Dr Benny Peiser: Secret 28 Who Made BBC Muzzle Sceptics Will Not Be Named

Posted: November 10, 2012 by tallbloke in alarmism, Blog, Legal, media, Politics, propaganda

I threw my TV out in 2006 and stopped paying the BBC license fee. Here’s one of the reasons why:

Secret 28 Who Made BBC Green Will Not Be Named

The Register, 9 November 2012 (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/09/bbc_beats_blogger_/)

Andrew Orlowski

As expected, the BBC has won its legal battle against blogger Tony Newbery.

UPDATE: Names are named!

Anthony Watts writes:

Now, thanks to the Wayback machine and  we can now read the list that the BBC fought to keep secret. [Damn those mischevious bloggers ;-) ]

This list has been obtained legally. (link to Wayback document.) My heartiest congratulations to Maurizo for his excellent sleuthing!

Maurizo writes: This is for Tony, Andrew, Benny, Barry and for all of us Harmless Davids.

The list from: January 26th 2006, BBC Television Centre, London

Specialists:
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, 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

BBC attendees:
Jana Bennett, Director of Television
Sacha Baveystock, Executive Producer, Science
Helen Boaden, Director of News
Andrew Lane, Manager, Weather, TV News
Anne Gilchrist, Executive Editor Indies & Events, CBBC
Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning
Elizabeth McKay, Project Executive, Education
Emma Swain, Commissioning Editor, Specialist Factual
Fergal Keane, (Chair), Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Fran Unsworth, Head of Newsgathering
George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs
Glenwyn Benson, Controller, Factual TV
John Lynch, Creative Director, Specialist Factual
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
Jon Williams, TV Editor Newsgathering
Karen O’Connor, Editor, This World, Current Affairs
Catriona McKenzie, Tightrope Pictures catriona@tightropepictures.com

BBC Television Centre, London (cont)
Liz Molyneux, Editorial Executive, Factual Commissioning
Matt Morris, Head of News, Radio Five Live
Neil Nightingale, Head of Natural History Unit
Paul Brannan, Deputy Head of News Interactive
Peter Horrocks, Head of Television News
Peter Rippon, Duty Editor, World at One/PM/The World this Weekend
Phil Harding, Director, English Networks & Nations
Steve Mitchell, Head Of Radio News
Sue Inglish, Head Of Political Programmes
Frances Weil, Editor of News Special Events

Newbery wanted the list of “scientific experts” who attended a BBC seminar at which, according to the BBC Trust, they convinced the broadcaster to abandon impartiality and take a firmly warmist position when reporting climate change. When the Beeb refused to divulge who these people were and who they worked for, Newbery took the corporation to an information tribunal. Now the names and affiliations of the 28 people who decided the Beeb climate stance – acknowledged by the Corporation to include various non-scientists such as NGO people, activists etc – will remain a secret.


The case was heard on Monday and Tuesday last week (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/07/bbc_is_private_go_away/) ; the BBC was represented by a team of five, at times six, lawyers, including lead counsel Kate Gallafent, a barrister at Blackstone Chambers. Newbery, who represented himself, was accompanied by his wife. The hearing included cross-examination (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29/boaden_tribunal_information_refusal/)  of the BBC’s director of news Helen Boaden.

Newbery had asked for the attendance list in a freedom-of-information request to the BBC some 18 months after the seminar took place in early 2006. He had been struck by a disparity between the BBC Trust’s description of the event – “a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts” – and subsequent accounts of the confab, which suggested the 28 invitees included a number of environmental activists and ideologues. Newbery wanted to know how many scientists were there, and what they said that had been so convincing.

The BBC argued that it was able to derogate from the Freedom of Information Act because the seminar was held “for the purposes of journalism” and its attendance list is therefore protected by the law.

And in any case, according to the Beeb’s lawyers, the information didn’t exist at the time of the request – despite its historic significance: the public-funded broadcaster has statutory obligations, under Royal Charter, to be impartial.

The “purposes of journalism” get-out-clause has been used by the BBC on various other occasions as a cloak to conceal information requested by the public under the act. For example, the corporation has refused to disclose (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/revenue_from_us_and_corporation)  how much tax its commercial operation BBC Worldwide pays in the United States, and its US web traffic numbers, using the “purposes of journalism” catch-all.

