Ofcom Refuses to Investigate GB News Over Climate Conspiracy Theories
Posted by Ian M on May 10, 2024, 11:23 pm
Another stellar performance from Neil Oliver on climate change, by the looks of things (sarc). A bit whiny from DeSmog, I thought - like they grassed somebody up to teacher and were disappointed when they didn't get punished. The ruling that it was fair expression of opinion is probably correct, though that's not how it went down with RT, and I'd be surprised if GB News were to air a counter argument or present the other side of the story in any great depth. Remarkable that Oliver just let a comment like that slide past without even a query, even appearing to endorse it. Here's the vid fyi (from 3:00):
Ofcom Refuses to Investigate GB News Over Climate Conspiracy Theories The views expressed on the channel had “absolutely no basis in fact”, experts have said. By Sam Bright on May 7, 2024
The broadcasting regulator Ofcom will not be opening an investigation into GB News after one of its guests spread misinformation about climate action, DeSmog can reveal.
Appearing on the Neil Oliver Show on 14 April, journalist Jasmine Birtles made a series of outlandish claims about climate action leading to mass deaths. She claimed a “depopulation agenda” exists that seeks to “remove seven and a half billion people from the world”.
She added that “one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore” has claimed that if we reach net zero emissions by 2050 “half of the population of the world will die”.
These comments, originally made by Moore and echoed by Birtles, have “absolutely no basis in fact”, according to Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
The comments were “an attempt at scaremongering”, he said. “The promotion of false allegations that net zero is being used for genocide is a clear breach of the Broadcasting Code”.
Ofcom has decided against an investigation, despite several apparent breaches of the Broadcasting Code, which the regulator enforces.
Rule 5.7 of the code states that, “Views and facts must not be misrepresented”, while rule 5.9 states that “alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented either in the programme, or in a series of programmes taken as a whole”.
The views expressed by Birtles were not corrected by the host Neil Oliver, nor did he or any other guest offer a different viewpoint. Oliver echoed Birtles’s views, stating that the broader climate “agenda” feels “anti-human… It feels that people are being put into second place or third place”.
Birtles told DeSmog that: “Science persuades by data and evidence and it’s important that we allow freedom of speech and freedom of opinion in discussing scientific themes. As we have seen, moment by moment in the last few years, there is no such thing as ’settled’ science, in any area. Science is constantly moving and changing and it is only able to progress if healthy debate between scientists is allowed.
“This is why I support some of the work that GB News does in allowing dissenting voices a platform – something that is so lacking in most mainstream outlets.”
A number of climate consensus studies conducted between 2004 and 2015 found that between 90 percent and 100 percent of experts agree that humans are responsible for climate change. A study published in 2021, which reviewed over 3,000 scientific papers, found that over 99 percent of climate science literature says that global warming is caused by human activity.
The World Health Organisation has stated that, between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year from undernutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.
Birtles was also wrong to state that Moore co-founded Greenpeace. The campaign group has been forced to issue statements in the past distancing itself from Moore and his views, claiming that he “often misrepresents himself in the media as an environmental ‘expert’ or even an ‘environmentalist,’ while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range of issues”.
However, Ofcom has confirmed that it will not be investigating GB News over this segment. The regulator received dozens of complaints but its website states that the Neil Oliver show on 14 April “did not raise issues warranting investigation.”
Ofcom told DeSmog that the views expressed on the show “were clearly presented as a personal opinion, consistent with the right to freedom of expression.”
Richard Wilson, director of the campaign group Stop Funding Heat, said: “Ofcom’s failure to act will inevitably raise new doubts about its ability to do its job without fear or favour, and add to concerns that it is giving GB News a free pass to air conspiracy theories.
“If Ofcom is unable to hold GB News to account over something as blatant as this, what hope can the British public have that it will do its job effectively in the run-up to the general election?”
As DeSmog has previously reported, GB News has provided a prominent platform for anti-climate perspectives since it launched in June 2021. One in three GB News presenters spread climate science denial on air in 2022, while more than half attacked climate action.
GB News was approached for comment.
GB News and Ofcom
GB News has been the subject of more than 50 Ofcom investigations since 2021, resulting in 11 breaches of the Broadcasting Code.
