Essay by Eric Worrall
Apparently “dangerous climate lies” like claims there is no climate emergency should not be allowed to go unchallenged in TV programmes.
Ofcom to investigate complaints of climate change denial for first time since 2017
Exclusive: UK regulator makes U-turn over TalkTV and TalkRadio complaints after claims it let some broadcasters ‘spout dangerous climate lies’
Damian Carrington
Environment editor Wed 25 Mar 2026 00.46 AEDT
…
Complaints about programmes on TalkTV and TalkRadio were assessed by Ofcom, which then decided not to investigate, the same result as more than 1,000 other climate complaints since 2020. However, after a letter from the Good Law Project (GLP) in January, requesting an explanation for the rejections, Ofcom said it had withdrawn its original decision and would “consider afresh” the complaints.
One complaint was about comments from a Talk guest who said in November that climate change “was a deliberate effort to create fake anxiety … out of something that is false”. In the second case, also in November, another guest said the Labour government’s energy policies were “suicidal”, “driven by pseudoscience in many cases” and “a kind of cultish behaviour”.
…
“Rightwing channels have been allowed to spout dangerous climate lies, unchecked, for too long,” said a GLP spokesperson. “We’re glad Ofcom is finally listening and await the conclusion of the investigations. Should it fail to take action against Talk’s misinformation, we will not hesitate to hold them to account.”
An Ofcom spokesperson said: “In re-examining the programmes, we concluded that they raise potentially substantive issues under the broadcasting code which warrant investigation. We have, therefore, opened investigations [on] whether they breached our rules on due impartiality and material misleadingness.” Ofcom said it had also opened another climate-related investigation after a viewer complaint about another TalkTV programme.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/mar/24/ofcom-complaints-climate-change-denial-talktv-talk-radio
Climate skeptic websites for now do not appear to be part of the investigation. OFCOM has the power to investigate websites, and extensions to this power are being considered which might be applied to websites like WUWT.
In an age where British people can be arrested for an unkind Facebook post, the threat of regulatory investigation of statements like climate change “was a deliberate effort to create fake anxiety … out of something that is false” appears to represent a dangerous step towards shutting down freedom to criticise climate claims.
Climate change is not fake, in the sense the world has warmed since the mid 1800s. What is fake is this represents any kind of emergency.
This is a sad day for Britain. Britain can reasonably claim to be the birthplace of modern parliamentary democracy. The history of British parliaments stretches back to AD 1236, when King Henry III summoned the parliamentum generalissimum. Most of that history represents an advance of people’s right to speak, a gradual replacement of absolute tyranny with representative democracy. Threatening or curtailing people’s right to make a claim in public about a scientific point of view, whether you agree with those expressed views or not, is a major step backwards in this tradition of freedom.
Even in Shakespeare’s time, in the late 1500s to early 1600s, the British enjoyed a level of freedom unknown throughout most of the world. Shakespeare wrote plays which were widely seen as criticisms of royal policy or conduct, without being punished for his impudence – though he faced investigation on at least one occasion, for allegedly encouraging insurrection. But even Shakespeare didn’t face harassment for his scientific views.
For hundreds of years the appropriate way to respond to a scientific claim you disagreed with was to publish a counter claim. There is no tradition of having government censors on programmes to immediately dispute or red label everything the government disagrees with.
But now we face a massive retrograde step, an attempted shutdown of free speech, the right to express views about science, which is on a par with the speech regulation of the religious tyrannies of the Middle Ages, when speaking out against religious interpretations of nature and divinity was severely punished.
Is this really the kind of future Britain wants, where disputing claims we are in a climate emergency is treated as blasphemy? Where broadcasters are required to include a representative of government approved views whenever science is discussed? Because this is where Britain is currently headed.
Big Climate Brother is watching (and listening).
He was supposed to disappear into a cloud of blue steam decades ago.
hmmm… sounds like a theme for AI to produce an image… hmmmm
From a few years ago….
I bet if the Democrats were still in the White House, they would be doing the same type of censorship as they have in the UK.
Literal thought control in the UK. People get thrown in jail for praying silently.
The Democrats would be just as bad if they had the political power.
Aided and abetted by the BBC and Ofcom.
In 2006, a senior scientist present at an internal BBC seminar reportedly urged the BBC to “stop reporting the views of climate sceptics.” This led to an informal but firm internal policy shift: the BBC would not platform “climate deniers” as if they had equal scientific weight to the mainstream consensus.
