November 13th, 2012

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, AsRia

BBC attendees:
Jana Bennett, Director of Television
Sacha Baveystock, Executive Producer, Science
Helen Boaden, Director of News
Andrew Lane, Manager, Weather, TV News
Anne Gilchrist, Executive Editor Indies & Events, CBBC
Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning
Elizabeth McKay, Project Executive, Education
Emma Swain, Commissioning Editor, Specialist Factual
Fergal Keane, (Chair), Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Fran Unsworth, Head of Newsgathering
George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs
Glenwyn Benson, Controller, Factual TV
John Lynch, Creative Director, Specialist Factual
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
Jon Williams, TV Editor Newsgathering
Karen O’Connor, Editor, This World, Current Affairs
Catriona McKenzie, Tightrope Pictures
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“.


316 Comments

  1. 1
    Anonymous says:

    A chilling list, I’ll bet the bBBC get all hot and bothered over this being published.

    Like

    • 22
      this septic pile says:

      a fair sprinkling of the UKs ‘overhead’ costs

      Like

      • 55
        whio the fuck do they think they are? says:

        Overhead and underhand.

        Like

        • 59
          V1le Labour ruined my Country says:

          Well well well, and the BBC claim they are not biased, not much!

          Like

          • who the fuck do they think they are? says:

            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.

            Like

          • Lord McAlpine says:

            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

            Like

          • Witch Sniffer says:

            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?

            Like

      • 283
        Llareggub says:

        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).

        Like

        • 291
          Anonymous says:

          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.

          Like

        • 297
          tallbloke says:

          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…

          Like

        • 311
          harry m. says:

          @Llareggub – I am puzzled by this:

          why have they ignored water vapour and put bizarre statements like ‘most likely’ in there

          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?

          Like

    • 89
      Dung says:

      Appears to be a lot of hot air to me

      Like

    • 118
      Captn P says:

      My personal favorite

      Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy

      How appropriate.

      Like

    • 188
      Buster Gut says:

      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

      Like

      • 213
        Mike says:

        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.

        Like

    • 223
      Anonymous says:

      Makes the judge and tribunal look twats for denying Tony Newberry his FOI claim. Are they complicit in supporting this BBC propaganda?

      Like

    • 312
      Greg Lisping-Fuck Dyke says:

      Transparency is our watchword. Anyone who says otherwise is hideously white!!

      Like

  2. 2
    Old Holborn says:

    Claire Foster, Church of England
    WTF??

    Like

    • 5

      Church is very big on climate change. They love it. It’s the new religion, Doncha’ know

      Like

      • 67
        ÁC1 says:

        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.

        Like

        • 220
          Vested interests says:

          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.

          Like

      • 142
        Latimer Alder says:

        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

        Like

        • 194
          Mike Hogan says:

          Brilliant response, funny, very funny, but alarmingly close to the truth!

          Like

        • 248
          Keith AB says:

          Well said Latimer . . this whole thing is a disgrace.

          Like

        • 269
          Dodgy Geezer says:

          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.

          Like

    • 7
      Jim says:

      + 1,000,000

      Like

    • 28
      smo­ggie says:

      That’s Bishop Claire Foster innit?

      Like

    • 173
      Time 2 CTRL, ALT & DEL says:

      how about
      Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy ??
      perhaps more appropriate.

      Like

    • 224
      Rodger The Lodger says:

      Advisors on boat building

      Like

  3. 3
    Labourunionsbbc we are one says:

    A chilling list, I’ll bet the bBBC get all hot and bothered about this.

    Like

    • 171
      Latimer Alder says:

      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.

      Like

    • 215
      Great Granddad says:

      Documented conspiracy to defraud. Hot and bothered would be the understatement of all time if my name was on that list.

      Like

  4. 4
    Whippersnapper2 says:

    Jon Plowman ….head of COMEDY ?????????????????????????

    Like

    • 14
      JH3 says:

      Ironically, the most appropriate person to have there. This is beyond satire.

      Like

    • 47
      Biased Broadcasting Corporation says:

      Head of Comedy, Head of Drama Commissioning, Head of Children’s BBC…

      Do you get the idea?

