Complaint to Ofcom Regarding “The Great Global Warming Swindle”

It was also not mentioned that it is not only activists who have criticised Michaels' lobbying activities and the funding he receives, but that such criticisms have come from many distinguished scientists (see Appendix C.1.3, page 127).

This lack of disclosure of conflicts of interest is particularly important because of the strong evidence that has come to light (detailed in Appendix C.1.3, page 127, and Appendix D: page 145) that some sections of the fossil fuel industry, together with the lobby groups that they fund, have been running a very well-funded misinformation campaign to reduce public support for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Because of this, although each individual transgression might be considered a relatively minor breach, taken together they constitute a systematic breach of the impartiality and accuracy sections of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code.

A total of 16 breaches fell into this category: see Appendix A.3,page 121 for details; although for the purposes of this complaint we consider them to collectively constitute one serious breach.

Misrepresentation or Overstating of the Credentials of the Contributors to the Programme

The interviewees were billed as “leading scientists” and “an impressive roll-call of experts” (see Appendix C.1.2, page 126). Three interviewees were incorrectly described as being “senior climate scientists” (Shaviv, Clark and Corbyn – see Comment 14, page 19), and in a large number of cases it was not mentioned that the interviewees are not considered to be experts in the fields they were discussing (especially Lawson, Corbyn, Calder, Stott and Akasofu – see Appendices C.2, C.7, C.6, C.8 and C.15, respectively). In addition, the credentials of several of the interviewees (for example, Stott, Ball, Singer – see Appendices C.8, C.9, C.11 and C.10, respectively), or their associations with the IPCC (Reiter – see Comment 115, page 96) were overstated.

As a result of this systematic attempt by the film maker to mislead the public about the credentials of contributors to the programme with respect to the specific subjects that they discussed, it seems likely that viewers may have considered the contributors' statements to carry much more weight than they would otherwise have done. Because of this, while each individual transgression might be considered a relatively minor breach, taken together they constitute a systematic breach of the accuracy sections of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code.

It is very important to note, however, that the fact that, for instance, that many of the contributors to the Channel 4 programme were not climate experts does not necessarily make their statements on climate wrong. The ideas they put forward must stand and fall on their merits, and the extent to which they reflect the scientific evidence. It is for this reason that we have assessed each of the interviewee statements on a detailed, individual basis – regardless of the interviewee. This complaint is about the film maker’s intentional and systematic deception and is not an ad hominem attack on the contributors themselves.

A total of 21 breaches fell into this category: see Appendix A.3,page 121 for details; although for the purposes of this complaint we consider them to collectively constitute one serious breach.