Campaign against Climate Change

Looks like Ofcom might actually slap some wrist here :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and...

From The Times
July 19, 2008
Channel 4 censured for programme that said climate change was a fraud
Scientists' complaint on accuracy is rejected
Kevin Dowling

A Channel 4 documentary that argued that global warning was a fraud is to be criticised by the media regulator.

On Monday Ofcom is expected to publish a long-awaited report that upholds claims by some of the scientists who appeared in the programme last year that they were misrepresented.

The Great Global Warming Swindle, which aired in March last year, has been accused of downplaying the threat in the public mind. It sparked an outcry among environmentalists and many campaigners argue that the programme has contributed to people believing that the threat is not real.

It is understood that complaints by Carl Wunsch, a climate expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, will be upheld. The regulator is expected to say that Channel 4 should have told Dr Wunsch that the programme was going to be a polemic.

The regulator will also uphold complaints made by the government’s former chief scientist, Sir David King, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

But the broadcaster will not be censured over a second complaint about accuracy, which contained 131 specific points and ran to 270 pages, with Ofcom finding that it did not mislead the public.

Debate has raged since the programme was shown, with many scientists claiming that it misrepresented evidence about the threat of global warming and that it rehashed discredited arguments and skewed data and charts to make its arguments stand up. In the closing moments of the program a voiceover from the climate change sceptic Fred Singer claimed that the Chief Scientist of the UK had said that by the end of the century the only habitable place on the planet would be in the Antarctic and that “humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples who moved to the Antarctic”.

Sir David has never made such a statement. It is thought that Mr Singer confused the comments with those made by the scientist James Lovelock, who infuriated many colleagues in the science community when he publicly questioned global warming.

Ofcom is expected to find that the programme made significant allegations against the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, questioning its credibility and failed to offer it timely and appropriate opportunity to respond.

Channel 4 argues that the organisation refused to cooperate with the programme-makers.

After the broadcast, Dr Wunsch said that the programme was as close to pure propaganda as anything since the Second World War and that he was duped into appearing on it. Martin Durkin, the director of the programme, has defended it vigorously. He wrote in a newspaper: “The death of this theory will be painful and ugly. But it will die. Because it is wrong, wrong, wrong.”

The producers have sold the programme to 21 other countries and a global DVD release went ahead despite protests from scientists.

Channel 4 claimed that the public response to the programme, in the form of phone calls it received, was six to one in favour of it. The broadcaster said that the documentary was a useful contribution to a timely debate, arguing that it had a tradition for iconoclastic programming and that it had also aired programmes supporting the case for man-made climate change.

A recent poll found that the majority of the British public is sceptical that climate change is caused by human activity, with many saying the problem exists but is exaggerated.

Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of ten agreed that “many scientific experts still question if human beings are contributing to climate change”. Campaigners believe that steadily increasing economic worries are denting public interest in environmental issues and some of them have blamed the programme.

Channel 4’s head of science, Hamish Mykura, said last March that he commissioned the film because it reflected the views of a significant minority of respected scientists.

An Ofcom spokeswoman said she could not comment before the report was published. Channel 4 said that it could not comment at this stage.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Robert Watson says what so many commentators said at the time : the public HAS been swindled by the film "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

Personally, I have spoken to scores of people who were swayed by the film, who accepted the "professional" presentation, thought it was from a trustworthy source so believed its conclusions.

But for someone with even a modicum of knowledge, just a cursory viewing of the graphs showed errors.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/21/ofcom.channel4

The public has been swindled

Ofcom's censure of Channel 4 is flawed: The Great Global Warming Swindle clearly misled viewers about climate change

Robert Watson guardian.co.uk, Monday July 21, 2008

As the former chair of the IPCC, I welcome Ofcom's ruling today, which states that The Great Global Warming Swindle was unfair in its treatment of the IPCC and leading scientists such as Sir David King and Professor Carl Wunsch, and that it was in breach of due impartiality on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy.

However, I am very disappointed that Ofcom did not find that the programme materially misled the audience as to cause harm or offence.

