9.2 Why the fuss about Channel 4's Great Global Warming Swindle?

The programme is a one-sided polemic providing a vehicle for a number of well-known sceptics to air their contrarian views. It misrepresented the views of prominent scientists – the IPCC, David King (the UK Government's Chief Scientific Advisor at the time the programme was aired) and Carl Wunsch. It has virtually no (I hesitate to say ‘no’) scientific merit, but it does provide a useful summary of most of the main sceptical arguments (and debunks them all in one go). Quite a lot of organisations took up this particular challenge, including the UK Government, the Royal Society of London and RealClimate.

A complaint was made to Ofcom about the programme. Their ruling in July 2008 found that the programme was misleading and that it did misrepresent the views of key individuals and the IPCC – so failed to show impartiality on a controversial issue. But the ruling also said that the programme did not materially mislead audiences ‘so as to cause harm or offence’, and so Channel 4 were not penalised for broadcasting the programme.

Why the fuss, then – if it was just a piece of harmless nonsense? The answer to this is more complex. I watched the programme and discussed it with people who get most of their information on climate change through the popular press and media. They are by no means stupid, but most of them were convinced by the programme. And why not? It was a confident piece, after all. You'd have to be pretty well up on some geeky aspects of climate science to spot the main flaws. One result of the programme has been to fuel doubt, mistrust and confusion among the public on issues and, hence, to muddy the waters for individual action, which in turn weakens politicians’ resolve to get on top of the issue.

So the fuss is about how science can be portrayed through the media and the influence (whether directly or indirectly) that can have on policy development. And the responsibility that the media have in representing issues, not just in an impartial and/or ‘balanced’ way (see Section 8.6 – ‘Is the media coverage on climate change accurate?’) but, crucially, where the weight of that consensus lies.

A common response from the media is that any news is good news if it helps to keep an issue in the news and have it aired and discussed.

These web-based resources explore this subject further

• Letter from Carl Wunsch pointing out that his views were grossly distorted by Channel 4's Great Global Warming Swindle.

• RealClimate discussion: Swindled! rebuts all of the main ‘arguments’ put forward in the film.

• Website dedicated to the Ofcom complaint on The Great Global Warming Swindle, including the full complaint, the Ofcom ruling and responses to the ruling by authors of the complaint

• Press release from the National Environment Research Council on Ofcom's ruling.

• BBC coverage of the Ofcom ruling.