JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



BBC secret exposed: Greenpeace, activists, BP decide what “science” brits see — Hello TwentyEightGate

Oh the irony. The BBC, supposedly the public owned broadcaster, had a meeting with 28 climate experts in Jan 2006 where it decided on its policies on climate coverage. It led to the extraordinary move of the BBC abandoning any semblance of impartiality (a principle that’s so important it’s written into its charter). In the meantime, the BBC did everything it could to hide those influential experts names. It’s been nearly seven years since the seminar, but now we know why their names were top secret. No one is even pretending this was about “the science”. The BBC has become a PR wing of Greenpeace.

In mid 2007 Tony Newbery of Harmless Sky started asking who was at the seminar, but the BBC wouldn’t give up the names. In fact the BBC thought the names were so significant that when Newbery sent them an FOI, they not only refused to hand over the list, but they used six lawyers against him (see  The Secret 28 Who Made BBC ‘Green’ Will Not Be Named). The BBC, improbably, argued they weren’t “public” and even more improbably, they won the case. Who knew? The BBC could be considered a “private organisation”. Where are the shareholders?

Having spent many thousands defending their secret meeting with such elaborate wordsmithing and lawyering, presumably, the irony is sweet that when  hunted online, he found the sacred list published in full. (Thanks to the wayback machine.)

The BBC is a tax funded organization with a charter to be impartial. So which climate experts were allowed to help decide what the British public should see and pay for?

These ones: Blake Lee-Harwood, and Li Moxuan, Greenpeace;  Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, and Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund (Charity); Trevor Evans, US Embassy; Iain Wright, BP International; Joe Smith, The Open University; Saleemul Huq, IIED (Int. Inst. for Environment Development); Mark Galloway, Director, IBT (International Broadcasting Trust);  Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia;  Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant; Anita Neville, E3G; and more… (see below)

 How many unskeptical climate scientists were there? Three. How many skeptical scientists? Zero.

Most of the list of “climate experts” advising the BBC were activists, advocacy directors, charities, or were involved in sustainable (green) investments. Big Oil even had a seat at that table. Do they care for polar bears or was it because they were involved in the giant CO2 Capture Research Project? (As it happens, they gave up on those plans in May 2007.) h/t davidmhoffer (WUWT)

Rog Tallbloke slices it beautifully:

So now the BBC has yet another big problem on it’s hands. It turns out it has lied to the public who pay for it about the makeup of the group which has determined it’s climate reporting policy. This is no small matter considering the billions of pounds involved in the Green energy industry. Additional carbon taxation has directly led to fuel poverty for hundreds of thousands. The excess cold related deaths in the UK have shot up in the last few years. We hear stories of pensioners buying secondhand books by the yard and burning them to keep warm.

UPDATE: Maurabitzio writes “why the list matters” and includes these points:

  • The BBC sent four low level representatives: Peter Rippon, Steve Mitchell, Helen Boaden, George Enwistle. All have since risen to power.
  • Amazingly, those are also the exact four who have thus far resigned this week over the false paedophilia accusations against Lord McAlpine. (h/t Bruce Hoult in a Bishop Hill comment)

Here’s how important the seminar of Jan 2006 was:

“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 [on anthropogenic climate change].”

From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel, BBC, June 2007 Page 40

“I assume that this is why the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago.”

Jeremy Paxman, Newsnight Homepage 02/02/2007

[Quotes from Harmless Sky]

These were the aims of the seminar according to the BBC:

[The] Seminar had the following aims:

  • · To offer a clear summary of the state of knowledge on the issue
  • · To find where the main debates lie
  • · To invoke imagination to allow the media to deal with the scope of the issue
  • · To consider the BBC’s role in public debate.

[Quotes from Harmless Sky]

So basically, the BBC made out this was its own mini IPCC conference, where they got experts from both sides, thrashed out the science, decided on the most honest way to convey all the risks, costs and benefits to their paying public — in the impartial manner mandated by their charter. A “clear summary” of the state of knowledge?

Let’s all cheer a private BBC!

Which private organization is allowed to forcible charge the public fees? Answer: If there is one, it makes a mockery of British corporate law.

I say “Yes” to a private BBC. Let’s make BBC payments voluntary. (After all, the hallmark of the marketplace are voluntary transactions, while coercion is the hallmark of government.) And if anyone anywhere doesn’t like being fed rehashed activist spiel disguised as “investigative” journalism, they don’t need to complain, they can just stop paying. (These clever wordsmithing journalists like “free markets”, remember?) How about a tick-box on the annual UK tax-return?  Check this square to fund the BBC, or leave it unchecked to send the equivalent amount to the GWPF instead.

What happened at That seminar?

The Seminar was entitled ‘Climate Change - the Challenge to Broadcasting’ , January 2006. Andrew Montford has written a guide to the FOI battle: you can buy the ebook format here for ~75 cents.

The full background is summed up in “Conspiracy In Green” which Montford and Newbery worked together on over several years.

Richard D North was there that day and said to James Delingpole:

‘I found the seminar frankly shocking, The BBC crew (senior executives from every branch of the Corporation) were matched by a equal number of specialists, almost all (and maybe all) of whom could be said to have come from the ‘we must support Kyoto’ school of climate change activists…
I was frankly appalled by the level of ignorance of the issue which the BBC people showed.,I mean that I heard nothing which made me think any of them read any broadsheet newspaper coverage of the topic (except maybe the Guardian and that lazily).

‘Though they purported to be aware that this was an immensely important topic, it seemed to me that none of them had shown even a modicum of professional curiosity on the subject … I spent the day discussing the subject and I don’t recall anyone showing any sign of having read anything serious at all. 
I argued at the seminar that I thought most broadcasting coverage on climate change was awful. But I also said there was no need for them to become self-conscious about it. This was because, although the issues were scientifically, politically and economically difficult, the BBC’s reporting of the thing would improve as soon as their audience was asked to vote or pay for climate change policy.’

(not the same Richard North of EU referendum)

Watts Up of course covered it all, sending his  heartiest congratulations to Maurizo, and commenters are having a great time. 

Barry Woods tells me Andrew Orlowski at The Register, has reported all this VERY accurately, he was reporting the FOI tribunal last week:

The List

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

Anthony Watts has a great discussion going, with all the details as does Bishop Hill who has been following this all along.

————————————–

I’ve collected and edited (for brevity) a few of the more useful thoughts from WUWT below: (thanks Anthony!)

richardscourtney says:

Friends:

The adopted policy on ‘balance’ supposedly adopted by expert discussion at the meeting cannot be justified in the light of those invited to attend the meeting. Hence, the adoption of that policy can be demonstrated to be a deliberate breach of the BBC Charter. Therefore, the list is potentially even more serious for the BBC than any of the problems now confronting the BBC.Richard

————————-

tallbloke says:

davidmhoffer says:
A member of the US embassy was asked to advise on the official broadcast policy of an instrument of the British government?

The BBC is independent from govt (hoho)

It’s charter forbids it from being influenced by foreign political policy.

But it takes EU money.

——————————————-

More than 3,000 people a week are being prosecuted for not having a TV licence… The number of prosecutions has risen in part because many more are struggling to pay. In 2010, licence fee fines totalled just under £25million a year.

“TwentyEightGate”

RoyFOMR coined it.

——————————

Jolly farmer says:

Email address for comments to the BBC: pov@bbc.co.uk

Contact is Mr Vine. (pov = “points of view”). Pitch in, folks.

—————————————

Rog tallbloke  says:    November 12, 2012 at 5:09 pm

Follow the money:

The UK’s policy lines on World Bank and IMF issues are formally decided by the Department for International Development (DFID) and the Treasury, respectively. Within DFID, the International Financial Institutions department (IFID) leads in devising the organisation’s position on these institutions (see below). In the Treasury, the International Finance department is responsible for preparing advice on the policy issues and specific country programmes brought before the Board of Directors in Washington.

The top UK representatives at the IMF and World Bank are the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rt Hon George Osbourne MP, and Secretary of State for international development, Rt Hon Justine Greening MP. They are known as UK governors to the Fund and Bank, sitting on the ministerial committees which meet in Washington twice a year to decide on overall strategic direction for the institutions. The UK is the fourth-largest shareholder in both the World Bank and the IMF, holding 4.3 percent and 4.8 percent of votes, respectively. For comparison the US is by far the largest shareholder with 16.4 percent and 16.85 percent vote shares, respectively.

Climate Frameworks and Carbon Markets

Jos Wheatley: Team Leader, j-wheatley at dfid.gov.uk

Aha, we have a prime mover

Dr Joe Smith, The Open University:

My research and teaching interests centre on the politics of environmental change. This is explored through three discrete strands of work: the politics of consumption, pursued through a study of biographies of food in Poland and the Czech Republic media representations of environmental change, centred on a programme of action research in collaboration with the BBC experimental reframings of environmental change, pursued mainly through the Interdependence Day project Through the course of my CRASSH fellowship I will be drawing on more than a decade of working with media and other organisations to offer an account of the cultural work demanded by our unfolding understanding of human-induced climate change. I will also take the opportunity to reflect on the distinctive roles and responsibilities of social science and humanities researchers in helping societies to make sense of and act on climate change.

———————————————–

Lance Wallace says:

I count three climate scientists with a technical education: May, Hulme, and Dahl-Jensen of the NIels Bohr Institute. Others with an academic affiliation (Bravo, Widdicombe, Smith) have liberal arts (history, geography, philosophy of science) backgrounds.

Of the three “technicals”, two are activists. However, Dr. Dahl-Jensen seems to be an actual boots-on-the-ground scientist (latest grant is for drilling through the Greenland ice aiming at bedrock to investigate possible lakes at the bottom of the glaciers). I expect whoever was responsible for vetting her prior to the conference has since paid the price.

————————————-

pat says:

the big CAGW prize has always been trading CO2:

Tessa Tennant, AsRia, is among the Specialists, in what speciality?

Tessa Tennant, Co-founder of ASrIA, Appointed to the UK Green Investment Bank Board
http://www.asria.org/news/press/1349400121

——————————–

Lightrain says:

It’s not Specialists, its Special Interests!

———————————

Grey Lensman says:

It cannot be true

Its not on the BBC news at all.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (126 votes cast)
BBC secret exposed: Greenpeace, activists, BP decide what "science" brits see -- Hello TwentyEightGate, 9.4 out of 10 based on 126 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/bagffbv

241 comments to BBC secret exposed: Greenpeace, activists, BP decide what “science” brits see — Hello TwentyEightGate

  • #
    Mark D.

    Holy Cow what a blockbuster! Where oh where has the objectivity gone oh where oh where can it be?

    Will one of our resident trolls please comment on how this BBC is a good thing? C’mon Mattamon, Catajames, Brisross, anyone?


    Report this

    350

  • #

    [...] For the moment, I highly recommend the comments at Watts Up With That? and also at Bishop Hill. Jo Nova offers a characteristically thorough summary. So too does Andrew Orlowski at The Register. So too does [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Manfred

    This expose is an absolute classic – serendipitous timing? meaningful coincidence? – a nice counterpoint to Al Gore’s ‘Dirty Weather Report’, and to Kyoto 2012, which I note with dismay Juliar has signed up for. The counterpoint couldn’t be more delicious, as the rancid BBC fragments and implodes.

    So ‘Auntie’ is an unimpeachable, independent source of climate information and opinion for the low wattage, laughably titled “Ministers of Climate Change?” All over the world such hapless politicians garner their information. Then pontificate about ‘settled’ science on the one hand, and rob you blind with the other.

    The toxic melange of politics and a failed Fourth Estate (MSM) dooms set-piece journalism in favour of the blogosphere. The discovery of this ‘List’ is an empirical demonstration of freedom in action. It also confirms the bias and dependence of a vacuous Fourth Estate.


    Report this

    480

    • #
      Winston

      The BBC’s veneer or impartiality and respectability is just that- it’s all veneer. Glossy surface, with nothing of substance underneath once you scratch the paint off. A cheap plastic replica of what once was a British societal bastion.


      Report this

      290

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        … what once was a British societal bastion.

        It has never been that. I have been in conflicts, on the ground, and seen what was going on. And based on that knowledge, the BBC World Service were definitely “economical with the truth”, regarding what was happening.

        They rightly assume that the enemy will be listening, so they will tell the truth about things that are not important, and that the enemy can verify, but tell whopping great lies about things that the enemy cannot easily verify, such as the actual amount of damage done, or the number of casualties sustained.

        This applies to any initiative that the Government of the day wishes to pursue. It is not just restricted to conflict. War and Climate Change is just two examples of many.

        Governments negotiate for access to the scarce broadcast frequency spectrum. It is an expensive business. For a broadcaster to get access to a good frequency, there is therefore a quid pro quo – “Broadcast ‘stuff’ that is entertaining, and informative, and paints the Government of the day in a good light”.


        Report this

        151

        • #
          PaulM

          I would have thought the performance of the BBC and BBC World Service during times of national conflict were a significant part of what made them a British Societal Bastion.

