Coffee House

Revealed: who decides the BBC’s climate change policy

13 November 2012

Just when you thought the BBC had no more scandals, Guido Fawkes has revealed what the Beeb tried very hard to cover up: the 28 mysterious individuals who have been informing its climate change reporting policy. As a state-funded broadcaster, the BBC has a duty to provide balance. It rejected this on its environmental coverage after taking advice from people in a now-infamous 2006 seminar from people whose identity the BBC was keen to keep secret.

I wrote on Sunday how it had refused FoI requests to reveal those names. But Maurizio Morabito has revealed a list which the BBC cannot describe as a bunch of dispassionate scientists: it’s a veritable who’s who of the green lobby:

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,
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
Claire Foster, Church of England
Saleemul Huq, IIED
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

Claim your gift

Handpicking this selected group to decide an important policy is certainly not the best way to provide balanced reporting. Had the BBC decided any other major editorial matter on the advice of special interest groups, there would have been outrage because it is the very opposite of what public sector broadcasting ought to be about.

Remember, the BBC had claimed to have “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. So now we know the names of these “best scientific experts”, the remaining question is: why did the BBC feel it was so important to cover the identities up? Their official explanation — protecting journalistic sources — simply does not stand up.

Give the perfect gift this Christmas. Buy a subscription for a friend for just £75 and you’ll receive a free gift too. Buy now.

Show comments
  • Hexhamgeezer

    Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation?

    I gave up after seeing that idiot and organisation.

    Should not be allowed to open mouth outwith polytechnic campuses

  • Gold Bug

    The Beeb is a political organisation that is funded by tax obtained by misrepresentation. That should be illegal. Shut it down.

  • Captain Mainwaring

    “Don’t tell him your name, Pike”

  • Sarah

    The list includes scientists, environmentalists, economists, politicians, research developers, lobbyists, academics, broadcasters. It might be unfortunate that they all believe in man-made climate change (one assumes), or it might be inevitable. Who else would you like to have been at their seminar? Specifically.

    • Latimer Alder


      Who should have been at their seminar?


      Why does the BBC – a news reporting organisation – need to have a ‘policy’ on this topic at all? Its job is o report, not persuade or propagandise. There are plenty already to do that..and you mentioned a few.. environmentalists, lobbyists, politicians and quite a few ‘scientists’

      If the BBC overstep the line into allying with one side of the debate, then they are influencing it, not reporting it.

      • sarah

        It’s job is not just to report, it’s job is to interpret and to inform. If you just want reports, just read the scientific reports.

        • Latimer Alder


          ‘interpret and inform’ is not the same as ‘influence’.

          Why on earth should an organisation need a ‘policy’ if all it is planning to do is ‘interpret and inform’?

          It only needs a policy if it wants to influence.

  • Olaf

    I’d also be interested in who authorised spending $£$ on fighting the release of information which was already in the public domain.

    • Manfred

      Nice point. Pursue it!

  • Matthew Whitehouse

    The BBC is not respected as it once was. This, the climate debate scandal is just the latest in what has shown the BBC for what it is. It’s always the biggest issues aswell. Do you remember the BBC on 9/11 saying WTC building No7 had fallen, whilst it was still standing behind her? They are NOT impartial, they are the BBC, just another organisation that thinks we all believe everything they report. BUT, what will be done? The BBC say these people are scientists, and they’re not – see?!? All they have to do is say it!!!

  • Lawrence Roper

    Make the BBC ‘pay per view’ and scrap the licence fee. Then the idiots who think it’s so wonderful can pay for it themselves. I doubt it would see the first month out.

  • dodgy

    Umm…. the real story here is NOT global warming. It is BBC lying.

    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. But they had NOT undertaken this consideration. So 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’ committee who had provided this policy advice. There had been NO minutes – odd, for such a fundamental policy decision, but perfectly understandable for an ‘awareness seminar’ – which is what this was.

    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 for the benefit of internal BBC staff. The one thing it was NOT was a senior scientific policy-making committee. And trying to hide this set of lies has cost the BBC a lot of money and face.

    I wonder whether charges of perjury are in order?

    • Baron

      If the BBC “could consider itself to be a private organisation” …. how could they justify the licence fee. Has this anomaly crossed any legal mind defending the Empire?

  • David Ossitt

    How do I sign in?

  • John

    There is a huge amount of ‘BBC are Trotskyites’ ranting here. They really aren’t. Liberal compared to many a Spectator subscriber, to be sure, but hardly out and out socialist (or communist, for that matter!).

    The climate debate is similar. I’m afraid, whether the readers of this website like it or not, concern over anthropogenic climate change and belief in renewables as part of the answer has become mainstream. Climate change was broadly accepted amongst much of the scientific community 25 years ago, and we’re approaching total consensus currently. Not quite total, but nearly. Again, we’re talking about a centrist position here. And the vast majority of the young, and a majority of the population at large, support green policies as a result. This isn’t a Marxist conspiracy. The world isn’t ganging up on rural England. It just happens to be where the weight of evidence is leading us.

    Balance doesn’t mean arguing the middle ground no matter what the alternatives. If that were the case, we’d spend all our time debating with Creationists in the name of balance, and listening to the Communist Party on Newsnight in the belief that they offered a credible alternative.

    • Cassandra1963

      Your post indicates what you have fooled yourself into believing is the truth, your position is pure BBC self justification. Just because a partisan viewpoint is packaged and sold as mainstream consensus does not mean it is a universally accepted consensus, in fact the BBC were leading partners in creating and them propagating the myth of consensus. The CAGW fraud needed a clear playing field free from anyone who could present contrary evidence or who required real evidence based scientific proof. The CAGW fraud needed and largely got the required information vacuum in which to present a falsified consensus but failed to consider the impact of the new media.

      This fraud was a central part of the plan to deny scepticism and unbelievers, a quite deliberate policy to block any organisation or expert from gaining access to a public platform. Yours is the mindset of the bigot who cannot tolerate dissent or dissection of the theology, the mindset that sought to exclude and deride and smear dissidents and sceptics from the start because they were seen quite correctly as the major threat to the theology being peddled. Doubt was to be ruthlessly suppressed, contrary evidence was to be ignored or methodically erased. You are in fact attempting to persuade yourself, the time that others listened to your justifications has passed, the inevitable failure of the CAGW fraud and the outing of those who worked so hard to peddle it is fast approaching, deal with it or get drowned by it, your choice.

      • John

        Wow. Quite a rant there. No. I have never relied on the BBC for my information on climate change. I prefer to rely on raw data and scientific journals. You can cry ‘conspiracy’ as much as you like but I am no bigot, nor do I approach this subject with your zealous emotionalism – I am receptive to all arguments regarding the interpretation of climate data. I merely prefer to adopt those of greater merit and possessed of better evidence. You can call it a ‘theology’ if you like. I’d prefer to call it ‘science’. I will revise my opinion if the evidence starts to push me that way. Would you?

        • Cassandra1963

          Where is the evidence that is not based wholly or in the greater part on models and computer simulations? In fact the selling of flawed modelling has been a major and defining factor in the CAGW fraud. Computer models can deliver any result desired, they can be rigged to paint a false picture of the future and do not need observational evidence, they can paint a false picture of sea level rises or temperature increases deep into the future which are then peddled as fact. Raw data? In the CAGW fraud raw data is anathema to everything the CAGW fraud stands for. You want evidence? Look at the reality of sea levels now coming to light, look at the last fifteen years of global average temperatures. You dont like being challenged, get used to it comrade a tsunami of it is coming your way.

          • John

            ‘Comrade’?! What on earth are you talking about?

            Yes, scientists use computers. Sometimes they also use calculators. I think they used to use slide rules. Amazing, isn’t it.

            And, yes you can come up with bits of at-odds evidence against anthropogenic climate change. The same can be said of Darwin’s work, but generally-speaking his theory seems correct.

            But why the conspiracy theory and victimhood? Scientists the world over aren’t all arrayed against you on a fundamentalist mission of irrational spite to prove anthropogenic climate change at all costs for no reason – it just so happens that the weight of evidence points to a particular set of conclusions. That’s all. New evidence may emerge. Conclusions may change. I’m not holding my breath, however.

            • Rhoda Klapp

              John, nobody on the sceptic side would disagree that we need to weigh the evidence. What we do not need is people on the policy or media side deciding the debate is over and that any new evidence need not be discussed. Sceptics do not need or want to win the argument here. They just don’t want the BBC – not in Trotskyite mode but in its usual auntie-knows-best attitude, to decide that the arguments should never be presented. If the AGW folks are right, they’ll win, won’t they?

            • Cassandra1963

              “Yes, scientists use computers. Sometimes they also use calculators. I think they used to use slide rules. Amazing, isn’t it.”

              Yes John its amazing, but real scientists do not base the entirety of their theories on model simulations, what real scientists do is start by theorising and then look to observed and measurable reality to authenticate their theories. Real scientists stick to age old principles of encouraging others to duplicate and falsify their research in order to find the truth of the theory and whether it stands up to those tests by freely disseminating their data and findings and methodologies.
              Computer simulations and model runs are an essential ingredient in science but they must never be used as proof conclusive, they are an ingredient and not the product itself. it would be like making a cake using just the egg.

              • John

                No one is basing any broad conclusion solely on computer models in the absence of empirical data. Climate modelling is fiendishly complex – there is no way to model things without a computer. Empirical evidence is used as inputs, of course, but more often than not, you’re trying to project a future (or back-project a future from older evidence, comparing with current observations). I think to talk about ‘real scientists’ is bizarre – there is nothing invalid about a computer model per se. And people’s insistence on wide-ranging falsification and conspiracy smacks of paranoia. You just take the conclusions of each paper/bit of research on its own terms. You can’t make a cake without using an egg, sure, but if you can build a decent computer model for cake-making, you can at least do some initial computer runs of recipes! But – before anyone else says it – the proof is … ho ho ho. Am I insane, or is the above not a perfectly reasonable approach to the whole issue?!

                • Baron

                  Nobody much disagrees that roughly between the times of the Normans coming over and now, there have been three noticeable and large movements in the temperature of the Northern hemisphere, two of which show no correlative relationship with CO2 density whatever.

