Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Tell the Truth campaign logo
NewsBusters.org logo

February 23, 2012
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • RSS
Home » Blogs » Noel Sheppard's blog
  • NBC Sets GOP Debate Agenda: Santorum to be 'Peppered' With Religion Questions
  • In Story On Proposed Ultrasound Mandate, WashPost's Kumar Fails to Note Va. Abortionists Already Use Them
  • Networks Hype Gas Prices 4 Times More for Bush, Than Obama
  • Bozell Column: The Bill Press Hate Machine
  • Andrea Mitchell: Hillary Was Right--There Really Was A Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
  • Rick Santorum Says 'Phony Theology' Controversy Is 'Media Trying to Destroy Conservatives'
  • Chris Matthews Sneers: 'If You're Really Anti-Gay, You Become Catholic Now'
  • Douglas Brinkley: Bill Clinton Is a 'Folk Figure in America' Like 'Babe Ruth or Buffalo Bill'

BBC Environment Analyst Received 15000 Pounds From ClimateGate University

By Noel Sheppard | November 20, 2011 | 09:06

Change font size:  A |  A
Noel Sheppard's picture

For years NewsBusters has informed readers of the tremendous financial ties to spreading the anthropogenic global warming myth.

On Sunday, coincidentally  the second anniversary of 2010's ClimateGate scandal, Britain's Daily Mail exposed the BBC's Roger Harrabin for having taken £15,000 from the very university at the heart the damning email messages demonstrating a nefarious collusion between the world's top climate alarmists:

A senior BBC journalist accepted £15,000 in grants from the university at the heart of the ‘Climategate’ scandal – and later went on to cover the story without declaring an interest to viewers.

Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s ‘environment analyst’, used the money from the University of East Anglia’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research to fund an ‘ad hoc’ partnership he ran with a friend.

Mr Harrabin, an influential figure who both broadcasts and advises other BBC journalists, later reported extensively about Climategate.

Readers might recognize Harrabin as the BBC reporter who materially altered an article back in April 2008 to incite climate hysteria. It was later discovered that he had done so under pressure from a global warming activist.

Now, as the Daily Mail reports, we find out that he's taken money from ClimateGate U:

In none of Mr Harrabin’s reports on the [ClimateGate] were the grants that he and his friend Dr Joe Smith had received from UEA ever mentioned. However, BBC insiders claim that the use to which the money was put – annual Real World seminars for top BBC executives on issues including climate change – had a significant impact on the Corporation’s output.

‘The seminars organised by Roger and his friend were part of a process which has effectively stifled all debate within the BBC about man-made global warming,’ said one senior journalist. ‘As far as the high-ups are concerned, the science is settled.’

But there's more:

Disclosure of the payments to Mr Harrabin’s private partnership comes in the wake of a damning report last week by the BBC Trust Editorial Standards Committee.

It revealed ‘sponsored’ documentaries on environmental issues, whose production costs had been met by ‘non-commercial’ bodies such as the UN Environmental Programme, have been shown frequently on the BBC World news channel without viewers being made properly aware of their funding.

Trust investigators discovered that of a sample of 60 sponsored programmes broadcast between February and July this year, a total of 15 breached the BBC’s editorial guidelines.

The investigators said some of the breaches involved direct conflicts of interests – with the funders being the subjects of the programmes they were paying for – and that others failed to observe BBC rules on telling viewers where the programme budget had come from.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

That's some pretty ugly stuff when you think about it. And it gets worse as Christopher Booker of Britain's Telegraph reported Saturday:

The story of the BBC’s bias on global warming gets ever murkier. Last week there was quite a stir over a new report for the BBC Trust which criticised several programmes for having been improperly funded or sponsored by outside bodies. One, for instance, lauded the work of Envirotrade, a Mauritius-based firm cashing in on the global warming scare by selling “carbon offsets”, which it turned out had given the BBC money to make the programme.

Just as this scandal broke, I was also completing a report, to be published next month by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, on the BBC’s coverage of climate change. It ranges from the puffing of scare stories dreamed up by “climate activists”, to BBC reporting on wind farms, often no more than shameless propaganda for the wind industry. Part of the story told in my report is the unhealthily close relationship that developed between the BBC and organisations professionally involved in the “warmist” cause.

Some years back, the BBC adopted a new editorial policy –that the scientific and political “consensus” on climate change was now so overwhelming that it should be actively promoted, while climate sceptics, or “deniers” as the BBC calls them, should be kept off the airwaves.

A key moment in developing the new party line was a “high-level seminar” in 2006, attended by a bevy of top BBC executives. It was organised by Roger Harrabin, one of its senior environmental correspondents, and Dr Joe Smith, a geographer and climate activist from the Open University. They had set up the Cambridge Media and Environment Programme to promote the consensus line on global warming, funded by, among others, the Department for the Environment (then in charge of government policy on climate change) and WWF, one of the leading warmist pressure groups.

