggest something where there is nothing, except I did notice the UEA had a lucrative deal with some Chinese University like Shanghai.
So, I just wondered if anyone else could explain why there was a Chinese delegate at the British Broadcasting Company meeting?
Sorry exact URL for CV: http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/staff/?
I forgot, the BBC like to cover up scandals involving the BBC. I wonder if any of the same BBC executives were involved in covering up the abuse by their ‘paragon of virtue’ , Jimmy Savile?
I notice BBC ‘news’ chief, (now director of BBC radio), Helen Boaden in her statement opposing disclosure said “some editors and executives who attended were inspired to be more ambitious and creative in their editorial coverage of this complex issue”.
More ‘ambitious and creative’ ? Looks like an admission of guilt to me rather than a statement of defence.
So we have had it from the horses mouth, they don’t report the news they ‘create’ it (with ambition).
Is that not the definition of ‘propaganda’ ?
I would like to be able to read what is written in these threads. For the last several days parts of my screen have been invaded or obliterated by intrusive areas that have no perceptible relationship to WUWT, and I am unable to remove them. Are others equally affected? If I cannot stop this activity I shall have to abandon my reading of this blog, wehich I have followed since its inception. Is there a cure for this? Help, please!
This is not really such shocking news. The BBC is so biased towards the EU, AGW, mass immigration and the Labour Party that no one should be surprised. They are a thoroughly corrupt, self serving organisation and are not to be trusted. They even receive funding from the EU to push the agenda.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9055183/BBC-admits-receiving-millions-in-grants-from-EU-and-councils.html
The information at your link does not support your claim. It appears only to show that any carbon trading is not in the top 100 investments. The next 100 investments can be large as well but we don’t know from the list if any such investments exist.
But credit where credit’s due. BBC’s ‘More or Less’ documentary that looks at the ‘truth’ behind statistics has finally debunked the 200 million ‘climate refugees’ meme. Listen here: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/moreorless/moreorless_20130831-0600a.mp3
Robin says:
January 12, 2014 at 8:33 am
“I would like to be able to read what is written in these threads. For the last several days parts of my screen have been invaded or obliterated by intrusive areas that have no perceptible relationship to WUWT, and I am unable to remove them. ”
Nothing here. You are virus-inflicted would be my guess. Bulldoze your windows.
But we needn’t worry, we can rest in the knowledge that the matter will be thoroughly investigated by Lord Patten, Chairmen of the BBC Trust, who would not dream of letting such a serious criticism pass without looking into the whole matter and reporting fully on his findings. Then again, pigs might fly!
Robin, it is just you.
Try doing a virus check. it looks like some “aggressive marketing” software has got on your machine.
.It wouldn’t surprise me if this site was attacked by anti-sceptic bots, though.
It is quite appalling that a public body funded to the tune of £3.3B, should decide what the public should see in this debate.
The abuses in the BBC is simply astonishing. They base everything on a highly biased “seminar” with only zealots permitted to talk. But this is not all, think of the money used to produce pro-alarmist programmes like “Meldown” and Climate Wars”!
The BBC even financially contributed to Myles Allen’s ClimatePrediction.net – yes Myles Allen who then made the ridiculous 11 degree rise claim.only to find the software had errors!
No wonder Savillle got away with his crimes for so long. We can only watch as the abuses continue to accumulate – tax avoidance,huge payoffs, etc.
Despite spending a lot of money on an enquiry into why the Newsnight Savile programme was pull, we still do not know why! And the BBC does not care!
Caz Jones says:
January 12, 2014 at 8:37 am
“They even receive funding from the EU to push the agenda.”
From the article:
“The news prompted MPs to raise questions about the BBC’s impartiality when its journalists report on events in the EU. ”
Ya don’t say! That’s like saying CNN is working for the CIA! I’m cracking myself up!
ConfusedPhoton says:
January 12, 2014 at 8:46 am
“The BBC even financially contributed to Myles Allen’s ClimatePrediction.net – yes Myles Allen who then made the ridiculous 11 degree rise claim.only to find the software had errors!”
Link?
ConfusedPhoton says:
January 12, 2014 at 8:46 am
“The BBC even financially contributed to Myles Allen’s ClimatePrediction.net – yes Myles Allen who then made the ridiculous 11 degree rise claim.only to find the software had errors!”
Ok found it:
“In April 2006, the coupled models were found to have a data input problem. The work was useful for a different purpose than advertised.”
Nicely put!
“The first results of the experiment were published in Nature in January 2005 and show that with only slight changes to the parameters within plausible ranges, the models can show climate sensitivities ranging from less than 2 °C to more than 11 °C.”
What’s a factor of five between friends; at least we’re still in the positive range! (phew)
Forgot the link that I quoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climateprediction.net
I was curious as to the input of the Church of England. It is unusual for the BBC to be so religious.
So I Googled Claire Foster. She now seems to be Claire Foster-Gilbert. From Cater&Co – the Social Kinetic – she is described as one of their experts.
She is also described as “a member of the 10 Downing Street coalition on climate change.”
http://www.thesocialkinetic.com/claire-foster-gilbert/13-our-experts/67-our-experts-claire-foster-gilbert?tmpl=component
David Harrington says:
January 12, 2014 at 6:53 am
To be fair to the BBC 20K does not buy you very much barrister and solicitor time in the UK.
No David it doesn’t but I’m unsure whether that is external advice or their internal solicitors office/ legal department.
Tony Newbery should be knighted.
The disorder was contagious and infected many others:
NYT
Science
Nature
National Geo
Scientific American
The Weather Channel
CBC here in Canadia
etc etc, ad nauseam
dp says:
January 12, 2014 at 8:38 am
You wouldn’t see carbon trading as a separate investment. At the moment there are a number of trading units that have closed due to poor results.
What the UK and the rest of europe needs is a UKIP with a McArthor element. Root out all the communists, sell the BBC, ban all contributions via goverment to greenies and then execute the EU commissioners. There is one guillotine left in the Paris museum. We can start with that and build some more as needed. 🙂
McArthey? McArthor ?
While I think Tony is to be congratulated for his determined efforts to get his information publicised, nothing will happen as far as the UK press is concerned. You will certainly not get any objective reporting from Guardian or Independent, and the Telegraph and Mail keep blowing hot and cold over the climate issue, there is no sustained reporting or challenge to the warmest views. The Express is too tied up with anti EU to get anything out of them. The TV News is even worse. Along with the BBC, Sky and ITV are in the pay of WWF and Save the Children, you only have to see all their adverts to know they are a clear revenue stream, and if they are giving this free then they are clearly supporting the NGO warmest organisations. ITV Meridian News even proudly displays a windmill on their news leader.
I really would like to see something change but I doubt it will until the whole AGW farce collapses, and then as far as the press is concerned they will let it die with no challenge to the money wasted. They are now truly appalling, which is probably due to the fact they have got rid of all their investigative journalists and rely on so called graduate journalists and churnalism because that is cheaper.
DirkH says:
January 12, 2014 at 8:49 am
Caz Jones says:
January 12, 2014 at 8:37 am
“They even receive funding from the EU to push the agenda.”
From the article:
“The news prompted MPs to raise questions about the BBC’s impartiality when its journalists report on events in the EU. ”
Ya don’t say! That’s like saying CNN is working for the CIA! I’m cracking myself up!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You would crack up even more if you were ever to watch a BBC spokesperson assuring us they are a totally unbiased organisation. Unfortunately, some believe them.
Bravo Tony Newbery – Well done Sir !
More here:
http://WWW.THEGWPF.ORG/TONY-NEWBERY-BBCS-DISCLOSED-FOI-DOCUMENTS/
TONY NEWBERY: THE BBC’S DISCLOSED FOI DOCUMENTS
Date: 12/01/14
Tony Newbery, Harmless Sky
The article said the legal costs were ‘more than’ £20,000. As far as I recall from reports, the BBC had a number of legal advisors at the FOI hearing, they probably thought it was worth it to stop one UK pensioner proving they were a propaganda organisation for green scare stories about global warming.
… and at Tony Newbury’s site Harmless Sky
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/~newbery1/blog/
“I said it before, I’ll say it again, We need a list of discredited reporters and journalists who either willfully or unwillingly allowed themselves to be programmed by the greens.
They aren’t journalists, they are public relations people.”
The list would be easier to compile, and much shorter, if you asked for a list of reporters both unbiased(or at least cognizant of their biases) and immune from such programming…
The best lies your tax money can buy to be broadcast to you by paid liars.
Now reported on the Telegraph website too:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10566952/Row-over-BBC-climate-change-conference-cover-up.html
oops
The best lies your tax money can buy to be broadcast to you via your tax money and by on air paid liars smirking at you as they do the lying.
Shocked, shocked I tell you that the BBC, CBC, ABC are nothing but leftist political hot houses..
Global warming is a political issue with no real data to support it.. Therefor our democratic election laws have been broken.. They have forced people to make donations to a political cause without their consent..
Robin, this problem I do not have but you may have been on obscure sites. Update your Java. Next run three antimalware programs on your computer, and use the option of system reset to an earlier date. Usually this works unless you are infected by the latest version of the Interpol virus. In that case you could not have written a message. Success!
David Harrington
“To be fair to the BBC 20K does not buy you very much barrister and solicitor time in the UK.”
In fact the sum is derisory when compared with the £333,000 in legal fees which the BBC was prepared to spend to protect their cover-up of a report on another of their favourite biases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balen_Report
But in 2011, when that case was finally settled in the Supreme Court after the BBC had lost in the House of Lords, the Jimmy Saville case had not yet broken and there were still some British judges who were prepared to believe in the integrity of the BBC.
Now then, now then, hows about that then guys an’ gals?
The BBC charter can be obtained here:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/charter.pdf
Some excerpts:
ELIZABETH THE SECOND by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and of Our other Realms and Territories Queen, Head
of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith:
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETING!
…
NOW KNOW YE that We by Our Prerogative Royal and of Our especial grace,
certain knowledge and mere motion do by this Our Charter for Us, Our Heirs and
Successors will, ordain and declare as follows:
…
(1) The BBC shall be independent in all matters concerning the content of its output, the
times and manner in which this is supplied, and in the management of its affairs.
Isn’t it time we stopped concentrating on the minutae if climate change and broadcast the ‘whole’ story in one easy-to-understand package? Club of Rome, UN, Article 21, Climate Gate, the Pause, IPCC ‘errors’ and successive exposure articles on the ‘fraud’ this all encompasses?
