The List of Names the BBC Did Not Want You to See
Scientist Exposed by Climategate Set BBC Policy
Last month Guido reported that the BBC were refusing to respond to a Freedom of Information request asking for the names of scientists who attended the now infamous climate change seminar in 2006, that was convened to decide BBC climate change policy. The BBC Trust admitted that the evidence given at the seminar led to an unprecedented editorial decision to no longer give equal airtime to opponents of the climate change . At the time Guido wondered why the BBC was spending a six-figure sum to keep the names of the specialists who dictated their editorial policy secret? So who was there?
Well if the BBC had their way we would never know, they are still trying to fight the publication of this list, however what is believed to be the complete who’s who has now been acquired by legitimate sleuthing by Maurizio Morabito:
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, AsRiaBBC attendees:
Jana Bennett, Director of Television
Sacha Baveystock, Executive Producer, Science
Helen Boaden, Director of News
Andrew Lane, Manager, Weather, TV News
Anne Gilchrist, Executive Editor Indies & Events, CBBC
Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning
Elizabeth McKay, Project Executive, Education
Emma Swain, Commissioning Editor, Specialist Factual
Fergal Keane, (Chair), Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Fran Unsworth, Head of Newsgathering
George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs
Glenwyn Benson, Controller, Factual TV
John Lynch, Creative Director, Specialist Factual
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
Jon Williams, TV Editor Newsgathering
Karen O’Connor, Editor, This World, Current Affairs
Catriona McKenzie, Tightrope Pictures
Liz Molyneux, Editorial Executive, Factual Commissioning
Matt Morris, Head of News, Radio Five Live
Neil Nightingale, Head of Natural History Unit
Paul Brannan, Deputy Head of News Interactive
Peter Horrocks, Head of Television News
Peter Rippon, Duty Editor, World at One/PM/The World this Weekend
Phil Harding, Director, English Networks & Nations
Steve Mitchell, Head Of Radio News
Sue Inglish, Head Of Political Programmes
Frances Weil, Editor of News Special Events
What you might call fair and balanced: the conference was billed as bringing together “the best scientific experts”. Scientists, “scientists” and hippy campaigners, but what the Beeb will be most embarrassed by is the representative from the disgraced Climatic Research Unit who were exposed three years later for manipulating data to fit their arguments.
Emails from Mike Hulme, second on that list, were at the heart of the Climategate scandal.
No wonder the BBC are wasting your money hiding this…
See also: Andrew Montford’s “Conspiracy of Green” for background and Andrew Orlowski’s recent article “FOlA judges: Secret 28 who made the BBC Green will not be named“.
A chilling list, I’ll bet the bBBC get all hot and bothered over this being published.
a fair sprinkling of the UKs ‘overhead’ costs
Overhead and underhand.
Well well well, and the BBC claim they are not biased, not much!
The BBC have become a fucking secret society ffs. And the acting DG said only yesterday that the BBC is all about trust. Yeah right.
So BBC openly lied yet again when they said they had a meeting of climate experts. This was a meeting of hard left propagandists and all to get the whole BBC output to follow their doctrine. No wonder the BBC content is smug arrogant and biased left wing dribble
On the list, Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy…Is this to get the message across with hilarous pc humour and sitcoms?
I say, I say what do you call a thousand climate scientists under the ocean?…A good start.
Or
Heard the one about Al Gore (aka CRAZED SEX POODLE, getting ‘a penguin’ from his masseuse? (A penguin is a denied ‘happy ending’. Whereby, one jumps up from the table with ones trews down around ones ankles chasing said masseuse optionally shouting “Is that it? Is that it……”
oR
Heard the one about how Climate liar Al Gore and Conman Ken Ley of enron infamy set to make billions from carbon trading scam?
Heh heh heh
Having read the AR4 and had that sneaky feeling of “this reads like bollocks, why have they ignored water vapour and put bizarre statements like ‘most likely’ in there. I am amused greatly.
In other news, anyone get that feeling that someone who knew where the BBC buried its secrets was turned this week?
Let’s think, it’s either NI having some revenge, the centre-right trying to get the BBC to toe the middle line, or the EU trying to fix everything by creating an excuse to make the EBC (European Broadcasting channel).
Been duped to think that Britain’s powers haven’t been a key in all this?
I guess they’ve voiced some rebellious tendencies, but probably only enough to lull confidence. If they don’t cover current political horrors with detail, every other distraction is intended to set-up future policy changes.
No, the list was found on the wayback machine by a climate-sceptical blogger using a URL from the lobbyists which set up the seminar – IBT.org
The TV-taxpayer has funded the Beeb to fund the IBT to lobby it to be biased, and then tried to cover up the fact using 6 lawyers at a cost of 160k to the TV-taxpayer.
I see ‘big oil’ was well represented by BP, wanting taxpayer money to push co2 down nearly empty oilwells in the north sea…
@Llareggub – I am puzzled by this:
Excuse me? Whatever gave you the idea that they ignored water vapour?
Google says otherwise:
http://www.google.com/search?q=water+vapour+site:ipcc.ch
And what’s the problem with “most likely”? Scientists always use careful language like that. “Most likely” is in fact a very strong term indicating that they are very sure indeed about what they are saying. But since they are scientists they can’t just say “we are absolutely certain beyond any doubt, even unreasonable, that this is so.”
But again, if you really did read AR4, why are you claiming that they ignored water vapour?
Appears to be a lot of hot air to me
Four current scientists…all alarmist twonks. And the rest activists and God botherers.
That’ll be the BBC impartiality at work again.
Hunts the lot of them.
That’s the point. And the BBC trust claimed they were all top scientists.
Didn’t see Jimmys name there!
@dung
Or not… as the case may be!
My personal favorite
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
How appropriate.
Bugger! You beat me to it by 40 minutes…
Did you notice a representative of the Insurance industry in there?
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
A very balanced view on climate change…
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/sparc/research/projects/extreme_events/munich_workshop/dlugolecki.pdf
not
Best income for insurance business is to charge high premiums fro something which is of minimal importance. Many of the problems the insurance world has had to pay for is due to humans changing the land surface and building in the wrong places.
1. Building in flood plain- bad practice.
2. Ploughing upland areas, removing water meadows, draining areas which used to flood , all produce greater run off- bad practice.
3. Building on the shore in areas where violent storms will cause damage- bad practice .
4. Building shanty towns on steep slopes and cutting down trees and so causing floods and mud slides – bad practice.
Climate does vary, the Medieval Warm Period of approx 950 AD to 1250AD and the mini ice age of approx 1650-1850 AD shows it. The advance of glaciers during the mini ice age destroyed villages in the Alps. The reason why people can same warmest on record is that mass use of thermometers only starts about 1850 with the rise of an extensively mechanised society in parts of N Europe and NE USA. Constructing thermometers on a mass scale did not happen much before about 1850.
