The Rado Times




Remarkable isn’t it….climate sceptics are denounced as unqualified bloggers or lay persons with vested interests and therefore shouldn’t be able to criticise the consensus or be given due weight by the BBC…..however someone who supports that consensus, however unqualified, is welcome to comment…in fact the BBC will go out of its way to assure you that such a person is a ‘simple, unqualified, layperson’ merely concerned about journalistic accuracy and the health of the planet with no axe to grind….so much so that they might give them a platform to tell their story.


Dr Joe Smith (CMEP) explains:

Channel 4’s Great Global Warming Swindle cut through what Ofcom termed the ‘current orthodoxy’ in media treatments of climate change.

I’d recommend that anyone in any doubt about the reasons to complain about the programme view the full complaint at Ofcom Swindle complaint .

But the story behind that complaint is interesting in itself. A concerned member of the public got up off his sofa after viewing the film and spent the next 18 months convening a massive effort by leading scientists that went through every frame of the film detailing its inaccuracies. His story appears on the BBC News Website .


Indeed it does:

Opinion: A reluctant whistle-blower

Channel 4’s The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary, broadcast in March 2007, broke Ofcom rules, the UK media regulator has ruled.

Dave Rado, who co-ordinated a formal complaint to Ofcom, explains why he felt compelled to challenge the programme’s contents.

‘I’m simply a person, unconnected with any environmental or scientific group, who believes that a public service broadcaster should not be allowed to deceive the public about science – particularly on issues that have profound implications for our future.’


How odd then that this simple person, Dave Rado, unconnected with any environmental group, should spend 18 months running a campaign against C4…and yet be quite so complacent about the BBC using green lobbyist material as ‘fact’…….

Here suggesting it’s dodgy but if in a good cause……


Himalayan glaciers ‘melting fast’, BBC:

“Melting glaciers in the Himalayas could lead to water shortages for hundreds of millions of people”

‘Admittedly this article has the disadvantage that it quotes a WWF study – it would be nice to find a similar one that was independent of any lobby group. But it’s mainstream stuff and worth quoting if you can’t find a better one on the Himalayas’ glacier melt and the likely effect of this on neighbouring countries.’



Rado isn’t quite all he seems but keeps his life and connections to the greens well hidden….but the BBC’s Richard Black (naturally) let’s the cat out of the bag:

“The programme has been let off the hook on a highly questionable technicality,” said Bob Ward, former head of media at the Royal Society, who played a prominent role in co-ordinating objections to the film.


Guess how many of these objections were sustained by Ofcom? Just seven out of 265, none of them relating to factual errors but to minor technicalities relating to procedure….despite that Black claims...’Human hands are driving climate change, Ofcom acknowledges’…and…’I think this is a vindication of the credibility and standing of the IPCC’  Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC.


Ofcom actually said:

It is not within Ofcom’s remit or ability in this case as the regulator of the ‘communications industry’ to establish or seek to adjudicate on ‘facts’ such as whether global warming is a man-made phenomenon, nor is Ofcom able to reach conclusions about the validity of any particular scientific theories.


In other words Ofcom didn’t ‘acknowledge human hands are driving climate change’ as Black claimed.


So climate propagandist Bob Ward ‘played a prominent role in co-ordinating objections to the film’…..but still, Rado is a reluctant whistleblower, a simple, concerned citizen……



oh yes and…….As original complainants against the programme, we are appealing against this aspect of the Ofcom ruling on the grounds that the programme did breach the Broadcasting Code by misrepresenting facts and views, and in doing so it undermined trust in broadcasters and harmed the audience by misleading it on an important issue.’
Bob Ward and Dave Rado



….however this isn’t the only complaint he has made about climate reporting:

Complainant Name:
Mr Dave Rado

Clauses Noted: 1, 2

Publication: The Mail on Sunday

Mr Dave Rado of Colchester complained that articles published in the newspaper inaccurately claimed that the “green credentials” of the Toyota Prius were undermined by its use of a battery containing nickel.


Here he is again on a pro-climate website:

Dave Rado at 09:14 AM on 1 November, 2007

To say that climate change is definitely not even partially responsible for the loss of glacier ice mass on Kilimanjaro is an inaccurate misrepresentation of the science. As Raymond Pierrehumbert’s article that you linked to made clear, it is likely to be at least partially responsible.



Here he is urging Greenpeace to run a campaign in Feb 2007:


So far from being as the BBC describe him, a ‘reluctant whistleblower’ he is a serial complainer and activist…and why a ‘whistleblower’?  A word designed to give him some moral legitimacy …he’s hardly a whistleblower…he doesn’t work for C4 and the programme wasn’t a secret to be ‘whistleblown’ about…it was broadcast on national TV!

So the BBC is massaging his image for effect to give him some credibility as someone completely unconnected to the climate lobbyists.