                  Baron has said it before, mechanism or mechanisms other than the one promoted by the AGW fanatics are much more likely to be at play here.

                  More to the point, since human activity contributes at max only some 4% to the global aggregate discharge of the useful gas compound, hence even a mass suicide of the 7bn who walk this planet would cut the release but marginally, the best way to face up to the gradual warming is not to try and stop it, but to adapt to it.

                • John

                  Plotting the relationship between warming and CO2 levels is not simply a case of two variables – it’s a fair bit more complicated of course. But it doesn’t take a fanatic to conclude that CO2 levels (and other by-products of certain human activities) seem to be leading to a worrying trend of average warming. This might not have been such a big problem – it’s been warmer; it’s been colder; CO2 levels have been higher; they’ve been lower – but the speed at which it’s happening is unprecedented.

                  It is true that the total human release is swamped by many other natural processes. The problem is a change in rate, however. If I run a bath slower than the water can flow out of the overflow, I won’t ever end up with a flooded bathroom, but the moment inflow exceeds outflow, you start on a road to rather tiresome results. And I just simply don’t buy the adaptation theory – this is fine for us, but from a biological point of view, we are currently experiencing one of the most rapid mass-extinctions in earth’s history. On balance, I’m less than happy with inertia in the face of this.

                  If I can bring this discussion to a mildly reconciliatory – if pretty unhelpful – conclusion, I think we’re all finding ourselves with different opinions on the values of a Pascal’s wager.

                • Latimer Alder

                  ‘from a biological point of view, we are currently experiencing one of the most rapid mass-extinctions in earth’s history’

                  Got any reliable evidence for

                  a. this happening at all? and
                  b. If so, that it has anything to do with ‘global warming’?

                  Please summarise the main points and where we can look for further info.

                • John

                  A) surely isn’t a contentious topic, whatever people’s opinions on climate change. If you want figures on threatened species, the IUCN Red List is not a bad place to start, and is updated fairly regularly. It makes for fairly sickeningly depressing reading. The reasons for this relate to a number of factors – some not CC-related, direct effects like habitat encroachment and pesticide usage, especially when combined with the effects of island biogeography and negative trophic cascades; and then some certainly CC-related – where ocean acidification and desertification are a factor, for example. Some are a combination of all these, as with the shocking current rate of extinction amongst amphibians. The rates of loss during previous extinction events is of course fairly uncertain, but even as an approximation, these took tens of thousands (and in some cases millions) of years to work themselves through – not a few decades!

                • Latimer Alder

                  You stated that

                  ‘we are currently experiencing one of the most rapid mass extiinctions in earth’s history’.

                  And you refer me to a list of ‘threatened’ species. Which is fine and dandy.

                  But it doesn’t seem to give any statistics about a rate of species extinctions, nor any statistical comparison with past history.

                  So the evidence you so excitedly present actually boils down to

                  ‘there is a list of threatened species’.

                  You have presented nothing to justify the alarming phrase ‘most rapid extinctions in earth’s history. Which was why I asked you to justify your assertion.

                • John

                  So I presume that in the absence of extinction statistics, you’d happy just for more and more species to become critically endangered? The Red List does include ‘extinct’ and ‘possibly’ categories in any case – although you’re only dealing with a small number of ‘charismatic’ species on the list (The lists are more concerned with tigers, etc. than small insects). Anyway, check it out – it makes concerning reading.

                  The modelled extinction rate (upper end) is well over 100,000 species per year. This actually matches what you’d expect from the IUCN extinct lists, but ‘modelled’, because we haven’t catalogued countless species and very often you’re talking about endemic species that can easily be wiped out by localised events – a factor of island biogeography that is increasingly becoming important for species with previously wider ranges – and the actual fact of extinction doesn’t get noticed for a while. Think butterfly populations on the South Downs, for example.

                  Estimates as to what all this means range – up to a quarter of all species within the next few decades, a fifth of invertebrates in the same timeframe, and a half of larger ‘charismatic’ species by the end of the century.

                  I am usually not hugely welcome in these chat forums, I know – I usually hit a torrent of aggressive replies. But if you want detailed debate and analysis, subscribe to the leading journals in the area – Science or Nature, for example – or head to the local library. I suspect that many people here who are crying ‘conspiracy’ may find a more reasoned and balanced debate than they at first expect.

                • Latimer Alder

                  ‘in the absence of extinction statistics’

                  your claim that

                  ‘we are currently experiencing one of the most rapid mass extinctions in earth’s history’

                  is just hot air.

                  And if your very first remark is so easily shown to be based on nothing at all, why should we bother to read the rest?

                  BTW numbers that are ‘modelled’ or ‘estimated’ are fine…but until they are verified by experiment/observation, then they are no more than that. And AFAICR, no model of any sort that has ever touched on ‘ecological matters’ has ever been verified at all.

                  The cynic – or one whose science was based on a very experimental science like chemistry – or both, might wonder why supposed ‘scientists’ seem to be happy to have missed out this essential step of the scientific method. It goes from attention grabbing headline estimate to seemingly gospel truth without touching the sides. Fail.

                  PS your strawman argument

                  ‘ in the absence of extinction statistics, you’d happy just for more and more species to become critically endangered?’

                  is unworthy of a debate among rational adults.

                  If you want to conceal your lack of substantive evidence by an appeal to rampant emotionalism, feel free. But ‘will nobody think of the children’ is the usual line that people take to do so.

                • John

                  I’m sorry for airing subjects that you find so threatening. But if we could step out of the playground for a moment, all I ask is that people be open to the impressive, and concerning, body of evidence relating to human interaction with the planet and its ecology. This is not ‘rampant emotionalism’ as you put it, but solid rationalism. It is indeed the kind of approach that you yourself are suggesting, albeit emotionally.

                • Latimer Alder

                  You are doing it again – including an emotional response to divert attention from your lack of evidence.

                  FYI I don’t find such discussions at all threatening. I just find them pretty much vapourware. A lot of handwaving, wailing and rending of raiment. Along with gloomy prognostications that we’re all doomed worthy of Pte Frazer. But no actual science to back them up.

                  You started this little discussion by making a sweeping assertion that has been shown to be without any foundation whatsoever. And none of your subsequent writings have shown any greater attachment to evidence than your first.

                  If you truly believe that there is an ‘impressive and concerning body of evidence’ – please lead us to it. But a threatened species list does not a mass extinction event make.

                • John

                  You want me to present all the evidence regarding climate change and current species loss in a post of a hundred+ words?! Sorry, no. Get yourself to a library; use the internet; and subscribe to the relevant journals. I’ll do my work. You do yours. Over and out.

                • Latimer Alder

                  Thanks for that.

                  When you get to that point, it is clear that you have only the vaguest idea of what you are talking about.

                  Seems to me that you haven’t studied the topic in depth at all. You’ve heard of an alarmist talking point and regurgitated it parrot fashion and without any critical analysis on your behalf. And when challenged to demonstrate its truth, you prevaricate,, turn to emotionalism as a smokescreen and eventually cave in.

                  Suggest that your interventions here and elsewhere would be more effective if you didn’t start them with indefensible alarmist ‘memes’ that are so easy to puncture.

                • Latimer Alder

                  H’mm – my earlier reply seems to have gone astray. Repeating the essence

                  It seems that you have no evidence at all to present if you cannot summarise the key points in 1000 (not 100) words. You started with a vague reference to a threatened species list, and have not improved on that with anything concrete.

                  I’m going to make a guess that you just read some alarmist propaganda and swallowed it without much rational thought. But when challenged you can do little better than prevaricate, appeal to emotionalism and then lamely give up.

                  ‘I’m not here to do your homework – Google it’ – or close relations of that phrase – are as surefire a marker of a contributor out of their depth as is ‘will no one think of the children’.

                  Suggest that before making sweeping assertions, you carefully consider what evidence that you have for them. Snappy phrases with nothing to back them up are soon exposed as no more than vapourware.

                • HooksLaw

                  Nothing unprecedented at all. Indeed even prof Jones has admitted that its no warmer now than in 1995.

                  The whole basis of your argument is flawed. Indeed scientific research shpows that CO2 levels rise following a rise in temperature, they do not cause it.
                  There is no proven correlation that says current rises in CO2 are the result of man’s activities. CO2 has been much much higher id the distant past and there is no evidence to suggest that 350 ppm is the normal level.
                  And of course water vapour constitutes 90% of GHGs and of course the effect of CO2 is not exponential. Adding more CO2 does not have a direct proportionate effect on its activities as a green house gas


                • Cassandra1963

                  “No one is basing any broad conclusion solely on computer models in the absence of empirical data”

                  Oh yes they are John, look at the last three IPCC reports, you will find model runs loaded with different predictions/wild guesses, they all start with a cherry picked start line and they all go on to extrapolate trend lines based on supposition of when a supposed hockey stick acceleration will occur. Its why all the models have been proven wrong and have had to be continually adjusted to push back the hockey stick doomsday. And no, any decent scientist would welcome the duplication or falsification of her/his work, its what science is all about, those that pass this harsh selection regime are proven while those that dont fail.

                • HooksLaw

                  Plus of course there is the recent study of surface temperature recoding stations which are show to be mainly hopelessly compromised by their siting.

                  On top if which we have cherry picking inclusions and exclusions of this very data by the very scientists who need to perpetuate theior own myth.
                  In short the data is compromised and unreliable. I think I am right in saying that satellite data does not conform ground stations.

                  PS one of the biggest scientific rows in history came about when Robert Hooke questioned the optical work of Isaac Newton. Subsequently Newton got his revenge over Hooke by writing him out of history when he died.
                  The notion that scientists are the pure and unfettered guardians of some inalienable truth is fanciful. Many scientists buy their very nature must be as tortured and twisted as Newton

    • eeore

      You are proving the point. The BBC should be airing the views of communists and creationists – to use your examples – how else are people to have an opinion on what is the ‘middle ground’?

  • james c

    Dreadful that the BBC should listen to scientists.