Sea level can also rise and fall 10s of centremetres over a few hundred years.
The planet does vary over cycles of 10, 30 , 60, 100s , 10,000 yrs, million of years . The problem is understand what part of which cycle is occurring and act accordingly. The medieval abbey of Tewkesbury was not flooded because it was built by people who better understood the cyclical nature of the Earth.
Makes the judge and tribunal look twats for denying Tony Newberry his FOI claim. Are they complicit in supporting this BBC propaganda?
+1000
Transparency is our watchword. Anyone who says otherwise is hideously white!!
Claire Foster, Church of England
WTF??
Church is very big on climate change. They love it. It’s the new religion, Doncha’ know
CO2 taxes (and income taxes) are the economic opposite is the tithe.
The church now worships the biggest cause of evil in the previous century, namely marx.
The churches? What a surprise!
The churches are also big on mass immigration since it equals more bums on pews.
And just like mass immigration, the profiteers of the global warming scam span the entire political spectrum, from left to right.
In the beginning Gaia created the Heaven and the Earth.
Original Sin = Man burning stuff to make CO2
Noah and the Flood = Sea level rise
Redemption = End all industry
Parting of the Red Sea = Evaporation due to Global Warming
High Priests = Climatologists
Symbols of Pennance = Wind Farms and Solar Panels
The Three Wise Men = The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
‘Deniers’ = Agents of the Devil
Climategate – Work of the Devil
………
and so it goes
Brilliant response, funny, very funny, but alarmingly close to the truth!
Well said Latimer . . this whole thing is a disgrace.
The AGW Creed
appointed to be read at all environmental conferences
I believe in Global Warming,
which will destroy heaven and earth unless we change our ways.
I believe in Al Gore,
Who conceived the Internet
and the hockey-stick graph, born of Professor Mann.
It suffered under McIntyre and McKitrick,
was crucified, disproven, and was buried.
It was cast on the reject pile.
On the third day It rose again.
It was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science,
and is displayed in a prominent position in all IPCC literature.
It will apply again as soon as global temperatures start rising.
I believe in the CO2 tipping point,
the IPCC Assessment Reports,
a climate sensitivity figure of about 3 °C,
the accuracy of GCMS,
an anthropic cause for all climate variation after 1970,
and grants everlasting.
AMEN.
+ 1,000,000
That’s Bishop Claire Foster innit?
perhaps it was bishop jess?
Bishopric(k).
A lot of non anglo-saxon names amongst the scientists but not amongst the BBC attendees.
how about
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy ??
perhaps more appropriate.
Just think of all the bloody emissions that lot created getting to the seminar.
Advisors on boat building
A chilling list, I’ll bet the bBBC get all hot and bothered about this.
Yes they will.
It’s not unfanciful to suggest that various people will be taking a very very close look at what Ms Boaden said in court while still representing the BBC as a senior executive.
Documented conspiracy to defraud. Hot and bothered would be the understatement of all time if my name was on that list.
Jon Plowman ….head of COMEDY ?????????????????????????
Ironically, the most appropriate person to have there. This is beyond satire.
did you hear the one about the directorator general, the vicar and the choirboy?
If you publish that Fat Pan will sue or even be sued.
Head of Comedy, Head of Drama Commissioning, Head of Children’s BBC…
Do you get the idea?
It was designed to push the narrative in EVERYTHING you see.
Sort of like a marxist version of product placement.
+100
Yup. Every facet of the BBC’s output was expected to push the mantra.
All on the say so of a bunch of self-interested yoghurt knitters.
Time for some heads to roll at the BBC’s climate unit. If they have not reported that ice caps are now accumulating mass, not losing it, they can all fucking go and it can be closed down as not fit for purpose.
Aye, global warming hysteria must be woven into all output at every level.
Particularly towards children.
The BBC just masquerades as a news organisation, it’s prime function is one of relentless state propaganda.
That’s why the likes of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband love it and will do nothing to harm it’s ability to speak lies to this and other nations.
It’s the agenda that is important not political parties, the truth or the economic well being of the country.
It’s not like the BBC to abuse our children is it…
What, you wanted some flat earthers on the list as well did you? And still flogging the “climate gate” dead horse, I see.
No, you’re right. Climategate is over now dead and buried with the reputations of everyone at the CRU.
Sorry i had to reply to this. The reputation of CRU is very much not damaged seeing as i attend UEA. The reason its not damaged? And independent inquiry actually looked into the “manipulation” which took place and found that they found the exact same results as the original CRU data and the data was NOT manipulated
How sweet. Did they give you a lollipop?
Don’t be so naive.
I see that you “attend” the UEA. Any study involved in this activity? I know this mindset well. (Really, it would be interesting to know your subject.)
Sorry to tell you this, but the UEA’s reputation has already taken several torpedo hits. The fault of a few, but when the shit hits the fan, it does get spread around.
I was there in the 70s. Then, wasn’t even aware there was a CRU.
You need to look closer at those “independent” inquiries (there wasn’t just one).
Best wishes, but also hope you can open your mind a little.
JF
He just wanted to see the list not to compile it.
Guido is off beam worrying about the CRU.
The problem here is the number of campaigners, who all have a vested interest in pushing climate panic, because it keeps their income stream going.
So this is the IBT, representing in effect every (state-funded) charity in Britain, plus the (state-funded) BBC, plus the (state-funded) Open University…
It’s extortion funded, the state funds itself by coercing money from wealth creators.
“you wanted some flat earthers on the list as well did you?”
Since you ask, someone from the Met Office would be have been nice.
There’s a lot of economic creationists (people who don’t believe in economic natural selection) in that list.
Good term, like it.
I was about to point people to the Met Office’s web site to show that it is obsessed with climate change, used to be front and centre on the site.
It’s changed recently however, and could now almost be called even handed on the matter.
Someone obviously saw which way the wind was blowing, for a change.
The problem with the Met Office is it still employs the like of Vicky Pope and Julia Slingo.
As for the Met Office claim that it’s computer is able to predict with any degree of accuracy, what the climate will be in 100 years time, or even ten years time, such nonsense is in the realms of delusional fantasy.
Well, their own data shows no warming for 16 years. Whilst one expects the BBC to ignore that, and whilst the Met has attempted to cloud the issue, that is what their figures tell us.
Nothing to see here. Water under the bridge etc. Time to move on etc.
Yes yes yes but that water is from melted ice caps.
Which are presently accumulating ice, not losing it.
But we ignore that.
But a small part of Antarctica (near the volcanoes but we ignore that), is melting!
and much water has been passed under that bridge!
We’ve all passed a lot of water since then (Sam Goldwyn).
I bet Fergal Keane had them in tears.
yes – doesn’t fergal keen?
