(Via William Connolley). Ofcom, the UK media regulator has ruled that The Great Global Warming Swindle was unfair to the IPCC, David King, and Carl Wunsch and breached a requirement of impartiality about global warming policy. The full report is here. The complaint is a thorough demolition of all the falsehoods in the Swindle, and you can read it here. Also of interest is Dave Rado's story of how he came to put the complaint together -- it all started as a comment over at Stoat. [Insert some blog triumphalism here.]
A few quick comments. To get an idea of how deceitful Channel 4 and Martin Durkin are, check out page 40. After Swindle attributed to David King, Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government comments he never made, Channel 4 tried to wriggle out with:
Channel 4 said the programme had only referred to "the chief scientist of the UK". Channel 4 noted that there is also the Chief Scientist in Scotland, a Chief Scientist at DEFRA, a Chief Environmental Scientist in Wales, a Chief Scientist at the FSA and various other British organisations and quangos.
Not to mention that Margaret Thatcher was originally a scientist and she was Prime (ie Chief) Minister of the UK, so really it could have been a reference to her.
And Durkin's invitation to the IPCC to respond to the numerous allegations he made about it was a sham:
it was significant that the programme maker's email of 26 February 2007 gave the IPCC no indication of when its response was required and the follow-up email of 1 March 2007 (sent at 7.33pm) subsequently gave a deadline of the following day.
And the only reason why Channel 4 escaped being in breach of a requirement for impartiality when describing the science was:
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.
Therefore, in this case, Ofcom considers that the subject matter of Parts One to Four of the programme (i.e. the scientific theory of man-made global warming) was not a matter political or industrial controversy or a matter relating to current public policy. Having reached this view, it follows that the rules relating to the preservation of due impartiality did not apply to these parts. It is important to note that by simple virtue of the fact that one small group of people may disagree with a strongly prevailing consensus on an issue does not automatically make that issue a matter of controversy as defined in legislation and the Code and therefore a matter requiring due impartiality to be preserved.
In other words, there's no controversy about the science, so Swindle can claim there is a controversy, without presenting the other side of the argument.
It's now obvious who selectively leaked parts of the report to the Guardian's Owen Gibson. Gibson's story is systematically biased in favour of Channel 4. Look:
But it is understood that Channel 4 will still claim victory because the ultimate verdict on a separate complaint about accuracy, which contained 131 specific points and ran to 270 pages, will find that it did not breach the regulator's broadcasting code and did not materially mislead viewers.
Actually Ofcom said that to be in breach, not only did Swindle have to materially mislead, this misleading had to cause "harm or offence". Ofcom decided that it wasn't harmful if viewers came to believe untrue things about the science, so it sidestepped the question of whether Swindle was misleading. Robert Watson disagrees. You can bet that Glenn Reynolds, Andrew Bolt etc will be falsely claiming that Ofcom ruled that Swindle was not misleading.
Gibson also has:
King did once say that "the last time the Earth had this much C02, the only place habitable was the Antarctic".
Compare with Ofcom report:
The Committee noted that Professor Singer had attributed to Sir David the words
"only habitable", which Sir David said was incorrect as his original statements
had used the words "most habitable".
Gibson:
The Ofcom ruling is expected to find that Wunsch was misled about the tone and content of the programme, but that his views were accurately represented within it.
Compare with Ofcom report:
The Committee did not consider that the editing of the programme
presented Professor Wunsch as denying that global warming is
taking place. However it noted that the programme included his
edited interview in the context of a range of scientists who denied the
scientific consensus about the anthropogenic causes of global
warming. In the Committee's view Professor Wunsch made clear in
his full unedited interview that he largely accepted this consensus
and the seriousness of the threat of global warming (albeit with
caveats about proof) and therefore found that the presentation of
Professor Wunsch's views, within the wider context of the
programme, resulted in unfairness to him.
Fairness, you say? Most attempts at fairness are Despite the bias of the author. (I sell Renewable Energy, to give you mine.)