The speed of the verdict is a surprise – most deliberations take four to six weeks, but this took a mere ten days. However the verdict itself is less surprising: the Supreme Court earlier this year upheld the BBC’s “purposes of journalism” derogation and supported its right to withhold an internal review, dubbed the Balen Report, of its Middle East coverage.

Tribunal judge David Marks QC supported the broadcaster, cut off several avenues of questioning from Newbery, and agreed with the BBC that it can be considered a “private organisation”, despite the fact that it is funded by a compulsory tax.

The hostility of lay judge Alison Lowton, one of the three-strong panel, to Newbery was also noticeable – but perhaps understandable. The former director of legal services [PDF] (http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/TownHallRichList2007.pdf)  of Camden Council took a six-figure severance package in 2007 when her post was abolished.

Camden fought to keep the details of the settlement away from freedom-of-information requests (http://www.thecnj.com/camden/020807/news020807_22.html) .

The other lay judge, former Haringey councillor Narendra Makanji, appears to have strong views on climate-change skeptics, as he tweeted here this year:

Michael Hintze who dines at no 10 is backer of Global Warming Policy Foundation, climate change deniers fronted by Nigel Lawson.

We asked the Information Commissioner’s Office how a lay judge with such partisan views on climate change came to oversee hearings so closely coupled to the subject of climate. Campaigning lay judges would not normally be appointed to sit on such a case, a spokesman noted, and concerns would be legitimate grounds for appeal.

Makanji was a councillor from 1982 to 2006 and sits on the boards of various quangos and charities, according to his tribunal service profile [PDF] (http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/tribunals/information-rights/who-are-the-tribunamembers-may-2011.pdf) , including the Selby Trust, which makes grants to bodies promoting climate-change issues.

The BBC Trust may have erred in giving the seminar, arranged by Beeb reporter Roger Harrabin and climate activist Joe Smith, such significance. However by a year later, the BBC had an elegant solution before it: in June 2007, the BBC Trust published a report, known as the Bridcut Report [PDF] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_06_07impartialitybbc.pdf) , which grappled with the issue of impartiality. Bridcut agreed that it was impractical and unreasonable for every point of view to be included in every report. However, turning to the topic of climate change, he warned:

These dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as “Flat Earthers” or “deniers”, who “should not be given a platform” by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is even more offensive today than it was in 1926. The BBC has many public purposes of both ambition and merit – but joining campaigns to save the planet is not one of them.

The report was ignored – and in the best tradition of a British bureaucratic establishment under siege, the Beeb simply dug in deeper. Our postbag reflects widespread disquiet from supporters of the BBC about the disparity between its declarations of intent on transparency, and the reality. A refusal to make itself accountable to the citizens only makes political meddling more likely – so by winning an expensive legal battle, it risks losing a rather more important war.

Newbery has told us he is mulling a request to appeal.

Further Reading

Andrew Montford has written a 26-page guide to the seminar saga, and the subsequent Freedom of information battle: you can buy it in ebook format here for 75 pence (http://t.co/uD0HdyB) .

Background information

Andrew Orlowski: BBC argues it is not bound by FOIA in bid to keep Climate 28 secret (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/07/bbc_is_private_go_away/)

Andrew Orlowski: Who were the SECRET 28 who ended all climate debate at the BBC? (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29/boaden_tribunal_information_refusal/)

Tony Newbery: Jeremy Paxman, the BBC, Impartiality, and Freedom of Information (http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=109)

Christopher Booker:  The BBC And Climate Change – A Triple Betrayal (http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/booker-bbc.pdf)

Comments
  1. tallbloke says:

    Quel surprise! Not.

  2. J. Seifert says:

    The names are important for history….Who can be blamed for the
    bad science touted from this moment on, by the BBC, confounding
    now the public…….Global temps will not increase any further, and those,
    responsable for bad modelling will be tried by history…..JS

  3. mitigatedsceptic says:

    Unfortunately, we are all paying the penalties of the misinformation being put about by the BBC in inflation, exorbitant fuels costs, job losses, more in fuel poverty, reduced public services and desecrated landscapes. Soon we shall suffer power cuts and energy rationing. Not to mention the demonising of the old and the vulnerable who need warm homes to survive and who will be accused of wasting energy and threatening the future of the species, not to say the planet!
    Had there been any balance in the BBC’s output we could have had critical debate and better understanding. Now the BBC has lost all credibility.

