I doubt we will hear much from the ABC about the breaking news in the UK and Europe this weekend as 28Gate suffers more exposure.

The BBC and likewise our ABC excuse their coverage of CAGW, alarmism and censorship through this “expert panel”. Which turns out to be no such thing.

Now the new disclosures under FOI identify the documentary paper trail that links a Labor Government department to environmental lobbyists to NGO’s to the BBC to fund 28Gate held at the East Anglia University’s CRU (of Climategate fame).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537886/BBCs-six-year-cover-secret-green-propaganda-training-executives.html

http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/booker-bbc.pdf

“What is clear in the Mail on Sunday report is that funding for the 2006 BBC climate change seminar came from a government department. Also that the funds were channeled through environmental lobbyists who were organizing the seminar.”

“What is certain is that the Government organized the 2005 Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change conference at the Hadley Centre, which led to a barrage of scare stories in the media.”

“…unearthed a plot by environmentalists and BBC journalists to subvert the corporation’s output, excluding global warming skeptics from the airwaves”

The “BBC has not only failed in its professional duty to report fully and accurately: it has betrayed its own principles, in three respects: First, it has betrayed its statutory obligation to be impartial, using the excuse that any dissent from the official orthodoxy was so insignificant that it should just be ignored or made to look ridiculous. Second, it has betrayed the principles of responsible journalism, by allowing its coverage to become so one-sided that it has too often amounted to no more than propaganda. Third, it has betrayed the fundamental principles of science, which relies on unrelenting skepticism towards any theory until it can be shown to provide a comprehensive explanation for the observed evidence”.

Is suspect the two most avid readers of this news will be Mark Scott and Tony Abbott? Scott will say nothing, Abbott will do nothing, yet!

ABC news should be “informative” over the next week or so?

The CAGW advocacy block must be having nightmares.

[Deleted. Off topic.]

Forgive my ingrained cynicism, but this look s to me like a classic Daily Mail beat-up.

The underlying fact is that the BBC ran a seminar to explore, it would seem, entertainment opportunities presented by global warming.

"Then director of television Jana Bennett opened the seminar by telling the executives to ask themselves: ‘How do you plan and run a city that is going to be submerged?’ And she asked them to consider if climate change laboratories might offer material for a thriller."

Anyone who has run a seminar of any kind will know that £67,000 is a pretty workaday amount for one targetting "28 of the Corporation’s most senior executives".

My guess would be that this line is pure speculation on the Mail's part:

"...the then Labour government, which hoped to see its ‘line’ on climate change and other Third World issues promoted in BBC reporting."

How does a discussion on submerged cities represent the government's "line" on anything?

Hey, I'm as sceptical as the next man, but this reeks of anti-Green activism, gleefully tagetting that last hold-out of anti-commercial newsgathering, the BBC.

Much as Rupert wants to save us from the clutches of the ABC, to give his independent news media the unchallenged right to present an unbiased information agenda. *choke*

[Deleted. Off topic.]

Pericles,

I guess shooting the messenger was always going to be easier than having to respond to the content?

“16. Motive Questioning- When sound evidence against the group is presented, members are taught to question the motivation of the presenter”.

Would it make it any easier if the reporting on this issue was from the BBC themselves, the UK Courts, Sky News, Spectator, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Mail, BBC Radio 4, Google, Der Spiegel, Washington Post, NY Times or Internet News.

This has been in the news since January 2006 and blew up again with the Court Case in November 2012. With the recent success of FOI requests and the evidence provided in the released documents as provided in the link, the money trail is now complete and this saga fully exposed.

I guess you could have read all that if you had bothered to follow and read the links provided, or even just Googled it.

You could also confirm the censorial nature of both the ABC and BBC by telling us what you have gleaned from them?

I guess if the great Pericles says it’s a non story then there is one thing of which we can be certain, it’s a home run.

Now you are free to comment on the content of the story and leave the messengers alone.

579, Your posts are completely off topic and risk diverting the thread. Please respond to the topic.

Thanks for making sure you included the qualification, spindoc.

>>“16. Motive Questioning- When sound evidence against the group is presented, members are taught to question the motivation of the presenter”.<<

If you look closely, it was the soundness of the evidence that I was bringing into question, including i) the piddling amount that the seminar cost and ii) the declaration of intent by the convener at the seminar's opening. It was this analysis that prompted the questioning of the motives, and not the other way around.

Also, if I had really wanted to "shoot the messenger", I would have pointed out the pedigree of the Global Warming Policy Foundation Report Five document's author, the famous Private Eye professional mischiefmaker Christopher Booker, and his illustrious foreword-writer Sir Antony Jay of Yes Minister fame. Both of whom make a comfortable living from comedy and satire, and are well versed in the art of making fun of institutions of which they disapprove.

But that would only upset you, so I will avoid doing so.

The BBC without any doubt, as a group, protected paedophiles in their ranks.
Now of course the ABC would not do that, would they? Well I have not heard of any investigation or allegations of a cover up.

The indication of guilty conscience or not is clearly indicated by the
opposition to the Freedom of Information application and the associated
court costs.

If they had a clear conscience they would have been happy to comply.

Pericles,

To say you were not going to shoot the messengers you have left a whole load of body bags laying around?

What is it about self-referential ideology that prevents you from even considering alternative perspectives? Is the content so distressing and so contrarian that you cannot even discuss it?

How on earth do you reconcile media reports like these below from Europe yesterday. I guess they are all written by those outside you self referencing domain and can therefore be dismissed? Or simply that since they have not and will not be covered by the ABC, it is a question of a non story and not censorship?

Green Fury As Europe Considers Scrapping Binding Renewables Targets - Financial Times, 13 January 2014

Europe In Full Retreat On Unilateral Climate Policy - EU-Info News, 11 January 2014

David Cameron Vows To Go ‘All Out For Shale’ -
Daily Mail, 13 January 2014

Total Fuels UK Fracking Rush With £30m Shale Stake - The Times, 13 January 2014

Anti-Fracking Protests Fail To Halt British Shale Revolution - The Guardian, 13 January 2014

Getting harder to “explain” the CAGW mantra isn’t it?

Pericles,

Just some of the secret attendees that reached the conclusion in relation to BBC coverage of CAGW that;

“...the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus”.

And the panel of experts that arrived at this conclusion included who?

Greenpeace? US Embassy? Church of England? Greenpeace China? Tear fund Ethiopia, Stop Climate Chaos? BP International? Npower Renewables? Head of BBC comedy?

It’s a comedy but not very funny.

Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
Claire Foster, Church of England
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
Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning
George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs
Sue Inglish, Head Of Political Programmes
Frances Weil, Editor of News Special Events
Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning
George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs
Sue Inglish, Head Of Political Programmes

Our ABC is tied into the very same policy reached by these 28 “Experts”.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) are in accord that ‘AGW is real’. New editorial guidelines for both emphasize two imperatives: the need to ‘distinguish fact from opinion’ and to give ‘weight’ to the ‘body of evidence’.

“...the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus”.

Pericles, just in case you want to continue denigrating anyone who expresses a contrary CAGW perspective, could you now tell us about this panel of “experts” that gave you your opinion?

Start with BP, Head of Comedy and the Church of England if you like.