This evolved into official BBC Editorial Guidelines (reinforced by the 2011 BBC Trust science impartiality review and later updates).
Key principle (still in force): “As climate change is accepted as happening, you do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate… To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage.”
In practice: The BBC has repeatedly apologised or been ruled against for interviews with sceptics (e.g., Lord Nigel Lawson in 2014 and 2017) when their claims went unchallenged. Producers are instructed to avoid “false balance.”
This is proactive self-censorship by the public broadcaster under its Royal Charter and internal rules. It is not a one-off “meeting quote” but a settled editorial doctrine that has shaped BBC output for nearly 20 years.
Ofcom is following the BBCs lead instead of doing their own job.
The BBC spouts the same rubbish re absorption of infrared. 380ppm Co2 does not have an unlimited capacity to absorb infrared. It absorbs in a narrow range leading to long wave radiation extinction over a short transit through air. The large remainder escapes to 0uter space. Increasing CO2 does not absorb more infrared – just shortens the transit distance to its extinction.
“Big Climate Brother is watching (and listening).”
Since Orwell was British (although born in India), I would very much like to believe that the UK, more than any other nation, would have learned enough from his Nineteen-Eighty-Four novel to respect free speech and a free press. Apparently, this is not entirely true.
Britain, and any other nation in the NATO alliance where we see this happening, needs to be reminded that we in the U.S. are NOT in the alliance to defend nations that are eating away at the rights of free speech and a free press. I do not know how much this is happening in other NATO countries, but I suspect that it is.
A while back, I believe USVP JD Vance gave a speech in Europe where he warned about this happening in the UK and on the continent. Some here at WUWT may not like me saying this, but here goes: The NATO countries should not think for one minute that U.S. membership in NATO will never be subject to review if respect for human rights is deteriorating to degree the U.S. finds unacceptable.
This is actually a sign that climate alarmists know that they have lost the argument. They know that they cannot refute what sceptics are saying so they are trying to muzzle sceptics completely.
Using your logic there is also a sign that someone lost a war
by threatening to revoke TV licenses for “wrong”- reporting.
They know they cannot refute the truth so they are trying to muzzle up sceptics completely.
And this case is even worse, as AGW has a certain consistency in terms of lying and propaganda while the official war-truth changes with every tweet and makes it very hard to keep up with.
Making it hard to keep up with during a conflict is the whole point if you want to keep the adversary guessing. Though the dude ladles it on too thick more often than I’d like in this case I’ll give a pass. And the other guys have threatened similar to the Starmer bunch action wrt “climate change” during the last 4 year’s clown show.
Which is what Sun Tzu prescribed –
And operate in a sphere of ambiguity as President Trump does. Unfortunately our media hates ambiguity and Mr. Trump as well as Sun Tzu.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/03/jim-hoft-gateway-pundit-esteemed-drs-win-missouri/
won supreme court case against Biden censorship against opposing views . involves google etc.
Will this win help WUWT ?
The government admits that “Unrelenting pressure from certain government officials likely had the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens.”
The important concession and agreement, secured through years of expensive and time-intensive litigation by the Gateway Pundit, is this hard-won agreement, as stated in the document:
For years, legacy mainstream media denied this was happening, and have refused to report on this case.
Now in court filings, it is not only confirmed, but this critical victory for free speech has been won.
Hi Bob,
I think WUWT is good thanks, the USA has strong free speech provisions. If Anthony ever receives a summons to appear before OFCOM I suspect what he does with that summons will make for a hilarious WUWT article.
Last year, in something I read, I learned of the difference in “speech provisions” in the UK versus the USA. The English version was that the practice developed over time in a non-codified manner. The U. S. came into being with the concept codified in the founding document. The First Amendment to the Constitution strongly protects expression from government restrictions. Thus, speech suppresions in the UK are possible while in the US they are very difficult.
[I’ve bolded “government restrictions” because it is an important context that many people gloss over.]
I was thinking of financial pressures caused by Bidens censorship.
Hope WUWT will benefit from this ruling .
Google needs to stop its censorship.
They are the ones hurting WUWT financially.
Anthony ought to talk to the lawyer who just successfully sued Google.
I read a while back that Google entered into agreement with the UN to promote the UN stories.
My attempt at verification resulted in over 20 pages of google results before finding a single link that was not UN and had a minor question about one aspect.
Anyone can conduct this test.
