Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth has recently been shown on two UK public service broadcasting channels. Programme output of this kind is regulated by the Broadcsting Code enforced by Ofcom and I am in the process of submitting a complaint about the way in which what was clearly misleading and politically inspired content was screened without due consideration for the requirements of the code. Here are a couple of relevant clauses, but there are others that also bear on this matter:
2.2 Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience.
5.12 In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be misrepresented.
I am in the process of drafting a submission to Ofcom and this is the first part of it:
Background to this complaint
1. Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) was shown on Channel 4 (C4) on Saturday, 4th April 2009 at 9:20pm and on S4C on Monday, 6th April 2009 at 10:45pm. A disaster movie, The Day after Tomorrow, the theme of which was the catastrophic consequences of sudden climate change, was also broadcast on C4 at 7:00pm, immediately prior to AIT on Saturday 4th April, but this was not shown on S4C.
2. In AIT, Mr Gore, who is an American politician with no scientific qualifications, presents what appears to be conclusive scientific evidence that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases caused global temperatures to rise during the last century and that this trend will continue during the current century, with catastrophic consequences, unless such emissions are drastically reduced. The arguments are not presented as being the opinion of Mr Gore, but the indisputable evidence of scientific research. Although there are references at various points in the film to there being a contrary point of view, in each case these references are dismissive, disparaging or contemptuous to an extent that is clearly intended to discredit any opinion which conflicts with those presented in AIT.
3. This was the first time that this Oscar winning documentary had been screened on UK TV, but AIT had previously been the subject of controversy in this country. On 2nd February 2007, the (then) Department of Education and Skills announced that AIT would be used as a teaching aid in all secondary schools in England, and this led to litigation when Mr Stuart Dimmock, a school governor, initiated a challenge in the High Court questioning the legality of doing so. On 10th October 2007, Mr Justice Burton delivered his judgement, and this is material to the complaint I am now making about Channel 4 and S4C’s broadcast of AIT.
4. Although Mr Justice Burton’s ruling in the ‘Dimmock Case’ concerns the legality of using this film in schools under the terms of the Education Act 1996, it also has a bearing on whether Channel 4 and S4C fully complied with the Sections 2 and 5 of the Broadcsting Code when they broadcast AIT. The judgement found that the film was politically inspired and partisan in nature and also that it presented misleading and unsubstantiated claims concerning supposed scientific evidence that forms an important part of Mr Gore’s arguments.
5. The following sections in Mr Justice Burton’s judgement define the content and purpose of AIT. This summary should be read in conjunction with the full text of the judgement at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html.
a) Section 3 of the judgement determines that the film is ‘substantially based on scientific research’ but that this is presented in the context of Mr Gore’s ‘crusade’ to influence political policies. It also refers to Mr Gore promoting ‘an apocalyptic vision’.
b) Section 11 determines that the film is ‘partisan’ in the way in which it presents evidence of anthropogenic global warming and that the term ‘one sided’ can also be applied to the arguments deployed by Mr Gore in AIT.
c) Section 17 states that ‘it is clear’ that AIT is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.’ It also says that: ‘There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the “consensus” expressed in the IPCC reports.’ (In arriving at this conclusion, Mr Justice Burton considered that the IPCC’s Fourth Asssesment Report represented the mainstream or consensus position on the validity of scientific evidence for anthropgenic climate change and that insofar as AIT diverges from this, then it fails to represent mainstream or consensus scientific opinion.)
d) Section 19 determines that ‘some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition, do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis.’
e) Section 22 supports the claim by Dr Peter Stott (of the Hadley Centre who gave evidence for the defendant in this case that ‘”Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.” However Mr Justice Burton also points out that even on the strength of Dr Stott’s evidence ‘there are errors or deviations from the mainstream by Mr Gore’. In other words, that Dr Stott was unable to justify some of the claims made in the film.f) Section 23 sets out the criteria by which Mr Justice Burton assessed the errors in the film. This was by reference to the findings of the IPCC’s Fourth Assesment Report (published in 2007) and also the evidence of Dr Stott. That Dr Stott’s evidence should be used in this way points to his failure to persuade the court that parts of the film did not deviated from what can be considered to be mainstream or consensus views as represented by the IPCC report. Furthermore, Dr Stott was unable to substantiate ‘nine errors’ that occurred in the film by reference to the IPCC report or any other mainstream or consensus scientific evidence. The judge again refers to AIT as ‘a political film’.
