Saturday
Nov132010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Ofcom and an Inconvenient Truth
Nov 13, 2010 Climate: other Media Tony N has a must-read story about his travails with Ofcom over Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
This story begins with Ofcom, the public authority that enforces broadcasting legislation in the UK, telling me that Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) is not a ‘factual documentary’, and ends with them deciding that climate change - the subject of the film - is not a matter relating to current public policy. You may well wonder how this could have happened, and it will take some time to explain.
Reader Comments (34)
Very informative, and well-documented saga. My first reaction was that either the disciples of Gramsci have successfully penetrated the likes of Ofcom and the BRC, as well as the broadcast organisations themselves, or that there are some remarkably feeble and incompetent people employed in these 'watchdogs'. But a further few moments of reflection produced a less colourful hypothesis: perhaps many of the staff and leadership of the 'watchdogs' come from the world of the mass media, having merely stepped sideways, so to speak, to pursue new career opportunities.
But that is incidental. The immediate problem is to raise £49,900 towards the estimated £50,000 to £100,000 thought sensible to have ready to pay for a judicial review. They can tap me for the £100 part of the balance if it is required.
A long read, but well worth the effort, which is nothing compared to the effort of Tony N. I hope someone comes forward to support a judicial review.
I note the excellent Andrew Durkin documentary about the UK's £4.7trillion debt, shown the other evening on Channel 4 and would recommend all to watch it. You can see from the bureacracy exemplified by OFCOM why the UK is in a financial disaster situation.
I know a barrister who might be prepared to act pro bono.
Tony writes well and clearly. I guess he has never been employed in the law or 'public service' where such a tendency would have been beaten out of him pronto.
Once upon a time I would have been shocked that a 'public body' should act in such an incompetent and arrogant way. But since their politicisation over the last few years, they just seem to be playing to par here.
I'd be happy to make a small contribution to a judicial review.
PS - can we persuade Tony to become a regular here?
The Broadcasting Review Committee considered that in the film An Inconvenient Truth the principal subject was Anthropogenic Global Warming and that this in itself was not public policy according to the Committee.
What an important quote this could turn out to be, it should filed and refferenced for future use.
Next time that a 'documentary' is broadcast on UK television that tries to enforce the 'facts' rather than the 'beliefs' of AGW then the decision of the BRC can be rolled out as an irrefutable statement.
I would thank Tony for his efforts in providing the foot ready to be shot at an 'inconvenient moment'.
Count me in for £100.
I recall that it was part of Channel 4's original remit to kick over the traces, and was very pleased that they had broadcast Swindle. That they caved in and broadcast the wretched AIT was saddening. TonyN's efforts are most admirable.
If he decides that a judicial review is doable, I too will see what I can do to help.
And I thought Telephone Hygenists had a useless occupation, what do Ofgem do for us that is any more useful.
I'll chip in too if necessary
I love the way sceptics are such persistent buggers :-)
I’d happily shell out £100 to see a proper battle against AIT, just as I’ve got money set aside in case the Climategate person/s get caught. My main worry would be that it could escalate above £100,000, especially if our side ends up paying the legal bill for the other side. The upside, funding coming in from the common man and woman has a powerful media draw. The Guardian lot were quite impressed when we stumped up cash for Steve M to fly over. It might wake up a lot of silent supporters and also open the eyes of those who still haven’t heard that there’s something wrong with climate science.
The first debate we should have – is AIT the right vehicle to take a stand on? Upside – it is still shown in schools and I’m sure they aren’t doing a good job explaining the errors. Downside – it’s somewhat elderly and disputing it might not raise enough media interest.
"...just as I’ve got money set aside in case the Climategate person/s get caught."
Funny how it's all gone very quiet on that, isn't it? Despite the fact that Mann has repeated, in all of his recent interviews, that the e-mails were hacked and stolen.
I wonder what he knows, that neither the public (or the police apparently) know?
An extraordinary tale which deserves a much wider hearing. Perhaps Dellers could "precis" it and use it to beat Ofcom like a dog. Whilst the account needs to be read in it's entirity to appreciate the sheer full extent and panoply of the venality and obfuscation shown by Ofcom and its shifty lawyers I am sure there are "soundbites" (Ofcom claims " AIT not a documentary!" Shock ! Horror! ) that can be used to launch a Dellers polemic?
Judicial review would be a waste of money. No guarantee of success... and very little publicity to be had with even a successful result.
Where is the evidence that a Judicial Review would actually produce a satisfactory result? To me it appears that OFCOM has introduced complexity, deliberate misunderstanding and misrepresentaton at every opportunity. Can we be sure that a Judicial Review would be able to disintangle and simplify? I would hope so but I remain sceptical.
Slightly OT:
In another hostage to fortune Ben Goldacre in The Guardian writes today:
"If science has any credibility, it derives from transparency. When you make a claim about how something works, you provide references to experiments, describing what was done so it can be replicated, detailing what was measured and how. Then people discuss what they think it means in the real world."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/13/bad-science-rodial-boob-job
Fine sentiments, I'm sure we'd all agree. Unfortunately Goldacre only stands by this principle when judging the safe easy stuff. In this case a cosmetics company flogging "bigger boobs in a can".