Now according to the Daily, we find out that Harrabin and Smith received money from UEA:

Mr Harrabin’s partnership with Dr Smith – the Cambridge Media Environment Programme (CMEP) – began in 1996. That was when Mr Harrabin spent a sabbatical at Cambridge University, where Dr Smith was working at the time. [...]

[Smith's] own opinion, which he sets out on his website, is that ‘everyday human activity – moving, eating, keeping warm or cool – is gently stoking a slow-boil apocalypse’. He calls climate change ‘one of the challenges of the age’ and urges the world to take radical action. A Freedom of Information Act disclosure obtained by Andrew Montford, who writes the climate-change blog Bishop Hill, reveals that the Tyndall Centre provided £5,000 a year for three years from 2002.

So individuals with tremendous sway over the BBC's reporting on global warming had been receiving money from the university at the heart of the ClimateGate scandal since 2002.

Isn't that special?

(H/T Steve Milloy via Marc Morano)

Share this

About the Author

Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Click here to follow Noel Sheppard on Twitter.
  • ClimateGate
  • Environment
  • Global Warming
  • Weather
  • Roger Harrabin
  • BBC
  • Noel Sheppard's blog
  • Login or register to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Donate to NewsBusters

Comments

The new SS / KGB

Submitted by 4Deuce on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 9:35am.

I recall reading almost 10 years ago that many in the KGB moved into the environmental movement after the fall of the USSR -- because they recgnized it as a new worldwide anti-liberty movement intended on gaining the same sort of political dominance sought by the Nazis and Soviet communism. With the wisdom of 20/20 hindsight, that remark, read a full decade ago, was utterly prophetic.

  • Login or register to post comments

15000 pounds?

Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 10:53am.

Holy cow, how can the guy even move? Oh, wait. That's money, isn't it?

Well surprise, surprise; proof that big media is financially in bed with big wind/solar. And that's what it's really all about -as we've seen from the DoE loan program- financing a politically-friendly obstacle to big (right-leaning) oil. In our case, with public money. Britain apparently felt they needed to buy the media coverage to ensure complete indoctrination. I think it worked, in their case.

Here? Isn't it ironic that sunlight is the worst thing for solar companies?

  • Login or register to post comments

bk, yea I thought what...15000 pounds of ...carbon

Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 1:13pm.

I'm A Denier.

Skiing in Colorado before Thanksgiving, must be all that hot snow...

A fellow Democrat when Reagan was one.

  • Login or register to post comments

Color me shocked

Submitted by dbo on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 10:57am.

Lucky British taxpayers. We have federally funded BBC getting even more money from federally funded Department of the Environment getting even more money from Phil Jones' federally financed CRU getting even more money from tax exempt WWF so federal employee Roger Harrabin can organize environmental "seminar" propaganda parties.
Lucky the rest of us. We get "impartial" news.

  • Login or register to post comments

Some years back, the BBC

Submitted by Reaver on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 11:27am.

Some years back, the BBC adopted a new editorial policy –that the scientific and political “consensus” on climate change was now so overwhelming that it should be actively promoted, while climate sceptics, or “deniers” as the BBC calls them, should be kept off the airwaves.

This is the thing that always gets me about the global warming movement, they always say that their case is so overwhelming that we need to shut down any debate. Now if you were promoting a cause and you had overwhelming factual evidence supporting your case wouldn’t you want to put your opponents on television every night so you could make fools of them on a regular basis and make your own case? If you didn’t have a strong case then you would want to censor your critics so you can say with impunity that “I have overwhelming proof” and as long as no one challenges you to produce that proof the lie stands. The way the alarmists conduct themselves is very telling, which side is always calling for debate and which side is always running away from debate saying it’s settled science, case closed?

“If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain
  • Login or register to post comments

sigh

Submitted by Dr. Ron on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 11:34am.

More global "warming" reality to be buried by the MSM here in USA...any way to get a subscription to the Telegraph???

Ronald John Lofaro, PhD
  • Login or register to post comments

Monies worth

Submitted by Jerry Mack on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 1:23pm.

He received $15,000 pounds and putout 15,000 pounds of bull****.

  • Login or register to post comments

The BBC is the most trusted name in news

Submitted by Henry Clay on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 3:20pm.

Friends, this is much ado about nothing. To claim that there is some “nefarious” plot between the BBC and the scientific community is an outlandish accusation. This reeks of conspiracy theories that make deniers of science look foolish yet again. Can you say Birther or Truther?

First let us look at the grant issue. Grants are awarded all the time in the academic community. Just because Mr. Harrabin and Dr. Smith received a grant from UEA does not mean anything. Would this even be news if the grant in question disproved AGW? Just because one is awarded a grant does not mean that one is promoting a viewpoint. In other words, you argument is guilty by association; hardly an argument based on a strong foundation.

