Yes, they appear not to have been fair to the scientists. Interesting though that all the scientific complaints were rejected out of hand. McIntyre has a good summary of the report.

Bishop Hill,

Ofcom, whose job it is to regulate media, did not reject the scientific complaints out of hand. They had this to say:

In dealing with these complaints therefore Ofcom had to ascertain - not whether the programme was accurate - but whether it materially misled the audience with the result that harm and/or offence was likely to be caused. It is not within Ofcom’s remit or ability in this case as the regulator of the ‘communications industry’ to establish or seek to adjudicate on ‘facts’ such as whether global warming is a man-made phenomenon, nor is Ofcom able to reach conclusions about the validity of any particular scientific theories.

Effectively, they admitted their own limitations, which seems to me to be right and proper.

I found it bizzare that there were even grounds for complaint - why is it that one programme which dare critically scrutinise the MMGW hypolteses must give a “balanced” view of the science and yet the BBC, the Guardian et al churn out a daily diet of climate change hysteria without ever giving the other (sceptical) side of the argument ?

The next time I see/hear a BBC article on climate change which doesn’t broadcast it’s own limitations (i.e these extrapolations are based on data going back only 100 years and make the following unsubstatiated assumptions……..) and the balancing views of a MMGW sceptic I will complain to ofcom !!

The Guardian has a good piece on Channel 4’s apparent anti-planet bias:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/21/climatechange.carbonemissions1

yet the BBC, the Guardian et al churn out a daily diet of climate change hysteria without ever giving the other (sceptical) side of the argument ?

Why give space to discredited rubbish?

Discredited according to whom - apart from the climate change zealots. In the minds of the majority of the public (outside the liberal elite, and other vested interests) the debate is still open, the media therefore have a duty to present both sides of it. If Al Gores “An easy and convenient way to get rich” can be toured around schools and presented as scientific fact (despite containing many aknowledged factual errors) then why do C4 have to apologise for daring to question the received orthodoxy on a programme that clearly set out to do just that ?
Only yesterday I read that pro “climate change” scientists have agreed that over the next 10 years global temperatures will reduce after all, but after that it will definately get hotter again, so doomesday has been postponed (again). There are more holes in the MMGW hypothesis than in the average colander, but every time the facts are shown not to support it, the goal posts are moved and anyone daring to question is shouted down. The “interview” with the C4 editor on Newsnight was an absolute disgrace, with the guy made to look like a naughty schoolboy by a hostile and patronsing BBC bimbo, just before getting into her license payer funded taxi back to Hampstead no doubt . What exactly is the BBCs “carbon foorprint” I wonder ?
The whole thing is a con to get the proles used to a lower standard of living before the oil starts to run out and luxuries/travel becomes too expensive for all but the very rich (which is why they are flying round the world in private jets peddling the myth in the first place).

Yeah great article in the Gruniad. I was shocked to read that TV producers sometimes (shock horror) enagage in selective editing, that they sometimes (double shock horror) change the context of a quote to make a point, or that they (treble shock horror) sometimes refuse to feed the egos, or blindly follow the agendas of their subjects. As for the voiceovers being anonymous and funded by the oil companies, even if it’s true - (why would they waste money doing that it’s not exactly hard to sell oil,and the oil companies are providing most of the investment for alternative technologies anyway) then so what ? -
As for factual innacuarcies, and claims that the MMGW hypothesis is exacerbating poverty and that the greens are just sanctimonious middle class zealots who are doing more than harm than good ? I give you “bio fuels”…………..

Discredited according to whom - apart from the climate change zealots. In the minds of the majority of the public (outside the liberal elite, and other vested interests) the debate is still open, the media therefore have a duty to present both sides of it.

The media don’t have any duty whatsoever to present a particular argument purely because a section of public opinion believes it. The honest thing to do is to reflect the balance of expert opinion on the matter and in the case of GW the overwhelming majority of expert opinion is that it is largely caused by human activity. That doesn’t mean that dissenting voices should never be represented, in fact it seems to me that the “antis” actually get a disproportionate amount of space in the media overall, but they shouldn’t be able to get away with dishonest programme making.

Matt,

You said:

There are more holes in the MMGW hypothesis than in the average colander, but every time the facts are shown not to support it, the goal posts are moved and anyone daring to question is shouted down.

No, there aren’t. And climate scientists are doing their best to educate the public.

You could start here:

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

Then you could read some of the educational stuff here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

It might reassure you that this it is not a conspiracy.

If you manage to get through these sites, I’ll be happy to provide you with a further reading list.

It was a pretty awful documentary and Channel 4 deserves the rap for misrepresenting the scientists. But a lot of the criticism has gone beyond that - Monbiot’s Guardian piece seemed to be questioning the right to screen eco-sceptic documentaries at all. This in a week when BBC2’s drama Burn Up is claiming that the entire North Pole is about to explode, without discriminating where scientific fact ends and fiction begins.
Matt Munro does have a kind of point. There is a tendency to shout down the sceptics. The science should be strong enough to discredit them anyway.
Although Matt’s conclusion that global warming is a conspiracy of the rich is just as good as anything in Burn Up. That would explain Republican leadership’s stance, or why a Scottish quarrying magnate funded the legal bid to get An Inconvenient Truth banned from the schools.