    • eeore

      Just like Watergate, it’s not the lying but the cover up that is damaging.

    • HooksLaw

      The point is that most were not scientists and the list of those that were was cherry picked.

  • JohnB

    Why would anyone expect the BBC or anyone else to be neutral between the view of 99% of scientific opinion and the view of a few ignorant conspiracy theorists and corporate lobbyists? There is no intellectual debate on climate change – it is settled, it’s happening – get used to it.

    • Swiss Bob

      99% now! You can’t even get the rigged survey’s numbers right so your comment doesn’t do you much credit, it just makes you look like a moron.

      • eeore

        Probably thinks it’s Philadelphia….

    • Richard

      We can’t just get used to it; it’s too troubling for that, and it does raise serious questions about the respect due to expertise. When people like Al Gore and me who respect the science and profess to take the threat seriously have difficulty in reducing our carbon footprints, you can see why others have difficulty in believing the scientists. Nobody – or virtually nobody – BEHAVES as if they take this threat seriously, yet the experts, the only people able to make any sort of judgement, are telling us it’s serious. That’s the real problem, not the yah boo ad hominem stuff flying in both directions here.

      • Swiss Bob

        When people like Al Gore and me who respect the science

        Richard, another Nobel laureate?

        Do I need to point out what a load of crap his movie was and that he’s bought a multi-million dollar seafront mansion?

        • Richard

          I was being a little self-mocking, and I was also conceding the point that even people who care have difficulty in behaving as if they care. That’s the curse of this problem.

          • Latimer Alder

            Would you care to lay out for our benefit all the steps that you have personally taken to alleviate the dreadful threat you see before us?
            Do you walk the walk – or (like Gore) just talk the talk?

            • Richard

              I largely just talk the talk, but occasionally take a few faltering steps.

          • Swiss Bob

            “I was being a little self-mocking”

            Credit for that.

            In actual fact I have the smallest carbon footprint of anyone I know. How’s about that then?

      • eeore

        Is that why Al Gore bought a house by the sea?

    • HooksLaw

      Nope – you are the dopey dipstick here. There is no evidence for man made global warming. Nor is there any evidence for catastrophic consequences. the notion about the end to possible intellectual debate (on anythng) shows you to be a cretin.

    • Cassandra1963

      Where did you this fantasy 99% of scientific opinion from? You made it up or heard or read it and then blindly repeated it, the essence of cult belief. There is no 99% in reality it only ever existed in the fevered imagination of believers without the basic gift of rational sceptical independent thought. Think for yourself or others will surely do it for you, and as we have seen too many times the reults can be catastrophic for humanity.

    • Latimer Alder


      How do you reconcile the unhappy fact that the Global Average Temperature is the same now as it was 15 years ago in 1997 with your statement that ‘climate change is happening’?

      Prima facie it is not doing so now, whatever it may have done a generation ago.

      • Jeremy Poynton

        Indeed; in fact current conditions are very similar to parts of the 50s, with wet summers, some very had winters in places, and a massive storm hitting the East Coast. It’s all happened before, and will again.

    • Baron

      everyone should expect the bBC to be neutral because it’s in their Charter that they should, but also because they are a broadcasting entity paid forr by a licence by all people, not only those who believe in AGW, BBC has no mandate to take sides on issues that can make or break the country, and most likely will when the lights go out in few years time.

  • NickW

    The BBC decided on what conclusion it wanted first, and then drew up a committee which it knew would provide it.

    • eeore

      The BBC is the government broadcaster.

      • Jeremy Poynton

        Nope. It’s the Left’s broadcaster. Whenever the Tories are in power, the BBC turns into the opposition. It’s even more noticeable when the actual opposition are weak and pathetic, as is the case now. Add to that the fact that the new presenters now consider themselves more important than the news, and that their opinions are of interest to us, you have a heady brew of the BBC agenda. The BBC is of the Left, statist, EUphile and part of the great CAGW cult scam. Time they got the plug pulled.

        • eeore

          That’s what I said, it’s the government broadcaster.

        • Coffeehousewall

          The Tory Party is also part of the left, is statist, EUphile and part of the great CAGW scam. There is no difference between the Lib/Lab/Con merchants.

  • Jonathan Dickson

    The BBC pension funds are largely invested in businesses that depend upon the green scams. Yet again, follow the money…..

  • toco10

    I note the discredited Helen Boaden,Director of News is well to the fore in this scandal.Surely this must spell the end of her career at the disgraced BBC hopefully without an Entwistle style redundancy package.

  • gillibrand

    Richard D North is hardly a climate change enthusiast

  • William Blakes Ghost

    Oh and every BBC employer who attended that meeting and has conspired to peddle their propaganda should be sacked with no pension rights!

  • William Blakes Ghost

    Just goes to show that the BBC is little more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the coolade brigade and we have to pay for that crap? William Joyce and Tokyo rose would be proud!

  • James Oliver Deckard

    UNbelievable. NPower Renewables. Hardy what one might call a disinterested party…

  • mark

    You swivelled-eyed bunch of nutjobs. The climate change ‘debate’ is about empirical science under fire from the well-funded economic (read fossil-fuelled) establishment. In the same way that Nate Silver debunked your right-wing fantasist cousins across the pond, you too will find that scientific facts – and basic chemistry and physics – are not amenable to your paranoid theories about the liberal/environmentalist/trotskyite ‘conspiracy’.

    Let’s hope your collective stupidity doesn’t prevent us from actually doing something about the problem before it’s too late.

    PS I personally trust the BBC a lot further than I’d ever trust Murdoch’s lot

    • Swiss Bob

      You swivelled-eyed bunch of nutjobs.

      That statement says a lot more about you than ‘us’.

      Where is your empirical evidence that backs up the hypothesis that CO2 causes AGW? And I don’t mean in fatuous lab experiments.

      • mark

        I’m not a climate scientist. Which is why I trust the 98% of climate scientists who believe that anthropogenic emissions are warming the planet. And I refuse to accept that all these scientists have been somehow hijacked by a worldwide conspiracy (what, run by a bunch of environmentalists? right…) to subvert what they do for a living (ie empirical science).

        And if you don’t like a bit of name calling, I suggest you stop associating with a bunch of lunatics, sociopaths and horrible little people who most decent individuals wouldn’t urinate on if they were on fire. Delingpole? I rest my case.

        • Swiss Bob

          98%? That’s a change as the figure usually cited is 97%.

          So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

          Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

          It seems you’ll believe any old horseshit and don’t have the intellectual rigour to examine claims made and you have the gall to insult others, what a cretin?

          • mark

            Nate Silver. Nate Silver. Nate Silver. Believe whatever opinions you want, sunshine. And there’s plenty of opinions to be had in the anti-AGW camp. The science will out.

            • Swiss Bob

              It will and at the moment, given the flat global temp it says you’re talking bollocks.,

              • HooksLaw

                Well he is right the science will out eventually.

        • eeore

          Quite the perfect little fascist aren’t you?

          • mark

            No, I kind of think it’s a better idea to collaborate to solve common problems rather than to retreat to behind the castle walls, shrieking ‘hands off my taxes/right to piss in the well’. Because again, if you’re wrong, you’re going to need some kind of state to prevent the whole starving masses tearing down the castle wall thing. We sink or swim together, my friend.

            • Latimer Alder


              How do you feel abut the ‘unfortunate’ observation that the temperatures today are the same as they were in 1997, even though the CO2 has increased a lot?

              Fifteen years of no warming. Did you notice?

              • mark

                That’s a pretty selective use of the data, don’t you think? Two words: Nate Silver. Believe what you want.

                • Latimer Alder

                  Nope. It is not a selective use of data at all. It is absolutely fundamental to the whole argument.

                  If there is no temperature change then there is no global warming. And the whole scare is predicated on the idea that ‘warming is very bad’. No warming = no bad.

                  I have no idea who or what ‘Nate Silver’ is. Is it some form of young persons beat combination – like the Revolting Stones or the Beetles?

            • eeore

              I’m not your friend.

              The fact is you disgust me.

              No, that’s unfair. I pity you. You admit you have no idea about the science but brainlessly think that the scientists are telling you the truth – apparently unaware of the damage supposedly benign scientists have done, and still do. You stamp around shouting your mouth off, based on stereotypes and assumptions, and then you have the cheek to say you are seeking collaborators – no doubt those who refuse to collaborate will be subject to more of your violent outbursts.

              But the real reason I pity you is your assumption that you will be inside the castle, and not one of the starving masses.

              Like I said, you are the perfect little fascist.

              • mark

                Listen, pal. First, I’ve no illusions that I’m going to be inside any castle if an increasingly volatile climate throws a spanner in our globalised food and energy systems. Second, I know enough about science to know when one has to defer to the experts. This is highly complex stuff, and it is depressingly amenable to manipulation and obfuscation by those with an agenda.

                I also know enough about how the world works to realise how preposterous and self-serving it is to imagine that, somehow, an entire worldwide scientific community has been hijacked to churn out propaganda for so-called climate alarmists. Time and time again deniers have been forced to retreat from one or another of their “categorical refutations” of the AGW hypothesis as the scientific evidence builds towards the inescapable conclusion we are destablising the climate.

                • Latimer Alder


                  I am an expert and I’d like to sell you this nice bridge….

                • HooksLaw

                  The climate is not ‘increasingly volatile’. You can for instance go back into the record centuries and find large storms which swept the North Amerocan coast.
                  There is nothing abnormal about the current climate. So you get off on the wrong foot and head down the wrong path straight away.

                • eeore

                  I’m not your pal.

                  So what part do sun spots play?
                  Why are the ice caps on Mars melting?
                  What about the various weather control systems, which apparently have abilities, such as altering the Gulf stream, that have been ascribed to global warming?
                  Why does the solution mirror utopian eugenics?

                  There’s plenty of other questions that in a free and open society people have a right to ask and debate, particularly when it relates to their liberty, freedom and economic well being.

                  And most importantly, why is it that the ‘science’ of global change acting contrary to science and more like a post revelatory religion?

                • Craig King

                  You do realise how religious you sound?

