From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ralfellis
Hardly a week goes by without yet another glaring example of BBC bias, misinformation or just outright lies on climate issues.
Arguably the roots of this lay in a notorious seminar organised by the BBC in 2006. Some of us may remember this, others may not have been aware of it. Either way, it’s worth re-telling the story.
The high level seminar was held on 26th January 2006 for the purpose of deciding how the BBC should cover reporting and discussion of climate change in the future. According to a BBC Trust report (P40) on impartiality the following year:
“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”
Ever since this policy has continued to be followed, with the virtual exclusion of anybody not signed up the BBC’s idea of a consensus, no matter how highly qualified they might be.
However, some began to be a little bit suspicious about who these “best scientific experts were”. After all, science should never be about consensus, and proper scientists should always welcome debate.
It was a blogger named Tony Newberry who decided to file a FOI asking for the list of names of those who attended. Little did he know that he would end up in court in 2012, still trying to force the BBC to release the information. With the help of a team of lawyers, the BBC won the case.
But it was a hollow victory, because just days later another blogger, Mauricio Morabito, used his initiative and found the list of attendees anyway with the help of the Wayback Machine.
This is the list he published at the time:
January 26th 2006,
BBC Television Centre, London
Specialists:
Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
Claire Foster, Church of England
Saleemul Huq, IIED
Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
Matthew Farrow, CBI
Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
Joe Smith, The Open University
Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
Anita Neville, E3G
Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia
BBC attendees:
Jana Bennett, Director of Television
Sacha Baveystock, Executive Producer, Science
Helen Boaden, Director of News
Andrew Lane, Manager, Weather, TV News
Anne Gilchrist, Executive Editor Indies & Events, CBBC
Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning
Elizabeth McKay, Project Executive, Education
Emma Swain, Commissioning Editor, Specialist Factual
Fergal Keane, (Chair), Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Fran Unsworth, Head of Newsgathering
George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs
Glenwyn Benson, Controller, Factual TV
John Lynch, Creative Director, Specialist Factual
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
Jon Williams, TV Editor Newsgathering
Karen O’Connor, Editor, This World, Current Affairs
Catriona McKenzie, Tightrope Pictures catriona@tightropepictures.comLiz Molyneux, Editorial Executive, Factual Commissioning
Matt Morris, Head of News, Radio Five Live
Neil Nightingale, Head of Natural History Unit
Paul Brannan, Deputy Head of News Interactive
Peter Horrocks, Head of Television News
Peter Rippon, Duty Editor, World at One/PM/The World this Weekend
Phil Harding, Director, English Networks & Nations
Steve Mitchell, Head Of Radio News
Sue Inglish, Head Of Political Programmes
Frances Weil, Editor of News Special Events
,
The army of BBC bosses who attended tells us just how significant the seminar was to them. It clearly was not just a talking shop, but a major milestone in their editorial policy.
But more important was the list of “best scientific experts”.
It included two Greenpeace campaigners, several other environmentalist activists, representatives of business, charities, the Church of England, BP and Npower Renewables, economists, media people and politicians.
As for climate scientists they were very thin on the ground.
There clearly could have been very little, if any, debate on the actual science.
The very real suspicion is that the event was deliberately designed from the very outset to come up with the result that it did– ie that “the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus”
If you watch the BBC expecting quality, factual, unbiased reporting, you are wasting your time
Challenging their corruption of fact is worthwhile as it, if nothing else, let’s the idiots running it and it’s obviously hilarious fact checking verify Dept, know we see their deceit and hold it in utter contempt
What they can’t refute, they ban.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-prohibiting-official-travel-fossil-fuel-conferences-internal-memo-shows
Story tip
The one thing I used to respect was that comment sections, when permitted, were moderated to allow all opinions (except for rude words and wildly off-topic comments).
But in the past year I have had at least three comments removed for expressing the wrong view, some quite mildly factual, about events in Ukraine.
Of course there are some things where comments are never permitted. Such as ‘sensitive’ things like immigration policy or what used to be called “race relations”. Not that I ever wanted to say anything particularly inflammatory, but it is obvious that these are just closed subjects for commentators while the BBC is instructing you.
