Guess what? The man responsible for looking after the fat pensions of the boys and girls at the BBC is a climate change fanatic, and he is part of an international group of investment managers who bust a gut to invest in ‘climate change’ schemes. He’s called Peter Dunscombe, and he runs the £8.2bn corporation pension fund, advising trustees on a day-to-day basis about their investments. Mr Dunscombe, who addresses conferences about ‘ethical investments’, is also chairman of the Institutional Investment Group on Climate Change(IIGCC), which has 47 members and manages four trillion euros’ worth of investments; yes, four trillion. Their goal is to find as many ‘climate change’ investment opportunities as possible:

The IIGCC Investor Statement on Climate change was launched in October 2006. Asset owners and asset managers who signed the Statement committed to increasing their focus on climate change in their own processes and in their engagement with companies and governments.

So now we really know why BBC staffers are so fanatical about ‘climate change’. It’s naked self-interest. In 2008, there were 18,736 contributors to the BBC pension fund; every man jack of them benefits from climate alarmism.

(h/t anonymous eagle-eyed B-BBC contributor)

Update: I’ve been going through the latest BBC Pensions Trust report, and it reveals that Helen Boaden, who is the overall boss of the BBC’s news and current affairs operation, was appointed to the trust in 2008. So the woman who tells environment reporters such as Roger Harrabin and Richard Black that the science is settled also works to maximise the returns of the pension fund with Peter Dunscombe. I thought that needed spelling out fully, just in case any subtleties might be missed.

Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to FINGERS IN PIES…

  1. The Beebinator says:

    you cant make this stuff up, Does it fall within the definition of insider dealing?


  2. Marky says:

    No conflict of interests there then. I think this is an important find.


    • Guest says:

      Next thing we’ll end up finding out the guy stuck in charge of objective editorial from and about a highly charged zone of conflict once had his local offsider blown away by one of the protagonists.

      But it’s O….k, in all of the BBC he is the only one with the local knowledge, language skills and above all professional objectivity to weigh all that he is told, hears or comes across his desk like a true professional, separating fact from heresay, and never letting emotion cloud nuanced situations such that they become anguished opinion pieces.

      I think there’d be a report on it. But those who paid for it probably wouldn’t be allowed to read it.


  3. Richard G Brown says:

    But surely it’s worse than that…   these people are on Defined Benefit pensions, aren’t they?

    So that means that Dunscombe can pursue as many ideologically-driven investment strategies as he likes, safe in the knowledge that the BBC – and hence us – will have to pick up the tab if he loses all the money.

    The BBC staff win whatever happens…  in the short term, they get to feel self-righteously smug, believing their pensions are invested in something worthwhile. In the longtime, the rest of us are on the hook to bail them out.


  4. Guest says:

    Richard G Brown 
    But surely it’s worse than that…   these people are on Defined Benefit pensions, aren’t they? 

    That’s a new, and ominous one to me: basically ‘heads we win; tails you lose’? Certainly seems in keeping with the ‘interesting’ Establishment financial shenanigans of the last few years, though the BBC does seem to manage to keep things ‘unique’.

    I shall await one of the ever expanding BBC employee roster (what was it I read about public sector employment under Mr. Brown?), who may or may not know a darn thing about the topic (qualifications, experience, ability, competence, professionalism, etc being so last millenium), soon on a screen presuming to tell me that it’s all exactly going to plan.

    That is, if securing one’s financial future is supposed to take precedence over objective news gathering and editorial.


    • Guest says:

      Ironically just reading the LGA head honcho (the 3rd in as many years) for a nearby area explain the stark choices being faced to ensure the pension pot is protected:

      1) Ratepayers pay more
      2) Ratepayers get less

      As with a few others, I do wonder if there is a point at which those being soaked notice they are paying almost all they can earn solely to keep a ton of folk who can’t add up, and their restive ’employees’, in the manner to which they have come to expect.

      As with certain other non-income generating entities, other possibilities do not seem to have even registered.

      Might not end well.


  5. Martin says:

    I notice the BBC got Shuckman to do a bit on Barry’s decision to castrate NASA once and for all (America will now have no way to launch astronauts to space) and the BBC just had to get climate change into the article (spend money looking at the Earth for CO2 etc) yet he or Harrabin didn’t do anything on the articles about this winter being the coldest in England for 20 years and since records began in Scotland.

    Wow this global warming really is crazy. Freezing cold winters and lukewarm summers.


  6. Jimbob says:

    Outstanding work by Robin on this subject !


  7. Lloyd says:

    Jeez, this is a massive turn of events. Now obviously this blog is beeb focused, but if I were in an editorial position at itn or sky I would be kicking great lumps out of the beeb over this – which rather begs the question – why aren’t they?


    • Martin says:

      Because most at Sky and ITV have bought into the MMGW crap and most journalists have the BBC in their DNA.

      For example Anna Botting at Sky is so pro Labour she’d be embarassing on the BBC such is her love, she’s an ex beeboid as are may of the others.


  8. Old Holborn says:


    I’ve made a fortune investing in Vestas wind turbines. 1000%;range=5y


  9. AndyUk06 says:

    It’s all starting to add up now isn’t it?  It all boils down to economic reasons at the end of the day.