Except the BBC won’t be embarrassed by the links to Climatic Research Unit. The BBC mantra is that climate change is real, caused or at least greatly exacerbated by humans and that this is ‘settled science’.
We, climate change sceptics, are evil ‘deniers’.
We’re not, we’re not.
Atleast we ‘eeeeeeevil deniers’ KNOW we are evil.
Those Hunts are truly evil and sucessfully conceal it beneath a layer of SUPER evil.
HUGE difference.
Science is NEVER settled. Even Einstein’s theories are being challenged.
Depends if you ask the right people. Obviously this bunch they chose are the real ‘Flat Earthers’. Far as they are concerned it IS settled. Meanwhile outside planet loopy……..
Joy. They are down, let’s make sure the tag-team kicking continues.
The disgusting decision to basically ignore AGW bollocks ‘deniers’ is more than enough to be a coup de grace to the BBC in its current form.
Only lefties refuse to see how disgracefully wrong that policy was, being so blinded by their own sense of moral superiority and ‘rightness’.
Goog to see that the BBC Head of Comedy was there.
I am so glad you’ve picked this up Guido. The BBC have breached their impartiality commitment on the say so of activists and vested interests.
“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].”
Signor Galileo, you are hereby ordered to cease and desist from teaching the heliocentric theory of a revolving earth. The science was settled back in Aristotle’s time. You are a wilful little man just seeking to cause trouble, and you will be placed under house arrest.
Quite so
Excellent!!
d
What a shame that the beeb is in the mire again. Still what can you expect from a bias BBC, anything that helps the left is right on man. Man made climate change is a con, always has been always will and as long a many ex hippies make loads of dosh what do they care?
Great work by Maurizio Morabito (omnologos).
But do remember that Hardcore AGW’ers don’t accept that ‘Climategate’ disproved anything.
Yes, a great piece of work by that man. How much licence-fee money has the BBC spent trying to cover this up?
Last count was about double a DG’s payoff
Be interesting to know where the managerial approval to spend all that money came from too.
A brilliant week for the BBC
At least they had the decency to invite the head of comedy.
Also: “George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs” < TITular Head of TV Current Affairs (Wasn't very interested in TV, current affairs or the BBC.)
I have been informed that I was present at the meeting.
It was in the Guardian. You read the Guardian, surely? It was part of the uniform at White City
Helen Boaden too.
What does “stepping aside” actually mean?
Still coming in to work and getting paid, accruing pension etc, but someone else doing the actual work?
Stepping aside =Someone else takes the flack. You have your next career move to think of after all.
It also means hiring a posse of employment lawyers!
Yes I did slam my front door at all those reporters. It took all my energy away. I had to lie down for two days and drink a glass of lucozade.
I only learned I had slammed that door when John Humphries informed me on a live interview the next day.
That’s odd — I thought you read about it on the web the next day.
Many of the BBC participants were drama and comedy producers, directors and writers. One of the aims of the seminars has been to persuade non factual programme makers to introduce international themes and stories into their programmes
So if you wondering why Dot Cotton was eloquently describing the effects of man made CO2 on the rainforests, whilst folding her knickers in the lauderette, wonder no more.
Insidious, isn’t it?
I taught them everything they know.
You don’t see how sinister it was to have the Head of Comedy there. Even ‘jokes’ have to be censored so as not to offend against the established, anti-humanist eschatology.
As you say. This wasn’t a fact-finding meeting. This was a full-on indoctrination session.
And it happened under a Thatcher-lead, Tory government.And it never happened at all.
My thoughts exactly. The most sinister aspect of that list is ‘head of comedy’. If head of cbeebies was on there i’d already have fled the country.
It’s hardly a surprise though — just look at what passes for comedy on the beeb, it’s been ‘got at’ for a long time.
WTF. Seeking the CoE ‘s moral guidance!
At least Monbiot’s not on the list….
He must be fucking gutted.
Imagine how Hitler would have felt if he had not been invited to the Nuremberg rally.
Quote of the day – brilliant!
He’s fucking gutted anyway, cringing, waiting for the writ …
Yeah, can you imagine his bumhole going every time the mail hits the mat in the morning?
If you could hook that up to a genny, you’d have some carbon free energy right there. Sort it out Moonbat.
Fantastic LOL, sprayed coffee all over the keyboard; right chaps, who’s going to be the first to do a DOWNFALL spoof on this, please, someone.
If he had been he’d have considered himself a ‘scientist’ like the Head of Comedy.
”….to decide BBC climate change policy.” I was under the impression that the BBC are meant to report news in a fair and balanced way. But they don’t.
To report the actual scientific facts as they unfold just proved too much for their tiny lefty brains.
Why the hell are the Curch of England there?
Spying on the faith-based competition.
who was representing islam?
About 20 people from the BBC.
No need to put minarets on Broadcasting House….
No surprise that UEA were there – they were/are one of the major academic centres, whether or not you like their methods…
I am “surprised” at the number of rent seekers, NGOs and other campaigning organisations. There should have been no place for campaigners here.
“I don’t see any method at all, sir.”
and where was David Icke?
and Michael Fish?
OMG.
That is outrageous.
This has to stop – the BBC has been utterly compromised by fanatics & zealots.
All we need now is a whistleblower to leak the EU soft loansto the BBC agreement & we will have a full & righteous mandate to beat that marxist propaganda unit to death .
The names on that last are fanatics, extremists & zealots to the core – how could this happen?
We’ve all been sleeping on watch I’m afraid.
Your country has been stolen from you — facilitated by those at the beeb.
Scrap the BBC.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/40667
Whilst you are at it, the be productive and sign this one also………….kick out Abu Shatarder
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/27934
Head of Comedy is weird enough but Executive Editor Indies & Events, CBBC? That’s downright scary.
Like any bureaucracy, I think the list of BBC attendees was probably inflated by the knowledge that a buffet lunch would be provided. It always happens like this in my company!
Almost the worst thing about this list is the enormous number of the BBC executives etc who have nothing better to do than attend this hugely expensive group-think session. What would be the combined annual salary of this lot? Peobably enough to build a new hospital.
Be careful what you wish for. They might build a death camp like that one in Staffs.
The cut and thrust of debate must have been electrifying as one side argued for the Pros and others argued for the Cons…..then again maybe not.
I wonder what the catering bill for this little get together was.
Nothing but the best for our betters, I hope. Organic canapes all round.
More work for the National Audit Office and the Parliamentary Media Select Committee. How can the BBC justify spending hundreds of thousands in public money in an attempt to cover up something that had already been published?
Wow. I make that 4 scientists and a lot of do-gooders.
Q: Who decided BBC Climate Editorial Policy?
A: The Head of Comedy, Greenpeace and the Church of England.
Someone please tell me this isn’t from an episode of The Thick of It.