g) Sections 24 to 33 lists the 9 major errors in the film with the judges observations on each.
h) Section 34 establishes that without correction the film is misleading. The judge refers to all nine of the errors that have been identified as “significant planks in Mr Gore’s ‘political’ argumentation”. This is clearly the case as the sections of the film that he refers to are sequences that are likely to make the most compelling impression on an audience and linger longest in their minds. These include sections of the film depicting: melting of polar ice caps and associated catastrophic sea level rise, inundation of Pacific atolls, shutting down of part of the Gulf Stream, the direct coincidence between rise in atmospheric CO2 and rising temperatures, the diminishing snows of Mount Kilimanjaro, contraction of Lake Chad, Hurricane Katrina, the death of polar bears and bleaching of coral reefs.
i) Section 37 expresses ‘satisfaction’ with guidance notes to be used by teachers that Mr Justice Burton has required to be drafted as a necessary means of correcting the misleading impressions created by the errors in the film. Much has been made in the press, and elsewhere, of the fact that at some points in his judgement Mr Justice Burton has enclosed the term error in quotation marks; it has been suggested that this was because he did not really consider these to be errors at all. It is clear from the burden of the judgement, and particularly from this section, that this is not the case and that whatever the nature of the errors, he considered they amounted to misrepresentation. See also summary of Section 45 below.
j) Section 40 refers to the need for ‘necessary and judicious guidance’, including a warning that ‘AIT promotes partisan political views (that is to say, one sided views about political issues)’ and also concerning the existence of a ‘a minority of scientists disagree with the central thesis that climate change over the past half-century is mainly attributable to man-made greenhouse gases’.
k) Section 45 concludes that AIT is intended to influence opinion and therefor had it been distributed to schools without suitable guidance notes then there would have been a breach of ss406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996.
6. Although the Dimmock Case clearly does not refer to the Broadcasting Code, but to the Education Act 1996, Mr Justice Burton’s analysis of the underlying motivation of the film and of its factual content are equally pertinent regardless of the context.
I will post the terms of the complaint when I finish drafting them; later this week I hope.
you are a glutton for punishment ! (but good luck).
Given the widespread view that global warming is correct, I suspect that will mean that your complaint is rejected out of hand, and you will have to appeal through several layers.
but it is interesting; if there were complaints about the “great global warming swindle”, and they were upheld, why not for this ?
per
per
That’s exactly the way I see it and I think that in view of the way the GGWS complaints were handled by Ofcom they may have difficulty ignoring this one in the in the long run. I also happen to think that there are far more substantial grounds for complaint than in that case. The arguments are remarkably similar so far as the treatment of scientific evidence is concerned, but without the complication of the complaints from King, Wunsch and the IPCC.
per
science is not subject to votes; it matters not one jot if the public have been mislead by such as Gore; the science on the theory of AGW is NOT decided.
There is no consensus (not that it matters to science) on weather CO2 leads or lags or is not correlated to temperature.
There is no consensus even on the effect of the solar cycle on climate.
There is no consensus on the effect of cloud reflection or absorption of heat.
The models so beloved of the AGW proponents have still NOT managed to make a single accurate prediction (cf the current global cooling trend).
Al Gore still has not accepted that the hockey stick curve ‘proving’ climate change is a totally discredited fudge of data.
In short; any pretence that AGW is a problem remains an extreme theory missing any real SCIENTIFIC proof.
peter_dtm: you say “it matters not one jot if the public have been mislead by such as Gore“. I disagree.
