Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Quote of the day | Main | Boaden comes clean »

+++BBC Climate 28 revealed+++

Maurizio Morabito has obtained the details of the BBC climate 28. It had been published by the International Broadcasting Trust.

Greenpeace, Tearfund, Television for the Environment (one of the companies involved in the BBC free programming scandal), Stop Climate Chaos, Npower Renewables, E3G, and dear old Mike Hulme from UEA. Just the group you'd want guiding climate change coverage. Read the whole thing.

[For those who don't know what this is about, read the back story here.]

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (231)

I guess the reason the CofE were in attendance was that if there was the remote chance of global warming being an act of God - and the Godless lot in the BBC needed to hear His opinion. (Cue huge index finger coming through ceiling discharging thunderbolts!)

Thanks for making my morning Omnologos (it was my birthday yesterday!!!!)

Nov 13, 2012 at 10:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterSnotrocket

I missed all this last night, so a belated thanks to Tony for his persistence, omnologos for his digging, and BH for providing the forum. Yet again we have to turn to the blogosphere to get to the truth which should have been investigated by professional journalists and exposed by the media. With the notable exception of Orlowski the Fourth Estate has failed again.

The BBC management (and the lay judges who presided over the Newbury case) have some explaining to do, at the very least.

Nov 13, 2012 at 10:39 AM | Registered Commenterlapogus

"So far, 6 seminars have taken place. They have had a significant impact on the BBC’s

Oh dear oh dear....

Nov 13, 2012 at 10:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterAdrian

I'm sure that I'm not the only one to have noticed that this coming Saturday will be the 3rd anniversary of Climategate 1.

Just saying

Nov 13, 2012 at 10:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

Good news, the SCEF website is now working again, so you can read the statement there.

I can't say much for the metropolitan on line crime reporting system. They give a choice of 4 including theft and "hate crime". None were "misconduct in a public office" or "breaking FOI law", so eventually I opted for "hate crime" (with an explanation that there wasn't an appropriate category).

Nov 13, 2012 at 10:47 AM | Registered CommenterMikeHaseler

'Is anybody going to hold the BBC to account for spending licence payers' money on lawyers to keep secret something that was in the public domain after all?

Nov 12, 2012 at 11:14 PM | Turning Tide"
First may I add my voice to the chorus of congratulations to Mr. O and those (Mr. O & Mr. N - Like a remake of Reservoir Dogs, only working together and on the side of the angels) already, as here, acting in inspiration already.

All that needs to be said in qualification about the climate aspects probably have been, and by those better able.

I remain interested in the legal side, especially with a BBC still headed by a Trust Chairman on record as confirming that nobody, but nobody else better dare ask the BBC questions or think of holding any within the corporation to account. This position seems to have been seen as a bit dubious in a free speaking democracy, so a few from areas still interested in well-resourced broadcast systems with FoI-protected filters to the public are now offering platitudes on compromises... which are not.

Hence my trust level remains at absolute zero, not just in the BBC, but a media-politico-judicial system that could produce a corporate defendant representative of the calibre and integrity of Ms. Boaden, a Judge who could see his job as intimidating witnesses on her behalf, and a raft of politicians from all parties still rushing to say the BBC is safe from them as burned mobiles (no text-trail) negotiate with BBC managers the Quid pro quo on coverage terms/interview invites vs. fee concessions in secret for the foreseeable future.

I do trust (;-) some in the MSM may now ask a few more questions and hold a few more to account on tangible matters of abused power and facts vs. tribal stirring for ratings amusement.

Policy is swayed by powerful media. Power media can be corrupted by that power. The result is propaganda. If that is backed by censorship then history shows bad precedents some appear determined not to learn from.

And my kids' future is too important to leave it in the hands of such people. At least if one has the option. With a few I do: at the ballot box. The BBC appears beyond reach of that as of now.

Maybe that needs to change?

Nov 13, 2012 at 10:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterJunkkMale

How many of the "specialists" on the BBC's list would have qualified to be counted amongst the 97% in Doran's survey?

Nov 13, 2012 at 10:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Guido has reported it.

Nov 13, 2012 at 10:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterMorph


Further to my previous comment I've had a brief look on the DFID website and found this - a page where they collate their spending as required by the law.

