FOIA – BBC Index and False Hits

Yes, the vacation is over and it’s time to “get back to work”.

For me, part of that is getting back to the long trudge through the FOIA emails. (What? You thought I was bored with it and just going to let it slide into history? Doesn’t work that way… I may let something slide for a while when something else is in front of it, but it never goes away…)

So I’ve been thinking about ways to handle them, and I’ve got some ideas. For one thing, I’m going to put a FOIA page on the top bar (very limited real estate there, so that’s kind of a big deal..) that will serve as an ongoing ‘index’ into things. There will not be a lot of comments on it (so if later I want to turn it into an archived posting to recover that space I don’t lose a bunch of comment thread in the process…) but it will be an index into various kinds of FOIA “cuts”. So there will be some “by number” postings where a block of, oh, 100 to 199, say, gets searched. Others will be by ‘keyword’ (so that Agenda 21 posting will have a pointer to it).

I’ve been pondering “tags” to use to make searching easier. I have some ideas, but more are welcome. UNT for uninteresting. CONT for contact list interesting. ATCH for interesting attachment. INT for interesting. VINT very interesting. CLIM climate discussion. COLU collusion. PAL for “peer review” corruption. etc.

This posting is mostly an index into a set of interesting postings. It will also include some comments on the eclectic things that were found by a “FALSE HIT”. When the key word search flagged a posting as ‘has BBC in it’, but the text was actually not related to THE BBC. These were, substantially, the machine compressed data of various attachments.

The key point about THAT is that there ARE attachments on many of the emails proper. In addition to the separate documents archive. ( The attachments look to be divergent from the “Documents” in the FOIA archive.) In some cases, some of these documents might be more interesting than the emails themselves. Several that I ran into are the proposed agenda or coordination documents of the “IPCC Experts Committee” meetings. Just what were they planning to talk about? Don’t know yet, but I can point at it…

For anyone wanting to look at an individual email, or at the README file, they are all located at this site:

So there will be three things here.

1) A listing of the Emails that are “FAILED HITS” on the BBC key word, but may be more interesting in some ways. A failed hit is not a failure of interest or content…

2) A list of the article id numbers in the F.O.I.A.-2011 emails (so folks who want to ‘look ahead’ can go rummaging in the archive and see if any of them are ‘interesting’. There are 107 of them. I’d originally thought I’d do a keyword search on BBC and just post them in one posting (figuring maybe a dozen?…) But these folks seem to be fairly strongly integrated with the BBC and while I’d not quite call it collusion, there is clear intent among the “fellow travelers” to cast and mould the ‘story’ in particular ways.

3) A direct dump of a “grep * ” That is, a list of all lines of text containing the key central bit of the BBC email addresses. This lets you quickly get a sense of the ‘contact trace’. Who is talking to whom. What folks are on the same email header. It does NOT catch cases where, for example, the BBC sends an email to a long ‘copy list’ nor cases where the is hidden inside a group address (that gets expanded on the email server for delivery). But it is useful, still.

The BBC False Hits

In some ways these were rather more interesting. It shows that some very interesting documents are in the attachments of the emails. A “Dig Here!” is to look up those attachments and see what in them is interesting…

Why are these here? Because, for example, a PDF attachment may be encoded into some ‘clear text’ that looks like garbage but has embedded in it the string “BBC”; such as zKJInfBBC3eaKJ. So this served as a kind of accidental filter to pick up SOME of the emails with attachments. A direct search on attachment key words ought to be rather interesting. Another “dig here”…

I’ve added some comments to the text in some cases.

0324.txt: FALSE HIT. Attached .doc “Planning update Doc 4” for IPCC agenda for participants in 2nd Experts teleconference on emissions scenarios.

0851.txt: FALSE HIT. Attached .doc from Tom Wigley to Sara Raper per: VOIC

0897.txt: FALSE HIT. From Sara Raper – Germany to Tom Wigley Attached draft paper, sea level potential of GSIC. Requests review. Implies followup email somewhere with criticisms…

1135.txt: FALSE HIT – Attached pdf invite. IPPC Workshop on scientific uncertainties

cc: Martin Manning
date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:32:19 -0700
from: IPCC-WG1
subject: IPCC Workshop on Describing Scientific Uncertainties, Ireland,
to: IPCC WG1

Note the addresses. I think this opens those communications to FOIA… any communications to anyone on that mailing list was washed through a government server…

1770.txt: FALSE HIT. Attached pdf – IPCC Expert Committee mtg scoping doc and agenda

