Full List of Participants to the BBC CMEP Seminar on 26 January 2006

This list has been obtained legally.

This is for Tony, Andrew, Benny, Barry and for all of us Harmless Davids.

January 26th 2006,

BBC Television Centre, London
Specialists:
Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
Claire Foster, Church of England
Saleemul Huq, IIED
Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
Matthew Farrow, CBI
Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
Joe Smith, The Open University
Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
Anita Neville, E3G
Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia
BBC attendees:
Jana Bennett, Director of Television
Sacha Baveystock, Executive Producer, Science
Helen Boaden, Director of News
Andrew Lane, Manager, Weather, TV News
Anne Gilchrist, Executive Editor Indies & Events, CBBC
Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning
Elizabeth McKay, Project Executive, Education
Emma Swain, Commissioning Editor, Specialist Factual
Fergal Keane, (Chair), Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Fran Unsworth, Head of Newsgathering
George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs
Glenwyn Benson, Controller, Factual TV
John Lynch, Creative Director, Specialist Factual
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
Jon Williams, TV Editor Newsgathering
Karen O’Connor, Editor, This World, Current Affairs
Catriona McKenzie, Tightrope Pictures catriona@tightropepictures.com

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

171 Replies to “Full List of Participants to the BBC CMEP Seminar on 26 January 2006”

  1. Amazed that two of my former employer’s staff (The Open University) have agreed to secrecy. The University is committed to OPENNESS.
    For shame.

  2. Pingback: Climatemonitor
  3. This notion that the BBC must provide a ‘balanced’ opinion on the subject of climate change is strange in that the scientific perspective on climate change is not balanced. Now I know Maurizio you don’t like references to conspiracy ideation but unfortunately, that is all the…..contrarians have. How else do you explain the paucity of peer-reviewed science supporting the opposing position? The answer has to be either everyone is wrong or there is a conspiracy. If you want balance, it’s fair to say that both of those possibilites are equally implausible. The majority of scientists agree the world is not flat. Where are the protests about lack of balance on that subject? The majority of scientists agree that bacteria and viruses cause disease. Where are the protests that demonic possession isn’t being fairly represented?

    1. uknowIspeaksense – as I have written in several sites but not here perhaps, I do not mind if the BBC is partial on any topic and for any reason as long as it says so clearly, openly and without untruths, and elucidates what those reasons are.

      In this case they have done nothing of the sort, as if they were pretending still impartiality when they didn’t have, only to pretend then they had had the best advice at a particular meeting when they didn’t have, etc etc.

      The BBC has lived out of trust, it seriously risks dying without trust.

      1. So you wouldn’t have a problem if the BBC said, “We are taking advice from Hansen, Santer, Mann, UEA etc and we are only going to present one side of the story because that accurately reflects the evidence in the peer reveiwed literature”?

      2. Yes, I would have no problem if the BBC or anybody else but especially licence-fee-based BBC were to be sincere about what they are doing.

        Then we could discuss about the meaning of “accurately reflects”. But we were never given the opportunity, always bounced off by claims of impartiality or mysterious lists of top-class experts whose actual views were for nobody to investigate.

    2. And just forget the “conspiracy”. There is seldom a need for one, and it might always be composed of a handful of people, making it possible but still non-needed if only because they might already be thinking alike, so they wouldn’t even think themselves as conjurers.

      1. I see. So a handful of people are conspiring (either deliberately or not) to fool the world and tens of thousands of competitive, highly intelligent, left brain people are blindly going along for the ride? Is that really what you are suggesting? That, Maurizio is even less plausible than the alternatives I have already mentioned.

      2. Ukniss.- feel free to play with all the straw men you need but if you genuinely want a serious answer you’ll have to stick to what I said, not your unwarranted rephrasing of it.

      3. Strawman? Seriously? Maurizio, we are both intelligent people….let’s see. Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. How’s this? Are you suggesting that a handful of like-minded people are inadvertantly conjuring the AGW hypothesis? I am genuinely interested to hear your clarification. Feel free to speak plainly so that I don’t inadvertantly conjur a strawman.

      4. > “inadvertantly conjuring the AGW hypothesis?”

        First of all my “About Omniclimate” page makes it clear I don’t want to discuss everything again from step zero. The issue I have is with CAGW, not so much AGW per se.

        As for thousands going along “for the ride”…please read the story of Reg Sprigg. It’s perfectly human not to want to fight every battle.