Just read a National Post article noting that Al GORE (An Inconvenient Truth) wants the USA to be completely electrified in 10 years by Renewable Energy, a noble aim. However, the article states that he left his 2 Lincoln limousines and 1 SUV idling during the lecture to maintain the air conditioning, has NO Renewable Energy installed on his Tennessee mansion, owns shares in a zinc mine that has been charged with pollution, etc. etc.
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2489e0b8-3e57-40eb-9748-6c250…
George W. BUSH, on the other hand, is an oil baron who has a Texas farm that has invested heavily in Renewable Energy.
Furthermore, he is noted as having done more for Renewable Energy than 'all previous presidents of the United States put together' -despite his terrible record in Iraq- because he introduced a 25% USA federal government subsidy for Renewable Energy in order to ensure Security of Supply. Strangely, the Democratic-controlled Congress just voted against renewing it (2008 Summer).
Who would have believed this about either of these two men?
Fairness aside, I would really like to see a proper analysis of "Great Global Warming Swindle's" scientific arguments - have the authors successfully argued that Global Warming is
A/ not occurring?
B/ not human-caused, but from cosmic cycles?
The only discussions that seem to be reported by the press, discuss 'fairness' or ad hominem attacks NOT the validity of the arguments. How's the average layman to decide these things?
By the way, from my bias, Renewable Energy solves a lot of pollution & ecological problems, regardless of the causes of global warming. Let's stop poisoning ourselves & our descendants from the mercury & other stuff in coal, oil & wood smoke, and from the unknowable radiation hazards of 'clean' nuclear waste dumps.
I've just posted on this over at Stoat, but it beggers belief that Ofcom let C4 off so lightly. Apparently, you can use falsified graphs, attribute misleading quotes to the wrong person (by 'accident'), midrepresent the views of interviewees, and totally forget to point out the lack of credibility of the bulk of the people on your programme. In other words, you can lie. And get away with it.
Ofcom simply rolled over for C4, and simply ignored the complaint whenever possible, or interpreted the wording of the Broadcasting Act so marrowly as to make any complaint impossible to uphold. The fact that Ofcom was 'unable to assess or adjudicate on the relative merits of these strongly disputed allegations' when it came to even finding out whether most of the contributors had links to the fossil fuel lobby ( 10 minutes work on the internet) speaks volumes.
I'm now waiting for this limp piece of non-work from a toothless tiger to finally be posted to me, which should make me even more angry than I am now. However, like Otter says, 'don't get mad, get even'. So. in the meantime, I'm going to write to C4, Ofcom and to the ministers responsible (both actual and shadow) for both science, and broadcasting, as well as suggesting that the appropriate committees in the House of Commons have a look at C4 and Ofcom.
C4 is very worried about funding, and is lobbying for extra forms of revenue, perhaps even a slice of the BBC's licence fee. Lets see if an embarrassing report on the state of C4's understanding of 'facts' helps them with that...
Is there any penalty for what Channel 4 and Martin Durkin has done? They have been found to have acted improperly while working with public money. If a public servant in any other line of work did that then they would be sacked (at least). As comment one illustrates, the denialists will never muster the moral courage to admit they are wrong. Loss of reputation along is not a deterrent when you have no reputation in the field to begin with.
Lorne WHITE,
I suppose I should begin this comment by admitting that I have a bias against dishonest commentary. I hope then that you won't be offended that I've concluded that your post is a load of crap.
To begin with, the National Post "article" that you cite is an editorial by Lorne GUNTER in which he shares these other observations:
[T]here is increasing evidence that man-made carbon dioxide may not be causing global warming. Indeed, there is increasing debate in the scientific community whether there is even any warming occurring at all.
and
Facts that don't fit the global-warming dogma -- call them inconvenient truths -- are to be dismissed as unimportant. Only those that feed the environmental hysteria are proof of something ominous.
In other words, you've referenced an editorial written by an idiot. Thanks for sharing it with us!