And guess who is going to head (DG) the BBC?
Matt Brittin, former President of Google Europe.
CV watch: Damian Carrington, PhD Geology.
That makes him something of an anomaly. Not a student of literature or classics, and a geologist who is not sceptical of AGW.
He probably found a way to milk the AGW fantasy.
don’t they all, Joseph?
Milking the AGW fantasy has now become a desirable career choice for indoctrinated students.
Couldn’t hack it in geology, so turned to churnalism for easy money
That will be interesting. I once reported a political party to OFCOM for spouting ‘dangerous lies’ about renewable energy, and the response was basically ‘God and politics are ultra vires’ – which if you don’t know Latin, is a legal term meaning pretty much ‘outside our jurisdiction’.
OFCOM needs to accept the fact that interfence with the Scientific Method is also ultra vires.
Story Tip
Kathryn Porter has published another useful and accurate breakdown of UK energy costs showing how pointless net zero is..
My browser doesn’t like that link. Perhaps if others are having trouble this will work:
OFFCOM really needs to go after the companies that keep sending high electric bills out every month. After all, wind power is the cheapest form of electricity generation yet UK consumers pay the highest electricity prices in Europe.
war is peace
cheapest form of electricity = highest price for electricity
While it is true that wind is a “cheap” form of energy, conversion of wind to distributed electrical energy is very expensive.
Coal, oil and gas are cheap in the same vein (no pun intended).
They are just as “free” as breezes and sunshine, one only need dig them up.
We should more accurately say, “Breezes and sunshine are free; the cost of extracting energy from them is gigantic, and frought with issues.”
Yes. The wind is cheap, free even. Too bad the windmills, the land they ruin, and the necessary back energy systems cost money.
Should that not be Waffen Ofcom?
Recently this corrupt and censorious quango was the subject of much hilarity.
OFCOM FINES 4CHAN £520,000, LAWYER RESPONDS WITH PICTURE OF GIANT HAMSTER
Ofcom,
Thanks. As has been explained to your agency, ad nauseam, the United Kingdom lost the American Revolutionary War. We are not in the mood to discuss the matter further, and have not been in the mood for 250 years.
I note for the record that, last time your agency sent my client a censorship fine, we responded with a hamster joke. Since you have now sent my client a giant fine, a fine so large that Mr. Whiskers’ enclosure is not big enough to contain it, we will need to send the fine to Mr. Whiskers’ giant hamster cousin, Nigel J. Whiskerford. Unfortunately, Nigel is out of the country this week, touring in Japan. Here’s a picture of Nigel in Tokyo, dressed up as Godzilla and holding an equally giant peanut.
Isn’t he just the cutest?
My client reserves all rights and waives none. Reserved rights include the right to sue you again and/or to respond to future correspondence with an even larger rodent, such as a marmot.
Or, maybe, you could just stop sending Americans stupid letters and acknowledge the sovereignty of the United States.
Byrne & Storm
Guido Fawkes
Ofcom has a vendetta against GB News and other ‘not entirely conformist’ media to censor at least and to shut down if at all possible. Having lost all rational arguments shutting people up is the only way to go.
Now that is the most logical response to European censors fining US companies I have seen.
Congress should pass a law, automatically raising extreme tariffs against ANY foreign entity attempting to censor American platforms. The EU tariff would be about 1000% at this point. Britain should get the message.
I can’t express how embarrassing our elites are on every level.
You won’t find the average bloke on the Clapham omnibus kicking off about free speech, no… that’s the Islington dinner party set led by Keith Stalin. Crimethought and wrongthink now exist in a very legal and judicial way.
In the UK the closest “legal jurisprudence” is summarised by the phrase
Search for the character string “Arkell” (or “Pressdram”) in this Wikipedia link to learn what some lawyers used to be lucky enough to get paid to produce on this side of “The Pond”.
Except US lawyers often take cases on what can be called consignment. If they win the case they get paid. If they lose, not.
Frivolous lawsuits apparently go unpunished.
Except for the defendants who generally have to foot the legal bills.
If a case is judged frivolous the plaintiff pays the defendant’s bill.
Only when a judge rules so. It is not automatic and often requires a counter suite.
Better than a hamster meme…
re: “Or, maybe, you could just stop sending Americans stupid letters and acknowledge the sovereignty of the United States.”
Hurrah!
Three cheers for Captain Spaulding!
Three cheers for Captain Spaulding!
Three cheers for Captain Spaulding!