Moderator control to maintain the appearance of agreement has increased division by making people feel picked on. The irony might be inseparable from efforts to equalize outcomes by suppressing winning strategies- now I’ve gone and argued for diversity. Do you let your judgement of what’s good writing, based on mastery of that craft, exclude what’s bad writing even if the writer may have demonstrated mastery of some other craft? That moderator’s chair would be uncomfortable sometimes. It’s so hard for smart successful people to say “I don’t know, but that guy who struggles with correct punctuation “
Fun fact: Back in 2010, a BBC article about the World Cup in South Africa compared the then England-Coach, the Italian Fabio Capello, to the famous Italian volcano Mount Vesuvius.
I made a flippant, but on-topic and totally harmless, comment which included the name of the then recently troublesome Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull.
I soon got an e-mail from the BBC telling me my post had been removed for breaching their guidelines.
The BC has become utterly corrupted. You only have to hear Nick Robinson explain away his plummeting audiences for The Today Programme as being caused by “news deniers” to realise that. Most people I know stopped listening to him because of the evident bias and hectoring interruptions.
I feel your pain man. If a host needs to interrupt interview guests to correct them or argue with them then the host picked the wrong interview guests. “You picked them, now let them talk”.
And of course we stopped listening to the BBC abroad on the internet because they told us we were not going to be allowed to any more, because they couldn’t collect stats successfully on who we were!
The brutal stop to the BBC streams online for R3 R4 and Cymru were the most successful own goal any broadcaster could ever have done > (inc their uselss cretinous BBC iplayer, and their constant attempts to batter people into their planned and totally unsuccessful turn off for FM radio to force people to use the horrrible and rejected DAB+!).
The BBC remain alone in their isolated post-Brexit island,- in complete contempt for their listeners, and the perfect example of what NOT to do, to lose a sizeable international audience.
Now we just regard them as another public funded anacronism – grateful for not having to listen to most of their native British propaganda and other cr…p!
Orwell was right about the BBC.
“Native British” propaganda? You mean the BBC is a bunch of Celts?
All these media people pushing CAGW…don’t they think they will suffer too when the rationing begins? the blackouts begin? the shortages begin? then they will be sorry they pushed the narrative.
No, If they have given it any thought, they don’t think they will suffer.
They believe that they are one of the animals that are more equal than others.
Have the TV newscasters turned off their air conditioners and started wearing shorts during the Summer in the UK?
Lol, I will use that
I think they expect to be above that.
The elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about is that crude oil is the foundation of our materialistic society as it is the basis of all products and fuels demanded by the 8 billion on this planet.
https://www.cfact.org/2023/10/02/the-dangerous-delusion-of-a-global-transition-to-just-electricity/
The other elephant in the room is that oil *& gas & coal) are as natural as water. Which reminds me of the spoof campaign Penn & Teller ran at a climate conference asking people to sign a petition against the dangers of ‘dihydrogn monoxide’. Was amazing how many so-called intelligent attendees signed.
Oil and gas are made up of old dead plants and animals with the water squeezed out of them.
I remember reading about a group that set up a “ban DHMO” booth at a climate conference and got a bunch of people signing the petition. Pretty sure I read that here.
Keep in mind that “climate change” isn’t about climate change. It’s about renewables, a relatively new market open to entrepreneurs as rent-seekers. They’re getting in on the ground floor of turbines and photo voltaics since there’s no room for them in fossil fuels, a developed industry with a long history. And it’s not about the future, it’s about the money now.
If EXXON-Mobil went to National Grid Renewables LLC and offered to trade companies even up, how long would it take for them get their breath back and say “Yes!”?
Here is a LinkedIn page for Claire Foster (Church of England):
(22) Claire Foster | LinkedIn
Her “About” says this:
About
All very good. But not particularly scientific.
Also vaguely pantheist.
And no mention of God, you know, the one who created all that oil, gas and coal, and along with the total of His creation, described it as “Good”. I would love to see her stand there and deny that God’s creation was good.
It’s hard to tell who’s a witch that should be burned at the stake.
Nuclear was banned in most places years ago and conventional fuels were supposed to be used, now burning conventional fuels is to be banned and we will have to make do with high-cost intermittent power sources.
What’s her view on the wildlife being killed by wind farms?
They’ll deny it. They’ll plug their ears. There were rare and endangered species on the land converted to a solar “farm” next to my ‘hood.