                  There is no need for a conspiracy you know. All that is needed is for like minded people to adopt a stance that will allow their own good intentions to be realised. This stance blinds them to any other stance that could equally explain the world they observe but would not result in the universal goodness they envisage. In this case the goodness is the deindustrialisation of mankind followed by huge population reduction over time resulting in a clean and natural world.

                  There are two problems with this of course. Firstly people want cheap and ubiquitous energy because it makes life easier, better and longer. Secondly anything built on a lie, man made CO2 makes everything awful, will fail and the consequences of that failure are unknowable.

                  You defer to the high priests of your cult because you are too lazy to think for yourself yet you hope ( bon esperance ) that the natural world you wish for will be delivered by these priests. It won’t because it is impossible to achieve by making people stop burning stuff.

                  As for us “deniers” ( a bit pejorative there BTW ) retreating I would say au contraire dear boy, we are advancing everywhere because it is obvious that the CAGW story is horse feathers. Nowhere is the weather behaving abnormally, no event we see is out of the natural way of things and they are not occurring more frequently. Sea levels remain normal, ice sheets come and go, rivers ebb and flow and flood yet all of this is well inside what we would consider natural weather. There is still absolutely no solid science regarding the effects of atmospheric CO2 on temperature ( please don’t bleat Tyndal and Arrhenius at me, their experiments have long been surpassed by reality ) and engineers explain very well why concentrations above 200ppm can have no further effect thanks to saturation.

                  Everything that is stated by climate researchers regarding temperature, ocean heat content, seasonal shifts, glaciers advancing and retreating, sea ice variation etc. etc. may well be real and if so simply argue that climate change is ongoing. We all know climate change is ongoing. The problem you and they have is attributing it all to man made molecules of CO2 and that is where it all slides into faith. Your faith is fine and good but you have no right to impose your faith on me and make me suffer the consequences of your faith as you pursue your concept of natural goodness.

                  Come back with something that says “if a+b happen by time T then my CO2 molecule is the evil little bastard you say it is”. Let’s have that instead of this constant shape shifting argument that says CO2 is making it hotter/colder, wetter/drier and so on because that really is nonsense.

                  Thank you.

        • Katabasis

          “Which is why I trust the 98% of climate scientists who believe that anthropogenic emissions are warming the planet”

          Here we go again.

          “98%” of climate sceptics also believe that. Where we part company is the “catastrophic” bit….

          • mark

            Ok, a fair point – there’s lots of reasonable debate to be had on the ‘how much and how fast’ question. But if I’m wrong, well we spend a bit more on energy, send a bit less cash to the Saudis, and our kids breathe in a little less particulate matter from coal-fired power stations.

            If you’re wrong, my kids will be stabbing your kids in the eyes for the last tin of tuna. (And I’m already training them to spot the children of the reactionaries who are getting us into this mess.)

            • HooksLaw

              If you are wrong we are wasting money when it could be spent on alleviating real not virtual suffering in the world and prevent real deaths that are happening in great numbers right now.
              Meanwhile we just pay millions to the benefit of Al gore and his friends.

        • HooksLaw

          98% of climate ‘scientists is a joke.

          ‘It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
          Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.’

          ‘Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.’

          By your blinked outlook you in fact demonstrate that you are the nutjob.

          • mark

            What’s a ‘blinked outlook’?

            • Latimer Alder

              a mispront for blinkered.

            • HooksLaw

              Its a typo. Never heard of them? By the sound of it you have not heard of much

        • Craig King

          Hello Mark. What do you make of the scientific consensus regarding GM crops then? I ask because many on the green side of things seem to like the AGW consensus but find the GMO consensus unacceptable even though it has much more solid science and research underpinning it.


      • HooksLaw

        And he has also broken copyright.

    • William Blakes Ghost

      Nurse ~ another one who addicted to the coolade and is in severe need of rehabilitation!

    • Latimer Alder


      Climate change is about empirical science?????


      Do you know what ’empirical’ means????

      With experiments and observations stuff??

      Please show me where I can read about all the experiments that show that ‘the science is settled’. It was their complete absence in favour of unconfirmed theories that first got me interested in this topic a few years back. And I haven’t seen any yet.

      But maybe the crucial work has been done while I wasn’t looking – so please guide me to it.

      By background I once took a Masters in Atmospheric Chemistry, and found the hard way that Mother Nature did not work the way the best available theory of the day predicted. Climatology has plenty of theory, but no experimental validation of any of it. Unless you know better?

      • mark

        There are a lot of people much smarter than you working on this stuff. They are finding that the best climate models have produced results that are consistent with the warming that we are seeing. Yes, it’s imperfect. Yes, there’s lots of uncertainty. But that doesn’t mean it’s a great idea to spew out GHGs like there’s no tomorrow. See post below for “what if I’m wrong/you’re wrong” comment.

        • Latimer Alder

          I think I’d need a lot of persuasion that these guys are a *lot* smarter than me. I know a few of them and some are tolerably bright, but many are just journeymen who found it hard to leave the cosy world of academe when they finished their undergraduate days. There are very few climate alarmists who have ever had any ‘real world’ experience. Go over to Judith Curry’s Climate Etc blog and take a look at the sceptical bios over there.

          And if the best the modellers can come up with is ‘being consistent with’ the warming that we are seeing (apart from the last 15 years when we haven’t seen it), then that is a lamentably low standard of proof.

          ‘Being consistent with’ just means that a result isn’t in complete conflict with an observation. Up/down, colder/warmer, fatter/thinner. etc.

          What would be more persuasive is if they made predictions in advance that were then seen to come true. But that never happens.

          Maybe you are in such awe of the intellectual powers of these academic hothouse flowers that you have lost your power of rational thought. If so, I’ll come and wave my degrees under your nose and sell you a very nice bottle of Snake Oil and/or a bridge.

          • HooksLaw

            You have my sympathy on this argument, and as for a lot of people being a lot smarter than you I would place a bet that Prof PHIL Jones has less of a atmospheric qualification than you have.
            His work was principally maintaining the time series of the instrumental temperature record

            I suspect that Prof Indiana Jones is better qualified actually.

        • Cassandra1963

          “They are finding that the best climate models have produced results that are consistent with the warming that we are seeing”

          Mark, there is no warming, there has been no measurable warming for over fifteen years, at no point did the computer based simulations predict a global temperature flat line, the IPCC reports contradict the possibility of anything other than a steady and accelerating increase AKA the hockey stick. CO2 is a harmless trace gas and plant food, at no point has the rise in atmospheric CO2 mirrored global average temperatures as all the models predicted. The point is that a computer model simulation can be presented by a complicit media as fact when it is clearly nothing more than guess work manipulated with flawed and false assumptions. Go and have a look at the IPCC reports and notice how much of their so called evidence is modelled simulations.

    • Leopard Basement

      It’s not as simple as saying there is some science saying something therefore policy flows from that. A fact that someone who admires Nate Silver should know. You may be interested to know how Silver was treated by one of the most prominent activist/scientist Michael Mann.

      “Deeply frustrated to see @MichaelEMann’s critique ( ) of my book. It’s not a fair representation of what I wrote.”

      I suspect now you have learned that that you would value Mann’s opinion higher than Silver’s just because he is a scientist, but that is where people disagree. I and many others think scientists are not infallible priests who cannot be criticised.

    • dodgy

      The climate change ‘debate’ is about empirical science under fire from the well-funded economic (read fossil-fuelled) establishment…

      Umm. If that is the case, why has Keith Briffa of UEA just co-written a paper which demolishes the hockey-stick and practically apologises for the data stitch-up he performed over Yamal? I quote from the abstract:

      “We show that this was partly a result of systematic bias in MXD data measurements and partly a result of inhomogeneous sample selection from living trees..”

      and the paper is here:

      I assume that you don’t count Briffa as a nut-job? Or perhaps he’s a traitor for deciding that the science does NOT show the hockey-stick is true…?

      • HooksLaw

        Briffa is of you know who’s christmas card list.

    • Kevin

      Get Nate Silver to run the stats. If he says most people are opposed to politics based on global warming theory then it’s game over. No point trying to argue your case.

      That was the implication Democrat supporters took from his election data.

  • verseandvoice

    They should have had Lord Monckton on the panel for his sagacity and ability to point out the error of the Leftylooneysocialistcommies that abound in the Beeb in trying to tell us what’s happening. How dare they? Next thing you know they’ll want to tell us that the Earth is flat, the moon is made of cheese and we never landed there anyway. The nerve of them.

  • Sandra in Accounts

    Watermelons – green on the outside, deep red on the inside.
    That list is incredible – dynamite. These are not scientists – these are propagandists with an interest in silencing any reasoned debate about climate change.
    If this had happened in 1980’s Russia we would all sneer & say “what do you expect?”

    The BBC has to go. Simple as that.
    Join me – stop paying the TV Tax – if we all do it they cannot possibly criminalise us all.

    • eeore

      If you get rid of the TV, and don’t watch the iplayer in real time, they can’t criminalize you at all.

    • 2trueblue

      And you thought that we lived in a free state and that the BBC was a professional body who investigated everything thoroughtly?

  • GeoffreySales

    If this is how they go about it, it explains their reporting about Israel.

  • joseph sanderson

    What is even more amazing is that most of the so called specialists educational background has nothing to do with climate based degrees, what I found funny was that many of these specialists are in many cases History or English graduates, with the Harvard participator not yet having finished her degree (in a non climate subject!).

    • 2trueblue

      But his politics were the right colour.

  • HooksLaw

    Its not just the green lobby – but we see a name from BP there and the reality is that companies like BP make money out of green subsidies.
    Greenpeace must justify their symbiotic relationship with BP etc.

    Lets not forget this is a group of people out together whose sole purpose was to give cover for the BBC’s own groupthink prejudice.

    The other overwhelming thing to remember is that this whole global warming scam is leapt upon by a variety of parties as a lever to prise open their boxful of pet prejudices. It is a harness to control us all with. It is faux excuse to drum us all into line.
    It was started at the Rio Summit in 1992 and the whole shebang is the brainchild of Canadian marxist Maurice Strong (currently hiding for the US courts in China)

    • 2trueblue

      It is put about by a lot of dizzy, ignorant people who are not interested in any other dialogue than theirs. Any one who disagrees is a head banger.

