Global Warming Documentary: The Ofcom Report at a Glance

Ofcom says it received 265 complaints about the factual accuracy of Channel 4's documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle. Some complaints were about presenting facts in a misleading way. Others said facts, issues or alternative views had been omitted.

There were also complaints about the program's impartiality.Three individuals or organizations ? Sir David King, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Professor Carl Wunsch ? also complained about the way they were portrayed.

Presentation of facts

On the presentation of facts, Ofcom said it was of "paramount importance" that broadcasters such as Channel 4 explored controversial subject matter, with inevitable complaints. However, it said there was no requirement under the broadcasting code to make such programs with "due accuracy".

This meant that the regulator could only assess the complaints under a different rule: that such programs must not "mislead the audience so as to cause harm or offense". This set the bar high, Ofcom said.

It grouped the complaints about factual accuracy into four categories:

· The use of graphs· The distortion of the science of climate change· The argument that global warming is used by campaigners to reverse economic growth· The credibility of the program's contributors ? some of whom have been linked to the fossil fuel industry.

On the first two points, Ofcom judged that the program did not go far enough to cause harm or offense.

It said the third was justified under the right to freedom of expression and was not misleading.

On the credibility of the program's contributors, Ofcom said such programs did not have to disclose potential conflicts of interest, and that, in not mentioning them, the program did not mislead.

On the charge of misleading by omission, Ofcom said it was clear that the program was attacking a well known, mainstream view, and that viewers would have known this. There is no obligation on such programs to include a wide range of views.

Finding: Despite "some concerns about aspects of this program as regards the portrayal of factual matters" Ofcom said that "Channel 4 had the right to show this program provided it remained within the code". Despite "certain reservations", Ofcom said it did.

Impartiality

On impartiality, Ofcom said the code only applied to aspects of the program that could affect public policy. It said the first 80% of the program, which questioned the science of global warming, did not qualify because governments accepted the consensus position and would not be influenced.

The final part of the program, which dealt with subsequent policy, did come under the code, Ofcom said. It found the program did not fairly reflect other views, and that other Channel 4 programs that reflected the scientific consensus were not "sufficiently timely or linked".

Finding: Breach of rules 5.11 and 5.12, covering impartiality.

David King

On Sir David King, Ofcom agreed that the government's former chief scientific adviser had been subject to "unfair treatment". The regulator found that statements about King in the program "amounted to a significant allegation about his scientific views and credibility" to which he had not been given the opportunity to respond. It also ruled that King did not say things attributed to him in the program ? such as global warming driving breeding couples to the Antarctic.

Finding: Breach of rule 7.1, covering fairness.

IPCC

On the IPCC, Ofcom partly upheld the complaint of unfair treatment. It said the program made a number of "serious allegations" against the organization and failed to provide a proper opportunity to respond.

These included that the IPCC's scientific conclusions were politically driven, that its peer review process was corrupt and that it made untrue and alarmist statements over the spread of malaria. It was also alleged that the IPCC used the names of reputable scientists without their consent.

A separate complaint that the IPCC's first report in 1990 falsely predicted "climatic disaster" was thrown out. Ofcom said this was "not unreasonable".

Finding: Breach of rule 7.1, covering fairness.

Carl Wunsch

On Professor Carl Wunsch, Ofcom partly upheld the complaint of unfair treatment. It found the program makers had failed to properly inform Wunsch that the program he would appear in was a polemic.

It also found that viewers would have been left with the impression that he agreed with the premise of the program, despite him expressing views that supported the scientific consensus that were edited out.

However, Ofcom threw out a complaint that his comments about the presence of carbon dioxide in the ocean were edited in an unfair way.

Finding: Breach of rule 7.1, covering fairness.