We’re past the point of having to dig into each and every ‘fact’ that is presented for public consumption – there is already more than enough evidence, properly presented, to expose the whole AGW political structure as the scam that ‘we’ know it is in one short, to-the-point article that can, and should, be propagated across the internet and, hopefully picked up by the MSM.
phlogiston says on January 12, 2014 at 10:24 am
The BBC charter can be obtained here:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/charter.pdf
Some excerpts:
(1) The BBC shall be independent in all matters concerning the content of its output, the
times and manner in which this is supplied, and in the management of its affairs.
_________
Such a major breach of the BBC Charter suggests that they must dismiss senior management and start over…
We have the same problem with eh CBC in Canada. They have become a propaganda tool of the political Left and cannot be trusted to report the facts.
Yes, funny why you need to do this sort of thing when you have fact, data, and peer reviewed science on your side……. The amount of hubris displayed by this crowd is absolutely stunning.
Robin: could be your browser is not displaying the WUWT html in the way it was written to be displayed.
This can be because your browser is out of date, you have changed settings on certain aspects of browser display, you have javascript disabled or it is out of date.
I use Firefox as it is more compliant with stricter markup standards now being used more and more. It is free and seems to do better than many of the other browsers AND it’s not Google OR M$.
YMMV
The BBC is not an honest broker. They have officially decided to be a far-left propaganda mouth piece. A very far cry from the honorable and brave BBC during WWII.
Newsbusters.org has a link to David Rose’s story and Tony Newbury’s blog in their reporting of the BBC being taught what to say about CAGW.
The BBC has sunk lower and lower. It has been obvious for a long time that the climate/global warming output has been outragiously biased. They have peddled and invented scare after scare. Sadly this is part of a wider picture of bias and hidden agendas. The BBC championed the pro EU agenda and the pro-Euro brigade. The BBC takes a leftish slant on most social issues and [some of] its leading lights like Andrew Marr have publicly reconised this fact. Who writes their script and how can these meta-narratives be broken down. Well done Tony Newberry. WE all owe you! The juggernaut of AGW will only be stoppped when these bastions of propaganda are truly breached and the other side gets its voice heard.
The inevitable end result of any state funded media organization is to push the interest of the state. This should come as a surprise to no one.
Mark
DirkH
From guess who?
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=70
May I ask that any UK BBC licence payers visit Tony Newberry’s blog:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=703#comment-203344
and emails the House of Commons Culture Media and Sport Select Committee as he suggests regarding an independent enquiry into the BBC Editorial Policy.
If Tony can spend considerable time and effort submitting the FOI and deal with all the usual frustrations and prevarication arising from this process then this is the least we can do.
Thank you.
DirkH
There is also for the 11 degrees http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4210629.stm
and the error http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4923248.stm
Mark T says:
January 12, 2014 at 11:08 am
The inevitable end result of any state funded media organization is to push the interest of the state. This should come as a surprise to no one.
Mark
Perfeito….
http://i1195.photobucket.com/albums/aa391/MAFILI/035709202-EX00_zpsad2528e3.jpg
In another thread someone coined the term “Presstitutes”…..seems to apply in spades here….
As far as the Church of England being involved (which I questioned in the original thread about this a while back), the Queen of England is the head of the church. When you consider that her
husband, Prince Phillip, considers humans to be a virus on the earth (or something like that),
and her son Charles (I think England’s answer to California’s governor moonbeam) is about
as green as can be, it’s no surprise that the Church of England would be involved with
supposed “climate problems”…..if only they were more involved with their own problems, and
other, REAL, problems….
Nothing to see here – its the establishment babysitters. Nothing changed, nothing will change, the BBC will stick to their global warming script as normal. But what has changed before this story broke is the people themselves – the people no longer believe the AGW scam. Even the might of the MSM could not and cannot raise this dead cow! The MSM no longer matters – the internet has surpassed their ability to shape minds. This site alone serves millions – my case entirely!
Re; Christopher says: at 8:41 am
I listened to the podcast you linked to, astonishing! The professor who produced the 50 – 200 million climate refugees by 2010 figure was funded by the UN and all but admitted he came up with the figure ‘to scare people’. I can only think he was so candid because it was the BBC who were interviewing him.
Amazing time lag.
Or what passes for journalism today.
The presstitutes who inhabit our main stream media, have lied to us for years.
This tool, the www, has broken their lock on publicity.
Leaving them rather exposed as the hacks they are.
Their selective blindness has been apparent for years but now we have this tool to check and see what the MSM has failed to report.Like the actual facts.
Classic big protest as covered by CBC= same 30 people filmed from 100 angles.
Frank Zappa called this state of affairs years ago, a cute little number called;”I am the Slime”.
The opening line is our media.. Vile and pernicious, obsessed and deranged…
Sounds like CNN, CBC, BBC to me.
In addition to the points raised against this by commenters upthread, there’s this: The stock market value of their green investments has likely fallen by at least 75% over the past five years or so. This could well have had the effect of removing that bunch from their “top 100” (by market value) list.
The bbc truly thinks that they are doing the right thing by “savigng the planet”.
The right thing for them is to report the facts from all sides. If they do not they themselves are corrupt. Media must be kept at arm’s length from government because if power is not distributed then corruption will occur as power corrupts.
Meanwhile in Australia the government-owned ABC is a clone of the BBC with its opinionated “news”. It is finally coming under some criticism from the new government for its leftist reporting, with not one conservative reporter on its payroll.
Hasn’t it been an open secret for decades that to assuage perceived guilt we must “invest in the planet/future”? Rich people are just as dumb as the rest of of us, statistically, possibly dumber due to rent-seekers feeding them feelings of responsibility.
@Clive
Don’t you think that there must have been an equally strange and funded meeting for the top CBC news-shapers? The CBC is unremitting in its promotion of CAGW and can only reflect a rigid policy that it must be so. How do we find out when and where this took place, and who attended?
Corrections to my last comment. The climate refugee figures should have been 50 million by 2010 and 200 million in the next few decades. It wasn’t the professor who produced the figure (professor Norman Myers) who admitted he came up with the figure to scare people, it was another scientist who suggested that. What prof Myers said when challenged about the accuracy of the climate refugee figure was;
“All science is a bit iffy”
Here is a link to the article:
http://oppenheimer.mcgill.ca/How-many-climate-migrants-will
Crispin in Waterloo
I’d say any network who hires Suzuki (CBC) is into AGW up to the tip of their hair on their head.
Delingpole is on the case
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100254064/how-the-blair-government-paid-for-the-subversion-of-our-state-broadcaster/
Irony anyone?
http://www.mediareform.org.uk/blog/media-now-just-another-word-control-john-pilgers-today-programme-statement
Robin says:
DirkH says:
M Courtney says:
Mindert Eiting says:
OT – on the subject of screen invasion – and may be of interest to Anthony & the mods?
The problem may not be a virus, bad browser settings etc. It might be the result of advertiser hijacking.
Around 19th December, I had a problem with advertising on WUWT messing up the display, eg after an iiNet (Oz ISP) advert displayed, nothing else was displayed.
I contacted WordPress, suggesting that one at least of their advertiser inserts had a bug in it.
H/t to WordPress. They came back promptly with this advice:
“We actually aren’t running ads from iinet at the moment. Some ISPs actually “hijack” ad areas to run their own ads, this is especially true of low cost ISPs and some with rather shady business dealings. Considering that your ISP is iinet, I’d suspect this may be the case.”
iiNet are currently (but not for much longer) my ISP so in my case it may be easy for them. On the other hand, they may be innocent and it could be their advertising agent.
HOW TO COMPLAIN TO THE BBC
BBC HQ
BBC Broadcasting House
London
UK
W1A 1AA
Tel: +44 370 010 0222
Tel: 020 7743 8000
Tel: 08700 100 222 if you want to complain about a programme
info@bbc.co.uk
*****
BBC BOSSES AND THE BBC COMPLAINTS PROCESS
If you want to email them direct, then it is usually firstname.lastname@bbc.co.uk
THE BBC TRUSTEES
Lord Patten
Chairman
Diane Coyle
Vice Chairman
Sonita Alleyne
Trustee
Richard Ayre
Trustee
Anthony Fry
Trustee
Alison Hastings
Trustee for England
David Liddiment
Trustee
Bill Matthews
Trustee for Scotland
Aideen McGinley
Trustee for Northern Ireland
Elan Closs Stephens
Trustee for Wales
Suzanna Taverne
Trustee
Lord Williams
Trustee
*****
The Director-General of the BBC
The Director-General is the Chief Executive Officer and the Editor-in-Chief of the BBC. He is the editorial, operational and creative leader of the organisation, with responsibility for the Corporation’s global workforce and all of the BBC’s services across television, radio and online.
The Director-General chairs the BBC Executive Board, which consists of six other executive directors, and four non-executive directors. The Executive Board manages the BBC. It is responsible for operational management and for the delivery of BBC services according to the plans that have been agreed with the BBC Trust.
BBC EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS
Tony Hall, Director-General
Helen Boaden, Director, Radio
Danny Cohen, Director, Television
James Harding, Director of News and Current Affairs
Lucy Adams, Director, HR
Anne Bulford, Managing Director, Operations and Finance
James Purnell, Director, Strategy & Digital
BBC NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS
Simon Burke
Sally Davis
Dame Fiona Reynolds DBE
Brian McBride
*****
MAKING A COMPLAINT TO THE BBC
There are several ways :
Complaints page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
Complain online
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/
The Feedback program (quite a useless program, really)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/feedback/
feedback@bbc.co.uk
Phone
03700 100 222*
03700 100 212* (textphone)
*24 hours, charged as 01/02 geographic numbers
Post
BBC Complaints
PO Box 1922
Darlington
DL3 0UR
How the BBC handles complaints
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/
HOW AND WHEN TO COMPLAIN
To help us report and handle complaints efficiently, we ask you to contact us using our central website, phone number or postal address. If you do not, we cannot guarantee your complaint is seen by the right people or that you will receive a reply. If you need access assistance please contact us.
If you have a complaint about a BBC item which was broadcast or published, either online or in a BBC owned magazine, you should normally complain within 30 working days of the transmission or publication (there are some exceptions to this time limit so please read the full procedures). Please make one complaint rather than multiple issues which may complicate any investigation and delay our reply. For the full complaints procedures please visit the BBC Trust website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/complaints_framework/). You can also complain to Ofcom – details at Where to complain (http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/where-to-complain/)
If you complain online, we ask you to complete a webform instead of contacting an email address. This is because we need to capture all the information to classify, report and handle each complaint as efficiently as possible.