“Dear members of the program committee

Please find enclosed the agenda of the first tele-conference of the program
committee for the IPCC Expert Meetings on Emission Scenarios. Also enclosed
is the scoping paper and names of the program comittee.”

from: Monique Hoogwijk
Sent to: to:,,, Bert Metz,, Tom Kram,,,, hjacoby@MIT.EDU,

So there is your list of “who’s who” on their “experts” list…
Oh, this one isn’t a ‘false hit’, but until I get time to put all the ‘grep’ results up, it’s tease of what a ‘hit’ looks like:

1793.txt: sensitive issue (cf. BBC Horizon)

2053.txt: FALSE HIT: From Tom Wigley “pre conference volume” pdf attachment. (large)

Oh, and another ‘real tease’ ;-)

2780.txt:subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate

2891.txt: FALSE HIT – attached pdf invite to climate sensitivity workshop with scoping document and draft program – could give insight to workshop activities.

3122.txt: FALSE HIT – attached power point from Tom Wigley for Climate Sensitivity Workshop

3953.txt: False Hit – .doc attachment (paper by Tom Wigley UCAR to be given to meeting of physicists asking for info on how models work.) “The meeting is a bunch of physicists
who meet annually to discuss global problems — as if they can influence
things. This year climate is one of the problems. However, they wanted
to slant things towards the physics rather than what can be done — so
they asked me (Jerry actually) to talk/write about simple climate models.”

4503.txt: False Hit – attached pdf (invite to be lead IPCC author)

5145.txt: False Hit – .doc attachment ( IPCC model analysts project desc w/ analysts names email) Likely a good cross check on who’s who in IPCC model ‘control’.

The “BBC” Keyword

I’ve removed some pointless lines of repeat email footers, and was taking out leading angle brackets so as not to have wordpress confused, then started putting in *** in place of them, so it’s a bit murky as to what is a quoted line in an email and what isn’t, but I don’t think that matters much.

Also, there are two full emails at the start. That was from when I was going to suck them all in… just after them I realized it was way too much. But I’ve left these in as they are a nice ‘sample’. One has the BBC leveraging kids into the effort… The other has a wonderful example of Jones dancing around the historic changes of weather (and struggling hard to distinguish that from recent ‘climate’ change… not realizing that both are the same).

In the body of the search text I’ve bolded a couple of bits that I found particularly intriguing…

0216: BBC Soliciting Jones (Leveraging kids):

date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:04:56 -0000
from: “Pam Rutherford”
subject: BBC Telephone interview tomorrow morning?

Dear Prof Jones,

Hi. I was in touch with you a few months ago regarding a Material World programme with
questions about climate change. The reason I’m writing this time is because I am involved
with a school who are making some news stories tomorrow with the BBC and are looking for a
climate expert they can briefly interview on the ‘phone tomorrow at about 10am and I wanted
to ask you if you would be willing to be that person?

In terms of questions it wil most likely be fairly straightforward on what we know about
climate change and why local measures to change carbon emissions are just as important as
global measures and perhaps what, briefly they are.

This is for a group of 12 – 13 year old girls and then wil then go on to make a 3 minute
news based piece which they will piblish on their website and the BBC will link to tomorrow
when schools across the country are making news – some of which will be broadcast on Five
Live, news 24, BBC1, Newsround etc.

Do you think you might be willing to do this? It shouldn’t take much longer than about ten
minutes and would be just on a normal office phone or even mobile?

Do you think you might be available tomorrow morning?

Many thanks,

Pamela Rutherford
BBC Science Radio
Rm 630 SE Wing
Bush House

Tel: +44 (0)207 557 3885
Fax: +44 (0)207 557 3008

0235: BBC Focus Magazine ( I find this interesting as you get to see Jones dance around historical climate variation. I’ve bolded a particularly fun bit…)

date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:33:22 +0100
from: “Jo Carlowe”
subject: Fw: BBC Focus Magazine
to: “Phil Jones”

Sorry, just to clarify:

I’m assuming that 1740 could be billed as the worst year to be living in the UK? But which
year/or decade would be considered to be a good time?

Thanks once again.
Best wishes
Jo Carlowe
Freelance journalist

—– Original Message —–
From: [2]Jo Carlowe
To: [3]Phil Jones
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: BBC Focus Magazine

Thanks Phil,

Can you let me know the best title to use for you? Do you mind also giving a view (just a
subjective one) as to when (in terms of climate and weather) was the best decade/s to be
around and when the worst (that can include the present or future).

