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.
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!