What happens next
We will investigate possible breaches of standards, but in order to use your licence fee proportionately will not reply in detail to other points such as comments, further questions or matters of opinion. For consistency and to minimise costs, if we receive other complaints about the same issue we will send the same reply to everyone and may publish a response on our website or in Corrections and clarifications (http://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarifications/index.html) We email or post over 90% of replies within 2 weeks (10 working days) but cannot always guarantee this. It will also depend on what your complaint is about, how many others we have and practical issues such as whether a production team is on location or otherwise away.
If you are dissatisfied with our reply you should re-contact us in writing within 20 working days explaining why. You may be able to take the issue further to stage 2 and if so we will explain how. This is normally either to the independent Editorial Complaints Unit or relevant senior management. We publish the findings of complaints upheld or resolved by the Editorial Complaints Unit and those considered at stage 3 on appeal by the BBC Trust in Complaints reports (http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/reports/)
In order to use your licence fee proportionately we do not investigate minor, misconceived, hypothetical, repetitious or otherwise vexatious complaints which have not suggested evidence of a breach of standards, or are gratuitously abusive or offensive. When handling your complaint we will treat you courteously and with respect. We expect you to show equal courtesy and respect towards our staff and reserve the right to discontinue correspondence if you do not, and in some cases we may use your personal information to stop such behaviour.
More details :
The BBC Trust upholds standards and represents the interests of licence payers and full details of the complaints procedures are available on the BBC Trust website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/complaints_framework/). Please scroll down for further information and answers about the handling of complaints. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/#faqs)
*****
Further information about the complaints service
What does the BBC do with my complaint?
We analyse all complaints overnight and also take into account other reaction, audience research and BBC Editorial Guidelines. People have different views or expectations about programmes which can differ from our editorial standards or the public service obligations we must meet. So our reply to a complaint may not always be what someone might wish. But if we get something wrong we will apologise and, if necessary, take steps to avoid it happening again.
How does the BBC act on complaints?
The BBC’s Complaints Management Board meets monthly to review issues arising from complaints, BBC Trust or Ofcom findings and other broadcasting developments. Chaired by the Chief Complaints Editor it is made up of senior executives and ensures lessons are learned and fed into BBC Editorial Guidelines and compliance processes. It reports to the BBC’s Editorial Standards Board. The BBC Trust is the BBC’s governing body which holds the Executive to account and represents the interests of licence payers. It monitors editorial standards, compliance and complaints handling. It reports on these in its Annual Report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/) to licence payers and on the BBC Trust website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/)
What if I remain dissatisfied with the BBC’s reply?
You should re-contact us in writing within 20 working days quoting any case number and explaining why. You may be able to take the issue to stage 2 and if so we will explain how. This is normally either to the independent Editorial Complaints Unit or higher management. For the full complaints procedures please visit the BBC Trust website.
Do the numbers of complaints make a difference?
No. We are always concerned about high numbers, but what matters is whether the complaint is justified and the BBC acted wrongly. If so we will apologise. If we do not believe we breached our public service obligations or Editorial Guidelines we will explain why. We sometimes come under pressure from organised lobbies or the press but defend our editorial independence and standards as necessary.
How does the BBC define a complaint?
It isn’t possible to define the difference between a comment and complaint. If you say it is a complaint we count it as one. We generally consider a complaint to be a criticism which expects a reply and would ideally like things changed, even if we are unable to respond as the complainant might wish.
What does the BBC publish about complaints?
We publish public responses to issues of wide audience concern if they cause significant numbers of complaints or raise a significant issue. We do not publish public responses to every single complaint. Our responses are available in Complaints reports (http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/reports/) for up to six months and include any explanation, apology or action taken as a result. In Complaints reports (http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/reports/) we also publish:
1. monthly summaries of the main editorial complaints received at stage 1
2. findings of editorial complaints later upheld or resolved by the Editorial Complaints Unit (stage 2)
3. findings of subsequent appeals to the BBC Trust (stage 3) including non-editorial complaints
What if I have not had a reply?
Please call us or contact us through our website.
What happens if I opt not to ask for a reply?
Your complaint is normally still circulated to BBC staff to read in our overnight report of reaction.
*****
Maybe slightly off-topic but it seems to me that the MSM have created a bubble of fear and expectation that is not being borne out by reality.There has been no increase in global temperatures for seventeen years. The population have been told with authority and 97% consensus that the climate is changing irrevocably and to the detriment of humankind and the Earth. Meanwihle the weather is doing its normal variations.
Like the mentality of the ” South Sea Bubble” , ” Tulipomania” or the 1920’s ( and 1980’s) stock market gains there is only one outcome ( i.e. perpetually rising prices). Anyone who does not believe this is a fool and will lose out. In all these previous bubbles the rich elite were involved to make what they saw as sure money.
Like all bubbles it will collapse suddenly. I don’t think we are at that point yet but the bubble is beginning to quiver. Turneygate is not quite the turning point.
Be careful and don’t get crushed in the rush for the exits as the governments and their cronies start to deny complicity. Even the Met Office is beginning not to link all bad weather to climate change. There will be scapegoats thrown to the wolves .The real villains will get away. And they won’t return their ill-gotten gains.
Towards the start of the Vietnam War , and I honour the gallantry and sacrifice of the American , and Vietnamese peoples, in 1962/3 it was clear to informed frontline advisors that the war was unwinnable. However McNamara with his statistics and LBJ with his egomania would not see this and through their dogma continued with a policy that resulted in the unnecessary deaths, maimings and traumas. Our current governments and their tame broadcasters with their “green” policies are inflicting death( hypothermia), hardship and unnecessary fear. It will take a Nixon, for all his faults, to get us all out of this mire.
Sasha – Thanks for the info above, but frankly writing to the BBC or the Trust is a total waste of time. The whole organisation is rotten to the core and I really believe do not understand why people like us get aggrieved at what they do. They are convinced they are right and as many here and at other blogs have found one just gets the usual tosh back saying they are perfect.
Tony Newberry (who has had a lot of practice in this area) suggests instead one should write/email to the House of Commons Culture Media and Sport Select Committee (cmscom@parliament.uk) suggesting they set up an independent enquiry into the whole debacle.
Read what Tony has to say http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=703
johnbuk, complaining to he BBC will probably achieve nothing. Agreed.
But it is not a waste of time! Note use of exclamation mark.
It allows the BBC to honourably consider their position.
As the BBC is a corporate entity anything that pushes the corporation’s anti-bias [wing] forward will help in the internal politics.
And if they still refuse to allow all voices to be heard then their punishment in the court of public opinion will be adjusted accordingly.
But, yes, complaining to the politicians may help – as well (I suppose).
DayHay says:
January 12, 2014 at 10:35 am
……. The amount of hubris displayed by this crowd is absolutely stunning
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I assume by “hubris” you mean immoral, unethical, anti-scientific and fraudulent, all of which is funded by taxpayer funds.
I am afraid that the BBC is beyond redemption, because it does exactly the same on all topics. Take religio-politics, for instance….
Last week the BBC’s religious correspondent, Rafid Jabboori, said in relation to Christians in Turkey, Syria and Lebanon that: “some of them had been there for centuries”. The clear implication from the BBC being that Christians were ‘recent’ immigrants in the Near East. No mention from the BBC that Turkey, Syria and Lebanon were central hubs in the Christian Byzantine Empire, long before Islam was invented. Most of North Africa, Palestine, Syria and Turkey were 95% Christian at one time, but you would not know that from the BBC. (The Byzantine capital was Istanbul.)
Then yesterday the BBC’s Jeremy Bowden said that Ariel Sharon had sparked the Second Intifada by: “making a visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque” in Jerusalem. The obvious implication being that this was ‘provocative’. No, BBC, the reality is that Sharon went to see the Jews’ most sacred monument – the foundations of the Temple of Solomon, which lie next door to the mosque on the Temple Mount. (Jews are not normally allowed onto the Temple Mount where the Temple of Solomon stood, because the Palestinians have banned them.)
.
I am an Atheist, so I have no dog in this particular fight, but I think readers can see the direction that the BBC is pushing; and pushing; and pushing.
Where was the 28-Gate conference that decided the BBC’s output on Near Eastern religio-politics, eh?? I would like to know….
Silver
See my letter to the BBC Trust sent 23 November, 2012.
Needless to say I got the brush-off (see response).
Huppert was equally useless.
Director, BBC Trust
The BBC Trust
180 Great Portland Street
London, W1W 5QZ
Dear Sir,
I am writing to you about a serious concern regarding the BBC’s reporting of climate change science and associated issues.
From the detail emerging in the aftermath of Mr. Tony Newbery’s F.O.I case (EA/2009/0118) it is absolutely clear that the BBC is in breach of its Charter, which requires it to be impartial.
Furthermore it knowingly and wilfully breached its Charter in this regard and has since tried to hide this fact from the Public and license fee payers, at the Publics’ expense.
In June, 2007, the BBC Trust published a report entitled “From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st Century”. That report, which is fully endorsed by the BBC Trust, contains the following statement (page 40):
“The BBC has held a high‐level seminar with some of the best scientific experts,
and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal
space being given to the opponents of the consensus.”
This statement forms the basis for the BBC’s decision to breach its Charter and abandon impartiality on the subject of climate change and instead provide a highly biased and alarmist presentation of the science of climate change, without any attempt at counterbalancing argument, let alone “equal space”.
Since then attempts have been made, via FOI requests, to find out the identities of the so-called “best scientific experts” who attended the “high level seminar” which thereby provided the justification for the BBC to abandon its principle of impartiality in this area. To my best knowledge, the BBC has not abandoned its impartiality in this way, even in wartime.
Tony Newbery, a pensioner, clearly felt the same way and has gone through a long series of FOI requests and processes, culminating, earlier this month, in a tribunal at the Central London Civil Justice Centre (case no. EA/2009/0118). The FOI request was for the identities of the “best scientific experts” who attended the seminar. In order to conceal this information, the BBC fielded a team of 6 lawyers, including barristers, at an estimated cost of £40,000 per day, to prevent the list of names from being published. Whilst they were successful, it was a pyrric victory, as it transpires that this information, that the BBC had tried so hard to conceal, had been in the Public domain for some time.
So who were these “best scientific experts”?