Thanks very much.
Best regards
Jo Carlowe

Freelance journalist


—– Original Message —–

From: [5]Phil Jones

To: [6]Jo Carlowe

Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:06 PM

Subject: Re: BBC Focus Magazine

I was away all last week, so apologies for being slow. Here are a
few thoughts.
1. You and other may feel more insecure now, but this is coming from
the knowledge you now have. This knowledge was quite different from
earlier centuries, so this affects how earlier events were perceived then
as opposed to now. So, any comparisons with the past are not
that relevant to what is happening now or what will happen in the
2. There have been good/bad times for humans in the past (and I’m thinking
here purely of those related to the environment). The impacts of such
events, that I know of, though are only related to the effects across Europe.
Agricultural crises DID NOT trigger the Little Ice Age – even if such an
event took place. Europe WAS not gripped by a chill that lasted 300 years.
Your view here is completely wrong. There were more cold years,
but there were also some very warm periods.
3. The clearest impacts of climate in the historical past that I’m aware
of took place when the climate of western Europe warmed from the early 1700s
to about 1739. There were a number of good harvests in Britain and Ireland
and our population increased dramatically as more children survived.
You should now see why your premise about the Little Ice Age is completely
wrong. The 1730s temperatures in the UK are exceeded by two decades – the
1990s and the 2000s.
In the late 1730s the population of Ireland was about twice what it is now!
In 1740 the coldest year in the Central England Temperature record occurred.
This led of famine across western Europe, especially Ireland. As many
people left Ireland then as did from the potato famine a century later. Probably
as many died, but it is a forgotten famine because of the later on in 1845/6.
The latter was due to the potato blight (and a one crop agricultural system),
but the one in 1740 was purely to the weather.
I’m attaching an article about this – the book to look at is by Dickson – in the
There is something in the paper about the effects of the very cold year
in different regions of Europe. The important thing in all this is
the exceptional cold of the year occurred after exceptional warmth
of an entire decade, so the effects were likely much worse as the
population had got used to a better climate. The conclusion of the
paper is that the event was natural (with no known cause) so it
could occur again!

The follow on influence of this is that people are not affected much by climate
or climate change. What effects them is the Weather!
At 11:17 02/10/2007, you wrote:

To: Professor Phil Jones
From: Jo Carlowe (BBC Focus Magazine)

Dear Professor Jones,

I’ve been given your name by the press officers at the Met Office. I was asking them for
experts who may be able to contribute their thoughts to a feature that I’ve been
commissioned to write for Focus magazine and they thought you may be able to help.

The feature will attempt to answer/explore the following: Given climate change and the
war in Iraq many of us have come to feel increasingly insecure – but is this time worse
than any other?

Some would argue that that isn’t the case. They say the 14th century was the worst time
in history: re: health – there was a black death pandemic, re: conflict: The Hundred
Years War convulsed northern Europe for almost all of the 14th century, re: prosperity –
it was a time of flux with the Peasants Revolt, plus the black death caused an
agricultural crisis, climate: there are theories that the agricultural crisis actually
triggered the Little Ice Age that ensued at the end of the 14th century (moving into
1500s) causing Europe to be gripped by a chill lasting some 300 years.
This article, divided into four categories: climate, health (morbidity and mortality),
conflict (wars) and prosperity (standard of living), will canvass the views of
historians, meteorologists, economists and health experts to answer the question posed
in the title. The idea will be to give a historic overview focusing on these areas,
discussing which key events stand out in history, what events (be it conflicts, natural
disasters, economic change, health pandemics or innovations, peace resolutions etc) were
particularly bleak/catastrophic and which a positive force for change?

It would be most helpful if you could give your thoughts on this. In essence it would be
good to hear which events in relation to climate and the environment have had the
greatest impact on us in either a positive or negative way. So for example, it would be
useful to get some sense of the impact of the little Ice Age on the population (in terms
of impact on agriculture, prosperity, knock on health implications etc). I’ve been told
that the eruption of Tambora in 1816 which triggered the ‘year without a summer’ may
also be worth a mention (killing 10,000 people directly but a further 66,000 due to
starvation and disease). I am sure there are many more events of this kind that stand
out. It would be good too, to also mention periods in which climate/weather/nature
conditions were favourable, and to give some idea of any future threats that are worth a
mention. Finally, it would be helpful to get a ‘verdict’ from you on when in history (or
modern times) would have been the most favourable time to live (given the
environmental/climatic conditions of the time), and perhaps when would have been the
worst time (although this can include the present or future).

I appreciate that this is a vast area – so the idea is really just to give a
snap-shot/overview, together with a few subjective ideas/opinions from experts who are
in a position to give their take on this.