One of the files available on the right hand side of the page is an aggregated list of spending since April 2011. It is a very large spreadsheet but within it are recorded several payments to the IBT and are as follows:


Which is jolly generous of us to pay a 2 man lobby group to distort the BBC's broadcasting (which we also pay for) in a direction favoured by unanswerable lobbyists.

Nov 13, 2012 at 10:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterGareth

I miscalled it.
I was sure Myles Allen would be on the list as the Climategate emails show he's always there or thereabouts when the darkness lifts on nefarious climate science advocacy.

I was wrong.

But I would urge people to hold off on assuming that these universities and institutions are the only ones to have attended theses seminars. We know there was more than one such seminar and we don't know who attended the others.

Yes, I'm doubling down.

Nov 13, 2012 at 10:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterM Courtney

I miscalled it.
I was sure Myles Allen would be on the list as the Climategate emails show he's always there or thereabouts when the darkness lifts on nefarious climate science advocacy.

I was wrong.

But I would urge people to hold off on assuming that these universities and institutions are the only ones to have attended theses seminars. We know there was more than one such seminar and we don't know who attended the others.

Yes, I'm doubling down.

Nov 13, 2012 at 10:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterM Courtney

shub at 10:36 AM:

When they work that hard to crush you, you know (a) that something's up (b) that you're going to beat them back. Ho Ho indeed.

BTW John Cook has in all likelihood used his robots.txt to block Skepticalscience from being archived on the Wayback.

looks like comments won't be archived:

User-agent: *
Disallow: comments.php

Nov 13, 2012 at 11:00 AM | Unregistered Commentermalcolm

I just hope David Marks QC and his lay helpers are hanging their heads in shame.

Nov 13, 2012 at 11:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Ashton


was paid TO the IBT. Why?
That puts a very different light on it.

Nov 13, 2012 at 11:04 AM | Registered CommenterMikeHaseler

Funniest comment on Guido Fawkes so far:

George Entwistle says:
November 13, 2012 at 10:32 am

I have been informed that I was present at the meeting.

Nov 13, 2012 at 11:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake


Intriguing isn't it. One arm of taxpayer funded state funding an arm's-length fake charity to lobby another arm of the taxpayer funded state in order to influence what is being broadcast.

DFID have previously described this as follows (pdf):

Media research: funding the International Broadcasting Trust (IBT) to influence producers and programmers to ensure that more development-related content was screened.

How this came to mean 'more man made climate change related content' is beyond me. Trying to guilt trip British viewers into accepting onerous tax and rationing regimes because of the alleged effect on undeveloped nations?

Nov 13, 2012 at 11:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterGareth

The BBC stated to the FOI tribunal that the meeting was held under the Chatham House Rules - this clearly is not true as they published the list of attemdees themselves. Is there any penalty for perjury in the FOI tribunal ?

Nov 13, 2012 at 11:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin

Fascinating stuff.

Other than the "From Seesaw to Wagonwheel" report by the BBC Trust, does anyone know where the BBC itself might have put in writing that the seminar was attended by the "best scientific experts" and confirmed that on the basis of this seminar they changed their editorial policy on climate change reporting?

Sorry to ask, I have been looking and havent found anything.

Nov 13, 2012 at 11:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterRB

From the attendees, especially on the BBC side, it looks to me as if the main thrust this meeting wasn't about how they should report on climate change, but to figure out ways of insinuating the message into all the BBC programmes they could.

This fits nicely with the diatribe I heard on the Now Show, in which one of the mildly funny "comedians" who run the show did a five minute diatribe of how many national association and every association on the planet had bought into global warming and how people who hadn't were stupid. It looks like the head of comedy bought into it. and others too.

Has anyone brought this list of specialists to the attention of the Today Programme I wonder. Or Paxo, he seems pretty hacked off by the sacking of George Entwistle.

Nov 13, 2012 at 11:31 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

From Mr Mark Thomson's article. I've made the modifications required, for him to read and understand what the BBC did:

Now I know what economists are, but who are these ‘social commentators’? What training and qualifications do you need to become one? Or is social commentator like community leader, an office which involves an element of self-election?


Let’s try dropping that into Professor Peiser’s last sentence. These are […] questions that cannot be answered by science alone but require careful consideration by Greenpeace.

It doesn’t work, does it? That’s because of the stark difference in authority between scientists and Greenpeace.