      Like

      • 72
        ÁC1 says:

        It was designed to push the narrative in EVERYTHING you see.

        Sort of like a marxist version of product placement.

        Like

      • 74
        JH3 says:

        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.

        Like

      • 102
        I Remember You Hoo says:

        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.

        Like

  5. 6
    Simon says:

    What, you wanted some flat earthers on the list as well did you? And still flogging the “climate gate” dead horse, I see.

    Like

    • 24
      John Adlington says:

      No, you’re right. Climategate is over now dead and buried with the reputations of everyone at the CRU.

      Like

      • 293
        Anonymous says:

        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

        Like

        • 305
          one born every minute says:

          How sweet. Did they give you a lollipop?

          Don’t be so naive.

          Like

        • 309
          Jolly farmer says:

          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

          Like

    • 33
      smo­ggie says:

      He just wanted to see the list not to compile it.

      Like

    • 38
      Another Engineer says:

      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.

      Like

      • 57
        Biased Broadcasting Corporation says:

        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…

        Like

    • 75
      Mr Fish says:

      “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.

      Like

      • 82
        ÁC1 says:

        There’s a lot of economic creationists (people who don’t believe in economic natural selection) in that list.

        Like

      • 99
        JH3 says:

        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.

        Like

        • 183
          I Remember You Hoo says:

          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.

          Like

        • 218
          jeremyp99 says:

          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.

          Like

  6. 8
    Sandalista says:

    Nothing to see here. Water under the bridge etc. Time to move on etc.

    Like

  7. 9
    DaveA says:

    I bet Fergal Keane had them in tears.

    Like

  8. 10
    NotaSheep says:

    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’.

    Like

    • 53
      Denier says:

      We’re not, we’re not.

      Like

      • 120
        Deep Froat says:

        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.

        Like

    • 225
      Rodger The Lodger says:

      Science is NEVER settled. Even Einstein’s theories are being challenged.

      Like

      • 239
        Deep Froat says:

        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……..

        Like

  9. 11
    JH3 says:

    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’.

    Like

  10. 12
    Black Cab says:

    Goog to see that the BBC Head of Comedy was there.

    Like

  11. 13
    Lilith says:

    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].”

    Like

    • 140
      The Vatican says:

      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.

      Like

  12. 15
    Cato says:

    Excellent!!

    Like

  13. 16
    Black Cab says:

    d

    Like

  14. 17
    Bilbao Bill says:

    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?

    Like

  15. 18
    pperrin says:

    Great work by Maurizio Morabito (omnologos).

    But do remember that Hardcore AGW’ers don’t accept that ‘Climategate’ disproved anything.

    Like

  16. 19
    suissebob says:

    A brilliant week for the BBC :-)

    Like

  17. 21
    The Hon. Comrade Loretto Fettes MP (Rottenborough East) says:

    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.)

    Like

    • 34
      George Entwistle says:

      I have been informed that I was present at the meeting.

      Like

    • 36

      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?

      Like

    • 42
      Gormless George says:

      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.

      Like

    • 54
      smo­ggie says:

      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.

      Like

    • 87
      Sir William W says:

      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.

      Like

      • 156
        1984 says:

        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.

        Like

      • 281

        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.

        Like

        • 307
          left shoe factory worker says:

          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.

          Like

  18. 22
    Dr Livingstone says:

    WTF. Seeking the CoE ‘s moral guidance!

    Like

  19. 25
    towerofbabble says:

    At least Monbiot’s not on the list….

    Like

  20. 27
    Steve Miliband says:

    ”….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.

    Like

    • 70
      who the fuck do they think they are? says:

      To report the actual scientific facts as they unfold just proved too much for their tiny lefty brains.

      Like

  21. 29
    Max By Graves says:

    Why the hell are the Curch of England there?

    Like

  22. 30
    this septic pile says:

    who was representing islam?

    Like

  23. 31
    Another Engineer says:

    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.

    Like

  24. 42
    this septic pile says:

    and where was David Icke?

    Like

  25. 44
    Sophie says:

    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?

    Like

  26. 45
  27. 49

    Head of Comedy is weird enough but Executive Editor Indies & Events, CBBC? That’s downright scary.