Secondly, we have all these unnamed sources. No one is willing to go on the record to state that there is some sort of collusion between the BBC and UEA. The BBC is the most trusted name in news in the entire world. I highly doubt that the BBC would risk their reputation. If one really wants to look to the unsavory side of things, I suggest we look at the role that Big Oil plays in funding all of these denier organization and unjust wars. Priorities friends, priorities.

  • Login or register to post comments

"The BBC is the most trusted

Submitted by ThePickle on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 3:47pm.

"The BBC is the most trusted name in news"... is a stated opinion as it offers a conclusion without relevant data to back up that supposition.

So what do we have here folks? Just another sophomoric lib spouting his opinion as if it were some Indisputable, Irrefutable, Undeniable, God Given Truth from on high.

You ask what if it was a grant that that disproved AGW?

I would then guess that it would be you and your ilk doing, saying, screeching, scheming and lying to the high heavens in order to besmirch the man and pointing out that he took money from a source whose main bent is to DENY global warming at which time you would immediately dismiss the results as sullied and irrelevant.

But let a conservative even suggest that a BBC analyst receiving money to promote the consensus theme from a university that routinely advocates for the idea of AGW has a slight odor of collusion and you spin up with "conspiracy theories" and color is as an "outlandish accusation".

Yep just your typical lib ....here to tell us to "never mind that man behind the curtain."

  • Login or register to post comments

BBC = Integrity

Submitted by Henry Clay on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 4:00pm.

Excuse me old boy, but this is taken straight from the BBC policy hand book:

15.4.28
"Although efforts should be made to declare any interests well in advance, in some cases people will be asked to work on stories or content at relatively short notice and may find that they have some connection with the area to be covered. If they have any financial, commercial or business interest which might involve a conflict of interest, or might be perceived to involve a conflict of interest, they must inform their editor or head of department promptly. If the editor or head of department considers that there could be a real or perceived conflict of interest, they should deploy another person on the story or content. Editorial Policy may also be consulted"

We do not know the entire story here. Did Mr. Harrabin use the proper channels? Was it deemed irrelevant to his reporting by people who actually know the full story? To blame an entire organisation goes beyond any logic.

  • Login or register to post comments

Sorry, Henry, but the BBC has no integrity

Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 9:59pm.

It's reputation has been a shambles for years.

For example . . .

In the opening days of Operation Iragi Freedom In 2003, BBC reported for several days in a row that British forces had secured Basra, only to have reports of fighting the next day. BBC then claimed that British HQs and CENTCOM had lied about securing the town, when those HQs had never made such a claim to begin with.

A thoroughly disgusted and honest BBC reporter imbeeded in Basra blew the whistle in a separately published article in which he verified that neither he nor any of the other BBC imbeds ever told BBC that Basra was secured, nor had British HQ or CENTCOM. BBC editors had made it up out of whole cloth, and when their lie was exposed, they falsely accused honest warriors of misleading them.

The BBC has plunged to the depths of the NY Times when it comes to objectivity

  • Login or register to post comments

Hah!

Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 10:15pm.

So if the BBC says it, it must be true?

Please continue to show yourself to be the pseudo-intellectual you are.  Had you a shred of critical thinking ability, you wouldn't have dared type "BBC = integrity".  I have learned ages ago to NEVER rely upon one source for news and information, which is why I constantly cross-check my news sources with others. 

That you clearly haven't figured out that not one single news source can be trusted in full shows me you have a great deal to learn not just intellectually but about life in general. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login or register to post comments

HC wrote: To blame an entire

Submitted by ThePickle on Thu, 11/24/2011 - 1:01pm.

HC wrote: To blame an entire organisation goes beyond any logic.

1. Nowhere did I blame an entire organization for anything I simply challenged your presumptive statement that "The BBC is the most trusted name in news" assertion.

2. Now,having you provide me with that little gem of BBC policy, I WILL now blame an entire organization and state unquestionably that, regardless of any stated policy, the idea that a leading correspondent taking monies from an organization that promotes the global warming assertion in order to fund his own organization, that promotes the global warming assertion, it "goes beyond any logic" to assume that said correspondent retains any objectivity with regards to stories about global warming.

That being said if he did indeed "inform his editor or head of department" said 'boss' was either woefully incompetent or simply chose to ignore what most would consider an obvious "conflict of interest".

  • Login or register to post comments

Who in the hell left the door open? Mud

Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 3:28pm.

the pusilanimous Pontificator has shown up, yet again, leaving a trail of troubling  tripe all over the floor. 