To be fair in a reciprocal arrangement the BBC head of comedy has a seat on The Church of Englands Commission on Doctrine and Practice.
Up till now I was under the impression that “The thick of it” was a spoof but now I realise its a fly on the wall documentary.
I think I made it six representatives of scientific institutions, but the point is well made. There seem to be a lot of vested interests among all those ‘specialists’.
Don’t be taken in by a couple of token engineers from Npower Renewables and BP, either. Some engineers’ salaries and careers depend on continuing the AGW scam, and that influences their thinking somewhat.
28 Senior Beeboids including the Comedy & Drama. WTF ?
Danny Baker is right, too many incompetent/overpaid lefties in senior management positions where they have been promoted way above their ability. We need a clearout of the stables but there isn’t anyone competent to to it; all we have is ‘twelve-job.’
The Chairman of the BBC, Executive and Non Executive Directors, Fallguy Director General, Assistant and Deputy Directors General, Heads of Programmes, Financial Out-Of-Controllers, and all the varied and diversified Chief and Under-Chief bottle washers, suppliers of kiddies and coke and false rumours, and their celebrity WAGS….
Have asked me to inform you Gwido Fawkes, that we are putting a D Notice on you to stop you telling the truth
What is more, this D Notice will be accompanied by multiple letters of threat and harrassment from Shillings and Spend a Pennies, Barristers Chambers and all people holy and serious in Britain…to stop you from this disgusting behaviour
BYW I have run out of Judges for any more “Judge-led” enquiries
Hencforth publicenquiries will be undertaken randomly by the winners of Cum Dancing…
The people of this country can sleep well in their beds as a result of the legal precedents we set.
Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
If the BBC ever gets pulled up on this the guy from BP will be presented as a representative from an industry not normally to be found agreeing with climate change doctrine ergo it (AWG) must be real.
What won’t be mentioned is that BP are no mugs and if there are subsidies available for burying CO2 underground then they’ll want a share of that pie too.
Nope. The AWG faithful will be trying to kid on that since BP were there then AWG must be real.
BP have been in on the green wheez for years, why do you think they changed their logo to a green dasiy.
Code Blue! Code Blue! Urgent meeting with today’s acting director general at 2pm.
All heads of departments, acting heads, deputy heads, assistant heads, 2nd assistant heads, vice heads, junior department leaders, team leaders,supervisors,and assistant supervisors and all of their assistants and PAs to attend.
There’s a big panic on!
A recent F.O.I has asked “why is hospitality called The Green Room?”
As the Area Senior Resource Executive, Head Of Local Expertise I will be at the meeting at 2pm
Make sure the Area Senior Resource Executive, Head Of Local Catering also attends. Some humus Greek yogurt and olives would be nice. There will be about 1,000 of us there.
I will be there but please check my contract rider. I only eat blue M&Ms and I only drink de-ionised Mineral water from Bratislava.
Ties are optional
Is humus “earthy peasant food”?
As the Team Worker Assistant Troubleshooter I will also be in attendance.
I will also be in attendance in my capacity as the BBC
Knowledge
Numeracy
Outsourcing
Benefits
Jobs
Output
Cookery
Kommisars (for)
Enterprising
Yoofs
I’m afraid I cannot attend
I will be there.
And Iam busy with the kiddies
Playing with their balls
Im afraid the Blue Peter team will not be attending due to a previous engagement where they are re intering Sir Jimmy Savile in The Blue Peter Garden.
Can we get a hold of the minutes to see if Jimmy Savile sent his apologies due to a previous engagement?
I see no mention of this leak across any of the BBC wide range of output !
How odd
It’s not a leak – It was on the web (wayback machine).
The list is trending
*** Innocent Face ***
Shades of misrepresentation!
“Emails from Mike Hulme, second on that list, were at the heart of the Climategate scandal.”
Err … no! The scandal involved purblind idiots misrepresenting what Hume and his Tyndall Centre were doing. See wikipedia:
“Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.”
All scientifically verified, peer evaluated, etc. And the UEA and other scientists have been scrupulous in publishing. Not providing trash fictions: so beware the rustle of tiny writs.
I will lead another investigation
At £10,000 per day if you please
I know all about the environment
Sssh dear
The public must not know how must we fleece them for…
wikipedia … bwhahahahahaha
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
These ‘committees’. Independent were they? Really.
AWG is a con. I know it. You know it. The ‘science’ is rigged by a self-selecting, self peer-reviewing crowd whose very continued existence relies on suppressing inconvenient data and extrapolating useless models.
Here’s a challenge. Lets say we have 100 years of data. I defy you create a climate model using only the first 90 years of data that would then accurately predict the past ten observed years.
You can’t. Yet you insist on using 100 years of data to predict the next 50 years.
You are crooks. Plain and simple. If you weren’t in the climate change industry you’d be working in a boiler-house scam phoning up old ladies to get them to invest in land scams.
Well, I don’t know about you, mate, but where I live the spring is arriving weeks before it did back in the sixties. You can plant your runner beans out in June and there won’t be any danger of frost, whereas we used to have to wait until July. We’ve been having daffodils in flower at Christmas. A Swiss friend says the permafrost is melting and avalanches are occurring as previously-frozen hillsides fall to bits. The Arctic ice sheet reached a new low in September 2012.
Something Is Going On.
Something is Going On?
I must have missed the bit where the Earth’s climate remained static for the past 4 billion years and it is only in the last 50 years there has been any climate change.
Except, apparently, for the last fifteen years when there has been no overall warming despite the huge amount of CO2 released in the interim.
AWG is a busted flush. The models are worthless – they can’t even predict the past let alone the future.
And the new low of 2012 is for records since 1979. There was a stunt a few years ago about how close to the North Pole one could sail.It was propounded as proof until someone produced a book by the arctic explorer Nansen that he’d gone much further in the late 19th century. Or the Independent “scoop” about the opening of navigable water north of Russia.The German raider Pinguin made the same voyage in 1940.
And the Antarctic Ice sheet is at record highs, if you look at the last 30 years sea ice for north and south and combine them the total hardly changes. The arctic sea ice decrease is headline news, the antarctic increase is never mentioned.
Cherry picking by the AGW MSM and the scientists that feed them the rubbish.
Err … no. The Antarctic land ice is melting at an accelerating rate. Try http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
What is increasing is Antarctic sea ice, which is increasing because
[a] of climate change (!), with increased moisture in the atmosphere;
[2] ozone levels are falling, causing more open water to freeze over;
[3] the extra run-off from the land ice is diluting the saline of the sea water, thus causing icing;
or
[4] any combination thereof, plus factors not included here.