It turns out to be a motley collection of climate alarmists, activists, environmental advocates and those with vested financial interests:
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
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.
Not one of these could be described as “scientific”, let alone an expert.
The remainder:
Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
are scientists, but were misleadingly described in court by Helen Boaden (of Jimmy Saville infamy), as “scientists with contrasting views”. In fact all are unashamedly alarmist. Pointedly, not one of these scientists deals with attribution science, or the atmospheric physics of global warming.
So where are the real experts? Scientists from the Met Office, or the Hadley Centre, one of the foremost climate research centres in the world? Where are the names of Dr.
Chris Landsea, World expert on hurricanes, or Dr. Nils‐Axel Mörner, World authority on sea level rises? Or Professors Richard Lindzen, or Murry Salby, World experts on atmospheric physics? Why are there no experts from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia?
It now crystal clear why the BBC went to such great lengths and expense to
withhold the names of those attending. They are not the “best scientific experts” but
rather a group overwhelmingly comprised of environmental activists and NGO’s,
with no scientific training, whatsoever, or those with a vested interest, often financial, in keeping climate change alarmism firmly in the Public eye.
In conclusion I put it to the BBC Trust that:
1. The BBC and, by endorsing the report, the BBC Trust, have lied to the public that
they organised and/or attended a seminar at BBC Television Centre involving the
“best scientific experts” on climate change.
2. That its change of policy to no longer be impartial on the subject of climate
change was not based on scientific evidence, or the views of the “best scientific
experts”, but in fact was as a result of listening to the views, advice and lobbying
from inappropriate and biased individuals, groups and organisations including Greenpeace, Tearfund, US Embassy, BP, IIED, IBT, AsRia, E3G etc.
3. That the BBC and the BBC Trust are in breach of the charter and acting
unlawfully. The following quotations are taken from the website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-editorial-values-editorial-values/
1.2.1 Trust
Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest. We are committed to achieving the highest standards of due accuracy and impartiality and strive to avoid knowingly and materially misleading our audiences.
1.2.2 Truth and Accuracy
We seek to establish the truth of what has happened and are committed to achieving due accuracy in all our output. Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right; when necessary, we will weigh relevant facts and information to get at the truth. Our output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, will be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We will strive to be honest and open about what we don’t know and avoid unfounded speculation.
1.2.3 Impartiality
Impartiality lies at the core of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences. We will apply due impartiality to all our subject matter and will reflect a breadth and diversity of opinion across our output as a whole, over an appropriate period, so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under-represented. We will be fair and open-minded when examining evidence and weighing material facts.
1.2.4 Editorial Integrity and Independence
The BBC is independent of outside interests and arrangements that could undermine our editorial integrity. Our audiences should be confident that our decisions are not influenced by outside interests, political or commercial pressures, or any personal interests.
Each and every one of these guidelines has been knowingly breached.
This is a scandal that is, in its own way, more disturbing than the one over the Jimmy Savile affair, as it has implications for the whole population. Interestingly the key players is this scandal, George Entwistle, Helen Boaden, Peter Rippon and Steve Mitchell, are also key players in the Savile affair. However whilst the Savile scandal is being looked into by a series of inquiries, this has been ignored.
I look forward to hearing from you in due course on this matter. Please also be advised that I have sent a copy of this letter to my Member of Parliament the Rt. Hon. Julian Huppert, MP.
Dear Dr. Keiller.
Dear Dr Keiller
Thank you for your email to the BBC Trust. I am responding as a member of the BBC Trust Unit which supports and advises the Chairman and Trustees.
I note your concerns about the impartiality of the BBC and I can assure you that ensuring the impartiality of the BBC is a key priority for the Trust; it is essential to its independence that the BBC retains the public’s trust as an impartial purveyor of news and programming. The BBC is required to deliver duly impartial news by the Royal Charter and Agreement and to treat controversial subjects with due impartiality. The Trust is committed to making sure that the BBC fulfils this obligation.
The seminar to which you refer was held on 26 January 2006 under the Chatham House Rule. It was organised in partnership with the Cambridge Media and Environmental Programme (CMEP) in conjunction with BBC News and BBC Vision. It pre-dated the Trust and was not a BBC Trust event. I understand that the Seminar was a one-day event focusing on climate science and the possible implications for businesses, individuals and international diplomacy looking ahead to the next 10 years and exploring the challenges facing the BBC in covering the issue. The event brought together 28 BBC representatives and 28 external invitees including scientists and policy experts including representatives from business, campaigners, NGOs, communications experts, people from the ‘front line’, scientists with contrasting views and academics. It is important that, in order to achieve an understanding of where due weight might lie in an argument, the BBC establishes what the prevailing consensus on an issue is and I understand that the seminar was part of that effort.
New editorial guidelines were published in 2010. The current BBC Guidelines state that, “Impartiality does not necessarily require the range of perspectives or opinions to be covered in equal proportions either across our output as a whole, or within a single programme, web page or item. Instead, we should seek to achieve ‘due weight’. For example, minority views should not necessarily be given equal weight to the prevailing consensus.”
The Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee has explained its position in some of its findings on the subject in recent years. The Committee decided that its position was that there is a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening and laid out some of the reasons for reaching that decision, which included the statement by the Royal Society that, “Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming”. The Committee also noted that all three of the larger British political parties, as well as the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru, have accepted man-made climate change as a reality.
However, if you feel there are specific instances where the BBC has not met expected standards of impartiality then you can of course raise them using the BBC complaints process. Details of the process are available online at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints.
I hope this is helpful.
There should be a free speech violation law.
I propose a law wherein the press, specially the press, in asserting their absolute rights to freedom of the press and free speech, willfully act at the behest of a political party or lobbying group, in contradiction to their state mandate and protections, that the violator be jailed.
The freedom of the press is to important to leave in the hands of people who pretend to be journalists and act contrary to freedoms they supposedly uphold.
In my mind this is the worst form of corruption. The penalties for this kind of behavior should be extreme.
On one hand we have journalists who enjoy the sacred pulpit of apparent blind objectivity and SECRETLY conspire to favor a narrow political interest. Everyone of the 28 should be Tarred and Feathered, jailed and their children jailed.
The enemy are the liars who write the news.
“
But that has no impact on policy or, therefore, politics.
Not unless, “greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming” means greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming significantly greater than would happen naturally.
And who can predict what the temperature change would be with no additional CO2 from industry?
johnbuk says: January 12, 2014 at 1:58 pm
Frankly writing to the BBC or the Trust is a total waste of time.
________________________________
I disagree. The BBC complaints department are quite good, in that they will contact the producer or reporter and ask them why they said or did (whatever it was). Ok, one question is not going to change things. But consider 1,000 letters arriving – all in two days. Now that makes a difference.
We did this with the Syria war debate, where we got 250,000 emails down to Westminster. A dozen MPs agreed with the explanations we put forward – that the BBC had forgotten to mention* – and the government lost the motion by a dozen votes. And because Cameron lost the vote, Obama bottled out too. Ha – what a few letters of complaint will do.
Silver.
* Little things, like 5,000 tonnes of sarin gas arriving in the London Tube and the New York Metros, and 4 million Christians being slaughtered/exiled, if the Syrian terrorists ever won……
Silver Ralph, I applaud anyone making the time and effort as you have done to register dissatisfaction and concern at the BBC’s antics. But as we can see from Don Keiller’s correspondence with them one just gets the bum’s rush as usual. I genuinely believe our efforts can be better employed as Tony Newberry has suggested. I have sent an email and if more do likewise then just maybe the select committee will create enough noise to make a difference – niaive I know!
Regards.
The warmists have not been having a very good time lately, what with the pause and all. In the future this may not always be the case. With just natural variability, we’re bound to see long stretches of rising temps. I think a good lesson to learn from the warmists is not to be too smug.
Dan Keiller,
“We will tell you what the truth is, as you can read our charter tells us that is how it is. You too are subject to the charter.”
How dare you question their false charter!!! Seems they were born to lie.
Too,
The posting of London247 is an example of the result of the liberal/progressive media and its “charter” to tell us what the truth is now and prior.
The Vietnam war was won by the boots on the ground, Gen. Giap of the NVA said so himself.
The Russians were ready and needed to stop the bleeding of resources as in the end the bleeding off of resources to the Vietnam war helped bring down the USSR. Yet the lies of John Kerry, Walter
Conkrite , and the American/other press (BBC) fixed the deal so well with lies that still yet London247 belives the lie to this hour.
Truth is life.
Lies kill.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I have long had a question about man-made CO2 that I have not seen addressed here. It could have been addressed many times and I just missed it; these things happen.
Anyway, here goes. If my car (fuel efficient little bugger) produces CO2 as I drive to the store, then this CO2 is basically emitted at near ground level. And any CO2 emitted due to me using a grill outdoors in summer is likewise emitted at near ground level. So — how does that CO2 become “well mixed” way up there in the atmosphere like the IPCC tells me it is? How does man’s tiny addition to the CO2 produced each year get way up there to do anything? And why is mankind’s rather small addition to the global totals each year so dang much more important than nature’s release of CO2? Does nature get a pass or something?
TIA.
No-one has mentioned the elephant in the studio. The BBC, like every other centre of power and influence in British public life, has for years been extensively infiltrated by Common Purpose, a repellent organisation of hyperactive little fifth-columnists which exists only to promote and implement Agenda 21 and whatever other poisonous policies have been chosen to advance international fascism Of course they propagandise. It’s what they’re for, now.
Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval):
re your post at January 12, 2014 at 3:27 pm.
Several WUWT threads have discussed the carbon cycle and your specific questions. For answers use the WUWT search facility for Salby then read the threads that are listed.
This thread is about the BBC scandal.
I hope this helps.
Richard
When the CAGW scare is over the BBC will have found itself on the wrong side of the facts. Yet it sells itself on facts. It will spin furiously while forgetting it has invested a large chunk of its pension scheme in carbon reduction schemes (as well as oil and tobacco companies). Did I mention that Dana NUTTERCELLI (arch Guardian Warmist) works for the fossil fuel company called Tetra Tech?
This is how the game works folks. Do as we say, not as we do. To think I used to work for this disgraceful outfit.
BBC Pension – Top equity Investments at 31 March 2013
“Does not include any assets held in pooled funds.”
