Martin Durkin’s Channel 4 film “The Great Global Warming Swindle” caused an explosion of shock and venom from the high priests of climate alarmism. We can see how far we have strayed from proper science when merely to present an alternative view is to be shunned as a heretic. A range of interested parties — including the IPCC — complained about the film to OfCom. And after a year-long investigation, OfCom has reported.
They have some technical criticisms of the Channel 4 film. It was not balanced, they say. Of course it wasn’t. In the face of almost universal climate hysteria, Channel 4 had the courage to set out the opposing view. One of the scientists interviewed, Dr. Carl Wunsch, said he had been misled about the nature of the programme, which he expected to be a balanced discussion. “What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance” , he said. Yet of course the media are full of out-and-out propaganda for climate alarmism. All the Channel 4 film sought to do was, in a small way, to redress the balance and give a little airtime to the other side.
OfCom’s key finding, though, after their minor technical criticisms, is devastating. The film “Did not mislead audiences so as to cause harm or offence”. But the main thrust of the complainants was that Channel 4 had misled audiences. The OfCom verdict amounts almost to an endorsement of the film.
This is by no means the first time that an authoritative public body has found against climate alarmism. Back in October 2007, Stuart Dimmock, a lorry driver and a Kent school governor, challenged the showing of Al Gore’s disaster movie “An Inconvenient Truth” in the High Court, and Judge Michael Burton ruled that Al Gore’s film contained at least nine substantive scientific errors. He ruled that guidance notes drawing attention to these errors should be distributed to schools showing the film.
So well done OfCom. The alarmists think they can shout down every voice of dissent. They constantly insist that they represent the overwhelming consensus of scientists — and indeed of all decent and sensible people. But they do not. They are wrong. And increasingly the public are waking up to the fact the climate hysteria is about centralising power and raising taxes, not about saving the planet.
Search the blog
Calendar of posts
- My final speech in Strasbourg – Two-seat parliament a perfect metaphor for the hubris and futility of EU project
- The European parliament: an apology
- COP21 climate agreement: An eye-watering amount of money for virtually no return
- £100,000 mis-spent?
- EU energy labelling: confusing consumers and creating problems for industry
Jane Davies on The European parliament: an… catweazle666 on The European parliament: an… Sheila White on The European parliament: an… charles wardrop on The European parliament: an… Mike Maunder on The European parliament: an…
- 944,325 hits
- Add new tag
- Air fares
- Alan Johnson
- Al Gore
- Animal Welfare
- Broughton Astley
- Climate Change
- Credit Crunch
- David Cameron
- David Davis
- emissions trading
- Energy Security
- EU Presidency
- Freedom Zone
- Free Speech
- Global Warming
- GM Food
- gordon brown
- Lib Dems
- Liberal Democrats
- Monetary Union
- No Campaign
- Peer reviewed papers
- Philip Lardner
- Politics Show
- roger helmer
- Sarah Palin
- Stem Cell Research
- St George's Day
- The Freedom Zone
- Vice President
- windfall tax
I noticed last night that the BBC dedicated a large chunk of their 10 O’Clock news to this story. As expected the only person who commented was a climate change alarmist from The Royal Society who said he was going to challenge the OfCom verdict. He basically said that Channel 4 should not have been allowed to show it! Still I have come to expect nothing else from the BBC.
Later on BBC London news they reported that a number of Chinese restaurants are facing closure as a result of them not being allowed to serve crispy Peking duck. You and I know that this is the result of the ovens used to cook the duck falling foul of EU regulations on carbon monoxide emissions. Did the BBC report it like this? No, they made it look as if Tory Westminster Council had decided to do all this, Europe didn’t even get a mention.
Pretty typical. But we should remember that we have a great triumph for common sense in the OfCom verdict. Meantime you may be interested to know that I have just recorded for DVD a speech I first made at a Global Vision lunch-time seminar on climate change on July 14th. Should be available soon.
BBC are a joke.
I didnt know tv channels had to be balanced. Could have fooled me.
In fact id guess there was more balance in this programme because alarmist views would have to be put forward in order to debunk them.
I dont remember if thats what they did.
Why do we never hear about asteroids? There isnt much balance in the ‘world is going to end’ alarmists paranoid philosophy
I do enjoy reading your blog, although I don’t agree with most of what you say I think its good to read something that challenges rather than just reading things that I know I’m already going to agree with, so thanks for writing.
Just thought that I’d point out that basically I don’t think that Ofcom was making a judgement on whether it was accurate but just whether it was likely to cause harm or offence. I think Monbiot has quite a good response http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/07/21/distortions-falsehoods-fabrications/
Recently on the Today Programme an announcer was discussing the difficulties of getting the private sector to cough up £100 million for the 2012 Olympics. He said that an additional problem was the Credit Crunch. Then he added, in what must have been an unscripted aside, “There — you knew it must be either Global Warming or the Credit Crunch!”. Shock horror! The BBC poking fun at climate alarmism! Whatever next?