      5. I might put a clause like that in my “about” page so I can make ambiguous statements and not ever return to clarify them. Thanks for the tip Maurizio.

      6. I’m afraid i do believe there is a conspiracy here Maurizio, why else would a world renowned organisation feel the need to lie about the makeup of this panel?

        The primary aim of the AGW Scare is to convince the population that we have a global problem which will ultimately need a world government to solve. The EU is seen as the vanguard for this one world govt.

        A secondary aim is to promote carbon taxes, to distribute freely to companies & politicians to get them on board. Follow the money. “Green energy”, particularly “Big Wind” requires vast govt subsidies to provide unreliable & over expensive electricity, from “ungreen” imported machinery, which requires back up generators running alongside at a most “ungreen” tickover capacity for when the wind drops. “Big Wind” is a huge scandal run for the benefit of the few at the expense of most. It makes sense neither financially nor ecologically, so there is a conspiracy concealing the real reasons for it’s existence.

        http://www.joannenova.com.au is a good guide to both the science & the money trail.

        The one world govt strategy is laid out in UN Agenda 21, which was introduced by UN bureaucrats at the 1992 RIO Earth Summit. Signing it, George Bush Snr proclaimed it a “New World Order”.

        Part of UN Agenda 21 plans the equalisation of wealth between 1st & 3rd worlds, which helps explain the ludicrous situation of bankrupt Britain borrowing money to send to India, which does not want it.

        The most shocking part of UN Agenda 21 is the aim to depopulate the Earth by about 80% of it’s people. How?

        After 20 years, Alabama became the first US state to ban UN Agenda 21. Other states, counties & cities are following suit. This is possible because neither George Bush Snr nor Bill Clinton, who signed it in 1993, bothered to bring it before Congress. The Federal agencies implementing UN Agenda 21, such as the bullying EPA, are acting unconstitutionally,

        http://www.thenewamerican.com is a good site. Go to: “Sustainable Freedom: Surging Opposition to Agenda 21,
        “Sustainable Development” 10 July 2012.

        http://www.reason.com/.reasontv/2012/03/08/sackett-v-epa- is the US Environmental Protection Agency in action.

        The New American also has an article on the Sackett case.

        We live in interesting times.

        :).

        JD.

        PS: CO2 is plant food. We breathe it out, plants breathe it in, & give us back oxygen. That’s a sweet deal. Save the planet, plant a tree.

        PPS: The sahara desert has been retreating for over 25 years, as vegetation reclaims sand dunes right across North Africa. Is this CO2 working, (while there’s been no warming for 16 years)?

        http://www.scienceandpublicity.org & go to: Biospheric Productivity in Africa.

    3. “it’s fair to say that both of those possibilites are equally implausible”….. Scientists used to agree that the next ice-age was coming (1970). Maybe what we have is something like group-think, perhaps even religion with millions of folowers. Can all (or even any) religions be right? Its the desire for the common good… “save the world from frying”. “save the world from inequality, greed and anything else that is bad”. How can you argue against that? I’m afraid scientists are not immune to religion – perhaps even less so.

      Alas , the real world is much less interesting. and the odd thing is that when global warming is history we will not learn before plunging into the next group-think. Try saying “who remembers the fuss over global warming?” in 10 years time and feel the resentment.

      At least we got ozone depletion right…. a very different chain of events. why ?

      1. How many scientists published how many papers in the 1970’s predicting an ice age? How many published and predicted warming? I know the answer but that may be a bit of homework for you perhaps….that is if you are genuinely interested in facts. Also to suggest that group think or something akin to religion is at play is to suggest that all those scientists have decided to forego everything they have learnt about science as a process and ignore the scientific method. That is equally as implausible as a conspiracy or everyone being wrong. It also screams loud and clear that you yourself have little or no scientific training yourself.

      2. I never said that I was a scientist, and I am not one. I am just someone who listens and tries to make sense of things .. including the BBC. But I pay for your work.

        What your remark shouts at me louder than ever is the following:…
        “I am a scientist (the ‘true’ scientist) and you (the non-scientist) do not have the right to comment or make decisions. I am the priest”. How many times have we heard something similar from religions? Your arrogance is breathtaking.

        Thank you. You have made things clear in a way in which Maurizio – being too polite – did not.