Dana NUTTERCELLI and Tetra Tech which acquired Rooney Engineering – shale oil frackers.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/22/dana-nuccitellis-vested-interest-oil-and-gas/
http://www.tetratech.com/press-releases/tetra-tech-expands-services-to-shale-oil-market-with-rooney-engineering-acquisition.html
Myles Allen’s model and a controversial press release
I can’t find the 2006 date. I did find something for 2008. We might have to wait 2 more years before the end of the world and runaway warming. I once posted a comment on one of his rubbish articles pointing out that the IPCC was at loggerheads with his claim for co2 induced runaway warming. My comment was later deleted and I was banned.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/series/100-months-to-save-the-world+carbon-emissions
I suppose so Richard, except that I thought it was about the BBC pushing the “man-made CO2 emissions will fry us all” line they have been pushing and that my question was right in line with that. I guess some would argue no.
I’ll try to find the exact thread that you say answered my questions, but a link would have been so very helpful had one been predisposed to such kindness.
Thanks for all your help, Mark
As you may know I am a sceptic of CAGW. I am no expert either but I will ask you a question: How does ground dust make it up there?
Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval):
re your request to me at January 12, 2014 at 3:53 pm
Try this link for a start
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/05/the-emily-litella-moment-for-climate-science-and-co2/
Richard
Jimbo,
“… but I will ask you a question: How does ground dust make it up there?”
I don’t know if it all does. Certainly a lot of dust created by mother nature is moved high into the atmosphere via winds and other means and so does make it up there. (is it “well mixed”??) But does the dust I created in my driveway when I swept it this morning make it high up into the atmosphere to be “well mixed” with mother nature’s massive contribution? I don’t know, but I am doubtful. And does my little bit of dust created when I swept the driveway overpower the massive amounts that mother nature moved hight into the air? I rather doubt it.
I hope you see that I am really posing a rhetorical question to the people at the BBC who do believe that a tiny amount of CO2 released by little o’l me and you is going to kill us all.
Maybe it’s time for UK residents to consider stop paying for your (BBC) TV licence fee as a form of civil protest. If you have had enough of the global warming nonsense then it is up to you to consider your options. See all the alternatives available. This outfit needs to be privatized, but no chance of that when you consider how it has been used by politicians as per above. Then they claim to be impartial!!!! What a bloody joke. The BRITISH BIAS CORPORATION (BBC).
They are so clued in that they ‘missed’ the pedophile, Jimmy Saville, amongst their group.
I see you point, but such nitpicking grinds the debate down. I don’t argue with warmists about whether co2 is a greenhouse gas. I don’t argue whether the world has warmed etc. I let it go and move along. The debate is how much global warming will we expect to see in 2100? My advice is not to get bogged down in co2 being a well mixed gas, accept it, it makes any contradictory observations stronger.
Co2 – a well mixed gas AND lumpy. 🙂 The debate could go on and on……….
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/29/co2-well-mixed-or-mixed-signals/
http://phys.org/news142861794.html
IPCC view
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/016.htm
Maybe because it’s Savile, not Saville?
Re, clipe says:
Your spelling mistake explanation is more believable than the excuses the BBC has put forward so far. : )
Saville or Savile is dead. Now they are after well known Ozzie ‘Oliver pollop” (I used to watch him on B & W BBC TV in the early 50s) Rolf Harris. Hard to believe but there it is. As far as investments are concerned, I was right, the BBC did invest a large portion of their superannuation fund in Carbon trading and was well advertised at the time.
I only watch catch-up TV on iPlayer, 4oD etc. I still have an aerial on my roof and CAN watch live TV but don’t. I told the licencing people how I use my television set and they said I don’t need to buy a licence. I even got my previous year refunded!
interesting investigation going on in New Zealand:
WhaleOil.co.nz: Has Chris Turney lied about his support by institutions?
by Cameron Slater on January 11, 2014
When this debacle unfolded people started rummaging through their website. One page, that of their supporters, raised alarm bells…
The Taxpayers Union followed up by contacting the New Zealand organisations listed and found some pleasant news…for taxpayers…and not so pleasant news for Chris Turney…
In fact, it appears that the Australasian Antarctic Expedition (AAE) is claiming at least one ‘supporter’ it doesn’t have…
It appears there is still no answer from Landcare Research and University of Waikato though…
The Department of Conservation appears to be very concerned meanwhile with their Director of Policy phoning the Taxpayer’s Union himself to clarify:
“Last night DoC’s Director of Policy Jeff Flavell called me and confirmed that the Department not being ‘a participant’ in the expedition was intended to mean that DoC did not provide any support to AAE at all. In fact he seemed surprised that DoC was listed as a supporter on the AAE website and that he would ask his officials whether it was known that the AAE was using the DoC logo and claiming support.”
(FROM COMMENTS)
vlad: If you look on the Spirit of Mawson website you will find this statement under “The Science Case”:
“All our science work has been approved by the New Zealand Department of Conservation, the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service and the Australian Antarctic Division. We are incredibly grateful for all their help and support.
OtherAndy: Ian Turney has a Google+ account with one link “intrepid Science” which is the Google+ account of Chris Turney.
Then there is Catherine Turney who has linked to the same account.
All of them shareholders in Carbonscape…
Andy: Ian Turney used to be at Landcare, who were involved in the first part of the Spirit of Mawson trip to Campbell Island.
I would hazard a guess that Ian and Chris are brothers, since both are from the UK and have the same name and work in the same field, and are roughly the same age. ..
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/01/chris-turney-lied-support-institutions/
meanwhile, publicly-funded Radio NZ:
Radio New Zealand: Spirit of Mawson
Veronika Meduna takes part in the first leg of the Spirit of Mawson expedition to join scientists as they explore the subantarctic islands to study climatic change and its impact on the islands’ ecology. This real-time blog lets you follow their discoveries…
Tuesday 3 December 2013: Jonathan Palmer, one of the scientists onboard the Shokalskiy, is a dendrochronologist at the University of New South Wales. Incidentally, I interviewed him only a week or two before this voyage about his work on Northland’s subfossil swamp kauri, and what its tree rings can tell us about past climates…
Australasian Antarctic Expedition 2013 – 2014
On Wednesday, November 27, a team of scientists, teachers and members of the public will depart on the first leg of the Spirit of Mawson expedition, traversing the same region Australian explorer Sir Douglas Mawson navigated a century earlier…
You can listen to expedition leader, climate scientist Chris Turney, as he explains what he hopes the expedition will achieve…
AUDIO:
(Radio New Zealand’s) Veronika Meduna will take part in the first leg to join scientists as they explore the subantarctic islands to study climatic change and its impact on the islands’ ecology.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ourchangingworld/collections/spirit-of-mawson
one big happy family:
RadioNZ: An Hour with Chris Turney
Originally aired on Writers and Readers Festivals, Sunday 21 July 2013
Antarctic writer Chris Turney talks to Veronika Meduna about some of the less well-known aspects of Antarctic exploration.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/writers/audio/2562102/chris-turney
Cool or warm or dry or riot,
We can’t tax weather,
So it’s carbon-driven climate.
There is either a free press or a government funded press. One cannot have a free, government funded press.
I keep getting this message: “Sorry, this comment could not be posted.”
There’s nothing nefarious in my comments !
January 12, 2014 at 5:56 am | Rick Bradford says:
———–
So we see that the BBC is heavily invested in BIG TOBACCO, BIG OIL, and BIG ARMAMENTS.
Aren’t these the right ethical investments for such a propaganda mouthpiece of the chattering classes ?
Wow. CAGW is an actual proven conspiracy, not a conspiracy theory anymore. Who would have thunk it?
“Jimbo says:
January 12, 2014 at 4:07 pm”
I’d like to see that day but with a fine of £1000 for a fee of ~£145, most people just pay when the demand arrives in the post. Brits don’t complain much, unless it’s about the weather. There are some 200,000 court cases for people who have not paid their fee and do watch broadcast programs. ~150,000 of those usually result in the fine, maybe 100 actually go to prison believe it or not. This happens, with these numbers, almost every year. So we’d need to see the court system completely overwhelmed to have any effect.
Are they still charging a 10 pound TV and Radio license in UK? We don’t have this in Oz. I’ve got 5 TV’s only two are used most days, The others are old, but still work but not digital. Unless I connect a digital access box on them. With the number of TV’s in UK, how many inspectors do they employ for goodness sake? Time wasting I believe, a TV license should be sold with the TV to the original owner, and last its life time.
It’s a power grab. Climate is the cover.
BBC’s attempting great lengths to keep this self-declared output-influencing seminar a secret goes to the core of its contemporary ethos.
To professional journalists who work in a truly independent news organisation, exposing a cover-up and associated hypocrisy is vital, career rewarding stuff. Independence is a badge projected in BBC’s own self image.
BBC and its huge coterie of “the world’s radio station” journalists look pathetically lame in their silence on this attempt to cover-up revelation.
Own goal, BBC.
Belated but welcome.
johnbuk says:
January 12, 2014 at 1:58 pm
Thanks for the comment. Is complaining to the BBC a waste of time? Depends what you are complaining about, how you do it and to whom. The BBC is well used to defending itself from its fiercest critics but it can’t offer any answers to violations of the law or its own charter.
From long experience I can tell you that there are four main ways the BBC deals with complaints :
1. Ignore the complainant. (Their favorite tactic).
2. Tell the complainant that their complaint is a matter of their own opinion and therefor outside the scope of the complaints process. (The “It’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it” answer.)
3. The polite “Thank you for bringing this to our attention” followed by a statement that they have examined the your complaint and found it to be incorrect. They usually won’t tell you where you made your mistake because the BBC won’t enter into a correspondence or argument about any particular disputed facts. (They close you down with a “we were right and you are wrong” answer.)
4. Another favorite of the BBC : A statement declaring that the BBC is not responsible for whatever it is the complainant is complaining about because they are only reporting/repeating what some external authority source has said. (The classic “we are only quoting X” fob-off.)
Having said all that, there are numerous ways in which you can dispute BBC output if it violates their charter or if they are deliberately not including some inconvenient information or they are blatantly lying and you can prove it with data from a credible external authority. This is more a drip-drip-drip approach to grind away at the climate hysterics’ arguments, and to let the BBC know that they will never brainwash everybody into believing their carbon dioxide religion no matter how hard they try. Just don’t expect your complaint to have the planet-smashing impact necessary to change completely their lying propaganda about the climate.
This morning’s breakfast “light news” programme on the main BBC TV channel had a spot covering the government’s encouragement of fracking (by greater allocation of taxes to local councils), and for balance had a very lightweight lady from Friends of the Earth, who spouted all the usual stuff about renewables without being challenged on any of her assertions.