In March, the regulator found that GB News had breached the code on five occasions for using politicians as newsreaders. Programmes hosted by Conservative MPs Jacob Rees-Mogg, Esther McVey, and Phillip Davies were all found to have broken the rules. Politicians are allowed to host “current affairs” programmes, which typically involve analysis rather than reporting, but are not supposed to be used as news presenters.
However, campaigners have criticised the blurred boundaries between current affairs and news content, and Ofcom’s often lenient attitude towards GB News.
For example, Ofcom ruled in February that Neil Oliver had not broken the Broadcasting Code after suggesting that COVID vaccines were causing “turbo cancer”.
Ofcom also announced in April that politicians would still be able to act as presenters on the platform during a general election period. In addition to Tory MPs, several GB News presenters are representatives of the hard-right party Reform UK. They include the party’s president-owner Nigel Farage, leader Richard Tice, and sole MP Lee Anderson. Reform has campaigned against the UK’s legally binding 2050 net zero target, and says that it wants to hold a referendum on the subject.
GB News co-founder and former chair Andrew Neil has called on Ofcom to be stricter with the broadcaster. Neil told the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee in April that he had been “surprised how tolerant” Ofcom had been towards GB News.
He added: “I am surprised that any regulator would allow politicians sitting in the Houses of Parliament to present political TV programmes… on these areas Ofcom needs to find a backbone, and quick.”
Fossil Fuel Ties
A number of GB News presenters have been vocal about their support for policies that would maintain and extend the UK’s reliance on oil and gas.
On 9 December 2022, host Mark Dolan praised West Cumbria Mining’s plan to open a new coal mine in Cumbria. He said the UK should “drill, baby, drill” for coal, oil and gas, adding: “I think the push for net zero here is another element of liberal progressivism which is infecting the West.”
As revealed by DeSmog, the hedge fund run by GB News co-owner Paul Marshall had £1.8 billion invested in fossil fuel companies as of June 2023. Marshall Wace had shares in Chevron, Shell, Equinor, and 109 other fossil fuel companies.
Marshall invested £10 million in GB News when it first launched two years ago and, in August 2022, joined the Dubai-based investment firm Legatum Group in a £60 million capital injection and buyout of GB News’s other major investor, Discovery.
Marshall is now set to step back from the GB News board in order to concentrate on a buyout of the right-wing newspaper The Telegraph. He will be replaced by Conservative peer Lord Theodore Agnew, who has at least £100,000 of shares in the Norwegian oil and gas giant Equinor.
GB News reported losses of £42 million in the year to May 2023, and £76 million since its launch in 2021. It recently announced 40 redundancies, which is estimated to be a 14 percent cut in its headcount. Tell your story; Ask a question; Interpret generously http://storybythethroat.wordpress.com/tell-ask-listen/
Re: Ofcom Refuses to Investigate GB News Over Climate Conspiracy Theories
Hard to know which is the love child of Saroman: Neil Oliver who got his looks or Patrick Moore who inherited the turncoat penchant for plundering the environment. I'm still waiting on him drinking that perfectly safe quart of glyphosphate whilst his Orks chop the trees down.
On the issue brought up: the conspiracy theory that a" “depopulation agenda” exists that seeks to “remove seven and a half billion people from the world...” Well, mass death & misery is little more than what will happen either following a "net zero emissions by 2050" plan which at present completely neglects the required massive investment & mitigation to avoid the said malthusian outcome, or indeed by following alternatively the head-in-the-tar-sands path clearly preferred by the oil & gas sleazy-slick owners of GB news.
-Are the present day greens are any better that Moore though? supporting as they do destructive & environmentally toxic warfare, resulting among other things in a hugely increased budget for European defence spending and that of the US armed forces:already “...one of the largest climate polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more CO2e (carbon-dioxide equivalent) than most countries”...then of course add the massive ommissions from the Russian side and pepper the whole lot with the millions of shellholes contaminated with depleted uranium, heavy metals and other toxins covering hundreds of miles of what were prior to this some of the most fertile food producing lands on the planet.
Increasingly keen on having a go at China too, just to prove how utterly unconcerned they are over the rapid depletion of resources on deficit activity like warfare and at the same time equally uninterested in the ready-geared opportunities that China offers to create a low carbon energy infrastructure: perhaps the last chance salon for at least some mitigation to avoid all the lights going out.
