BBC abandoned balanced climate reporting after meeting with these 28 campaigners

By |2012-11-28T15:37:33+00:00November 14th, 2012|CFACT Europe|7 Comments

In 2006, the BBC decided to stop providing balanced coverage of global warming science and policy after “a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts.”  UK blogger Tony Newbery  filed a freedom of information request to determine just who the 28 “best scientific experts” were.  The BBC refused to comply and went to great (and expensive) legal lengths to avoid the disclosure.

The original Wayback Machine

The internet, however, has a long memory.  A search of an internet “wayback” machine revealed the 28 names the BBC was hiding.  Surprise, surprise, the list revealed few “best scientific experts” no scientific experts skeptical of the global warming science and policy the BBC would choose to champion, numerous global warming campaigners and business people seeking to protect and expand taxpayer subsidies to their carbon and alternative energy schemes.

Four senior representatives of the BBC, including BBC Director General George Entwistle,  who attended the 2006 meeting have just been disciplined or resigned from their posts at the BBC following a serious scandal which paints them not as neutral journalists reporting for a taxpayer funded news service, but as “ends justify the means” left-wing campaigners.  BBC Newsnight falsely reported that Lord McAlpine, who served as Treasurer of the Conservative Party and adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, was involved in the North Wales child abuse scandal.  The charges, which have proven false, were made by the BBC without ever contacting Lord McAlpine to hear his side of the story — apparently, a sad pattern at the BBC.  This has left many asking whether these BBC officials were so filled with disdain for Baroness Thatcher that they rushed onto the air a story which would damage her legacy.

Similarly, were these BBC officials so enamored of the goals of radical global warming advocates to implement their agenda by stifling all question and debate, that they rushed the BBC into its policy of only reporting one side of this expensive and controversial set of policies?

Consider Christopher Booker’s report The BBC and Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

The “Omnologos” blog released the following 28 names as those who counseled the BBC to abandon impartial journalism on climate.   Judge for yourself:

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
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


  1. Ruth Bard November 14, 2012 at 4:01 PM

    The parallels with the CBC* here in the Great White North are nothing short of breathtaking. Could it be the taxpayer funding? We wonders, yes we wonders…

    *Completely Biased Crapola

  2. Russell Cook November 14, 2012 at 4:23 PM

    Apply the “Internet Wayback Machine” web search feature to a larger variety of enviro-activist web pages that are otherwise hidden from view, and so much more of their highly questionable efforts are revealed. Try the basic url. Past that into a regular web browser and you are taken to a benign-looking single page. Paste it into the Internet Wayback Machine and click on the 1997 time period like this*/ and a hidden world opens up.

    I’ve used those archives and others to great effect in my articles like “Fakegate Opens a Door: More than meets the eye in the Heartland controversy”

  3. Johnpd November 17, 2012 at 1:59 AM

    Could this lead to the breakup of the BBC, & it becoming a subscription only service?
    One can only hope.

    • Maida Comment November 18, 2012 at 4:11 AM

      You you dump your car if the ash trays are full? or do you have shares in Sky TV?

      • Johnpd November 18, 2012 at 5:59 AM

        Maida hi.

        I don’t smoke, only bad habit I don’t have. 🙂

        More seriously, I have come to see the BBC as a profoundly marxist organisation,which is extremely dangerous to the UK. “Thank God for Jimmy Savile” James Delingpole’s Friday Column puts it very eloquently.

        On a more personal level, I was visiting friends recently & laughing with their delightful & bright 7 year old, at a BBC program called ” Horrible Histories”

        She proudly showed me her “Horrible Histories” book, & I quickly realised that it was pure propaganda designed to make kids think that mankind is despicable.

        Why? Very good question. If you can tell me, I’d be grateful. will give you a clue.

        Top of page 5 is this question:

        “So why are you reading this book? ….this is a book about ‘people’, not ‘history’ – ‘people’, the most disgusting, evil, cruel & HORRIBLE creatures on earth. ( Their emphasis)

        This is not a one off, it’s a series of books & tv programs.

        This book is: ” The Horrible History of The World “, by Terry Deary, & illustrated by Martin Brown. With red ink from “real body bits & blood from 70,000 crushed cochineal beetles”.

        We live in interesting times.

  4. Barry Dalgleish November 20, 2012 at 10:29 AM

    Interesting article, which essentially fails to define what exactly it means by ‘biased’ reporting. The article contains very little detail of any consequence. It put a road map in front of the reader – or perhaps sketch might be a better word – and sends the reader off on a tangent to an organisation called The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which references a highly biased and cherry picked article from the Sunday Times. This article refers to a narrow time frame in order to present its particular discourse and viewpoint. Its only when you read the full article that some degree of scientific reality oozes out. But it’s sandwiched between the articles agenda.

    So as to the question of funding, who funds the GWPF?

    We already know who’s behind the Sunday Times…

    • GoFigure December 4, 2012 at 10:22 AM

      Nobody, no organization comes near the “funding” by governments. The US government has put out something on the order of a hundred BILLION, not a nickel of it goes to research which would contradict the government’s agenda. Having answered that question, why not look at the logic? Anyone should be able to understand scientific method. When a scientist makes a claim it is imperative that, if he wants anyone to take him/her seriously, that all of his data be made available, along with his rationale.

      Those folks arguing that man’s activities are having an appreciable impact on climate, do NONE of that — ever. They even avoid debating. Occasionally some true believing scientist (not a real member of the kabal) offers to debate, and is quickly shredded with facts and science. The most vociferous pushers of CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) never put themselves in that position, which would seem to imply that they understand how bogus their position is, so they obviously have another agenda.

Comments are closed.