  • Magnolia

    I’ve just been looking at the English Heritage leaflet on wind turbines, complete with pretty drawing of a Grade II listed house with wind turbine attached to the gable end wall and in the foreground, two children and a dog playing happily in the garden with a kite. (

    I think that’s what’s called groupthink or is it newspeak?
    Whatever it is, it’s unspeakable and unthinkable.

  • itdoesntaddup

    I think YouGov need to redo their poll:

    BBC and trust now appears to be an oxymoron.

  • MrVeryAngry

    Why the bloody Hell does the bloody BBC have a climate change ‘policy’ at all? If it has a policy it has an angle. That’s not independent at all. Or balanced come to that. Wankers.

    • eeore

      Do they have a gravity policy? Or a conduction policy?

      • John Portwood

        Yes – they feel that it is not politically correct that larger masses are attracted disproportionately by gravity or that metals get hot quicker when exposed to heat. They have engaged a think tank and focus group on how to address these issues in the interests of equality and fairness.

      • Cogito Ergosum

        One day their education reporters may accept that half the children are of below average intelligence; which is obviously a plot by a wicked Tory government.

        • HooksLaw

          Ah but as the BBC know only too well, if you deny the other half an education then the rest become much more clever.


      • doggywoggy

        The difference is, the science of gravity is largely beyond dispute, (allowing for cutting edge quantum scientific discovery of course). The science of the Human contribution to climate change is not beyond dispute. The BBC would like you to think it is. They excluded independent climate scientists, and only invited die-hard believers to that meeting, to create a false consensus as a reason for the BBC pursuing a completely biased political agenda in complete breach of it’s charter.

        There are LOTS of mainstream scientists looking at the climate science and seeing how flawed the AGW hypothesis really is. More and more every month are coming out and challenging the false consensus. The ‘97% of scientists agree’ figure has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere too.

        Lots of scientists disagree and there is no scientific consensus on the rate, or extent of human induced climate change.

        • Charles Brewer

          Actually, the science of gravity, like all real science is nothing like beyond dispute and indeed forms one of the great unresolved matters of physics (quantum gravity, Higgs boson and so on).

          The idea that everything was determined in the analysis of the human genome has been wonderfully shot down by all the issues of epigenetics (methylation and so on).

          In fact, it is only non-sciences which are “beyond dispute”.

          Of course the difference is that real scientists study anomalies and odd reaults which lead to new and better interpretations, fake scientists try to find data which fits their pre-determined conclusions and when it doesn’t turn up, they make it up.

    • Rootar

      It would be interesting to see all their ‘Policies’.

      • Jimmy R

        Have you not read the Marxist’s Manifesto?

  • Peter Martin

    The judiciary and most of Parliament rushing to defend their slot on the comfy Breakfast to Newsnight sofas to spout their BS (and be spared any nasty questions if they make nice now) are also looking pretty darn complicit all round.

    Same guys who will have you up, fined or jailed for not paying your licence fee whilst letting a terrorist sympathiser claim his extensive benefits as a human right.

    I predict a riot. Or at least slaughter at the voting booth.

    #JudgeDredd4PCConBBC anyone?

  • BBCwaste

    I hope this breaks open the FoI farce. The BBC hides behind a get out clause they have on “for journalism or artistic” reasons all the time. In this case, they spent hundreds of thousands trying to withhold something which it appears was already public and the lobbyists must have clearly been informing BBC policy or it wouldn’t have been withheld for “journalistic” reasons.

    On a related point, I have had several FoI requests — about nothing to do with “journalism” — like how much money does the BBC waste flying Nolan from NI to Manchester studios each week (when NI studios sit idle) which they rejected on the ground of journalism. The BBC abuses the FoI exception all the time. Unless it was going to reveal a location he went for an under cover investigation there was no way it should have been withheld for “journalism” reasons. It was an FoI request about operational waste.

    • HooksLaw

      Lets not forget the grand slam of choruses from the BBC and other media too FOR the FOI law in the first place. No doubt lobbyists like greenpeace were in the forefront and now they hide behind it, and abuse it.

      • BBCwaste

        Considering a significant amount of what the BBC does is either for “journalism or artistic” purposes — part of the FoI exception — they use this as a catch-all for everything they don’t want to answer.

        How much it costs to fly “talent” from their home to the studio should not be withheld. I am sure if we asked how many sausage rolls the cafe discards each day unsold if that was sensitive that would also be withheld for “journalistic” reasons as journalists eat them.

        It is out of control.

    • nemesis

      And here is another FOI request on ‘ How much US corporation tax is paid by the BBC on advertising revenue on the BBC website’, together with another non answer:

      Would be interesting in light of extended coverage of google et al avoiding UK tax.

  • Rhoda Klapp

    Thanks for coming back to this, Sebastian. Note that the story that this meeting was to plan a policy position is false, it is retrospective. The policy was implemented and when questions were asked about justification links were made to this meeting and the whole thing was papered over. It is only thanks to the persistence of Tony Newberry that it has all come out. and the true scandal is not in the news/current affairs coverage but that every area of broadcasting was co-opted to push the message. Which appears to originate in the much-lover Department for International Development, which pays green lobbyists to push it using our tax money to campaign to corrupt our national broadcaster to endorse spending our money.

    • HooksLaw

      Yes we should be grateful to the Spectator for sticking with this.
      Given the legal lengths the BBC went to to keep this list secret we should be very relieved indeed that it has now (legally) come out.
      Can we rely on John Humphries to forensically question the need for both the meeting and the need to keep it secret?

      • Jeremy Poynton

        Uh? The Spectator has done nothing more than report on it. Be grateful to blogger Tony Newbury (Harmless Sky) for the FoI request, and blogger Omnologos for uncovering the list. I’m gald the Speccie has reported on this, but that’s all they have done (which is fine in itself).

        • HooksLaw

          Agreed but it did not ignore it. I know well it did no digging itself. the fleshpots of Westminster are too enticing for them to be drawn away for that.

          • Jeremy Poynton

            Yup – the more coverage the better, that’s for sure. And people should lodge formal complaints with the BBC about this (you can complain online) and mail their MPs about it. A stink needs kicking up about this, and now is a very good time to kick the BBC hard – as they arew down already!

  • Tom Paine

    What would you rather, that the BBC base its policy on the witterings of cranks and scientific illiterates (which sadly include a formerly well-respected Tory chancellor)?

    In any case the list has turned out to be rather more balanced in content than some of the reports surrounding it! So bit of a non-story really.

    It’s precisely this willingness to aggregate outright crazyness (climate change denial, the birthing controversy, no tax rises EVER under any circumstances especially on ‘wealth creators’) with sensible policies (deficit reduction via spending reductions and a roll back of the state) that did for the Republicans last week.

    If it wasn’t for the nut job conspiracy loons America might have had a rather different outcome. Let this be a warning to the right-wing press, not to get too carried away with itself.

    • Swiss Bob

      that the BBC base its policy on the witterings of cranks and scientific illiterates

      You are talking about the list I take it given that there are only, what three? current scientists having anything remotely to do with ‘climate science’ with the rest just being liberal arts grads for the BBC or loony left green front organisations?

    • Latimer Alder


      Why should a broadcaster have a ‘policy’ about ‘climate change’ at all? It is there to report the news, not to make it.

      • Rhoda Klapp

        Hi Latimer. Has anyone wondered what other issues the BBC has a policy on? The ones it has not declared. I detect one-sided coverage in the news/current output on, well, the same issues as don’t get aired here. Immigration, multi-culturalism, the EU, energy policy and the war in Afghanistan. Now, it does not matter where one stands on these issues, it matters that they don’t seem to be questioned on the BBC. I admit though that none are as all-pervasive as the climate issue.

      • Thomas Paine

        Because it’s the overwhelming scientific consensus? It’s only a political matter because vested interests have poured money into casting doubt, there’s almost zero real science behind the nay-sayers, unless you count the dark arts of opinion manipulation.

        It’s the deniers that are the gullible, easily manipulated fools. The real, laughable joke is that they can’t see it.

        What I’m saying is that the responsible right wing press should be getting out of this debate and leaving it to the conspiracy chumps, and making a case for the solid, reality-based economic policies that will lead this and other countries out of the wilderness. It’s a needless irrelevance.

        • Latimer Alder

          The nearest have ever seen to any ‘overwhelming scientific consensus’ (and we could argue all day about its validity) is that some guys think that the planet is probably warming a bit and that human-liberated CO2 has something to do with it. And about 99% of all the sceptics I know could probably sign up to that too.

          If you have something else, please lay it out – with citations – and we can examine it.

          But even if true, why does the BBC need to have a policy about it? It is a broadcasting organisation, not a political one. It is there to *report* the news, not to make it.

          Being impartial and not having a ‘company line’ is the quid pro quo of getting £3,000,000,000 per annum without having to sell their wares and having pretty much no accountability to anyone other than themselves

          • Richard

            So you would be happy for the BBC to report that there is general expert agreement even among the sceptics that the planet is probably warming and that human-liberated CO2 is involved? So would I, and that’s what they do, finding space also for dissent and conspiracy-theory. What are we arguing about?

            • HooksLaw

              Dope. Its all a matter of degree (no pun intended). The assertion that mankind is having a meaningful influence in comparison to all the natural inputs is the issue.

              But you have quite clearly done what all the self interest groups have done and extrapolated widely Even Prof Jones has had to admit that there has been no warming since 1995.

              The reality is that many learned papers point to CO2 levels rising as a result of warming not being the cause of it. You should consider that if the Earth were so naturally sensitive to changes in CO2 then we would not be here. previous very high levels of CO2 would have destroyed the planet.

            • Latimer Alder

              The argument IMO comes down to whether the unexceptional observation that the climate may be warming a bit is a big problem or not.

              There are lots of alarmists with vested interests trying to persuade us all that Thermageddon is imminent unless we change our ways. Which usually seems to mean giving them more money to spend on their pet projects.

