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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisuglyjohnbuk, 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.
@ur momisugly 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.