Complaint to Ofcom Regarding “The Great Global Warming Swindle”

[Comment 80: The above interview statements, which taken together amount to narration, imply that environmentalists are predominately anti-capitalist extremists. This is clearly designed to marginalize environmentalists, and by extension, the millions of ordinary people who are non-environmentalists but who are concerned about global warning. Representatives of environmental groups were not given the chance to reply to this characterisation, nor was any evidence presented to support it; and the strong counter-evidence against this characterisation was not mentioned.

In fact, far from being anti-capitalist, the leading environmental groups all collaborate with major corporate businesses on environmental issues: for example, WWF (http://tinyurl.com/37vcev), Friends of the Earth (http://tinyurl.com/3c27se). and Greenpeace (on the “Greenfreeze” alternative to CFCs, (http://tinyurl.com/28zgf7), which has been praised by Tony Blair as a “highly successful example of a green organisation and industry working together for the benefit of the Ozone layer” (http://tinyurl.com/24xvn6)).

Thus this was a clear attempt to mislead the public, and was based on a “straw man” logical fallacy (in this case, by characterising their opponents in this debate as extremists when most of them are not) and on an “ad hominem” logical fallacy (attacking one’s opponents rather than addressing their arguments).]

(In breach of the 2003 Communications Act Section 265, Ofcom 5.4, 5.5, 5.7, 5.11, 5.12)

[Comment 81: It is beyond parody to call the 150 year-old theory of man-made global warming, based as it is on the fundamental laws of physics, “a loony idea,” while at the same time putting forward the view that Margaret Thatcher was engaged in an alliance with neo-Marxists – and all because, we are led to believe, she wanted to break the power of the miners' unions! (See Comment 72, page 65). Such an extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence. Yet absolutely no evidence was provided, and this view was left unchallenged, in what was billed as a “science documentary”.]

(In breach of Ofcom 5.7)