    Their constant hyping of global warming has had nothing to do with any sensitive desire to help suffering humanity, but rather to prey on it like a common thief!

    Public sector pension promises are huge and, in many cases, funding is woefully inadequate. Government assumptions of double-digit returns from stock markets have been wildly optimistic. Even now, the FTSE 100 hovers at around 5200, the same as what is was 10 years ago.^ftse

    Because the fuse on this pension time bomb is so long, these  BBC parasites know these problems and the global warming investment scam will become someone else’s problem long after they have left this mortal coil.


    • Marky says:

      Man-made global warming works on so many levels for the left, it’s better than ‘free’ healthcare in that respect.


  10. Old Holborn says:

    Gordon has just sent £100 billion to African dictators to keep them in Learjets and their people starving.

    gotta love “Global warming”. Fabians do.


  11. voodoo jimi says:

    Of course, by this reasoning, the BBC must also be biased in favour of Petroleum companies, by virtue of the fact that 2 of the top 5 holdings in the pension plan are BP and Royal Dutch Shell.


  12. Frugal Dougal says:

    Well done – very perspicacious bit of work.  Another reason why we need to throw the license fee out of the window and let the Corporation do what the hell it wants with private advertisers’ money (although the advertisers, having to answer to shareholders, may have different ideas.)


  13. Jimbob says:

    @voodoo jimi

    shell, bp etc stand to make a fortune from CO credits/cap N trade. They’re all warmists now.
    Do keep up !


  14. Thingumbob says:

    New Ice Age AphorismsIn this new ice age, whilst engaged in a snowball fight with the neighborhood AGW believer, it’s a good idea to bring one’s dog along for that special something extra.


  15. Guest says:

    Probably just a coincidence, but there’s a thing….

    BBC producers chose to “ignore the facts”.

    Mr Wood said: “The BBC took note of all of these facts, and then chose to ignore them in favour of cheap sensationalism and the carefully-worded hyperbole of campaigning NGOs.”



  16. Grant says:

    It is snowing again in Edinburgh this morning !


  17. George R says:

    Melanie Phillips:


    …”when the BBC, no less, starts to allow an interviewee to start telling the truth like this:
    ‘I hate to say this – but there is a very strong –it’s very small – but there is a very strong green fascism in much of the environmental world. I’ve heard it said at meetings I’ve been at – that climate change is so important – democracy has to be sacrificed’
    something big is definitely happening. And that something is the disintegration of anthropogenic global warming theory.”


  18. Roland Deschain says:

    Stem cell experts say they believe a small group of scientists is effectively vetoing high quality science from publication in journals.

    Much of what is being said in this article mirrors exactly the criticism sceptics have levelled against climate change “science”. Can anyone at the BBC join the dots?


  19. George R says:

    BBC’s propagandists report on IPCC, BBC 2 ‘Newsnight’ TONIGHT


  20. Oldrightie says:

    A quite brilliant find. It is, however, further evidence of Labours’ pet following the murky lead of its master.


  21. AndyUk06 says:

    While the UEA’s Phil Jones continues pretending to practice science, the BBC allows him to get away with mouthing all kinds of untruths:

    Why can’t he just bloody accept he has been truly rumbled and the game is up?


  22. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Fair point, but surely if the BBC was promoting the oil industry there would – and should – be an outcry about the potential for conflict of interest.


  23. Guest says:

    I am sure Ms. Boaden has nothing to do with guest invitations, questions posed and how the narrative can get ‘enhanced’, even if a piece is ‘live’:


  24. Guest says:

    Blooming heck.

    While they seem quite chilled on Mr. Dunscombe’s affiliations being mentioned, and not in a good way, the BBC seem very sensitive to Ms. Boaden being associated in any way, shape or form, despite her evident links, affiliations and possible conflicts of interest.

    Any mention of her name in BBC blogs regarding this gets modded before you can utter ‘watertight oversight’, and links, via google, to the freely available trust report, get excised as ‘unsuitable’.

    Go figure.


  25. David Moncur says:

    Hi, very interesting material there, loved reading it, the wordpress website is largely inspired by a feeling that deaths of television personalities (mostly BBC employees) can be compared with the mysterious syndrome of Marconi (defence sector) scientists’ strange deaths recorded by Computing Weekly’s editor, Tony Collins, in his book entitled “Open Verdict: 25 Mysterious Deaths In The Defence Industry”. Additionally, Tony Collins, years after the publication of that book, became one of the few people to successfully sue the BBC for copyright infringement – why did they appear to avoid contacting him to avoid any such scenario? Maureen Plantagenet has an internet upload which is also interesting in copyright regard, conveying how difficult it is to win damages for copyright infringement from the BBC……download these spiels into yoozbees, read them on planes when you’ve finally time, whatever……they’re worth it. Hope you feel it was worth it to tell you guys this.


  26. jim heath says:

    in Australia the ABC is just a mouthpiece for the ALP so we all have our problems. We have a prime minister here that blatently lied to the people to gain office, and journalists that don’t seem to understand how democracy has been usurped. There is nothing wrong with an individual changing their mind on a subject in fact it’s quite healthy to do so if they facts dictate. It’s quite another thing to have a prime minister change our minds for us.