          I would also note that it’s recent controvercies are the darkest betrayl of the social capital that their service duirng time of war gained for them.


          Report this

          110

        • #
          John Doran

          During the second world war the BBC’s insistence on honest & impartial reporting would sometimes annoy both servicemen & govt ministers.

          Since then it’s tumbled down the hill of truth into the gutter of marxist lies.

          The driver is UN Agenda 21, which is a blueprint for the 21st century, aiming at one world govt, for which the EU is the forerunner. Other aims are a huge (~75%?)reduction in world population, HOW? The abolition of private property, & the abolition of the family.

          All behind a cloak of “Green Sustainability” policies, of course.

          Global warming’s carbon taxes are to pay for this agenda.

          Luckily, the fightback has begun. Alabama banned UN Agenda 21 in June. Other states, counties & cities are following suit:

          http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/11999-sustainable-freedom-surging-opposition-to-agenda-21-“sustainable-development”

          is a must read.

          James delingpole on the BBC is also a great read:

          http://www.bogpaper.com/2012/11/02/delingpole-jimmy-savile/

          is a vitriolic eyeopener.

          We live in interesting times.
          :) .
          JD.


          Report this

          20

      • #
        Dennis

        Reminds me of the ALPBC Australia


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Bryan

    “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 [on anthropogenic climate change].”

    Note the EQUAL SPACE part.

    Reality is absolutely NO SPACE for the sceptic case.

    They see to that very well.
    There have been no programmes from the BBC for the last six years giving sceptics a chance to explain their case.

    Climate reporting BBC style is a one way alarmist propaganda output


    Report this

    480

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Totally agree.

      On so many topics, especially the weather, the BBC can be relied on to sneak in some stupid, smug, little one liners on ‘climate change’.

      I regret to say these nearly always manage to irritate me. Sceptic blogs are often beset – such as here today – with these smug, little, pointless one liners, clearly penned by little people with pointless lives. They are irritating – they are meant to be – which is the price you pay for living in a free society and not being censored, such as occurs in alarmist blogs like Real Climate.

      The BBC is top heavy with obscenely paid bureaucratic administrators – not managers, that would imply professionalism – mostly from the upper middle classes and best described as ‘trendy lefties’, or ‘champagne socialists’. The problem is these people have become entrenched and this has led to stagnation and indifference – quality of journalism has been exchanged for sensationalism and support for whatever the Guardian thinks is trendy.

      28Gate is a national scandal, now watch the British Establishment try and downplay it as being an inconsequential ‘storm in a teacup.’


      Report this

      190

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Peter

        Don’t be so pessimistic.

        The grinding poverty in Britain that has resulted from decades of poor government focused on vote buying has

        way of sharpening the minds and wit of all who suffer.

        They want to know the cause of their pain and how to remove it.

        Chances are they have already started to work it out.

        KK


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Peter Miller

          Keith

          The poor Brits don’t really have a choice any more.

          All the three main parties are in agreement about the following:

          1. The ‘truly horrible threat posed by global warming’, which has led to an insane energy policy of future reliance on extremely expensive and unreliable ‘renewable’ energy, and in particular wind power.

          2. Massive hand outs to the Third World. Funds which are first subject to being siphoned off by:

          a) UN, EU and other bureaucracies,

          b) Then get bled by armies of consultants and advisors,

          c) Then leached by recipient countries’ ‘administrators’

          d) But that’s after those countries’ political leaders have stashed away what’s rightfully theirs in foreign bank accounts,

          e) And then finally what’s left is all too often used for funding the temporary solution to a problem, which if solved will inevitably get many times worse in a decade or two.

          3. The importance of continuing with welfare dependency schemes; the Tories are only lukewarm about about tackling this, and

          4. How essential it is to keep shovelling vast funds into the huge EU bureaucracy to distribute/spend wherever they deem fit – It is now over 10 years since the auditors approved the EU’s accounts.

          5. It is a pre-requisite that their respective leaders should be career politicians and never anyone who has had any experience in how the real world works.

          It all boils down to a choice between who appears to be the least incompetent, least untrustworthy and least dishonest. A sad state of affairs for Britain, although much of the above applies to Australia as well.


          Report this

          110

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Peter

            Yes I concur with all of that.

            Just poking my head up out of my typical gloom looking for a ray of sunshine.

            Reality does bite hard.

            At least we don’t have the UE but we still have the same media suppression which means the average joe blow won’t have a clue what is going on.

            They have all been very clever.

            KK


            Report this

            10

          • #
            John Doran

            Hi Peter.
            Good points, to which I would reply as follows:

            There is a fourth & growing party UKIP, which has just pushed one of the major parties into 4th place in a local by-election. Come the next General Election I predict they will give the conservative? party a bloody nose.

            1) & 2). These policies can be best understood in the context of UN Agenda 21, see my comments above.

            Part of UN Agenda 21 aims is the equalisation of wealth between developed & third world nations. This is a marxist policy which involves lowering the standard of living of EU, UK & US, which is what we have been seeing since 2007, & the improvement in living standards of the BRIC nations, whose economies are growing at about 6%. Ludicrously, the UK govt borrows the money it sends abroad, further adding to current deficits, & debts to be paid by future taxpayers.

            a,b,c,d,e, agree totally. This may be viewed as bribery & corruption to further UN Agenda 21.

            3) Welfare dependency. Ian Duncan Smith is striving to address this problem, obstructed by the EU.

            4) EU contributions. There are now sensible MEPs such as Daniel Hannan who are advocating an amicable divorce from the EU Federal Project. UKIP are demanding a swift IN /OUT referendum. The Tory party is too cowardly to deliver the referendum they promised in their election manifesto. Exactly as the previous Labour govt did.
            Are they complicit with UN Agenda 21, or just dupes? Good Question.

            The UK is paying in gross about £18 billion, while running a trade deficit of about £50 billion. We are paying in to a club which is losing money for us. Even our Labour MPs can do simple maths. & so can the UK public.

            THe EU share of total world trade is shrinking. The UK is trading less each year with the EU, & more each year with the rest of the world. We are not dependent on the EU, despite BBC propaganda.

            It is now, I believe, 17 years since the EU accounts were signed off. This corruption can only be explained by Political & bureaucratic compliance, & voter stupidity.
            Bribe the politicians & bureaucrats, the voters wont notice. :) .

            Interestingly, compare this with the FED in America, which is not, as most people assume , a part of the US govt. It is ,in fact, a for profit consortium of private banks which has complete control of the US economy.

            FED accounts are never audited, it’s board meetings are never reported fully, yet it has control of the presently most powerful economy in this world. Interesting?

            5) Real world experience. All our present major party politicians are born to riches millionaires. Interestingly this is a typical profile for revolutionary marxists.

            It does boil down to who appears least untrustworthy, dishonest & competent.
            At the moment UKIP are winning by a mile. the next General Election will be most interesting.

            WE live in interesting times.

            Do not write off the UK, yet.

            The fightback has begun.
            :) .
            JD.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            John Doran

            Sorry, I’ve just re-read my comments above.

            Re point 5) I should have said “All THE LEADERS of our major political parties.

            Ajolopies.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi John

            Ajolopies accepted.

            Good to hear that there is a counter to the craziness.

            KK


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Dennis

        Will this be referred to an economist?


        Report this

        00

    • #
      John Brookes

      And in more breaking news, the BBC has decided that flat earthers will also not be given a platform for their beliefs…


      Report this

      336

      • #
        Bob Malloy

        John I see I’m a couple of days late on this matter, been off line for a couple of days but that comment is:

        asinine, backward, deranged, dim-witted, dull, fatuous, feeble-minded, idiotic, imbecilic, inane, ludicrous, moronic, simple-minded, slow, thick and witless


        Report this

        60

      • #

        John,

        You make an interesting analogy.
        The evidence that the earth is round is overwhelming, and the scientific reasons for the earth being spherical is extremely strong. Further, the “spherist” science is straight foreward and can be falsified by simple, independently-audited experiments. If you were to compare and contrast the scientific arguments of the “flatists” against the “spherists” the mainstream spherists would win.
        The evidence that we are heading for a global climate catastrophe is based on far more complex, empirical science. It requires models based on a series of controversial assumptions. The models outputs are all over the place, and twenty years have been consistently extreme.
        Like with any analogy with the harmful effects of smoking, or that the WW2 Holocaust, you are trying to gain credence for bad ideas by piggy-backing on the reputation of others. In other areas it would be viewed as fraudulent.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    MadJak

    Well their careers seem pretty much screwed

    never mind, I’m sure greenpiss will keep them feed with a good supply of lentils and mung beans – provided there’s enough C02 around for them to grow, of course.

    Hey if the science was so settled, why the secrecy?


    Report this

    341

  • #

    The crisis that is engulfing the BBC at present is due to Newsnight, the premier news show, broadcasting an expose claiming that a senior member of the Thatcher Government was a paedophile. It was totally untrue, and the most basic journalistic checks were not carried out.
    One of the most prominent Twittees who “outed” Lord McAlpine was George Monbiot. Might his judgement of the former Treasurer (and very effective fundraiser) of the Conservative Party during the Thatcher years have something to do with it?
    In both the BBC’s and Monbiot’s case, this is the flip-side of the Glieck affair. They both appear to be very quick to accept evidence that confirms their prejudices, and attack any evidence that poses the slightest challenge. I posted on this yesterday, and Jo Nova posted on Monbiot in March.


    Report this

    280

  • #
    Betapug

    The bias issue of self interest due to the BBC pension fund’s financial interest in CAGW promotion has already been covered;

    http://www.climategate.com/follow-the-money-bbc-exposed-in-biggest-climate-racket-on-planet

    I note that News head and BBC Direction Group former member Helen Boaden is also a trustee of the Pension fund whose members do not seem to like the variable nature of investment output and believe that the taxpayers should make up any shortfall.

    http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/mypension/en/transcript_of_active_members_meeting.pdf

    Ironic that it is OK for the electric power supply to be intermittent but the money supply must be stable.


    Report this

    250

  • #
    Ross

    In some ways the British should not be surprised by this. Did not the WWF people effectively write the UK Climate Change Act ( or whatever the correct title is). The head of the group was made a Baroness after it was passed.


    Report this

    220

  • #
    AndyG55

    And this is where our ABC gets its ideas from, when they have one which is not dictated by the ALP.


    Report this

    192

  • #
    Phil Ford

    I suspect that here in the UK we will now have to watch as the BBC ignores this story completely. Why? Because it can. I have little faith that any of our other mainstream media broadcasters will run with it, either. These people are generally cut from the same ‘common purpose’ cloth.

    For those of us who have long believed the BBC to be a hopelessly compromised broadcaster riven with a toxic leftist agenda, this latest revelation – the ‘TwentyEightGate List’ – merely serves to confirm all our worst fears. At the very least it reveals quite unequivocally that the BBC never had any interest in ‘balance’ or ‘impartiality’ when it came to the question of CAGW. So we can at least close the door on that question once and for all. Now we know the answer.

    But what now? This should be a major scandal in and of itself but with a BBC that will refuse point blank to acknowledge it what can any of us do about it? All we hear on the BBC these days, in the wake of so many recent scandals, is how ‘trusted’ and ‘respected’ the BBC considers itself (despite opinion polls here in the UK showing precisely the opposite). This leviathan is pathologically, ideologically and politically incapable of changing its outlook.

    So we’ll see some ‘changes’ in the BBC as a result, not of this scandal, but of the recent child abuse scandals but I’m willing to wager that all those who have been ‘stood aside’ while investigations are carried out (internally at the BBC) will eventually crawl back into their very well remunerated positions once the dust has settled. That’s how it’s done at the BBC. Funny thing is, all four of the top-tier personnel so far implicated in the recent headline scandals were also mentioned in this list. My, they’ve done very well for themselves over the past seven years.

    Google their names and read their bios on the BBC website. You’ll discover their impossibly large salaries (and remember these salaries are paid by tax payers via the noxious TV license we are all forced to pay here in the UK). Then google their names again and look them up on Wikipedia for all the details about their political leanings and involvements that the BBC somehow forgets to mention in their official bios (I’ll give you a clue: watermelons).

    All the bias is there. You just have to dig a little.

    Thanks for covering this story, Jo – please give it as much publicity as you can, because here in the UK the BBC will do its very best to ignore it completely.

    Best wishes to all my Australian friends!


    Report this

    660

  • #

    I look forward to hearing this on the ABC this morning, but I won’t hold my breath…..


    Report this

    170

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    I would like to thank the BBC for their honest, open, clear & upright strategy.
    And their pocus.