        I do need to point out to you that it is the public (overwhelmingly non-scientists) who have to pay. They do not read scientific papers, but they do rely on what they think are balanced media comments. The BBC in particular. The 70’s ice-age may not have had many (any?) scientific papers but it was something the media threw at us.

        Please tell me please Mr High-Priest. Do you think I should trust the views of the scientific advisors to the BBC?

      3. “Do you think I should trust the views of the scientific advisors to the BBC?”

        You should read scientific papers and weigh up the evidence. I personally pay very little attention to the media as that sort of information is second hand at best.

        As for your desire to paint science as religion, and as a scientist, I am not asking you to believe anything I say. I would urge you though to undertake some scientific training so that when you make comments about the conventions of science you will at least be making informed comments.

      4. Well for what its worth I have an MSc, but that doesn’t mean much; I defer to your superior intelligence and apologise for my stupid remarks.

        I think that the real impact of the climate change movement will be a lasting reduction in trust not just in worthy institutions like the BBC but in scientists themselves.

        May I recommend a new website if you don’t already know it:
        http://www.realclimate.org

        Reading it I get the impression that the scientific blogs are genuinely objective and unemotional. I only understand about 10% of what is said, but the message so far is very clear.. that climate science is a very complex area and there is much uncertainty. It doesn’t convince me that spending billions on green technology is a very good investment. Not to mention suppression of growth for poorer countries.

        Why have you chosen such a cryptic username – uknowispeaksense – Mr High Priest ? Surely a scientist seeks clarity.

      5. No exchange on relative merits of obscure nicknames please. 🙂

      6. I choose anonymity as in the past I have had hard core deniers harrass my employers and also my family. While most people tend to be polite I won’t take the risk of having people contact my wife and insulting her as has happened in the past. That said, I’m not that hard to find.

      7. Connolley can split hair as much as he wants. I don’t care. He wrote about the 1972 consensus and didn’t even realize what he was writing.

      8. Connolley splitting hairs? How about Connolley being misrepresented? You cited him, no doubt on someone else’s assessment. I give it to you straight from the horses mouth that he was misrepresented. You should accept it and find another source that ACTUALLY backs up your claims……….oh.

        Well, it’s been fun Maurizio. Feel free to pop over to my blog and tell me what you actually meant. I can understand you don’t want your readership to see you wriggle.

      9. Eheheh…you’ve been changing topic, throwing strawmen, making unfounded assertions and now can’t even argue in Connolley’s favour. I shall simply suppose we inhabit different worlds.

      10. There was a consensus between 1972 and 1975 that the world was cooling. It’s all written in the Connolley et al paper of a few years ago. Everything else was speculation by media-active scientists and copy-hungry journalists, plus the CIA and various scientific bodies taking the opportunity to kick-start climate observations and organizations on a global scale.

    4. That the world is flat is testable – most CAGW claims are not. That alone renders your analogy false.
      Mark

      1. Are you suggesting there is no evidence for AGW? If that’s the case then this conversation is pointless. The evidence is that it is happening and all the models predict dangerous consequences it continues unabated. You are correct that we can’t actually test for CAGW…at least not until it actually happens. It becomes a question of risk assessment and management. I can only assume you have car and home insurance when any model you can come up with will predict a 1 in 100 chance your car will be stolen or your house burnt down. Why then take the risk that AGW, which according to ALL models, will be a very bad thing, will not be serious? If it is some sort of philosphical position you are taking because it is based on models, then you better go and live in a cave and forego most modern technology, as everything around you was based on some sort of model at some point. If its a case that you don’t accept expert opinion from experts in a field in which they are experts and you aren’t, then you better go and see your dentist if you need to have a brain tumour removed. Whichever position you take, you will need to also take a philosophically hypocritical position in some aspect. If you can live with that, well, good for you.

      2. Nobody insures their home paying a premium that is remotely comparable to the value of the home.

  4. Is it possible to get a summary or transcript of what was said at the seminar ? I am a bit worried about pre-judging people by their background. This is partly what has led to the lack of impartiality in the first place, and can be taken as a kind of conspiracy.

  5. Fantastic work, Maurizio.What stands out in the list of participants is the number of organizations which have a vested financial interest in promoting global warming. It cannot be right that the BBC, funded by the taxpayer, colludes with these organizations to their advantage. It seems that corruption is endemic in the BBC.

