Http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7517509.stm

The Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial Channel 4 film, broke
Ofcom rules, the media regulator says.

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.

The film also treated interviewees unfairly, but did not mislead
audiences "so as to cause harm or offence".

Plaintiffs say the Ofcom judgement is "inconsistent" and "lets Channel 4
off the hook on a technicality."

Hundreds of people... were misled and it seems Ofcom didn't care about
that

Sir John Houghton
Why I challenged Channel 4's film


The film's key contentions were that the increase in atmospheric
temperatures observed since the 1970s was not primarily caused by
emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, and that the
modern focus on climate change is based in politics rather than science.

It is seen in some "climate sceptic" circles as a counter to Al Gore's
movie An Inconvenient Truth, and credited with influencing public
perception of climate science. It has reportedly been sold to 21
countries and distributed on DVD.

High definition

"It's very disappointing that Ofcom hasn't come up with a stronger
statement about being misled," said Sir John Houghton, a former head of
the UK Met Office and chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) scientific assessment.

"I know hundreds of people, literally hundreds, who were misled by it -
they saw it, it was a well-produced programme and they imagined it had
some truth behind it, so they were misled and it seems Ofcom didn't care
about that," he told BBC News.
I think this is a vindication of the credibility and standing of the
IPCC

Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC

Ofcom defines a misleading programme as one by which the audience is
"materially misled so as to cause harm or offence", and that Swindle
does not meet this "high test".

"The programme has been let off the hook on a highly questionable
technicality," said Bob Ward, former head of media at the Royal Society,
who played a prominent role in co-ordinating objections to the film.

"The ruling noted that Channel 4 had admitted errors in the graphs and
data used in the programme, yet decided that this did not cause harm or
offence to the audience."

Plaintiffs accused the programme of containing myriad factual
inaccuracies, but Ofcom says it was "impractical and inappropriate for
it to examine in detail all of the multifarious alleged examples... set
out in the complaints."

The regulator also says it is only obliged to see that news programmes
meet "due accuracy".

'No balance'

The broadcaster argued that the judgement vindicated its decision to
showcase the documentary.

"Ofcom's ruling explicitly recognises Channel 4's right to show the
programme and the paramount importance of broadcasters being able to
challenge orthodoxies and explore controversial subject matter," said
Hamish Mykura, the station's head of documentaries.

"This is particularly relevant to Channel 4 with its public remit and
commitment to giving airtime to alternative perspectives."

On another issue - whether contributors to the programme had been
treated fairly - Ofcom mainly found against Channel 4 and the film's
producer WagTV.

Former UK chief scientific adviser Sir David King had been misquoted and
had not been given a chance to put his case, the regulator said.

Ofcom also found in favour of Carl Wunsch, an oceanographer interviewed
for the programme, who said he had been invited to take part in a
programme that would "discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements
of understanding of climate change", but had turned out to be "an
out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture
toward balance".

The film alleged that the IPCC's scientific reports were driven by
politics rather than science, and Ofcom ruled the organisation had not
been given adequate time to respond.

"I think this is a vindication of the credibility and standing of the
IPCC and the manner in which we function, and clearly brings out the
distortion in whatever Channel 4 was trying to project," said Rajendra
Pachauri, the organisation's chairman.

Science 'settled'

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".
Human hands are driving climate change, Ofcom acknowledges

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.

But the main portion of the film, on climate science, did not breach
these rules.

Ofcom's logic is that "the link between human activity and global
warming... became settled before March 2007".

This being so, it says, climate science was not "controversial" at the
time of broadcast, so Channel 4 did not break regulations by
broadcasting something that challenged the link.

"That's a very big inconsistency," said Sir John Houghton. "They said
it's completely settled, so why worry - so they can just broadcast any
old rubbish."

While some of the 265 complaints received by Ofcom were short and
straightforward, one group assembled a 176-page document alleging 137
breaches of the Broadcasting Code.

Channel 4 will have to broadcast a summary of the Ofcom ruling, but it
brings no sanctions.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

On Jul 21, 6:23 pm, Paul Hyett wrote:
Http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7517509.stm

The Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial Channel 4 film, broke
Ofcom rules, the media regulator says.

