BBC nekter å si hvem

[Jostemikk]

Jeg leste akkurat hos Bishop Hill at engelske aviser har begynt å dekke saken som nå flere og flere kaller 28-gate.

The Register - SECRET 28 'scientific experts' who Greened the BBC - Revealed!
The Spectator - Revealed: who decides the BBC’s climate change policy

Jeg la spesielt merke til dette fra The Register:

The BBC is under a statutory obligation to remain impartial, so this gave the "brainstorm" a historic significance: the BBC has not previously abandoned impartiality in peacetime.

[Jostemikk]

Joanne Nova - BBC secret exposed: Greenpeace, activists, BP decide what “science” brits see — Hello TwentyEightGate

Oh the irony. The BBC, supposedly the public owned broadcaster, had a meeting with 28 climate experts in Jan 2006 where it decided on its policies on climate coverage. It led to the extraordinary move of the BBC abandoning any semblance of impartiality (a principle that’s so important it’s written into its charter). In the meantime, the BBC did everything it could to hide those influential experts names. It’s been nearly seven years since the seminar, but now we know why their names were top secret. No one is even pretending this was about “the science”. The BBC has become a PR wing of Greenpeace...

[Jostemikk]

James Delingpole - 28 Gates Later…the BBC's nightmare gets worse and worse!

Delingpole ser ut til å dele mitt syn på Mike Hulme:

Hulme is a slippery customer. In the aftermath of Climategate, he could often be heard on the radio posing as the voice of sweet reason and moderation. Privately, Hulme was one of the arch Post Modern Scientists (read Watermelons for more on this) who helped build the great global warming scam into the Frankenstein's monster it is today. In that private email, he shows his true face.

[Jostemikk]

Climate Audit - BBC’s “Best Scientific Experts”

There is an unusual story developing as a result of an ongoing FOI request from Tony Newbery, some excellent detective work by Maurizio Morabito – see discussion at Bishop Hill here. Also see context from Andrew Orlowski here.

Several years ago, the BBC stated in a report:

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 [on anthropogenic climate change].

Tony Newbery (see Harmless Sky blog) was curious as to the identity of these “scientific experts”, and filed a Freedom of Information Act request. Rather than simply complying with the request, the BBC refused the request. Tony appealed to the ICO and lost.

Les resten av McIntyres kommentar ved å klikke på linken over.

[Amatør1]

Takk for at du følger opp dette så flott, Joste! Har litt for lite tid....

Denne saken ser ut til å vokse seg opp til Climategate-nivå, og med god grunn. Stort verre misbruk og manipulering av demokratiet - på lisensbetalernes regning - skal man lete lenge etter.

Du har helt rett i at vår oppgave er å se på dette i lys av situasjonen her hjemme. Hvis du vurderer det ut ifra BBCs opptreden i klimadebatten vs. norske medier opptreden i samme sak, er min vurdering at manipulasjonene antagelig er mer gjennomførte her til lands.

--
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

[Amatør1]

Fra Richard A North (han som ikke var på seminaret)

Climate change: another of those interesting networks

"[...]

However, equal partner in the enterprise is the IBT, about which less is known. The accounts of this charity, though, show that in the five years ending 31 December 2011, it was paid no less that £397,691 by DFID.

Thus, we have an organisation which, by its own account,"lobbies Government, broadcasters and regulators to promote high quality broadcast and online coverage of the developing world, its people and the issues which affect them" – including major input on climate change – yet has been paid just short of £400,000 of taxpayers' money to do so.

[...]

Neglecting the other delicious members, and focusing on the BBC, it seems we have a situation where the state broadcaster is a corporate member of the Media Trust which, in turn, is a member of the International Broadcasting Trust, which is paid by the Government (DFID) to lobby the … er … BBC about climate change. And so the circle closes.

Small wonder it is really that the BBC did not want too much of a spotlight focused on these seminars. "

Dette er den egentlige rollen til NGOer, lybby-organisasjoner etc. Deres rolle er å bli betalt av regjeringene for å bedrive lobbyvirksomhet og annet press mot selvsamme regjering for å skape et inntrykk av en opinion som vil ha det eliten har bestemt.

Det er intet annet en astroturfing på høyt plan det er snakk om. Noen som tør vedde på at det samme ikke skjer i Norge?

