Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 7th September 2008

Free Capercaillie CD

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

C4 climate change film 'broke rules'



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

A CHANNEL 4 documentary about global warming misrepresented the views of the government's former chief scientist, Ofcom ruled yesterday.
The watchdog said The Great Global Warming Swindle broke rules in the Broadcasting Code, including in its criticism of Sir David King for comments he did not make.

The full article contains 53 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 21 July 2008 10:15 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

truthsleuth,

22/07/2008 00:48:00
No surprise to me
And after seeing the interview of Hamish on BBC2 a couple of hours ago he is the epitome of the empty kettle'.
The interview was itself a disgrace with mouthy hHamish being allowed to rabbit on preventing King from King from showing what a load of lies the Ch$ program was.
Still Hamish did that for us so I hope the deniers will now take their mouths out of the exhaust pipe and listen with an open mind and closed mouth.
They need not change their minds but please stop referring to the ridiculous CH4 program no one with any working brain can give it any real credence at all.

2

Guga II,

Rockall 22/07/2008 02:39:49
#1. Apart from possibly misrepresenting a few people, they did state that the story was basically factual, i.e. that Al Gore and his buddies were the ones doing the actual lying.
3

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 22/07/2008 09:09:49
One of the dishonest and misleading aspects of the C4 Swindle program was its use of a graph entitled "Temp & Solar Activity 120 Years". This graph dramatically (and reasonably accurately) showed the fairly close correlation between solar activity and average global temperature from 1860 to (and here's the rub) 1980. What it didn't show, and didn't comment upon, was the equally dramatic lack of correlation since about 1975 (when anthropogenic global warming started to become apparent) between these two factors.

Had the C4 programme shown all of this graph (up to the present time) it would have strongly supported anthropogenic warming and shown that the sun cannot be responsible for the recent warming.

The C4 programme's deliberate misuse of the graph shows how dishonest and deliberately misleading it was.

The following article shows both the C4 graph and a complete graph of solar activity versus global temperature to 2000. You can make your own judgement:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
4

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 22/07/2008 09:17:47
#2 Guga "they did state that the story was basically factual"

Not according to the BBC report I read.

'However, the regulator said it did not believe, given the nature of the programme, that this led to the audience being "materially misled so as to cause harm or offence."'

I interpreted this to mean it was misleading, but within the bounds of acceptability, much like any political broadcast.
5

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 22/07/2008 12:36:47
Do any broadcasters anywhere have any morals or dignity except to make profits and foment scandal and viewership?
6

techpunk,

22/07/2008 13:33:03
#3

smarts of gore's use of the hockey stick graph, don't you think?

7

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 22/07/2008 14:08:34
#6 techpunk

Well I haven't seen Gore's film, so can't comment on his use of it, but the "hockey stick" graph (of temperature against time for the last thousand years or so) has withstood considerable scrutiny.
For example, the US National Academy of Sciences looked into the criticisms of the original MBH graph and whilst accepting that there were some aspects of the statistical treatment employed that were not to the highest standard, the basic conclusions and shape of the graph was plausible. Moreover several later studies showed similar results.

(I should say that the above is my recollection of the NAS report, which I haven't looked at again to answer your point. If you want to see the report yourself I'm sure a search for US NAS Mann Hockey Stick would find it.)

Basically, what the hockey stick shows is that
1. temperature increases in recent decades occurred more rapidly than previously and
2. that recent decades are probably the warmest in the northern hemisphere within that thousand years.
8

seanie,

22/07/2008 14:31:34
OFCOM did not say the film was basically factual. OFCOM essentially said that it wasn't within their remit to rule on the accuracy of the programme.

"The accompanying Ofcom guidance to the Code explains that Ofcom is required to guard against harmful or offensive material, and it is possible that actual or potential harm and/or offence may be the result of misleading material in relation to the representation of factual issues. This rule is therefore designed to deal with content which materially misleads the audience so as to cause harm or offence. Ofcom therefore only regulates misleading material where that material is likely to cause harm or offence."

So OFCOM have no role regulating something misleading unless it also causes harm or offence. Since they didn't think harm or offence was caused the fact it was misleading was neither here nor there.

"The complainants (including the Group Complaint) stated that the programme was not accurate and therefore in breach of the Code. However, whilst Ofcom is required by the 2003 Act to set standards to ensure that news programmes are reported with due accuracy there is no such requirement for other types of programming, including factual programmes of this type."

OFCOM have no regulatory role regarding accuracy outside news programmes so made no judgement in this case.

