A while ago I was marvelling at the science disinformation coming from the BBC. Recent events over the last few days have cleared up just how and why this happened.
From an unearthed BBC policy document, it appears that after a “high level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, (the BBC) 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]” source
This amazing 2007 BBC decision comes from a policy document with the Orwellian title “Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century”
Above: Global average temperature measured by satellite.
Here’s the worst part of this. When it was learned that the BBC had decided it would be false impartiality to discuss the sceptical facts regarding global warming, many UK taxpayers wanted to know who these “scientific experts” were that convinced the BBC to adopt such an unothadox stance. And so, a freedom of information request was put to the BBC by Tony Newberry. The BBC refused to say who these experts were and refused the freedom of information request. Which is amazing for a taxpayer funded body.
Lets be clear here. A publicly funded institution has been convinced to omit aspects of a major science story by a panel of experts, but refuses to say who these experts were. If the facts about the science were so obviously true (to the point of rejecting impartiality!) why the secrecy?
And so, after the freedom of information requests were refused, the BBC found itself in court. It’s hard to imagine the level of BBC contempt for the population when UK taxpayers must pay for the BBC court costs to withhold information from the very taxpayers who pay for this news service with or without their consent. Even more disturbing was the judge who agreed with the BBC that this policy session with these science experts was not public information! Case closed. Or is it?
Luckily though, the failure of the courts to defend the rights of UK citizens was made irrelevant as the list of 28 “science experts” were released online today by enterprising computer genius Mauizio. As could be expected, this panel of experts were not scientists but activists. Here is the list of people who sat down with the BBC to convince them to no longer be impartial about global warming.
Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA (the climategate epicentre by the way)
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
As you can see, the BBC was convinced to abandon impartiality not by “the best scientific experts” but by a bunch of activists. The BBC refusal of the FOI requests suddenly make sense as they clearly didn’t want to get caught in a lie. The BBC’s policy of systematically ignoring any and all contrary evidence also makes sense. The satellite temperature data shown above isn’t a secret so this policy explains how it could be constantly ignored in every climate story.
Also interesting is Ian Wright, the BP Oil representative who has been lobbying the UK government to pick up the bill for a carbon capture project. Not exactly an unbiased scientist there! Likewise Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant has plenty to gain by controlling public perception of this issue! Never mind that the rest are all activists! It boggles the mind how apparently easy it was for these rent seeking, science illiterates to control the BBC to such a degree that the BBC considered impartiality on this issue to be inappropriate. I did an additional double take when I see a representative of the Church of England (?) and a US embassy employee (his backstory is pretty illuminating but I don’t have the scope to deal with here). Perhaps the Church of England representative donated their “expertise” about floods!
This group of rent seekers is what the BBC refered to as a “high level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, (the BBC) 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]”
The number of truly disturbing things here is staggering. How easy it is to control opinion through state media. How much contempt the BBC has for the people who fund it by refusing freedom of information requests (truly ironic.) How few people found the climate science stories on the BBC laughably stupid not realizing they were regurgitating activist generated drivel and intentionally ignoring everything that did not fit the narrative. How long is it going to take (if ever) for a level of trust to return to the BBC. The failure of the UK court to hold an institution accountable to the taxpayers who fund it is perhaps more disturbing. And at the bottom of it all is the helplessness of UK taxpayers, who have no recourse to hold any of the people responsible for this corruption.
Slowly, brick by brick, the absurdity of man made global warming unravels. I can only hope that a major propaganda wing has been cut down and real science stories about climate will see the light of day.