Stephen,

Not really. You are kind of mixing up drama (err, fiction) with documentary. If you are saying that Matt is, in fact an Arts critic, then he should declare himself as such.

But what he’s actually doing is pretending that politics should ignore science. Matts’ two posts above are examples of, firstly assuming that speaking from ignorance has some sort of equal merit to speaking from evidence, and secondly, someone who is spinning like mad.

You might be interested to know that the Ofcom decision is being appealed, by the complainants, possibly on the basis that their adjudicators have misdirected themselves on their own rules.

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you saw the Flat Earth Society being given equal air time to, say NASA?

I am prepared to bet £1000 that in 20 years’ time we will look back on MMGW as another “scare” and that either the warming will not have taken place or the sun will be accepted by the consensus as the cause.

Any takers?

cjcjc,

You seem confident. What odds are you offerring?

What odds am I offering?!!

Hohoho - you should be offering me 10/1 or even 100/1 if “deniers” have the same chance of being right as the flat earth society!

Nonetheless I am happy to offer evens…

This is an interesting site for this kind of bet:

http://www.longbets.org/

cjcjc,

Yup, that certainly is an interesting site. Call me a cynic, but I particularily liked this one:

The Long Bets Foundation will no longer exist in 2104

Anyway, I only wanted to bet a tenner, so I was hoping you’d give me 100/1.

Yup, aware of the difference between drama and documentary, thanks. Just can’t help thinking that if the BBC had dramatised Michael Crichton’s State of Fear - equally far-fetched but with the greens as bad guys - there would have been outcry.
You’re right, I have never seen a documentary about the Flat Earthers, But I have seen purportedly factual programmes about the alleged faking of the moon landings, intelligent design etc. Generally, it’s better to let these people have their say and let the flaws and contradictions in their arguments speak for themselves. Over the course of history, it’s been the opponents of science who have tried to stifle debate. Let’s not reverse that position.

Douglas - a tenner ?

Is that all?

Surely you have more confidence in the science?
It should be like taking candy from a baby…

Stephen,

Where have I said it shouldn’t have been shown? What I am attempting to do here is point out how bereft of actual facts Matts’ posts are. Which is exactly what I’d have done if he’d supported the Apollo Moon Hoax.

Which, I would have thought, was in keeping with your comment here:

Generally, it’s better to let these people have their say and let the flaws and contradictions in their arguments speak for themselves.

Or is that supposed to mean I shouldn’t bring evidence to the contrary to the debate?
Matt makes assertions without supporting facts. I make points which are supported. See 9 above.

See the difference?

Matt makes assertions without supporting facts. I make points which are supported. See 9 above.

See the difference?

I am prepared to bet £1000 that MMGW is a scare.

Douglas is prepared to bet £10 that it is not.

See the difference?

Talk is cheap!

cjcjc,

Talk is, indeed cheap.

You can still bet your £1000. You’ve just got to give me odds of 100/1. But you won’t. So you aren’t as entrenched in your own position as you say you are!

And here was me hoping to rope a dope. Dammit. These climate change denialists are smarter than I thought…..

You’ve just got to give me odds of 100/1

So, you believe that the chances of your being correct is around 1%?

Even I believe your chance of being correct is more than 1%!

cjcjc,

Heh! It was just a money making scheme. So what do you think the chances are that I am right and you are wrong? Want to put a number on it rather than a money value?

But you are so sure about the science….only a “dope” would fail to take an even bet if he thought the odds in his favour were a lot better.
I think the chances are probably more like 66% in my favour…so evens would be good odds from my perspective.
And if you believe that the chances are 66% or more in your favour, then evens is also great odds for you!

Where would you put the probabilities?

Douglas, I suspect we are on the same side and are just falling out over a slight difference in emphasis. But hey, isn’t that what liberals are supposed to do?
Re: your bet with cjcjc. If settling up is due in 20 years time, I suggest you demand payment in water - liable to be the most valuable commodity on the planet by then.

cjcjc,

Can you bet on a race after it’s already won?

To be honest, it depends what you mean.

I think there is no doubt that greenhouse gasses are causing global warming.

If, however, you want to argue that perhaps some of that is not anthropogenic, then you’d probably be right - volcanoes - but the forcing effect does seem to be down to us. On that I’m probably about 95% sure.

Timescales? Not so sure, perhaps 50/50 that the IPCC is being too cautious and that the problem is more, rather than less acute.

See, you never get a simple answer.

There are, quite seriously, folk far more qualified than me to answer these questions. Follow the links and see for yourself.

Stephen - another Millenarian, excellent.

My £1000 bet is open to you too.

I blame the Euro.

Many money traders lost their shirt when the Euro did away with many European currencies. Now they’re looking for another way to earn their crust. Emissions Trading.