BBC In Cahoots With Climategate Scientists

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bripat9643, Nov 29, 2011.

  1. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,699
    Thanks Received:
    8,057
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,237
    BBC sought advice from global warming scientists on economy, drama, music... and even game shows | Mail Online

    Britain’s leading green activist research centre spent £15,000 on seminars for top BBC executives in an apparent bid to block climate change sceptics from the airwaves, a vast new cache of leaked ‘Climategate’ emails has revealed.

    The emails – part of a trove of more than 5,200 messages that appear to have been stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia – shed light for the first time on an incestuous web of interlocking relationships between BBC journalists and the university’s scientists, which goes back more than a decade.

    They show that University staff vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the Corporation to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output.

    Like the first ‘Climategate’ leaks two years ago, they were placed last week on a Russian server by an anonymous source.

    Again like their predecessors, they have emerged just before a United Nations climate summit, which is to start this week in Durban.


    More...

    Cameron's green guru reveals his doubts over global warming

    BBC insiders say the close links between the Corporation and the UEA’s two climate science departments, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, have had a significant impact on its coverage.

    ‘Following their lead has meant the whole thrust and tone of BBC reporting has been that the science is settled, and that there is no need for debate,’ one journalist said. ‘If you disagree, you’re branded a loony.’

    In 2007, the BBC issued a formal editorial policy document, stating that ‘the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’ – the view that the world faces catastrophe because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
    The University of East Anglia, where most of the emails originated - none of the newly released emails appear to be post 2009, but clarify the extent of government involvement in the scandal

    The University of East Anglia, where most of the emails originated - none of the newly released emails appear to be post 2009, but clarify the extent of government involvement in the scandal

    The document says the policy was decided after ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts’ – including those from UEA.

    The ‘Climategate 2’ emails disclose that in private some of those same scientists have had doubts about aspects of the global warming case.

    For example, Professor Phil Jones, the head of the CRU, admitted there was no evidence that the snows of Kilimanjaro were melting because of climate change, and he and his colleagues agreed there were serious problems with the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph – the depiction of global temperatures that suggests they were broadly level for 1,000 years until they started to rise with industrialisation.

    But although there is now more scientific debate than ever about influences on climate other than CO2, prompted by the fact that the world has not warmed for 15 years, a report from the BBC Trust this year compared climate change sceptics to the conspiracy theorists who blame America for 9/11, and said Britain’s main sceptic think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, should be given no air time.

    The man at the centre of the BBC-UEA web is Roger Harrabin, the Corporation’s ‘environment analyst’, who reports for a range of programmes on radio and TV.

    Last week The Mail on Sunday revealed that in 1996, he and his friend, Professor Joe Smith of the Open University, set up an informal two-man band to organise environment seminars for BBC executives.

    Known as the Cambridge Media Environment Programme (CMEP), it operated until 2009, and over three years (2002 to 2005) received £15,000 from the Tyndall Centre. Mr Harrabin did not derive personal financial benefit, although Prof Smith was paid.

    Yesterday Mike Hulme, UEA’s Professor of Climate Change, who set up the centre in 2000 and was its director until 2007, said he planned to fund CMEP from Tyndall’s outset, as an ‘integral part of our outreach and communication strategy’.

    Mr Harrabin was also appointed to the Tyndall advisory board – an unpaid position he held for five years until 2005.

    The Climategate 2 emails suggest Prof Hulme expected something in return – the slanting of BBC coverage to exclude global warming sceptics.

    On February 25, 2002, the climate change sceptic Philip Stott, a London University professor, debated the subject with John Houghton of the Met Office on the Today programme.

    This prompted an angry email to colleagues from Prof Hulme. ‘Did anyone hear Stott vs Houghton on Today, Radio 4, this morning?’ he wrote.

    ‘Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media Environment Programme, to starve this type of reporting at source.’

    Last night Prof Hulme denied he was trying to deny space to sceptics, saying: ‘What I wanted to “starve” at source was “this type of reporting” – in which the important and complex issues raised by climate change are reduced to an argument between two voices representing different positions on climate science, as though there is one right and one wrong answer to climate change.’
    Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, appears before the Science and Technology Committee after the last dump of leaked climate-change emails

    Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, appears before the Science and Technology Committee after the last dump of leaked climate-change emails

    Far from wanting to narrow it, he said, he had tried to widen debate about the issue for years.