He has set up a website in fact to further his campaign:

He claims this about his complaint……

The complaint is not an attack on free speech (see “About Ofcom” for more details). It was filed because the complainants believe public service broadcasters have a duty to maintain minimum journalistic standards, and that the public has a right to expect broadcasters, and especially public service broadcasters, not to set out to mislead us. Although billed as a “science documentary”, the film was in fact a slick, and very clever propaganda piece.



And yet, as stated before, he has absolutely no concerns about the BBC broadcasting what is known to be false claims about the Himalayas based on green lobbyist mis-information.

And the BBC had no concerns about him actually being a green activist and not merely a simple concerned citizen seeking to improve public service broadcasting standards.


Ofcom’s ruling on accuracy of the Global Warming Swindle:

In summary, in relation to the manner in which facts in the programme were presented, Ofcom is of the view that the audience of this programme was not materially misled in a manner that would have led to actual or potential harm. The audience would have been in no doubt that the programme’s focus was on scientific and other arguments which challenged the orthodox theory of man-made global warming. Regardless of whether viewers were in fact persuaded by the arguments contained in the programme, Ofcom does not believe that they could have been materially misled as to the existence and substance of these alternative theories and opinions, or misled as to the weight which is given to these opinions in the scientific community.


Ofcom Decision: A Humiliating Defeat for Bob Ward

Summary on the Program Complaint
In relation to the program complaint, it’s hard to imagine a more thorough stuffing of the complainants. They were lucky they didn’t have to pay costs.


Hardly the impression you get from the BBC’s (Black’s) excited reporting of the ruling.





Viewers expect to be adequately informed about matters in the public interest, including of course minority views and opinions. As the European Court of Human Rights has made clear, subject to certain exceptions the principle of freedom of expression applies not only to:

“… information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society’. Freedom of expression …is subject to a number of exceptions which, however, must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions must be convincingly established”.





Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to The Rado Times

  1. Richard Pinder says:

    ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ was the last British television documentary to include the Astronomy censored by the BBC.

    After this documentary, Astronomers have had to learn to produce their own journalism and DVD’s, one DVD that I recommend is called “The Cloud Mystery” about the cosmic ray induced Albedo changes that cause climate change, it can be obtained from the website.

    It is also useful to find scientific papers on the “Google Scholar” website.

    But developments in Astronomy have moved on since 2007, with the CLOUD Experiment results and the Unified Theory of Climate as well as the findings about the speed of plasma in the Sun and its relationship with the movements of the Baricentre.

    As to how this relates to the weather, I would advise people to look at the Weatheraction website of Piers Corbyn.

    Thanks to the Internet, Astronomy may be able to overcome this tax payer funded censorship by Journalists.

    One idea being suggested, is to find funding for pamphlets of articles that have appeared in the Space Special Interest Group Newsletter of Mensa, which could then be posted to everyone in Britain, but they haven’t found a millionaire yet for that.

    But it is a strange contradictory world, where all but a few Journalists, censor Journalism.

    For instance, “New Scientist” magazine, regularly headlines new theories that have no proof to them, and yet any new findings with proof from Astronomy, is censored, if it relates to the Svensmark theory. And now, new findings coming from unexpected angles, are coming forth, every few months.


  2. Guest Who says:

    ‘however someone who supports that consensus, however unqualified, is welcome to comment…in fact the BBC will go out of its way to assure you that such a person is a ‘simple, unqualified, layperson’ merely concerned about journalistic accuracy and the health of the planet with no axe to grind….so much so that they might give them a platform to tell their story’
    The pulpit handed Mr. Rado by the BBC given his body of voiced concerns does seem generous, especially from an entity whose own complaints department actually uses numbers of complaints without regard for their validity as reason enough to ban any seeking to voice concerns.
    Such hypocrisy is of course not unique to the BBC, but they do seem to practice it enough to perfect.
    It seems they are not so much vexed by complaining, just those that don’t suit. A perfect complement to their editorial then.


  3. George R says:

    This is the sort of educational diktat on climate which BBC propagandists support in relation to Britain’s young people:-

    “No A-level for ‘climate change denier.’
    Brainwashing about global warming percolates throughout the education system.”

    By Christopher Booker.


    • Richard Pinder says:

      The left must now see the Scientific Method as dangerous. Suppose a child asks a physics teacher how too calibrate carbon dioxide warming, would just asking that question mean that the child would be punished?

      The problem with “to form their own view of the evidence” is that on the one hand there is no evidence for carbon dioxide warming in the scientific literature, that could be included in any Education text book on Atmospheric Physics.

      And on the other hand, I can’t imagine that there is anything in School science lessons about Solar Astronomy, if it touches on Climate Science.

      The upside down world of a genius failing exams for pointing out scientific errors in exam papers, while the morons who pass, go on to be employed by the BBC, because they parrot the propaganda, without thinking for themselves, shows another angle to the reason why the most inferior people in society seem to accumulate at the BBC.


