The Great Global Warming Swindle

The Great Global Warming Swindle

You may recall that I mentioned this documentary produced by channel 4 in Britain last year. The global warming fanatics complained to the government agency responsible for telling television networks what they are allowed to say, and how ("Ofcom," whatever that stands for). And the report that came out largely vindicated the producers of the documentary. BBC (which is part of the global warming scam) described the results like this:

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."

...

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 which turned out to be "an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance".

Wow! Can you imagine? A documentary about a controversial subject that promoted a particular point of view! What a shocker! Steve McIntyre over at Climate Audit points out that the relatively small number of complaints upheld was nothing compared to the complaints that Ofcom decided were without merit, or outside their area of competence:

None of the complaints alleging lack of due impartiality in the science portion (sections 1-4) was upheld. Not one. The only bone thrown to the complainants was a finding that there had not been due impartiality in the portion talking about Africa - an issue that Bob Ward and the Myles Allen 37 didn’t even mention.