(,Animal Crackers, 1930)
If OFCOM is gonna poke its beak in, I’d be OK if they ordered climate emergency proponents to debate climate emergency sceptics.
If I can get someone to patiently explain for 10 minutes why there is no problem, I should not be penalized because the opposing view refuses to share the platform.
Ofcom is the progenitor of Minitrue.
The trouble with promoting an official ministry of truth is that eventually “the other side” might win an election and appoint their own guy as the prime truth minister. Then you have to wait until they all retire to get back to good truthing.
(And the standard Western escape clause, the jury of your peers, well, you’ve met your neighbor, right?)
story tip:
Trump administration will pay a French company $1 billion in taxpayer funds to not build wind farms
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/23/climate/trump-totalenergies-offshore-wind-cancellation
“Considering that the development of offshore wind projects is not in the country’s interest, we have decided to renounce offshore wind development in the United States, in exchange for the reimbursement of the lease fees,” TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné said in a statement. “These investments will contribute to supplying Europe with much-needed LNG from the US and provide gas for US data center development.”
[…]
The move “will actually cause a further energy deficit in our country and increase the cost of energy certainly along the East Coast,” said Elizabeth Klein, former director of the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management under the Biden administration.
He’s probably buying his way out of the contract. One of a great many clauses, I’m sure.
You find that surprising, given a contract was signed?
I think betting on europe buying more lng in a few years when they reduce their demand (now with iran even more so) is a bad idea. Building the wind farm would have been better for the US.
It won’t work with Norway. But the [very ill fated] net zero triangle – Spain, UK, Germany are still all in.
Norwegians have more sense.
Well, they do have both oil, gas and hydro. Plus a small population.
Sorry, forgot about…fish.
Enjoy your campfire cuisine when those days arrive. Stock up on cookbooks on the subject before the coming panic run on them.
That’s a lot of projection as fossil fuels currently cause such a panic. And being at the whims of someone like trump is not a good idea, as the last few month have shown for europe.
Our panic is down to Miliband’s opposition to drilling and fracking at home – no straights of Hormuz required….
Yep, same with many other countries..
If they had looked after and established their own supplies of fuel, instead of destroying them all on the altar of the anti-CO2 religion…
…they would have no problem.
What has shown is you greentards are stuffed .. you can’t even sell net-zero in the middle of an oil crisis.
How many countries have said lets just go net-zero rather than deal with the oil crisis …. answer: ZERO.
On the converse how many countries have worked out they really can’t do without oil … answer: Every One.
Trump told the Europeans they needed to get more self-sufficient.
Again, Trump was right.
Trump is not acting on a whim. He plans on taking nuclear weapons away from Madmen in Iran.
Do you prefer being at the whim of a nuclear-armed religious fanatic in Iran?
I don’t. Thank you President Trump for stopping the crazies from getting the Bomb.
If Trump really wanted to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb he wouldve prolonged the negotiations and system Obama set up, the Non Proliferation Treaty.
But both Biden and Trump walked away.
Nuclear bombs were NEVER the motivation but it is used as a reason to go in militarily. Same as in Iraq, weapons of mass destruction.
You are i think willfully blind.
And incredibly stupid in supporting your idiotic blind spot(s). But i dont expect anything less from a thoroughly corrupted US propaganda mindset.
He/she will have to learn how to hunt, too.
There will be no food deliveries to his/her 15 minute ghetto.
Food growing, processing, packaging and delivery is totally reliant on fossil fuels.
Wind farms are parasitic. LNG provides both energy and mass.
Building a wind industrial estate has never been good for any country.
They are way too unreliable and short lived to be of any real use…
and will always require 100% back-up from reliable electricity supplies.
If you actually believe that a developed region of the world will reduce its long term energy demand, I have several bridges to sell you. At the very least, you are confusing demand with supply.
Governments can restrict supply of energy, like California has done, but they can’t control demand unless they cause prices to spike (like California has done.)
“Building the wind farm would have been better for the US.”
Why?
“Building the wind farm would have been better for the US.”
Humor – a difficult concept.
— Lt. Saavik
Building a wind farm benefits nobody but the trough feeding scum who built the wind farm.
Im betting on fast rollout of nuclear power stations. Talk about stability. Safe bet..
Klein’s welcome to her opinion in a nation with free speech, unlike the UK.
You definitely need to watch this ….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB3WVygAM8I
Your choice of news is suspect.