              But whichever way I look at it, I haven’t seen anything at all that says that a warmer planet wouldn’t be a better planet overall, nor that we can’t adapt ourselves to any hiccups along the way.

              Climate change is a very slow process. Even the 0.7C increase between 1960 and 1997 took nearly 40 years. And without the technological ability to process large amounts of worldwide data via today’s computers, I doubt anybody would even have noticed.

        • HooksLaw

          ‘deniers’ have no money. As the BBC list shows, big oil has a vested interest in global warming and is funding research accordingly. And this is before you count up the money governments waste

          ‘According to The Boston Globe, ExxonMobil in 2002 doled out $100 million to establish a Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University tasked with studying climate change.’

          ‘Institutions like the CRU have a very large budget, but that would
          disappear if global warming ceased to exist. Scientists are enjoying a
          funding gravy train. There is so much money in climate research. Lots of areas of science are short of money, but not climate change’

          As ever you let your bigotry get ahead of the facts.

      • Richard

        Well, that’s an interesting question. What is fair and balanced reporting of a highly technical, difficult and perhaps momentous subject like this? It isn’t unreasonable to consult the recognised experts and give them the leading voice, is it? Anything the BBC does will be a ‘policy’.

        • Latimer Alder


          How many other controversial subjects has the BBC held similar seminars on – involving the full spectrum of output from current affairs to comedy?

          Climate change seems to be the only one where they have deliberately taken a conscious decision to cosy up to one side of the discussion and exclude the others. By doing so they are not just reporting or even interpreting the debate…they are influencing it.

          And by working so hard and spending so much to keep even the attendees of this seminar secret they are admitting that they shouldn’t have done so.

          • Richard

            I’ve no idea, but I don’t think this question is very susceptible to the ‘two sides’ approach. That’s why I was trying to see if I could sketch out some minimal common ground we could agree on, dope that I am. To talk of ‘one side of the discussion’ is misleading here, if there really is an overwhelming expert consensus (people were arguing just now whether it was 98% or 97%), so perhaps what we need to do, as I think Bishop Hill was suggesting, is start by defining the limits of that consensus-ground, and identifying precisely the points of uncertainty. Incidentally, this website offers what looks to me like some sophisticated and open discussion of the contention that the warming has stopped:

            • Latimer Alder


              Sorry Manfred.

              The ‘Skeptical Science’ website is not sceptical, not a reliable source of information, nor a place of ‘open discussion’. It is no more than an alarmist propaganda site with a fearsome reputation for deleting/disappearing inconvenient or embarrassing posts.

              If you are looking to establish common ground, that is not a good place to start.

              • Richard

                Oh well. One of the features of these polarised debates is that each side has its preferred website addresses that it hurls at the other. I should have known better. And I have looked at Judith Curry’s site a few times. But are you saying there is no cause for alarm?

                • Latimer Alder

                  Am I saying there is no cause for alarm?

                  I haven’t seen anything at all that suggests that a warmer planet wouldn’t overall be a better planet, nor that any hiccups along the way aren’t manageable with our existing technologies and abilities.

                  And I’ve lost count of the number to times we’ve been past a ‘tipping point’ or had ’50 days to save the planet’.

                  The real point is that public interest in the whole ‘global warming’ scare is dying on its feet. Neither they, nor I, can see why we need to make drastic changes to our existing systems – that undoubtedly affect real people’s lives today – to supposedly solve a problem that isn’t going to manifest itself for at least a hundred years in the time of our great great great grandchildren. If it is ever a ‘problem’ at all.

                  The high point of concern was just before Copenhagen. But that became a fiasco…even Mother Gaia snowed upon it to show her contempt..and its been downhill for the alarmist cause ever since.

                  Today’s revelations of the BBC’s activist policy advisers is just another marker post on the way down to eccentric obscurity that is the fate of these campaigners. Think of today’s ageing hippies to get an idea of the fate that lies in store.

                  And if, as I suspect you may be, you are an earnest youngster hoping to make a difference in the world – a very laudable thing to want to do – then I seriously suggest that you tie yourself to another cause. This one has had its day and is fading fast.

                • Richard

                  I hope you are right that there is no cause for concern. We must all hope so. But I can’t see any strong reason why you should be right and all those recognised climate scientists wrong. That is the fundamental point you have not answered. Why should I, a non-expert, believe your reassurances rather than the warnings given by leading scientists at formidable universities? You MAY be right, and they MAY be wrong; it’s perfectly true that a minority scientific view is sometimes proved right. But there is no reason to think it probable. What is the basis of your certainty? Why do you feel entitled to be so dismissive of the other view, the one held by so many specialist experts? Are they all corrupt or stupid? How can you be sure?

                • Latimer Alder


                  This is supposedly a scientific debate. In science, who you are does not matter. The motto of the Royal Society is ‘Nullius in Verba’ – which roughly translates as ‘take nobody’s word for it’

                  So who I am or who the other guys are shouldn’t really matter. What matters is the evidence itself, not the sound and fury associated with it.

                  And in my opinion, there is precious little persuasive evidence to contradict the view I I expressed above. You may look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion, but I doubt it.

                  To give one example, the best estimate for the rise of sealevel 100 years from now is about 2 feet (60 cm). I work in Central London where the tidal range of the river is 14 feet (5 metres) every 6 hours. I once did the sum to show (IIRC) that the rate to rise due to global warming is expected to be 1/200,000th of that which we deal with all day every day without batting an eyelid. I simply do not believe that such a rise will prove to be beyond our capabilities to adapt.

                  One can make similar observations for fertility and other supposed ‘bad consequences’ of global warming. I do not share the alarm presented by others.

                  I’d also note that as a private citizen I share the idea that I’d like my children and grandchildren and their children to have interesting a prosperous futures. I do not want them – or anybody else – to fry in some ultimate Thermageddon any more than you would do so.

                  It is, however worth pointing out that the academics you mention are all under enormous pressure to publish papers and to make ‘contributions to the wider discourse’. These are part of the reward structures of academe. We might argue whether it is teh right way to do it, but it is there. And there is absolutely no mileage for an academic in publishing unremarkable results…journals don’t want to waste space on a boring paper that says ‘we found nothing’, and there isn’t much kudos, nor conference invites or TV interviews to be had for those who don’t make a splash every now and then

                  So when you judge the weigh to give these contributors, remember that they have pressures upon them that you and I do not have.

                  But best of all, look at the evidence and make your own assessment.

                  ‘Nullius in Verba’ is good advice

                • Richard

                  You’re saying that the entire process of academic selection, education and training from undergraduate through to doctorate and beyond, to professional research shaped by peer review, should just be discounted – and, more than that, is positively a reason for suspicion. You’re saying therefore that all expertise is unreliable, and that no distinction at all should be made between the authority of that expertise and the opinion of anyone, however uninformed or untrained. We should take no one’s word for anything, but must trust ourselves to find out everything for ourselves, however ill-equipped we are to do so. One obvious point is that you probably don’t take this approach when you go for a medical diagnosis. Another is that your view is very postmodern. It represents a collapse of faith in Enlightenment values, and the institutions that were formed under the influence of those values.

                • Latimer Alder


                  I don’t think I need to reply to all your ‘accusations’ of ‘You’re saying…..’. some of which I don’t recognise at all.

                  You can read perfectly well what ‘I am saying’ in my earlier remarks.

                  But a few points spring out

                  1. Opinions without experiments and/or observations to back them up are still just opinions, no matter how eminent the person expressing them may be considered to be. Mother Nature pays no attention to human constructed hierarchies or awards or medals or titles. She just keeps on doing her thing.

                  2. If I need medical diagnosis, I’d go to somebody that has a proven track record of being right. But climatology and climatologists have a woeful track record of making a huge number of predictions but very few of them have turned out to be correct. Their diagnostic and prognosis skills have been regularly shown to be pretty non-existent.

                  3. You have got The Enlightenment 100% arse about face, It was about no longer believing something to be true just because an ‘expert’ like Aristotle or God or some other ancient text had said it was, But instead to get a better understanding by making observations and conducting experiments.

                  The Royal Society was one of the first of those Enlightenment institutions, and it chose ‘Nullius in Verba’ as its motto quite deliberately to reflect this change of perspective.

                  4. I am not an academic so I have never understood exactly what ‘post-modern’ means. I’d prefer to call my stance ‘Feynmannian’ after the great Richard Feynman.


    • JamesTennant

      Tom Paine is right. This kind of idiocy, designed to rally fellow loons, is dangerous and deeply irresponsible. It will, one day. come back to haunt the right wing press.

      • Latimer Alder


        Please explain what is either ‘dangerous’ or ‘deeply irresponsible’ about publishing a list of attendees at a publicly funded ‘seminar’ attended by publicly funded officials.

        Or alternatively, provide a justification of why this list should be kept from the public who paid for it

        • JamesTennant

          I’m talking about members of the media that deliberately pander to the almost demented fury expressed by fundamentalists when anyone suggests that anthropomorphic climate change is a reality. It is not helping anyone to think clearly about the matter. I wasn’t claiming that publishing the list was a bad idea, as I said on other threads, I think it would have been smarter to do so but I don’t know the background. My point is that to whip up this frenzy about the BBC apparently engaging in some secret plot to brainwash the population in leftist propaganda is ludicrous. The world is heading for disaster and we seriously need to try and address the matter so this kind of scaremongering is, in my view, deeply irresponsible.

          • Swiss Bob

            The world is heading for disaster

            You do talk rot. One minute it’s AGW, the next it’s CAGW for which there is no evidence at all, not even serious climate scientists subscribe to your nutty view.

          • Latimer Alder


            On what basis do you believe that ‘the world is heading for disaster’? Because the BBC told you so?

          • Latimer Alder


            I’m having a lot of difficulty in understanding how it is possible to be ‘scaremongering’ by believing that the world is NOT headed for disaster.

            Which ‘scare’ and how is it being mongered?

          • Bishop Hill

            I think you need to learn what the A of AGW stands for. :-)

            The purpose of the BBC seminar series was to find ways to put green storylines in all of the BBC’s output. This is documented.

