On 8 March 2007 a documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" premiered on Britain's Channel 4.
Here's what Robert Watson, a former chair of the IPCC, had to say about Ofcom's decision:
The film takes a strongly sceptical view of current scientific thinking on climate change. It argues that the consensus on climate change is the product of "a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry: created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists; supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding; and propped up by complicit politicians and the media". (from Wikipedia, 22 July 2008, 7:05am EDT)Showing of the documentary prompted an outcry from many scientists. Yesterday Ofcom1 found it in breach of three rules in the broadcasting code: (1) avoiding unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organizations, (2) preserving "due impartiality", and (3) including "an appropriately wide range of significant views" and giving them due weight.
Here's what Robert Watson, a former chair of the IPCC, had to say about Ofcom's decision:
Sceptics who disseminate misinformation and argue that there is no need to address this urgent issue are placing the planet at risk, threatening the livelihoods of not only the present generation, but even more future generations - our children and grandchildren.Watson is right of course, but...
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" illustrates a big problem those of us who are concerned about the impact of climate change have. As the IPCC reports make clear, "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident
from observations of increases in global average air and ocean
temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global
average sea level", and it's clear that humans are responsible for much of the warming, and it's clear that we can do something about it. Even the government of the United States, if not it's president, admits that.
The problem, as Randy Olson makes clear in "Sizzle", is that climate denialists are vocal and well funded. They can make movies like "Swindle" and get them shown on national networks. By yelling and screaming they create doubt about the reality of climate change. Just like intelligent design creationists, they play on our innate sense of fairness to win sympathy for their cause. In spite of substantial funding, they portray themselves as underdogs fighting "big science", and they make their appeal directly to mass audiences. Clearly, telling people that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that global warming is real and human-caused and that we can do something about it isn't working. We need an approach that speaks directly to mass audiences. Maybe the 9th ward is the right approach.2
You can read the full Ofcom decision starting on page 6 of the Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, Issue 114.3
1Ofcom (Office of Communictions) was established by the UK Communications Act 2003. It is:
2Read the last paragraph of my review of "Sizzle" or, better yet, see the movie yourself, and you'll understand what I mean.
3Thanks to Andy Revkin for a post on Dot Earth and an article in the New York Times for pointers to the Ofcom decision.
The problem, as Randy Olson makes clear in "Sizzle", is that climate denialists are vocal and well funded. They can make movies like "Swindle" and get them shown on national networks. By yelling and screaming they create doubt about the reality of climate change. Just like intelligent design creationists, they play on our innate sense of fairness to win sympathy for their cause. In spite of substantial funding, they portray themselves as underdogs fighting "big science", and they make their appeal directly to mass audiences. Clearly, telling people that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that global warming is real and human-caused and that we can do something about it isn't working. We need an approach that speaks directly to mass audiences. Maybe the 9th ward is the right approach.2
You can read the full Ofcom decision starting on page 6 of the Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, Issue 114.3
1Ofcom (Office of Communictions) was established by the UK Communications Act 2003. It is:
an independent organisation which regulates the UK's broadcasting, telecommunications and wireless communications sectors. We also set and enforce rules on fair competition between companies in these industries.Among its other duties, Ofcom is to ensure that "people are protected from being treated unfairly in television and radio programmes, and from having their privacy invaded". (More information is available at Ofcom's website.)
2Read the last paragraph of my review of "Sizzle" or, better yet, see the movie yourself, and you'll understand what I mean.
3Thanks to Andy Revkin for a post on Dot Earth and an article in the New York Times for pointers to the Ofcom decision.
Leave a comment