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
Sheila White on The European parliament: an… vanorman2016 on The European parliament: an… Mike Maunder on The European parliament: an… clairethinker on The European parliament: an… Ian Terry on My final speech in Strasbourg…
- Beware of “Smart Meters”
- Coal mining vs. Fracking: a comparison
- Arc Manche: The thin end of the wedge
- The physics of a boiling kettle - my question to the commission!
- A Great Conference -- especially on the fringe
- Energy policy – time for a new look?
- Post-Referendum Debrief June 30th
- Watch out for the food police!
- ‘Consensus’? What ‘consensus’?
- Britain: Closed for Business?
- 914,382 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