    Report this

    120

  • #
  • #
    David

    And we are surprised at this? Come on folks the UK had a socialist government for years [Blair and Brown] and despite the former’s “nice chap” image he was leader of a system which expanded a welfare state and welfare dependancy. NHS anybody? They are the antithesis of a free market/efficiency approach which used to be the province of the conservative side of politics but don’t hold your breath for the conservatives in the UK to clean out the BBC or the local conservatives here the ABC if they win the next election. TV licences are an iniquitous tax added to the ever expanding list of taxes for combatting the alleged man made climate change. The words of John Marshall, an early Justice of the US Supreme Court should be emblazoned on every letter or communication involving government – “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.” and that’s the way we are heading unless come pollie with guts stands up to be counted and clears out the local and Brit versions of Pravda. Having got that off my chest I think I’ll go out in the sunshine and fire up my big diesel and gas a greenie or two as I drive by an adjacent bike path.


    Report this

    170

    • #
      Carbon500

      Let’s not forget that the UK’s Blair government introduced the ludicrous Climate Change Act as well.


      Report this

      90

      • #
        Dennis

        They also put a chief government scientist’s report that did not suit the alarmists into the bin and commissioned the chief economist to produce a global warming friendly report


        Report this

        10

      • #
        John Doran

        & they introduced the “Human rights” Bill. Bliars self proclaimed proudest achievement.
        Not a mention of “Human responsibilities” on the horizon.

        A very convenient vehicle for his greedy grasping missis to pillage the UK taxpayer, through her legal chambers, Matrix, fondly known as ‘Nonces are us’.

        They also invaded Iraq on a pack of lies, generating the hatred of the muslim world.
        Then he wanted to be the the EU president, & was, is? the EU peace envoy to the Middle East, which he invaded for no good reason.

        You could not make it up.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      John Brookes

      Yes, that horrible NHS. Far better to live in the land of the free where you get to die because you can’t afford treatment.

      And the problems most of the world face is not an unlimited power to tax, its the fact that democracy causes people who want to be in government to spend too big and tax too little.


      Report this

      613

      • #
        gai

        WHAT complete BS!
        I know it is because if it were not for the FREE medical care in the USA eight years ago my husband would be dead. He had Rocky Mtn Spotted fever and was comatose when admitted.

        We do not earn enough to be able to pay the medical bills so we had the bills “Forgiven”


        Report this

        50

  • #

    Yanks only get a tiny, candy coated portion of the BBC poison, filtered by our government funded Public Broadcasting System. As a result most Yanks see the BBC as “enlightened” on only slightly biased, as i did, prior to six extended, practice honeymoons in the island Kingdom. The “subjects” are so surrounded with the omni-present, multi-channel, Big Brother Crap (the real BBC acronism) that they blithly buy-in and agree they are the “enlightened” ones. The Big Brother Crap then becomes an inargueable national policy. It was infurating to witness, and in part contributied to my science writting activism. It is time for the new “BBC Heads on Pikes” special….and a New Magna Carta. For some interesting parallels to events in 1215 AD, read “One Pleasant Day in Runnymede”….and FIGHT back !


    Report this

    210

    • #
      John Brookes

      The BBC is enlightened. America produces some fantastic television, but the BBC makes better. Take Friends. It was a great show. But the poms gave us Couplings, which was better (yes, its only my opinion, but in this case, if you disagree, you are just plain wrong). The Office was actually translated reasonably well into American.

      I think I actually like American authors just as much as British ones. Catch 22 was the funniest book I ever read. I loved John Steinbeck’s “Cannery Row”.


      Report this

      415

  • #

    Well done and thanks Hillary, you got it all right!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    Our ABC shows more bias than the BBC. It also shows BBC programs without the caveat of bought by Greenpeace brought to you by Greenpeace.

    So given that the BBC is being held to account for some of its minor excesses, how do we hold the ABC to account? Answer – we cannot.


    Report this

    120

  • #

    [...] claimed: it was hardly provided with any specialised scientific advice at all. Present were just three scientists not sceptical about the CO2 theory of anthropogenic global warming, and none whatso…. The rest were a motley collection of politically-committed Green-Left activists, advocacy [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    jo, you might want to add this quote under lance marshall’s quote calling dahl-jensen a boots-on-the-ground scientist:

    WUWT: Dave in Canmore says:
    November 13, 2012 at 11:09 am
    RE one of of the “science experts” Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen

    It seems she has been making the rounds with Al Gore doing presentations. Anyone who refuses to condem Gore for gross scientific ignorance clearly is not an expert in anything but propaganda.
    here’s a link to one of their presentations, scroll down for article. Claims of ice free arctic by 2014 headline the presentation.
    http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.ca/2009/12/arctic-ocean-may-be-ice-free-by-2014.html


    Report this

    120

  • #
    pat

    andrew orlowski at the UK Register – the only media representative to attend and cover tony newbery’s tribunal hearing, now writes:

    (2 pages) 13 Nov: SECRET 28 ‘scientific experts’ who Greened the BBC – Revealed!
    Beeb spent a mint to suppress list on Wayback Machine (includes Greenpeacers)
    This surreal story is only tangentially about climate change: the disclosure raises questions about the evidence submitted to the information tribunal by the BBC and Helen Boaden – its director of news who “stepped aside” this week.
    The case also highlights once again the BBC’s corporate strategy of using an FOI derogation, or legal “opt-out” clause, to withhold a wide range of material from citizens who wish to know whether the BBC is fulfilling its statutory obligations under its royal charter.
    And it raises further questions about the effectiveness of the BBC Trust. The trust, which replaced the Board of Governors, was created with a mission: an “unprecedented obligation to openness and transparency”…
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/13/climate28_named_wtf/


    Report this

    100

  • #
    shirl

    Sounds like OUR A.B.C. sadly


    Report this

    90

  • #
    AndyG55

    TearFund: quote “A leading relief and development charity, working in partnership with Christian agencies and churches worldwide to tackle the causes and effects of poverty.”

    Yet they are actively responsible for exacerbating poverty in the UK (and elsewhere) by their support of inefficient, expensive, inconsistent, renewables.

    DOH !!!!


    Report this

    222

    • #
      John Brookes

      Religion is mainly responsible for poverty by being against birth control. What mongrel would condemn countless Africans to AIDS by telling them that God doesn’t want them to use a condom?

      But feel free to dwell in cloud cuckoo land and focus on the evils of renewables.


      Report this

      320

      • #
        AndyG55

        Yes, and TearFund is religious as well !! And the BBC listens to them.

        DOH !!!


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Sonny

        John,
        Allow me to respectfully disagree with you.

        There is no causative link between being born and being born into poverty.
        Granted, a child cannot go hungry if they are never born but this is hardly a helpful observation.
        I suspect that your comment is alluding to the “overpoppulation” non- issue which seems to be another popular myth peddled by left wing misanthropic extremists who would gladly welcome a global pandemic if it would reduce the population to “sustainable” levels.

        I find it utterly repulsive and frankly quite frightening that you and your ilk have such a disdain for the sanctity of human life as to see children being born as the problem.

        If one tenth of the funding allocated to fight the global warming boogeyman had been instead invested in research into agriculture, irrigation as well as dismantling the barriers to food aid reaching impoverished communities we could EASILY feed everyone in this world.
        Yet instead, arable land is being used to grow corn for fuel rather than food! And farmland in Australia has now been made more valuable for carbon abatement schemes than for grazing cattle! Energy and Water, the cornerstone of food production has been made so expensive that growing food is no longer profitable for many farmers.

        So please, let me disabuse you of the fallacy that religion is somehow the cause of poverty in the world.

        Rant over.


        Report this

        70

      • #
        AndyG55

        Unquestioned religion is behind many wrongs in the world’s history.

        The latest religion, CAGW, takes on many of the facets of other religions.

        Unquestioning disciples, deriding those that do ask question, ostracizing those do not “believe”.

        And it affects the poor, through electricity prices for highly subsidised expensive renewables, food prices by, channeling food crops to biofuels.

        Its priesthood lives in luxurious many roomed mansions and do not follow their own preachings.

        It has all the hallmarks of a religion.

        And like most other religions, it is based on nothing but an idea, no proof of any sort, just belief.

        Yet people like you still support it. DOH !!!


        Report this

        30

  • #
    David, UK

    I’m reminded of a phrase that was applied to the UK Police Force some years ago before several reforms were introduced:

    Institutionally Corrupt.


    Report this

    140

    • #
      Joe V.

      Are you thinking of the Institutionally Racist tag , applied to them in 2009 ?

      Meaning something like, however much individuals my try to overcome, the whole setup is stacked against them from the start, so it needs radical reform.

      What is it that’s missing from the BBC then ? Or is it that their ‘ oversight’ has just been corrupted beyond redemption, by political interference or whatever ?

      Not so sure who might be suitable for calling out noble cause corruption though, as the Runnymede Trust was doing so effectively in their particular area of concern.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    I’ve not followed the links in this story (sorry to be a lazy sceptic) so the answer might be there, but this story hinges on this meeting being one where policies were decided. Are these policy documents available and do they make reference to this meeting?


    Report this

    08

    • #
      handjive

      Like you, I have not clicked on all links above, but, found this @ Tom Nelson:

      ❝ Fran Unsworth has replaced Helen Boaden as head of BBC news.

      Like her predecessor, Helen Boaden, Ms Unsworth was in attendance at the climate seminar.

      Readers might also be interested in this transcript of a conference called NewsXchange 2005, which featured Channel Four’s Jon Snow and the Guardian’s George Monbiot discussing global warming’s potential to wipe human life off the face of the planet (I don’t remember that bit of the IPCC report, do you?).

      ☞ Fran Unsworth was also in attendance and had some interesting things to say.

      You can sense the development of some of the ideas that later reappeared in the seminar. ❞


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Gee Aye

        this doesn’t answer my question.

        I understand that there was a meeting in 2006 that may well have been a biased love-in so that everyone could be mutually reassured about editorial direction but I still don’t see the “policy” and evidence that it derived from this meeting.


        Report this

        16

        • #
          handjive

          Well, as you have not made any effort in the meantime to answer your own question, and post a link to add to the conversation per se, only to point out the bleeding obvious that it ‘did not answer your question’, one can only assume you are not interested in an answer,
          just an argument.

          That would be room 12, just down the hall.

          Time, or a ‘wayback machine’ will eventually show the policy documents you are ‘searching for’.


          Report this

          81

        • #
          Pat K

          The relevent quote that has got the most exposure is this:

          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.

          However until I followed one of the links in Jo’s posting, I had never seen the rest of the paragraph. It does put a slightly different complexion on things. The relevent paragraph goes on to say:

          But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is even more offensive today than it was in 1926. The BBC has many public purposes of both ambition and merit – but joining campaigns to save the planet is not one of them. The BBC’s best contribution is to increase public awareness of the issues and possible solutions through impartial and accurate programming. Acceptance of a basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of the arguments surrounding both causation and solution. It remains important that programme-makers relish the full range of debate that such a central and absorbing subject offers, scientifically, politically and ethically, and avoid being misrepresented as standard-bearers.

          Now putting this in a policy document is one thing and whether or not it gets adhered to is obviously another.
          The document which, as I mentioned, was linked to in Jo’s post is FROM SEESAW TO WAGON WHEEL Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century. It’s a pdf issued by The BBC Trust.


          Report this

          14

          • #
            Gee Aye

            thanks. The context gets more clear with reading the preceding and following paragraphs too. Quotes such as this

            Frustrated by public disenchantment, some politicians seem to believe that the BBC, in a public service role, can be harnessed to a government agenda, whether on matters of climate change or social behaviour. There have been four such approaches in recent months, and the BBC quite rightly rejected them.

            don’t seem to be factored into Jo’s article or for that matter almost any of the articles cited here.

            So it seems to boil down to the fact that when the BBC educated itself on climate change it did so using a set of people that some commentators don’t think much of. In the end it came to the view that the consensus is widely held but that dissention from this view will be reported as per their existing reporting guidelines.


            Report this

            211

          • #
            Pat K

            Gee Aye @10:48

            So it seems to boil down to the fact that when the BBC educated itself on climate change it did so using a set of people that some commentators don’t think much of. In the end it came to the view that the consensus is widely held but that dissention from this view will be reported as per their existing reporting guidelines.

            Not at all a reasonable summation at all in any objective assessment.
            The BBC claimed that it

            … held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts.

            That this is unmitigated balderdash is self evident from reading the list and affiliations of the participants. There is no reasonable argument against the contention that this was a carefully hand picked group of activists. Most of the contributors without specialist scientific credentials at all. So it’s not so much that “some commentators don’t think much of” them. It is rather that this “high level seminar” was not conducted with participants who comply with the claimed qualifications – “the best scientific experts.”
            And that is quite clearly the reason why the BBC went to inordinate lengths and expense to avoid releasing the names of its so called “best scientific experts.”
            As I previously said it is one thing to include pious platitudes in a policy statement and quite another to comply with the said policy. Naturally activist BBC staffers have obviously taken the first line to heart.

            ….weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.

            The rest of the document has been taken as merely included as a caveat and fall back position in case things went pear shaped (as they have.)
            Anybody who has ever listened extensively to BBC offerings cannot fail to be impressed with the thoroughness that CAGW orthodoxy permeates every level of programming aired.