The climate, of course, doesn’t care & will do whatever the climate will do. But what the public believes matters a lot. In Western society, politicians are attempting to add huge burdens to our already damaged economies – all in pursuance of Al Gore’s (in my view, mistaken) creed that we must act to prevent dangerous global warming. If the public are dubious about or opposed to this, it is less likely that these burdens will be effected. Therefore, I congratulate TonyN and wish him well.
peter_dtm: further to the above, for my view on the science see this.
peter_dtm
You say:
And in a sense you are right of course; it doesn’t change the facts. But IMHO it matters a great deal that Gore, with the all the resources available to him, was unable to make a case for AGW without using spurious evidence. Also, since when has the debate over AGW been a purely scientific matter rather than a political one?
if I had not started with the statement
“Science is not subject to votes”
I couldn’t agree more
Gore’s poisonous political lies (cf Monckton & the UK High Court findings) are very very serious and the fact the have been uncritically seized by the msm & politicians to their own benefit (both politically & personally) IS very serious.
The sooner the meme is comprehensively trashed the better.
Unfortunately; in the UK; the lack of science education over the last 30 plus years has resulted in a population who do not understand how science works. The very fact that claims of ‘consensus’ were not laughed out of the news is just one sad example.
So : yes; Robin & TonyN; I concur (we have consensus !) – the damage done to society and science is immense and matters. Unfortunately I do not see any signs of any improvement in Science education; on the contrary it continues to be debased and the illiterate political class still seem to think science is something strange and magical. So many people have to be taught the basics of scientific enquiry BEFORE they can understand what is wrong with the AGW POLITICAL platform. That is why it has become a religion; that is why the public believe the prophets of AGW.
The science argument needs to be won – when the a-scientific proponents of the religion of AGW are rebutted at every turn by SCIENCE then we can get the scientifically illiterate politicians. Perhaps out of this shambles we may restore Science into the education system.
Peter_dtm
Yes, science education, or the lack of it, is certainly a very important factor in allowing a rather poorly supported hypothesis to become an international obsession. But until research funding ceases to be directed towards supporting that hypothesis – and away from any reseach that questions the orthodox view – even with better science education it is unlikely that we will get closer to a rational and objective assessment of the risks, if any, of AGW.
As science funding is largely directed by governments, at least there is the chance that a grass roots reaction against the claims of Gore, Hansen, Pachauri and their associates may bring about a change in the attitude of policy makers. That is why I think that it is important to draw attention to the short-comings of AIT. The film was made with the intention of generating mass support for the AGW credo but, given its alarmist, exaggerated and misleading content, surely it can also be used to focus attention on the weakness of the supposed evidence of AGW.
“a population who do not understand how science works”
Unlike the denialist contributors to this website?
Not. As my kids would say.
I would say that before anyone starts pontificating about ‘understanding how science works’ they might care to produce something which shows that they understand some of the science involved in AGW.
Yes, Peter (tempterrain), Thomas Huxley put it well:
It’s unfortunate that AGW “science” seems not to have followed that basic precept
Peter:
Are we to understand that you think that you are the only contributor to this blog who understands how science works?
TonyN :
Heaven forbid ! However it is fairly obvious that many AGW proponents have no concept of theory-experiment-refine…. they fudge the data; fudge the models and refuse to release original research. And then to blather on about ‘consensus’ as though Science gave a damn about consensus or democracy !
Mind you – there a few non-believers in AGW who also don’t understand scientifically methodology either.
tempterrain : denialists ?? I do not deny the theory of AGW. It is a theory. – just one that has not yet been proved; and the contrary evidence for other theories to explain the global climate variations have as much validity – if not more – than that offered by those in favour of the AGW version.
There is definitely NOT enough proof of the AGW thesis to go wrecking western civilization for.
The very use of a term like ‘denialist’ or ‘sceptic’ indicates a belief system rather than a scientific opinion.
Peter_dtm
Apologies for causing a misunderstanding, I should have referenced the comment I was responding to. Both Robin and I are aware that ‘tempterrain’ is an anagram of Peter Martin, a long-standing contributer to this blog. So the barbed remark was not in fact aimed at you, but at another Peter.