I don’t have time to watch a 24 minute video right now. You could always summarize it for the edification of the audience. 🙂
As for my choice of news sources- you have no clue. A bit presumptuous of you.
Not presumptious at all … as you have entirely the wrong concept of the reality.
I thus assumed that your choice of news outlet was “suspect” on that account.
Evan is an American who has lived in London for 10/15 years (I forget). Compares the freedom of speech laws/practise in both countries and breaks down the truth behind the numbers published on some social media/news outlets.
He puts in the vid of a person talking bollocks on a US news channel about the supposed UK speech situation. And Evan then duly debunks it.
All convictions in the UK were because they broke hate speech laws. The ONE case where an arrest was made wrongly (was just a whinge) they were released in 8 hours. (and awarded £20k in compensation). By contrast a case in the US took 37 days of wrongful detention before release – the man’s post showed a pic of Trump and a comment he made after the ’24 Perry high school shooting – “we have to get over it” . He merely captioned it with “seems relevant today”. Evan points out that the interpretation of “hate speech” in the US always seems to be only applied when aimed at those in power.
“Video Chapters:
0:00 Hook & Intro
1:40 What speech is protected
3:34 Has Britain really arrested 12,183 people for tweets?
6:25 What online posts get people arrested in Britain?
9:30 Does the US arrest people for online posts?
10:37 Is this really a free speech hero?
11:26 Where freedom of speech laws fail in Britain
14:43 Where freedom of speech laws fail in America
16:54 How each country sees free speech
19:46 Conclusion
23:25 Outro”
There is the element of repression that encourages people not to rock the boat, especially with certain topics like the purported “climate emergency”. We had that here too until Trump came along and blew it up. Now more Americans are willing to speak against it. Seems that in the UK few people are speaking up against the climate threat and I suspect that it’s a subtle form of repression, which is another way to limit free speech. This sort of repression is nothing new. There was the Victorian Era in both nations. Until recent years few people in either nation would dare say anything positive about cannabis. So it doesn’t have to be about the written laws. The UK along with much of Europe is going mindlessly towards Net Zero because you don’t have any leaders with the balls that Trump has to say “enough already”. And yes, I know – he doesn’t speak like an Ivy League intellectual- though people say in private he does. Sooner or later Europe and the UK will follow suit politically- just like they’re now contemplating assisting with the crushing of the Iranian mullah regime. Contemplating while sipping fine tea. 🙂
Whenever someone uses the word ‘mullah’ i know that person is a fully corrupted idiot.
They have nothing but slogans. Like a Climate Alarmist.
And they are both equally wrong, like ALL the time. But that doesnt stop the idiocy.
The way: make tactical fireworks which leads to strategical mistakes and when the objectives are not met double/ triple down in the hope of better results.
I will make a prediction: as soon as the body bags come back w some of the 5000 troups that are going into Iran we will get the Vietnam trap. One side says: pull out now. The other side says: they have killed americans..revenge.
The latter usually wins and things get worse, much worse.
Trump is too stupid to realise this and has surrounded himself w morons like Hegseth.
Nothing wrong with mullahs as long as they don’t run a country. We wouldn’t want Christian priests or New Age zealots running any country either.
There won’t be many body bags. You obviously have little appreciation of how smart the American military now is.
And you obviously can’t grasp the nuclear problem with Iran- nor the problem of Iran dominating the oil fields of the Middle East. Maybe once you grow up, you’ll have a deeper understanding.
Trump should have put you in charge of State, right? Or maybe the Pentagon. 🙂 🙂 🙂
“You obviously have little appreciation of how smart the American military now is.“
Yet they allow themselves to be led by a moronic bullyboy; that’s not smart.
You are hallucinating. You think Trump barks orders at the military? He does like all presidents- listens to what they say, especially the ones he trusts the most. If he gets bad advice then he’ll make bad decisions. It’s not that he’s leading them. He may state objectives and see how they propose to get there. And to state that he’s a moron is itself a moronic comment making you not worthy of responding to, but I like to talk to the unsophisticated, so I’ll respond. You don’t like him- fine- but you’re not advancing your own ideas and policies by simply saying the other side and their leaders are moronic. When you graduate from high school, come back and offer serious ideas. I’ll not respond to similar comments from you and I advise others to do the same until you grow up, little boy. 🙂 (or girl, or it)
Why not fess up to being a thought policeman?
Have a chat with Graham Linehan or Lucy Connolly.