Would you be happy to give your thoughts on this for quotation in the article talking
about the significant developments in history, giving some sense of the best and worse
centuries/decades to be living in? Of course all quotes used will be correctly cited to
their source and I’d be more than happy to include any relevant links or publications.

I do hope you can help. In the first instance it might be easiest to reply by email and
I can then follow this up with a phone call.

I look forward to hearing from you.
With best regards
Jo Carlowe

Jo Carlowe
Freelance journalist
020 8882 8987

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email

0248: BBC U-turn on climate:

0248.txt:subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
0248.txt: extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
0248.txt: since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
0248.txt: sampling errors to this new “IPCC Lead Author” from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino
0248.txt: Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
0248.txt: You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCs reporter on climate change, on
0248.txt: BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.
0248.txt: Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?

From here on down, I’m not putting headings between the items. This was the point where I realized it was not going to fit in one posting. ;-)

0306.txt:people closer to the election. Already got some snr people within BBC
0306.txt:seminars have laid the ground for this within hte BBC, and would design the
0306.txt:THere is senior BBC buy in for the approach i want to pursue on both News

0327.txt:This would be of significant worldwide interest (BBC have already booked

0363.txt: Just heard from BBC News 24 again and they want the interview on
0363.txt: Hi guys, the BBC just called and tried to talk me into a debate with some sceptic (any
0363.txt: just talked to BBC R4 (for 6pm on Thursday) and I spoke to Sky News.

0427.txt:have done were BBC World Service, ABC and CNN radio.
0427.txt: your text you’d spoken to someone at the BBC. What was that for?

0552.txt: It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC forecasts has

0557.txt: In an interview with the BBC Barnett noted that the world’s oceans cover around 71


0571.txt: “” and also e.g. on the BBC, links available here:

0660.txt: There is more on the BBC Sci/Tech web site.

0679.txt: There is a major BBC program coming out on Sunday
0679.txt: There is something on the BBC site, but I can’t find it.

0794.txt:subject: Re: BBC E-mail: New row on climate ‘hockey stick’
0794.txt: Might be worth sending in a letter of complaint to BBC. They should know that the
0794.txt: ray saw this story on BBC News Online and thought you
0794.txt: ** BBC Daily E-mail **

0818.txt: I have just wasted an hour responding to this. Already had 2 calls – one from the BBC

0859.txt: Environment correspondent, BBC News website
0859.txt: Story from BBC NEWS:

0999.txt: views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
0999.txt: the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent

1032.txt:climate change science (Roger Harrabin from the BBC).

1033.txt: My name is Matt McGrath and I’m the environment reporter here at BBC World Service Radio.
1033.txt: BBC World Service Radio,

1038.txt:Roger Harrabin (media; Radio BBC) – reserve Paul Brown (The Guardian)

1041.txt: journalists – the BBC and was in the Sunday Times last weekend.

1078.txt:subject: Fw: BBC Climate Change Seminar
1078.txt: below are the details for Tuesday’s BBC briefing at White City in Shepherds Bush. Rebekah
1078.txt: Subject: BBC Climate Change Seminar
1078.txt: Date and Venue: Wednesday 23rd June, Bridge Lounge, BBC Television Centre, White City,
1078.txt: will be working on a week on climate change that the BBC is running on News 24 in early
1078.txt: BBC Analysis and Research

1265.txt:[9] Homen, Kim University of Stockholm, quoted in BBC News

1306.txt: This BBC item (Wheeler, Sunderland) mentions U of E Anglia. Seems that the

1405.txt: CRUTEM2v)? Then we will all have the same numbers when DEFRA and the BBC come knocking. We

1428.txt: senior BBC managers:
1428.txt: BBCi at [1]

1448.txt: print publications. I did have 2 BBC interviews

1485.txt: I didn’t pursue with the BBC writing a follow up piece as it was so bad.
1485.txt: I did the the BBC piece–at least it clearly marked as an op-ed, not a news story. Did
1485.txt: you check w/ BBC whether they would consider publishing an opposing op-ed by some Brits
1485.txt: I complained to the editor of BBC online and it sneaked through without being read !
1485.txt: by the skeptics. BBC didn’t run at all with the awful report that the Marshall Inst.

1581.txt: 2100 GMT on BBC Two
1581.txt: Story from BBC NEWS:

1591.txt: I read about your work on the BBC website yesterday but, speaking as a physicist myself,

1683.txt: personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically
1683.txt: BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.

1687.txt:The main thrust would be building off the CORRAL Cook BBC et al

1724.txt: BBCi at
1724.txt: personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically
1724.txt: BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will

1727.txt:recent project was producing ‘Space’ – the BBC1 series with Sam Neill.