You also indirectly reference H.R. 6049 (Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008), a bill sponsored by Charle Rangel (a Democrat). H.R. 6049 provides tax incentives for energy conservation and the production of renewable energy. As you note, it extends certain expiring tax credit provisions. However, as you failed to note, H.R. 6049 was passed by the House of Representatives with the support of 228 Democrats and 35 Republicans. (One Democrat and 159 Republicans voted against the bill.) In the Senate, the cloture motion for H.R. 6049 was supported by 45 Democrats, 5 Republicans (and 2 others); it was opposed by 43 Republicans and 1 Democrat. Since 60 votes are required for cloture, the bill was not passed by the Senate. Therefore, while you imply that the Democrats in Congress are responsible for failure to extend the renewable energy tax credits, the truth is that the Republicans killed H.R. 6049. (And incidentally, Bush indicated that he would veto the bill in any case.
You also wrote this:
Furthermore, [Bush] is noted as having done more for Renewable Energy than 'all previous presidents of the United States put together' ...
Can you provide a source for this bit of gibberish? I'm really curious to learn the identity of the partisan hack who is responsible for that whopper.
Hmm, no actual damage, huh? Merely more time for the polluters to continue apace for a few more years, until enough people are fed up with the ridiculous sparring with idiots and shills.
To Mr. Pinkerton; Awesome! It's so easy to debate them when the truth is on our side!
I emphatically agree that we shouldn't allow discussion of dissenting views. Nor should we ask questions of the loyal workers explaining that there is a problem. Nor should we insist on good scientific practice, archiving of data, disclosure of methods.
Our modern society will work much more effectively if we control the media and the message. We must lock up those dissenting deniers. No point in listening to them. They are all obviously crackpots.
"They are all obviously crackpots. "
gee, again we have consensus.
No point in listening to them. They are all obviously crackpots.
Well you got that bit right at least. There is hope for you yet.
"I emphatically agree that we shouldn't allow discussion of dissenting views."
Oh, bullcrap. First, lose the lame attempt at sarcasm. Second, how one earth can you imply hat dissent isn't allowed - its all over this board, and is the entire reason for many others.
It seems that what you are dismayed at is that the 'dissent' is being savaged for the fantasy-laden, truth-challenged crap that it actually is. Responding to crap and calling it crap, is NOT suppression of the crap.
"I emphatically agree that we shouldn't allow discussion of dissenting views."
lee's right. you're getting plenty of discussion. it appears that that's not what you are looking for at all.
That depends on what the definition of "no" is.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/13/gore.home.ap/index.html
Are you seriously suggesting that solar panels, geothermal and paying extra for green energy sources don't count as renewable? Seriously?
We're just asking that you quit lying. Is that so much to ask for?
If Swindle has been let off on the technicality that no one substantial, particularly no political party, believes what they are saying so no harm comes from their dishonesty how well would that claim stack up here, with half the Liberals in denial mode?
I imagine that we don't have a Code as substantial as the UK, but would it be possible to take a similar case over the ABC's screening?
But they aren't crackpots!
They're sociopaths and prostitutes.
And the trolls that in turn post their paid lies here are obsessive and narcissistic sociopaths.
Since their goals aren't yours, pretending you are reasoning with them won't work.
What Fred Singer said was exactly true. In The Independent on Sunday, May 2nd, 2004, David King said:
"Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked."
It's the exact quote. See
http://www.google.cz/search?q=%22Antarctica+is+likely+to+be+the+world%2…
http://www.google.cz/search?q=independent-on-sunday+david-king+only-hab…
http://www.globalwarming.org/node/608
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/printable/4830/
Lubos,
Your assertion would be more credible if you'd linked to the 'Independent' rather than a googled for a crackpot website.
OFCOM are in London and are quite capable of finding an original copy of the paper. Channel 4's fancy lawyers tried to squirm out of that one but got nailed my friend.
Go look at a copy of the ruling befoer you make even more of a fool of yourself my friend.
Lubos, *The Independent* misquoted King. Read the fine report.
The Independent may have misquoted someone but even if it has, it is a mistake of the Independent, not a mistake of Channel 4. The alarmists are producing hundreds of similar mad assertions on a daily basis so the "big picture" statements that the alarmists are not mentally stable is completely accurate.
