Dear Sir or Madam,

At the website below the BBC states (page 40): “The BBC has 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.”
Can you please provide me with a list all the best scientific
experts who attended your high-level seminar and provide me with
the minutes of the seminar.
With thanks in anticipation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/fil...
“Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be
unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that
climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least
predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still
has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small
minority.
Jana Bennett, Director of Television, argued at the seminar that
‘as journalists, we have the duty to understand where the weight of
the evidence has got to. And that is an incredibly important thing
in terms of public understanding – equipping citizens, informing
the public as to what’s going to happen or not happen possibly over
the next couple of hundred years.’
Roger Mosey, Director of Sport, said that in his former job as head
of TV News, he had been lobbied by scientists ‘about what they
thought was a disproportionate number of people denying climate
change getting on our airwaves and being part of a balanced
discussion – because they believe, absolutely sincerely, that
climate change is now scientific fact.
The BBC has 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. But these dissenters (or even sceptics)
will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s
role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as
‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’
by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as
long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed,
the BBC must give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is
even more offensive today than it was in 1926. The BBC has many
public purposes of both ambition and merit – but joining campaigns
to save the planet is not one of them. The BBC’s best contribution
is to increase public awareness of the issues and possible
solutions through impartial and accurate programming. Acceptance of
a basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed
scrutiny of the arguments surrounding both causation and solution.
It remains important that programme-makers relish the full range of
debate that such a central and absorbing subject offers,
scientifically, politically and ethically, and avoid being
misrepresented as standard-bearers. The wagon wheel remains a model
shape. But the trundle of the bandwagon is not a model sound.”

Yours faithfully,

Mike Post

Dear Sir or Madam,

My apologies. I did inadvertently send a duplicate request. Please only respond to my first enquiry of 25 November.

Yours faithfully,

Mike Post

Dear British Broadcasting Corporation,

This request was a duplicate sent in error. Please disregard. I am still awaiting an internal review of my original request.

Yours faithfully,

Mike Post