If I had gone out there and managed a light forest thinning- I would have been greatly restricted by the state of Wokeachusetts’ Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. So, I bitched to that agency with documentation proving there were rare and endangered species on the 20 acres. I called them and one of their biologists said, “the state politicians want to push these solar farms along so there is nothing we can do about it”. So I contacted some of the politicians and they totally ignored me. The site was destroyed and even the top soil was removed as the site was owned by a gravel company. Now the 14,000 solar panels are on bare sand. This is real environmental damage- a million times worse than the worst logging job- yet it was cheered by all the state’s enviro groups. I had contacted them and asked them to stop by so I could show it to them. None showed up. That was in 2012. Now the enviros are oppossed to these solar farms because the only land left is forest land and they want to lock up the forests (they call it proforestation)- to “save the planet”. As for forestry, the enviros already own nice, large, wood homes filled with nice wood furniture and tons of paper products- so, no more need to cut trees. We now have a housing shortage in this state – so more housing will be built, with wood from the PNW, or Dixie or Scandinavia. The enviros will preach to buy local food to support local farmers- but the hell with forestry people- buy wood from thousands of miles away.
“We now have a housing shortage in this state” I need a good chart of USA national and regional housing square feet per person to paste here. Back in the day, people set alarm clocks for when the one shower in a 1000 foot living space would be available.”
I consider myself sort of pantheistic- but I’m also very realistic- having worked for 50 years for myself, with no guaranteed paycheck and no government hand outs- where I had to be the salesman, production boss, production worker, book keeper, contract writer, bureaucrat satisfier. I had to work with salt of the earth folks, like farmers and loggers and truckers and mill workers along with some very wealthy people from NYC. I had to deal with terrible weather and very frequent recessions in the wood products industries. All that makes you a realist. Yet, I think in some mysterious way- everything is connected without a Deity and I like that. Never saw any sign of any Deity out in the boondocks- just plants and critters trying to survive. So, I have my head in the clouds and feet firmly rooted in the ground- which is a bit challenging. 🙂
I have my head in the clouds and feet firmly rooted in the ground
Given your profession, I can’t help but think of Paul Bunyan
But you are not consulting for the C of E.
There should have been a running commentary on this since we first became aware of it. Even if you knew about the meeting it is very hard to find confirmation that it even happened, never mind the attendees.
The BBC is not as important in forming opinion around the world as it likes to imagine. It’s not responsible for the mass AGW hysteria. But it has made it very easy for a succession of British prime ministers to get their “net zero” nonsense waved through parliament unscrutinized, and that is starting to hurt.
There is a tsunami of homelessness coming to the UK as large landlords divest themselves of homes for which they fear being fined for not meeting gold-plated Energy Performance Certificate standards.
It doesn’t matter that the current PM is proposing to relax those standards. The scare has been put into the industry. And just last week my own MP said any relaxation would be temporary. That seminar is going to turn out to have caused terrible pain and suffering.
I just renewed my BBC licence fee exemption declaration. When I submitted it I got a chirpy little note reminding me I can always come back. Hah!!
“The BBC is not as important in forming opinion around the world as it likes to imagine.”
I have a theory that no UK government will roll back the BBC as far as it needs to be rolled back.
Just as the CIA uses things like ‘well-meaning’ teachers and NGOs to distribute its operatives around the world, there is probably no organisation as well placed as the BBC to provide cover for UK (and probably US) secret service agents wherever it wants.
is that just your hunch or is there evidence?
It’s a hunch theory. Many decades ago, didn’t they use to publish secret messages in the personal columns of The Times, back when it was THE paper of the British Establishment?
It seems quite credible, for the reason I gave.
Like the CIA (preferring Jesuits, orphans, and descendants of the US founding-families), they had/have certain habits which have been reported on.
I don’t think that you mean secret service – the folks who track fake currency, and protect government officials. You may mean security services (the British name).
“never mind the attendees.”
All the attendees appear to be climate change activists.
So the BBC got a consensus frome climate change activists. It’s no surprise that they would deem the science as being settled and would vote the skeptics off the island.
So who are Television for the Environment?
They have a website that explains their mission.
About us | TVE
Which would imply that they had a clear bias towards getting a large media organisation to fund green activism.
No Roger Harrabin? I’m astonished.
But at least the Head of Comedy was there.