1793.txt: sensitive issue (cf. BBC Horizon)

1802.txt: hearing about it from Lonnie, I did see it on a BBC

1814.txt: BBC Radio Nottingham 6/12/08

1840.txt: Just a quick note after hearing you on the BBC R4 Frontiers programme last night. I

1854.txt: The Bethel Business and Community Development Centre (BBCDC) based in Lesotho is a private

1883.txt:Thanks Tim. The BBC environment correspondents are:
1883.txt:Matt McGrath (BBC World Service) –
1883.txt:Sarah Mukherjee (BBC TV/Radio) –
1883.txt:Christine McGourty (BBC TV/Radio) –
1883.txt:David Shukman (BBC TV) –
1883.txt: LLNL are doing a press release but don’t have a BBC contact. Is it
1883.txt: details for the appropriate BBC person, so that they can issue the
1883.txt: press release to the BBC themselves? Their emails are: Anne Stark
1883.txt: release. All the quotes the BBC need are in Ben’s press release and
1883.txt: sheet to our BBC contacts. Phil is away though, so we don’t have
1883.txt: possible to send these to BBC news/website environment people (is it
1883.txt: contacts at the BBC.

1944.txt: Last week, from a BBC Timewatch documentary, I was very interested to learn about

2042.txt: bill giles, john teather(0f BBC) , myself ,Lindsay Sharp and 2 colleagues from the Science
2042.txt: its importance today, and appreciated the visit of TC to John Teather at the BBC recently.

2073.txt: was??!! Am thinking of doing something this Saturday (Breakfast BBC1) wondered if there
2073.txt: are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.

2107.txt:subject: Fwd: Kelly on the BBC
2107.txt: Subject: Kelly on the BBC

2245.txt: an email. I am a radio producer with the BBC World Service responsible for
2245.txt: BBC Science Radio
2245.txt: personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically

2275.txt: The World Service and hopefully the rest of the BBC won’t run this. I think I’ve

2285.txt: On a completely separate issue, I came across this story on BBC News on Sunday, which

2315.txt:subject: RE: BBC science radio Climate Change
2315.txt:Subject: RE: BBC science radio Climate Change
2315.txt: BBC Science Radio
2315.txt Subject: Re: BBC science radio Climate Change
2315.txt: The BBC is raising the issue at every opportunity, so you’re doing
2315.txt: The BBC is planning another radio programme on the issue of
2315.txt: BBC Science Radio

2317.txt: managed to talk the BBC out of doing anything. The Moscow meeting sounds to have been

2334.txt: your BBC gig, promoting it as essential viewing for people interested in

2414.txt: I’ve already had Paul Rincon from BBC News online on the phone, asking me about this

2496.txt:There are a series of links to related web pages at the BBC online article

2509.txt:subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
2509.txt: BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard
2509.txt: Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I
2509.txt: this new “IPCC Lead Author” from the BBC? As we enter an
2509.txt: Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
2509.txt: You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC?s
2509.txt: BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside
2509.txt: Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from

2536.txt: perhaps ‘summer smog’ (as I believe the BBC referred to it, recently).

2564.txt: BBC Look East 29.2.08

2703.txt:already been recorded for the BBC World Service business news (radio) and

2747.txt:subject: BBC Documentary
2747.txt: Hi Phil, Mike Duffy here from the BBC factual programming department. I wonder if you can
2747.txt: Cheers, Mike Duffy. Researcher BBC Scotland.

2780.txt:subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
2780.txt: extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
2780.txt: since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
2780.txt: sampling errors to this new “IPCC Lead Author” from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino
2780.txt: Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
2780.txt: You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC’s reporter on climate change, on
2780.txt: BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.
2780.txt: Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?

2806.txt: BBC

2884.txt:subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
2884.txt: extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC.
2884.txt: at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was
2884.txt: from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year and as soon, as the
2884.txt: Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
2884.txt: You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC?s reporter on
2884.txt: BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.
2884.txt: Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?

2919.txt: I am meeting a writer and producer from the BBC on Monday regarding a drama

2974.txt:4) 4.1 million UK viewers watched BBC2 Horizon’s ‘Big Chill’ a couple of weeks ago which included Hadley scientists presenting scenarios of a catastrophic mini ice-age in 20 and 50 years time for the UK. It will soon be syndicated to Discovery and shown worldwide. How do we effectively refute the ‘Big Chill’ to 4 million people and then worldwide? Broadcast media is the really important audience.