Better than having a useless boondoggle soaking up people’s money until it rusts. !
Putting in wind turbines and solar panels is what has CAUSED the deficit of reliable, available energy in many parts of the USA and the world.
And why would anyone bother listening to someone from the autopen regime !
A Trump coup. Buying out the lease but getting a commitment for the billion
re-invested in fossil fuel development. The Feds could have made the lease holder sue to get their money back hence the deal. Without permits the lease is worthless.
Trump is not going to authorize any more windmills, and as is apparent, he is prepared to go after those already approved.
Good! I read where the Blue Whales were having some problems with their environment. Trump just made their environment better.
I find it shocking that the UK has no freedom of speech. And no constitution. Maybe if you got rid of your “royalty”….
Apparently they are fond of pedophiles, especially diverse ones.
We did that in 1649, then we had the Interregnum until 1660 and then Parliament brought back the monarchy, only this time under the total control of Parliament; call the monarchy what it is, a fig leaf.
The arrangement was further revised in 1688 when Parliament wanted the Catholic James II out and a protestant king in. Enter William of Orange… Parliament is supreme and yet so few appreciate that it is in fact an elected dictatorship.
The monarchy may be a fig leaf but doesn’t it cost the nation a lot?
It does
Great cost for some things is worth it if you get great value from it. But, what great value does the UK get from this lame royalty?
Faberge eggs are not cheap. It’s in the eye of the power holders.
“what great value does the UK get from this lame royalty?”
Lots of American* tourists spend lots of money to see a bit of glitter.
[ *other tourists are also available (:-)) ]
For now, but when the UK countryside is covered with ruinables, they’ll find a better place to spend their money.
As above.
Kettle calling pot black (if you are in the US).
I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your Constitutional right to prove yourself an idiot.
The UK may not have an absolute constitutional right to free speech like the US First Amendment.
Our freedom of expression is protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998.
Article 10(1) states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority…”
However, Article 10(2) makes it a qualified right. Restrictions are allowed if they are:
Prescribed by law, andNecessary in a democratic society for purposes such as national security, public safety, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health or morals, or protection of the rights/reputations of others.This means speech that is merely offensive, unpopular, or controversial can still be protected, but the bar for lawful restriction is lower than in the US, and UK courts often defer to “proportionate” limits.
PS It’s nothing to do with our royalty, QEII was wonderful, but it’s time we gave the rest of them the sack
The constitution of the Russian Federation also has freedom of speech. So, having it in writing is often worthless.
David Starkey blames Blair.
He is…not wrong.
It has both, though not in the way the US does. The constitution is unwritten and is the result of common law, decisions, statutes and conventions, but its a constitution. Unlike the US it is modifiable by Parliament with a bare majority – as when a fixed term Parliament was first set and then abolished recently. It also has considerable freedom of speech protections, also in statute and from common law.
An example of it in action was when the current government attempted to cancel the local elections of early May, but realized that it was going to lose the court case and dropped the plan. An example of free speech protection occurred in the Maya Forstater case on gender.
The UK constitution has functioned in present form since 1688, and its proponents will say that it has survived wars, social and industrial revolution, changes of population, the acquisition and abolition of the Empire.
But all this depended on some common sense of what the country was and stood for. That has now gone/ The result is the licensing of all kinds of groups and organizations to go their own way, so you have a kind informal social credit system springing up and an orthodoxy that cannot be questioned without consequences. All kinds of public issues are affected by this, basically anything to do with religion, race, gender etc.
Would it be better with a written constitution? Maybe a little. But the problem is, even the most rigorous written constitution will not help when its not valued, understood or enforced.
“All kinds of public issues are affected by this, basically anything to do with religion, race, gender etc.”
And of course the climate issue. Seems the UK government doesn’t like climate emergency skeptics.
“on a par with the speech regulation of the religious tyrannies of the Middle Ages, when speaking out against religious interpretations of nature and divinity was severely punished.”
It is generally held that the Middle Ages came to an end in the late 1400s. I challenge Eric Worrall to provide just one example of somebody who was punished, never mind “severely punished” during the Middle Ages for their interpretation of nature. Just one.
The only person who is ever quoted as being punished for “his interpretation of nature” is Galileo. He gets quoted all the time because there is nobody else to quote. But Galileo was born in 1564, long after the Middle Ages had come to an end, and his punishment was hardly severe.