He probably knew more about any thing than Roger H!
As I say below, Harrabin was the enforcer behind it all.
Matthew Farrow of the CBI has done well out of this.
Matthew Farrow moves to EIC | Resource.co
Not an expert on climate attribution but he clearly knows about environmental lobbying.
He’s now the Executive Director of the environmental technologies and services sector trade association, the Environmental Industries Commission (EIC).
This is hardly a unique situation where activists are considered experts. How did that happen? Who believes an activist is objective?
Paul Homewood has another record warmest month to complain about in the Central England Temperature (CET) section of his blog.
Met Office report that, at 17.0C average mean, September 2023 was the warmest Sept since the record began in 1659. Previous record holder was 16.8C in 2006.
Wonder what the excuse will be this time?
Link
“Ten years ago an article introduced the term ‘climate reductionism’ to describe a particular way of thinking about the future. Climate reductionism’ so I argued, imagined the future solely through the predictions of climate science, as though climate alone will determine the human future”
https://mikehulme.org/extract-from-climate-change-isnt-everything/
Why do you put so much faith in the MO?
Argumentum ad verecundiam? That’s a fool’s errand
They came up with the government approved answer, so they must be reliable.
Roy Spencer of UAH just reported their highest ever global temperature anomaly for any month for September 2023 (+0.90C) and confirmed that land temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere also set a new record high, alongside practically everywhere else.
So it’s not just the UKMO.
Highest temperature in an ice age isn’t very impressive.
It’s all relative, I guess.
It’s also proof that the temperatures are neither unprecedented nor hazardous.
Yes.
I read a phrase recently in a “science” article that set me to thinking.
It was – “climate change is giving us a warmer world”
I think that should be –
“a warming world prompts changing climates”
The world has been warming more or less continuously for the last 250 years.
There was zero net global warming trend between 1850 and 1930, according to both NOAA and HadCRUT.
1850 was the end of the Little Ice Age and was and still is to cold for people to live outside the tropics without spending trillions each year on heating.
Yes after the NOAA adjusted all the historic temps down so they can continue the warming lie.
The warming ‘lie’ that has just seen UAH report its warmest ever monthly anomaly?
Are they also adjusting earlier temperatures down?
Not the good old boys, surely?
The UHA report is just weather. Weather happens every day. Next month it will be different, maybe warmer , maybe colder but still just weather.
I never said the temperature was rising continuously.
Even if true, this claim does not refute my statement.
Though it doesn’t surprise me to find out you think it does.
An 80-year hiatus is quite something, when you consider Lord M gets exited about pauses lasting little more than a decade.
Well, it sort of does.
You still haven’t answered how much warmer it must have been for trees to have grown 1000 years ago where they are finding stumps under slowly retreating glaciers. !
Why is that ??
According to Phil Jones, there were two periods since 1850 when temperatures warmed just as much as they have warmed today.
There has been warming from 1850 to 1930, at the same magnitude as it has warmed today.
Here’s Phil Jones bastardized chart for your edification. I say bastardized because any chart that does not show the 1930’s as being just as warm as today, has been bastardized. But even though Phil shows a bastardized chart, he shows the magnitude of past warming correctly.
I literally just showed you the Hadcrut data confirming that there was zero warming between 1850 and 1930.
The chart you posted does not show a warming trend between 1850 and 1930.
Are you ok?
“Hadcrut data confirming”
That’s funny. Computer-generated garbage confirms something.
“The chart you posted does not show a warming trend between 1850 and 1930.”
Phil Jones’ chart shows three warming periods since 1850. Yeah, I’m ok, how about you?
If you don’t want to accept that it was just as warm in the 1880’s and the 1930’s, as it is today, that’s your problem. You are working on false assumptions.
There was a warming period from 1850 to the 1880’s, and then a cooling period from the 1880’s to 1910’s, and then another warming period of the same magnitude from the 1910’s to the 1930’s, and then a second cooling period from the 1940’s to the 1970’s, and then a third warming period of equal magnitude from the 1980’s to the present day.
The high temperatures in the 1880’s, the 1930’s, and the current satellite-era warming should all show to be on the same horizontal line on the chart. That’s where you went off track. You were hypnotized by the basterdized Hockey Stick charts (Hadcrut) and you think today is the hottest time in human history. Wrong! It’s been just as hot in the recent past. Several times.