    Like

    • 180
      Sceptical steve says:

      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!

      Like

  28. 50
    Harbottle says:

    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.

    Like

    • 64
      1984 says:

      Be careful what you wish for. They might build a death camp like that one in Staffs.

      Like

    • 104
      Massive big circle wank says:

      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.

      Like

      • 181
        JH3 says:

        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.

        Like

  29. 51
    Anoneumouse says:

    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?

    Like

  30. 52
    Stepney says:

    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.

    Like

    • 116
      To Be Fair says:

      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.

      Like

    • 124
      Omnifuckingshambles doesnt begin to describe it says:

      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.

      Like

    • 137
      Engineer says:

      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.

      Like

  31. 56
    Anon E Mouse says:

    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.’

    Like

  32. 58
    Lord Chief Justice and All That says:

    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…

    Like

    • 133
      Gareth Peirces sparkling personality and winning smile says:

      The people of this country can sleep well in their beds as a result of the legal precedents we set.

      Like

  33. 60
    1984 says:

    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.

    Like

    • 165
      Labourunionsbbc we are one says:

      BP have been in on the green wheez for years, why do you think they changed their logo to a green dasiy.

      Like

  34. 61

    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?”

    Like

  35. 62
    Anonymous says:

    Can we get a hold of the minutes to see if Jimmy Savile sent his apologies due to a previous engagement?

    Like

  36. 65
    None of the above says:

    I see no mention of this leak across any of the BBC wide range of output !

    How odd

    Like

  37. 66
    Sally of the alley says:

    The list is trending

    Like

  38. 78
    Malcolm Redfellow says:

    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.

    Like

    • 93
      Mrs Ed Milli-Bandwagon says:

      I will lead another investigation

      At £10,000 per day if you please

      I know all about the environment

      Like

    • 95
      1984 says:

      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.

      Like

      • 167
        Doom! says:

        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.

        Like

        • 195
          1984 says:

          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.

          Like

        • 209
          bergen says:

          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.

          Like

        • 210
          Cherry picker says:

          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.

          Like

          • Malcolm Redfellow says:

            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.

            Like

          • Henry Galt says:

            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

            Like

          • Malcolm Redfellow says:

            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.

            Like

          • AbleTheSpaceMonkey says:

            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/

            Like

        • 211
          UKIPForme says:

          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).

          Like

          • Malcolm Redfellow says:

            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

            Like

          • Anonymous says:

            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

            Like

        • 277
          Henry Galt says:

          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….

          Like

    • 125
      Mornington Crescent says:

      Ah, I see: it’s in Wikipedia, so it must be right.

      Like

      • 134
        Philip Schofield says:

        He probably spent three minutes on the internet verifying it.

        Like

      • 168
        Fuckwit says:

        And it being in Wikipedia automatically makes it wrong?

        Like

        • 214
          Southern Scouser says:

          Well, I have always found that Wikipedia says just what I want it to, especially when I have just changed it.

          Like

          • Backs2thewall says:

            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.

            Like

    • 273
      Henry Galt says:

      “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.

      Like

    • 275
      Henry Galt says:

      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.

      Like

  39. 83
    Gordon Brown says:

    This was always my truck with the BBC. Pushing this agenda down every channel of the broadcaster. Rather than concentrating on Tractor statistics.

    Like

  40. 84
    Mr Humphries says:

    I’m free…

    Like

  41. 88

    worth mentioning who was NOT there, which makes BBC’s claim of best scientifc experts’ particularly untenable.

    The Met Office/Hadley Centre were NOT at ANY of the seminars.

    And the BBC’s position wa sthat the public and these Met offcie scientsits were NOT allowed to see if the science was represented accurately. Stop Climate Chaos, Tearfund, Greenpeace!!

    But NO Met Office..

    Like

  42. 91
    anon. says:

    Like

  43. 96
    EdButLookBalls says:

    Why doesn’t the BBC save time and publish the list of who wasn’t there FFS!

    Like

  44. 103
    Incapable Vince says:

    That looks like a rogue poll: how can we possibly have as much as 10% ?

    Like

  45. 106
    Percy says:

    29 from the BBC Bloody – hell bet Sky only have 5 in total…………..what a waste of our licence tax monies.