In my opinion, The Great Global Warming Swindle did a major disservice to the public at large and tried to undermine the scientific basis which governments and the private sector are using to address cost effectively one of the greatest challenges the human race has ever faced. I believe it inaccurately portrayed the scientific evidence, was not impartial – which, in my view, a documentary should be – and was unbalanced and totally misrepresented the scientific consensus on the role of human activities in causing global warming. Therefore the program should have emphasized far more than it did that it was portraying a minority opinion.

Human-induced climate change is an environmental, development and security issue, hence a major current national and global public policy issue. Attempts to undermine the strong scientific consensus on this issue detract from the urgent challenge that the world is facing – namely, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently and rapidly enough to avoid dangerous levels of climate change in the future. In many parts of the world, human-induced climate change can adversely affect agricultural production, water quantity and quality, human health, ecological systems such as coral reefs and moist tropical forests, and displace tens of millions of people due to sea level rise. While the risks apply throughout the world, it is the poor and developing countries that are most endangered.

The IPCC, which was established by the United Nations in the late 1980s, is the world's most authoritative voice on the scientific and technical knowledge regarding climate change. The IPCC engages thousands of the world's best experts from universities, national and international governmental organisations, including our own, world-leading Met Office Hadley Centre, non-governmental organisations, the private sector and thinktanks to prepare and critically peer-review the scientific and technical evidence. The IPCC is a non-political body addressing a very political issue. It is used by governments to inform policy and by the private sector to inform investment decisions.

The bottom line is that there is little doubt (greater than 90% certainty) that human activities are responsible for most of the observed changes in climate change over the past 50 years, and that we need to act urgently to avoid dangerous human-induced climate change in the future. We must reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases and adapt to the changing climate. Sceptics who disseminate misinformation and argue that there is no need to address this urgent issue are placing the planet at risk, threatening the livelihoods of not only the present generation, but even more future generations – our children and grandchildren.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

The Register says that Ofcom says that NO OFFENCE has been caused as regards the broadcasting rules...

But it does point out that the SCIENTIFIC FACTS could not be corroborated, clarified, checked, corrected or criticised by Ofcom.

There are a great number of people I have corresponded with who ARE offended by the scientific inaccuracies of the film.

So...apparently it's permissible to give inaccurate information about Climate Change on TV ?

The Advertising Standards Authority can suppress advertisements (for example claiming that some cars are greener than others when they're all the same really).

But Ofcom cannot rule on whether a programme has misrepresented the science ?

Has the time passed when we can complain about the Channel 4 broadcast "The Great Global Warming Swindle" ?

Or can we still put in a complaint based on the misuse of data ?

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7517101.stm

Climate documentary 'broke rules'

By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

A controversial Channel 4 film on global warming broke Ofcom rules, the media regulator says.

The Great Global Warming Swindle attracted various complaints, including claims it misled contributors.

In a long-awaited judgement, Ofcom says Channel 4 did not fulfil obligations to be impartial and to reflect a range of views on controversial issues.

Channel 4 said it aired the documentary to demonstrate that "the debate" on climate change was not over.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the former UK government chief scientific adviser Sir David King were among those whose complaints were upheld.

The film's key contention was that the increase in atmospheric temperatures observed since the 1970s was not primarily caused by emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels.

First aired by Channel 4 in March 2007, the documentary has since reportedly been sold to 21 countries and distributed on DVD.

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance
Dr Carl Wunsch

Among discussion groups of "climate sceptics", it is sometimes cited as a counter to Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth and has been credited with infuencing public opinion on the causes of modern-day climate change.

An Ipsos Mori survey in the UK last month concluded: "Many believe leading scientists remain undecided on the exact causes of climate change".

Distinguished climate scientists, including former IPCC chairman Sir John Houghton, Professor Peter Cox from the UK Met Office, and Professor Brian Hoskins from Reading University, signed a letter to production company WagTV alleging that the film "misrepresented both the scientific evidence and the interpretations of researchers that have been documented in the scientific literature".

'Propaganda piece'

The regulator backed Sir David's complaint of unfair treatment, judging that his views were misrepresented and that he was not given the right to reply.

Ofcom also found in favour of Carl Wunsch, an oceanographer interviewed for the programme, who said he had been misled as to its intent.

Dr Wunsch, from the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, said he believed he was being asked to take part in a programme that would "discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change", but "what we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance".

The Broadcasting Code requires Channel 4 to show "due impartiality" on "matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy".