But it is possible that Eric Worrall has his own definitions of the “Middle Ages” and “severe”. Maybe he is the Humpty Dumpty of WUWT: “When I use a word… it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
However, when anti-religious people have to resort to misinformation to bolster their cause, it just strengthens the case for religion.
In the middle ages they believed in witches etc etc etc – you could call that an interpretation of nature. You know what the punishment was.
The last witches to be killed in Europe were in Germany in 1738
For which, Greta Thunberg can be grateful.
Because she knows more than other people and would get burned by the scared mob?
She dropped out of school aged 12
How could she know anything worth knowing?
“She dropped out of school aged 12″
So is similar to MUNR..
Everything he/she thinks they know .. IS WRONG.
Greta knows more than other people? Do you really believe that?
I was just trying to find out why Mumbles thinks she’s a witch. And from the stereotype I heard witches had knowledge that scared other people.
“I was just trying to find out why Mumbles thinks she’s a witch.”
Why then did you not just post a simple, direct question?
a bit like you. Scaring people, that is.
She definitely knows more about bad haircuts.
“She definitely knows more about bad haircuts.”
Not really. Her bad haircuts are mediocre.
She’s probably got your number
she’s a sauvant, a bit like you.
Roger Bacon, an English friar who supported experimental science was repeatedly imprisoned by his Franciscan superiors, who were wary of his focus on alchemy and science.
“Reason in Prison: The Middle Ages” is a whole chapter in JB Bury’s book History of Freedom of Thought.
You would do well to read it. You can get it for free from Project Gutenberg.
“The only person who …
Giordano Bruno, an Italian philosopher, was executed* by burning at the stake in Rome’s Campo de’ Fiori on February 17, 1600, after being found guilty of heresy by the Roman Inquisition. *naked, with his “tongue imprisoned because of his wicked words”
[Bruno’s crimes were more church infused, but not entirely.]
Possibly John Huss? And something very unfortunate appears to have happened at Beziers during the Albiigensian Crusade to more than one person.
The Spanish Inquisition was formally founded in 1478. But before that we had:
The Medieval Inquisition was a series of Inquisitions (Catholic Church bodies charged with suppressing heresy) from around 1184, including the Episcopal Inquisition (1184–1230s) and later the Papal Inquisition (1230s). The Medieval Inquisition was established in response to movements considered apostate or heretical to Roman Catholicism, in particular Catharism and Waldensians in Southern France and Northern Italy. These were the first of many inquisitions that would follow.
Wikipedia.
There is no argument which strengthens the case for religion more strongly than the prospect of being burned alive should one not be convinced. Very effective.
Ah, you will say, but that was all different, that was about heresy not about the interpretation of nature. So that’s all right, then…
“When I use a word… it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
That is the basis for the Trans-Reality Alarmist lexicon. The list of bastardized words is extensive. The use of common/social language with context derived definitions rather than concise science and engineering definitions is what the TRAs use and if you do not agree with their novel definitions you are silenced.
I have looked at the World Meteorological Organisation “State of the Global Climate 2025”, albeit briefly.
https://library.wmo.int/viewer/69807/download?file=WMO-1391-2025_en.pdf&type=pdf&navigator=1
This paragraph appears to be totally predicated on anthropogenic reasons for an energy imbalance simply by assuming that the energy from the Sun is for all intents and purposes constant.
“The temperature of the Earth changes in response to the rate at which energy enters and leaves the Earth system. Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, all of which reached their highest level in 800 000 years in 2024 (the last year for which we have consolidated global figures), reduce the rate at which energy leaves the Earth system. This imbalance – the Earth’s energy imbalance, a new indicator in this year’s report – leads to an accumulation of excess energy.”
Also
”The increase in 2024 was the largest annual increase in the CO2 concentration
since modern measurements began in 1957. This increase was driven by
continued fossil CO2 emissions, increased fire emissions and reduced
effectiveness of terrestrial and ocean sinks in 2024. Concentrations of
methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), two other key greenhouse gases,
also reached record high observed levels in 2024. The concentration of CH4
reached 1 942 ± 2 parts per billion (ppb), 266% of pre‑industrial levels, and
that of N2O reached 338.0 ± 0.1 ppb, 125% of pre‑industrial levels.“ based on 67 years of data.
Yes, assumptions and assertions are rife throughout climate “science”.
Indeed, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if 97% of climate “scientists” relied on their assumptions & assertions to get their conjectures published.
