Protecting scientists

In his Mail on Sunday article today (keep scrolling) David Rose reveals that the BBC - at least in Scotland - has a new policy of protecting climatologists from challenge on air.

A BBC executive in charge of editorial standards has ordered programme editors not to broadcast debates between climate scientists and global warming sceptics.

Alasdair MacLeod claimed that such discussions amount to ‘false balance’ and breach an undertaking to the Corporation’s watchdog, the BBC Trust.

Mr MacLeod, head of editorial standards and compliance for BBC Scotland, sent an email on  February 27 to 18 senior producers and editors, which has been obtained by The Mail on Sunday.

It reads: ‘When covering climate change stories, we should not run debates / discussions directly between scientists and sceptics.

If dissenters from the climate consensus are not to be allowed to put their case directly, there is presumably little point in having those arguments put by BBC interviewers. So from now on the pronouncements of climatologists will be treated as holy writ and the most alarmist scientists can be allowed to scaremonger without fear of contradiction. The consensus over the existence of the greenhouse effect is used  as a pretence that all aspects of the climatology are beyond debate.

Coming so soon after the brouhaha over the Lawson/Hoskins discussion on the Today programme, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the BBC are dancing to the tune of the environmental movement. The effects of the 28gate seminar seem to live on.

The end of the licence fee cannot come soon enough.

Getting the shale message across

Owen Paterson was up in front of the Lords' Economic Affair Committee yesterday (video here, but it's a bit of a long haul to tell the truth). One of the concerns of their lordships was that the government is losing the propaganda war over the risks and benefits of shale gas. The minister was repeatedly pressed about what the government was going to do to sway public opinion once and for all and there was much talk of a lack of "joined up government".

Paterson made what I thought was a fairly obvious point which was that he, as a politician, was unlikely to be trusted anyway and he rather gave the impression that our political lords and masters feel powerless to change things.

Click to read more ...

28gate hits the MSM

David Rose has a big spread in the Mail on Sunday in which he gives the 28gate story a good going over. (If you haven't read it before, get yourself a copy of my pamphlet on how Tony Newbery and I uncovered the story.)

The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds over six years trying to keep secret an extraordinary ‘eco’ conference which has shaped its coverage of global warming,  The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

The controversial seminar was run by a body set up by the BBC’s own environment analyst Roger Harrabin and funded via a £67,000 grant from the then Labour government, which hoped to see its ‘line’ on climate change and other Third World issues promoted in BBC reporting.

The new attention on the 28gate seminar has been prompted by disclosure of documents showing how the Department for International Development responded to a funding request for funding from the International Broadcasting Trust a body that lobbies broadcasters on behalf of green NGOs. What we have, in essence, appears to be government paying for subversion of the state broadcaster.

Which is pretty appalling when you think about it.

Update on Jan 12, 2014 by Bishop Hill

Tony Newbery has more at his blog, together with links to the FOI release.

As what has happened becomes more widely known, perhaps now is the time to consider writing to those in a position to do something about the bias. The Culture Secretary and the chairman of the Commons Culture and Media Select Committee are obvious candidates.

What better way to spend an evening in January?

The BBC's climate policy

This letter appears in the Times this morning, picking up on Michael Kelly's letter the other day.

Incidentally, I'm expecting some more news on the 28gate front in due course, so watch this space.

(H/T Billy Blofeld, via Twitter)

Culture and Media Committee on 28gate

From 12:50.30

The MPs and the form letter

Tony Newbery has been looking at the responses given to a couple of people who contacted their MPs about 28gate and notices a certain similarity (or identity) in what MPs had to say. He is pondering what this says about the process of contacting one's parliamentary representative:

The availability of a form letter reply suggests that a considerable number of people contacted their MPs who, presumably, then contacted the oh-so-helpful folk at the BBC.

This then raises the question of whether MPs are simply contacting the BBC, who fob them off with a form letter, which the MPs then rewrite in their own words and pass on to the constituents. If so, it makes something of a nonsense of the whole process.

Tony is looking for other people who might have written to their MPs about 28gate. See the full post here.

The open, transparent (ho, ho) BBC

Earlier this week, The Register made some interesting revelations about the BBC's expenditure on legal fees regarding Tony Newbery's FOI case. While the costs, at around £22,000 are somewhat lower than we had thought, although it is worth pointing out that I had a related case go all the way to the Information Tribunal, so it is plausible that the real cost of the BBC hiding the 28gate seminar details is double this. And there are the internal costs to take into account as well.

But suffice it to say that the BBC is spending a lot of money to avoid being transparent.

Which is why I was particularly interested in this excerpt from a report entitled "Ender Analysis - Media & Telecoms: 2013 & Beyond, part 1". It features Tim Davie the Acting Director General, BBC.

Click to read more ...

Huppert on 28gate

Don Keiller has sent me copies of his correspondence with his MP, the Liberal Democrat Dr Julian Huppert. Huppert is one of the few ex-scientists in the House of Commons. He is also, incidentally, the son of Herbert Huppert, one of the scientists on the Oxburgh panel.

Dear Dr. Huppert,

I am writing to you about a serious concern regarding the BBC’s reporting of climate change science and associated issues.

From the detail emerging in the aftermath of Mr. Tony Newbery’s F.O.I case (EA/2009/0118) it is absolutely clear that the BBC is in breach of its Charter, which requires it to be impartial.

Furthermore it knowingly and wilfully breached its Charter in this regard and has since tried to hide this fact from the Public and license fee payers, at the public's expense.

Click to read more ...

Balanced Broad Casting? Not yet - Josh 188

You can click the image for a slightly larger version

The infamous 2006 meeting where the BBC invited mostly activists to help decide that the climate science was settled. Richard D North's recollections are here. 

Cartoons by Josh