• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

RandFan

Mormon Atheist
Joined
Dec 18, 2001
Messages
60,135
Ok, the title is provocative and perhaps a bit gratuitous but it is the name of the video.

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


The Great Global Warming Swindle

Now, I didn't intend for this to be argument by video so I don't expect anyone to debate the video. Of course please feel free to do so if you are inclined. FWIW, I'm viewing the video, sorta, the way I would an anti-evolution video. I guess because that is what it seems the debate has become based on things said on this forum and elsewhere. Is that fair? A number of the scientists in the video seem to be relevant experts. Please note that I said "seems". I'm not an expert

The show seems to make a good case that there is still room for debate. Is it fair to label those who don't accept APGW as heretics or the equivalent of anti-evolution scientists?
 
SMMT has a thread here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76595

seems like a pretty good debunking of the debunkers to me....and some pretty serious questions raised as to the quality of evidence shown....

there's no doubting the impact the video has had - but channel 4 could be in pretty serious water with ofcom.....

Relevant Broadcasting Code clauses:

The preservation of due impartiality

(Rules 5.5 to 5.12 apply to television programme services, teletext services, national radio and national digital sound programme services.)

5.5 Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person providing a service (listed above). This may be achieved within a programme or over a series of programmes taken as a whole.

Meaning of "series of programmes taken as a whole":

This means more than one programme in the same service, editorially linked, dealing with the same or related issues within an appropriate period and aimed at a like audience. A series can include, for example, a strand, or two programmes (such as a drama and a debate about the drama) or a 'cluster' or 'season' of programmes on the same subject.

5.6 The broadcast of editorially linked programmes dealing with the same subject matter (as part of a "series" in which the broadcaster aims to achieve due impartiality) should normally be made clear to the audience on air.

5.7 Views and facts must not be misrepresented. Views must also be presented with due weight over appropriate timeframes.

5.8 Any personal interest of a reporter or presenter, which would call into question the due impartiality of the programme, must be made clear to the audience.

5.9 Presenters and reporters (with the exception of news presenters and reporters in news programmes), presenters of "personal view" or "authored" programmes or items, and chairs of discussion programmes may express their own views on matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy. However alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented either in the programme, or in a series of programmes taken as a whole. Additionally, presenters must not use the advantage of regular appearances to promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality. Presenter phone-ins must encourage and must not exclude alternative views.

5.10 A personal view or authored programme or item must be clearly signalled to the audience at the outset. This is a minimum requirement and may not be sufficient in all circumstances. (Personality phone-in hosts on radio are exempted from this provision unless their personal view status is unclear.)

Meaning of "personal view" and "authored":

"Personal view" programmes are programmes presenting a particular view or perspective. Personal view programmes can range from the outright expression of highly partial views, for example by a person who is a member of a lobby group and is campaigning on the subject, to the considered "authored" opinion of a journalist, commentator or academic, with professional expertise or a specialism in an area which enables her or him to express opinions which are not necessarily mainstream.

Matters of major political or industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy

5.11 In addition to the rules above, due impartiality must be preserved on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy by the person providing a service (listed above) in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes.

Meaning of "matters of major political or industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy":

These will vary according to events but are generally matters of political or industrial controversy or matters of current public policy which are of national, and often international, importance, or are of similar significance within a smaller broadcast area.

5.12 In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be misrepresented.

The prevention of undue prominence of views and opinions on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy

(Rule 5.13 applies to local radio services (including community radio services), local digital sound programme services (including community digital sound programme services) and radio licensable content services.)

5.13 Broadcasters should not give undue prominence to the views and opinions of particular persons or bodies on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy in all the programmes included in any service (listed above) taken as a whole.

Meaning of "undue prominence of views and opinions":

Undue prominence is a significant imbalance of views aired within coverage of matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy.

Meaning of "programmes included in any service�taken as a whole":

Programmes included in any service taken as a whole, means all programming on a service dealing with the same or related issues within an appropriate period.

and a summary of the accusations....

This programme is grossly irresponsible in misleading Channel 4's viewers about the impact of climate change and the need for action. In doing so I believe it breached the Broadcasting Code clauses: 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11 and 5.12.

The programme maker and all the sources used are well known for their lobbying against climate science. Indeed the presenter Michael Durkin has a previous ruling against him for a similar breech of the Code with Channel 4's 'Against Nature'. It is clear therefore that this team requires stricter regulation and I urge you to require pre-clearance for any further programming from this source.

Here are the specifics of my complaint:

Breach of clause 5.5: Man made climate change is clearly a matter of industrial, political and public policy controversy. The Great Global Warming Swindle failed to show due impartiality towards the science of climate change and failed to represent opposing views.

Breach of clause 5.6: Channel 4 made no indication of The Great Global Warming Swindle being part of a linked series of programmes and it is not part of any series that a viewer can identify.

Breach of clause 5.7: The Great Global Warming Swindle repeatedly expressed views as if they were facts.

Breach of clause 5.8: The professional and career track record of Michael Durkin where at no point explained to viewers nor was he introduced nor did Channel 4 add a caveat at the end of the programme.

Breach of clause 5.9: The programme comprised personal views (presented in the guise of facts) and no balancing views were included.

Breach of clause 5.10: The personal views in The Great Global Warming Swindle were not signalled as such.

Breach of clause 5.11: Climate change is clearly a matter "of national, and international, importance" and Channel 4 should be heavily censured for failing to apply the Code in this context.