2974.txt:All of the BBC climate change message boards

3049.txt: Rather than just complaining to the BBC, I wondered if you might consider inviting him

3137.txt: BBC about how their news service could better represent global economics in

3174.txt: not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
3174.txt: Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.

3183.txt: just talked to BBC R4 (for 6pm on Thursday) and I spoke to Sky News.

3283.txt: This would be of significant worldwide interest (BBC have already booked

3309.txt: totally taken up on Friday by interviews etc., especially BBC documentaries, so I missed

3346.txt:subject: RE: BBC science radio Climate Change
3346.txt: Subject: Re: BBC science radio Climate Change
3346.txt: The BBC is raising the issue at every opportunity, so you’re doing your
3346.txt: The BBC is planning another radio programme on the issue of climate change. Unlike the
3346.txt: BBC Science Radio

3411.txt:meeting for BBC news and current affairs in advance of the forthcoming UN
3411.txt:that I run jointly with Roger Harrabin of the BBC R4 Today Programme (see:

3434.txt: On the 10th August, when temperatures rose far above previous records, the BBC

3493.txt:uncertainty. At least the BBC article gave the cosmic ray hypothesis a

3502.txt:subject: BBC1 Weds 7pm Land Worth Loving
3502.txt:I thought you might be interested in a BBC1 primetime programme I’ve been
3502.txt:The BBC team behind the programme have done a fantastic job of making this
3502.txt:Although the BBC1 Controller will not commit to a further programme until
3502.txt:on BBC1 in 30 years) and the BBC/OU web team have put together a good
3502.txt:If you think the programme works don’t hesitate to let the BBC1 Controller,

3526.txt: BBC News
3526.txt: Room 1260, BBC Television Centre, Wood Lane, London W12 7RJ
3526.txt: personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically

3540.txt:BBC, unless specifically stated.

3550.txt: around our planet, and we can continue to feed off the BBC or the New York Times to get an

3587.txt: Speaker: Roger Harrobin (BBC) 15 min

3594.txt: Independent Jan 1, and BBC News Jan 4).

3683.txt:Express and regional papers, BBC national and local news, BBC News24, ITV
3683.txt:national and regional news, Radio 4 and regional BBC networks. Meanwhile, a

3757.txt:Environment seminars gathering ideas for the BBC’s coverage of the Rio+10
3757.txt:Earth Summit in a year’s time. Before the Rio summit, the BBC held the One
3757.txt:relevant BBC decision-makers.
3757.txt:* What should the BBC be doing this time in terms of news, current
3757.txt:* How can the BBC convey the theme of sustainable development to

3815.txt:letter for the Director/Producer, perhaps BBC Wildlife or the Radio Times,
3815.txt:I think (and hope) that the BBC are just recycling the title. As I know that
3815.txt:have put alot of time in trying to give the BBC a clear view of the current
3815.txt:2) The science of climate change, and BBC Horizon
3815.txt:BBC2 broadcast The Big Chill on Thursday 13 November as part of its series of

3841.txt: I look forward to hearing from you. I shall be away from the BBC for a few days from
3841.txt: Producer/Director, BBC Current Affairs

3924.txt: * debate on Radio 4 and an item on BBC Online. I’m not aware of any

3957.txt:subject: RE: BBC News enquiry
3957.txt: Subject: Re: BBC News enquiry
3957.txt: I’m a journalist on the BBC News website, and I was wondering if you would have some
3957.txt: BBC News.

3969.txt: from the BBC. He seemed very informed and clever. The only point I didn’t like was that

4028.txt: **** Thanks for this – I wonder if you should contact the BBC and THES
4028.txt: ***** chat with Alex Kirby, BBC, some time before the conference, where we
4028.txt: ****** the BBC website gives the same quote as coming from a talk you

4103.txt:Thursday (9 November, which means that BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ programme
4103.txt:I have spoken to BBC TV News Environment Producer (Emil Petrie), He

4184.txt: I talked to the BBC on Monday and was told they had interviewed you
4184.txt: totally taken up on Friday by interviews etc., especially BBC documentaries, so I missed

4195.txt:* It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC forecasts has

4245.txt:mentioned during your interview this morning on BBC radio.