TonyN – no problem – it is always good to be challenged on these things; I always find it amusing that the AGW faithfully constantly demonstrate the religious status of their proposal; even when screaming for ‘proof’ – but why should Gore & co let a little thing like science get in the way of their money supply ?
TonyN,
You ask “…. are [you] the only contributor to this blog who understands how science works?”
Don’t tempt me!
If we had lots of Earth’s we could load up their atmospheres with different amounts of CO2. We’d then just need a time machine, which also could travel between these different Earths, to be able to sample lots of temperatures for the next couple of hundred years or so.
Back to reality. One Earth. No time machine. Maybe you would like to demonstrate some understanding of the scientific process, and perhaps prove me wrong at the same time, by putting your heads together to discuss how, given these constraints, science can go through, or get near to, the “theory-experiment-refine” process that everyone would agree is the ideal scientific method.
Discuss what might be possible and what a sensible approach towards the problem might be. How about a 1000 word essay?
Even if you don’t have the complete answer, try to write something intelligent on the topic for once. Try to come up with something positive.
Go to it Tony, and good luck fighting the Vogons.
JohnA
Thanks! The more I look at this one, the more worthwhile it seems. Burton really did fillet AIT and looking at Ofcoms reasoning in their decision on TGGWS I think it will be difficult for them to brush off a compliant that relies on the findings of a High Court judge.
Peter (tempterrain): on the other Harmless Sky thread, I asked you, re “the scientific process”, to
After various diversions, you said that the answer was the IPCC’s AR4 “Synthesis Report”. I demonstrated (here) how utterly that failed to meet my request. So having failed there, you now appear to be claiming (post 15 above) that somehow the dangerous AGW hypothesis is a special case to which the long established scientific process by which a hypothesis is validated doesn’t apply. Is that what you are claiming?
TonyN:
I just posted a comment on Peter’s post 15 (above) – it seems to have been blocked by your filter. I’d be grateful if you’d investigate. Thanks.
TonyN: Fished out of filter, see #18 above.
Thanks, Tony. It looks a bit odd – the last paragraph should not have appeared as a blockquote. But the sense is essentially unaffected.
Robin,
What I’m claiming is that you are incapable of writing anything sensible or intelligent on the subjsect.
There is just one Earth and that makes controlled experiments pretty tough. We don’t have the white mice in the lab. Does that mean that therefore no science is possible and we might as well just let the climate deteriorate uncontrollably? Nitwits would say yes. Most people would disagree.
Clinging to the null hypothesis in this case is lame and shows a desire to discredit scientific credibility for preconceived reasons.
Peter (tempterrain): so you’ve decided that your best defence to losing a debate is to resort to a cheap attempt to insult your critic. Hmm – see the NS thread (#6136) for my detailed comment on your foolish argument that, as “There is just one Earth”, the dangerous AGW hypothesis is somehow exempt from the application of the scientific method.
TonyN: I’ve edited ‘Tony’ to ‘Peter’ at the beginning of this comment on the assumption that it was a typo. Please let me know if I am mistaken.
there’s only one earth
So?
There are a lot of models; very few of them are providing accurate predictions. However they continue to be used to drive real world economic decisions in this ONE EARTH.
When the models start producing some testable (falsifiable) predictions; which actually succeed in meeting the facts – then and only then should those models be used to HELP influence policy; but only for the same time period that they;re PROVEN track record allows for.
CO2 continues to climb (but remains below historic highs) but there are indications that the ever changing climate is cooling. The main models used by the IPCC are so far off track as to be totally useless.
There is only one earth; none of the IPCC models manage to have any veracity when compared to the real thing.
But Politicians don’t understand science; Gore has an excuse. Hanson doesn’t.
Thanks, TonyN: that was a typo.
“a cheap attempt to insult your critic”
Would you prefer a more expensive attempt? I can do a very reasonable one for $10, or maybe the deluxe $20 insult is more to your taste?