The programme was actually polemical and since when are polemics supposed to be impartial?
Yet for daring to suggest that there is no proven link between human activity and global warming (not least because there has been a marked atmospheric cooling in recent years), the programme makers were deluged with protests in what looked suspiciously like an orchestrated operation by the true believers. One complaint was 188 pages long and alleged 137 breaches of the Broadcasting Code.
Yet while Ofcom ruled that its rules on partiality had been broken, it also concluded that that this did not lead to viewers being “materially misled”.
In other words, the programme makers had sought to debunk a cherished theory by challenging an orthodox view, yet did so in a way that did not mislead the viewer. So what exactly is the problem?The subsequent comparison with the Goracle's Inconvenient Truthyness is well noted. It seems some people believe polemics are only permitted on one side of the argument. This is not healthy for science or policymaking.