And that was what I was trying to get at: the purpose for the original blog came from a paper I’m writing, but also from Ofcom’s ruling on C4’s GGWS programme. They judged it did not cause harm or offence, despite agreeing that the science is proven. I was left with the thought: harm against whom? This was the question I wanted to ask: what measurement of harm was Ofcom measuring the programme against, if they are judging it against a measure where they themselves agree the science is proven (enough)?
Aye, well, there's the rub, eh?
You see, whilst Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth was, inconveniently, found to be inaccurate scientifically, in at least nine respects, no such stigma attaches to The Great Global Warming Swindle. Because, apart from anything else, not one—not one—of those complaints about factual content was upheld.
But the broadcaster will not be censured over a second complaint about accuracy, which contained 131 specific points and ran to 270 pages, with Ofcom finding that it did not mislead the public.
A Place To Stand has a fairly comprehensive run-down—or two—of what complaints were upheld.
This is, of course, a somewhat different attitude to that of Al Gore's film which, despite being found to be inaccurate in court, is still being distributed (by the government) to schools as a factual science programme.
So, do we see some double standards here? I think that we do.
The fact is that the government either believes in AGW or it wants to ensure that everyone else does. One can speculate as to their motives, and regular readers know that I have done, extensively (and yes, I always hold the opinion that they see it as a route to more money but, more importantly, more power).
OfCom is, of course, a government QUANGO: it is funded by the government and its officers owe their sinecures to the government. It is quite clear where their loyalties lie.
How else could they possibly adjudge that the film was not factually inaccurate whilst at the same time claiming that the AGW science is settled? There simply is no way that the two positions are tenable if OfCom are uncorrupt: if the AGW science is settled, then the Channel 4 film must be factually incorrect. If, however, The Great Global Warming Swindle is factually correct, then the AGW theory must be at best unproven, at worst untrue.
You want my theory, Alex? That OfCom knew damn well that the film was accurate but it dare not speak out against AGW for fear of... what? Losing its funding, losing respect, being pilloried? Or being prosecuted for daring to deny the new religion?
Whereas I, a mere blogger (for what is my reputation worth?) will continue to speak out, until people like you, James Hansen and Margo Kingston have me slammed into jail. Because you are—to quote TGGWS's director, Martin Durkin, in an article written shortly after the film's broadcast—"wrong, wrong, wrong."