Global warming swindle only swindled some - July 21, 2008
Almost all coverage of the ruling about the UK’s Channel 4’s climate change documentary, the Great Global Warming Swindle, on the surface, comes down against the TV channel, with headlines ranging from Climate program swindled viewers (Sydney Morning Herald) to Channel 4 rules ‘unjust and unfair’ in climate change documentary (Guardian).
But you might say that Channel 4 got off pretty lightly for their documentary that suggested that global warming wasn’t caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Ofcom http://www.ofcom.org.uk/ charged the programme with misrepresenting certain scientists, which leads to those critical headlines, but ultimately the regulators said that the programme didn’t mislead viewers.
This has irked some climate change scientists. Robert Watson, ex-head of the IPCC airs his views in a column in the Guardian. Although over in the Telegraph, David Hughes comes down firmly on the side of the programme makers, saying that the furore caused by those who complained in the aftermath of the programme aired was ‘bullying’.
David Rado, who coordinated the en-masse protest about the show has his say over at the BBC. What do you think?
Comments
Channel 4 have been carefully using their media contacts to 'spin' the story to make it appear as if they've been vindicated on matters of fact.
The ruling does not say that viewers were not 'materially misled' - the ruling specifically states:
"The accompanying Ofcom guidance to the Code explains that “Ofcom is required to
guard against harmful or offensive material, and it is possible that actual or potential
harm and/or offence may be the result of misleading material in relation to the
representation of factual issues. This rule is therefore designed to deal with content
which materially misleads the audience so as to cause harm or offence.”
(Emphasis in original). Ofcom therefore only regulates misleading material where that
material is likely to cause harm or offence. As a consequence, the requirement that
content must not materially mislead the audience is necessarily a high test."
and furthermore:
"In dealing with these complaints therefore Ofcom had to ascertain – not whether the
programme was accurate - but whether it materially misled the audience with the
result that harm and/or offence was likely to be caused. It is not within Ofcom’s remit
or ability in this case as the regulator of the ‘communications industry’ to establish or
seek to adjudicate on ‘facts’ such as whether global warming is a man-made
phenomenon, nor is Ofcom able to reach conclusions about the validity of any
particular scientific theories."
Channel 4 are doing a great job of spinning themselves out of trouble - and even convincing some of the media that they've won some kind of victory..
Posted by: Dean Morrison | July 21, 2008 07:07 PM
I believe that Galileo or Copernicus were not exactly partial, and neither was the church.
Posted by: S. Radun | July 21, 2008 08:13 PM
The IPCC says that "there is a 90% chance" that global warming is caused by "human activity". There are lies, damn lies and statistics. There are such a host of unknowns that they fiddle to arrive at their statistics that their declaration is totally incredible.
Like their poster child the "hockey stick" that the IPCC waves around as triumphal "proof" of runaway global warming and dark hints that we will go the way of Venus - look what happened there (when the Venetians ran amuck with their eco-unfriendly cars). The fact that Venus is a third of the distance closer to the sun than we are and that its atmosphere consists of 97% carbon dioxide compared to our 0.0384% is irrelevant. I always thought that the sun was the great driver of our climate and the fundamental cause of keeping our planet warm. Not so, says Professor Mitchell, lead author of the IPCC "the estimated increase in the Sun's heating is around 0.2% (based on surrogate measurements such as sunspots) – only one fifth of the influence from human activity." So far as heating our planet is concerned we humans outshine the sun 5 to 1! WOW! Should we be proud of that?
As for the (in?)famous hockey stick, that certainly seems to show alarming runaway warming, it is truly a miraculous conjuring trick of mathematical modelling. Michael Mann and colleagues fed in over 70 different climate records using "PCA analysis" and Viola! out popped a "hockey stick". Gone was the mini-ice age and the medieval warming period, replaced by a slightly wavy horizontal line, followed by a steep runaway warming in the last 20 years. Out with natural climate change, in with grants and conferences.
Unfortunately McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, fed in some meaningless test data and out popped the hockey stick! Their objections have still not been answered. You can read all about it here http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
As for the clowns in Govt who actually think they can influence global warming or climate change with their pathetic laws - the difference between them and King Canute is that what King Canute did was tongue-in-cheek. He knew he was being ridiculous and satirical, whereas the clowns in Governments and the delusional self-righteous, self-important greenies, actually think they can make a difference.
Posted by: Richard | July 21, 2008 09:04 PM
As the author of one of the 265 complaints received by Ofcom about the programme (I also reviewed parts of the test complaint organised by Dave Rado), I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Ofcom ruling found that the programme did contain a number of inaccuracies, but in the opinion of the regulator, these did not materially mislead viewers so as to cause harm or offence, and so was not in breach of the Broadcasting Code in this respect. I (and I'm sure many others) will be appealing against this part of the ruling on the grounds that it has harmed viewers. It is interesting to note that Ofcom considers a documentary that broadcasts inaccurate information is not a breach of the Broadcasting Code per se.
Posted by: Bob Ward | July 22, 2008 11:24 AM
What about the host of inaccuracies in Al Gore's book? I believe a lot of scientists would, if they could be speaking freely, endorse the premise of the documentary, which is that carbon dioxide is not the prime cause of global warming if it is a cause at all and that by reducing carbon dioxide we would reduce the temperature of the earth. Anyone who doubts the POLITICAL agenda of the IPCC has their head in the sand.
Posted by: John | December 23, 2008 06:31 PM