The last segment of the programme, dealing with the politics of climate change, broke this obligation, Ofcom judged, and did not reflect a range of views, as required under the code.

However, the regulator said it did not believe, given the nature of the programme, that this led to the audience being materially misled.

While some of the complaints received by Ofcom were short and straightforward, one group assembled a 188-page document alleging 137 breaches of the Broadcasting Code.

Channel 4 will have to broadcast a summary of the Ofcom findings.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/21/channel4.ofcom

11.50am update

Channel 4 ruled 'unjust and unfair' in climate change documentary
Mark Sweney guardian.co.uk, Monday July 21, 2008

The Great Global Warming Swindle: Ofcom found scientists ad been treated unfairly by the programme.

Ofcom has ruled that Channel 4 breached broadcasting codes on impartiality and was "unjust and unfair" in the way it represented individuals in its controversial documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Ofcom has ordered Channel 4 to broadcast a summary of its adjudication on the programme, which was broadcast on Channel 4 and E4 on March 8 last year.

The show challenged the theory that human activity is the major cause of climate change and global warming.

Ofcom's investigation found that the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sir David King, the government's former chief scientist and professor Carl Wunsch "were treated unfairly in the programme".

"In particular, the programme made some significant allegations without offering an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond," Ofcom said. "In the case of Sir David King, the programme-makers also criticised him for comments he did not make."

Ofcom also found Channel 4 in breach of impartiality "on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy".

The media regulator said that the final part of the programme, which focused on policies adopted by the United Nations and western governments to tackle global warming, was in breach of the "due impartiality" requirements of the broadcasting code.

"The programme was required to include an appropriate wide range of the significant views. The programme-makers failed to do this," said Ofcom.

However, Ofcom found that the first four parts of the programme, which focused on the scientific debate about the causes of global warming, did not breach the broadcast code.

"Ofcom concluded that these parts of the programme were not matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to public policy and therefore the rules on due impartiality did not apply," it said.

The media regulator also said that while it had concerns about "aspects of the presentation (and omission) of fact and views within the programme, it did not believe, given the nature of the programme, that this led to the audience being materially misled".

"We are pleased that Ofcom has ruled the film did not materially mislead the audience," said Hamish Mykura, the Channel 4 head of documentaries. "The film acknowledged the majority scientific and journalistic consensus in support of man-made global warming, but legitimately sought to present the viewpoint of the small minority of scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide."

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/ofcom_global_warming_swindle_adj...

Climate Swindle film: bruised egos, but no offence

So says Ofcom

By Andrew Orlowski ¡ú More by this author
Published Monday 21st July 2008 11:55 GMT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

British regulator Ofcom has rejected complaints that the popular polemical film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, misled viewers. The regulator said it was paramount that the public received alternative points of view - even if these were not endorsed by institutions or the major political parties.

While some aspects of the presentation "caused some concern", the regulator notes, such as failing to give guests time to respond after broadcast, the errors were "of such insignificance" that they could not be judged to mislead the audience.

Ofcom said it couldn't judge the validity of the facts on each side of the argument, but rather that it's job was to decide whether the programme breached the Broadcasting Code, in which programmes must not mislead viewers in order to cause offence.

"Ofcom considers that it is important, in line with freedom of expression, that broadcasters are able to challenge current orthodoxy. It is self-evident that there will be strong disagreements over the ¡®facts¡¯ on an issue such as the causes of global warming - where some scientists disagree. Some may wish to challenge the evidence and the conclusions drawn from it. Channel 4, however, had the right to show this programme provided it remained within the Code and ¨C despite certain reservations ¨C Ofcom has determined that it did not breach Rule 2.2. On balance it did not materially mislead the audience so as to cause harm or offence."

The hour long programme, directed and narrated by Martin Durkin, was screened in March 2007, and has subsequently become a hit on DVD. Environmental activists blame the film, and the broadcaster Channel 4, for undermining public confidence in the theory that human CO2 emissions are primarily responsible for increasing temperatures in the late 20th century.

Ofcom ruled that Swindle did not pretend to represent the mainstream view, and clearly labelled its contents; it did not dispute that temperatures were rising (something it could legitimately have done, as temperatures have been steady for almost a decade, the British climate research centres Hadley and the Climatic Research Unit now agree).