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.

The film also treated interviewees unfairly, but did not mislead
audiences "so as to cause harm or offence".

Nice impartial BBC reporgage. I wonder is it still being run by the
spin doctors who gave us Iraq War?

Bloody BBC. I was watching their weather forecast just now, not a
patch on Darren Prescots..

Anyway this red I button came on so I prssed the button onmy remote
that looks liek a red eye and it set of the red button on the recorder
again....

Then I noticed I had a red button and spent the rest of the forecast
trying to switch the bloody panel off the side screen.

Bloody BBC!

What the hell am I going to do with all them bloody partial weather
forecast recordings?

Paul Hyett wrote:
Http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7517509.stm

The Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial Channel 4 film,
broke Ofcom rules, the media regulator says.

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.

The film also treated interviewees unfairly, but did not mislead
audiences "so as to cause harm or offence".


They dont like it up 'em do they? Someone blows the lid, and others blow
their top. Global warming might be happening, it might not, but it is with
absolute and utter certainity that we are in the middle of a global warming
swindle.

Gaz

"Paul Hyett" wrote in message
...
Http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7517509.stm

The Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial Channel 4 film, broke
Ofcom rules, the media regulator says.


FFS, the Liebour Party under Bliar has distributed Al wooden heads Gores
film as if it's the ****ing Gospel, it's as bent as an £11 note, yet our
kids are being brainwashed and made to watch this ****ing tripe, where's the
impartial view points in that? along with the lies it's peddling.

Redman

On Jul 21, 6:23*pm, Paul Hyett wrote:
Http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7517509.stm

The Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial Channel 4 film, broke
Ofcom rules, the media regulator says.

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.

Just look at the title of the programme.

The programme was clearly polemic and as such what requirement is
there to be impartial?

Who, watching a programme with a title like that expected the subject
matter to be impartial? The programme was obviously written to present
a case or a counter case or an academic position.

As such the judgement was a nonsense.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:03:31 +0100, "Redman"
wrote:

"Paul Hyett" wrote in message
...
Http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7517509.stm

The Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial Channel 4 film, broke
Ofcom rules, the media regulator says.

FFS, the Liebour Party under Bliar has distributed Al wooden heads Gores
film as if it's the ****ing Gospel, it's as bent as an £11 note, yet our
kids are being brainwashed and made to watch this ****ing tripe, where's the
impartial view points in that? along with the lies it's peddling.

you weren't whining so loudly when gore's film was criticised
with less basis by some judge...
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle2633838.ece

methinks you have an agenda combined with far too little study....

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 21 Jul, 20:46, abelard wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:03:31 +0100, "Redman"

wrote:
"Paul Hyett" wrote in message
...
Http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7517509.stm

The Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial Channel 4 film, broke
Ofcom rules, the media regulator says.
FFS, the Liebour Party under Bliar has distributed Al wooden heads Gores
film as if it's the ****ing Gospel, it's as bent as an £11 note, yet our
kids are being brainwashed and made to watch this ****ing tripe, where's the
impartial view points in that? along with the lies it's peddling.

you weren't whining so loudly when gore's film was criticised
with less basis by some judge...http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...orate_law/arti...

methinks you have an agenda combined with far too little study....

Like where Gore defended the scientifically refuted Mann "hockey stick
graph" by using a mislabeled version of the same garbage data to
"collaborate" it?

This wasn't even one the judge's points of contention. No-one knew at
the time.

Probably not a great idea to force school kids to endure such
mendacity and/or ineptitude.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:36:21 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
wrote:

On 21 Jul, 20:46, abelard wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:03:31 +0100, "Redman"

wrote:
"Paul Hyett" wrote in message
...
Http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7517509.stm

The Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial Channel 4 film, broke
Ofcom rules, the media regulator says.
FFS, the Liebour Party under Bliar has distributed Al wooden heads Gores
film as if it's the ****ing Gospel, it's as bent as an £11 note, yet our
kids are being brainwashed and made to watch this ****ing tripe, where's the
impartial view points in that? along with the lies it's peddling.

you weren't whining so loudly when gore's film was criticised
with less basis by some judge...http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...orate_law/arti...

methinks you have an agenda combined with far too little study....