  4. johnnythefish says:

    ‘And the BBC had no concerns about him actually being a green activist and not merely a simple concerned citizen seeking to improve public service broadcasting standards.’

    The BBC don’t give a stuff either way, they do what the hell they like because they believe they’re untouchable.


  5. Big Dick says:

    “The Great Global Warming Swindle ” made by Martin Durkin & his company Wag TV ,who also recently made the “Farage ” tv documentary & last year`s one on the great “Maggie” . I know that he is, one of us,for sure .


  6. Phil Ford says:

    The Great Global Warming Swindle was the last time I ever saw Channel 4 show even a suggestion of real journalistic integrity and genuine intellectual enquiry over the whole wretched issue of CAGW. Since then – and to the channel’s eternal shame – they have been cowards, enthusiastic CAGW cheerleaders and, led by their own ‘Dear Leader’, the doctrinaire comrade Jon Snow (when will he just retire?), more politicised over the issue at times than even the blinkered Politburo over at the BBC.

    In short, Channel 4 have been a disgrace in the matter of giving balanced, impartial coverage to climate-related issues. Since caving in to what we now understand to be nothing less than the usual co-ordinated media attacks by warmist zealots determined to promote falsehoods over fact, the channel has been a constant source of pro-CAGW propaganda bulletins, with its endless re-runs of ‘extreme weather’ sensational tripe attempting to pass itself off as factual programming, whilst repeating again and again the tired, meaningless tropes of the warmist zealots. with no attempt made – ever – to offer a balancing view.

    So far, so BBC, then. And just like the BBC, Channel 4 will continue to sponge off the taxpayer whilst offering itself up as nothing less than a job-creation scheme for leftwing activists and professional liars.


    • chrisH says:

      Had a load of green zealots in one of my science classes a while back( 13/14)…bright but arrogant, so self-righteous and virtuous.
      Rowed with a key group of girls who hated me, kept mentioning the on-message science teachers who`d disagree with me.
      Argued-then gave them this link to Martin Durkin.
      Not heard a peep since-but a few eggy looks in the staffroom, but no-one`s going to take me(or it) on.
      Teachers have not been paid to think since 1976…and the new breed are sheer state ciphers for the UN/EU and in the pay of Blair still.


      • johnnythefish says:

        The brainwashing of our kids is the most sinister aspect of the alarmist agenda. I’ve seen both my grandkids go through it at secondary school – and it permeates every subject.

        Where’s Orwell when you need him?


        • Simon says:

          it does – someone at work had a question in their English exam about climate change…insidious


          • Simon says:

            ….daughter’s exam that is


            • Wild says:

              “the new breed are sheer state ciphers…in the pay of Blair still”

              It is what the Left mean when they talk about “politics” – an unlovely combination of ideological coercion and theft i.e. they tell you what to think and take your money (and freedom of choice) as their reward.

              It was inevitable the BBC would be taken over by the Left. It both undermines plurality and is a gravy train of entitlement for otherwise unemployable middle class arts graduates.

              The prosperity of the Country is in an inverse relationship to the size of the BBC.

              If we would have had a continuous Labour government since 1945 (the ideal of the Guardian reading classes) the UK would now be a Third World Country.


  7. Simon says:

    As always with the left – they want free speech but only if it is saying what they want to hear otherwise the person is a racist, little Englander, flat earther etc etc


  8. John Standley says:

    When my nephew returned home after his first term at university (about 7 years ago) he assured me that all AGW sceptics are “funded by big oil” and that “the BBC is the most trusted source of news” because his lecturers said so..

    He learned more about the issue from me in the next 10 minutes than he had learnt in 3 months of “higher” education.


    • Phil Ford says:

      John, I’ve been in similar situations. I remember some while back daring to suggest that I had issues with CAGW to my sister’s partner (he’s a senior lecturer a Welsh university which shall remain nameless) – the ensuing display of righteous indignation, spluttering incomprehension and outright anger on display from him was quite a revelation: a normally mild, well-mannered man suddenly became a totally different person and quite a scary one, too.

      This is what unexpected dissidence does to these indoctrinaire types. Living and working, as they do, in their hermetically-sealed self-congratulatory leftist progressive bubbles of passive political agreement on everything, it’s a total shock for one them to suddenly run into someone ‘outside of the box’; someone who has the sheer temerity to express an unapproved opinion on The Agreed Climate Narrative.

      It’s frightening. It’s a sign of just how insidious, deeply-ingrained and completely viral the dishonest CAGW meme has become. It permeates every level of school and university, all public services and every echelon of politics and the media, infecting all as it spreads, adults and children alike.

      Like something from The Body Snatchers or Village of the Damned, it’s downright creepy. In the end, it becomes so widespread, so accepted, that only those who still maintain the ability to tell truth from fiction can speak out against it – but for doing so they risk being cast into social exclusion, branded a ‘denier’ and subjected to endless public insult.