Actually for 12000 years….
Global temperatures peaked in the Holocene Climate Optimum around 7000 years ago, when sea level was 2 to 3 metres higher than today. It’s been a slow decline since then as Earth moves towards its next glacial period. With fluctuations on a ±1000 year cycle and we are close to the peak of the current cycle now.
It has been warming on and off for the last 11,700 years, since the end of the last Glacial Period,
I think you may want to change ‘world’ to ‘urban areas of the world’ for much of that 250 years!
Taking a slightly longer perspective.
https://holoceneclimate.com/temperature-versus-co2-the-big-picture.html
I found September to be remarkably mild and pleasant Indian Summer. Why should I panic?
I’m not panicking either.
However you want politicians to panic and start imposing unworkable solutions in order to solve non-existent problems.
No, I don’t care what they do.
You are in a complete lather of utter panic.. .. look at your posts… nearly apoplectic.
Totally fixated…..
Have you figured out how trees grew underneath glaciers yet ?
Lol! Yeah, I’m shaking in my boots…
Look, the thing that interests me about this site is the psychology of the self-proclaimed ‘skeptics’ who post here. The likes of your good self.
In the face of enormous evidence, some of which you have probably experienced yourself, you continue to deny what is literally right in front of you, staring you straight in the face.
What can motivate people to deny even that which they can feel, see and experience for themselves?
It’s fascinating.
Bloomberg estimates it will cost $US 200 trillion to stop warming by 2050, and other estimates are similar.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-07-05/-200-trillion-is-needed-to-stop-global-warming-that-s-a-bargain?embedded-checkout=true
Most countries are to poor to afford anything so the developed world families will have to pay about $ 1 million each spread over 30 years to stop it.
Except there is no reason to do anything about the minor changes in temperature over the last 40 years.
Do they mention how much it will cost ‘not’ to stop the warming? They can be quite forgetful that way.
Maybe ask King Cnut how much it cost to stop the tide rising?
(and in comments like this, you don’t want to have an auto-correct spellchecker turned on).
The increases in food crops, lower deaths from cold and greener Earth are far more valuable than any imagined “cost”.
It’s going to be significantly less than any plan to stop the warning.
Remember, to stop the warming you need to stop China and India from burning fossil fuels. There is no diplomatic way to do that so the plan has to involve this:
Step 1) Coerce China and India by war.
Which isn’t the difficult bit. That’s the next step.
Step 2) Win the war with China and India.
Mitigation is a non-starter. We have to choose adaptation.
That needs cheap energy.
Remember, to stop the warming you need to stop China and India from burning fossil fuels.
Those two will neither stop burning fossil fuels or be responsible for any climate change.
There is no cost to not stopping global warming. The tiny amount of warming that has occurred and is likely in the future is entirely beneficial.
Still a long way to go until trees grow where they are finding them under glaciers.
Wouldn’t you agree.
And the world is still here..
So DON’T PANIC !!!
btw… What is this “cost of warming” you are yabbering about ?
“stop the warming”
ROFLMAO.
And just how do you think anyone can stop totally natural warming… and why would you want to, when the globe is still only a degree or so above the coldest period in 10,000 years.
Western civilisation destroying itself with anti-CO2 “gestures” will have absolutely zero effect.
There are some 1000+ new coal fired power stations being built in China and Asia, Africa etc, so there will be PLENTY of CO2 to go around.
And guess what..
… there is absolutely NOTHING you can do about it 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
Depends where you live.
October in France is absolutely gorgeous.
It was 30C in Lyon yesterday, quite warm but the days are much shorter, so the so called “records” the lunatics at Meteo France are whinging about last for about 1hr max.
TBQH it’s saving us a fortune in heating….but there….Scandinavia and much of Northern Europe have had a really rotten, cold wet summer. ( a friend in Wales this year, couldn’t make hay cos it was pouring with rain every other day!).
Another 2 weeks of warm weather. What’s not to like?
September was hot at times, October superb sunshine.
Back home in Ural it’s FROST next week and first snow.
The “Nail” bloke clearly doesn’t travel a fat lot, or he would shut up.
The Earth is still in a 2.56 million-year ice age. Unless it gets warm enough to melt all of the natural ice, the Earth will stay in this ice age. 20% of the land is covered by glaciers and permafrost.
