Complaint to Ofcom Regarding “The Great Global Warming Swindle”

[Comment 75; The narrative, using an accumulation of interviewee and narrator statements (see Comment 80, page 71; Comment 81, page 71; Comment 120, page 100; and Comment 136, page 114), is presenting a wholly inaccurate picture of the environmental movement and its history, for which absolutely no evidence is provided. In fact no major environmental organisation advocates “getting rid” of cars. Greenpeace, for example, in its brochure “How to save the climate” (http://tinyurl.com/2qt7p9, PDF) (page 29) states:

The most important question when you buy your next car is: “What is its fuel consumption?”

Furthermore the programme gives a highly distorted and inaccurate impression by failing to mention the long history of environmental movements before the fall of the Berlin wall and the rise of anti-globalisation movements in the 1980s. For example, WWF has been campaigning since 1961 (see http://tinyurl.com/ywpfts); Greenpeace since 1971 (see http://tinyurl.com/2mn9jn); and Friends of the Earth since 1971 (see http://tinyurl.com/27eyrf).

This is therefore an apparent attempt by the film maker and by several of the interviewees to mislead the public about the views of environmental groups. Misrepresenting their views in this way is not only inaccurate but is also manipulative and slanderous, although as no individuals were named, it is unlikely to be actionable.]

(In breach of the 2003 Communications Act Section 265, Ofcom 5.4, 5.5, 5.7, 5.11, 5.12, 7.2, 7.3, 7.6, 7.9)

[Comment 76: By playing this extract with no context from the narrator, taken together with other similar statements by other contributors and by the narrator (e.g. Comment 40, Comment 122, etc.), this amounts to narration: the false impression is systematically being created in the viewer’s mind that in order to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions one must necessarily have zero or negative economic growth. As discussed in Comment 40, page 33,this is a fallacy, and is apparently intentionally misleading.

Continued …