-I'm afraid the mass death option seems less a "conspiracy theory" and more the unspoken but actualy preferred solution from both sides: an eschatological consensus that we are no longer required in such large numbers and they don't really give a damn how we go: as long as we do.
Interesting response Ken. Nothing to add right now, but thanks! (nm)
Agreed on the virtue signalling - it's been pitiful to watch environmentalists go from radical posturing and grand demands to uncritical cheerleaders at the first sop the govt gives them. XR is the latest iteration of this, so quick to claim victory after the govt declare a 'climate emergency', but what did it actually result in? Promises, pledges, watered down compromises, ie: f* all. But the bright greens still cling to the 'net zero' greenwashing bs, and even defend it against attacks from the right, presumably because they think it's better than nothing. But it isn't, it's worse than nothing because it gives the impression of progress being made when all that's happening is off-setting, the same carbon trading ponzi scheme, manipulated statistics and a few trees planted that won't get watered or weeded. XR used to know this, hence why their first action was against Greenpeace: '"[We are] working on building a rebellion against our broken democracy which is complicit in the ecological crisis we are facing and which is now a real emergency," Agger said. He added, "[The crisis is] a systemic problem rather than something which can be treated through changes in individual consumption."
So, where does Greenpeace fit into this? According to Agger, "NGOs like Greenpeace are part of the problem... since their messaging is a lot more narrow and doesn't tell the truth of the extent of the upcoming ecological crisis. We need a rebellion to tackle the problem we find ourselves in and Greenpeace, with their connections, could have a critical impact on the success of the uprising if they would choose to support it." ' - https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/10/19/climate-activists-occupy-greenpeace-uk-headquarters-wait-cant-be-right
But they've been well and truly NGOised, with the suspicion being that their announcement last year that they would 'quit' disruptive actions in favour of:
'building collective power, strengthening in number and thriving through bridge-building [...] committed to including everyone in this work and leaving no one behind, because everyone has a role to play [...] we prioritise attendance over arrest and relationships over roadblocks, as we stand together and become impossible to ignore' - https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2022/12/31/we-quit/
So they're incompetent, and too ready to compromise for the sake of comfort and numbers, playing the same game that all the other bought off, middle class careerist environmental groups ended up playing. But does that make them, or the other bright greens, in favour of mass death, albeit as an 'unspoken but actually preferred solution' as you say? I'm sure they would deny it and point towards xyz constructive solutions they propose (down to citizens assemblies as far as XR are concerned), but then you've got to look at their actual behaviour and the role they slot into within the context of late-stage capitalism and it doesn't look so pretty.
For me it boils down to whether you're trying to preserve the system or whether you're trying to undermine, dismantle and ultimately bring it down. There are plenty of horrors that could be unleashed on the world by trying to keep capitalism in the conditions it's used to, whether that's by doubling down on fossil fuels or pushing for a WW2-level mobilisation for renewables (sic). Greenies could play a useful idiot role in the second scenario - really, they already are. But is that actually beneficial if it merely postpones an inevitable collapse, in fact making it worse when it eventually does come? Most of the 'depopulation' conspiracy theorising comes from the right, who come down in favour of continued fossil fuel use because they (correctly) view it as the essential lifeblood of capitalism, and besides all that climate change stuff is just a socialist conspiracy to take away our money.
Anyway, the bottom line IMO is that here's no getting away from the fact that bringing humanity back within ecological limits will require a huge reduction in population as well as (more importantly) a massive reduction in levels of resource consumption. The current 8bn population is a product of the fossil fuel age and the haber bosch process of essentially turning natural gas into digestible calories. The real question is how that decline happens, and how fast. If all that happens is that the death rate slightly exceeds the birth rate then we might not even notice it and the process could take a number of centuries. On the other hand, if the system continues to eat away at the ecological base (and the skill base of people to survive without it), depleting planetary resources without putting any effort into transitioning to more viable social & economic models, then one day it will hit a hard limit it can't push through and it could all come crashing down overnight, like the reindeer on St Matthew's Island:
Somehow I don't see even the most sociopathic elites being in favour of that scenario, not least because the collapse of the system will also collapse their wealth.