            Report this

            180

          • #
            Pat K

            Don’t forget that once again it’s not so much the offence. It’s the cover up that gets you every time. Three category 1 scandals at the BBC in quick succession. However I agree with some of the other commenters. they’ll ride it out and nought will change.


            Report this

            80

          • #
            Pat K

            Just a further observation.
            Gee Aye commenced remarking that he had

            not followed the links in this story (sorry to be a lazy sceptic).

            However he is obviously a researcher of exceptional speed and efficiency because within a couple of posts he was able to tell us what was and was not

            factored into ….. almost any of the articles cited here.


            Report this

            70

          • #
            Catamon

            So it seems to boil down to the fact that when the BBC educated itself on climate change it did so using a set of people that some commentators don’t think much of. In the end it came to the view that the consensus is widely held but that dissention from this view will be reported as per their existing reporting guidelines.

            Pretty good summation i reckon.


            Report this

            118

          • #
            Gee Aye

            HI Pat thanks for noting my research qualities.

            Unfortunately I remain sceptical while agreeing that something smells but I don’t see evidence for what you think it is.

            Your evidence for your belief seems to be the alleged cover up which you link to your subjective observations of BBC programming.


            Report this

            28

          • #
            Gee Aye

            I am coming to the conclusion that the subject of this post and the comments within are rivaling the ARC thread for the number of conclusions drawn from nested assertions.

            I got praise from Catamon?


            Report this

            16

          • #
            Catamon

            I got praise from Catamon?

            You know, i have even been known to give a thumbs up to MV when he’s not being a grumpy pedantic twat. I take peoples posts as they come, and just because of one or two fundamental points of disagreement betwixt myself and most of the denizens here, it doesn’t mean i dont think about and consider what other people write. :)

            Particularly those who aren’t brain dead abusers of others.


            Report this

            011

          • #
            Mark D.

            It might be difficult but why don’t you say what is really bothering you?


            Report this

            40

          • #
            cohenite

            I agree with PatK’s observation that the complete document is best viewed as

            merely included as a caveat and fall back position in case things went pear shaped (as they have.)

            I have read many scientific papers where the logical conclusion is that a part of AGW has been disproved but the disclaimer about AGW being real with a need for further research [and funding] to occur has been included as part of the paper.

            The intention of the beeb is evident by the members of the group and most importantly by the subsequent coverage by the beeb of the issue of AGW; like all aspects of AGW ‘science’ the beeb has contributed to a fundamental tautalogy; it has only accepted official, consensus evidence but it has established this consensus by excluding those scientists and evidence which is not pro-AGW.

            The beeb is the mirror image of the abc; for instance no sceptical articles are now published at The Drum for some time.


            Report this

            71

          • #
            John Brookes

            Time will judge, and I’m betting that the BBC made entirely the right call. We are looking at potential disaster, and they decided to stop listening to the vocal, but largely discordant and incoherent, minority. Good call.


            Report this

            324

          • #
            Peter Miller

            There are two really good posts on WUWT to counter this supercilious comment:

            No 1

            Here is what Antony Jay (in charge of “Yes Minister”) said in his foreword to Booker’s report:

            I joined BBC television, my first job after university and National Service, in 1955, six months before the start of commercial television, and stayed for nine years as trainee, producer, editor and finally head of a production department. I absorbed and expressed all the accepted BBC attitudes: hostility to, or at least suspicion of, America, monarchy, government, capitalism, empire, banking and the defence establishment, and in favour of the Health Service, state welfare, the social sciences, the environment and state education.

            This deep hostility to people and organisations who made and sold things was not of course exclusive to the BBC. It permeated a lot of upper middle class English society (and has not vanished yet). But it was wider and deeper in the BBC than anywhere else, and it is still very much a part of the BBC ethos. Very few of the BBC producers and executives have any real experience of the business world, and as so often happens, this ignorance, far from giving rise to doubt, increases their certainty.

            We were masters of the techniques of promoting our point of view under the cloak of impartiality. The simplest was to hold a discussion between a fluent and persuasive proponent of the view you favoured, and a humourless bigot representing the other side. With a big story, like shale gas for example, you would choose the aspect where your case was strongest: the dangers of subsidence and water pollution, say, rather than the transformation of Britain’s energy supplies and the abandonment of wind farms and nuclear power stations. And you could have a ‘balanced’ summary with the view you favoured coming last: not “the opposition claim that this will just make the rich richer, but the government point out that it will create 10,000 new jobs” but “the government claim it will create 10,000 new jobs, but the opposition point out that it will just make the rich richer.” It is the last thought that stays in the mind. It is curiously satisfying to find all these techniques still being regularly used forty seven years after I left the BBC.

            The issue of man-made global warming could have been designed for the BBC. On the one side are the industrialists, the businessmen, the giant corporations and the bankers (or at least those who are not receiving generous grants, subsidies and contracts from their government for climate-related projects such as wind farms or electric cars), on the other the environmentalists, the opponents of commercial expansion and industrial growth. Guessing which side the BBC will be on is a no-brainer, but no one has documented it in such meticulous detail as Christopher Booker. His case is unanswerable. The costs to Britain of trying to combat global warming are horrifying, and the BBC’s role in promoting the alarmist cause is, quite simply, shameful.

            No.2

            There are lies within lies in this story.
            AFAIR, the seminar we are talking about was not originally intended to be a ‘policy-making’ meeting.

            My understanding of the history is that the BBC unilaterally dropped their Charter requirement to provide balance in reporting Global Warming, purely due to internal activists. This change was noticed by outside bloggers, who started asking questions about why the BBC was in breach of its Charter.

            So, to shut them up, the BBC responded that they had duly considered the issue, and received proper scientific advice that there was no real controversy – the science was settled. They picked a recent internal seminar (which had been held to promulgate the Global Warming message to internal BBC staff) and claimed that this comprised ‘the top scientific brains’ who had provided this policy advice. There had been NO minutes – odd, for such a fundamental policy decision.

            That was meant to shut up the bloggers, who were crying for more details. The meeting was retrospectively claimed to be under the non-attributable Chatham House Rules, which neatly made it unable to be investigated.

            Blogger Tony Newbery submitted a FOI request for the names of these august scientists who had advised the BBC to drop its impartiality position. The BBC fought this tooth and nail, finally spending a 6-figure sum on barristers and packing the Tribunal where, last Friday, the request was rejected on the spurious grounds that the BBC could consider itself to be a private organisation if it wanted to keep secrets from the public.

            Now we can see that the meeting which was claimed to be with a policy-defining group of top scientists was, in fact, an activist jolly/propaganda exercise. And trying to hide this has cost the BBC a lot of money and face.


            Report this

            140

          • #
            Chris M

            John Brookes
            November 14, 2012 at 8:34 pm

            Time will judge, and I’m betting that the BBC made entirely the right call. We are looking at potential disaster, and they decided to stop listening to the vocal, but largely discordant and incoherent, minority. Good call.

            I can’t accept that you really believe this, John. Like Nick Stokes, who is also scientifically literate, you find it very difficult to accept that CAGW, which is very much a leftist and internationalist meme, could possibly be wrong. I suggest that you have a look at the insights of fellow socialists Richard Courtney and Geoff Chambers on other blogs. They are logical enough to separate their political adherence from objective scientific appraisal. Maybe you will get to that point one day, but if not I feel sorry for you.


            Report this

            40

    • #
      handjive

      Interesting link. Apology, thank you.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Jim Stewart

    This skulduggery reflects the total arrogance of these people. They are hell bent on feeding their guilt trip to the masses, at that groups expense. Social governments, and their many tentacles such as the BBC (or ABC in our case)have stripped the finer elements of human character from the majority of us, leaving fear and greed as their playthings. Evidence abounds in the European situation and now the US election results where welfare in it’s, now, many forms has become the driving force. It looks like the ‘Nanny State’ reigns supreme at present.
    For our future wellbeing we need to have the conservative forces in Australia raise the battle flag and build understanding of the consequences of the path we are on. We all need to support the conservative parties efforts at moving from middle ground to more fertile areas by leading rather than following.


    Report this

    110

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    It’s bad enough that the BBC climate-synod of 2006 gathered an assembly of the faithful to denounce the rights of dissenters to air their views although it shouldn’t be surprising; History is full of similar examples where powerful, ruling groups have attempted to squash heretics.

    What really, really gets on my goat is the way climate-weather-FACTS have been ruthlessly manipulated by the BBC.

    Hot weather, blizzards, hurricanes, tsunamis, droughts, floods, bush-fires and other natural disasters have been trumpeted as warnings to an evil and avaricious Mankind from a scolding Moma Gaia.

    Learned reports, filled with new and improved messages of the ‘worse than we thought’ meme, are elevated to pole positions and padded out with dire soundbites from the going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket brigade.

    Photoshopped or irrelevant photographs provide graphic content to further massage the message- no more pictures of ‘durdy carbon’ from cooling towers, PLEASE

    Data that brings the consensus gospel into doubt e.g.21st century monotonic CO2 increases without corresponding temperature rise, bad behavior from the Baby-Boomer tree populations of the 60′s that refused to conform to instrumental records, reduced ACE figures etc. is either ignored, downplayed or woven ad-hoc into the narrative when it becomes too embarassing to dismiss.

    If you want our respect back BBC then just give us the facts – pure, simple and untainted by your beliefs


    Report this

    210

  • #
    malrob

    I recall a couple of years ago a statement from Tony Jones at the ABC that its journalists had held a meeting back in the early 2000s to discuss the question of balance in climate reporting. No doubt it was less formal than the notorious BBC seminar but he openly admitted that the policy position adopted was that balanced coverage of non-consensus views was not justified. I wonder how much unbiased science was available to the participants at that meeting.


    Report this

    120

    • #
      ghl

      I recall Jon Faine referring to the same meeting. Of course they might have been referring to the BBC meeting, for their own convenience, because it was such a good idea.


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
    Bob in Castlemaine

    JULIA Gillard has declared that News Ltd, the Australian arm of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, has “hard questions” to answer in light of the UK phone hacking scandal.

    “I do believe that Australians watching all of that happening overseas with News Corp are looking at News Ltd here and are wanting to see News Ltd answer some hard questions.”

    One wonders if Julia Gillard will now expect to see some “hard questions” put to our ABC?


    Report this

    180

    • #
      Gnome

      Rupert should offer- one honest answer to every one of her hard questions about News Ltd in Australia, in exchange for an honest answer to each hard question he asks her.

      I think she would run out of questions before he does.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      John Brookes

      If only Rupert had to operate by the rules of the BBC. When did he have the meeting with his editors that decided they would plug the “skeptics” at every opportunity?

      Oh, thats right, they never had that meeting. Why? Because Rupert’s editors have a sixth sense for what Rupert wants. And those who don’t, get sacked.


      Report this

      314

    • #
      Dennis

      The Australian was forced to retract a reference to a “trust fund” recently and confirm that it was a “slush fund” but last Sunday the presenter of ABC Insiders made the same alleged to be mistake and there has been no fuss made whatsoever. The PM has her pet targets it appears.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    John from CA

    Counter programming to Al Gore’s ‘Dirty Weather Report’ will be on WUWT-TV Live starting Wednesday Nov. 14 at 8PM EST

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/13/counter-programming-to-al-gores-dirty-weather-report-will-be-on-wuwt-tv-live-starting-wednesday-nov-14-at-8pm-est/

    Mr. Gore’s program is yet another transparent politically based attempt to link climate and weather, and to make people fearful of common weather events that we’ve seen all throughout history.

    Tune-in Wednesday Nov. 14 at 8PM EST to get the facts.


    Report this

    161

  • #
    Streetcred

    Considering the BBC’s external service penetration into the world, the implications of this systematic bias is exceedingly concerning. Now connect this dot with that dot … our ABC has sole domain of the Australian external service and is the same biased pea in the pod as the BBC, from where much of its content originates.


    Report this

    110

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Let us not lose sight of the fact that the BBC released the list themselves in 2006 (no doubt patting themselves as good boys), yet in 2012 spent over $60,000 a day to try and suppress that list.

    What a change in public perception has occurred that they no longer feel free to ignore public opinion. Scepticism about AGW is mainstream.

    Should we claim that 97% of those who are paying the bills for this AGW tripe, are against it?


    Report this

    230

  • #
    ROM

    For news organisations everywhere, the world has changed and it has changed in a way they never foresaw or expected.

    And the agent of that change, it’s called the ” Internet”.

    The two decades old “Internet” is the ultimate news source against which everything can be checked and all can be and usually is revealed and it is now destroying the old arrogant, self satisfied incestuous news organisations and their claims of being balanced and dispassionate in their publishing of a supposedly balanced and nuanced news.

    Twenty years ago when many of the current senior news editors and executives were just getting started on their broadcasting careers, news and public affairs organisations could get away with their smoke and mirrors hiding of the truth. Now those smoke and mirrors are no longer working and may never work again for news and public affairs broadcasters and news organisations thanks to the internet

    The BBC’s near criminal imbroglio is probably only the first amongst many similar such secretive back room deals made by the various news organisations that will be revealed in the years ahead through the foragings of the net denizens amongst the entrails of the past as recorded and then consigned to the obscure corners of the net where their progenitors had hoped they might be hidden forever more .