The regulator quotes the Stern Report to back its belief that the science was "settled" before the documentary was broadcast:

"This view of human activity as the major cause of global warming does not appear to be challenged by any of the established political parties or other significant domestic or international institutions. "

Boiling point

Yet Ofcom said it "considers it of paramount importance that broadcasters, such as Channel 4, continue to explore controversial subject matter. While such programmes can polarise opinion, they are essential to our understanding of the world around us and are amongst the most important content that broadcasters produce. It is inevitable such programmes will have a high profile and may lead to a large number of complaints."

Ofcom agreed with a complaint from the former scientific advisor to the Government, David King, who complained he had been treated unfairly. The programme attributed a quote to him that he never made, and failed to give him a chance to respond after the programme had been broadcast.

Fred Singer, professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, was broadcast claiming that the UK's chief scientific advisor had said "that by the end of the century the only habitable place on the earth will be the Antarctic. And humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples who moved to the Antarctic".

In fact, in May 2004 King had said that "Antarctica is likely to be the world¡¯s only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked" and that the earth was entering "the first hot period for 60m years" when there was no ice on the planet and ¡°the rest of the globe could not sustain human life".

Swindle received 265 complaints after being broadcast, although Channel 4 says calls to the station supporting the programme outnumbered those complaining by 6 to 1.

Details of Ofcom's adjudication were leaked the The Guardian newspaper on Friday, earning the headline in Saturday's edition "Channel 4 to be censured over controversial climate film". You can judge the accuracy of that headline for yourselves, by downloading the adjudication here...

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=41733&c=1

Ofcom: Channel 4 misrepresented scientists' views in climate change programme
21 July 2008

By Paul McNally

Channel 4 misrepresented the views of a group of leading scientists and failed to act with "due impartiality" in a controversial documentary on climate change last year, the broadcast regulator has ruled today.

Ofcom received 265 viewer complaints about The Great Global Warming Swindle, which aired on Channel 4 in March 2007 and sought to challenge the theory that human activity is the major cause of global warming.

The regulator also received complaints from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the former Government chief scientist Sir David King, and Professor Carl Wunsch, who claimed they had been unfairly treated by the makers of the programme.

In its ruling, Ofcom concluded that although the Channel 4 documentary did not mislead the audience, it made "significant allegations" about the scientists and misrepresented or exaggerated earlier comments made by them, without offering them an opportunity to respond.

"The programme was required to include an appropriate wide range of the significant views. The programme-makers failed to do this," Ofcom said.

The Government's former chief scientist, Sir David King, complained that a comment he made in a House of Commons select committee hearing had been taken out of context, and used in the programme to suggest that "by the end of the century the only habitable place on the earth will be the Antarctic".

He also said he had been wrongly attributed as saying: "Humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples who moved to the Antarctic."

"[The] comment amounted to a significant allegation which called into question Sir David’s scientific views and his credibility as a scientist," Ofcom ruled. "Sir David should have been offered an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond."

Ofcom also ruled in favour of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which claimed Channel 4 had made six "false and misleading claims" about its work, including the "strong and potentially damaging" allegation that the organisation was "politically driven".

And Professor Carl Wunsch, an oceanographer, was also found to have been unfairly treated. He complained that he had been "misled about the nature and likely content of the programme".

Ofcom also received a number of complaints from viewers that the data and literature included in the programme had been misinterpreted, but ruled that it was "impractical and inappropriate" for it to exmaine every individual claim.

In its response, Channel 4 disputed that facts and views in the programme were distorted to mislead the audience.

The documentary included contributions from a wide range of scientists and other commentators who argued that the current consensus on the causes of global warming was based on unsound science and was politically motivated.

Channel 4 defended the credibility of the contributors chosen for the programme, arguing that they were established, reputable and had had work published in scientific journals.

It also added it was made clear at the beginning of the programme that the documentary would take a polemical approach and include controversial content.

Although Ofcom ruled that the first four parts of the five-section documentary were not covered by impartiality guidelines because it did not deal with "a matter of political or industry controversy", it said the final part - which discussed the policies followed by the UN and Western governments - failed to include a broad range of views.

Channel 4 has been ordered to broadcast a summary of Ofcom's findings on the channel and on digital sister channel More4.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x