  6. Well yes- just look at all those conspirators! a mix of business, science, ngos and television but no right wing journalists. I can’t quite see the problem or the conspiracy.

    perhaps you could enlighten me on why these people are not suitable to discuss the merits of the science. The BBC does not give equal coverage for ‘intelligent design’ and in fact mocks it- why is the ‘skeptic’ cause not equal in treatment? Bring some real data and research and I for one will listen.

    1. Conspiracy? I don’t think anybody would be foolish enough to organise a conspiracy with that lot

      1. The funny thing is julesbollocks actually identifies a ‘conspiracy’ without realizing it. He writes …but no right wing journalists. I can’t quite see the problem or the conspiracy.
        The fact that our national broadcaster is devoid of ‘right wing journalists’ when it is supposed to be fair and balanced is part of the problem and ‘conspiracy’. The fact that jules swallows everything they tell him and is content to allow them to think for him without seeing the problem shows just how successful they are – with those like him.

  7. Ah yes obviously only weird greenies were present at this event.
    Like BP?.Or the Institute of Economic Affairs.?Or the insurance industry? Or the CBI? Or NPower? Or even the US Embassy (under George W Bush)…..
    You conspiracy theorists really are very selective with your indignation..

    1. Andrew – I for one welcome contrary opinion but apart from the stupid reference to conspiracy theories, can you please at least try to make a reasoned contrary opinion if so inclined?

      1. My point is a simple one: this attendance list at a BBC briefing event strikes me as a thoroughly balanced one regarding the topic under discussion. I simply do not understand why anybody apart from conspiracy theorists is bothering themselves so much

      2. Your opinion is unassailable for the same reason why it places itself outside of any possibility of discussion.

        If I wore blue-tinted glasses the world would look to me like if filled with some bluish colour. I might even accuse red-seeing people of being conspiracy theorists. So what?

      3. Andrew W: What is your definition of “balanced”, when it is more than obvious that the weight of ‘balance’ the attendees is very heavily, even 100%, in the pro-CAGW camp? If the seminar were ‘balanced’, why the secrecy? There is no conspiracy theory, just conspiracy to pervert the BBC’s legal Charter (of impartiality). From the list of attendees, show just one person who is a trained and qualified attribution scientist, i.e. whose core subject is a physical science, physics, chemistry, etc. None are. The very few scientists on the list have plant or social science backgrounds, and are essentially pro-mitigation (equivalent to pro-CAGW). All on the list are ‘believers’ in and advocates and CAGW, even Tearfund’s representative has it explicitly, “Advocacy Director”. And what ‘expertise’ in climate science does the ‘Head of Comedy’ have?

  8. Is this culture of open frank and honourable folk? This might have been shocking, but after Dr Kelly, anything can be manipulated or should I say covered up to make most people think the worst without knowlege. This time, THIS TIME. they have been well and truly named. These people are deemed to be experts. What a joke. Thank you for your work

  9. Well uncovered…no wonder they wanted to keep it quiet. How to trash your name as an authoritative un-biased news provider…be foolish with the company you keep. Thank you.

  10. Very well done Maurizio – absolutely brilliant find.
    Not only the climate change seminar is revealed by your find. The link also shows the various members of the IBT that undoubtedly have influenced BBC reporting on their respective agendas over the years.
    IBT even boasts on their website how they have managed to influence output of the media like the BBC.
    There are so many topics where one can see the BBC haven’t even attempted any kind of balance or truth on those subjects. Simply reported it in the way those members propagate their agenda.

    I think this is bigger than the Newsnight scandal in how it shows the real lack of ethics within the BBC.

  11. Thank you, Maurizio. You are a first-rate philanthropist. Splendid digging.

    But now that you’ve opened the trench, I hope others will enlarge it so that we can chuck the whole of the BBC into it along with its fellow travelers, cover them in lime and fill it back in. Remember: the only good BBC is a dead BBC.

  12. I am firmly in the sceptic camp, and do not agree at all with the BBC’s attempts to keep these names a secret. However, when quoting from the BBC’s report ‘FROM SEESAW TO WAGON WHEEL Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century’ the apparently damning sentence: “The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus”, then honesty requires us to also quote the sentence which immediately follows:

    “But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is even more offensive today than it was in 1926”.

    Yes, the BBC’s list of experts was biased, and no, they shouldn’t have tried to keep it secret, but what they were saying in the report was that they believed there was an overwhelming consensus, so they had to report that fact, whilst remaining alert to the possibilty that the consensus may change. We may not agree with them, but let’s not pretend that they didn’t even attempt this.