Dean: The Independent doesn't host the story anymore but it doesn't matter, even Mr Lambert confirms that the quotations is accurate. You can also read it at dozens of places such as Spiked.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/printable/4830/
Sorry Lubos, but it's a mistake by the Independent AND by C4 AND by Spiked. Just because lots of people repeat a misquote it doesn't make it accurate. C4 was obliged by the broadcasting code to check with David King and now they'll have to broadcast a correction.
In any case, the full quote imputed to King by Singer went on with nonsense about breeding couples being sent to Antarctica (apparently James Lovelock said something like this, but Singer put it into King's mouth).
I laughed too when I read the lame stuff about the Chief Scientist of Wales
The actual quote from King appears to be
'The last time that happened was 50 million years ago, at the end of Eocene, the hottest period in our planet's history for several hundred million years. There was no ice left on the planet. Antarctica was a tropical continent of mammoths and rainforest while Africa, I imagine, was not a very pleasant place at all. Put it this way, if the world got like that, we would have an awful lot of adapting to do.'[link]
"Misquoted" is probably far too generous a description for what followed from that, unless you can find an original source (ie: not Fred Singer) that contains this quote from David King. Good luck with that.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Hundreds of mad assertions similar to a misquote daily? There's definitely some mental instability somewhere, but I think your finger might be pointed askew. Tell me, with Singer's not so stellar quoting abilities, how can you be so sure that the assertions are really mad and not just sane but passed through Singer's booby-hatchery-brain filter?
Lubos seems to belong to that breed of statesman who lies to the press on Monday and believes what he reads on Tuesday.
Prose courtesy of: Lovelock, J. (2006) The Revenge of Gaia Penguin (p.204)
As a non-scientist I have been roaming the AGW Evangelist forums for a few months now trying to find evidence for AGW. My conclusion:
AGW doesn't scare me, but like most of those sites you people certainly do. Do you realise how sinister you all sound. On that ground alone a reasonable person would doubt any argument you put.
Try taking any of your statements, or Tim Flannery's for example, change the subject, keep the faux noblesse oblige tone, and you sound like wack jobs. If this is academia in action no wonder it is losing respect in society
And by the way I read that judgement and the line in your post "The complaint is a thorough demolition of all the falsehoods in the Swindle," is clearly intended to obfuscate the actual judgement by Ofcom.
The complaint may have been intended to demolish the documentary but by any reading of the judgement it failed miserably. A few minor errors were cited but none substantially altering the fidelity of the arguments raised.
In contrast Al Gores polemic was properly smacked down in a proper court of law.
Shorter Deano:
The stubborn ignorance of most of the AGW crowd is maddening. Tim, I'm not sure who is in charge of moderating these posts for personal attacks but I would suggest they are asleep at the wheel.
Concerning the origanal post, Ofcom handed out what equates to a slap on the wrist. Done primarily to appease fanatical AGW'rs.
What watch-dog agency monitors the IPCC by the way? We have a peer reviewed piece coming out from a former NASA scientists and current climatologist that has the blessing of 2 current IPCC authors that show how the IPCC misrepresents the feedback issue with its models. When the correct feedback is applied, the projected warming is cut by more than 60% of the low end projection and nearly 95% of the high end.
We also have another report that explains the PDO influence over history on global temps.
So again I ask, what to do about the oversite of the IPCC?
Monsoon
@monssonevans
As commenters noted, calling out bullshit is not the same as a personal attack
Those who work on climate, many part of IPCC, actually do science; the peer review system is the monitor (cue the usual complaint against peer review...)
As for the paper you refer to, citation please. If you mean Mockton's stuff, that ain't peer reviewed. If you mean the paper listed as in press by Roy Spencer in J Climate in his current testimony solicited by Sen Inhofe et al, hard to say what that will actually bring to the table. Given Spencer spends most of his time bloviating rather than doing research (e.g. statements such as "hey nobel prize winners answer me this") and ignoring most of the evidence and published literature, I don't expect much.
Additionally, I note every time a contrarian paper does make press in a peer journal (E and E does not count), its trumpted as yet another final fatal blow against AGW theories. Of course the other dozen plus papers in the same journal (e.g. see the July J Climate) that support AGW models are somehow not so important in the main...