Breach of clause 5.12: As for 5.11, given the gravity of the issue Channel 4 is seriously failing in its duty by not complying with your ruling that a "wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be misrepresented."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

taken from all the linked info at
http://fermiparadox.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/swindlers/#comment-6
 
Last edited:
SMMT has a thread here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76595

seems like a pretty good debunking of the debunkers to me....and some pretty serious questions raised as to the quality of evidence shown....

there's no doubting the impact the video has had - but channel 4 could be in pretty serious water with ofcom.....

and a summary of the accusations....

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

taken from all the linked info at
http://fermiparadox.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/swindlers/#comment-6
Thank you. The thread looks good. I'll join the discussion over there and if the mods want to delete this thread then that is fine by me.
 
SMMT has a thread here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76595

seems like a pretty good debunking of the debunkers to me....and some pretty serious questions raised as to the quality of evidence shown....

there's no doubting the impact the video has had - but channel 4 could be in pretty serious water with ofcom.....



and a summary of the accusations....

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

taken from all the linked info at
http://fermiparadox.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/swindlers/#comment-6


Can you clarify. Is this your letter of complaint or something someone else has written?

Why the need to sensor it or it? I find that very disturbing.

I must say I watched this at face value. It was billed as a polemic and given an outrageous title, so the content was entirely self evident.

I am finding the debate that goes on in various threads about climate change very worrying as a general trend. My reading on this topic has started from scratch fairly recently and I have formed my own view, but I am always willing to give other views their full hearing and due consideration. Whether I decide, after due regard to full information, that those views are not sufficiently founded on fact I do not feel any urge to attack the messanger or denigrate them in any way. Others around here (and across the blogisphere apparently), don't seem to share that inclination.

My concern isn't for the what is being debated, but how it is being debated (or the methods deployed to put a stop to debate by more than one poster here on a regular basis). My worry is that this might be be a microcosm of the tolerence for free speach in the wider world.
 
Last edited:
Can you clarify. Is this your letter of complaint or something someone else has written?

Why the need to sensor it or it? I find that very disturbing.

I must say I watched this at face value. It was billed as a polemic and given an outrageous title, so the content was entirely self evident.

I am finding the debate that goes on in various threads about climate change very worrying as a general trend. My reading on this topic has started from scratch fairly recently and I have formed my own view, but I am always willing to give other views their full hearing and due consideration. Whether I decide, after due regard to full information, that those views are not sufficiently founded on fact I do not feel any urge to attack the messanger or denigrate them in any way. Others around here (and across the blogisphere apparently), don't seem to share that inclination.

My concern isn't for the what is being debated, but how it is being debated (or the methods deployed to put a stop to debate by more than one poster here on a regular basis). My worry is that this might be be a microcosm of the tolerence for free speach in the wider world.

sure - to clarify, it was a quote from a poster on another blog - not a letter of complaint i'd written. I quoted it because would appear that there are some serious questions which Channel 4 should be answerable to with regards to the screening of the documentary - and indeed the broadcaster responsibilities are covered by the Ofcom code of conduct that was included with the post. I always think "freedom of speech" is a misleading way to approach broadcaster responsibilities - for it's such an amorphous phrase, one can use it to justify whatever polemic, lies, libel or propaganda one wishes to spout. I'm sure you'd agree therefore that countries require curbs on freedom of speech with relation to the media - and i don't believe that the Ofcom code of conduct as quoted is especially draconian nor unreasonable.
 
i don't believe that the Ofcom code of conduct as quoted is especially draconian nor unreasonable.

If it precludes the broadcast of polemic material it is IMO, regardless of how absurd we find it (the material that is).

This material is not offensive, or racist. Nor does it incite violence.
 
sure - to clarify, it was a quote from a poster on another blog - not a letter of complaint i'd written. I quoted it because would appear that there are some serious questions which Channel 4 should be answerable to with regards to the screening of the documentary - and indeed the broadcaster responsibilities are covered by the Ofcom code of conduct that was included with the post. I always think "freedom of speech" is a misleading way to approach broadcaster responsibilities - for it's such an amorphous phrase, one can use it to justify whatever polemic, lies, libel or propaganda one wishes to spout. I'm sure you'd agree therefore that countries require curbs on freedom of speech with relation to the media - and i don't believe that the Ofcom code of conduct as quoted is especially draconian nor unreasonable.
I'm not at all familiar with Ofcom. However it sounds like something potentially problematic. I like speech. Still, in America we have blatant lies (increase the size of your penis, lose weight with miracle diet, cure any disease with simple home made cures) broadcast nightly. Part of me wishes we had such a law.
 
If it precludes the broadcast of polemic material it is IMO, regardless of how absurd we find it (the material that is).

This material is not offensive, or racist. Nor does it incite violence.

perhaps not - but neither does it uphold this....

5.5 Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person providing a service (listed above). This may be achieved within a programme or over a series of programmes taken as a whole.

and as such could (indeed should) be brought to the attention of the regulatory authority. Whether it's right or wrong to have such checks and balances, well that's an interesting debate, but personally I'm glad we have them.

As Channel 4 is part public funded - and has a public service remit, it may be more strictly regulated in this area than sky/cable channels. Perhaps some of our more media savy brits could clarify that....
 
Last edited:
Just Fox News? How about EVERY other major network and major newspaper in America and probably the world. I have yet to see accuracy and balanced impartiality in any of them.

well Fox news as an obvious example :)

it's indeed rather difficult to nail down "impartiality" but generally speaking I think the UK's news output on BBC, ITN and Channel 4 is pretty good. Certainly it's much more preferable than either FOX/CNN (US) or NHK/NTV (Jp)
 

Back
Top Bottom