    1. Ceri – I do not think anybody at the BBC got to the “But these dissenters” bit.

      1. Exactly, the BBC itself readily admits realists may not be heard! Spending so much of our money on six lawyers to stop us seeing a list of unqualified participants is proof to this! Nice work Maurizio, thank you!

      2. Maurizio – I completely agree, which is another interesting angle – how well did the BBC do in presenting a dissenting view impartially, when this was their stated aim….?

  13. Wow … well done indeed.

    I’ve been disappointed many times with the wayback machine on other searches – but what a pot of gold ….

    Outstanding.

    The mendacity of the BBC and their claque is epic.

  14. Fantastic job – high time for this particular sh*t to hit the fan. Couldn’t be better timed – well done!

  15. What were the BBC lawyers justifications in court case?
    Maybe the BBC was lying to the judge if indeed said it was a scientific meeting.

  16. Bravo, Maurizio! Non c’era neanche bisogno della sabbia per farlo sentire ben bene alla BBC. Bel colpo.

  17. You forget very very few people working at the Beeb will have much knowledge of science, history, sociology, journalism, media studies, yes; chemistry, physics, biology, no. So anyone with a science degree may well appear to be a leading scientist. There are some scientists present, but they appear outnumbered by the rest.

  18. Superb and I have to say looking at the list, not surprising. Their should now be a full public inquiry into the BBC regarding impartiality and the it’s own interpretation of the Royal Charter.

  19. The BBC is not just an impartial disseminator of news and views; it has a strong political agenda and seeks to shape public opinion.The image it portrays of itself being a non-profit organisation attracts mainly left wing idealists to its ranks. This ‘non-profit’ position is after paying its top heavy management enormous tax dodging salaries (after all it needs to attract the right sort of high minded left wing Oxbridge activists). BBC radio 4 news output is editorially hand in glove with the Guardian newspaper – always the first reference ‘in what the papers say’- and the stomping ground of George Monbiot the warmist nut job (surprised he wasn’t at the seminar). He tweeted the name of Lord McAlpine on Twitter as the Newsnight abuser. The BBC is a seething conspiracy of the Marxist left determined to subvert public opinion to promote its own agenda.

  20. A good job of work. now everyone will know how balanced and impartial the BBC is.

  21. No wonder they were so keen to keep this hidden – Greenpeace, Stop Climate Chaos, Tearfund – clearly the best, most authoritative , unbiased sources the BBC could find. And its on THEIR say so that climate sceptics have been ridiculed and ignored. Who selected this bunch of wallies?

    Oh yes – Maurizio, you are the man!

  22. Oliver Cromwell’s address to the ‘Rump BBC’:

    It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
    Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you?
    Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter’d your conscience for bribes?
    Is there a man among you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
    Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turn’d the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d, are yourselves gone!
    So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!
    [Cromwell’s dismissal of the Rump Parliament in 1653]

  23. First class work! This is clear evidience to demonstrate that Helen Boaden Head of BBC News, LIED HER ASS OFF, & 6 lawyers & a biased ignorant judge fell for it!!! Then again, has she been the recipient of “BBC dumbing down” because she thinks that anyone who represents an organisation with CO2/Climate/GlobalWarming as a title listing is a scientist or engineer or other technologist? The Warmists can “educate” people, school children, sturdents, etc, but the one thing these arrogant elitists cannot do, is stop them from thinking!!!!! Thank God I say!

  24. Bravo. One can see why the MSM, at least that part that feels only they hold folk to account and only they ask others questions, backed by FoI exclusions if the spotlight turns, doesn’t feel the internet should be allowed to discover the actuall truth vs. the versions they run through their filters.

  25. How you must have felt when that list popped up onto your screen! How you must feel now with all the praise! Richly deserved. Well done!

  26. Well done. The BBC has had so many shots below the water line, it should no longer float. I hope that commenters hammer that message home wherever possible within the on-line main stream media at every opportunity.

    1. Everyone should write to their MP, cc’ing the Dept of Culture, Media & Sport to press the point home.

  27. Great detective work Maurizio – this is a significant public service and shows how senior BBC management was happy to have activists set editorial policy with minimal scientific input. No wonder they fought to keep the list secret.