Let's remember this quote if Goldacre mentions CAGW again, a subject on which he can say "I am very happy to affirm that I am not a giant expert on climate change" but still hold a dogmatic view based largely on the fact that he takes the work of Mann et. al. at face value and doesn't like the politics of some of the people who are sceptical.
Despite the new quote, I somehow don't see him demanding greater transparency and the opportunity for replication in climate science any time soon.
Howzabout avoiding the courts, and their costs and risks, and instead just hire a QC to deliver his or her opinion? The good level of documentation would be very helpful, and provided the statutes are reasonably clear, this would presumably be a task for which only a relatively modest amount of time, and fees, would be called for.
Jack Savage. 'Dellers' is going to be spoiled for choice when he gets back on Sunday. I think the story in the Graun, about 1200 British politicians, lawyers and economists being flown to Bangladesh by OXFAM and Bill Gates in order to create a MOCK TRIBUNAL against the US and Britain over 'climate change', is frankly incredible. If ever we needed proof that all those bodies we once admired, are now totally corrupted, this is it.
I take it OFCOM would then reject similar complaints against a broadcast of Ben Stein’s “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” based upon its prior cinematic release.
This is now on WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/13/gores-movie-in-the-uk-behind-the-scenes-battle/
I detect the unmistakable nose of vintage Chateau Blanc de Chaux de l' Establishment.
Many thanks for all the kind words and offers of support. They make what has seemed like a futile exercise seem much less so.
Peter T:
It is well worth looking at Mr Justice Burton's Judgement here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
This shows how the highly developed forensic skill of a High Court judge can cut through a welter of background noise and distinguish sound evidence from b******t in order to reach a perfectly sensible decision. And remember that it was a government ministry that was in the dock on that occasion.
You know, viewed from across the pond (and most of the NA continent), this effort seems pointless and counterproductive. What does Tony N hope to win? Another token wrist slap, a la GGWS?
Pick your targets.
--
"The [Saudi] government's decision to replace salesmen with Saudi
saleswomen at lingerie shops will be implemented in two phases,
according to Abdul Wahid Al-Humaid, deputy labor minister for
planning and development..." --Arab News, Jeddah
Peter, is your quote a way of saying 'knickers to you?' ;-) British Joke.
It seems to be going blog-viral. Its on GWPF now.
I have to admit I don't understand Peter D. Tillman above either. Apologies if I am missing something obvious.
Yes. Wondering what phase 1 and phase 2 could be...
U.S. President Barack Obama said in a statement that he welcomed the decision to release Ms. Suu Kyi, who he called a "hero," but he said it "does not change the fact that she, and the political opposition she represents, has been systematically silenced, incarcerated, and deprived of any opportunity to engage in political processes." British Prime Minister David Cameron hailed Ms. Suu Kyi in a statement, describing her as "an inspiration for all of us who believe in freedom of speech, democracy and human rights."
===
They say all these politically correct things while pushing the carbon fraud and attempting to silence dissenters by calling them "deniers". So much for democracy and human rights *sigh*
Peter Tillman
It is important because it is the thin edge of a wedge that can only get thicker if it remains unchallenged.
I got a bit irritated at reading "illusive" all the time when it's actually spelt "elusive".
This situation looks like a cup of black Kafka.
Do take TonyN’s advice and read Mr Justice Burton’s judgement. It shows how good a decent legal mind can be at clarifying a complex situation.
As this story goes viral, British commenters can do a useful job in correcting the inevitable misinterpretations when the colonials and ex-colonials get hold of it, due to misunderstandings of the British political and legal context. I’ve already seen a misleading comparison with the Hansen / Kingsnorth case (a jury decision, not that of a High Court Judge, or a government appointed qango).
Kafka would be proud. If climate change is ‘not a matter relating to current public policy’ perhaps they could explain the existence of the Department of Energy and Climate Change...
Tony N, I sympathise greatly. I've been pursuing the BBC on a climate related complaint for over two years now. It is just amazing how these people manage to avoid answering/discussing the points that you actually raise. And I am totally gobsmacked that Ofcom seem to be as bad if not worse in this regard.
Richard Posner pointed out, back in the early 1970s, that “regulation is not about the public interest at all, but is a process by which interest groups seek to promote their private interest .. over time, regulatory agencies come to be dominated by the industries regulated.” Hence Ofcom.
It almost looks like Tony N was grifted.
They argued truth / fairness and ignored public policy [pulling TonyN's argument in that direction]. When it was decision time, they suddenly changed to a new public policy argument and declared victory.
"Public policy" refers to things the government does, or requires others to do, through force of law.
Asking people to individually use less energy is not, strictly speaking, seeking a change in public policy. Likewise, asking people to make other personal lifestyle choices is not seeking to change public policy. [Evidence that the documentary asked people to exercise "political will" or contact their political leaders would demonstrate relation to public policy - especially if one could show historical lobbying patterns in the wake of AIT]
The "not related to public policy" distinction is an impressive, fine, legal point. Had Channel 4 ignored the public policy point in its submissions to a court of law, the court could not have surprised TonyN with such a determination, sua sponte.
I wonder if UK boards and commissions are allowed to make determinations on such points without asking the complainant and respondent to brief such issues [as a judge would have to do...].