Complaint to Ofcom Regarding “The Great Global Warming Swindle”

The inflation of credentials by the film maker of most of the contributors to the programme is important, because Channel 4 billed them as being “leading scientists”, and as being “an impressive roll-call of experts” (see Appendix C.1.2, page 126), as a result of which the public almost certainly gave the contributors’ statements much more weight than they would otherwise have done. Taken together with the inflation of credentials of most of the other contributors, this represents a serious breach of the Ofcom Code relating to accuracy.

More importantly, Professor Reiter’s links to fossil-fuel industry-funded lobby groups that campaign against greenhouse gas emissions reductions should have been mentioned, as they would bear on the public perception of his impartiality (see Appendix C.18, page 142).

This lack of disclosure of conflicts of interest, which applied to most of the contributors to the programme, is especially important because of the overwhelming evidence that has come to light 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. This evidence is detailed in Appendix C.1.3, page 127, and Appendix D: page 145. Taken together, with the lack of disclosure of most of the other contributors, this represents a serious breach of the Ofcom Code relating to impartiality.]

(In breach of the 2003 Communications Act Section 265, Ofcom 5.7, 5.8)

[Comment 3: There is in fact much evidence (from basic physics to observations that agree with the predictions of the basic physics theory) in support of this link. It is therefore unacceptable that Shaviv’s extremely controversial opinion was presented as if it was a fact, and was not qualified in any way. This constitutes a clear attempt to mislead the public.]

(In breach of Ofcom 5.7)

[Comment 4: Dr Shaviv’s credentials with respect to the subjects he discussed in the programme were exaggerated – for full details, see Appendix C.13, page 139.]

(In breach of the 2003 Communications Act Section 265, Ofcom 5.7, 5.8)