"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 a
9

seanie,

22/07/2008 14:32:19
OFCOM did not say the film was basically factual. OFCOM essentially said that it wasn't within their remit to rule on the accuracy of the programme.

"The accompanying Ofcom guidance to the Code explains that Ofcom is required to guard against harmful or offensive material, and it is possible that actual or potential harm and/or offence may be the result of misleading material in relation to the representation of factual issues. This rule is therefore designed to deal with content which materially misleads the audience so as to cause harm or offence. Ofcom therefore only regulates misleading material where that material is likely to cause harm or offence."

So OFCOM have no role regulating something misleading unless it also causes harm or offence. Since they didn't think harm or offence was caused the fact it was misleading was neither here nor there.

"The complainants (including the Group Complaint) stated that the programme was not accurate and therefore in breach of the Code. However, whilst Ofcom is required by the 2003 Act to set standards to ensure that news programmes are reported with due accuracy there is no such requirement for other types of programming, including factual programmes of this type."

OFCOM have no regulatory role regarding accuracy outside news programmes so made no judgement in this case.

"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 a
10

seanie,

22/07/2008 14:32:33
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."

Because of the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding AGW, it's no longer a controversial in scientific terms. Since the code only requires impartiality on controversial matters, OFCOM decided that the issue of impartiality was outside its remit.

So OFCOM said the film may've been misleading, innaccurate and impartial but that's none of their business.
11

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 22/07/2008 14:40:34
Anyone who debunks the "global warming" lie is absolutely 100% correct.

Keep dropping the acid Slioch, you'll get there some time.
12

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 22/07/2008 14:49:50
Slioch:

"Basically, what the hockey stick shows is that
1. temperature increases in recent decades occurred more rapidly than previously and
2. that recent decades are probably the warmest in the northern hemisphere within that thousand years."

Aside from the fact that the "hockey stick" is drawn on logarithmic sclaes in order to accentuate changes upwards, it is perfectly reasonable to see temperatures increasing in the northern hemisphere.

Why? Simple. The land mass is moving further north as a whole. That is why the south pole is colder than the north---because there is more land mass in the north. And before you start, the melting of the Antarctic penninsular is caused by geothermal activity, not global warming.

This warming in the northern hemisphere will continue until the land masses collide and start making their way down south again. Then guess what will happen? The north will start cooling down and the south will start warming up. However, we will not be around to see it.

This is borne out historically. In pre-historic times, when the land masses were concentrated down south, the antarctic ice cap was negligable and the Arctic ice cap was huge. Now the position is reversing because of land mass movement.

Continental drift is probably the most significant factor in a changing climate, yet none of the eco-nutters even mention it. I wonder why? Could it be that continental drift would explain much of what they are observing and as such it would blow their arguments out of the water?
13

Guga II,

Rockall 22/07/2008 14:51:10
For anyone interested in how they try and silence critics of their global warming garbage, have a look at the following:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/

14

seanie,

22/07/2008 15:24:45
"Continental drift is probably the most significant factor in a changing climate, yet none of the eco-nutters even mention it. I wonder why? Could it be that continental drift would explain much of what they are observing and as such it would blow their arguments out of the water?"

Wow.

That's taking stupidity to dizzying new heights.

15

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 22/07/2008 15:31:38
You now see what I mean from the comment above. The truth hurts. It would shut them up, so they ignore it and poke fun instead.

QED.
16

Why can't I use my usual name?,

Glasgow 22/07/2008 16:36:01
Presumably the world's governments are now waking up to the lie of global warming? They aren't meeting to discuss ways of combating it, surely?
17

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 22/07/2008 17:59:05
#12 Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head

Well, thank you at least for illustrating how profound your ignorance is about these matters. Nonetheless, I will try to treat them as serious suggestions, in the belief that you are not just making up nonsense for the sake of it and actually believe what you write.

So: firstly, you say, "the "hockey stick" is drawn on logarithmic scales in order to accentuate changes upwards". No it is not. Both the horizontal (time) and vertical (temp.) axes are arithmetic. Further, were the vertical scale to be logarithmic, it would diminish changes upwards, not accentuate them.

As for continental drift being responsible for the last three decades of global warming ... Give me strength! The continents are moving at a speed of the order of 1cm per year, (that's about the speed of the opening of the Atlantic) so America is about a metre further away from Eurasia than it was when global warming became evident a century ago. And that, you assert, has caused the increases in temperature we have witnessed! That is just utter nonsense.