    Report this

    100

    • #
      Sonny

      ROM you make a good point but miss an important factor:

      The average person still believes the “big lie” peddled by mainstream media for the following reasons:

      1. They might tell small lies in their day to day lives but would never dream of lying so infamously, therefore they don’t anticipate others doing it – especially authority figures and scientific experts.

      2. When undertaking cursory research on a suspicion that they are being lied to they will readily accept the propagandists “debunking”, e.g. Skeptical Science in order to resolve their cognitive dissonance.

      3. They are more persuaded by popular opinion and peer group pressure than by facts. (why the consensus method is so effective) They seek safety in numbers (even if the numbers are fabricated eg 97%)

      4. They have not the intelligence and critical thinking to evaluate evidence and come to their own conclusions. Education is steering more and more away from independent thought to a groupthink mentality.

      5. They are too busy or distracted with the peculiarities of their own life and agenda to be bothered with global issues for which they feel they have no control or influence.

      6. They have been programmed to avoid certain lines of thinking lest they be demonized (even by family and friends) as a “conspiracy theorist”

      There must be a host of other reasons. The point being is that the truth is usually always available, if not in plain site, then through some focused research. But truth seeking is simply not a priority for the majority of the population.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Mattb

    I do love threads like these! Smell the outrage!


    Report this

    418

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Shame on you, Mattb, that your outrage is nowhere to be found. :-(


      Report this

      190

    • #
      AndyG55

      more like DISGUST !!


      Report this

      72

    • #
      ExWarmist

      So MattB,

      Imagine this scenario,

      FOXNEWS, while publicly claiming independence, is found to have it’s news coverage profoundly shaped by a secret list of 28 Oil industry executives to favour their own special interests.

      And your response would be?

      Or to be more particular, since we are dealing with a public institution and not a private company, how about this scenario,

      The Australian Reserve Bank, while claiming independence, is found to have it’s currency and interest rate operations profoundly shaped by a secret list of 28 finance executives from local and international banks to favour their own special interests.

      And your response would be?

      Is your definition of corruption politicized? – I.e. “Only the other fellow could be corrupt – no one on my side could be corrupt” – are you willing to be objective?

      Looking forward to your response MattB


      Report this

      252

    • #
      Catamon

      Smell the outrage!

      Excellent chum. :)


      Report this

      012

      • #
        Winston

        I think you’ll find that the odour, Matt and Cat, filling your collective nostrils is actually the aroma of slowly roasted warmist, flame grilled on the rotisserie, with a nice piquant sauce of the side. Might I suggest a bold and woody cabernet with that to enhance the experience. Bon appetit!


        Report this

        70

        • #
          Catamon

          Chianti Winston, Chianti. :)


          Report this

          14

          • #
            Winston

            You guys may as well enjoy a decent meal, even if you have to dine out on a sizeable helping of crow, Cat old mate. Salut!


            Report this

            80

          • #

            Ah Winston, this brings back fond memories where you say here:

            Salut!

            In my early days in the Air Force, late 60′s early 70′s, my Mum had a close gentleman friend, an older man, who had been in the mining industry for ages. He was a Master Tradesmsn concrete form worker, one of the early originals in fact having worked in the Snowys in the early days. He worked an awful lot in those early days of the Pilbara and in a lot of areas in North West WA, including a long period at Wittenoom, mining the blue asbestos. He passed away in 75 from Lung Cancer, long before mesothelioma became as well known as it is now.

            He was a hard man, but he was also one of nature’s gentlemen. He could also drink like there was no tomorrow.

            He had a close friend who followed him everywhere, a Scot, and when the two of these guys started drinking it became interesting. They both loved their Scotch especially White Heather and Dimple.

            Each time a session would start, with the first drink, Bob would say ‘Good Health’, and Jock would reply with ‘Slàinte mhath’. (which is pronounced as Slanchy va)

            I just loved the term after I found out what it meant, (good health) and from that point, I always used it.

            Funny thing about Jock, the Scot. When he was sober, he was absolutely unintelligible, although Bob understood every word he spoke. Trouble is no one else had a clue at all as to what he was talking about. Yet when he was anything more than half tanked, his English was absolutely perfect, and here I mean perfect, with respect to clarity. Every word was perfect without the slightest trace of any accent at all.

            So Winston, in reply to your Salut!, Slanchy va.

            Tony.


            Report this

            60

          • #
            Andrew Mcrae

            JoNova episode #1263, the one where Catamon defies Monckton by proving the Left does have a sense of humour.

            And Winston’s analogy then becomes an ominous prediction. because if the warmists are drinking the chianti it means they devoured their skeptical interrogator, but were later caught and thrown in prison because of it.
            Oh, that backfired a bit, eh cat.

            How do you like the new fragrance I’m wearing? It’s called The Sweet Smell of Liberty. Does that register in your collective nostrils, or should I say collectivist nostrils?


            Report this

            61

          • #
          • #
            Catamon

            Actually i do prefer a nice Merlot most of all.

            Oh, that backfired a bit, eh cat.

            Hmm…didn’t Hannibal walk free at the end of that movie? Certainly not condemned to the horror of Chianti through a straw and hockey mask at the whim of his jailers?

            It’s called The Sweet Smell of Liberty

            Good on you Andrew. :)

            Although from you obvious disdain of the collectivist, that would be the smell of something you are at liberty to do on your own?


            Report this

            18

          • #
            Andrew Mcrae

            Well cat you have to stoop to personal attacks on me as you presumably cannot defend collectivism. Any defense would first have to conveniently dispose of 40 million dead soviets.
            Even as an attack on libertarianism you offer nothing but a false dichotomy between external control and individual solitude. Illogical!

            Actually My present fragrance is “beer breath” and there’s 3 young ladies from Germany who helped me get it. Presumably there is no 5 year State production quota on “good times” and “beer breath” that I have fulfilled? Guess again, furball.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Catamon

            [snip]

            Catamon lift your game, you need to argue a point, not just throw names and insults. – Jo

            17

          • #
            Andrew Mcrae

            Hey waffle, Jo, any news on when that report comment button is going to work?

            Or is the only pragmatic solution to stop writing comments under my own name, because if its not one neanderthal abusing me it will be another?
            The cat had no substantive argument, and despite being given a chance to keep it about politics, was intent on abuse.
            For a collectivist the cat shows little skill in getting along in a society.

            ————————–

            REPLY: Sorry, the cat’s comments are contributing little today, other than acting as a display of collectivist-intelligence, which seems to be nothing more than random insults. I’ve snipped one. The Reports button is slow (and I’ll probably drop that plugin, as soon as I figure out how to add in an email link instead). Alas it’s only me who can get into the report comment screen. Please report comments to support AT joannenova.com.au where a small team can respond faster. Please cut and paste the comment (with the link to the comment) in the email to make it easier for us. — Jo


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Andrew Mcrae

            Jo, thanks for that prompt support.

            On the basis it takes two to tango, I should also develop a thicker skin.
            I’ll also try to terminate these libel missiles while they are still in boost phase.


            Report this

            20

    • #
      Mark D.

      Smell that you green warmists don’t use deodorant…….


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Manfred

      Faint praise indeed!
      …but nonetheless, a fine example of mixed metaphor!


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Sonny

      I long suspected a sadistic bent in the trolls that come forth to spew their vile nonsense.
      People like MattB revel in the plight of tue victim so long as they are on the bullies side.


      Report this

      52

    • #
      Brian of Moorabbin

      Ironic that Mattb, Catamon, et al side with those who frequently claim that it is the skeptical side that is funded by “Big Oil”, and yet time and time again the proof comes out that Big Oil is actually funding the warmenist side of the debate (refer to the exectuive from BP [that would be British Petroleum to the uninitiated] attending this conference as one of the ‘scientists’ advising the BBC)..

      And yet, despite all the evidence being presented Mattb, Catamon, sillyfilly, Maxine, and all the rest of the useful idiots of AGW continue to ignore the reality.

      And they have the chutzpah to call we skeptics the ‘deniers’….


      Report this

      90

      • #
        ExWarmist

        The Oil industry will benefit from higher prices for oil and the demonisation of Coal.

        BTW 1: Many Oil companies position themselves as “Energy companies” and they don’t care what the product is – as long as they can make money.

        BTW 2: Who owns the Oil companies – the largest are state owned by producer nations – e.g. ARAMCO by Saudi Arabia, I would be curious to know how much equity of the major oil players is owned by major Banks.


        Report this

        100

        • #
          gai

          ExWarmist
          …. ARAMCO by Saudi Arabia, I would be curious to know how much equity of the major oil players is owned by major Banks.

          Just an idle thought about behind the scenes:

          Originally Standard Oil (Rockefellers) were involved in Aramco and Maurice Strong of Kyoto fame worked for them in Saudi Arabia. However things changed.

          …In 1950, King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud threatened to nationalize his country’s oil facilities, thus pressuring Aramco to agree to share profits 50/50.[15] A similar process had taken place with American oil companies in Venezuela a few years earlier. The American government granted US Aramco member companies a tax break known as the golden gimmick equivalent to the profits given to Ibn Saud. In the wake of the new arrangement, the company’s headquarters were moved from New York to Dhahran.

          In 1973, following US support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War, the Saudi Arabian government acquired a 25% stake in Aramco. It increased its shareholding to 60% by 1974, and finally took full control of Aramco by 1980… WIKI

          And the Rockefeller got kicked out of a very lucrative company “… Saudi Aramco is currently the world’s largest company with an estimated market value of $781 billion (2005)…” (wiki) American oil companies also got kicked out of Venezuela.

          Do not forget the UN First Earth Summit was held June 5-16, 1972 with Maurice Strong as Chair. This is where Greenpeace, well funded by the Rockefellers, got their boost into the limelight and “Global Warming” was born.

          From personal experience I know that the big guys like BP, Shell and the Rockefellers do not take kindly to the new kid on the block cutting into their business and are not above using the news media and WWF to wipe out his business. (I lost my job when the targeted company closed most of its facilities.)

          The move away from oil to green energy, even just the dip in sales and crash in the world economy is not going to help the Saudis and right now they are in a not very good place Unrest in eastern Saudi Arabia continues

          Of course the big brace ring is Global Governance so the multinationals do not have to deal with red tape and borders or worse governments like Venezuela or Saudi Arabia going after their assets.

          When elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled and we are the grass.


          Report this

          40

    • #
      Sonny

      All I can smell is the familiar stench of human weakness – corruption and complicity.


      Report this

      31

      • #
        Gee Aye

        No it is something that was released by that plane over your head


        Report this

        14

        • #
          Mark D.

          Low blow…..go to your corner


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Sonny

          Moron. Geoenineering experiments are a fact. As is cloudseeding from aircraft.
          You know absolutely nothing and like it that way.


          Report this

          32

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          I still reckon the “chemtrail” stuff is paranoid baloney, however the weather modification stuff is quite real.

          First you should read/watch this about Ben Livingston’s claims of the development of localised weather control in the 1960s. If Ben Livingston can be believed, controlling hurricanes was possible in the 1970s.

          Then fast forward to today and read about how the Chinese government actually has a department of weather modification with a couple of apparent wins on their scoreboard, plus Abu Dhabi have used similar techniques to make it rain in key areas.
          In the USA the basic cloud seeding operations are not even secret any more.

          Doing this on a regional or global scale seems preposterous given the enormous amounts of thermal energy that would have to be directed. So while local weather modification is a real technology, I suggest it has narrow limits.


          Report this

          20

  • #
    handjive

    A Couple more links via Tom Nelson:

    The BBC & ASrIA

    I wonder what the BBC learnt about climate science from this lot?

    &

    BBC And The “Stop The Climate Chaos Coalition

    Plenty of advocacy here, but why are the BBC in the same room as them?


    Report this

    40

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    “I do love threads like these! Smell the outrage!”
    I love ‘em as well, MattB.
    The smell from this once much-loved organisation is malodourous in the extreme but, as they say, ’tis better out than in.
    I only hope that the recent, bad-behaviour of some BBC senior figures creates the same sense of outrage in the upper echelons of british society as it does amongst those who feel forced to contribute to this ‘august’ body from their hard-earned wages or marginal social benefits.
    That is what you meant, isn’t it?


    Report this

    70

    • #
      ExWarmist

      I wouldn’t have much faith in the “upper echelons of british society” or the upper echelons of any society.

      I tend to think that the “upper echelons” view the lower echelons as – expendable, replaceable meatsacks…

      Just consider the number of times in history where the upper echelons have ordered numerous members of the lower echelons to their deaths – for fun and profit.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Winston

        Just consider the number of times in history where the upper echelons have ordered numerous members of the lower echelons to their deaths – for fun and profit.

