Ohh dear. Never mind trifling matters like kiddy fiddlers and corporate stupidity, here we have a real stinker. In Jan 2006 the BBC held a meeting of the best scientific experts to decide BBC policy on climate change reporting, i.e. to freeze out the AGW deniers and sing only from the Green Gravytrain Songsheet, expressed thus: The BBC 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 Silencing dissenting views. How very impartial. After FOI requests, the BBC has been in court with many a lawyer spending our money to try and block said FOI request to get the list of the 28 attendees at this great meeting of impartial scientific minds. Why? If functionaries of the BBC have made a policy decision to ramp up one point of view and rubbish another, the basis on which that was decided should be in the public domain. Unless of course it was all yet another crock of BBC shit to be covered up at all costs. But sadly for them, nothing really ever goes away on t'internet. Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Woe, woe and thrice woe, the reason for this legal effort and cost turns out to look like another case of something stinking at the BBC: only 3 of the 28 were actually scientists and, yes indeed, AGW fundamentalists. All of the others were AGW activists or journalists. The BBC sent their finest including Peter Rippon, Steve Mitchell, Helen Boaden & George Enwistle. Any of those names sound familar? Should do: all four have resigned over the paedophilia accusations aim at Lord McA. as a result of what comes down to piss poor journalism. As expressed on the Bishop Hill Blog: "We now know that the BBC decided to abandon balance in its coverage of climate on the advice of a small coterie of green activists, including the campaign director of Greenpeace. This shows that the "shoddy journalism" of Newsnight's recent smear was no "lapse" of standards at all. BBC news programs have for years been poorly checked recitations of the work of activists." Whole sad tale here Revealed: who decides the BBC It does not matter if you think AGW is "settled science" or the greatest scam in the history of mankind. It is the continual political bias and institutional distortions from the BBC that are the issue.