"Deano"
Al Gore's film was not 'smacked down in a court of law - in fact it was commended by the judge:
http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/About/QAndA.htm
"In his ruling, Justice Burton commended the film, stating that "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."
Contrary to the misleading impression given in some reports at the time, Justice Burton turned down the application to stop the film from being distributed in schools and instead recommended that the film be accompanied by teaching aids for clarification of nine different points made in the film, which he said were either "errors or departures from the mainstream" (he did not state which he thought was which). He did not state that the film contained 9 errors, as was widely reported."
Of course Tim has already dealt with this sort of nonsense here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/update_on_the_nine_alleged_err…
Incidentally - have you ever considered changing your name to something more appropriate? - like 'Cletus' perhaps??
Lorne White:
You haven't been looking very hard. Tony Jones' interview of Martin Durkin goes through it scientific point by scientific point.
I guess Ofcom has a point that if someone (such as Durkin) wants to show patent garbage that is generally accepted as patent garbage then there's probably no real harm in allowing it. It probably serves an educational purpose because it provides an opportunity to inform people how wrong the purveyors of garbage (Durkin) are. It may have contributed to the fact that in Australia there are very few people (at most 3%) who think we should not do anything about GHG emissions under any circumstances.
The stubborn ignorance of monsoonevans is maddening. He ignorantly asserted that the IPCC reduced its estimates for future sea level rises from one report to the next and ignored the fact that the last report separated sea level rise caused by ice-cap instability and left it as unestimated. monsoonevans is letting his prejudice make him incapable of understanding this point.
Yeah, the AGW side is so stubborn in their ignorance that they continue to do science in order to decrease it.
While the denialist side is so open to knowledge that they reject the notion that human activity can affect climate in the face of past research, current research, and ANY POSSIBLE FUTURE RESEARCH.
Hilarious. You are all so certain Ofcom knocked down TGGWS that you think it meant something. Who cares? Who's Ofcom. Has it determined the issue?
The real issue is - why does carbon continue to increase in our atmosphere and the temperature stay flat or more recently show a declining trend.
The inconvenient truth is no one can show any causal link between global warming and CO2. No one!
The global temperature has shown an increasing trend now for over 100 years as we left the little ice age. CO2 was not the issue 100 years ago, but for some reason you blindly believe it is now.
By all means believe what you want. But when a scientist presents evidence or an argument, please argue the evidence and don't go for the "connected to big oil" ad hominem. The people will always see through that and go for the facts in the end.
This is *so* old, and *so* ignorant.
Since climate science does not predict that each year will be warmer than the last, due to weather variability, indeed predicts the opposite, why are you surprised to find that this prediction holds true?
H posts:
It doesn't:
Tim Ball's errors
Tilo Reber's errors
You haven't actually done any research in this field, have you? Carbon dioxide was shown to be a greenhouse gas by John Tyndal in 1859. Do you understand how a greenhouse gas works?
CO2 began rising with the industrial revolution. The rise has been exponential, so naturally the greatest influence comes near the end of the curve.
H:
Please, if you want to see an argument on the evidence, check Tony Jones' interview of Martin Durkin. Don't keep telling us to argue the evidence. This has already been done over and over again.
I really enjoyed the Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin's findings on all the matters that were addressed in the bulletin. The rulings on American Idol, Red Hot TV Trailer, and Sportxxx Girls that are included added a air of distinction and importance that is requisite for Ofcom's decision on the complaints against the Great Global Warming Swindle.
I especially like the finding that American Idol includes blatant product promotion. Ummm no sh!t.
I'm left wondering how much all this Ofcom lunacy costs the UK each year and how do I get a job working for Ofcom?
Try
http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net
Dave
Deano:
Oh no - "evangelists"? At least "alarmist" was sort of correct.
The predicted consequences of AGW - for instance: many millions of coastal dwellers made homeless through sea-level rise; millions more subjected to famine and drought as glaciers disappear and rainfall patterns change; an accelerated extinction rate - sound like a disaster to me. An evangelist is someone who zealously advocates something: you'd have to be extraordinarily misanthropic to advocate that.
I've posted the full adjudication summary formatted in Ofcom's style, here
Dave