[Jostemikk]

Dette er den egentlige rollen til NGOer, lybby-organisasjoner etc. Deres rolle er å bli betalt av regjeringene for å bedrive lobbyvirksomhet og annet press mot selvsamme regjering for å skape et inntrykk av en opinion som vil ha det eliten har bestemt.

Det er intet annet en astroturfing på høyt plan det er snakk om. Noen som tør vedde på at det samme ikke skjer i Norge?

Jeg er helt sikker på at dette skjer i Norge. Gro Harlem Brundtland startet slik NGO i den hensikt du nevner. Dessuten betaler regjeringen WWF titalls millioner hvert år for å gjøre akkurat det du nevner.

Den dagen WWF blir forbudt ved lov her i landet bør bli en offentlig flaggdag. Ansvaret er vårt. Klarer vi ikke å fortelle folk hva WWF egentlig er og står for, ender vi alle opp med verdens lengste nese.

[Jostemikk]

For å være ærlig var jeg ikke klar over henne før jeg fant linken hos Bishop Hill. Allikevel er hennes syn på saken den viktigste vinklingen fram til nå.

Melanie Phillips - The real BBC scandal

The BBC has expended considerable effort, not to mention a very large amount of licence fee-payers’ money, upon suppressing evidence of its biased reporting.

...The BBC spent thousands of pounds blocking Mr Newbery’s action, which finally failed last Friday, implacably refusing to make those names publicly available. Now we know why...

...So the BBC censored its journalism on climate change on the basis of a seminar of climate change partisans, zealots and assorted distinctly unauthoritative others, whom it wholly misleadingly described as some of the ‘best scientific experts’.  It then spent thousands of pounds of public money trying to conceal this fact on the spurious grounds -- as with the Balen report – that journalistic processes had to remain private.

This scandal, however, goes way beyond the issue of climate change. The notion that the seminar’s co-organiser, the International Broadcasting Trust, is an objective body is quite false. It is nothing other than a left-wing lobby group supported by a veritable who’s who of radical developmental and third world-activist NGOs – including Amnesty, Christian Aid, Human Rights Watch, Islamic Relief, Muslim Aid, Oxfam, Save the Children and WWF (World Wildlife Fund)...

[Bebben]

Eksellent av Melanie Phillips.

Hun viser også til nettstedet BiasedBBC, der temaet også diskuteres, med informasjon om lignende seminarer.

[Jostemikk]

Tallbloke - BBC conflict of interest: Pensions relying on pushing alarmist climate agenda

“The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a forum for collaboration on climate change for European investors. The group’s objective is to catalyse greater investment in a low carbon economy by bringing investors together to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors. The group currently has over 50 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, and represents assets of around €4trillion. A full list of members is available on the membership page”.

Did you catch that: Four trillion Euros!

“IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe…”

The BBC is the Chair of this Carbon Trading driven investment scheme!

Recall: “to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors”

I would say that the BBC has a major non-Scientific reason for their Human Induced Global Warming Bias.

[seoto]

ebye la ut en link til en artikkel i Aftenpostens papirutgave i dag, les her:
http://klimaforskning.com/forum/index.php/topic,220.msg19530.html#msg19530

Dette er linken til artikkelen:
http://www.climometrics.org/12apsval.jpg

Artikkelen påstår:
"Aldri før er det målt høyere CO2-verdier i luften her til lands. Trenden er tindrende klar: Oppvarmingen bare fortsetter."

Det synes viktigere og viktigere å fortsette skremslene, selv om de forlengst er avslørt.

Hvorfor jeg henviser til dette i denne tråden om BBC?

Selv tror jeg at det er en del mennesker som nå begynner å få panikk. Det er investert gigantiske beløp fra forskjellige pensjonsfond, inkl. BBC, Danmark og Sverige i såkalt grønn energi og CO2-fangst/sertifikater. Skremslene må holdes ved like, ellers vil vi se konkursras, og "four trillion Euros"  i pensjonspenger kan forsvinne! Hva vil det føre til i Europa, og spesielt England? Det kan virke som om vi står foran store katastrofer, og da mener jeg ikke klimamessig. Store deler av Europas befolkning sliter ekstremt hardt pga økende fattigdom, fryktelig mange europeiske ungdommer får ikke arbeid og inntekter, selv med universitetsutdanning. Hva dersom pensjonistene også vil ende i større fattigdom dersom pensjonene deres er spekulert bort? Dette blir langt verre enn Terraskandalen enkelte norske kommuner opplevde.