Be serious: were the total amount of Antarctic ice increasing, sea-levels would be falling, not rising — as they measurably are, each and every year. If you don’t like that argument, the only other way to explain rising sea-water is because the polar bears sat one end and the penguins at the other have been on the Stella.
skepticalscience … bwhahahahahaha
go on – quote realclimate I Double Dog Dare you…
this thread has already given me several belly laughs, I just hope no-one “quotes” climateprogress
Were Mr Galt (of toy shop fame) to read the article, he would find learned papers cited and sourced. I defy him to do the same.
But then bad mouthing is less effort than serious thinking.
Err no. Southern ice mass is increasing at an alarming rate.
ICESAT Data Shows Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/10/icesat-data-shows-mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate.gif
Yes something is going on, Central England Temperature has actually been cooling for around 10 years according to the Met Office (and that’s despite some upward bias that must result from increased urbanisation impacts).
Err, no. What you are arguing is there was warming, but it suddenly reversed with Tony Blair’s second coming/term (choose whichever you prefer).
I’d reckon “Central England” is near Meriden. So find your cold spot on these maps: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/ukmapavge.html
Urbanisation is not an issue as it is accounted for in the models.
Furthermore, NASA did a study into the affect of the urban heat island, it found that when comparing windy days (downwind from urban centres, which would how measurements would be affected) to calm days there was in fact no difference in the amount of warming which takes place.
the fact of the matter it is, its easy to come up with some random fact. its 10 times hard to bring out the true facts. A lot of “cherry picking” to compare warming on here also
As those “…previously-frozen hillsides fall to bits…” they are revealing artifacts from 4(four) previous human eras from the Neolithic to the Roman empire.
I know, some denier drilled into those crumbly bits and buried that stuff just so they could come back and quote it on some blog somewhen….
Ah, I see: it’s in Wikipedia, so it must be right.
He probably spent three minutes on the internet verifying it.
And it being in Wikipedia automatically makes it wrong?
Well, I have always found that Wikipedia says just what I want it to, especially when I have just changed it.
Brilliant; I amuse myself from time to time ‘altering’ details and ‘correcting’ mistakes; we had SUCH fun with Vera Baird’s biograph, remember her, ditto Cathy Ashton, LOL, then they blocked me but it WAS fun.
“Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, NOT SEARCHING FOR evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.”
There. Fixed That For Ya. Free of charge.
I have been following this scam for a decade.
I go to the sources, not paid shillery/blind demagoguery.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Note the slope of their signature graph. It’s been like that – both trends – the primary and secondary (or the acceleration of the primary derivative) For two centuries. 200 years and recently they have had to introduce “factors” to get it to stay on track (physically and politically)
Have a nice day.
This was always my truck with the BBC. Pushing this agenda down every channel of the broadcaster. Rather than concentrating on Tractor statistics.
I’m free…
I can confirm that I have been informed that I was once the DG at the BBC
Why doesn’t the BBC save time and publish the list of who wasn’t there FFS!
That looks like a rogue poll: how can we possibly have as much as 10% ?
Can you imagine how fucking gutted the Fib dems are going to be when they are officially the fourth party.
29 from the BBC Bloody – hell bet Sky only have 5 in total…………..what a waste of our licence tax monies.
Guido
Can you please ask our old private equity friend Ronnie Cohen to make a bid for the BBC ?
And then break it up flog off the parts and take us all out oif this agony…??
He would be doing a public service, for once…
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
Claire Foster, Church of England
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
WTF
Greenpeace, head of BBC comedy, the NEF (ludicrous leftie trots), the Church of England (er, ditto), about 600 other BBC time serving drones and maybe three climate scientists…yes, that’s enough for a thorough analysis.
Funny how the global warming scam was backed by so many who wanted more taxation, a bigger role for government particularly after the collapse of socialism, unless it was all a coincidence.
I wonder which other causes have such skewed coverage by Al Beeb – Europe for example. Looks as if the BBC fish is rotting from the head.
Well bugger me!
Combined annual salaries, almost a billion.
The BBC is on hiatus for retuning.
We will be back in December.
In the meantime, here’s the Olympics all over again. You loved that didn’t you? That was the good old BBC! Don’t sell us off….it’s a very tough world out there without a guaranteed ring fenced multi billion budget. I couldn’t work at ITV. They have to achieve things. It’s ghastly!
Although that is a brilliant idea they wouldn’t dare repeat the Olympics for fear of damaging dvd and blu-ray sales.
Wow. The BBC spent a 6-figure sum of licence-fee payer cash on legal fees to prevent publication of a list of names that was available on the wayback machine.
The list reveals that the BBC lied about the meeting being attended by ‘best scientific experts’, in fact it was mostly political activists.
Absolutely. The BBC lied. Assuming this list is for real.
like its .pdf file?
and by the way 1984 beware geeks bearing .gifs
You better beware, you better take care,
You better watch out if you’ve got a cigar and long blond hair.
Or work for the BBC.
Looks like the BBC also lied about the meetings being held under Chatham House Rules, the excuse they used in court for not releasing the list of names to Tony Newbery. That’s called perjury isn’t it?
again – exempt from our normal rules/law?
The best Scientific experts were asked to “stand aside” for this meeting.
No wonder they felt that there was something to hide.That list must be far, far worse than anyone imagined.
Well done Guido. It is an absolute disgrace that the BBC hired a team of top lawyers in an attempt to keep these names secret.
This is far more serious than the Jimmy Savile scandal as the mindset of a whole nation is being controlled by the state broadcaster issuing false and flawed science.
A classic Establishment stitchup. Stuff like this will become normal and mundane when Leverson is enacted and freedom of expression is extinguished in this country.
Stuff like this is already normal and mundane. The fact that this list has come to light will not be big news anywhere. The BBC are hardly going to be highlighting it. Murdoch might splash it in his papers but they’ll be dismissed as just the deniers ‘at it again’.
True. The Sun is more interested in the celebrity jungle thing.
some of you may be wondering why i asked you to come here today……
Why did David Cameron fall for this “the science is settled” scam?
I love the global warming scam. It’s making me rich.
’cause he’s a dimwitted c*nt I’m afraid.
Because landed aristocrats are minting it from the windfarm rent. His father in law for one.
The BBC should be split up, NOW!
Bravo to the skill of true investigative journalism, as opposed to attempted character assassination through smears and innuendo.
“A one day event was held in London on January 26 2006, focusing on climate change and its impact on development. The brainstorm brought together 28 BBC executives and independent producers, this time including several from BBC News, and 28 policy experts. It was chaired by Fergal Keane and looked ahead to the next 10 years, to explore the challenges facing television in covering this issue. Several delegates attended from developing countries, including Ethiopia, China and Bangladesh.
“One of the aims of the seminars has been to persuade non factual programme makers to introduce international themes and stories into their programmes.”
