Home  »  Global Warming  »  BBC Executives Bought Off To Promote Global Warming Propaganda

BBC Executives Bought Off To Promote Global Warming Propaganda



Nov 27, 2011 27 Comments ›› The Assassin

(Daily Mail) — Britain’s leading green activist research centre spent £15,000 on seminars for top BBC executives in an apparent bid to block climate change sceptics from the airwaves, a vast new cache of leaked ‘Climategate’ emails has revealed.

The emails — part of a trove of more than 5,200 messages that appear to have been stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia — shed light for the first time on an incestuous web of interlocking relationships between BBC journalists and the university’s scientists, which goes back more than a decade.

They show that University staff vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the Corporation to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output.

Like the first ‘Climategate’ leaks two years ago, they were placed last week on a Russian server by an anonymous source.

Again like their predecessors, they have emerged just before a United Nations climate summit, which is to start this week in Durban.

BBC insiders say the close links between the Corporation and the UEA’s two climate science departments, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, have had a significant impact on its coverage.

‘Following their lead has meant the whole thrust and tone of BBC reporting has been that the science is settled, and that there is no need for debate,’ one journalist said. ‘If you disagree, you’re branded a loony.’

In 2007, the BBC issued a formal editorial policy document, stating that ‘the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’ — the view that the world faces catastrophe because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.


  • Anonymous

    Of course it’s not just man-made hydrocarbons. Those just accelerate the process. The science isn’t changed, only the emphasis.

  • Anonymous

    Of course it’s not just man-made hydrocarbons. Those just accelerate the process. The science isn’t changed, only the emphasis.

  • Charlie from New Jersey

    This is the same as the ancient Church killing people who noticed that the earth was not the center of the universe.  The earth’s temperature topped out in the late 1990s and has been going down during this entire charade.  These frauds have been sucking money out of left-wing governments for over a decade now, and they are desperate to keep the cash coming…

    The largest greenhouse gas is water vapor…. we are on planet covered with water, which evaporates every day.  CO2 is a minor constituent of greenhouse gases and appears to have next to no impact on the planet… other than to make plants happier.  Most of the CO2 comes from the decay of organic matter.

    If the planet was actually getting warmer by greenhouse gas buildup, the atmosphere would be getting warmer.  No one has ever noticed this effect (because it is not happening).  Instead, we used surface temperature measurements which have suffered from lousy data from carelessly maintained instruments and, of course, fraud.

  • Charlie from New Jersey

    This is the same as the ancient Church killing people who noticed that the earth was not the center of the universe.  The earth’s temperature topped out in the late 1990s and has been going down during this entire charade.  These frauds have been sucking money out of left-wing governments for over a decade now, and they are desperate to keep the cash coming…

    The largest greenhouse gas is water vapor…. we are on planet covered with water, which evaporates every day.  CO2 is a minor constituent of greenhouse gases and appears to have next to no impact on the planet… other than to make plants happier.  Most of the CO2 comes from the decay of organic matter.

    If the planet was actually getting warmer by greenhouse gas buildup, the atmosphere would be getting warmer.  No one has ever noticed this effect (because it is not happening).  Instead, we used surface temperature measurements which have suffered from lousy data from carelessly maintained instruments and, of course, fraud.

  • Anonymous

    global warming = religion for these people.

  • Anonymous

    global warming = religion for these people.

  • Anonymous

    global warming = religion for these people.

  • Anonymous

    global warming = religion for these people.

  • Anonymous

    global warming = religion for these people.

  • Anonymous

    global warming = religion for these people.

  • Anonymous

    global warming = religion for these people.

  • Anonymous

    global warming = religion for these people.

  • Anonymous

    global warming = religion for these people.

  • Anonymous

    global warming = religion for these people.

  • Anonymous

    global warming = religion for these people.

  • Anonymous

    global warming = religion for these people.

  • Anonymous

    global warming = religion for these people.

  • ProfessorBill

    You don’t know anything about science, CO2 is not a hydrocarbon.  Reliable actual temperatures go back less than 100 years and the sediment data is an estimate whose margin of error is greater than the supposed rise in temperature.  Also, how can anyone reliably separate out warming from the natural cycles of the sun and cosmic radiation from that of any contribution CO2 may make?  The answer to that is no one can and if someone says they can their lying.  The environmental movement is a political movement, California is a great example of this and particularly the Sacramento delta and the damage the environmental movement has done there using bogus phony science.

  • Anonymous

    CO2 is a product of combustion of hydrocarbons. Of course there is a political movement. Could we change anything without political involvement? It is more than 100 years that we have been contributing. I don’t know what the delta has to do with it. Haven’t lived there for a few years.

  • Anonymous

    You have no idea what you are talking about.

  • Anonymous

    You have no idea what you are talking about.

  • Anonymous

    I am interested to find out. Please be more specific.

  • Anonymous

    I am not your teacher, nor do I want to be.  Educate yourself before wasting our time here with your inane comments.
    You may want to start by studying the naturally occurring O2 CO2 H2O biological cycle of plant and animal life.  Then study the long-term (epoch) terrestrial and solar thermal cycles.

  • Anonymous

    I understand the combustion and photosynthesis cycles very well. As a nutritionist this is basic to my science. Combustion converts hydrocarbons into water and carbon dioxide with the input of oxygen and the byproduct of energy. The reverse is the process of photosynthesis utilizing energy of the sun. The concern for the planet now is that the industrial revolution started the burning of fossil fuels and destroyed plant life. Thus long term storage of hydrocarbons was increased and reduction in photosynthesis resulted in increasing amounts of carbon dioxide. This has created a greenhouse effect with a gradual increase in the earth’s and atmosphere’s temperature. For the consequences, check it with polar bears and in your Sacramento/San Joaquin delta.

  • Anonymous

    “Combustion converts
    hydrocarbons into water and carbon dioxide with the input of oxygen and
    the byproduct of energy. The reverse is the process of photosynthesis
    utilizing energy of the sun.” 
    This much is true, the rest is complete bunk. Note that photosynthesis specifically converts CO2 back to O2.  This process occurs in plant life on land but more importantly in Phytoplankton in the ocean on a massive scale. The equation is bi-directional through these natural systems with nothing being created or destroyed, just changing form with input from man being insignificant (and naturally compensated).  The total thermal flux throughout known history IS WITHIN NORMAL MARGINS and not outside of past variances.  Further, the total atmospheric composition of all natural gases (but CO2 specifically) has not changed in any significant degree globally.Lastly, there is no valid scientific data whatsoever that proves otherwise.Greater minds than yours (and Al Gore’s) have concluded and confirmed these facts, and I tend to concur with them.

  • Anonymous

    Obviously you have looked at this more closely than I have. I have not read any original papers, so I cannot dispute what you have said. It seems the planet is warming, and I don’t know if we can stop it, but I will do what I can to not contribute. Thank you for the lesson.

  • Anonymous

    Obviously you have looked at this more closely than I have. I have not read any original papers, so I cannot dispute what you have said. It seems the planet is warming, and I don’t know if we can stop it, but I will do what I can to not contribute. Thank you for the lesson.