Warm is good. 20 times as many people die from cold weather compared to hot weather. Cold weather causes our blood vessels to constrict to conserve heat and that causes our blood pressure to rise causing increased strokes and heart attacks in the cooler and colder months. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext
Plus worldwide trillions of dollars are being spent each year just to keep warm.
And how is that relevant to this thread? Shouldn’t you have at least led with OT?
One of two possibilities
He knows he can’t defend the BBC, so he’s trying to change the subject into an area he believes he can win.
He believes that if he can show that the world is dying, then everyone will agree with him and the BBC that shutting down all disagreement can be justified.
records began in 1659??
Are you totally crazy or just doing some sort of Mr Bean stuff ?
It’s quite fun just googling the gravy train passengers listed here.
Take the OU expert, Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University.
Sounds like a legitimate expert from academia. The kind that should be consulted. What is their most cited article according to Google Scholar? “An agenda for ethics and justice in adaptation to climate change”.
Poshendra Satyal – Google Scholar
Not so much attribution as activism. It seems to have an agenda – going by the title.
Of course, back then the expertise seemed to be on Nepalese forestry which may be relevant. Although it seems a strange specialism to base two decades of UK science reportage upon.
A lot of us do now something different from but related to what we started doing then.
Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
He was the first Environmental editor of the Independent. But it should be noted that the IEA is very right-wing.
Also, in 2007 (one year after attending this) he wrote a book called “Scrap the BBC!’: Ten years to set broadcasters free “.
“Scrap the BBC!” : ten years to set broadcasters free : North, Richard, 1946- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
I remember David Bellamy was never seen on tv again after expressing his views on climate alarmism in the late 1990s.
This is him being given some air time with George Monbiot and Jeremy Paxman.
Ahhh… we were lucky back then.
Even the infamous Richard Black acknowledged that there was a missing equatorial tropospheric hot-spot, predicted but not found.
The retiring head of BBC’s flagship program “News Night” publicly said it was not the BBC’s job to save the planet.
The BBC’s most famous and respected attack-dog, Jeremy Paxman, said he knew nothing about the truth of the argument, but he knew that it was not going to to be properly debated at the BBC.
Those were the days.
Whenever this comes up I always ask…
Who is Trevor Evans, US Embassy?
Surely this is direct interference in UK politics by a supposedly friendly power.
Who is he? Why was he there? Why were no other foreign powers represented?
Please could a US citizen do a FOI request to find out what his reason for participation was and what he proposed or contributed to the discussion?
Why was a reporter and activist for Greenpeace China involved? Were there no other Greenpeace activists available? What is Chinas involvement with the BBC?
I’m not sure it’s “Critics argue” but “it’s blatantly obvious”.
Anyone else spot the inclusion of “Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy”? Very amusing…
Sadly, not any more…
Same concept on a lesser scale and a component of the Great Reset. When I brush up on Clause Schwab ,WEF their evil meetings at Davos, WHO etc – well frankly I start to shake. And the internet and electronic connectivity( control really) have given these dark tetra tyrants and wealthy useful idiots tools to enslave us like never before.
Time is short people. Push back. It is all essentially modernized communist Revolution. And China is not a softer kinder type of hybrid model. This is not something “we can live with” Push back, be smart about it, but push back with personal conversations with others that need enlightening. This all needs to be nipped in the bud ( Well I know it has gotten a little further than that now, but still)
The question now is, who put them up to it? I thought it was the Government who told them to do it but now I wonder was it in fact an internal initiative?
Yea, just when I think I have things figured out I get new info about yet another possible layer of nefarious activity. Kinda like hauling an old boat out of the water after 50 years at the dock- layers of destructive opportunistic parasitic marine growth that is unbelievably hard to get off, especially if you don’t act quick.
Looking at what has happened, it might almost be the reverse – BBC adopts this approach then influences government policy after that.
Funny how not giving equal space quickly devolved into locking out all disagreeing voices completely.
news tip
Electric cars draw a backlash across the U.S. and Europe
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/02/trumps-bashing-electric-cars-europe-00119400
“The push to move away from the internal combustion engine is becoming an election issue on two continents.”