    Like

  46. 107
    Mr Jay, Mrd Ed's boss says:

    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…

    Like

  47. 109
    Turd says:

    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

    Like

  48. 110
    Rob says:

    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.

    Like

  49. 111
    genghiz the kahn says:

    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.

    Like

  50. 113
    Leo Brittanica says:

    Well bugger me!

    Like

  51. 114
    Gonk III says:

    Combined annual salaries, almost a billion.

    Like

  52. 115

    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!

    Like

    • 153
      Johnny says says:

      Although that is a brilliant idea they wouldn’t dare repeat the Olympics for fear of damaging dvd and blu-ray sales.

      Like

  53. 117
    James says:

    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.

    Like

  54. 119
    Quentin Cooper not. says:

    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.

    Like

  55. 121
    Rob says:

    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.

    Like

    • 131
      1984 says:

      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’.

      Like

  56. 123
    the Directorator General says:

    some of you may be wondering why i asked you to come here today……

    Like

  57. 132
    Bono says:

    Why did David Cameron fall for this “the science is settled” scam?

    Like

  58. 135
    I don't ne ed no doctor says:

    The BBC should be split up, NOW!

    Like

  59. 138
    AGM-agnostic != climate-denier says:

    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?

    Like

    • 176
      Rob says:

      “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.

      Like

  60. 144
    I don't ne ed no doctor says:

    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.

    Like

  61. 145
    credit where its due says:

    Come on Guido, give a nod to Tony Newbery

    Like

  62. 146
    Anonymous says:

    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.

    Like

  63. 147
    BBC Pornographic Workshop says:

    The Beeb must be broken up.

    Next time Cam, don’t put a limp dick like Jeremy Hunt in charge.

    Fucking idiot.

    Like

  64. 148
    None of the above says:

    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

    Like

  65. 151
    Woolsack says:

    Does anyone know who was at the equivalent political policy meeting? I do hope there were no nasty Tories at that?

    Like

  66. 154
  67. 157
    murduck says:

    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.

    Like

  68. 158
    Gras Albert says:

    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!

    Like

  69. 160
    openside50 says:

    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

    Like

  70. 166
    this septic pile says:

    who was representing charles the turd?

    Like

  71. 170
    Backs2thewall says:

    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.

    Like

    • 234
      Orwellian says:

      Yep, and it used to be called agitprop.

      Like

      • 236
        Orwellian says:

        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.

        Like

  72. 174
    USA! USA! USA! says:

    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!

    Like

    • 191
      JH3 says:

      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.

      Like

      • 196
        Buster Gut says:

        oh dear I remember teaching that stuff…

        Like

      • 198
        Latimer Alder says:

        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.

        Like

        • 250
          80's Pre Teen says:

          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.

          Like

    • 290
      AbleTheSpaceMonkey says:

      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.

      Like

  73. 182
    librarian says:

    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.

    Like

  74. 185
    Isaac Huntoo says:

    Jon Plowman – Head of ‘Comedy’. Ha fucking ha!

    Like

  75. 186
    Time 2 CTRL, ALT & DEL says:

    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.

    Like

  76. 190
    Francois Francois says:

    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.

    Like

  77. 199
    jeremyp99 says:

    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.

    Like

  78. 203
    Nigel says:

    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.

    Like

    • 301
      AbleTheSpaceMonkey says:

      nonentities seeking to rise to the top in a vat of slugs or somesuch
      Thats no way to refer to the mother of Parliaments!

      Like

  79. 204
    Deep Froat says:

    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.

    Like

  80. 205
    George says:

    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.

    Like

  81. 207
  82. 208
    Self Interest. says:

    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.

    Like

  83. 212
    Scrap the Licence fee says:

    Next time you here some bbc wanker droning about freedom of the press, shout this in their lefty hypocritical face.

    Like

  84. 219
    Dodgy Geezer says:

    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?

    Like

    • 232
      Anonymous says:

      Excellent points that NEED persuing.

      Like

    • 237
      Biased Broadcasting Corporation says:

      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?