So paradoxically, attempts to preserve the system of growth-dependent capitalism/industrialism will lead to the worst depopulation outcome. No conspiracy required, it merely depends on everybody with a stake in the status quo to continue investing in it, no matter the cost.
No problem & thanks: an enjoyable read. I think the state of he issue is kinda summed up by this:
"U.S. President Joe Biden, who has set a goal to make the U.S. economy net-zero by 2050 and slash emissions by 50 percent by 2030, this week also called on OPEC to boost production. The reason: prices at the pump were too high for American drivers..."
Indeed, that's one thing I don't buy from the Consciousness of Sheep guy - the idea that poor oil companies don't want to invest in new production because of mixed messages from governments. I think they're getting a load of private reassurances that the net zero stuff is just PR and won't touch them when it comes down to it. Another de-smog article points out that ministers in charge of net zero 'met with fossil fuel companies and lobbyists over 100 times last year, four times as much as they did external climate scientists, campaigners, and charities'. A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson rejected the analysis as 'selective' and that it would be:
There you go: net zero doesn't mean actual zero. And they're setting up a nice cosy relationship with policy makers where they can dictate proceedings to their liking. They'll make a big Net Zero: Mission Accomplished fanfare in 2050 and open a new carbon negative coal mine the next day. Who's going to stop them? Not ordinary people if they still depend on cars, cheap food and international supply chains - a situation that isn't showing any signs of changing, and would prob be electoral suicide were any party to be brave/principled/unbought enough to propose altering.
"...Not ordinary people if they still depend on cars, cheap food and international supply chains - a situation that isn't showing any signs of changing...
We're all in that boat one way or another. Heating is a big issue in the UK...I use an all-round boiler stove that gives me radiating heat, hot water & central heating if required: At the moment it runs on small amounts of smokeless...it's direct and pretty efficient I reckon: certainly what I pay to run it is less than half what my neighbours pay for heating oil. When I put it in I made sure it could also burn logs or peat...without the coal lorry I would have to get wood delivered probably by tractor...of course according to the Scottish government reckoning, this places me somewhat near the antichrist and an enemy of the planet wheras in fact it probably extracts more direct heat energy per Co2 out of the nuggets than any power coal plant ever could by transforming them into steam then electricity then sending that across the grid to heat up some coils in a room. The cottage is over 150 years old...so just not suitable for a heat exchanger without ripping it apart and investing lots of dosh in huge amounts of insulation & eleven tripple glazed windows. The real evil is probably the 12 year old diesel car: but still giving 60 to the gallon and at a cost of £1,500 several years ago it's probably more CO2 efficient keeping it than buying a new electric. But unless you move into town cars are a necessity.
I have considered solar panels & battery, and reckon that would cost about £8000 + payback within ten years or so and also probably charge one small electric car from the supply which would do for life now...but I see there are problems with massive insurance costs for EV's ( because there's no real supply chain in parts yet & not a genuine repair network so if it takes a dunt it will probably be scrapped...) The Yanquis has slapped 100% duty on the small useful cheap Chinese ones too: I expect idiot Britland to follow...then of course, I wonder how the government is going to recoup all the revenue it will be losing from ICE fuel duty...will I end up paying penal fuel duty even though charging from my own solar supply? I could see that being a dumb government idea... Foodwise we only have a small garden but it's packed with dwarf fruit trees...and gleaning the fields after the machines have past gives you a year's supply of spuds in a couple of days...and I make everything from scratch so a shopping trip every couple of weeks does us.
So yea...I reckon we are pretty efficient despite whatever legends the government would prefer to believe...because we have to be. We could be a lot more efficient co2 wise of course, but that would take some big investment money and given the uncertainties involved in trialing new technologies could yield some very uncertain returns. We are of course in a lucky position because most people living in towns / flats couldn't even consider a lot this stuff anywise for various reasons: again age of housing stock being a huge deal... and if in rentals it's not even your property so forget it. Anywise when I see the cost & obstacles in the way for us in a priveledged situation to seriously do something I reckon most of the households in the UK will simply never get anywhere near any kind of efficiency. The targets set are fantasy legislation, assistance available negligible or tied to officialdom and rip off recommended suppliers and the cheap import possibilities for EV's Solar panels,turbines...will I reckon be choked at source by political empire politics.