"Some years back, the BBC adopted a new editorial policy –that the scientific and political “consensus” on climate change was now so overwhelming that it should be actively promoted, while climate sceptics, or “deniers” as the BBC calls them, should be kept off the airwaves".

What part of that was over your head,  Mud? 

American troops do not lose wars, leaders lose wars Major Pain
  • Login or register to post comments

I also find the headline of

Submitted by Henry Clay on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 3:36pm.

I also find the headline of this article quite offensive to my refined taste. Scientific studies have shown that when dealing with written monetary prices if one does not put a comma in a price, the price tends to look larger to the consumer. Thus 15,000 pounds written as 15000 looks considerably different to the human eye. In other words it is an optical illusion to the simple mind.

May I also add in conclusion that 15,000 pounds is the equal to roughly $24,000 US dollars. Hardly a large amount of money to have the BBC risk their reputation on.

  • Login or register to post comments

Cite those studies, Mud.

Submitted by drsamherman on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 3:55pm.

What studies? Use medical journal citation style, please.

  • Login or register to post comments

doc sam---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 6:45pm.

Mud found those studies in the same place he found his "refined taste".

In his imagination.  :o)

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login or register to post comments

Nothing like the combo of unmedicated schizophrenia...

Submitted by drsamherman on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 9:58pm.

...and the voices that tell him what to do....

I think sewage is more refined than Mud's tastes...

  • Login or register to post comments

It would serve you

Submitted by acumen on Tue, 11/22/2011 - 8:23pm.

and your refined tastes well to consider that we are not discussing some glam and bling reporter making 24K on the side and some perceived optical illusion. This obvious well-documented collusion between green interests, a state controlled media and a corrupt international body negatively impacts most of the world's population. This sordid collusion hampers hundreds of millions of third world people attempting to develop/utilize their resources to simply stay alive. All the while costing those in the developed world lucky enough to still have a job, billions in their tax assessments to fund green energy that cannot succeed without these subsidies. It would seem the above reality would bother a refined person more than some supposed optical illusion.  Welcome to the 'Team' Mr. Clay.

"....the important thing is to make sure they’re (AGW skeptics) loosing the PR battle. - Mike 'hockey stick' Mann

"Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital.....Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data."  - Phil Jones

 

  • Login or register to post comments

You've finally pontificated something I agree with, Mud.

Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 11/25/2011 - 8:07pm.

"In other words it is an optical illusion to the simple mind".  

It's noted that you're the only one confused here.  Thank you for playing.

American troops do not lose wars, leaders lose wars Major Pain
  • Login or register to post comments

I read that the BBC has BIG

Submitted by reddog339 on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 4:00pm.

I read that the BBC has BIG money invested in global warming and carbon credits operations.

Death Before Dishonor
  • Login or register to post comments

Daily Maill story into memory hole

Submitted by Demonhunter on Mon, 11/21/2011 - 12:21pm.

The Daily Mail story link now goes to an error page pre-loaded with a google search for the story. All three results there take you to the same error page. Does anyone know what's going on here?

"If it's not the Crusades, it's the cartoons"
  • Login or register to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Donate to NewsBusters Today!

This form needs Javascript to display, which your browser doesn't support. Sign up here instead

User Shortcuts

Log in

  • My account
  • My buddylist
  • Log in to check messages
  • RSS feed
  • About NB
  • Contact us
  • Jobs
  • Advertise on NB

 

 

Join our campaign to get the media to Tell the Truth!

 

  • Obama's economy poll numbers improving (Hot Air)
  • Debt is the biggest reason Obama's liberalism is disaster (Power Line)
  • Catholic candidate debates and ashes (Daily Caller)
  • The (liberal media) debate mistake (NRO)
  • Obama's dividend tax increase will hurt more than just 'the rich' (WSJ)
  • Bush outpolls Obama in survey of presidents (Surber)

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Recent comments

  • Good for Mitt!
    9 min 43 sec ago
  • Got bigot?
    13 min 58 sec ago
  • I"d take that price, no ka
    17 min 19 sec ago
  • I"d take that price, no ka
    17 min 20 sec ago
  • I have a 401k and IRA's
    18 min 49 sec ago
More >

Over the Edge
more cartoons
  • Gingrich: Obama 'Is The Most Dangerous President on National Security Grounds in American History'
  • Sarah Palin: 'Lamestream Media' Are 'All Wee-Weed Up' About Santorum's Satan Remark
  • UPDATED |WashPost Runs Cartoon Depicting Drunken Bishop, Refused to Run Strip by Same Artist Mocking Muhammad
  • Chris Matthews Concedes: 'Liberals Don't Want to Pay More Taxes'; 'It's All a Game'
  • Al-Jazeera English Wins Prizes, Leftists Want More Access to American TV
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Lachlan Markay
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Editorial Associate
Aubrey Vaughan

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2012 NewsBusters. Terms of Use.