      Like

      • 262
        Dodgy Geezer says:

        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…

        Like

    • 267
      An atomic bomb? that's dynamite! says:

      If this story can be made to stick, the Beeb will be holed beneath the waterline.

      Like

      • 279
        Anonymous says:

        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.

        Like

  85. 221
    NE Frontiersman says:

    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?

    Like

    • 228
      Dodgy Geezer says:

      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…

      Like

  86. 226
    jheath says:

    Hulme – scientist, but also Labour Party member if I remember rightly

    Like

  87. 227
    Helen Boaden says:

    That bloody internet.

    Like

  88. 230
    dunstall says:

    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

    Like

  89. 231
    Anonymous says:

    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.”

    Like

  90. 235
    K says:

    Surprised not to see ‘Winston Smith’ on that list…

    Like

  91. 240
    Sue Doughty says:

    Unbelievable that they got away with that! I demand a judicial enquiry.

    Like

  92. 241
    Young Mr Grace says:

    You’ve all done very well.

    Like

  93. 242
    1984 says:

    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?

    Like

  94. 243
    JM Evans says:

    Good to see that the Beeb kept its sense of proportion an found space for their “head of comedy”!

    Like

  95. 245
    Jeff P says:

    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:

    Like

  96. 247
    Anonymous says:

    Thank God for the likes of Maurizio Morabito. Well done, whoever you might be, and thank you.

    Like

  97. 253
    Mark says:

    BIG YAWN…BP and Npower in the room to push back on Greenpeace. Are you guys looking at the same list I am??

    Like

    • 258
      Another Engineer says:

      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.

      Like

    • 259
      Windscammer says:

      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.

      Like

  98. 254
    John Terry says:

    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

    Like

  99. 256
    Norris Stampton says:

    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.

    Like

  100. 260
    Dodgy Geezer says:

    @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….

    Like

    • 274
      Its bleedin obvious says:

      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 !

      Like

  101. 264
    Timmy Tour says:

    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

    Like

  102. 268
    keredybretsa says:

    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.

    Like

  103. 276
    Sam says:

    What about dave,s texts to carrot top and coulson,it will not go away.

    Like

  104. 280
    It ain't half tepid mum says:

    This is the worst blog on climategate since climategate blog records began.

    Like

  105. 284
    BBCgoogle says:

    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?

    Like

  106. 285
    Heeleen Bawdy says:

    I am laughing my way to the bank.

    Like

  107. 286
    Anonymous says:

    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.

    Like

  108. 287
    George Moniallgoingtohislordshuo says:

    It was the global warming loons Wannsee conference.

    Like

  109. 288
    Anonymous says:

    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.

    Like

    • 300
      Cherry Picker says:

      Wrong Richard North, Richard A North was the attendee and he is a warmist but even he though the meeting was one side.

      Like

      • 310
        Anonymous says:

        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?

        Like

  110. 295
    It is I only says:

    So. It’s not only British Buggering Children. It is as well British Buggering Climate!

    Like

  111. 296
    Kinnochio says:

    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.

    Like

  112. 304
    neilfutureboy says:

    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.

    Like

  113. 313
    Geordieboy says:

    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.

    Like

  114. 315
    anonzoos says:

    did you research this as carefully as you researched the mcalpine thing?

    Like

  115. 316
    Joe V. says:

    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 .

    Like


Seen Elsewhere

The Douglas Carswell Shock | Tim Stanley
Carswell is a True Moderniser | Charles Moore
Assembling a New World Order | Henry Kissinger
India’s Modi Bypasses Mainstream Media | Index
Bercow on the Knife Edge | Quentin Letts
Welcome to Mississippi | Conservative Women
LibDems Select Hancock Replacement | Blue Guerilla
Carswell Resigning: “Moment Labour Won Election” | Labour Uncut
Why We Need Change | Douglas Carswell
The Howard Roark of Westminster | Guardian
Carswell, the Clacton Cassandra | James Ford


VOTER-RECALL
Get the book Find out more about PLMR


Douglas Carswell…

“I stab people in the front, not the back.”



Owen Jones says:

We also need Zil lanes.


Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:






RSS




AddThis Feed Button
Archive


Labels
Guido Reads
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,437 other followers