So the next obvious question is: at what point did the aim of settling the corporation’s view on climate science through all factual programmes become an aim of this seminar? Surely that should have been sufficiently critical to set at the outset, given the momentous nature of such a decision?
“Chaired by Fergal Keane”. Well, there you go. Based on that, I think skewing national coverage on one of the most important political issues of our lifetime is perfectly sound. After all, it’s Fergal with his very sincere serious face.
Yes, but what about the dispicable Tom Watson? When is Bercow going to make Watson apologies to parliament. Oh I forgot, labour have got Bercow in their pocket.
Come on Guido, give a nod to Tony Newbery
Hear, hear. And while we’re about it, equal time for the Flat Earth Society and 50 per cent of any programme featuring David Attenborough to be handed to the creationists.
The global warming crowd are to science what homeopathy is to medicine.
You are quite sick aren’t you?
It seems the warmist anonymous November 13, 2012 at 11:09 am don’t know the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law.
The Beeb must be broken up.
Next time Cam, don’t put a limp dick like Jeremy Hunt in charge.
Fucking idiot.
I’m looking forward to this being on 24/7 while they meet and discuss stuff
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/52/Testcard_F.jpg/240px-Testcard_F.jpg
Does anyone know who was at the equivalent political policy meeting? I do hope there were no nasty Tories at that?
http://fxbites.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/tie-less-in-gaza.html
I’m all for global warming. I’ve purchased thousands of acres of land 70m above the current sea level. It’ll all be beachfront property.
Right I’m off to set fire to some dinosaur fat.
It is particularly interesting that names associated with the shoddy journalism surrounding the Saville and McCalpine sagas, Peter Rippon, editor of Newsnight, Steve Mitchell, his boss, Helen Boaden, his boss’s boss, head of News and George Enwistle, her boss, 54 day in post director general were part of the BBC contingent at the seminar!
It is apparent from this information that Helen Boaden misled the Information Commissioners Tribunal under oath when stating that this was a journalistic exercise covered by the Chatham House rules.
Of course, Rippon, Mitchell, Boaden and Entwistle did not have the ‘senior’ positions in 2006 that they held for the recent debacle, it’s pretty clear, mind, that attendance at that 2006 meeting didn’t ‘hurt’ their subsequent careers!
The BBC claimed the seminar was attended by ‘experts’ which is what influenced their change of policy
There are only three active scientists in that list the rest are activists or work for NGO’s plus an oddball grouping uncluding someone from the American Enbassy and the church of England
who was representing charles the turd?
What’s of equal interest is the philosophy behind the meetings (the warmist meeting was only one of a number); below is a direct quote from the preamble, its chilling, please take a moment to read this, cut, paste and circulate.
‘One of the aims of the seminars has been to persuade non factual programme makers to introduce international themes and stories into their programmes … it is now recognised that drama, comedy and entertainment offer ways of reaching new and wider audiences’
In other words, insinuate the propaganda into everything, this is a scandal in its own right.
Yep, and it used to be called agitprop.
Agitprop (play /ˈædʒɨtprɒp/; from Russian: агитпроп [ɐɡʲɪtˈprop]) is derived from agitation and propaganda,[1] and describes stage plays, pamphlets, motion pictures and other art forms with an explicitly political message.
There is no evidence that releasing trillions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere will do anything.
Just like that left wing acid-rain bullshit. We own the planet and nothing can stop us doing whatever we want!
Yeah, I remember having to do a school project on Acid rain, circa 1988.
It took me a whole day of my fucking summer holidays. Apparently the lakes were going to be like battery acid, trees bare, etc etc etc.
Never happened. Funny, that.
oh dear I remember teaching that stuff…
Is that the same sort of ‘never happened as the ‘global warming’ that means the temperatures are just the same today as they were in 1997?
Perhaps the acid rain was ‘asked to stand aside’. Just like the warming.
I became aware of the imminent threat of vaporisation from four Russian Nukes pointing at my city at the age of 10. The BBC was good at sending me to bed terrified. A few years later I was informed by an onslaught of BBC propaganda that I will die from the aids virus if I ever had ‘The Sex’ – it was a heterosexual disease — and entirely hetros fault. As a virgin this was not good news. I recall my first sexual encounter was marred by nervousness, not at the idea of the actual sex but with a strong nagging feeling I would be dead within four years for doing it.
The BBC was at the forefront of making my teen years miserable. Didnt matter what I was going to do I would either die from being nuked, shagging, acid rain, or cancer from the sun due to the Ozone layer floating away. Much of this was Thatchers fault (drummed in to me of course) which I also believed.
And their still at it today with climate change. Ask almost any 10 year old and they firmly believe that at any moment they will either drown or be burned to a crisp. Its called mass child abuse. Im not kidding here, they are making kids very frightened.
Acid rain bullshit – hyped up scare with the scientist who found it not be be a problem sacked and blackballed? :
http://employees.oneonta.edu/blechmjb/jbpages/m205/The%20EPA%20vs_%20Ed%20Krug.htm
Big government bullshit. A trial run of CAGW.
F.O.I. request? Haven’t you heard of Google?
Anyway, just because FactCheck, AP and Nature magazine dismissed Climategate as a misrepresentation of the emails doesn’t mean they’re not being bankrolled by hippies.
Jon Plowman – Head of ‘Comedy’. Ha fucking ha!
Famously thinks earthquakes are caused by AGW
Can we have another inquiry as to why the BBc needs so many heads of this and heads of that.
what an over bloated organisation.
Zi sooner zis global warming ‘appens, ze sooner Londres will drown in is own faeces an tak tha shity BBC with it. I don care if is God or man do zis, jus ‘urry up.
Folks – do complain about this – here’s my complaint, focussing on the number of people who attended who should not have been there
==================================================
The BBC recently had an FOI request turned down requesting that the names of 28 people who attended a top level meeting convened to decide how the BBC reported “climate change”. Now that this list is in public hands, I wish to know the reasons behind the attendance of the following people.
The first block contains the names of known activists and non-sceptical climate scientists.
The second those who have no business whatsoever having ANY input into BBC policy on this matter.
List 1
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA (Scientist and activist)
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace (activist)
Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net (Activist)
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation – Left wing think tank
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China – activist
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos – activist
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables – commercial interest
Anita Neville, E3G – activist
List 2
Trevor Evans, US Embassy – WHAT’?
Claire Foster, Church of England – ditto
The only real surprise is that Jimmy Saville is not on the list.
There is no indication in the list of names that there was any balance in the discussions that take place – there are many reputable and well known climate scientists and scientists who do not concede the CAGW meme. Without such in attendance, and most especially with so many activists involved, I put it to you that there was never ANY possibility of future balanced reporting on climate.
This is the kind of stuff that I come to you for, Guido, not posts about nonentities seeking to rise to the top in a vat of slugs or somesuch.
nonentities seeking to rise to the top in a vat of slugs or somesuch
Thats no way to refer to the mother of Parliaments!