Like where Gore defended the scientifically refuted Mann "hockey stick
graph" by using a mislabeled version of the same garbage data to
"collaborate" it?

This wasn't even one the judge's points of contention. No-one knew at
the time.

Probably not a great idea to force school kids to endure such
mendacity and/or ineptitude.

you are also obviously pushing an agenda....
i cannot take your posts with any seriousness

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 21 Jul, 22:11, abelard wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:36:21 -0700 (PDT), Robert S



wrote:
On 21 Jul, 20:46, abelard wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:03:31 +0100, "Redman"

wrote:
"Paul Hyett" wrote in message
...
Http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7517509.stm

The Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial Channel 4 film, broke
Ofcom rules, the media regulator says.
FFS, the Liebour Party under Bliar has distributed Al wooden heads Gores
film as if it's the ****ing Gospel, it's as bent as an £11 note, yet our
kids are being brainwashed and made to watch this ****ing tripe, where's the
impartial view points in that? along with the lies it's peddling.

you weren't whining so loudly when gore's film was criticised
with less basis by some judge...http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...orate_law/arti...

methinks you have an agenda combined with far too little study....

Like where Gore defended the scientifically refuted Mann "hockey stick
graph" by using a mislabeled version of the same garbage data to
"collaborate" it?

This wasn't even one the judge's points of contention. No-one knew at
the time.

Probably not a great idea to force school kids to endure such
mendacity and/or ineptitude.

you are also obviously pushing an agenda....
i cannot take your posts with any seriousness

Then look up the papers.

Gore defends the Mann et al graph, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol.
26, No. 6, p.759-762, with its bizarrely weighted upwards spurt
(seemingly irreproducible), with what he calls "Thompson ice cores".

But the graph he shows of these Thompson ice cores isn't Thompson ice
cores...it's the Mann et al graph.

This isn't science. Or the popularizing of science. It's excrement.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:40:52 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
wrote:

On 21 Jul, 22:11, abelard wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:36:21 -0700 (PDT), Robert S

wrote:
On 21 Jul, 20:46, abelard wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:03:31 +0100, "Redman"

wrote:
"Paul Hyett" wrote in message
...
Http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7517509.stm

The Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial Channel 4 film, broke
Ofcom rules, the media regulator says.
FFS, the Liebour Party under Bliar has distributed Al wooden heads Gores
film as if it's the ****ing Gospel, it's as bent as an £11 note, yet our
kids are being brainwashed and made to watch this ****ing tripe, where's the
impartial view points in that? along with the lies it's peddling.

you weren't whining so loudly when gore's film was criticised
with less basis by some judge...http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...orate_law/arti...

methinks you have an agenda combined with far too little study....

Like where Gore defended the scientifically refuted Mann "hockey stick
graph" by using a mislabeled version of the same garbage data to
"collaborate" it?

This wasn't even one the judge's points of contention. No-one knew at
the time.

Probably not a great idea to force school kids to endure such
mendacity and/or ineptitude.

you are also obviously pushing an agenda....
i cannot take your posts with any seriousness

Then look up the papers.

Gore defends the Mann et al graph, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol.
26, No. 6, p.759-762, with its bizarrely weighted upwards spurt
(seemingly irreproducible), with what he calls "Thompson ice cores".

as if i would bother following such silliness....
gore is a populariser/politician, not a practicing scientist

But the graph he shows of these Thompson ice cores isn't Thompson ice
cores...it's the Mann et al graph.

This isn't science. Or the popularizing of science. It's excrement.

what for....
you're babbling about 'hockey sticks'
you were previously babbling about sunspots.....

the original; 'hockey stick' stuff is from *northern hemisphere*
surrogates going back a long way....
the northern hemisphere is not 'global'

you clearly have little understanding of statistics...or you wouldn't
be babbling about 'hockey sticks'
you clearly have an agenda....

where is the profit in discussing with you...you'll never ever
be convinced as
your mind is made up....so, why confuse you with facts?

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------