Advocacy does the opposite. Advocacy prefers to ignore or skate over the weak points in its own case and to focus on those in its opponent’s. It feels less of an obligation to clarity and comprehensiveness and it is quite happy to rely on rhetorical effects to win the day. Advocacy can itself be part of a systematic search for the truth in the context of a law court, for instance, where each side can make their own case and challenge the other’s but it is a quite different way of seeking the truth.

So what happens when you mix science and advocacy?

Indeed. What does happen when you mix science and advocacy? I think whoever's been watching the BBC for a few years now know the answer.

Nov 13, 2012 at 11:32 AM | Registered Commentershub

Given Justine Greening's apparent willingness to start asking some very serious questions about expenditure in her department perhaps now might a good time to pass this information to her along with the relevant background.
It may be that she will be more enthusiastic about following it up than some of her less persistent colleagues.

Nov 13, 2012 at 11:40 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Martin, not only was the list of attendees published, the IBT document directly quotes what people said at the meetings.

"Jana Bennett acknowledged that the Real World Brainstorms had had a significant impact on the BBC’s thinking and programming. She said the ambitious season Africa Lives on the BBC would not have been the same without this dialogue"

"Roly Keating, the Controller of BBC2 took up this theme in his closing remarks ‘We’ve got to keep challenging the frames in which we put these stories because every frame – whether a news item or a classic 60 minute documentary – carries with it all sorts of inbuilt rather unexamined assumptions
about the way we tell the story.’ "

So any statement about the meetings being held under Chatham House Rules is clearly a fabrication.

Nov 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

M Courtney

We know there was more than one such seminar and we don't know who attended the others.
Yes, we do. The appendix lists attendees at conferences between 2004 and 2007.

Nov 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

so, let me see if I understand; The UK government, through its International Aid Agency, pays a local activist NGO to lobby another local government arm, the BBC.

the Beeb, on the basis of this activist lobbying, then changes its broadcast policy, to ensure that voices counter to the activist are not heard.

If I have this correct, I still don't understand....why do you put up with this?

Nov 13, 2012 at 11:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterLes Johnson

It’s surpising how many commenters are saying “no surprises”- eg Athelstan:

“If some of the notable commenters on this blog with the help of the Bish' could have drawn up a list - would it not have looked at bit like the above?”
There are lots of surprises. To invite one Greenpeace activist may be regarded as a misfortune, but to invite two looks like two fingers up to the BBC Charter. And three Christian activists? And NO active climate scientists at all. No-one from the Met Office. Nobody who could answer the questions: “How much? How likely? How soon?”
Except Mike Hulme, the thinking man’s doomster, (retd.) who has long been advocating eliding the sensible scientific questions about when, where and how much, in favour of bringing on board the artists, the social scientists, the moralists, and not forgetting that dishy Greek bird who works in the hotel industry.
And how exactly were the Chatham House Rules to be applied? “There was an animated discussion between x and y about the importance of the Royal Society’s position paper to the Greek tourist industry.” Pull the other one Joe, the one down the Greenland borehole.

Nov 13, 2012 at 11:52 AM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Harrabin, Harrabin, Harrabin.

Seems he's the one pulling all the strings on climate policy at the BBC.

As Don Keller reminds us above, Harrabin is the one, along with Joe Smith, as far back as 2001, asking Mike Hulme "What should the BBC be doing this time in terms of news, current affairs, drama, documentaries, game shows, music etc" leading up to the Earth Summit in Rio.

Then, within 4 years, Harrabin organises a "seminar" at which Hulme is a speaker. Management from across all of the BBC's output is invited - you might say "news, current affairs, drama, documentaries, game shows, music etc." and subjecting to brainwashing by, basically, a bunch of activists.

The effect of this "seminar" is so profound, that it finds its way into "From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel", a report by the BBC Trust, no less, in 2007. With no trace of irony, the report is subtitled "Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century". Let us be reminded what this "Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st centruy" report says on the subject of reporting climate change:

"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".

Harrabin and Smith's brainwave from 2001 is now BBC policy, affecting all of its output from news and current affairs to drama, documentaries, comedy "etc". The most powerful broadcaster in the world pumping out a one-sided message on climate change through everything it does.