        Exactly, the only difference this time is that it is done in the name of “saving humanity”, when it is merely the “haves” grabbing a greater share of the pie, by convincing those in the middle to willingly join those at the bottom of the societal ladder. All cheered on by faux left wing ideologues who refuse to see that they are actually fighting on the side of the evil capitalists and the banker classes. Just how they justify this association in their own mind remains one of life’s mysteries, particularly as those on the left are supposedly deeply suspicious of politicians in general, and corporations like BP and GE, etc in particular.

        It’s like an episode of the Twilight Zone, where we are in an alternate reality where conservatives are the protectors of the proletariat and the middle classes, while the lefties are siding with the elite- talk about betraying your 60′s peace, love and freedom anti-establishment paradigm, guys- you’ve definitely sold out to “the man”!


        Report this

        110

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Hi Winston,

          WRT

          Just how they justify this association in their own mind remains one of life’s mysteries, particularly as those on the left are supposedly deeply suspicious of politicians in general, and corporations like BP and GE, etc in particular.

          [1] (Ignorance) They seem to have missed out on Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citibank, HSBC, et al. The banking casino is well documented here

          [2] (Gullibility) They are Useful Idiots

          [3] (Noble Cause Corruption) This is a variation of useful idiot – they sense that what they are doing is wrong, but justify it by the perceived ends (which never occur).

          [4] (Psychopathy) They are fully aware of what they are doing and are impervious to moral argument.


          Report this

          151

          • #
            Sonny

            I dare say that our resident climaticatastrophists must fit into cat [3] and [4] as they are far too involved to plead ignorance


            Report this

            111

          • #
            ExWarmist

            If you are a regular on this site – you cannot plead ignorance.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            But you guys are being too hard on the Noble Warmer

            who is doing this for our future, and especially that of our children, Grandchildren and their

            children’s children

            If I missed anyone I apologise unreservedly.

            Of course being Enviro-Savey and Green can at times be a little “expensive”, but what the hell.

            The Bill is for our Grandchildren as well.

            KK :)


            Report this

            51

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Ex

            They have no need to plead Ignorance.

            It’s too obvious that they are ignorant of reality and pleading would just add to the spectacle.

            KK


            Report this

            31

          • #
            John Brookes

            So why do we do it? Can’t answer for the others, but I’m expecting to say some very big “I told you sos” in about 20 years. And also because its fun to stir.


            Report this

            115

          • #
            Sonny

            So John, if you think you will be right in 20 years time and you think that justifies abuse of scientific process, deliberate bias in media etc.
            Doesn’t that constitute “Noble Cause Corruption”?

            And if you think it’s “fun to stir”, given the obvious pain that climate skeptics find themselves in, doesn’t that make you at least a little bit “sadistic”?


            Report this

            131

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Then there is always…

            [5] (Incompetence) The bastardisation of the scientific process, rejection of falsificationism, the naive acceptance of models as predictive instruments, the attribution of results to data that are not warranted given the datas inherent uncertainty – all leading to a sincere belief in results that are invalid.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            ExWarmist

            JB Says…

            So why do we do it? Can’t answer for the others, but I’m expecting to say some very big “I told you sos” in about 20 years. And also because its fun to stir.

            So we can put you in the camp of those people who would rather see an environmental apocalypse than be proven wrong.

            Ego triumphs over rationality.

            Can you define how you are different from this guy: Harold Camping

            He was also expecting an apocalypse, and was disappointed by the no show?


            Report this

            20

          • #
            ExWarmist

            There you go JB – I have created a new category “[5]” above just for you.

            Mind you – I’m sure that you are not alone in that category.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          gai

          Well John it has been 16 years without any warming and your buddy in Soviet Russia, Habibullo I. Abdussamatov an astrophysicist who is the head Pulkovo Observatory says we are on the cusp on a new little ice age based on expected solar variation. He’s forecasting a drop of 6 w/m^2 in TSI over the next 30 years.

          The paper: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf

          When it comes to drops in temperature I am more inclined to believe the Russians since they have a vested interest in being well prepared. No Kyoto II for them. They have already had their dose of stupid.


          Report this

          60

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Actually, signing Kyoto was quite profitable for Russia. They got the whole thing off the ground, leading to increased usage of gas in Europe (guess who supplied it at a new higher price) and them being able to sell lots of Climate Indulgences (oops! I mean carbon credits) available by the collapse of the Soviet economy in 1990.

            The last was a bit disappointing as the Europeans couldn’t run the scheme without rorts, corruption, forgeries etc. which meant the prices were low, and got lower as they slid into recession. Nor is there much sign of that ending.

            So there was not much for the Russians to gain by keeping Kyoto going, especially as their economy improved. Also, as gai indicates above, the vast majority of russian scientists are downright sceptical about global warming.


            Report this

            10

  • #
    tckev

    “Nation shall speak peace unto Nation”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_the_BBC

    Unless it’s inconvenient.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    tckev

    Joanne,
    Can I use your version of the BBC logo for a T-shirt design?


    Report this

    10

    • #
    • #
      AndyG55

      ABC. where “news” means asking the ALP and Greens for content.


      Report this

      51

      • #
        Catamon

        ABC. where “news” means asking the IPA and Liberal Party for content.

        There AngryG55, corrected that for you.


        Report this

        010

        • #
          AndyG55

          Gees, I never thought aliens existed, but you are obviously from another planet!

          And your “warped” drive sprung a leak on the way over, and affected your mind.

          Seriously warped..


          Report this

          41

        • #
          John Brookes

          I’ve noticed that Catamon. Particularly the 7:30 report. It has shifted to the right, and dumbed down a bit. Sad really.


          Report this

          09

          • #
            Catamon

            I think its getting a bit better since they demoted Toolman to analysis and have let Sales do the interviews. She isn’t as good as Red Kerry, but has her moments. whereas Toolman was just nauseatingly sycophantic if Abbott was on.

            Alberici on Lateline is generally so much better than Jones its not funny.

            Its the Drum that is a bit laughable at times. IPA are way too heavily represented, and FFS, Peter Reith??


            Report this

            06

          • #
            John Brookes

            You are right again Catamon, it was the bloke who was particularly annoyed me. I tend not to watch the Drum…


            Report this

            08

        • #
          Catamon

          So anybody going to watch the Catalyst episode tonight?

          Or should this be up in the “outrage” section of the thread??


          Report this

          02

          • #
            Dave

            .
            Catamongst you said,

            Or should this be up in the “outrage” section of the thread??

            Shouldn’t it read

            animal “outcage”?

            Dr Newby is a vet, do you follow her for “Climate Science Info”? Why?

            Suddenly back in a big way with climate science? Why?
            Dr. Newby is a brillant vet and animal scientist.

            See her recent stories by Dr Jonica Newby
            WiFi Windfall (Catalyst, 08/10/2009)
            Gravity Probe (Catalyst, 11/06/2009)
            Dingo secrets (Catalyst, 04/06/2009)
            Risky business (Catalyst, 26/03/2009)
            Equitana (Catalyst, 19/02/2009)
            Planes,Trains and Autism (Catalyst, 12/02/2009)
            Marijuana Madness (Catalyst, 30/10/2008)
            Attack of the Heavy Metal Invaders (Catalyst, 23/10/2008)
            Body Clock (Catalyst, 04/09/2008)
            The World Of Asperger’s (Catalyst, 28/08/2008)
            The Winning Edge (Catalyst, 31/07/2008)
            Bog Man (Catalyst, 12/06/2008)
            UK Microgen (Catalyst, 22/05/2008)
            Weta Whales (Catalyst, 24/04/2008)
            Lucky (Catalyst, 17/04/2008)
            Robot Tuatara (Catalyst, 27/03/2008)
            The Extreme Sports Brain (Catalyst, 06/03/2008)
            Undersea Vents In The Pacific Ring Of Fire (Catalyst, 14/02/2008)
            New Zealand Nuclear Veterans (Catalyst, 08/11/2007)
            Wildlife Forensics (Catalyst, 25/10/2007)
            The Death Zone (Catalyst, 18/10/2007)
            Alien Control (Catalyst, 04/10/2007)
            Bonobos – Making Love not War (Catalyst, 20/09/2007)
            Workplace Stress – stopping the juggernaut (Catalyst, 06/09/2007)
            Limbed Fish (Catalyst, 16/08/2007)
            Teen Alcohol (Catalyst, 09/08/2007)
            The California Condor flies again (Catalyst, 26/07/2007)
            Face Blindness (Catalyst, 19/07/2007)
            Microgeneration (Catalyst, 03/05/2007)
            Why We Buy – the science of shopping (Catalyst, 26/04/2007)
            Addiction Vaccines – Can science win the war on drug addiction? (Catalyst, 05/04/2007)
            Meeting Michelle Simmons – working with atoms (Catalyst, 08/03/2007)
            Beyond Petrol (Catalyst, 01/03/2007)
            Meeting the Shine Brothers (Catalyst, 01/03/2007)

            Sounds like another Ross Garnaut in the making. Grants, Grants, Money, Grants, Money ABC, Money etc etc.

            Your choice of a animal scientist is top class Catamongst, but your choice of Climate Scientist is NOT.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Catamon

            Dave, she’s a presenter not a Climate Scientist.


            Report this

            01

    • #
      Andrew Mcrae

      You can use my idea for free.
      Duplicate the BBC logo and below it put the acronym: Building Biased Consensus.


      Report this

      90

    • #

      I’ve sent you an email tckev. :-) Jo


      Report this

      10

  • #

    [...] There is a big scandal at the BBC, actually more than one, now that we have ‘Twentyeight-gate’. Joanne Nova goes into this in detail here: Keep reading  → [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    And this is why watching television for balanced scientific information is like putting a shotgun to your head and pulling the trigger for improved health.


    Report this

    160

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    And Jo,

    Just to give Maurizio a further plug its well worth checking his 2009 scoop on the links between 1970′s Global Cooling morphing into the 1980′s Global Warming.

    http://omnologos.com/world-exclusive-cia-1974-document-reveals-emptiness-of-agw-scares-closes-debate-on-global-cooling-consensus-and-more-2/


    Report this

    100

  • #
    pat

    what affect did this meeting have?

    the purpose of the meeting was “reaching new and wider audiences” – shortly afterwards, bbc’s climate chaos series began, and david attenborough embraced CAGW:

    23 May 2006: PS-Mag: David Attenborough Kicks Off Climate Chaos, 24 May 2006, 9pm, BBC One
    By From bbc.co.uk web site
    Are We Changing Planet Earth?
    Wednesday 24 May, 9pm, BBC One
    David Attenborough draws on his life-long insights into our planet and presents his personal take on climate change. Part two follows next week.

    Songs of Praise
    Sunday 28 May, TBC, BBC One
    Sally Magnusson visits an environmental project in Oxford that has made a real difference to the local community, and meets with historian and environmentalist, Martin Palmer.

    Test the Nation – Know Your Planet
    Sunday 28 May, 8pm, BBC One
    Are you aware of climate and environmental issues? We put the country to the test in the popular quiz show.

    Can We Save Planet Earth?
    Thursday 1 June, 9pm, BBC One
    Part two of David Attenborough’s investigation.

    Five Disasters Waiting to Happen
    Tuesday 6 June, 9pm, BBC Two
    We examine five global locations and scenarios: London, Shanghai, Mumbai, Paris and Tuvalu. All have been identified by experts as vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

    The Money Programme
    Friday 2 June, 7pm, BBC Two
    The Money Programme spends a week with a family in Teesdale – the area with the UK’s highest CO2 emissions per capita.

    Panorama
    Date and time TBC, BBC One
    The Bush administration has resisted calls to engage in Kyoto, and has been accused of a systematic campaign of disinformation and harassment against the scientific community – gagging scientists, re-writing major reports, and allowing the oil and coal industries to drive policy. Panorama investigates these claims.