Don’t forget Harrabin was paid £15,000 by UEA/CRU to drive BBC think towards alarmism. His pound of flesh for which I wonder was UK tax was paid on this sum?
I think you will find, from your own pdf link and the ‘disclosures’ on Tony’s blog that the event was entitled ‘‘Telling stories about an interconnected world: the challenge to broadcasting.’ There were four ‘carousel’ sessions with a wide range of experts, who all approached the theme of an interconnected world from different angles. Some of the specific issues explored included innovation, design, migration, generational differences and the role of global business.
and further;
The aim of the seminars is to change minds and hearts. We want to talk about the developing world in a way that is interesting, engaging and provocative, so that the BBC participants and independent producers come away convinced that this is an area which their programmes should no longer ignore.
Participants. At each of the seminars there are approximately 40 participants, half from the BBC, and the remainder covering a wider range of voices with an interest in, and knowledge about the developing world.
So not specifically about climate change, and therefore the participants reflect the actual topics under discussion!
Ah, OK, so as part of a series of discussions on the developing world, one in particular was on “climate change and its impact on development”, including mitigation, vulnerability, adaptation & economic impact. Invitees were names as ‘specialists’, not scientists. It appears to be part of a whole series of events over three years including a wide range of topics.
.A one day event was held in London on January 26 2006, focusing on climate change and its impact on development. The brainstorm brought together 28 BBC executives and independent producers, this time including several from BBC News, and 28 policy experts. It was chaired by Fergal Keane and looked ahead to the next 10 years, to explore the challenges facing television in covering this issue. Several delegates attended from developing countries, including Ethiopia, China and Bangladesh.
So the 28 were ‘policy experts’, not scientists.
bushbunny:
At January 12, 2014 at 10:19 pm you ask
They don’t need any “inspectors”.
A seller of a TV set is tasked by law to identify the purchaser and to inform the licensing authority with the identity and home address of the purchaser. The authority’s records can then discern if the purchaser exists and has a license. If the purchaser does not exist then the seller is legally liable, and if the purchaser has no license then the authority can demand that a license be obtained.
New TV sets are sold by retailers who cannot provide false accounts of sales without being guilty of tax fraud. Used (i.e. second hand) TV sets are probably sold without the seller informing the authority, but these would be few in number.
Richard
@richardscourtney: that is a good explanation for why they don’t need any inspectors; I take it then, that the inspectors they do have, who come to bother me on average every six months, are superfluous.
At first, I used to respond to written threats sent to my home address, informing the licensing authority I did not have a TV set. Now I bin them without opening. The result is the same either way: an inspector shows up to have a look, and sometimes another one comes a month later to follow up. Alternatively, a “survey specialist” comes as a follow-up, asking me questions about the TV programs I watch. When I inform him I watch none, he asks me which TV programs I am aware of, or which ones I would watch if I had a TV.
I don’t know if they would leave me alone if I lived at the same address; I just happened to change my address a dozen times during the last seven years, and nearly every time the system took notice.
bushbunny says:
January 12, 2014 at 10:19 pm
‘Are they still charging a 10 pound TV and Radio license in UK? We don’t have this in Oz. ‘
Erm, no, not 10GBP but 145 GBP. It’s a massive tax on everyone who owns a TV, delivered to an ideologically motivated and unscrupulously biased broadcaster.
Katy says:
January 13, 2014 at 4:17 am
As you correctly identify this was one of a series of events. This one was entitled
“Climate change – The challenge to broadcasting”
Do the 28 ‘specialists’ who were invited to attend, in your view, comprise a balanced selection of people to advise/inform the BBC at this particular meeting?
Gene Selkov:
re your post to me at January 13, 2014 at 6:25 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/scandal-bbcs-six-year-cover-up-of-secret-green-propaganda-training-for-top-executives/#comment-1534379
in response to my post at January 13, 2014 at 4:28 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/scandal-bbcs-six-year-cover-up-of-secret-green-propaganda-training-for-top-executives/#comment-1534322
I explained why the TV licensing authorities does not need and does not have “inspectors”. They don’t.
Your post confuses inspectors’ with ‘enforcers’ whom they do do need and – as you say – they do have.
Richard
The method of identifying the purchaser of a new TV set is merely linked with the record of licence fee holders to identify those who have no licence but have clearly purchased a TV.
The main method used to identify non licence fee holders is the record held of every address in the UK without a current TV licence. The assumption is that they all watch television (you require a licence if you have a tv or recorder capable of watching or recording live tv). Any address without a licence will be targeted, regardless of you stating you do not have a TV.
So, re: Hot under the collar etal post on how the Govt. in England has you in TV “ObamaCare”.
One idea is to have weekly “Burn the BBC TV’s” and haul the TV’s to the wast dumps and thrown them in the trash. 20 million or so should do the job and end this BBC crime forever.
Some times you have to break a few eggs.
@ Mark T, Jan 12, 11.08 am. The BBC does not serve the interests of the state. It serves the Marxist interests of (a possible future) one world govt, not the present state, & certainly not the interests of the current licence payers. It is therefore a treasonous organisation.
@johnbuk, Jan 12, 11.21 am. Yes, in an ideal world. But please bear in mind that our UK govt is so deeply corrupt that any enquiry would be a cover-up. “Independent” or not.
@ Jeff, Jan 12, 11.45 am. The Queen is Head of The Church of England, but maybe she is as deeply infected with the much marketed fiction that drives the CAGW fiction : that this world is overpopulated. H/T to Anthony’s recent post.
Her esteemed hubby, Prince Phillip, is certainly so infected. His stated ambition if reincarnated, is “to return as a killer virus to lower human population levels”. The murderous old dolt.
He is President of The World Wildlife Fund. Save the planet, kill humans. Hitler would be proud of him.
As Green & dumb is his jug eared son, whose stated ambition is to return as Camilla’s tampon.
To be fair to his doziness, there are strong rumours he has changed his mind, & that his & Camilla’s relationship is now, as so much in our mendacious, smoke & mirrors planet, purely for public consumption.
Ted Turner, boss of CNN, is on record as recommending a 95% reduction. The people in power are murderous control freak cowards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MQlipJ2lmM
If reference does not work, type in youtube’s search box :
Agenda 21 The Depopulation Agenda For a New World Order 1 hr 28 mins.
Re BBC : try cigpapers.wordpress.com : TV Licence Resistance.
10% of prosecutions now in Brit magistrates courts relate to BBC TV licence.
1/3rd of Brit women now in prison are in for non-payment of fines relating to BBC licence.
Most interestingly, one Tony Rooke won his court case for non payment on the basis that the BBC is a terrorist organisation. The BBC reported the fall of building 7 ( The third building to come down at free fall speed in a controlled demolition supposedly caused by 2 planes & an office fire)
fully 23 mins before it occurred. Rooke argued that this prior knowledge, without informing the authorities, constituted complicity in a terrorist act, & that therefore to pay the licence fee would be inappropriately funding a terrorist organisation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZBM-pkJPio
or type in : Historic Court Case Win Against BBC TV Licencing. 8.27 mins
Also try : http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2117510/Thousands-TV-Licence-cheats-face-prosecution-week.html
Shows how non payers are prosecuted more heavily than other types of ‘crime’.
RichardLH says:
January 13, 2014 at 6:30 am “Do the 28 ‘specialists’ who were invited to attend, in your view, comprise a balanced selection of people to advise/inform the BBC at this particular meeting?”
Well I’ve only met a few of them, so I can’t comment on a personal knowledge level, but note that this was only one of a range of seminars over a number of years covering the “overall theme: change and its impact on people’s lives in the west and in the developing world.” and “The aim of the seminars is to change minds and hearts. We want to talk about the developing world in a way that is interesting, engaging and provocative, so that the BBC participants and independent producers come away convinced that this is an area which their programmes should no longer ignore.”
For this seminar there were 3 distinct topics;
A. Certainty, uncertainty & public understanding,
B. How should the world respond?
C. Vulnerability – opportunity – equate.
There were two discussion groups in each session giving info. to the BBC, the following areas of expertise were there, so you can judge if they seem appropriate;
A. Glaciology Prof., Niels Bohr Inst., UCL, Renewable Energy PhD, Scientist & Oxford Prof., Insurance Ind. & IPCC, UEA, Surrey Uni, Environmental & Media Consultant (then Comms Dir. Greenpeace), Plymouth Marine Labs – ocean acidification.
B. Special Rep to UK Foreign Sec., E3G, Press Commentator IEA, chief technology officer of RWE Npower, Bangladeshi scientist IIED, UK MP, IPE Prof. Berlin & US Embassy, BP (CCS), Head of Energy Transport & Planning, CBI.
C. OU researcher – environment and development, Greenpeace China, Tear Fund UK & Ethiopia, Global justice expert & film-maker Oneworld, African climate change expert, Polar regions expert Uni of Cambridge, Analyst NEF, Film maker.
Katy: I do understand that this was just one in a range of seminars. I also understand that there were some scientist present. I also understand that there were people who, whilst they were not scientists were ‘well informed’ about the topic.
The problem is that the BBC, for a very long time, were not prepared to disclose the ratio of ‘scientists’ to what might well better be described as ‘lobbyists’.
They also implied that the views were obtained from across the spectrum of opinion in climate.
Finally we get to see that this was, at best, a partial view of the state of affairs. In order to understand the quality of the opinions provided you need to know the partiality of those involved. This was (deliberately?) concealed for a long time.
In politics this would be considered to be very bad. In the media apparently less so.
I think the ratio of scientists to experts to lobbyists is very debatable, they all look pretty expert to me. The individuals were there to inform on their areas of expertise, and yes to lobby as a body as follows
“The International Broadcasting Trust (IBT) has been lobbying the BBC, on behalf of all the major UK aid and development agencies, to improve its coverage of the developing world. One of the aims is to take this coverage out of the box of news and current affairs, so that the lives of people in the rest of the world, and the issues which affect them, become a regular feature of a much wider range of BBC programmes, for example dramas and features. The BBC has agreed to hold a series of seminars with IBT, which are being organized jointly with the Cambridge Media and Environment Programme, to discuss some of these issues.”
So this fixation on just one seminar and on just one of the many issues under discussion is unfortunate & very skewed.
Katy:
Your post at January 13, 2014 at 11:07 am concludes saying
I do not know who you are or why you would post such nonsense.