    This was not the only time there was talk of sceptics being shut out. On December 7, 2004, the BBC’s then-environment correspondent Alex Kirby wrote to Prof Jones.

    He had, he said, succeeded in blocking one sceptic from the BBC, claiming his work was ‘pure stream of consciousness rubbish’. But to his regret, he had been unable to stop a group of scientists who said there were flaws in the hockey-stick graph being featured.

    ‘I can well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece,’ he wrote.

    ‘But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all... 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. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats.’
    NASA thermal satellite image showing the world's arctic surface temperature trends: Today's emails appear to show scientists interested in painting a particular picture of such trends - but the information is not new

    Prof Jones commented: ‘I thought you exercised some caution with crackpots.’

    Mr Kirby replied: ‘Oh Phil, what can I say...I hope you’ll still talk to me despite this.’

    Yesterday Mr Kirby explained his joke, saying that editors often asked him to include sceptic views in his stories, in order to provide balance.

    ‘I felt then and I feel now that it’s not our job to inject artificial balance into an unbalanced reality,’ he said.

    He believed scientists such as Prof Jones had got the subject ‘mainly right’, while those who rejected their conclusions were often not worth hearing.

    In November 2008, in an email to his UEA colleague Claire Reeves, Prof Jones expressed his satisfaction that ‘the reporting of climate stories within the media (especially the BBC) is generally one-sided, ie the counter argument is rarely made’.

    But alas, there was ‘still a vociferous and small majority [sic] of climate change sceptics... who engage the public/govt/media through web sites’.

    He suggested UEA should set up a project to curb their influence, writing: ‘Issues to be addressed include: should a vociferous minority be able to bully mainstream scientists? Should mainstream climate scientists have to change the way they have worked for generations?’

    Mr Harrabin shared his UEA contacts throughout the BBC.

    For example, in October 2003 Vicki Barker, a presenter on the World Service, wrote asking to visit Prof Hulme, saying: ‘My colleague Roger Harrabin suggested I contact you. I am about to spend several months attempting to answer the following question for senior BBC managers: If we were to reinvent economics coverage from scratch, TODAY, incorporating what we now know (or think we know) about global environmental and economic trends, what would it look like?’

    She said she had noticed ‘environmental undertow’ that was ‘beginning to tug at economies around the world... I have wondered if current newsgathering practices and priorities are conveying these phenomena as effectively as they could be. Is this a question you and some of your colleagues feel like pondering?’

    The same year, BBC1 broadcast a series on the British countryside presented by Alan Titchmarsh. The last programme presented a deeply pessimistic view of future global warming and before it was transmitted its producer, Dan Tapster, asked Prof Hulme to vet the script.

    ‘I’d be grateful if you could send me your hourly/daily rate as a script consultant so that I can budget your time,’ he wrote. Prof Hulme said he remembered going through the script, adding that he was not being paid, and was ‘certainly not an official adviser’.

    Mr Harrabin knew that if he was seen to be too closely associated with green campaigners – in earlier years CMEP had accepted funding from activist organisation WWF – the impartiality he was supposed to demonstrate as a BBC reporter could be jeopardised.

    In July 2004, in an email to Prof Hulme that asked him to continue funding CMEP seminars, Prof Smith explained: ‘The only change I anticipate is that we won’t be asking WWF to support the seminars: Roger particularly feels the association could be compromising to the “neutral” reputation should anyone look at it closely.’

    Prof Smith told Prof Hulme that the seminars’ purpose was to influence BBC output.

    He spoke of finding ways of getting environmental issues into ‘mainstream’ stories ‘by stealth’, adding: ‘It’s very important in my view that research feeds directly back into decision-maker conversations (policy and above all media). I hope and think that the seminars have laid the ground for this within the BBC... There is senior BBC buy in-for the approach I want to pursue.’

    Yesterday he said he had always ensured there was a range of views at the seminar, while by using the phrase ‘by stealth’ he simply meant that ‘sustainability stories are elements of mainstream stories, but the complexity and uncertainty inherent in them make them difficult to report in isolation’.

    In September 2001, another email reveals, Mr Harrabin and Prof Smith wrote to Prof Hulme, asking what the BBC should do to mark a climate summit the following year.