  28. So, off that list, I’d say that the following are “Climate Scientists”. (In its broadest sense)
    Mike Hulme
    Dorthe Dahl-Jensen
    Michael Bravo
    Saleemul Huq (Possibly?)
    Steve Widdicombe
    Any I’ve missed?
    The rest of the “Specialists”, appear to be the usual bunch of parasites that this scam has attracted. Oh, plus “Big Oil” !

  29. Many thanks Maurizio, for obtaining and publishing this information. Now, if you could please do the same with the Balen Report.

    1. Philip, Of course they would have, they were after all on BBC ‘mind-your-own’ business.

  30. Well done. That list does make the absurdity of this warmist bias at the BBC more understandable. What a crew of activists.

  31. Brilliant! Congratulatiuons. Did the IBT put the list on-line with the BBC’s permission? And who tried to remove it and when? It makes nonsense of the claims about “Chatham House Rules”.

  32. You mean to say this meeting happened over six years ago? and the Beeb was still trying to hide the participants? Jeesh!

  33. The Wayback Machine strikes again. Well done Maurizio!

    I would be curious to know when that link on the ‘dialogue‘ page ceased to work. All the Wayback examples point to the same 2007 copy of the pdf.

    Going by the file names what can be said is that in September 2007 it was okay to list the delegates and link to them in that pink box. By the end of July 2008 that document had been replaced with Real World Brainstorm update 30Jul08.pdf

    Tony’s first FOI submission (AFAIK) was July 2007 which was responded to in August 2007 with the BBC claimed “The attendees at the seminar were made up of 30 key BBC staff and 30 invited guests who are specialists in the area of climate change.”

  34. Brilliant work, Detective Maurizio! My hat is off to you 🙂

    P.S. Did you notice that your old “friend” James Painter is “convening” the latest and greatest how scientists can communicate better [see BH Deja Vu post]

    1. Wow. Maurizio.

      I am amazed at the number of times everyone forgot to look in the Wayback machine until that one person looks. Or knows where to go looking. I remember when Richard North and I and a small handful went looking up and down for the “40% of Amazon would burn away” crap from the IPCC until Gareth dragged it out of Waybackmachine.

      These are the great climate experts who decided BBC’s climate coverage? All I can see is activist trash.

      Activists are good. Scientists are good. Activists pretending to be scientists, or hiding behind the skirts of scientists are trash. … that is the dregs really. I mean, who the f*** is “Head of Campaigns Greenpeace” to decide what the BBC should do? And why should the BBC pass him or her off as a scientist?

      There is a lot to answer for.

      1. Shub – your comment went mysteriously into the Spam folder….

  35. Well done Sir you’ve played a blinder:-)
    As Elvis would say you ain’t nothing but a hound dog?

  36. Top man!

    I thought for a moment or two that all TonyN’s efforts had now been wasted, but it isn’t so – his tribunal has demonstrated yet again, and in the very present day, the lengths (and our money) that the BBC will go to in order to conceal a deception.

    It seems to get worse and worse for the Beeb at present; this list and their original assertions of “leading scientists” ought to lead to criminal charges somewhere.

    1. We should all give our thanks to the International Broadcasting Trust for putting the list online, to Wayback Machine for keeping a copy of it and to the unnamed internet-challenged person who tried to remove the document and forgot to delete the one broken link pointing to it.

      Amen.

  37. Well done Maurizio. Great work. You’ve probably just saved Tony Newbery a bob or two as well.

  38. Oh, dear me!

    I don’t really think that the BBC or the legal profession understand the saying: “Information wants to be free…”

    Someone should also remind them to look up the “Streisland effect” in the wiki….

    Bets now being taken as to the knee-jerk legislative reaction that will be being discussed in Whitehall….

      1. Perhaps they will be able to argue it’s been just a harmless joke…

  39. George Entwistle??? Crumbs! So the DG was in FULL knowledge of the recent court case, and wanted his attendance to be kept secret, and when made DG, didn’t believe it of worth to declare his position as being in direct conflict with the BBC’s legal Charter!

  40. Fantastico, Maurizio! A scoop?

    “Investigative journalism is alive and well, it’s just moved house” – Pointman.

  41. Neat. Please send on to Chris Booker, Tony Newberry and Chris Patten (Chairman BBC Trust)

    And we should all demand a refund from the BBC for our money they spent on a futile lawyering exercise.

Leave a Reply to Peter Martin (@JunkkMale) Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.