    • Stuck-Record

      Love what you did there with all the ad homs.

      And comparing a semi-lunatic belief system (birther) with a genuine scientific controversy (CAGW) is particularly clever too. Presumably Freeman Dyson and Bert Rutan are scientific illiterates and cranks? Nice to know.

      • HooksLaw

        Many thousands of ordinary scientist have signed up to opposing the global warming scam.

        I would not like to be Dr Michael Mann’s cat tonight. it is going to get kicked all over the living room.

        Mann of course has manouvered himself in to an ultimate court appearance where we must presume even more lists and emails will have to be declared.

    • HooksLaw

      You are one of the brainwashed.
      There is no evidence of man made global warming. But the nssue is one of open rational and fair debate. The job of the BBC is to protect us from and question the secretive scientific clique who rely on scaremongering for their grant aided sinecures.

      Meantime there is not a penny’s worth of self interest and benefit in this for people like the Canadian statistician who exposed Michael Manns hockey stick scam for what it was.

    • eeore

      So what is melting the ice caps on Mars?

  • Billy Blofeld

    I hope Call Me Dave finds a spine and suggests very squarely that BBC has influenced public debate on global warming and that rises in utility bills for families are a direct consequence of the BBC’s influence.

    It is time for the BBC to feel first hand the anger of the public who are being hit in the pocket every day by the BBC’s ideology.

    • Heartless etc.,

      You hope the H2B finds a spine? – does the gullible fool even possess one?

      (Apols all you H2B devotees – but I treat a joke as a joke)

      • Cogito Ergosum

        Lord Home, the one who became an ex-lord, described in his memoirs that he had a spinal operation. He told the surgeon, “You have put backbone into a politican”.

  • AngusPangus

    Look at who was there from the BBC.

    Inter alia, George Entwistle, Helen Boaden, Fran Unsworth, Steve Mitchell, Peter Rippon. Also, some of those now “acting up” – Fran Unsworth and Karen O’ Connor.

  • Colonel Mustard

    But since the BBC has something of a monopoly on news how can this charade be properly exposed to the public? The point made by Archimedes is absolutely key. BBC propaganda is especially pernicious because it masquerades as unbiased and objective when it is not. And since Cameron and Co buy into this “settled” climate change stuff how can a truly independent and neutral investigation be made?

    At some point the BBC decided, over a number of issues, to start disseminating propaganda rather than news. And that should concern us all.

    • Dimoto

      It doesn’t have a monopoly, which begs the question: why have other news outlets been notably silent on this scandal ?

  • Faceless Bureaucrat

    So, when is the Licence Fee going to be scrapped then?…

  • Swiss Bob

    Delingpole will be annoyed that you’ve beaten him to it!

    • backstoothewall

      Delingpole ran it first, or to be exact, @frankfisher posted the link early this morning on Delingpole’s Telegraph blog; not a squeak from the MSM, not a squeak from the BBC on World at One, could be interesting trying to ‘out’ this one.

      • Swiss Bob

        I was referring to Delingpole’s update stating he would be saving it for the Speccie :-)

        • James Delingpole

          Nah. I’m really glad the boy Sebastian is running with this. Good luck to him, says I. My analysis will appear in the mag on Thursday.

          • Swiss Bob

            Hello Mr Delingpole, at least you didn’t bite my head of this time!

            Keep up the good work, without those in the MSM willing to report this type of story it just wouldn’t see the light of day.

            Not forgetting Tony Newbury for his persistence and Maurizio Morabito who must have spent a looong time searching t’internet before finding the list.

            Congrats all round to those concerned.

      • Frank Fisher

        I got it from Andrew Orlowski of the Register who should be praised as being, so far as I am aware, the only full time *real* journalist to have covered this story in full from Day One. All praise El Reg too.

        • Swiss Bob

          Not forgetting Tony Newbury without whom none of this would have come out.

          • Frank Fisher

            Absolutely – I’m figuring nominating Tony for one of Index on Censorship’s free speech awards – that’ll piss them off…

  • Billy Blofeld

    Your article misses half the story. The list of attendees from the BBC side shows that they purposefully intended to force their biased view on the British public through all their creative output (comedy, drama etc) across all their channels 24×7. This isn’t just news reporting bias, this is institutional bias and propaganda broadcast at 1984 levels:

    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

    BBC Television Centre, London (cont)
    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

    • itdoesntaddup

      Anyone we know, children?

      Just where were Black and Harrabin?

      • Billy Blofeld

        I asked that question last night and Maurizio pointed out that as organisers Black and Harrabin probably weren’t listed…..

    • HFC

      Clearly, the Head of Sport was unavailable that day otherwise ball-by-ball commentators would have been adding AGW titbits to their comments on rain affected Test matches.

      P.S. Why must I be signed in to ‘down-vote’ postings with which I disagree?

      • eeore

        No doubt Alan Greene could work in a reference when moaning about why Arsenal supporters are late getting back to their seats at half time.

  • Richard

    I would also ask what exactly we should mean by ‘balanced coverage’, in the case of a view supported by the large majority of the specialist scientists in the field. In earlier thread on this subject, Bishop Hill gave an interesting answer, saying that where there is a broad expert consensus the coverage should reflect that consensus, but on points of uncertainty within that consensus a variety of expert opinions should be aired. I would agree, adding only that the time allocated should be in proportion to the extent to which a view commands expert respect. We aren’t saying that all opinions about everything deserve equal time, are we?

    • HooksLaw

      As I posted on an earlier blog – the climategate emails expose the BBC’s gross hypocrisy over ‘balance’. Alex Kirby wrote to the discredited Steve Jones

      ‘But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them say something.’

      The BBC called this meeting of supposed experts so they could be told to ignore ‘balance’. They called this group of people together so they could be told what they wanted to believe. This is the scandal. the BBC and the left are mired in it up to their eyeballs.

      Lets clearly remember that this IS a scandal. Lets see who treat it as such.’

      BTW Kirby still works for the BBC he host its on line environment pages if you want to bombard him.
      His wiki entry charmingly ends, ‘he has no scientific training’. None in journalist either by the look of it.

      • Latimer Alder


        Correction: Phil Jones at UEA/CRU. Not Steve Jones – of which there are quite a few

  • Michael

    fhat a bunch of liars! Both the BBC itseld and the BBC Trust clained that the seminar in question was attended by a range of leading scientists representing a range of scientific opinion. In fact there were just 4 scientists, only one of whom (Dr. Richard North) was not an AGW propagandist, but nor was he a sceptic. The rest were all leftie climate change zealots from organisations that scratched each others backs. The BBC environment correspondent (Roger Harrabin) even had links to some of the organisations.who were part funding some of the seminars he ran. Truly shocking and completely against the BBC Charter. They should lose their licence fee for this.

    You can find out more on the Bishop Hill website,

  • Leopard Basement

    Apparently the BBC were selflessly defending the spirit of the Chatham House rules, preventing the names being revealed of elite advisor’s to their broadcasting policy. It is worth looking at some key phrases I’ve cherry picked here from the preamble to list of names :

    “The International Broadcasting Trust (IBT) has been lobbying the BBC …”

    “The BBC has agreed to hold a series of seminars with IBT”

    “So far, 6 seminars have taken place. They have had a significant impact on the BBC’s output…”

    I guess this is the new definition of Chatham House rules. Aiding covert lobbying by a special interest group the public have no say over.

    • Swiss Bob

      Which would mean they committed perjury in their defense?

    • Rootar

      And the IBT are registered with the Charity Commission. The overwhelming majority of their funding comes from Grants. Where do these Grants come from ? Ask the DFID, they might know.

  • Richard

    And yet this list does not in fact reveal that only a narrow range of opinion was included. Alongside scientists from universities and representatives of environmental NGOs, we see a prominent conservative ‘sceptic’, a representative of an oil company, a representative of the CBI, someone from the nuclear industry and, most surprisingly of all for the conspiracy theorists, someone from the Bush government’s US embassy. The actual list does not support the allegation of bias at all.

    • itdoesntaddup

      I’d do a little more research before you make claims about the opinions of these people. Here is BP’s Ian Wright, talking about CCS:

      • backstoothewall

        Yes I listened to him, a corporate talking head obviously salivating over the money they’re going to make out of CCS. CCS, carbon trading, everybody coining it apart from the mugs paying for it (hint, you and me).

        • itdoesntaddup

          And the demand to fix regulation to make it all profitable…

    • Number 7

      5 minutes research would tell you that all the repreentatives you mentioned have either “green” or financial interest in promoting AGW hysteria/propaganda.

    • Latimer Alder

      Different guy. It was Richard D North from the Institute of Economic Affairs, not Richard AE North, the sceptic.

      And the guy from the CBI was Matt Farrow who now describes himself as

      ‘Director of Policy at the Environmental Services Association, the voice of the waste to resources industry’

      • Richard

        I’ve been through this already on the earlier thread. Richard D North is a well known climate change sceptic. Look at his blog. Click ‘climate change’. The first sentence on his page is ‘I am a climate change sceptic.’ There are two sceptical Richard Norths.

        • Latimer Alder

          Don’t assume that I have read every word ever written by anybody called ‘Richard’ on every thread. Nor that anybody else has.

          • Richard

            Well, you jumped in very confidently to correct me, without checking your facts,

          • HooksLaw

            Here is an earlier WUWT which covered the seminar (it was in 2006 BTW)
            It quotes Dr North, who says he is a sceptic but not a denier. Its a strange world we live in where he feels he had to say that


            The value of this link is that North points out how horrified he was by the seminar.

            As the opening paragraph points out the seminar was organised by the Cambridge Media and Environment Program. The CMEP is jointly run by BBC’s Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin. The CMEP has been shown to get funding from Tyndall Centre (University of East Anglia) which in turn gets funding to research what it coyly calls Climate Research. Which in turn of course needs publicity to maintain its funding.

    • backstoothewall

      Not the point, the point is they’ve moved heaven and earth (and spent a fortune) to conceal the names.

      • Richard

        So it seems, but I can’t think why, since the list is not damaging at all..