Now to ferret out the Balen report.
As Karl Marx might have once said whilst presenting on Blue Peter educating the kiddies and the BBC youth orchestra of assorted kiddie fiddlers….
“Come comrades let us storm TV centre and torch the lot. Aux les barricades!”
Coz his French was a bit pettit pois, mon ami.
shit doesn’t burn
Maybe your not trying hard enough. Throw the ‘Nonce Finder General’ into the flames as well and see if he burns …if he does then he’s innocent.
Well done Guido, for far too long the BBC has followed a “left wing” agenda it really is time for change but don’t hold yopur breath.
Meanwhile, a Labour supporter in the Navy tried to pass secrets to Putin.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9674630/Royal-navy-submariner-met-Russian-secret-agents-after-collecting-top-secret-codes.html
The BBC is rotten. From too to bottom. I can’t see how there is any hope for them when people like Patten are in charge.
Next time you here some bbc wanker droning about freedom of the press, shout this in their lefty hypocritical face.
There are lies within lies in this story.
The seminar we are talking about was not originally intended to be a ‘policy-making’ meeting.
What happened 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. 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.
I wonder whether charges of perjury are in order?
Excellent points that NEED persuing.
So Boaden and her cohorts (public servants, paid for by you and me, that is) went in front of a Judge and lied, in order to cover up a policy decision taken by who in the BBC, exactly?
The change of policy seems to have started amongst the Environment group – Roger Harrabin, for instance. We have the evidence of the Climategate emails to show that the BBC was routinely talking to the Climate Change Group at UEA, working with them and presenting all their findings in a positive light.
There were some internal complaints when this happened, but they were brushed aside, and the Environment team went on to push the Climate Change into as many other sections of the BBC as possible. Anyone who objected would be classed as a ‘denier’, and edged out of any joint programming. I should imagine that nobody wanted to be smeared like that…
If this story can be made to stick, the Beeb will be holed beneath the waterline.
And Helen Boaden prosecuted for misconduct in public office for the pack of lies about this meeting. And made to pay the wasted legal fees.
My thought is, what other conferences does the Beeb have to decide its line?
Have they had others, say on QE, immigration, the EU ,&c &c?
And who initiated this one?
It doesn’t have ANY conferences to decide its lines. The idea that this was a ‘policy-making’ conference was just a lie dreamed up by internal BBC activists when they were challenged as to why they had altered their line.
That’s why they pretended that it was secret, and were so anxious to hide the attendees. They had claimed that they had been good journalists and checked the line with the ‘best scientific brains’.
In reality they had just pretended that the last internal climate jolly had been their policy-making committee meeting as a way to make a difficult question go away.
If you forget about the ‘climate change’ topic and just look at what the BBC did, this is actually a major lie – bigger than the Savile affair…
@228: Interesting: that worked out well.
Hulme – scientist, but also Labour Party member if I remember rightly
That bloody internet.
Just look at the over inflated titles of these BBBC f…..s head of this ,director of that,this is an organisation desperate for reform and soon
Readers may also be interested in the IPPR publication (also 2006) “Warm Words” — it’s on their web site. Their advice to government and other interested parties was to simply ignore the scientific debate and treat global warming as a simple fact and ignore contrary argument.
———————————
“Much of the noise in the climate change discourse comes from argument and counter-argument, and it is
our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the
argument as having been won. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that
individual actions are effective. This must be done by stepping away from the ‘advocates debate’ described
earlier, rather than by stating and re-stating these things as fact.
The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.”
In other words, the advice of the Labour Party, taken up by the State Broadcaster.
Fuck me, Joseph Goebbels couldn’t have issued a better proclamation than that.
Surprised not to see ‘Winston Smith’ on that list…
He was one of the first victims of the Big Brother Corporation
Unbelievable that they got away with that! I demand a judicial enquiry.
You’ve all done very well.
Seriously – this is too good to be true. Surely even the BBC cannot have rigged a meeting of unscientific vested interests like this and then dressed it up as a neutral scientific debate to ‘settle’ future climate reporting policy?
er, yes, reasonable summary. Bit of a hospital pass comming some sad fuckers way. Wonder which low grade manager gets fingured ?
Why not? It’s what they normally do.
Good to see that the Beeb kept its sense of proportion an found space for their “head of comedy”!
Fake global warming, yet another violation of our rights. The gov’t constantly violates our rights.
They violate the 1st Amendment by caging protesters and banning books like “America Deceived II”.
They violate the 4th and 5th Amendment by allowing TSA to grope you.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting undeclared wars.
Impeach Obama.
Last link of “America Deceived II” before it is completely banned:
America Deceived II: Homeland Security Warning: Possession of this novel may result in enhanced interrogation.
Thank God for the likes of Maurizio Morabito. Well done, whoever you might be, and thank you.
BIG YAWN…BP and Npower in the room to push back on Greenpeace. Are you guys looking at the same list I am??
Not quite:
BP Carbon Capture
NPower Renewables
Both sectors dependent on carbon trading/government subsidy.
Within each organisation there will be people that depend on climate panic for their jobs. Strangely enough, those are the ones the BBC invited.
Not the terrible oil traders who keep the lights on.
BP and Npower have nothing to lose from policy responses to the “fact” of global warming – they are involved in renewables, wind, carbon capture as well and in any case all these require fossil fuel back-up so are a guarantee that the world will continue to be dependent on oil and gas for the foreseeable future. Look at the financial connections between energy companies and NGOs like WWF and FoE.
Whoever has ok’d the wasting of our money trying to prevent this list being published needs to be dismissed immediately. If the state broadcaster can choose to override its remit and we cannot discover on what grounds then what we have is a propaganda machine for whoever is running the BBC
Colin Challen fell on his sword at last election so Ed Balls could contest the Morley and Outwood seat, at time rumoured to be headed to HOL but instead has ended up as a Labour Councillor on Scarboroughs Council.
@1984
“Seriously – this is too good to be true. Surely even the BBC cannot have rigged a meeting of unscientific vested interests like this and then dressed it up as a neutral scientific debate to ‘settle’ future climate reporting policy?”
No – I do not think that they did. The meeting was obviously a ‘Global Warming Awareness seminar’ – they were running a lot of those at that time.
What I think the BBC did was worse. I think they dropped the requirement to maintain balance unilaterally, under the influence of internal activists. Then they were accused of bias by bloggers, so they simply picked a recent meeting and claimed that it was a ‘policy seminar’ which justified their change of tack – incorporating ‘the best scientific advice’. And what was said was secret, so it couldn’t be examined. That justified their position.