    Climate Change shorts
    You can also watch eight short documentaries on the affects of Climate Change via the BBC Four website. For legal reasons, these are only available if you are in the UK.
    http://www.psychicsahar.com/artman/publish/article_711.shtml


    Report this

    70

  • #
    pat

    Anita Neville, E3G:

    E3G (Third Generation Environmentalism) was founded by Foreign & Commonwealth Office’s John Ashton, who remains during one of his moments in and out of the FCO, which probably means E3G is a front for the FCO:

    E3G John Ashton, Founding Director
    John Ashton is a Founding Director of E3G. He was the Special Representative for Climate Change to the UK Foreign Secretary from 2006 to 2012. He was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2012 Birthday Honours for services to international climate change.
    John is one of a new generation of diplomats equally at home in the worlds of foreign policy and green politics. Before moving outside government to establish E3G in 2005, John had a distinguished career in the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including founding and leading its Environment Policy Department.
    A major theme of John’s career has been China. He speaks Chinese. He was an adviser to Governor Chris Patten in Hong Kong from 1993-7. His first diplomatic assignment, from 1981-4, was as Science Attaché in the British Embassy in Beijing…
    John was the first Chief Executive of E3G in 2005-06, before returning to the UK Foreign Office as the Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative for Climate Change…
    He had the personal title of Ambassador with direct access to the Foreign Secretary. John played a key role in designing the FCO’s climate change network and strategy, with its focus on climate stability as a precondition for security, prosperity and equity, and on strategic political engagement with the emerging and other major economies.
    John has been continuously active in climate diplomacy in various capacities since 1997. He was involved in negotiating the EU 2020 package on climate change in spring 2007 and the decision in December 2008 on funding for CCS across Europe. He helped negotiate the agreement in 2005 between the EU and China to demonstrate zero emission coal technology in China, and was closely involved in the EU’s engagement with Russia over the Kyoto Protocol. He played a key role in the first UN security debate on climate change in April 2007. He was a senior member of the UK negotiating team in the UN climate negotiations from 1998-2002, and again at Copenhagen.
    John Ashton is a Visiting Professor at Imperial College London, and a Member of the Green College Centre for Environmental Policy and Understanding. He is a steering committee member of Climate Care and serves on the Advisory Boards of the Climate Institute, Washington DC; the UK Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research; the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara; and Climate Change Capital.
    http://www.e3g.org/about/John-Ashton/

    Wikipedia: John Ashton (diplomat)
    John Ashton CBE (born 7 November 1956) was the Special Representative for Climate Change at the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) from 2006 until June 2012[1], Director for Strategic Partnerships at LEAD International, and is the founder and CEO of Third Generation Environmentalism (E3G).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashton_(diplomat)

    LEAD Advisory Board includes Maurice Strong, Rajenda Pachauri, Crispin Tickell, Geoffrey Lean (Daily Telegraph), and more:

    LEAD – Leadership for environment & development – Advisory Council
    http://www.lead.org/about/our-people/advisory-council

    E3G (Third Generation Environmentalism) – Change Agents for Sustainable Development – Governance
    Independently funded by foundations, governments and NGOs.
    (INCLUDES SHELL OIL FOUNDATION)
    http://www.e3g.org/about/Governance/

    17 Oct: E3G: John Ashton speaks at Asahi World Environmental Forum, Tokyo
    John Ashton, one of E3G’s founding directors, gave a speech at the Asahi World Environmental Forum 2012 in Tokyo on the 16th October. Entitled “Climate Change and the Race for Growth”, the speech urges countries to raise climate change up the political agenda and move away from a ‘business as usual approach’ to growth.
    http://www.e3g.org/programmes/climate-articles/john-ashton-speaks-at-asahi-world-environmental-forum-tokyo1/
    star comment

    22 June 2012: Guardian: Juliette Howit: Climate change envoy warns against cutting investment in green energy
    John Ashton warns that failure to deal with climate change would amplify problems such as water and food insecurity
    John Ashton, who has just stepped down from his post at the Foreign Office, told MPs that the UK was still considered an influential global player on climate change, but signalled that position was at risk as the country was falling behind on investment in energy efficiency and clean energy…
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/22/uk-climate-policy-risk-government

    ———–
    Thanks for your research, Pat! – Jo


    Report this

    100

  • #
    pat

    mistaking CAGW for a socialist scam is meaningless:

    E3G: Tom Burke Founding Director
    He is a currently an Environmental Policy Adviser to Rio Tinto plc and a Visiting Professor at Imperial and University Colleges, London…
    He is a member of the External Review Committee of Shell and the Sustainable Sourcing Advisory Board of Unilever…
    He was an environmental advisor (part time) to BP plc from 1997 – 2001…
    He was formerly Executive Director of Friends of the Earth and a member of the Executive Committee of the European Environmental Bureau 1988 – 1991…
    He also serves on the Advisory Council of the Carbon Disclosure Project…
    http://www.e3g.org/about/Tom-Burke/


    Report this

    50

  • #
    pat

    Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant? sounds innocuous!

    Center for Science and Technology Policy Research Colorado: THOUGHTS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON INSURANCE CLAIMS
    Andrew Dlugolecki
    Visiting Research Fellow, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia
    http://cstpr.colorado.edu/sparc/research/projects/extreme_events/munich_workshop/dlugolecki.pdf

    Climatic Research Unit: Staff
    Dr Andrew Dlugolecki
    Climate change and insurance
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/staff-and-students


    Report this

    40

  • #
    pat

    UNEP Finance Initiative: Online Course: Climate Change Risks & Opportunities for the Finance Sector
    MENTORS’ BIOGRAPHIES
    Dr. Andrew Dlugolecki (Course mentor for weeks 1 & 2):
    Dr. Andrew Dlugolecki worked for 27 years in Aviva insurance group, in a number of senior technical and operational posts with UK and international responsibilities, retiring from the post of Director of General Insurance Development in December 2000. Modelling the effect of weather on insurance claims in the 70’s and 80’s led to his involvement with global warming from 1987 onward. He served as the chief author on Financial Services for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 1995 Assessment Report, and has been an author, reviewer or review editor in later Assessment Reports. IPCC named him as a key
    contributor when they received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. He carried out similar duties for the official UK and EU reviews of climate change. In 2009 the UK’s statutory committee on adaptation to climate change appointed him as a member with specialist knowledge on financial services. He chaired three studies of climate change by the Chartered Insurance Institute (1994, 2001 and 2009).
    Andrew is a special advisor of the Carbon Disclosure Project and has been an advisor to UNEP FI on climate change since 2001, having written, edited, or project-managed several of their reports and briefings.
    He also consults privately from his home in Perth, Scotland and includes UNFCCC as one of his clients.
    http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/training/climate/cc_course_biographies.pdf


    Report this

    40

  • #
    ExWarmist

    How the BBC views those that disagree with it’s policies and what it would like to do with them – here


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Manfred

    How about I give you the finger and you give me my phone call.

    ExWarmist
    November 14, 2012 at 4:07 pm

    An absolutely classic scene! Thank you for reminding me EW.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Albert

    My niece has 4 children at school from grade 1 to 4. Every night she has to correct all the climate propaganda they are taught.
    It’s hard for the children, they need to learn the lies to pass exams and they must have knowledge of the truth to prepare themselves for higher learning like university.


    Report this

    140

    • #
      Mattb

      Surely she home schools?


      Report this

      015

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        No Matti

        She pays taxes and is entitled to have as good an education as is available in Peking, Shanghai, Finland or any of the other better functioning education systems.

        Australian education took a nose dive forty years ago when crime was decriminalised.

        The biggest problem with Australia’s education system is that student behavior is appalling and damages all involved in education here.

        The above issues are in addition to the pseudo science of Man Made Global Werming being the Cause du Jour in Australia’s counter revolutionary culture.

        KK.


        Report this

        141

    • #
      Mattb

      for the record I have a kid in grade 1 and I can say with absolute conviction he’s been taught nothing at all that could even be described as climatge propaganda by the frootiest fruit loop loop of fruti.


      Report this

      112

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Congratulations Matti

        Firstly I hope you stay lucky, only 11 grades to go.

        Fingers crossed.

        Also; what you consider a fruit loop may be seen by others as some baked flour and fruit meal with a hole in the middle.

        Which Truth are we talking about Matti?

        KK


        Report this

        100

    • #
      Catamon

      Australian education took a nose dive forty years ago when crime was decriminalised.

      Woo Hoo! Crime, Decriminalised?? I’m off to be the delinquent i wasn’t in my youth!! :)

      Thanks KK!


      Report this

      17

  • #
    Streetcred

    Not sure if this has been mentioned on in this blog … I also wonder, how deeply is “Our ABC” financially invested in green ? And the Labor Party investments ?

    BBC conflict of interest: Pensions relying on pushing alarmist climate agenda


    Report this

    60

  • #
    sophocles

    and of course BP is not “Big Oil” … nope. It’s “Big Petrol.”


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Len

    Hi Jo
    In rural WA a 28 is the name of a green parrot. So the term 28 gate refers to green parrots.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Chris Wood

    The BBC World Service has been a joke for years and the audience has shrunk considerably. Ten years ago, we used to spend the summers on a boat which I was restoring, in the south of France and the World Service was the only BBC service available there. If you were interested in the plight of the Sub- Saharan people or some similar fatuous, ‘socially concerned’ subject, but without any mention of what was going on in the UK; then this was the program for you. We soon found out that the Dutch Hilversum station, in English,was broadcasting all the news that the BBC ought to have been.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Robert

    I would like to nominate Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) for the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Would anyone like to second the motion?


    Report this

    80

    • #
      John Brookes

      Anthony Morabito plays for Freo (or he would if his knee would get better). I don’t know if he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, but he’s probably ahead of Maurizio in the queue.


      Report this

      213

    • #

      If it were the State Department instead of the BBC, I would be in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London by now.

      If it were Exxon instead of the BBC, I would have received a Journalism Prize already.

      Typical! You come around to discover something in England, and nobody gives you any prize nor punishment!


      Report this

      150

  • #

    One of the attendees was ASrIA – The Association for Sustainable & Responsible Investment in Asia.

    They are nothing but an association of banks and fund managers looking out for a quick buck, as their membership list shows.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/the-bbc-asria/


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    Paul Homewood -

    ANZ Banking Group on the list.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    14 Nov: Daily Mail: Larisa Brown: Pressure mounts on BBC boss Lord Patten as he is accused of ‘taking his eye off the ball’ while holding TEN other jobs
    He is paid reportedly nearly £80,000 a year as an adviser to oil company BP, plus up to £40,000 from energy company EDF.
    He also receives ‘occasional’ income from writing and speaking engagements.
    One of his unpaid roles includes the prestigious post of Chancellor at Oxford University.
    One senior Tory figure has called for Lord Patten to resign, saying he has been spread too thin by his commitments to other jobs…
    Lord Patten is also a non-executive director at headhunting firm Russell Reynolds Associates…
    As BP adviser he is expected to attend two meetings and offer advice. For EDF he attends four meetings…
    Vice chair Diane Coyle holds ten positions, and is on the same EDF panel as Lord Patten…
    Lord Patten is also a member of the European Advisory Board for Bridgepoint, a private equity group, and an adviser for telecomms company Hutchison Europe.
    He is co-chair of UK-India Round Table, taking up three days a year, and co-chair of the British Council in Italy’s annual conference…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2232678/Pressure-mounts-BBC-boss-Lord-Patten-accused-taking-eye-ball-holding-TEN-jobs.html

    27 Oct: UK Telegraph: Christopher Booker: Lord Patten is the last man I’d choose to clean up the BBC
    Chris Patten hasn’t shown much commitment to BBC standards of ‘balance’
    Patten has long been a global-warming zealot. Last year he endorsed an absurd report for the Trust which called on the BBC to show more bias on climate change, rather than less..
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9637484/Lord-Patten-is-the-last-man-Id-choose-to-clean-up-the-BBC.html

    2009: Uni of Oxford: Oxford Today: Today the World
    Lord Patten of Barnes, Chancellor of the University, former Cabinet Minister, Conservative Party Chairman, European Commissioner and Governor of Hong Kong, is talking about his latest book. What Next?, subtitled Surviving the Twenty-First Century, is a wide-ranging examination of some of the more pressing challenges facing the world, from globalisation and climate change to terrorism, nuclear proliferation, water shortages, potential pandemics, drugs-trafficking and international crime. It’s an ambitious scope, and all the more so considering the author’s other commitments…
    Of all the topics that he considers in his book, there is one that Lord Patten describes as ‘the only really existential issue facing the world’: climate change.
    ‘It isn’t very often that you get such a wide scientific consensus on an issue’, he commented. ‘Four years ago, Sir David King [the British government's former Chief Scientist, now Director of Oxford's newly opened Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment] said that climate change was more dangerous than terrorism and he got dive-bombed, as it were, by ministers and others for saying this. But it’s true. There aren’t any terrorists who can melt the permafrost; there aren’t any terrorists who can change the weather patterns in the Atlantic so as to prolong the drought in Sudan-Darfur; there aren’t any terrorists who can influence the rate of glacial melt in the Himalayas. So I do think that climate change is the biggest issue that we face. And as David King has himself argued in a wonderful little book, Hot Topic, the issue is not whether global warming happens – it is happening. The issue is whether we keep it nearer to two degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels, or whether it goes up to three degrees, with pretty dire consequences – and it is going to be difficult enough in the range of two to two and a half.’
    While international negotiations on steps to tackle climate change have moved slowly since Patten was an environment minister in the late 1980s, he is cautiously optimistic. ‘I think things are changing quite rapidly. And Barack Obama’s election is going to help, I hope. So there are hopeful signs. But there’s a down-side as well – there are politicians, like [Silvio] Berlusconi [the Italian prime minister], who say that because we are in such dire straits economically, we should postpone or dilute our commitments on climate change, which I think is ridiculous and economically illiterate. But by and large, I think, people have got the message. The question is whether they can manage successfully the extraordinarily complex diplomacy which is going to be required in order to get this fixed.’…
    https://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/page.aspx?pid=1042


    Report this

    30

  • #
    John Brookes

    Somewhat off topic, but the chance for a bit of conspiratorial stuff here. Several prominent members of the NSW Labor party are currently being investigated because they bought (cheaply) farmland that they know would become a coal mine, and in the process made a lot of money.