4254.txt:Speaker: Roger Harrobin (BBC) 15 min

4302.txt: There is also a link on the BBC site to the Christian college view

4370.txt:subject: Re: BBC Focus magazine
4370.txt: Subject: Re: BBC Focus magazine
4370.txt: Subject: Re: BBC Focus magazine
4370.txt: interested in the data presented at Bali as summarised by the BBC News website here:
4370.txt: Science Consultant, BBC Focus Magazine

4435.txt: BBC Newsnight

4582.txt:** the Hadley Centre/BBC website had the same average as the ERA-Interim

4663.txt: BBC) is generally one-sided, i.e. the counter argument is rarely made. There is, however,

4666.txt: us. Please see e.g. the reporting by the BBC:
4666.txt: from BBC (6/23/06 “Backing for ‘Hockey Stick’ graph”)

4894.txt: being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an

4979.txt: The BBC site has a story about the eventual cost (guessed at 25B$). This might be more

5015.txt: BBC Radio 4’s Archers is due to include a climate change theme in the coming weeks, when

5060.txt:subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
5060.txt: extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
5060.txt: since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
5060.txt: sampling errors to this new “IPCC Lead Author” from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino
5060.txt: Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
5060.txt: You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCs reporter on climate change, on
5060.txt: BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.
5060.txt: Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?

5085.txt:comment following Roger Harrobin (BBC) who will be speaking on

5120.txt:* BBC World at 6 am this morning, as the lead story “British Scientists are

5252.txt:*This would be of significant worldwide interest (BBC have already booked

5285.txt: BBC Radio Science Unit
5285.txt: ADDRESS: BBC Radio Science Unit, Room 630 SE, Bush House, Strand, LONDON WC2B 4PH

5295.txt: August. We’re sort of mimicing a similar thing the BBC have done. The idea is that Ruth

5319.txt:forward the release and the fact sheet to their contacts at the BBC.

The BBC email numbers

This is “minus the Failed Hits” ones that had obviously encoded text for something else, but may still be innocuous in some other way. There are 107 of these. So if you want to look up “by number”, go for it. I’ll be working through some of them starting tomorrow (or the next day ;-) Here you go:







The Email Address Dredge

Why publish the email addresses? Well, I thought about this a fair amount. Typical etiquette has them redacted and just the person’s name and organization listed. However:

1) The emails are all sitting out there anyway, addresses one click away. I’m not protecting anything.

2) It would take a large amount of work.

3) And most important, most of these are of the form (a very bad security policy, BTW, makes phishing from address guessing way too easy). So saying the email is from Pam Rutherford of the bbc, then redacting: is just stupid.

4) We really DO need to see who these people are and where they are from. Being able to look up the odd organization from the email address is rather important and The CRU Crew have shown themselves to be doing immoral, if not quite proven illegal, things. So the need to contact trace outweighs the need to hide an ‘innocent’ email copy address (and as noted in #1, would accomplish nothing anyway).

Be advised that I hand edited out the angle brackets, so if I missed any, or any other “special chars” that wordpress wanted to use, this may not exactly match the result of a fresh ‘grep’. (Unix term for ‘text search’… “Global Regular-pattern Expression-search and Print”).

With that, here’s the “contact trace” first cut grep for addresses. Particularly of interest is #2909 as it has a very long copy list with a lot of email addresses that look like oil and related companies (shell, dupont, dowjones) along with several ‘societies’ like the Fabian Society and the Green Aliance. There are also a LOT of addresses and just a very eclectic mix. One can only hope it is some kind of innocuous announcement and not collusion to that degree. No, I’ve not looked yet. Maybe you can be first? ;-)

There are a large number of individuals at the BBC on this list. It clearly is not many letters from one zealot, but a wide number of folks involved over the entire email set (not concentrated in one section) and of broad involvement.

0216.txt:from: “Pam Rutherford”
0216.txt: [1]
0216.txt: [3]
0248.txt: [7]
0794.txt: “Alex Kirby”
0794.txt: [1]
0794.txt: [2]
0794.txt: making sure you include the following text: I do
0999.txt:to: Joanna Malton
1033.txt:from: “Matt McGrath”
1033.txt: [1]
1078.txt: – World Wide Wonderland
2315.txt:> e-mail (and any attachments) is
2496.txt: Links
2564.txt: [12]
2747.txt:from: “Michael Duffy”
2747.txt: [1]
2780.txt: [7]
2909.txt:to: “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “Bauen, A W”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “Evans, Alex R”, “Evans, Julian”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “Grubb, Michael J”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “Huq, Saleemul”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'” , “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “Thirtle, Colin G”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'” , “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “Regnier, Mathieu”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”, “‘'”
2974.txt:All of the BBC climate change message boards
3160.txt:Email address:
3174.txt:from: “Naomi Law” > Email:
3540.txt:to: ‘Roger Harrabin’
3540.txt:From: Roger Harrabin []
3540.txt:> To: ‘’
3789.txt: if you’re interested.
3841.txt:cc: Sian Buckley
3841.txt:from: David Akerman
3957.txt:from: “John Walton-ONLINE”
3957.txt: [6] e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
3957.txt: [7]
3969.txt: [1]
4157.txt:to: “Mary Colwell”
4302.txt: [1]
4370.txt: [6]
4666.txt: [7]
4666.txt: [8]
4689.txt:to: Philip Eden
4894.txt:to: “Alex Kirby”
4959.txt: [1]
5060.txt: [6]
5285.txt:to: “Roland Pease”
5285.txt: [2]
5285.txt: [3]
5285.txt: [4]
5285.txt: [5]