Sometimes I'm glad to be in my Sixties just to avoid what's coming...which reading the UK signs looks a lot like general atrophy partnered with the usual shortsightedness & scheming greed that's been our lot politically for the last fifty years.
Thanks for those details, it's never as simple as the Big Ideas make out when applied to individual circumstances. Sounds like you're making the best of yours (circumstances, that is). For now we're in the rental category, so the owner's problem though we have to get involved to a degree. The pattern seems to have been that they applied for grant funding for each new thing the govt was pushing, so the house we're in now, built around 100 years ago, stone walls, 2 up 2 down plus kitchen extended on the N side, has a solar array, a biomass boiler and underfloor heating.
The problem is nothing quite works as it should and of course funding doesn't cover maintenance, upkeep, repairs etc. So the solar has been on the blink since the winter, and we barely use it during the day anyway (excess power heats the boiler). And the boiler is an unfunny joke at this point. Hardwoods too expensive so we get spruce in a forestry lorry, which keeps tarring up the inside and appears to provide f* all heat. Needs chainsawing, barrowing, splitting, stacking, drying, restacking closer to the boiler then finally burning. And it just chews through wood for very little result. In Feb I weighed each log that I put in and it turned out we were burning 50kg per day, and if we wanted water hot enough to shower in it needed more. Sustainable it ain't...
The next big idea is insulation, though you can only get funding in our area for nasty internal plasterboard stuff, which would ruin the feel of the house (nice wooden panelling). External might work but they won't cover that. There was talk of the dreaded ground source heat pump, but they wanted to attach more solar to that, and the roof area was too small or something. The way electricity has been skyrocketing in price makes me think it's a v bad idea, but the only other option short of finding a fix for the boiler would be to get a large, efficient internal wood burning stove, maybe connected up to a smaller boiler. Or do what most other people have done and move out to a yurt, caravan or tiny home...
Anyway, I could moan on all day about it, so I'd better stop there.
"Hardwoods too expensive so we get spruce in a forestry lorry, which keeps tarring up the inside and appears to provide f* all heat. Needs chainsawing, barrowing, splitting, stacking, drying, restacking closer to the boiler then finally burning. And it just chews through wood for very little result. In Feb I weighed each log that I put in and it turned out we were burning 50kg per day, and if we wanted water hot enough to shower in it needed more. Sustainable it ain't..."
Yea...we've run wood a few years. Were promised it was going to be hardwoods...but found a sneaky amount of birch & spruce appearing in increasing quantities and as you say, the volume you go through is phenomenal.
The only ones I have seen worth having for wood are those with a secondary burn. A friend had one & burned mainly scrap from the joiners in it. Gave a decent heat output and was economical enough not to be running out to the woodpile every five minutes. The "large, efficient internal wood burning stove, maybe connected up to a smaller boiler..." Is essentially our setup. I have one inch pipes running up convection-wise to a coil in the tank above with electric backup and 3/4 to a pump and radiators. Been working 2O+ years now without a problem, so not bad for a self-installed system. We were also lucky that the fireplace wall was built when the farm was war-requisitioned as they made it with sturdy engineering bricks from the local pit so we didn't need all that chimney lining malarky... and thus the surplus heat goes into the solid wall acting as a huge storage heater.
Isn't birch technically a hardwood? Not up there with oak or chestnut, I know, but still better than most conifers.
Yes, burning as much of the wood gases as possible seems to be the way to go. Pricey, but as a long term investment pretty good, and as long as you've got enough coppice or willow in rotation it could potentially see you through the end of the oil age.
Dependent on global supply chains and unsustainable drinking habits, but I found this guy's technique of making briquettes from wood shavings, sawdust and coffee grounds quite impressive:
Could work without the coffee if the mix is right. Not a scalable solution unless there's a huge increase in woodworking and tree planting. Still, the kind of innovative approach that makes me feel there could be a way through the bottleneck.
-Yea but its even crappier burning than softwoods.
"found this guy's technique of making briquettes from wood shavings, sawdust and coffee grounds quite impressive.."
- a lot of palaver doing that...If I were you I would be looking for a nearby peat bank to get similar & better...but that's heretical talk these days.
on May 10, 2024, 11:23 pm