Firstly, the BBC demonstrated they had something to hide by employing lawyers in attempt to hide it.
Secondly, at present we have no reason to suppose the other seminars were on this subject when – as you say – this was “just one seminar and on just one of the many issues under discussion”.
Thirdly, and of most concern is that the clear bias in this seminar is VERY important.unless you can demonstrate both that
(a) the other seminars were also on this subject.
and
(b) the other seminars were biased in the opposite direction.
The clear bias in the participants of this seminar is apparent. It contained ‘green’ lobbyists and no opposing lobbyists while including scientists with stated extreme views similar to those of the lobbyists and no other scientists.
The bias in BBC planning of its reporting which is demonstrated by this seminar is a direct contravention of the BBC Charter.
There is genuine outrage (n.b. not “fixation”) at this bias which contravenes the BBC Charter, and the outrage is in no way “unfortunate”.
Richard
Katy, in addition to Richard Courtney’s answer it would seem the BBC disagree with you about this seminar.
If you visit Tony Newberry’s site – http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=703&doing_wp_cron – you will find his summary of the overall story of this issue. But to save time the interesting part is here:
“”Lord Hall, as the man who encouraged Roger Harrabin to set up the seminar programme, features in this story too. He had left the BBC to run the Royal Opera House before DFID got involved with the seminars, so he bears no direct responsibility for what happened in 2005 and 2006. However since his return to the BBC he has thrown some interesting light on the matter, contradicting just about everything that the BBC has claimed about the seminar previously.
Here are some of the things that the BBC has said about the seminar:
It was described in John Bridcut’s landmark ‘Wagon Wheel’ report on BBC’s impartiality, which was adopted and published by the BBC Trust in July 2007, as:
”A high level seminar with some of the best scientific experts [on climate change]”
The BBC’s letter of 31st August 2007 refusing to disclose the information I had requested says:
”… information relating to the seminar is held to help inform the BBC’s editorial policy around reporting climate change.
…
The attendees at the seminar were made up of 30 key BBC staff and 30 invited guests who are specialists in the area of climate change.”
A BBC submission to my previous Information Tribunal appeal last year had the following description:
“The requested information concerns the organisation, administration and content of a seminar concerning editorial challenges to the reporting of climate change. The seminar was held in order to provide attendees with an understanding of the existing state of knowledge on the issue of climate change, to identify where the main areas of debate lie,to provoke the imagination of the media to deal with the scope of the issue and to consider the role of the BBC in the public debate.”
Lord Hall of Birkenhead, BBC Director General, in written supplementary evidence to the House of Commons Culture Media and Sport Select Committee 25/06/2013:
“ The title of the seminar was ‘Climate Change, the Challenge to Broadcasting ‘ … the guests were not ‘a panel of climate change experts’, nor were they ‘advising the BBC on what their approach to climate change should be. Seminars such as this do not set BBC editorial policy on how it covers climate change’”.
You just could not have a more explicit conflict of evidence, and surely it really is necessary now to dig down to the truth, however uncomfortable that might be.””
You seem however to be in good company as Lord Hall – Director general of the BBC appears to have a different view both to you and his own staff about the seminar!!
Further to my comment Jan 12 1:58pm I emailed the House of Commons Select Committee and have received this reply:
“”Thank you for your email. Your comments will be brought to the attention of the Committee. As you will have noticed, the Committee is conducting an inquiry into the Future of the BBC ahead of its 2016 Charter Review. Should you wish to submit evidence to the enquiry, please use the attached link.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/future-of-the-bbc/
Kevin Candy
Inquiry Manager””
Interestingly the third sentence regarding the inquiry into the Future of the BBC ahead of the Charter Review might give us an opportunity to at least provide some “weight” if not influence (he said naively). I have copied this to Tony Newberry to get his thoughts on the issue.
Makes me wonder what St. Susuki’s personal television network, the CBC (Communist BS Corporation) has been spending it’s public funds on here in Canada. I’m sure more of the same.
That would be St. Suzuki.
richardscourtney says:
January 13, 2014 at 11:31 am
“The clear bias in the participants of this seminar is apparent. It contained ‘green’ lobbyists and no opposing lobbyists while including scientists with stated extreme views similar to those of the lobbyists and no other scientists.” I do not agree with your ‘clear bias’ statement. I have listed the topics and the expertise of those involved in the discussions and these do not appear to me to be people with ‘extreme views’ or only scientists who only have ‘similar views’ to the lobbyists (which to my mind are experts & not lobbyists).
and johnbuk says:
January 13, 2014 at 11:58 am
“The guest were not advising the BBC on what their approach to climate change should be.” No, they weren’t, they were initially “lobbying the BBC, on behalf of all the major UK aid and development agencies, to improve its coverage of the developing world. One of the aims is to take this coverage out of the box of news and current affairs, so that the lives of people in the rest of the world, and the issues which affect them, become a regular feature of a much wider range of BBC programmes”. This was one of several seminars covering a wide range of related subjects. All the documents can be found in the links in the headline report here.
Further, the documents say “The aim of the seminars is to change minds and hearts. We want to talk about the developing world in a way that is interesting, engaging and provocative, so that the BBC participants and independent producers come away convinced that this is an area which their programmes should no longer ignore.
Participants. At each of the seminars there are approximately 40 participants, half from the BBC, and the remainder covering a wider range of voices with an interest in, and knowledge about the developing world.”
Regarding this specific event, one of six or more; “A one day event was held in London on January 26 2006, focusing on climate change and its impact on development. The brainstorm brought together 28 BBC executives and independent producers, this time including several from BBC News, and 28 policy experts. It was chaired by Fergal Keane and looked ahead to the next 10 years, to explore the challenges facing television in covering this issue. Several delegates attended from developing countries, including Ethiopia, China and Bangladesh.” Seems like a very forward-thinking plan.
Katy:
At January 13, 2014 at 2:27 pm you say to me
Say what!?
This was the list you provided at January 13, 2014 at 10:25 am with my comments added in [ ].
A.
Glaciology Prof., Niels Bohr Inst., [a representative of an extremely alarmist Institute]
UCL, Renewable Energy PhD, [renewable energy only exists because of AGW]
Scientist & Oxford Prof., [who?]
Insurance Ind. & IPCC, [Insurance benefits from the AGW-scareand the IPCC only exists to promote the scare]
UEA, [presumably the biased pro-AGW Climate Research Unit]
Surrey Uni, [who?]
Environmental & Media Consultant (then Comms Dir. Greenpeace), [pro-AGW]
Plymouth Marine Labs – ocean acidification. [ocean acidification is an unfounded pro-AGW assertion]
B.
Special Rep to UK Foreign Sec., [who?]
E3G, [pro-AGW]
Press Commentator IEA, [pro-AGW]
chief technology officer of RWE Npower, [RWE owns windfarms which only exist because of the AGW-scare]
Bangladeshi scientist IIED, [who?]
UK MP, [who?]
IPE Prof. [who?]
Berlin & US Embassy, [WHY? repeated for emphasis WHY?]
BP (CCS), [CCS is only suggested because of AGW]
Head of Energy Transport & Planning, CBI. [pro-AGW]]
C.
OU researcher – environment and development, [the OU is pro-AGW]]
Greenpeace China, [pro-AGW]
Tear Fund UK & Ethiopia, [pro-AGW]
Global justice expert & film-maker Oneworld, [pro-AGW]
African climate change expert, [who?]
Polar regions expert Uni of Cambridge, [who?]
Analyst NEF, [pro-AGW]
Film maker. [who and why?]
The not named people may all possibly be sceptical of the AGW-scare but if that were so then the list is still extremely biased in favour of the scare.
And your claim that Greenpeace, E3G and Tear Fund “are experts & not lobbyists” only serves to state that you are delusional.
Richard
BBC. Propagandists & paedophiles.
Thanks richardscourtney for your conclusion that I am delusional because I list several individuals (not organisations) as experts in a wide variety of fields when their credentials are clear. You also state that AGW is purely a ‘scare’ so I’m afraid we have to agree to disagree. With regard to your ‘who’ questions, they are all listed, so its not difficult to work out who is who. And of course your views on the IPCC need no further discussion.
Katy:
I am replying to your (deliberately?) ignorant and stupid post addressed to me at January 13, 2014 at 3:14 pm which says in total
It is simply true that as I said
And you did NOT “list several individuals”: I copied and annotated your list of organisations which you provided here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/scandal-bbcs-six-year-cover-up-of-secret-green-propaganda-training-for-top-executives/#comment-1534754
If that is your best response then I suggest the BBC is waisting its money on whatever PR firm is employing you.
You post a straw man when you assert I said “AGW is purely a ‘scare’”. I did not.
I said AGW is a scare, and if you want to “disagree” about that then that is another of your self-proclaimed delusions.
I commented on your list which you said demonstrated lack of bias.
You now say it was up to me to research the names which you now claim you could have listed although you did not.
I certainly agree with you when you say to me
<blockquote And of course your views on the IPCC need no further discussion.
My views do not need “discussion” because they are factual, but it seems you may benefit from the facts of the matter as stated by the IPCC in its own official documents.
It is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with the political summaries. The facts are as follows.
The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice of the IPCC when prior to its Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,
This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.
This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed. However, it has been adopted as official IPCC procedure for all subsequent IPCC Reports.
Appendix A of the present Report (the AR5) states this where it says.
This is completely in accord with the official purpose of the IPCC.
The IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science and it does not.
The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.
This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC. These are stated at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Near its beginning that document says
This says the IPCC exists to provide
(a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
and
(b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”. Any ‘science’ which fails to support that political purpose is ‘amended’ in furtherance of the IPCC’s Role.
This is achieved by amendment of the IPCC’s so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to fulfil the IPCC’s political purpose by politicians approving the SPM then the IPCC lead Authors amending the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to agree with the SPM.
So, all IPCC Reports are pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions using the AGW-scare as justification; i.e.Lysenkoism.
I will be interested to see how you try to spin the reality of the IPCC as stated by the IPCC’s own official Role, procedures and practices as decreed by its own documents. You have already tried to spin that the biased BBC seminar on AGW was not in contravention of the BBC Charter.
Richard
Thanks for your views on what is reality, pseudoscience, spin, science, factual views, straw men, delusional, ignorance, stupidity and your suggestion that I am part of a BBC PR firm ( I am not, but I take this as a compliment). I am in awe of your use of bold text, which I was unable to access. I’m enjoying you ‘off-topic’ slant but otherwise I completely disagree with you.