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in FOIA Climategate and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to FOIA – BBC Index and False Hits

  1. George says:

    I’ll try to lend a hand after I get finished with some family business I must attend to between now and the weekend. I’ll be hitting on all cylinder next week.

  2. adolfogiurfa says:

    Will you decrypt the encrypted ones?…we don´t expect less from you :-)

  3. E.M.Smith says:


    Well, I can only promise to work on it… (Starting with finding out more about how to sign up for one of those distributed computing apps and looking into ‘distribution’ methods and issues…) But it will take a while…


    All hands welcome. Anyone can use the link to look up a particular email and post their opinion of it. Then I’ll make a summary on the index list up in the posting. If it gets done in a month, great, a year, OK. 10 days? Well, that would be a miracle…

    I’m going to split my time between working an already posted “list” (be it numerical or keyword) and putting up new “interesting cuts” of the keyword searches. (Death of a 1,000 cuts? ;-)

    I’ve already got one bit to put here in a few minutes…. searching on “reuters”, Foxnews, and other news agencies gives HIGHLY differential hit counts… If these were just regular press releases / inquiry the counts ought to be much closer…

  4. adolfogiurfa says:

    @E.M. My hunch is that its password is as their authors, that´s to begin with: too obvious.

  5. E.M.Smith says:


    A ‘reasonable thing’ to try is a directed dictionary search that includes the names of anyone related. First, last, pet names, family names. It’s a common thing to try as folks will often use things like “Rover21” as their password if they have a dog named Rover…

    It’s pretty much SOP do run a standard English Dictionary, a Names Dictionary, and a “special / odd names” addendum along with prefixed and suffixed numbers and special chars as an early search…

  6. E.M.Smith says:

    OK, I’ve added the search results (i.e. the lines of text from each email that has BBC in it) minus some repetitive lines and with the “False Hits” moved out.

    At this point you have something interesting to look at ;-) I bolded a couple of lines that I found particularly interesting. It is very clear these folks are strongly involved in a Media Management (aka propaganda) campaign.

    I especially like the line where a BBC guy says: “being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are”. At least they KNOW what they really are doing…

    4663.txt: BBC) is generally one-sided, i.e. the counter argument is rarely made. There is, however,

    4666.txt: us. Please see e.g. the reporting by the BBC:
    4666.txt: from BBC (6/23/06 “Backing for ‘Hockey Stick’ graph”)

    4894.txt: being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an

  7. R. de Haan says:

    You pick a name from the list and Google it.
    Monique Hoogwijk RIVM. RIVM is the Government Institute for Nature and Environment.

    Here we a Dutch Government official writing crap for the IPCC and flying to Addis Abeba to discuss it. (Subject: alternatives for ozone depletion)
    (I thought the subject was dead in 2005)

    Now don’t tell me ever again that this isn’t a conspiracy.

    This is exactly what President Eisenhower warned us for.

    A scientific elite making a power grab, a Global one.

    And it’s still going on.

    Interestingly this lady has an RIVM address which corresponds with that of the KNMI.

    So the KNMI people had the IPCC authors and the RIVM apparatchiks
    sitting at the desk next to them.

    KNMI always has been a great intitute providing food weather related informtion.

    Bit the past 20 years everything went wrong and the institute started to cough up BS. Well, it’ clear to me.

    The organization was invaded by eco nazi’s that made more money, travelled a lot and who could work in secrecy conspiring with and against the press.

    Well. we have their names.

    Start the clean up and when you’re at it do the politics as well.

    The establishment does what it can to reward the Climate Gate Scammers
    and make the famous.

    Meanwhile…Professor Bob Watson awarded a knighthood

    In 2010 the Asahi Glass Foundation (shamefully) gave him a Blue Planet Award with US$ 650,000:

    And the co-recipient was Jim Hansen……..

    They have the same strategy for politicians who serve the EU well.

    And some Nobel prizes for the biggest crooks.

    That’s how you create Global Empires.

    You simply bribe the lot.

Comments are closed.