Scandal: BBC's six-year cover-up of secret 'green propaganda' training for top executives

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.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537886/BBCs-six-year-cover-secret-green-propaganda-training-executives.html#ixzz2qBlfEG9a

=============================================================

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.

Barry Woods says:

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

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

“Wayback when they decided what we should think”.
So you think they don’t do that anymore?
Think again.

pat

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

cd

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.

bushbunny

Would this have any connection to the fact the BBC invested a large portion of its superannuation fund in carbon trading? How sad?

bushbunny

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.

Rick Bradford

*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

jakee308

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.

Ian W

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.

DirkH

“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.

Jim Cripwell

The key issue, now, is will there be a proper independent commission to determine exactly what happened?

shano

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.

TBraunlich

“Mr. Benn” I think should be “Mr. Bean.”
😉

David Harrington

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.

Gene Selkov

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?

Hot under the collar

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!

theBuckWheat

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.

A C Osborn
Sherp

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!

Jimbo

From the Tony Newbery Harmless Sky I see:

The BBC’s letter of 31st August 2007 refusing to disclose the information I had requested says:
“…..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…..”

Further down his post I read:

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’”.

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.

John Pickens

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.

Paul Westhaver

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.

Peter Franck

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/

Paul Westhaver

Thanks….Jimbo.

Jimbo

Rick Bradford says:
January 12, 2014 at 5:56 am
*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

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.

Harrabin => he is the model of a useful tool for censorship
John

Jay

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?

Mycroft

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.

Phil Ford

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?

Peter Franck
Hot under the collar

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’ ?

robinedwards36

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!

Caz Jones

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

dp

Rick Bradford says:
January 12, 2014 at 5:56 am
*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.

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.

Christopher

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

DirkH

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.

George Lawson

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!

M Courtney

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.

ConfusedPhoton

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!

DirkH

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!

DirkH

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?

DirkH

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)

DirkH