Then someone asked about its makeup – if it had been the top scientists then they ought to be able to explain their position. But, of course, it hadn’t been – it had just been a bunch of environmentalists out on a jolly. So they couldn’t possibly release the names.
If it had really been secret the names would never have been out on the web. The fact that they were suggests that it only BECAME secret some time later. When it was suddenly turned into a top scientific policy committee, in fact.
So we should be accusing the BBC of lying to the tribunal. They held NO policy examination committee. They just changed their policy direction and pretended that they had conducted a proper due-diligence study. And then they lied about this to a formal tribunal. And got found out.
I hope that this is the story that goes out to the press. It seems to me that a charge of perjury is in order….
The very fact that the BBC have fought tooth and nail to prevent this list from being made public screams out that something was very wrong with what they were claiming. Its bleedin obvious !
Next task…..to find out when was and who attended the equivalent political seminar that was convened to decide BBC political policy which led to an unprecedented editorial decision to no longer give equal airtime to opponents of Labour
Super, innit means the old Lord P geez will have to put in a spot of overtime, sorting out the polar bears in the Sahara. Funny whenever it’s climate talk it’s polar bears walking on ice. I guess they want to brain wash children into feeling sad about the cuddly, nice polar bears not having any ice left.
What about dave,s texts to carrot top and coulson,it will not go away.
This is the worst blog on climategate since climategate blog records began.
Struggling to see what these BBC people were doing at the meeting:
Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning
Jon Plowman, Head of ComedyExecutive
What’s all that about?
It’s about getting climate change propaganda on all of the BBC’s output.
I am laughing my way to the bank.
What’s worrying about this isn’t bias but the fact that they invited a bunch of what are essentially lobby group staff to decide a highly technical empirical question of fact. Even most of the people with university affiliations are humanities/”history of science” “specialists” with absolutely no specific knowledge on whether the AGW claims are true or not.
The only people with real scientific relevance on this list are:
Professor Robert May – a real physicist albeit one who is now mainly a politician
Professor Mike Hulme – a professional climate physicist; one of only two on the list
Professor Dorthe Dahl-Jensen – a professional climate physicist; the only other person with a clue
Dr Steve Widdicombe – a real scientist whose research is directly relevant, but only to the potential effects of climate change, not whether climate change itself is real or significant
There are more people on the list with “geography” qualifications than there are physicists. Among those not explicitly working for lobby groups, there are more people whose interest is in communication/history/philosophy than in science.
It’s not so much that they stacked the deck for one side or the other, which maybe they did but certainly not that blatantly, it’s that the conclusions of this panel are largely worthless on their terms.
If the BBC had really cared to get to the bottom of the matter, they would have had Hulme or Dorthe Dahl-Jensen duke it out with Professor Richard Lindzen. They would likely have arrived, not just at a “balance” of airtime for “competing views”, but something close to a real understanding of the issues: what is near-universally accepted among people who have any understanding of physics, what is not accepted, and where the uncertainties originate. That two or three person panel would give off far more light than this mess of averaging the opinion of a thousand blind Tibetans to find the length of the Emperor of China’s nose.
Why didn’t they? My view is not because they are biased against the skeptics, but because the BBC is staffed with humanities graduates who don’t understand what science is or how it works, and polling a room of powerful lobbyists is how truth really is determined in their world.
It was the global warming loons Wannsee conference.
This is worrying, but not so much for the conspiracy theorist reasons. The panel is actually reasonably balanced; there’s a heavy preponderance for left wing politicos but there are also some pretty hard line right wing politicos: the name of Richard D North jumps out, for instance. And there are as many businessmen as NGOs.
What’s worrying about this isn’t bias but the fact that they invited a bunch of what are essentially lobby group staff to decide a highly technical empirical question of fact. Even most of the people with university affiliations are humanities/”history of science” “specialists” with absolutely no specific knowledge on whether the AGW claims are true or not.
The only people with real scientific relevance on this list are:
Professor Robert May – a real physicist albeit one who is now mainly a politician
Professor Mike Hulme – a professional climate physicist; one of only two on the list
Professor Dorthe Dahl-Jensen – a professional climate physicist; the only other person who should have been invited
Dr Steve Widdicombe – a real scientist whose research is directly relevant, but only to the potential effects of climate change, not whether climate change itself is real or significant
There are more people on the list with “geography” qualifications than there are physicists. Among those not explicitly working for lobby groups, there are more people whose interest is in communication/history/philosophy than in science.
It’s not so much that they stacked the deck for one side or the other, which maybe they did but certainly not that blatantly, it’s that the conclusions of this panel are largely worthless on their terms.
If the BBC had really cared to get to the bottom of the matter, they would have had Hulme or Dorthe Dahl-Jensen duke it out with Professor Richard Lindzen. They would likely have arrived, not just at a “balance” of airtime for “competing views”, but something close to a real understanding of the issues: what is near-universally accepted among people who have any understanding of physics, what is not accepted, and where the uncertainties originate. That two or three person panel would give off far more light than this mess of averaging the opinion of a thousand blind Tibetans to find the length of the Emperor of China’s nose.
Why didn’t they? My view is not because they are biased against the skeptics, but because the BBC is staffed with humanities graduates who don’t understand what science is or how it works, and polling a room of powerful lobbyists is how truth really is determined in their world.
Wrong Richard North, Richard A North was the attendee and he is a warmist but even he though the meeting was one side.
The list states Richard D North and lists his affiliation as the Institute of Economic Affairs, a right wing think tank. Is the list incorrect?
So. It’s not only British Buggering Children. It is as well British Buggering Climate!
And the Balkanise Britain Campaign.
I’m totally and utterly disgusted that any one would question the settled science that German windmill manufacturers paid us to dictate to the BBC.
Mike Hulme, one of the 3 nominal “scientists” on the panel of 28 “leading scientists” notoriously once wrote a Guardian article denouncing Professor Fred Singer for doing science the old fashioned way, with evidence ,when his sort of “post normal science” which he said involved only finding what his paymasters wanted and saying it, is so much more lucrative.
Don’t believe anybody would be both corrupt enough to believe that and stupid enough to say it http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange
Whether the (other) 2 scientists on this panel of 28 “leading scientists” are actually scientists would depend partly on whether they have ever publicly claimed that they do real science and Hulme is a corrupt charlatan. I would take odds they are charlatans too.
BBC’s Countryfile program never misses a chance to mention climate change. “Sharks are coming into our seas because the water is warmer” Bullshit the poor bastards are starving as other seas are fished out.
“Tropical seaweed and plants are harming our natural species because the sea is getting warmer” Bullshit they hitch a ride on the hulls of ships.
did you research this as carefully as you researched the mcalpine thing?
Science is like a cherry tree, where politicians, governments & their journalists , just pick the bits they want, to advocate their cause.
The UN has a whole comittee for coordinating and overseeing it called the IPCC .