Katy:
Thankyou for your post at January 13, 2014 at 4:08 pm which accepts the documented facts I presented by your failure to address them.
I answered your point which you now say was “off topic”. That is not a good excuse for your running away from the truth.
And I am willing to accept that you are not representing a PR firm because of your complete failure to defend your daft claim that the BBC seminar was not biased.
Others can judge the effectiveness of my having refuted each and every of your points.
The only outstanding issue is why you tried to pretend the BBC seminar was not biased when – as you say – yo were not employed to defend that bias.
Also, I note that the time here in the UK is after 1 am so I wonder if you are trying to defend the BBC from outside the UK. If so, then that would seem a strange thing to do if you are not employed to do it.
Richard
I love this site.
I get so much info I can hardly believe it.
Steam on Anthony & mods & contributors, you do the world, & it’s peoples great service.
Cheers,
JD.
🙂
Katy: I think you may have got this all backward.
The controversy really started with the Wagon Wheel report and its use of this particular seminar as the basis for the BBCs positioning on climate change. The lack of details as to the actual scientific qualifications and leanings of those attending as ‘specialists’ led to the information request.
The BBC started the ball rolling. The rest is the downhill travel.
Richard, you present fiction as fact, you demand answers and suggest that not answering suggests acceptance, you go completely off-topic and use this in defense of other comments, you claim to refute points that you haven’t, your logic on my ‘representation’ is just bizarre and you claim that there is only one outstanding issue – totally laughable. To top it all you tell me it is after 1am when it is only 12.30 in the UK, and suggest that only an employee might suggest that an interesting seminar involving the BBC and the developing world could be unbiased. Your logic is fallible.
Katy, it is obvious to me you do not know of Richard’s back ground, however, I can assure you that the political trend of the western world especially the EU, they were going hell for leather to promote AGW and carbon trading permits to allegedly lower the CO2 in our atmosphere to lower global surface temps. The whole concept and science was wrong and the only people who made money from it were solar and wind turbine manufacturers. Now these have proven terrible and costly. So to me the BBC seems to have gone the way of the climate changers and investing in carbon trading from part of their superannuation schemes. Pollution is one thing, but trying to change the weather is a stupid idea. Sure we have extreme weather events, always have. We adapt to these or perish.
I was told when I came to Australia. Never buy on a river, estuary (well not near its banks) or on the ocean front. (Tsunamis and erosion). When you build on black soil, put down a concrete slab, not piers and beams. Black soil slips. If you live in a cyclone region, build to cyclone standards (this adds considerably to building costs) But we still build in bush fire regions. With disasterous results to humans and live stock. And we can’t do much to control solar activity, earthquakes and volcanoes. (Other than run) or Tsunamis. We had a hail storm in 1996, (In Armidale on the Northern Tablelands of NSW) and as we have old homes here, nearly 80% of the roofs on homes had to be replaced. Particularly the corregated iron roofs that were old. Even the tile roofs were cracked too. One collapsed completely. We have to live in an area that will afford us some security from nasty weather events. I cannot understand why people live over cracks in the earth that move, or in a bush fire region, or on the base of a known volcano. Or on a beach? Any amount of carbon trading credits or trying to cut down methane emissions from cattle and any ruminant will not change the weather. Green ideology is completely off line and so is the BBC. “Climate is what we expect, but weather is what we get’ Mark Twain.
Katy:
At January 13, 2014 at 4:32 pm your post says in total
Why are you trying to defend the indefensible?
You claimed the BBC seminar was not biased and you posted a list of the seminar’s participants. I demonstrated that the seminar was very, very biased by copying (and pasting) your list and annotating it to indicate which contributors were biased by being promoters of the AGW-scare.
Your only response to that was to dispute that the IPCC is biased. So, I replied with documented evidence (i.e. the IPCC’s own official documents) that the IPCC only exists to promote the scare. You now claim that is “off topic”. Nonsense! You raised it and I refuted it. If you think it is irrelevant and “off topic” then you had no reason to raise the matter.
None of your tricks in this discussion is impressive.
You posited a straw man. You misrepresented me. You claimed to have listed “experts” and “not organisations” which was a blatant falsehood. You claimed that Greenpeace, E3G and Tear Fund “are experts & not lobbyists” which is a laughable untruth. You raised an issue and when shown to be wrong claimed it is “off topic”.
But you do get one thing right. I did present one “fiction as fact”, and that “fiction” was deliberate.
(n.b. only ONE “fiction” and everything else I wrote was documented fact, mostly direct quotation from you).
My “fiction” was in this paragraph
I wrote that at ~12.15 pm and NOT “after 1 am”.
The reason for my deliberate error was to check if you would notice the discrepancy. You did notice it and this does imply that you are writing from the UK although you were writing in the early hours.
Can you see the “logic” used in my ploy?
Can you see that it has resulted in some confidence that you are writing from the UK?
Can you understand that this suggests you are not one of Gore’s US-based minions trained and employed to promote the AGW-scare by any possible means?
Or do you think my deduction is an example of my “logic is faulty”?
So, please explain why you are trying to defend the indefensible.
Why would anybody not employed to support the breach of the BBC Charter support the clear breach of which biased seminar is a prima faci example?
Richard
Re: Katy says: at 10:25 am
“Well, I’ve only met a few of them”
Obviously someone from within either the Guardian / BBC alarmist bubble, CAGW ‘scientist’ alarmist bubble or the green CAGW alarmist bubble. Unfortunately folks you have been wasting your time, they behave rather like a Troll, unable to listen to or accept any logic that may burst their bubble.
Unfortunately, the effect has been that of a troll and filled up the comments with irrelevance.
“I completely disagree with you.” – Katy
These people have the nerve to call other people deniers
Hot under the collar:
Thankyou for your post at January 14, 2014 at 7:31 am.
Yes, you are right. Katy did say she has “met a few of them”.
Thankyou. I missed that. And – as you say – it is very informative.
Clearly, Katy is trying to support members of her ‘club’ who have been exposed in a nefarious activity.
Richard
Amusing….. but wrong. I’m afraid I just can’t accept you version of ‘logic’ at all.
Katy:
In response to my asking you
you have replied saying in total
Thankyou. So you say you are a professional troll.
That is not really a surprise.
Following your having shown to be wrong in each and every of your assertions, Hot under the collar pointed out your words which expose why you have been behaving in such an irrational way.
Clearly, ‘read, laugh, and ignore’ is the appropriate response to all further posts from you.
It is the response I will make and I suggest it to all others, too.
Richard
Thanks Richard, since we clearly don’t speak the same language, I appreciate that.
Friends:
I write to place on record that I agree with Katy about the reason why I am refusing to engage with her. As she says, she and I “don’t speak the same language”.
Hence, there is no point in my conversing with her because I refuse to learn how to speak gibberish.
Richard
Anyone interested in the BBC climate change propaganda story should read this:
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/booker-bbc.pdf
courtesy of Tony Newbury@Harmless sky.
Incredible!
Sorry, should have spelt the name: Tony Newbery.
The skullduggery people get up to is fascinating!
I’m not familiar with U.K. organizations and not much of an acronym-er
anyway, so I looked ‘m up on duckduckgo. If you don’t mind, I’d like
to see if my guesses (table below-hope the formatting works) are right;
please let me know if I’m wrong.
I’m least confident of numbers 2 & 5 were entries #24 and #59 on the
first page of duckduckgo searches for ‘cbi’ and ‘ibt’. I have complete
first page listings of those searches if anyone’s interested —
strange, obscure, and mundane stuff.
Thank you, Anthony, for hosting this page and everyone who posts!
(Hope the formatting is OK!)
———————————————————————————————-
n Name Title/Organization My Guess
———————————————————————————————-
1 Tessa Tennant Chair/Asria Association for Sustainable &
Responsible Investment
2 Matthew Farrow CBI The UK’s top business lobbying
organisation CBI members enjoy real input into key government
decisions, access to politicians and business leaders – and
intelligence to help prepare for economic and political change.
cbi.org.uk More from cbi.org.uk
3 Anita Neville E3G Third Generation Environmentalism
4 Jos Wheatley Global Environmental Department for International
Assets Team, DFID Development [UK govt]
5 Mark Galloway Director/IBT Change the World Through Media
with the I’ll Be The One Organization. IBT1 funds movies that raise
consciousness and awareness on a global scale, while giving young
people the training, development and skills to participate in the film,
media and entertainment industry. ibt1.org More from ibt1.org
6 Saleemul Huq IIED International Institute for
Environment and Development
———————————————————————————————-
We all have to understand, that those who lived during the WWII (or were born during this) whatever country they lived in then, will have a different perspective or world view than younger people. We have experienced great changes in the human experience. Medical advance, space exploration, (I used to get comics living in London post war and thought they already had spaceships until I found out they hadn’t advanced that far yet), I was on the vanguard of women’s rights, and curtailing domestic violence. The weather and climate was not a concern, we accepted it. Obviously major events didn’t miss us, a Welsh valley was swept away by floods, and the Great storms that killed people in the 1950s, in SE England and the SMOGS of London in the 50s. The extra cold winters in 1947 and 1963, but all those born after this will have no experience. I lived in Cyprus from 1960 – 1963, just after their independence. Visited Egypt in 1962 and the Lebanon, before they had political strife and the Asswan dam and Lake Nasser. Again the weather didn’t trouble us that much, although the Brits were always complaining about it, that was not present in Australia when we came here in 1965. Generally the Brits were complaining the temps in Summer were woeful, and it rained too much, especially during the long summer school holiday. I remember get Atom bomb survival exercises in my first job at the Bank of England in 1958 – 1960. Then eventually married a RAF pilot who flew Vulcans V Bombers.
So all this climate change alarmist theories obviously worry the younger generations, as they experience a changing social environment and blame capitalistic attitudes. Forgetting that Russia or the USSR and China are now more capitalistic than some of the Western countries. But as we know on this site and others, the science is biased against industrialized countries and certainly the carbon traders and green energy manufacturers have made money from it. And Nobel prizes etc. I just hope one day, they realise they have been fooled. And we oldies have seen it before, and can say ‘Beware of the press and those who wish to benefit financially from a rather dodgy
ideology that is being proven wrong all the time, but is being ignored or excused by the masses.
Bleedin’ hot in Oz at the moment, but that is not unusual, but our plants and wild life are also suffering so I must attend my bonsai, and feed my wild birds. Have fun.