By pure serendipitous happenstance, there was a prime example of this on Today on R4 this morning. I only caught the headline report, so don't know waht was said in the more detailed piece. It was to do with oil production in the US. Apparently, by around 202, the US may well become the largest oil producer in the world. OK, whatever, you may think. On the BBC website, this story can be found in the "Business" section here:

There is nothing (as I write) on the Environment pages.

Now, who did the BBC have speaking about this on R4 this morning? Yup, Harrabin. And what random point did he chuck in at the end? Unbelievably, it was the zombie alarmist argument about fossil fuel "subsidies". I couldn't quite believe my ears, so can't vouch for whether my recollection is entirely accurate, but it went something like: "fossil fuel subsidies will be SIX TIMES [emphasis in the original] greater than for renewables." and "threat to the planet blah blah". There a couple of really important points here:

1. The "fossil fuel subsidy" meme is highly deceptive and disingenuous. At a time when the BBC is desperately trying to re-establish TRUST in its output, it seems a particularly stupid point to try to make. Harrabin must surely be aware of the highly spurious nature of this point, yet he makes it anyway. Unless, of course, he employs the Entwistle defence of "I didn't know, I didn't look, nobody told me." Either way it seems he is deceitful or ignorant.

2. How and why has Harrabin got his grubby green paws on a story from the Business news section and been able to leave his nasty, biased, anti-energy fingerprints all over it? And why is he making a spurious point on the radio about "fossil fuel subsidies" that is not covered in the web report, linked to above?

The current BBC "T/trust" reviews need to extended to climate change coverage. And Harrabin, it seems to me, should be joining Boaden and many of the others who attended the brainwashing session in "stepping aside".

Nov 13, 2012 at 11:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterAngusPangus

Gareth How this came to mean 'more man made climate change related content' is beyond me.

Ostensibly these meetings were about improving covering of third world issues ... which sounds good. Unless like me you were at the Royal Society meeting and heard the climate researchers who are struggling to get funding for projects predicting weather, flooding and malaria. The fact is that their forecast are either already saving lives .. or have a very strong potential to save lives.

But real research helping the developing world gets sidelined by the likes of the BBC and the rest of the 28gate team who as far as I can see have no real interest in helping the developing world by promoting viable weather/climate research that does predict the future and does save lives

To my mind it is criminal the way they have stolen money from the poor & elderly in our country to hand to rich landowners to destroy the countryside and then diverted research away from areas like monthly or seasonal forecasts which can help the "third world" and instead pushed the anti-capitalist eco-political agenda which is of no use to anyone.

Nov 13, 2012 at 11:59 AM | Registered CommenterMikeHaseler

Forza Maurizio, fact-finder extraordinaire!


This influence, as someone has already mentioned in passing, seems to have spread its tentacles not just throughout the BBC programming in this country but also worldwide, through the BBC World Service Trust ("The BBC World Service Trust is the BBC's international charity. It uses the creative power of media to reduce poverty and promote human rights.") Did anyone else realise we were funding this?

Just Google 'BBC communicating climate change Africa' to see the many and various projects, leaflets, etc produced by the BBC WST pushing this agenda onto Africa's people and its 'opinion-formers'.

Nov 13, 2012 at 12:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarbara

In all the list of (apparently irrelevant) BBC apparatchiks that took part — head of drama, comedy,etc — no-one has so far mentioned the most sinister of the lot, "Anne Gilchrist, Executive Editor Indies & Events, CBBC". I don't know what "Indies & Events" are but "CBBC" is Children's BBC.
Though I suppose if you are determined to propagandise as opposed simply to inform then including children among your "target audience" is logical enough.

Nov 13, 2012 at 12:11 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

It's not surprising the BBC was prepared to spend a fortune to keep that list out of the public domain is it? The recent problems at the BBC over Savile/McAlpine, together with this, ought to be enough to get the BBC's cover from FOI shredded.

Nov 13, 2012 at 12:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid C

'Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy'

To paraphrase John Lennon: We'll tell you hoi polloi when to laugh, while we rattle our jewellery.

So the self-appointed effing Gaia-worshipping elite of society not only presume to tell us how to think and how to behave, but also how to react, to feel, to be amused. Excuse me while I fetch the vomit bowl.

Nov 13, 2012 at 12:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterChris M

All of this shows that we have lost the battle over the past 40 years -- the self-appointed elites control the MSM, academia and the politics and feel they can act with impunity with respect to the rest of us.