        • Latimer Alder


          But it seems that the BBC were prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice – of our money – to keep it secret. It would not be out of order to assume that they had a guilty conscience

    • itdoesntaddup

      Trevor Evans is a career diplomat, not Bush’s chosen ambassador. He was Chargé d’Affaires in Slovenia in 2001. He rose through the ranks in the Clinton era, and could well be a Clinton/Gore sympathiser, probably recruited at some cocktail party for the gathering.

    • HooksLaw

      BP make loadsamoney out of green subsidies and hand outs as do other enery providers
      Thats why its called a scam.

      Al Gore’s carbon footprint is bigger than Botswana’s…

      Well… nearly

  • Archimedes

    The problem with the BBC is the public perception that it is neutral. People can easily dismiss the Telegraph as right-wing, or the Guardian as left-wing because their positions are well declared, but there is a twisted logic that assumes that because the BBC is supposedly neutral, their arguments must be balanced and therefore the most truthful. It would be better to divvy up their programs, or channels, with declared political persuasions.

    I must admit that, although I love the BBC, I find it absolutely delightful that their holier than thou facade is falling to pieces.

  • Russell

    The BBC has now shown quite clearly that it is not fit to be the Independent Public Broadcasting Service and should have its charter removed with the whole lot of its services sold off and the ‘new’ owner providing a subscription service. All the bullshit about it being a high quality service is only pushed by members of the bbc ‘club’ (people who fawn the support of the BBC like politicians and special interest groups) and old sweats who have done very nicely out of licence fee payers cash.
    An opportune time to get rid of this leftie biased taxpayer funded institution,

  • John_Page

    Guido rightly credits Maurizio Morabito. So should you.

    The BBC’s contempt for its paymasters is breathtaking. According to Bishop Hill

    the lie about the best scientific experts was told not by the BBC itself, but by the BBC Trust, put there to safeguard its standards.

    If the BBC had a death wish it could hardly be doing better.

    Can we look forward to a Newsnight exposé of this? Oh ….

    • HooksLaw

      Its perhaps worth pointing out that this was a few years ago and the Chairman of trustees at the time of the meeting was perhaps Michael Gade, perhaps Chitra Bharucha, or perhaps Sir Michael Lyons (though I think he may have become Chairman after this meeting)
      Quite what qualities Ms Bharucha, with her MBE for services to the animal feedstuffs industry, brought to the BBC is an interesting question.

      We should be grateful, I read that Jacqui Smith was interested in the role.

  • Steve Tierney

    Unbelievable. You could not make it up.

    • Cassandra1963

      The unbelievable made up and packaged as a consensus and peddled by the BBC, its who they are and what they do, the art of making the unbelievable believable, at least to those too stupid to realise it.

  • Airey Belvoir

    The list of BBC execs attending is also illuminating. Apart from the dismal collection of obscure job titles which highlight a runaway bureaucracy, the inclusion of the Heads of Comedy and CBBC boss shows how the BBC was determined that a pro-AGW thread would run through every strand of its output on climate change.

    • Bishop Hill

      This is what the seminar series was set up to do.

  • In2minds

    BBC, the same BBC that John Simpson thinks is without bias!

  • Keith

    Erm … because the BBC is a gang of Trotskyite propagandists?

    • telemachus

      Am I unique in thinking that this is a right wing plot to get the BBC for not supporting the current UKIP tendency of the press at large?

      • Charles Brewer


        • telemachus

          I thought so
          I am sick of the santimonious prats who want to skewer the BBC for a simple editorial mistake on a single programme
          I pursuit of a witch hunt on a reasonable decision to spike a report on Saville a year ago there was a relative deficit of expertise Friday last at Newsnight. So the tyros got it wrong.
          Why then start a stupid root and branch debate on a fair middle of the road very British institution
          I say again the rightist prats have it in for the Beeb and are cashing in.
          I heard Redwood vomiting out bile about payoffs, Patten and much more.
          If I had my way I would insitute an electronic blue pencil to such

          • HooksLaw

            But this is the same organisation which joined in the sanctimonious guff over Mitchell losing his temper for 2 seconds.
            But we know only too well that the BBC is filled with this type

          • Matthew Whitehouse

            Mate, if you lean too far to the left, you’ll fall over. Ah

          • David B

            The issue is simple, they accused a man of the most heinous crime without checking their facts. How many more people might they have implicated who are actually innocent? Child abuse is appalling, but so is being wrongly accused of child abuse – that wrecks people’s lives as well. How many more stories have been broadcast that
            have been wrong? The BBC are supposed to be impartial and they are supposed to be above reproach. Once they fall below this standard they do not deserve to continue.

            This is the BBC’s phone hacking scandal, if they are deliberately manipulating the news agenda then they are not a public service broadcaster, they become the UK’s answer to Fox, the only difference is Fox are upfront and honest about their editorial policy.

          • James Rider

            Did you actually read the article above? it describes how the BBC has set itself up to be the arbiter of truth where it has no mandate whatever!

            • Baron

              James, get real, telemachus doesn’t have to read anything, he needs to listen to nobody, he belongs to that phylum that knows, the anointed tribe of the enlightened.

          • salieri

            “If I had my way…”

            In this uncertain world we can at least thank god that you don’t.

            • HooksLaw

              The Harry Seacombe defence.

          • Baron

            well, if Baron, one of the number of sanctimonious prats, had his way, he would institute any sharp object into that part of your body other people use to defecate.

            As our friends over the pond used to say: how does that grab you?

          • chudsmania

            Eh ? ‘I am sick of the santimonious prats who want to skewer the BBC for a simple editorial mistake on a single programme’ > run that by me again ? Where the hell have you been for the last month ? (i’d suggest touching yourself up while gazing at a glossy pic of Ed Balls) . It can be the only reason.

          • doggywoggy

            “I am sick of the santimonious prats who want to skewer the BBC for a simple editorial mistake on a single programme”

            If that was the extent of the BBC’s wrongdoing I would agree with you. However according to the Met police, they are investigating what they call the “biggest paedophile ring on record” which created hundreds of victims over many decades. This is centred on a BBC which sought to cover those serious crimes up and instead eulogise about the paedophile.

            Added to that is the nakedly partisan decision to smear the entire tory leadership with paedophile allegations, without ANY attempt at fact-checking whatsoever. Clearly a symptom of their political bias. Can you even imagine them going after the labour leadership without LOTS of very careful fact checking first?

            Added to this is the rank hypocrisy of the BBC attacking corporations for complying fully with their lawful obligation to maintain fiduciary duty to their shareholders by legally reducing their tax liabilities, whilst at the same time the senior BBC staff, prestenters and executives alike, are engaged in the same sort of tax avoidance, but without the fiduciary duty obligation. Meaning their own tax avoidance is pure naked greed.

            added to this is this latest, and arguably most serious scandal. That the BBC not only was investing a chunk of it’s own pension funds in “renewable energy” (nothing wrong with that) but that they then convened a series of meetings with industry insiders and other fellow believers and attempted (by spending tens of thousands of pounds of our money on lawyers) to keep secret, the attendees of the main “seminar” whereby they conspired to breach their own charter in order to lend the BBC’s good name and reputation to a contentious, unproven and disputed scientific hypothesis, which happens to underpin the very same markets that the BBC was investing in.

            This looks like fraud, insider trading and the very least is a very big lie upon which hundreds of billions of tax-payers money over the next decade is already being spoken for.

            This is so much more than “a simple editorial mistake on a single programme”

            It is a catalogue of systematic fraud, corruption, greed and sexual perversion.

            • telemachus

              But over the top
              So a couple of minor slips at news night and a presenter who was a monster who pursued his criminal activities in the NHS
              Did not read you lambasting the NHS

          • Fergus Pickering

            How does an electronic blue pencil work, old son? And tell me, if the BBC were to cease to exist tomorrow, what exactly would I lose. I wuld be sorry at the demise of Radio 4, but otherwise. I never watch their news. I never watch BBC1 at all.Why should I? There are some good foreign programmes on BBC 4. They didn’t make them, thank God. They bought them from Sweden, Denmark, France and Italy. All these benighted lands who have to hobble on without the Beeb. When I was in New York I did not watch Fox News. Who does? I watched CNN, which seemed more intelligent than the BBC. It even mentioned Britain once or twice and the Prime Minister without the obligatory leftist sneers..

      • Swiss Bob

        A right wing plot undertaken by all those far right BBC employees?

        You sir are a card.

      • Heartless etc.,

        Are the ‘Right Wing’ that bright? – I doubt it Telly old mate – they’re too busy cashing in on all the bullshit spawned by the ‘Green’ arse brigade.

        Now the UKIP people – and those that see the logic of their cause – something quite different. Go figure.

      • Ian Walker

        The press sell papers and what is popular with the plebs sells better. The ‘UKIP tendency’ is just supply reacting to demand,

      • Jeremy Poynton

        Yes. Indeed, were I you I would seek urgent medical attention for delusional tendencies.

      • Hexhamgeezer


        • telemachus

          Truth is truth

          • Jimmy R

            Not when Truth is translated to Pravda

            • telemachus

              Not sure given current concerns about our press that we would not be better off with Pravda

      • realfish

        ‘Am I unique in thinking that …’
        You’re certainly unique telemachus.

      • Baron

        Yup, telemachus, your thinking is truly unique and not only on this issue, now, be a good fellow, and fornicate off.

    • michael

      Quite The above list certainly reads like a who’s who of the loony left.

  • Bluesman

    It is because of the unique way that the BBC is funded that it can tell us to go screw ourselves.

    • 2trueblue

      It is because it is not run properly, and they do think that they know best on everything. At last a light has been shone on them and we see them for what they are, incompetent, bigoted, and totally intolerant to what the public thinks. They have their own agenda. Even when they have royally screwed up they use our money to keep a guy, who had to leave, quiet. Where else does our money go?

    • Baron

      Bluesman, sir, Baron takes his hat off to you, in one simple sentence you hit on what’s wrong with the monstrosity, you’re a superstar. The sooner the impost gets scrapped, the better.

Can't find your Web ID? Click here