As for geothermal activity being responsible for the melting in the Antarctic Peninsular. That is another straw being grasped. The surface of the Antarctic Peninsular has warmed about 3C in recent decades and that is not due to geothermal energy whose flux is far too small to provide regional heating of that magnitude.

It seems that you will grasp at any straw, however bizarre, if it tells you what you want to hear, rather than accept the solid scientific evidence that tells you what you don't want to believe. That is what it means to be in denial.

18

,

22/07/2008 18:11:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
19

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 22/07/2008 18:21:05
#17 Slioch

Oops. Just noticed I said, "so America is about a metre further away from Eurasia than it was when global warming became evident a century ago."

Than an incorrect mix of two things that I meant to say. Please read that as, "so America is about a metre further away from Eurasia than it was a century ago."
20

seanie,

22/07/2008 18:28:08
Ever notice that none of the eco-nutters ever mention evil pixies. I wonder why? Could it be that evil pixies would explain much of what they are observing and as such it would blow their arguments out of the water?

ROFLMAO
21

Why can't I use my usual name?,

Glasgow 22/07/2008 18:51:06
#20, do you mean eco-nutters like George W Bush?
22

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 22/07/2008 19:03:56
#17:

Firstly, you mean "cartesian" axes, not arithmetic ones.

What you say about logarithmic graph paper is essentially correct---if you use it the correct way round. Whatever they do with this hockey stick, it is presented in a way that is designed to mislead and the extrapolation that forms the handle of the stick is based upon pure supposition and nothing else.

You speak of a temperature increase "that we have witnessed". No we have not. The global temperature is decreasing now, not increasing. Even with the so-called climate change and everybody screaming that the floods and storms we had last year "were only going to get worse" have been proven wrong as well. Have you noticed reports about any dramatic storms or floods this year? No. You have not. Why? Because there haven't been any.

The effect of land mass is subtle but definate. Look at a decent atlas and that will show you the position and size of the ice caps together with the position and size of the continents. If you can't see a connection there you are blind.

"As for geothermal activity being responsible for the melting in the Antarctic Peninsular. That is another straw being grasped."

I tend to trust infrared satellite images from NASA above the rantings of the anti-everything, beard and sandles brigade who want us to return to the dark ages. There is SIGNIFICANT geothermal activity beneath the Antarctic and as you well know that is more than capable of melting ice.

We could argue about this all night, but time will tell. My money is firmly on the climate being more or less the same as it is now on 50 years time. Whilst people (like you) keep on listening to all the rubbish that is being spouted and then preach it to the masses, we are going to carry along this stupid, oppressive route. Global warming does not exist, climate change does exist but it is nothing whatsoever to do with man's activities and never will be.
23

seanie,

22/07/2008 19:34:12
Don't forget the evil pixies.
24

seanie,

22/07/2008 19:35:36
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

"The year 2007 was eighth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2001."

"The 1990s were the warmest complete decade in the series. The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.546°C above the 1961-90 mean. Twelve of the thirteen warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past thirteen years (1995-2007). The only year in the last thirteen not among the warmest twelve is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990). The period 2001-2007 is 0.21°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade."
25

seanie,

22/07/2008 19:35:45
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html

"A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade."
26

seanie,

22/07/2008 19:36:02
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/dept/0108_globaltemp.htm

"To determine if warming has recently stopped, consider the data from the past eight years, from 2000 to 2007. This is a more meaningful comparison than 1998 to 2007, as 1998 temperatures were anomalously high as a result of the "El Niño of the century" (pdf), a natural cyclical event that produced an enormous temperature spike relative to surrounding years. Choosing an El Niño year as that start of the dataset would amount to rather egregious cherry picking (though both GISS temp and HadCRU would still show a warming trend over the decade)."

"Over the past eight years, Earth has warmed 0.025 degrees C per year according to GISS, and 0.014 degrees C per year according to HadCRU, so GISS shows slightly faster warming than over the long-term trend of 0.018 degrees C per year, and HadCRU shows warming slightly slower."
27

seanie,

22/07/2008 19:36:11
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

"It is apparent that there is no letup in the steep global warming trend of the past 30 years (see 5-year mean curve in Figure 1a).

"Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend."
28

seanie,

22/07/2008 19:36:22
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gif
29

seanie,

22/07/2008 19:36:31
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

"The period 2001-2007 is 0.21°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade."
30

seanie,

22/07/2008 19:36:41
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/images/pr20070104.gif

Look at the blue line. That's the running mean.

Did it continue to rise after 1998?