They are an occupying force whose only aim is to increase their own power; luckily we have a few rebels prepared to stand up and fight them.

Nov 13, 2012 at 12:34 PM | Registered Commenterrickbradford

That's the thing. While the rest pretend to pull their hair out figuring out how to 'communicate' climate change, these guys had it down to a tee. Comedy, science, current affairs, children's programming, religion, everything. It is Mike Hulme's idea of climate oozing from every pore of the human organism.

Nov 13, 2012 at 12:36 PM | Registered Commentershub

Latimer Alder at 10:45 AM:

I'm sure that I'm not the only one to have noticed that this coming Saturday will be the 3rd anniversary of Climategate 1.

Just saying

Maybe I am going a bit OT for this thread but others have been speculating this too, to be honest I'm not seeing CG3 as likely.

My reasoning is:
- In CG2 it was stated that releasing the passphrase wasn't planned.
- Releasing a decent number of emails from the 220,000 would make brute forcing the passphrase easier, as we would then have lots of examples of plain text from the encrypted archive (I'm making a few assumptions here).
- They are now 3 year old emails, there would be some details in the remainder but I wouldn't expect much of an impact.

On the other hand a release of something post CG1 (ie a later hack/release) could create an impact.

The topic of this thread seems more interesting, it's not a conspiracy of course. It's just a bunch of people with vested interests, on one side of the debate, meeting in secret, over many years, to decide how the BBC will report on Climate Science.

Nov 13, 2012 at 12:39 PM | Unregistered Commenterredc

Xmas comes early.
Well done Maurizio, right up there with Climategate.
In the current climate surrounding the BBC, it will be difficult for the MSM to ignore this scandal which may even include a whiff of perjury.
A mass refusal to pay the licence fee, organised and publicised, might see more heads roll and a more balanced coverage of climate and energy.

Nov 13, 2012 at 12:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterG.Watkins

I was just about to send the Cartoon calendar off to the printer. I think I might have to change the cartoons for November ;-) Well done Maurizio!

Nov 13, 2012 at 12:50 PM | Registered CommenterJosh

A quick question; can someone explain what system was used and how this info was in the public domain?

Great work to expose the 28 by Maurizio Morabito. Bravo!!!

Nov 13, 2012 at 12:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterCheshire Red

Maurizio, like others at this site, you've been tireless in the pursuit of truth. This is a significant win (esp. on behalf of Tony N.) against this phalanctic neo-establishment.
Great work and thankyou.

Nov 13, 2012 at 12:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterBullocky

still no MSM coverage, yet Newbery, for starters, should have been inundated with requests for interviews. that BBC fought Newbery just days ago and lost, at taxpayer expense.

given that a number of senior BBC personnel involved in the 2006 meeting - which BBC itself misrepresented when challenged - are now enmeshed in one and/or another scandal engulfing the BBC, the failure of the BBC and the rest of the MSM across the political spectrum to report on the publication of the list of attendees speaks volumes about the monolithic nature of the MSM in general, and most particularly when it comes to CAGW.

and the MSM wonders why it is losing viewers/readers/listeners to online sources of information!

Nov 13, 2012 at 12:57 PM | Unregistered Commenterpat


"This list is not fully exhaustive.."

But I expect it's very unique.

And these people teach English..?

Nov 13, 2012 at 1:05 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

Pat, I suspect that it may take a little while for the MSM to pay attention, possible they won't lag as much as with ClimateGate 1 given what's going on with the BBC. I wonder if thenew DG will have to step down/aside over this?

Nov 13, 2012 at 1:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterJace

Let us ponder on the fact that this goes back to the beginning of 2006.

For nearly 7 years, 7 long years, we have had one sided, activist propoganda oozing (if I may borrow that from Shub) from every pore of the stinking corrupt cesspit of the BBC. The most powerful broadcaster in the world.

And yet, and yet.......... The plebs, the rabble, we lumpenproletariat aren't listening. Support for AGW has gone backwards, not forwards. They are losing, if not yet the policy battle, then certainly the hearts and minds war.

How disappointed, how angry, how confused must the AGW activists be. The more they ram the propoganda down people's throats, the more that people gag and choke and want to vomit out the alien filth. No suprise, then, that we have had so many "communicating climate change" seminars over the last few years - the activists knew all along that they had control of the world's most powerful broadcaster (and probably a good many others, too) and yet, despite this, they were losing, not gaining support. How could that possibly be? After that seminar in 2006, they must have thought they they were home and dry.

