Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 08/24/2008 11:43:45 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Martin Durkin, director of Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Swindle, writes here for the first time since Ofcom rapped the broadcaster for breaching "due impartiality" and treating contributors unfairly:
Broadcast won't publish my views of the standard of journalism on BBC's Newsnight and in The Guardian. Apparently they're a bit too fruity. So you'll have to imagine what this first paragraph used to say.
When The Great Global Warming Swindle went out, more than a year ago, I knew they wouldn't like it. The soft-left green types, who dictate BBC editorial policy and pour out their confused anti-capitalist bile in the pages of The Guardian. I also know from experience how illiberal these so-called liberals are. They've had a whack at me before. But even I have been quite amazed at the sustained ferocity and viciousness of their attack.
Ordinary viewers loved the film. The duty log was inundated 6-1 in support.
The BBC's environmental journalists were embarrassed. Why hadn't they raised any of the issues I had done in Swindle? For example, the famous ice core data, which clearly shows the opposite of what we were led to believe (temperature driving CO2 levels, not the other way round).
The greens were livid. But who could they turn to? Ofcom. A swift internet campaign rallied the troops. Hundreds of complaints were sent to Ofcom, many using the same language and displaying a remarkably good knowledge of the Ofcom code.
Every line in the film, every contributor, and the film-maker of course, was subjected to the most extraordinary level of scorn and criticism.
The single biggest complaint came from somebody called Dave Rado and ran to more than a hundred pages. It claimed to be peer-reviewed, which it was not. What Rado meant was that he had persuaded a gang of leading global warmers to add their names to it.
We have spent a long time dealing with all these complaints. It has cost my indie Wag TV and Channel 4 a lot of money. What's the result? To heighten the dramatic effect, let us compare Big Al's Inconvenient Truth with liddle ol' M Durkin's Global Warming Swindle.
The veracity of big Al's film was tested in the High Court, when a lorry driver from Kent bucked at the prospect of his taxes being spent on disseminating it to British schools.
Mr Justice Burton pointed to at least nine significant 'errors' in Al Gore's film. These were not trifling. Gore's graphs didn't say what he says they say; his depiction of glaciers melting and of sea level rises, his linking hurricanes with global warming, the melting snows of Kilimanjaro, the droughts of Chad, and so on. The film, said the judge, could not be sent to schools without a health warming about these 'errors'.
Now let's look at the Swindle. Rado and the gang complained that the science was wrong, that the film contained was unscientific and factually incorrect. How many of these complaints did Ofcom uphold? Not one. Not a single one.
So what did Ofcom say? Well apparently we could have been a bit clearer with Carl Wunsch about what the final film would look like - although how, I've no idea. The letter we sent him prior to the interview (which is in the public domain) is as clear as crystal.
We gave the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change nine working days to respond to our allegations. Apparently we should have given them ten. And we didn't give a right to reply to the UK's chief scientific adviser David King – who did not appear in the film, but whose colourful views on the subject were alluded to. Big deal. These were such insignificant infringements of its code that Ofcom has not asked Channel 4 to apologise to anybody.
How was all this reported? In Australia, the Herald Sun ran the headline "Great Global Warming Swindle Cleared". Its columnist Andrew Bolt wrote: "This witch hunt against The Great Global Warming Swindle has failed utterly to discredit it, discrediting instead the accusers."
Over here, Newsnight took a different line. Channel 4 had had "its fingers burnt". The Ofcom report was damning and Hamish Mykura was dragged on to explain himself. "Are you contrite?" demanded the hectoring presenter, "You distorted the facts!" she said. "The science was all incorrect," moaned David King.
(I wonder if Newsnight will berate Channel 4 for broadcasting Al Gore's factually incorrect film, as they intend to do later this year. I doubt it.)
The Guardian went to town. It carried a greenie TV producer called Mark Dowd pleading: "When are we going to stop this denial?". Some bloke called Leo Hickman said the film was "toxic" and suggested, rather nastily, that "Channel 4 will not be in a hurry to commission him (poor old Durkin) again." My old friend George Monbiot said the film was a "cruel deception" and he asked innocently: "Why is Channel 4 waging war against the greens?"
Sadly I missed all this. I was on holiday in America with my wife and four children touring the place in a gas-guzzling Winnebago. My reading-matter was Milton Friedman (I'm odd like that). And a single passage from the book came to mind on my return.
Friedman writes: "It is entirely appropriate that people should bear a cost - if only of unpopularity and criticism - for speaking freely. However, the cost should be reasonable and not disproportionate. There should not be, in the words of a famous Supreme Court decision, 'a chilling effect' on free speech."
In the year that has passed since the film was broadcast, I have discovered what that 'chilling effect' is. It is when a programme maker needs to risk his career in order to make a particular film. It is when a commissioning editor or a broadcaster is genuinely fearful of straying into certain areas.
Frankly I don't give a stuff whether TV types agree with my views on global warming. But I expect everyone who claims to value the freedom to speak one's mind to defend my right to air them.
Martin Durkin is managing director of Wag TV and director of C4's The Great Global Warming Swindle.
ping!
ping!
Bears repeating.
Great post!
Thank you. It’s nice to see Durkin is still out there slugging away. I also find it interesting how the Left spun the Ofcom report to make “Swindle” appear like it had been discredited, when in reality nothing could be further from the truth.
PS Why the British people would ever allow thought-police like Ofcom to ever be set up is beyond me.
What we’re up against are those I call, “Liars for Jesus and Liars for Science”:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2047988/posts?page=9#9
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2047988/posts?page=8#8
Who exactly are the liars for Jesus?
The Great Global Warming Swindle.
______________________________
Is this film available for sale on DVD? Where does one see it?
“Who exactly are the liars for Jesus?” ~ GGG
Tip of the iceberg:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1964460/posts?page=5#5
*
The Reverend Sir John Houghton:
“Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.”
He then proceeds to do just that:
” .. human induced global warming is a weapon of mass destruction at least as dangerous as chemical, nuclear or biological weapons that kills more people than terrorism.”
~ Rev. John Houghton Monday July 28, 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2047988/posts?page=8#8
Yep, you can pick it up at Amazon.com. I think you can still see parts of it on places like YouTube as well.
10/4...thanks for the clarification.
Global warming on Free Republic
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.