Why yes. Yes it did.
31

seanie,

22/07/2008 19:36:48
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2007.csv

That's the HadCRU temperature data. It shows 1998 as the peak individual year. But look at the second column - the running mean. Since 1998 the average global temperature has risen significantly.
32

seanie,

22/07/2008 19:36:58
The NASA/GISS data for global temperatures;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The ten hottest years worldwide since 1880 were:

2005, 2007, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2004, 2001, 1997, 1995.
33

seanie,

22/07/2008 19:37:06
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html

"1998 saw an exceptional El Niño event which contributed strongly to that record-breaking year. Research shows that an exceptional El Niño can warm global temperatures by about 0.2 °C in a single year, affecting both the ocean surface and air temperatures over land. Had any recent years experienced such an El Niño, it is very likely that this record would have been broken. 2005 was also an unusually warm year, the second highest in the global record, but was not associated with El Niño conditions that boosted the warmth of 1998.

Another way of looking at the warming trend is that 1999 was a similar year to 2007 as far the cooling effects of La Niña are concerned. The 1999 global temperature was 0.26 °C above the 1961-90 average, whereas 2007 was 0.37 °C above this average, 0.11 °C warmer than 1999."
34

seanie,

22/07/2008 19:37:15
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf

"Humanity today, collectively, must face the uncomfortable fact that industrial civilization itself has become the principal driver of global climate. If we stay our present course, using fossil fuels to feed a growing appetite for energy-intensive life styles, we will soon leave the climate of the Holocene, the world of prior human history. The eventual response to doubling preindustrial atmospheric CO2 likely would be a nearly ice-free planet."

"Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions,for just another decade, practically eliminates the possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects."

"The most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture CO2, is herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II. The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable."
35

seanie,

22/07/2008 19:37:43
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2007.csv

That's the Hadcru dataset. The first column of temperatures gives the anomaly for each year compared to the 1961-90 average. The second column is the smoothed running average.

Looking at those figures it's easy to see that the warmest years since 1850, according to the Hadcru dataset are; 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2001 and 2007, in descending order.

Also the running average over the past decade is significantly higher than any previous period in the record.
36

seanie,

22/07/2008 19:38:51
But don't trust the Hadley Climate Research Unit or the Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

They ignore the effect of evil pixies.
37

eyeswide,

pixieland 23/07/2008 09:32:55
The horse's mouth:-

Testimony of Roy W. Spencer before the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 22 July 2008

"I have a PhD in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and have been involved in global warming research for close to twenty years. I have numerous peer reviewed scientific articles dealing with the measurement and interpretation of climate variability and climate change. I am also the U.S. Science Team Leader for the AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.

Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

If true, an insensitive climate system would mean that we have little to worry about in the way of manmade global warming and associated climate change. And, as we will see, it would also mean that the warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural. Of course, if climate change is mostly natural then it is largely out of our control, and is likely to end — if it has not ended already, since satellite-measured global temperatures have not warmed for at least seven years now."

38

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 23/07/2008 09:45:43
"Roy [Spencer] does have a handful of peer-reviewed publications, some of which have quite decent and interesting results in them. However, the thing you have to understand is that what he gets through peer-review is far less threatening to the mainstream picture of anthropogenic global warming than you'd think from the spin he puts on it in press releases, presentations and the blogosphere."

"Roy has been pretty busy dishing out the confusion recently. ... his mass market book on climate change, entitled Climate Confusion, [was] published last month" raypierre, RealClimate.
see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/langswitch_lang/po#more-567

Gosh. Someone with a book to sell making controversial comments to the Senate about climate change. Now, I wonder why he should do that?

Let's wait to see if what he say has any validity. It appears that his claims about climate sensitivity have not been subjected to peer review.
39

eyeswide,

23/07/2008 10:03:48

"...the warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural."

"...satellite-measured global temperatures have not warmed for at least seven years now."

I would point out that lying before The Senate is an imprisonable offense. Unlike lying to a movie going audience. Or lying on a blog. Or lying on the hustings.

40

seanie,

23/07/2008 10:34:37
Did he mention the evil pixies?
41

eyeswide,

24/07/2008 10:57:24
Satellite-measured global temperatures have not warmed the evil pixies for at least seven years now.
42

,

24/07/2008 18:43:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
43

truthsleuth,

30/07/2008 00:45:08
# Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head

Your ravings are getting worse
I suggest you take a couple of days off
Switch off your engine
get your head out of your exhaust pipe and clear your brain.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.