However, as the fall of the Iron Curtain demonstrated, even with total and ruthless control of all media, it is ultimately impossible to convince people that a Bad Thing is a Good Thing.

Nov 13, 2012 at 1:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterAngusPangus


If you can hold out until February, you could have one name per day.. :-)

Looking forward to your interpretation!

Nov 13, 2012 at 1:08 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

Boaden is lawyering up at her own expense this time, it seems. three writers and none can include a line about Boaden/Newbery/Tribunal:

13 Nov: Daily Mail: Senior BBC news executives hire lawyers as they deny ‘stepping aside’ from their jobs
By Paul Revoir, Liz Thomas and Larisa Brown
A statement released by the corporation yesterday claimed that Miss Boaden had 'decided that she is not in a position to undertake' her role until the results of the review.
But it is understood that Mr Davie ‘suggested’ the course of action to Miss Boaden and both she and Mr Mitchell reportedly believed they were able to continue their jobs while the Pollard Review is carried out.
Robert Peston, the BBC's business editor, revealed in his blog yesterday that 'lawyers acting for Ms Boaden and Mr Mitchell have informed Mr Davie that they are quite capable of running BBC News, even with the uncertainty created by the Pollard inquiry'.
It has also emerged that Miss Boaden may be on the brink of leaving the broadcaster after she was forced to ‘step aside’ yesterday.
If she does leave the BBC, she is likely to demand a huge compensation payment. She had already engaged lawyers to help answer Mr Pollard’s questions...

Nov 13, 2012 at 1:09 PM | Unregistered Commenterpat


"a five minute diatribe of how many national association and every association on the planet had bought into global warming and how people who hadn't were stupid"

That sounds like Marcus Brigstocke, who nailed his colours to the AGW mast some time ago, and is now stuck with it. Once his fellow comedians begin to grasp reality, they will be dining out at his expense for some time. I'm looking forward to it.

Nov 13, 2012 at 1:17 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

"If she does leave the BBC, she is likely to demand a huge compensation payment."

Which she may need, once charged with perjury. Those lawyers won't be cheap, either.

Nov 13, 2012 at 1:19 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

I really admire the fortitude of those who engage with the establishment climate machine. If I did engage, I would use the Milosevic defence, namely 'you are all lying'. He was roughly correct.

I do not believe there is enough fanaticism in the world to persuade an intelligent, informed person to delude himself about global warming

Nov 13, 2012 at 1:44 PM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff

Re: redc
> Releasing a decent number of emails from the 220,000 would make brute forcing the passphrase easier,

I've looked into this quite a bit and you don't need any of the emails to make a successful brute force attack. What you need is time. Despite all the advances in computer speed and technology if you could try 1,000,000 passwords on 1,000,000 computers every second it would still take you 3.67E57 years to exhaust all the possibilities. The best speed I was able to obtain through rewriting the 7zip decryption code, in assembler, was around 5000 passwords per second. This is because the 7zip code encrypts each block half a million times (IIRC) so as to make brute force attacks more difficult.

PS. All the CG1 emails are in the archive (file names and size match) so there is plenty of text to use for comparisons.

Nov 13, 2012 at 1:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

@ Mike

Has Helen Boaden committed perjury?

I was wondering that too. Not just her either.

Nov 13, 2012 at 1:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

Cheshire Red,

The Internet Archive website archives the internet and allows access to it via their Wayback Machine. You can put in the web address of a website and see what it used to look like.

Some time after the contentious climate change seminar was held at the BBC the co-organisers, the International Broadcasting Trust, wrote a report about how well they'd done in influencing the BBC's editorial policies and included in that report a list of all those who had attended that seminar and other ones. They put that report onto their own website freely available to anyone taking an interest in it in 2007.

At some point after the report was published on the IBT website the Internet Archive's computers made a copy of the entire IBT website - including the published report.

At some point after the Internet Archive copied the website the IBT removed the report listing the attendees and put up a new version with the names removed, but by then it was too late and the Internet Archive had got a copy of the original.

The Wayback Machine is a brilliant resource that allows you to see how websites have changed over time and in cases like this can be very revealing.

Nov 13, 2012 at 2:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterGareth

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>