    They said his suggestions would be ‘circulated among relevant BBC decision-makers’, while instead of confining himself to news and current affairs, he should also feel free to recommend ideas for ‘drama, music, game shows’.

    Labour MP Graham Stringer last night said he would be writing this week to BBC director-general Mark Thompson to demand an investigation into the Corporation’s relationship with UEA. ‘The new leaked emails show that the UEA scientists at the Tyndall Centre and the CRU acted more like campaigners than academics, and that they succeeded in an attempt to influence the output of the BBC,’ Mr Stringer said.

    Conservative MP David Davis said: ‘Using research money to evangelise one point of view and suppress another defies everything I ever learnt about the scientific method. These emails go to the heart of the BBC’s professed impartiality... its actions must be investigated.’

    But the BBC insisted its relationship with UEA had never been ‘unhealthily close’, saying it was always impartial. A BBC spokesman said: ‘We would reject the claim that the Tyndall Centre influenced BBC editorial policy.’

    As for Mr Harrabin’s place on the Tyndall board and the advice he gave, he said: ‘The idea was for him to look out for potential stories for the BBC and to offer academics a media perspective on climate change and policy. We do not believe that com-promised impartiality.’

    Mr Harrabin added: ‘It was right that the BBC decided not to give sceptics parity on climate change,’ saying there was a ‘cross-party consensus.’ But he said he had maintained they should still be given some air time.

    Prof Jones was not available for comment last night.

    Read more: BBC sought advice from global warming scientists on economy, drama, music... and even game shows | Mail Online
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2011
  2. Soggy in NOLA
    Offline

    Soggy in NOLA Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2009
    Messages:
    32,679
    Thanks Received:
    4,316
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,412
    How ironic.... the "science first" crowd has hitched their wagon to something that is about as scientific as Tarot cards and an even bigger fraud.
     
  3. paulitician
    Offline

    paulitician Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    38,401
    Thanks Received:
    4,136
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,972
    Why wouldn't Left Wing Media be in cahoots with a Left Wing Movement? It's the same way here with our Left Wing Press. Just watch CNN and NBC for a bit and i bet they wont go more than 20 minutes without running a piece on how the World's about to end due to Global Warming. This is a Left Wing Socialist Movement. I've said that from day one. It's good to see so many finally catching on. It's all about Politics and control. It has become mostly 'Junk Science' at this point. The sky really isn't falling. Time to quit with all the fear mongering.
     
  4. occupied
    Offline

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,356
    Thanks Received:
    2,243
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,712
    When it comes to the climate I figure time will tell who was right and who was wrong but by then we will be dead and so there is no downside to attacking science or fossil fuel consumption for us but our children will pay the price for inaction and they will likely hate us for it. The climate is changing, peak oil is here and we are spending our time making damned sure that it is future generations who will suffer for our sins rather than ourselves.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. PredFan
    Offline

    PredFan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Messages:
    29,190
    Thanks Received:
    4,422
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    In Liberal minds, rent free.
    Ratings:
    +11,615
    Time is not needed. It's already figured out.

    IF the planet is warming, it is the very unusual sun spot activity (or lack thereof) that is doing it. AGW is a scam, that is why they have to cover it up with fraud and supression of the truth. They wouldn't need to do this if it were scientific fact.

    The Climate is ALWAYS changing, has been since the planet cooled.
     
  6. occupied
    Offline

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,356
    Thanks Received:
    2,243
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,712
    Put it on your tombstone so that future generations can decide if we were wise to do nothing about it.
     
  7. paulitician
    Offline

    paulitician Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    38,401
    Thanks Received:
    4,136
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,972
    Talk to me if Global Cooling starts happening. Because Global Cooling really would be a terrible calamity for this Planet. A little warming wont be the end of us though. So i wouldn't freak out about it. We're all gonna die from something that has absolutely nothing to do with Global Warming. Bet on that. So just live and enjoy life. You wont be here very long.
     
  8. occupied
    Offline

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,356
    Thanks Received:
    2,243
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,712
    Thanks for illustrating my point, just deny, deny, deny, consume, consume, consume and let the future figure it out.
     
  9. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,932
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,868
    Yes, let’s not focus on the economy and jobs, let’s instead focus on the right’s paranoid red herring of a climate change conspiracy.
     
  10. SAT2
    Offline

    SAT2 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,061
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +64
    A "little warming" is already hurting us.
     

Share This Page