_________________________________________________________________________
If you consider exaggeration, cherry picking, what they said then and what they say now, and various forms of misdirection as forms of lies, then Climate Science, as a whole, not just the BBC is about 97% lies.
It became knwon as 28gate and the bias agianst evidence-based science was ruthlessly enforced by Roger Harrabin, a BBC corespondent of zero scientific knowledge.
“It became knwon as 28gate”
It’s been 40 years. Let that reference go.
In context it serves as a reminder, despite arguing and gnashing in USA about MAGA and Woke, that the Earth is still ruled by people who formed their worldviews before 1970.
Referred my therapist all the “gates” that use Watergate as a template. Even spell correct recognized Watergate despite the device im using being scanned envelopes fiction when that event happened.
Hilarious spell corrections.
Yes, he “studied English at St Catharine’s College, Cambridge”, according to Wikipedia. That seems an oddly incomplete statement but I’m sure that’s not significant.
What is it with these people that study English at university then go all ‘green blob activist’ – can’t they get proper jobs?
“Ever since this policy has continued to be followed, with the virtual exclusion of anybody not signed up the BBC’s idea of a consensus, no matter how highly qualified they might be.”
Skilled conservative writers with prestigious university pedigrees are rare.
It’s harder to blame “them” when a candidate pool self-selects for other roles. At best I can snark, we’ll if they _really_ believe in diversity…
Substitute “BBC” with “NPR” and the article still reads true.
It doesn’t matter the country, but government run radio always descends into a belief that only the governments position should be tolerated.
Here is some related news at the WSJ today on ‘preapproved narratives’ corrupting science.
story tip
How ‘Preapproved Narratives’ Corrupt Science – WSJ
It only takes one committed activist to organise a seminar like this, and average-type folk (without any real background in climate or even science in general) who make up the audience, and might prefer a balanced approach, find it impossible to even discuss the subject in the face of rigid, assertive, domineering certainty from the “settled science” gang. Then climate activism becomes cemented into the corporate structure.
It’s not just the BBC, the orthodoxy has taken over most public institutions and most large corporations. We just notice BBC and other media because they control so much of the airwaves and the digital world.
Fortunately, the BBC’s unremitting attempts to make us think we’re all racists, our history is nothing but shameful oppression of non-Europeans, and we’re all transphobes or far-right xenophobes, is starting to turn a lot of normal people off. I.e., those who sense that there’s something wrong with the climate agenda, but don’t have the background to be overtly sceptical.
We should use lists like this. List every individual on every committee or council deciding to turn life upside down for the rest of us and how they voted. It would be especially helpful isolating the monsters in the Netherlands who want to shut down farming or the monsters in New York who want to eliminate fossil fuels.
I actually heard the BBC on radio 4 one morning boast about either this or similarly attended BBC meeting & its declaration of ClimateEmotives. Also found same list some months ago at:
https://www.theregister.com/2012/11/13/climate28_named_wtf/
https://www.theregister.com/2012/11/13/climate28_named_wtf/?page=2
Those links don’t work; they take you to a page to edit a post on blogger.com
Try these: https://www.theregister.com/2012/11/13/climate28_named_wtf/ and
https://www.theregister.com/2012/11/13/climate28_named_wtf/?page=2
Their solution is simple: when you’re losing the game, simply change the rules. In the climate credibility game, the BBC and other leftist organizations simply ban or exclude any facts that refute the manmade warming theories, something that’s easily done when government funding and environmental group donations are dependent on such slanting of information.
The list of ‘specialists’ is very helpful. Beware of any of the organisations they represented.
As for the list of BBC attendees, it is noticeable that the Head of Comedy was present. The whole thing could have been classified as a farce.
However, some began to be a little bit suspicious about who these “best scientific experts were”
Don’y you worry about that as Oz Aunty’s favourite climate scientists are still hanging about the place keeping the planet boiling-
Climate Council ought to concentrate on ‘science’ rather than ‘scaring’ people (msn.com)
Naturally you have to contextualise touchy feely wokeness with Bambi’s mum not dying vs scaring the living daylights out of kiddies with exploding schoolkids and chucking poley bears off skyscrapers in order to impress upon them they’re doomed-
‘Everything that they do wrecks society’: Piers Morgan takes aim at ‘woke left’ (msn.com)
You’ve got break a few eggs to achieve Nirvana here on earth and fix the weather.