    Federal Labor, despite its carbon tax/ets, has been very positive about coal. No talk from them about shutting down coal mines.

    Is there a connection?


    Report this

    06

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      I doubt it. More likely that the more intelligent members (the ones you don’t hear much of) have worked out that we will be using, and exporting, coal long after AGW has become an embarrassment to the expositors.

      After all those wind turbines are proving useless at supplying reliable electricity, and practically useless as a saver of CO2 emissions. The latest estimate from Europe puts the reduction in CO2 at the equivalent of one tenth of the electricity generated. And in Germany all those turbines generate at 16% of their claimed capacity, mostly at night when it isn’t needed. No wonder they are planning 20 more coal fired power stations. Without lots of coal fired electricity the great swindle of “wind power” couldn’t continue.

      On second thoughts, perhaps you may be right. Certainly if we hear of Labor ministers and their hangers-on investing in wind farms, then we will know something is rotten in the party. But how could that happen with our current PM who has so frequently, and so many issues, claimed that she has done nothing wrong?


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Sonny

      No don’t think so


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Amfortas

    Many years ago (in the 70′s) I attended the Nato Psychological Warfare Course (at Old Sarum, a British Army base then). The course members, all Military Officers, were drawn from 10 or so countries.

    On the curriculum which was extensive and led by Maj.Gen. Dick Clutterbuck (Dr. Professor) and a number of similarly highly qualified Military and civilian experts, ( a few ‘Advertising’ executives amongst them) there was a section detailing the ‘Black’, ‘Gray’ and ‘White’ propaganda production efforts and products of WW2 and beyond.

    The Black propaganda (deliberate lies often of the most scurrilous nature, some indeed quite filthy) were kept under lock and key in….guess where? The BBC. It was an eye-opening examination of the artifacts of war for us all, especially the ‘furriners’ amongst us some of whose nations had been the targets.

    Clearly the same mind-set is still alive and well there.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Mike Spilligan

    JN: Many thanks (from a UK reader) for the best comprehensive, but easily read summary of this shameful episode.
    By the way, I saw, in the comments, mention of David Attenbrough’s excellent nature series – but you should know that he had to sign up to being a “warmist” which was why David Bellamy (also known in Oz, I think) was shown the door as he insisted that the science isn’t settled.


    Report this

    50

  • #

    Thanks all from @omnologos.

    I see the spelling of my name has morphed on the way to Oz. Please revert it to “Maurizio” :)

    At least it’ll make it easier for scholars in the XXIII century to find something about me…


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Pat K

    I think Peter Miller (@9:22) has pretty much hit the nail on the head.

    Now we can see that the meeting which was claimed to be with a policy-defining group of top scientists was, in fact, an activist jolly/propaganda exercise.

    The following are the members of the International Broadcasting Trust which organised the “seminar.”

    ActionAid
    Age UK
    Amnesty
    Anti-Slavery International
    Bond
    British Red Cross
    Buglife
    CAFOD
    Christian Aid
    Comic Relief
    Concern
    CRIN
    DEC
    HelpAge International
    Human Rights Watch
    IDS
    Int Rescue Committee UK
    International Service
    Islamic Relief
    Malaria Consortium
    Media Trust
    MSF
    Muslim Aid
    ONE
    Oxfam
    PANOS
    Plan
    Practical Action
    Progressio
    Raleigh International
    Save the Children
    Tearfund
    Traidcraft Exchange
    TVE
    UNICEF
    VSO
    WaterAid
    WWF

    On its website (link above) the IBT advises that it

    … focuses on three main areas of activity:
    – lobbying Government, regulators and broadcasters
    – dialogue with the main public service broadcasters
    – research on broadcast and online coverage of the developing world


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Philip

    Understanding the background and implications of this is non-trivial. Its not something that can be explained in one paragraph.

    If you want to understand it, you will need to do some reading.
    I have tried to reduce it to its essentials here:

    http://thoughtsoftheguru.com/2012/11/understanding-the-bbc-2006-seminar-issue/


    Report this

    50

    • #
      gai

      Thank you for the very concise report.

      It is the 10,000′s shivering and dying, the millions who have lost their jobs that makes me see red on this issue.

      If people understood how this ‘global warming crisis’ was created, there would be a revolution before breakfast.


      Report this

      40

  • #

    For those wanting to find out more about the BBC’s bias in the reporting of “Climate Change” can I recommend Christopher Booker’s report “The BBC and Climate Change: a Triple Betrayal” published by the GWPF. In the forward, Booker says:-

    (T)his report will try to show, the BBC has not only failed in its
    professional duty to report fully and accurately on one of the biggest scientific and political stories of our time: it has betrayed its own principles, in three respects.
    First, it has betrayed its statutory obligation to be impartial, using the excuse that any dissent from the official orthodoxy was so insignificant that it should just be ignored or made to look ridiculous.
    Second, it has betrayed the principles of responsible journalism, by allowing
    its coverage to become so one-sided that it has too often amounted to no
    more than propaganda.
    Third, it has betrayed the fundamental principles of science, which relies on
    unrelenting scepticism towards any theory until it can be shown to provide a
    comprehensive explanation for the observed evidence.
    In all these respects, the BBC has above all been guilty of abusing the trust
    of its audience, and of all those compelled to pay for it. On one of the most
    important and far-reaching issues of our time, its coverage has been so tendentious that it has given its viewers a picture not just misleading but at times even fraudulent.

    It makes a good read.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    gai

    About this comment from WUWT

    “Of the three “technicals”, two are activists. However, Dr. Dahl-Jensen seems to be an actual boots-on-the-ground scientist (latest grant is for drilling through the Greenland ice aiming at bedrock to investigate possible lakes at the bottom of the glaciers). I expect whoever was responsible for vetting her prior to the conference has since paid the price.”

    Dr. Dahl-Jensen is also an activist found in the train of none other than Al Gore.

    …Gore and Danish ice scientist Dorthe Dahl Jensen clicked through two slide shows for a standing-room-only crowd of hundreds in a side event at the Bella Center conference site…. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/al-gore-says-polar-ice-may-vanish-5-7-years-0

    The Book: Melting Snow and Ice: A Call for Action by Koç Nalân, Al Gore, Birgit Njåstad, Richard Armstrong, Yao Tandong, Andrés Rivera, Robert W. Corell, Dorthe Dahl Jensen, Kenrick R. Leslie, Jan-Gunnar Winther, Jonas Gahr Støre

    I really do not think you could call her neutral


    Report this

    10

  • #
    michael hart

    “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 [on anthropogenic climate change].”

    That is what I found to be risible. Since when did the BBC give “equal space to opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change]“? I’m not aware of anyone even asking for that much space. But if it had been given then, the BBC might find it had more friends when needed (which happens to be right now).

    The Paxman said it all in 2007 (though he hasn’t been the only one), and I’m still genuinely baffled as to how they decided to proceed, full-steam-ahead, on the good ship Global Warming. What must have gone through the minds of so many BBC employees/consultants/contractors when an internal person of such standing in the wider-world said what he did?


    Report this

    10

  • #

    doctor Who should be renamed Doctor WTF


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Edward Bancroft

    There were plenty of indications at the time of BBC’s decision to select an exclusive pro-AGW line for itself, that there were many prominent scientists who did not share the UN IPCC’s alarmist views, so often quoted by BBC. The opposition to the directions taken by the UN had been building for some years before the 2006 meeting, and in 2007 some 100 scientists from across many contributing domains published an open letter to the UN pointing out the deficiencies in the IPCC case. http://middlebury.net/op-ed/un

    It was never difficult for BBC to have found authoritative views counter to the hyped-up global warming scares, then or now.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Somewhat related to ‘TwentyEightGate’

    Did the Climate Orthodoxy’s ‘thought police’ take Climate Etc. off line yesterday?

    Soon after I posted a comment, Climate Etc. was taken down by WordPress. When the site came back, my comment had been deleted.

    There’s more about the sequence of events here http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/14/policy-rhetoric-and-public-bewilderment/#comment-267886

    The now-deleted comment said:

    The thirteen part Clearing up the climate debate written by Australia’s top climate scientists, demonstrates they are up to their necks in activism.

    ‘Part One’ provides links to the thirteen Parts (scroll to the end of the article). And a list of the signatories that endorsed this compendium. It’s a list of who’s who of Australia’s top climate scientists.
    https://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808

    It is clear from the contributions written by these top climate scientists they are activists and extremists.

    I went first to ‘Part Four’ (written by Mike Sandiford) to try to find out what they say about the consequences of AGW. Why are the scientists saying it is catastrophic?
    https://theconversation.edu.au/our-effect-on-the-earth-is-real-how-were-geo-engineering-the-planet-1544
    It’s about the evilness of humans, the damage plastic bags are doing and the like.

    Nowhere in the thirteen Parts, written by Australia’s top climate scientists, could I find any persuasive case for dangerous or catastrophic climate change.

    Don’t miss ‘Part 13’ the wrap up by a well known climate activist!
    https://theconversation.edu.au/the-false-the-confused-and-the-mendacious-how-the-media-gets-it-wrong-on-climate-change-1558

    Did my now deleted comment cause Climate Etc to be taken down for a day?

    Did the editor of ‘The Conversation’ lodge a complaint with WordPress about my comment?

    Did Professor Stephen Lewandowski or his legal team lodge a complaint with WordPress about my comment?

    What really caused Climate Etc. to be taken down soon after I posted my comment, and why has my comment been deleted?

    Will we ever know?

    How powerful are the climate orthodoxy’s thought police?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    Salaries for these developers are ranging from $50, 000 to the Democratic governors’ group,
    according to a recent event that news took place during his regime are usually not
    examined.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Joanne,
    Excellent compendium. WELL DONE!
    In addition to calling it “28Gate” I would also call it “BBC Climate Cover-up Gate” (if it needs the now media desired “-Gate”).

    Through this meeting on 26 Jan 2006 the BBC – AND THE CO2 WARMIST SECT – finalised their Climate Change and science strategy, namely:
    1) To lie lie and lie again about the observed facts of weather, climate and evidence which negates the CO2 climate claims and ‘theory’.
    2) To cover-up that lie with whatever further lie or subterfuge it takes and suppress proper scientific debate and reportage on the matter.
    3) To influence and infiltrate any bodies and companies they can to promote the CO2 lie and suppress real science.

    I have met 3 of “the 28″ and had – as part of WeatherAction Long Range weather and climate forecasters – many dealings with weather sensitive industry bodies; the most relevant being the insurance industry and note:-
    (i) Prior to 2006 we (WeatherAction) had a number of meetings with leading insurers who praised our forecasts and where the mesage came through to the effect “Piers, it’s nice to know what is really going on but we are more committed to (CO2) Climate Change”.
    (ii)After 2006 we lost a couple of sizeable forecast contracts where new warmist greens in charge against recommendations of their predecessors terminated use of long range forecasts.
    (iii) After 2007 after sending about a year of forecast samples to an insurer (who had ‘under restructuring’ ceased buying them) I asked “Now you insurers have spent £6million on a flood risk map for the UK do you want to know if it will actually flood?”. The reply was to the effect “While your forecasts are good – indeed undeniably impressive (We, WeatherAction, predicted the floods of 2007) we do not want to know”!!
    (iv) Since Copenhagen late 2009 BBC TV and top Radio (Radio 4) have consistently black-listed me. The two most blatant being after filming me (at their invite) answering Gordon Brown’s “Flat Earther’s” attack the Report was pulled and a similar report on ITV also pulled. In 2010 in the depths of the supercold December I was invited to the BBC Breakfast show and arranged to come. That was pulled hours beforehand and the Govt Chief scientific advisor put there to lie instead.I have been on no BBC TV or Top BBC radio since before late 2009 even though Aljazeera, ABC and Fox News have reported us.
    (v) In the name of ‘balance’ BBC wheel in Lord Lawson and associates who make good points but in the end are dismissed as ‘not scientists’. BBC policy is to NEVER allow a proper scientific evidence-based debate – notwithstanding the involvement of pseudo-sceptic scientists and half-baked ‘THE Alternative’ failed theories.
    (vi) The whole matter is political. What is passed off as ‘science’ is the ideological back up and cover for green fraud, theft and economic wreckage.

    In the face of this WeatherAction has been increasingly invited to present at significant meetings of international agriculture, commodity, food and environment organisations – whose livelihoods depend on reality. Their involvement alongside all who stand for evidence-based science might help bring the BBC and other media and Govt policy makers across the world to account.

    Thank you, Piers Corbyn
    http://www.WeatherAction.com


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Piers, thanks even more reasons to turn off the tap, close the charade and end these state propaganda units. In a decade of good reporting (if they started doing that) I’m not sure they could repay the debt accrued by their mistakes.

      Though I am sorry to hear that you (like so many) were blacklisted. Given BBC skill at picking good scientists it’s a badge of honor… sigh.


      Report this

      00