  4. tallbloke says:

    I can highly recommend spending the £0.75 UKP on Andrew Montford’s investigation

    http://t.co/uD0HdyB

  5. oldbrew says:

    Just look at today’s news (‘McAlpine-gate’) to see how far the BBC’s reputation has fallen.

  6. ” … acknowledged by the Corporation to include various non-scientists such as NGO people, activists etc … ”

    NGO people & activists. Having rummaged through the giant 2007 Complaint to Ofcom ( http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/fullcomplaint/p12.htm ) that resulted from the Channel 4 “Great Global Warning Swindle” video, I could offer a pretty good educated guess that it is the same cast of characters who all have just a few degrees of separation from the enviro-activists who’ve been pushing the smear of skeptic climate scientists over the last 20 or so years ( http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/stephen-schneider-arguing-for-censorship-in-1992/ ). Or at the very least, one or more of these mystery 28 are very likely are enslaved to regurgitating the talking points of those old enviro-activists.

  7. J Martin says:

    This needs to be crowd sourced.

  8. Ray Tomes says:

    Science by its very nature is an open inquiry into truth. Politics is by its nature sneaky and aimed at a specific result rather than the truth. Clearly the BBC was involved in politics not science. Calling people involved in politics by the label “experts” is in my view calling them professional liars. No wonder they want their names hidden.

  9. Zeke says:

    “Seminar had the following aims:
    · To invoke imagination to allow the media to deal with the scope of the issue”

    “The scope of the issue” absolutely includes the supposed solutions and their disastrous expense to the country, as Christopher Booker pointed out. And to cover the countryside with enough worthless wind turbines to meet EU edicts and Climate Change Act standards would require 100’s of billions of pounds,

    while the gas back up plants would only cost 13 billion, according to Prof Gordon Hughes.

    We’ll see if that invokes the BBCs imagination about the scope of the issue. What date is that seminar going to be held? Invoked imaginations want to know.

    Nice work to TonyN.

  10. Zeke says:

    And what about the plan to fit all homes and businesses in Britain with Smart Meters? Has the BBC reported the expense and intent of that expensive bit of work?

    “The point about smart meters is that they do not only enable us consumers to keep tabs on our electricity use: they also (though our Government does not like to spell this out) enable suppliers to exercise remote control over how much electricity we use. The EU knows that the windmills it wants to see covering Europe are unpredictably intermittent, and cannot guarantee sufficient power when it is needed. The answer the EU’s technocrats dream of, as we see from the Bornholm pilot project for a “European supergrid”, is that they can use smart meters to micro-manage the power we receive, right down to their ability to switch off whole categories of electricity use in our homes when there is insufficient power in the grid (what they call “  ‘intelligent’ control of household appliances” , such as dishwashers or televisions).”

    That surely not only invokes but defies all imagination!

  11. oldbrew says:

    @ Zeke

    Re smart meters: consider also variable charging algorithms…

  12. mitigatedsceptic says:

    Indeed Zeke – energy prices could change at five minute intervals (at least that is considered in the Danish pilot scheme). This would make it essential to have automatic control over all one’s major energy using appliances, including heating. UK Gov’t intends to make use of smart meters voluntary but if energy tariffs are going to change with windspeed it would seem essential to have one. Smart appliances too would be essential, but I suppose all one might need would be ‘smart’ plugs. There would have to be safeguards to protect poor people from running up hefty bills – perhaps a cap on the top tariff or an automatic cutoff when the bill reaches the fuel poverty level. Rationing by price – which is what all this is about – would be political death, but the smart solution puts the burden on the users and not on the politicians – neat! As for poor people – all but the unseemly rich would soon be poor!!
    I don’t understand how domestic gas could be cut off safely – so presumably the use of gas would be confined to industry and electricity production. This would make a nice big market for the heating and white goods people.
    Between the work involved installing ‘smart’ things and the death of domestic gas, there need be no more unemployment for a generation – recessions over! And the cost to be borne by the users – the most regressive kind of taxation possible! When the money runs out – just print more and let future generations pick up the tab.

  13. tallbloke says:

    Maurizio Maurabito has found the names on the wayback machine. – see update

    Stitch that BBC

    I notice George Entwhistle (who just walked of with 450,000 of TV taxpayers money for 53 days ‘work’ in which he botched two Newsnights) was there.