Hvor mye er spekulert bort på klimaskremslene? Glem heller ikke at mye av folkenes skattepenger har gått til bankene i denne perioden. Hvorfor skjer alt dette?

[Jostemikk]

Glimrende innlegg, seoto! Her setter du fokus på mye av galskapen og svindelen som har ført en hel verden mot stupet. Om de som står bak disse kriminelle handlingene er det skrevet mye om her på forumet.

En ørliten PS kan kanskje være en kommentar om det vi nå har sett bli avdekket i forbindelse med BBC-saken. En venstreradikal konspirasjon, og ergo noe vi ikke skal få lov til å skrive om. Bare ordet konspirasjon får folk til å rømme, og PSTs nye super-program for nettovervåking til å gå berserk, men det er vel ingen bombe? En venstreradikal konspirasjonsbombe? (Jeg bare tester ut deres nye super-program for å se om de dukker opp, slik at jeg kan legge IP-adressen deres inn i samlingen.)

[Jostemikk]

IBT, eller International Broadcasting Trust, var altså vertene for det seminaret som førte til at BBC fortalte at de nå valgte å støtte klimaalarmismen ensidig, da deltakerne på seminaret var ledende klimaforskere, noe vi nå vet var en direkte løgn.

La meg presentere IBT ved hjelp av deres eget bilde, samt noen sitater.

[attachimg=1]

The International Broadcasting Trust is an educational and media charity working to promote high quality broadcast and online coverage of the developing world. Our aim is to further awareness and understanding of the lives of the majority of the world´s people – and the issues which affect them.


Our work focuses on three main areas of activity:
         - lobbying Government, regulators and broadcasters
         - dialogue with the main public service broadcasters
         - research on broadcast and online coverage of the developing world

We regularly publish research and organise events to encourage a greater understanding of the role which the media plays in engaging people in the UK with the wider world.

We are a membership based organisation. We organise briefings for our members so that they can work more closely with broadcasters and producers. For a current membership list see IBT members page

EUReferendum.com forteller i dag dette:

Despite the refusal of the BBC to reveal the details, the truth will out. We now have the list of members of the seminars organised jointly by the International Broadcasting Trust (IBT) and Cambridge Media and Environment Programme (CMES), aimed at changing BBC policy on climate change.

Already, via the Register, we know something of the CMES, established by activist Joe Smith and the BBC's Roger Harrabin. CMEP received funding from the hardline green organisation WWF and the UK government's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It later transpired that £15,000 was also received from the University of East Anglia - the institution at the heart of the Climategate scandal.

However, equal partner in the enterprise is the IBT, about which less is known. The accounts of this charity, though, show that in the five years ending 31 December 2011, it was paid no less that £397,691 by DFID.

Thus, we have an organisation which, by its own account, "lobbies Government, broadcasters and regulators to promote high quality broadcast and online coverage of the developing world, its people and the issues which affect them" – including major input on climate change – yet has been paid just short of £400,000 of taxpayers' money to do so....

...However, apart from the "usual suspects" such as Friends of the Earth and WWF, there is a particularly interesting member of the IBT – a trust which, as one will remember, lobbies the BBC. That is the Media Trust. And the "corporate members" of this trust are … the BBC as well as Sky, ITV, News International and Google.

Neglecting the other delicious members, and focusing on the BBC, it seems we have a situation where the state broadcaster is a corporate member of the Media Trust which, in turn, is a member of the International Broadcasting Trust, which is paid by the Government (DFID) to lobby the … er … BBC about climate change. And so the circle closes.

Small wonder it is really that the BBC did not want too much of a spotlight focused on these seminars.

Klikk linken over til EUReferendum for å lese hele saken.

[seoto]

Så mange rundlurte unge mennesker! Men de må vel være så unge for å bli så rundlurte?

[ebye]

Jeg er målløs til det som kommer fram her, og til de nettverk og organisasjoner som presenteres. Hvor kommer dette til å ende?