“Great global warming swindle” – Ofcom’s ruling

Ofcom has ruled on Martin Durkin’s “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. It’s argument about impartiality is rather amusing.

Martin Durkin’s documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” had its UK premier on Channel 4 on March 8, 2007. The film’s central claim was that global warming was a “scam”. The programme gave rise to accusations that it had simply fabricated much of its evidence.

The programme generated 265 complaints to Ofcom, the Office of Communications. Ofcom is the UK’s telecoms regulator, whose remit covers everything from “optimal use of the electro-magnetic spectrum” to protecting “audiences against unfairness or the infringement of privacy” ^[2].

The most substantial of the complaints to Ofcom was the so-called “Group Complaint” ^[3] [4], a 176 page document peer-reviewed by leading scientists with expertise in climate science and epidemiology, which presented a very detailed rebuttal of the programme. Its website is at OfcomSwindleComplaint.net.

Ofcom’s ruling came out on July 21, 2008. The programme was found to be “in breach” of its impartiality rules in the standards case ^[5], Ofcom found that the programme broke its “fairness” rule in its treatment of Sir David King ^[6], and it partly upheld the fairness complaints brought by the IPCC ^[7] and Prof. Carl Wunsch ^[8]. The Guardian provides a short summary of the ruling ^[9], the BBC has a news item ^[10], and Dave Rado, the co-ordinator of the “Group Complaint”, has written an opinion piece ^[11] about his role in the process.

Although the fairness complaints were upheld in whole or in part, and sections of the programme were found to be in breach of impartiality rules, Ofcom’s ruling seemed to go out of its way to avoid taking a position on the scientific claims. Michael Le Page has an opinion piece in New Scientist ^[12] explaining the overall implication of the ruling:

Don’t believe anything you see in a TV documentary made in the UK.

Documentary makers here have no obligation to be accurate, though factual programmes should present a wide range of views.

That is the implication of a series of rulings by Ofcom,
[...]
According to the Ofcom ruling, while all programmes dealing with important issues should be impartial, only news programmes have to be presented with “due accuracy”. It doesn’t matter if other programmes are misleading as long as they don’t cause “harm or offence”, and the regulator’s interpretation of harm is so narrow that it effectively gives broadcasters a green light to mislead the public.

M. Le Page, New Scientist ^[12]

I won’t go over the whole Ofcom ruling, but there’s one part that sticks out for me as a rather colourful piece of reasoning. It’s about the rules governing impartiality:

Due Impartiality

Section Five of the Code states that due impartiality must be preserved by the broadcaster on “matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy.”
…
Parts One to Four of the programme

Ofcom considered that the first four parts of The Great Global Warming Swindle dealt overwhelmingly with the controversy around the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming and questioned whether human activity is the major cause of climate change.
…
In assessing these first four parts of the programme, Ofcom also had regard to the fact that, both domestically and on a worldwide level, the political debate had largely moved on from questioning the causes of climate change to attempting to find solutions to deal with it. Therefore, in the political arena at least, there was a very broad consensus of opinion which accepted the scientific theory of man-made global warming. In this respect it could be said that the discussion about the causes of global warming was to a very great extent settled by the date of broadcast ( 8 March 2007 ).

It should be noted from this that there comes a time when an issue that was once a matter of controversy becomes broadly settled, and an overwhelming consensus is formed both – domestically and internationally. For example, while the link between HIV and AIDS was once questioned and could have been considered a matter of political controversy or relating to current public policy, the link is now generally accepted and in most circles is no longer a matter of debate that could be regarded as a matter of political or industrial controversy. In Ofcom’s view the link between human activity and global warming also became similarly settled before March 2007. We are confirmed in this view by noting for example a conclusion of the Stern Review, commissioned by the UK government, which was published in October 2006 and stated:

“An overwhelming body of scientific evidence now clearly indicates that climate change is a serious and urgent issue.The Earth’s climate is rapidly changing, mainly as a result of increases in greenhouse gases caused by human activities.” (Our emphasis)
…
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.

Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, Issue number 114, pp.19–21 ^[5]

In summary, Ofcom’s logic here is that:

1. The requirement for impartiality only applies when there is a controversy;
2. The science of man-made global warming is settled, therefore there is no controversy;
3. Since the scientific argument is not controversial, the impartiality requirement does not apply to the science sections of the programme.

That argument puts “The Great Global Warming Swindle” in the same category as a documentary about a sighting of the Loch Ness Monster. The finest legal minds in government service must have been on this one. Sir Humphrey would be proud. To take Ofcom’s own example, a documentary presenting fake evidence that HIV does not cause AIDS would be acceptable, since the science is settled and uncontroversial.

Quite apart from that little piece of logic, Ofcom’s claim that there is no political controversy about climate change is itself rather bizarre – a recent opinion poll found that “the majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans – and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem” ^[13].

To be fair to Ofcom, they found themselves in a rather peculiar situation – a telecoms regulator being asked to adjudicate on a point of science. It’s hardly an ideal forum for such a discussion, and perhaps Ofcom was right to cunningly avoid the issue. The work put into compiling the “Group Complaint” ^[4] to Ofcom resulted in a detailed peer-reviewed rebuttal of “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, and that certainly makes the effort worthwhile.

Tony Jones Of ABC Australia Interviews Martin Durkin

The rebuttal in the Group Complaint to Ofcom is very thorough but rather heavy going. Here’s a more digestible look at the controversy.

In July 2007 Martin Durkin was interviewed on ABC Australia’s Lateline programme by its presenter Tony Jones. The interview nicely summarises some of the key questions about “The Great Global Warming Swindle”.

I must admit I wasn’t aware of Tony Jones before seeing this interview. He comes across very well here. He’s a current affairs journalist, not a specialist science reporter, yet he’s mastered his brief extremely well.

The interview is in two sections below, and the panel discussion that followed is listed in a further six links. There is also a transcript of the interview available at DeSmogBlog ^[14].

Martin Durkin Interviewed by Tony Jones
Part 1.  8:44
Part 2.  9:58
Panel Discussion After the Durkin Interview
Part 3 4:35	Part 4 8:50	Part 5 9:02	Part 6 9:58	Part 7 9:25	Part 8 7:07

References

1. The Great Global Warming Swindle, Channel 4, March 2007
2. Ofcom: Statutory Duties and Regulatory Principles, Ofcom website
3. Summary of Complaint to Ofcom Regarding “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, N. Rive, B. Jackson and D. Rado, June 2007  (WebCite cache)
4. Complaint to Ofcom Regarding “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, N. Rive, B. Jackson and D. Rado, June 2007  (WebCite cache)
5. In Breach: The Great Global Warming Swindle, Channel 4, 8 March 2007, 21:00, Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, Issue number 114, (pages 6–22), Office of Communications, July 21, 2008  (WebCite cache)
6. Upheld: Complaint by Sir David King, The Great Global Warming Swindle, Channel 4, 8 March 2007, 21:00, Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, Issue number 114, (pages 36–42), Office of Communications, July 21, 2008  (WebCite cache)
7. Partly Upheld: Complaint by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, The Great Global Warming Swindle, Channel 4, 8 March 2007, 21:00, Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, Issue number 114, (pages 43–69), Office of Communications, July 21, 2008  (WebCite cache)
8. Partly Upheld: Complaint by Professor Carl Wunsch, The Great Global Warming Swindle, Channel 4, 8 March 2007, 21:00, Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, Issue number 114, (pages 70–80), Office of Communications, July 21, 2008  (WebCite cache)
9. Global warming documentary: The Ofcom report at a glance, David Adam, The Guardian, July 21, 2008
10. Climate documentary ‘broke rules’, Richard Black, BBC News, July 21, 2008
11. Opinion: A reluctant whistle-blower, David Rado, BBC News, July 21, 2008
12. Why ‘climate swindle’ film is dangerous, despite ruling, Michael Le Page, New Scientist, July 22, 2008
13. Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change, Juliette Jowit, The Observer, June 22, 2008
14. Lateline Presenter Tony Jones Interviews Martin Durkin, Transcript of ABC Australia Lateline Programme, DeSmogBlog, July 2007  (WebCite cache)