Indeed. And to question both assumptions and assertions is concidered herecy.
And THAT is perfect proof of an ideology.
Can anybody question any general accepted scientific formulation? The answer is yes.
If not, Einstein wouldve never come up w his famous equation and everything that Newton ever said wouldve been Gospel. Well, the latter actually was reality f a good while. Would Maxwell have made his equation? Etc..
When people get hurt by lies that’s where free speech ends.
Also Ofcom as a company is free to choose their program.
Ofcom is a quango. It is not a commercial company.
Good grief.
yes, this particular troll is from under quite a deep bridge….very thick.
Presume it’s feelings are hurted and that’s hate speech too….
No that is where liable and defamation kick in and there are laws in most countries for those. What we see in woke leftard land is trying to outlaw offending someone no matter how small.
you mean like having to pay higher and higher electrical rates for that ‘cheaper’ electricity?
So why spout your nonsense?
MUNR and the UK government, are more worried about their agenda getting hurt by the truth.
“Climate change is not fake, in the sense the world has warmed since the mid 1800s. What is fake is this represents any kind of emergency.”
What is also fake is the program of manufactured attribution of the “warming” to incremental CO2. British meteorological experts explained in 1938 very clearly, from physical considerations, why one cannot reliably determine the surface temperature response by computing the radiation. Simpson and Brunt were not wrong about this. In fact, modern modeling of the general circulation helps make this point readily apparent.
May the UK recover its senses and turn from its present course toward tyrannical censorship.
More here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/15/open-thread-181/#comment-4174555
Some places have warmed, some haven’t, and some have remained relatively static.
I recall a study referenced on this site quite a while back. It divided the world into 3 categories: areas that warmed, areas that have cooled, and areas that were about the same over the last century. The world split roughly equally among the 3 categories. The areas that warmed did so slightly more than another third cooled. Thus the overall warming. Hardly global.
Climate change is not fake, in the sense the world has warmed since the mid 1800s. What is fake is this represents any kind of emergency.
Well the climate has been changing since the earth was formed – what is fake is that man’s activity somehow controls the climate and that removing a miniscule amount of CO2 from the atmosphere will stop the climate from changing. And BTW wouldn’t common sense say that there will be warming after the end of an ice age in the mid-1800s
North sea oil update – Head in Hands edition
Is that AI or BBC type editting, Strat? I can’t believe he actually did that.
When Kemi became leader, I had high hopes she would make a difference to the Tories. Sadly, no longer. I know which way I’m voting in 2029, hopefully sooner.
It’s the real deal, Redge.
This man is a true [psycho?]sociopath – no emotion, no feeling, and definitely no self-awareness whatsoever.
Express: Starmer savaged by Kemi Badenoch
Telegraph: Starmer: It’s up to Miliband whether we drill in North Sea
You get the idea.
Wow, a PM with his head in his hands in the House
It is clear that Ofcom does not have a monopoly on being correct. Even it’s cousin quango the Climate Change Committee which should know publishes the 7th carbon brief which in the first chapter is completely wrong and provably so.
The CCC is the recordholder for being wrong… and very deadly…
Grenfell: clad in climate change politics
Kensington and Chelsea Council was following government instructions.
Milliband, Starmer and, of course, Rachel would question your “fact” 😉
I’m sure they would. Therefore, bundle them all together.
It’s sad to see how the UK government has devolved into authoritarian. Like the man said about 1984, “it’s a warning, not an operating manual”.
I can right now start to a show in USA called “Ancient Aliens” that Netflix bills as a “Documentary” series.
I would simply argue that no one in climate science has developed a peer reviewed, consensus approved optimal temperature for either humans or the globe.
Until that is accomplished, no one, warmist or sceptic, can say with certainty if we are in imminent danger or not. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for both sides to make their arguments for and against, without judgement of who is right or wrong.
On average, Jim, I’d say you’re about right
I’ll get my coat….
I put your thought in more definitive terms as climate is not merely temperature.
Until the optimum climate is defined in metrics that are measurable and testable by anyone, we can not conclude we have departed from the optimum climate as we may be approaching the optimum. We do not know which way the arrow points.
That said, there is no global climate.
There are dozens upon dozens of micro climates, defined as a 30 year average of weather for a locale or region.
One cannot average micro climates to get a global climate.
Can the Sahara and Antarctica be averaged to provide anything meaningful?
Can the climates of Mercury and Venus be average to provide anything meaningful?
Does the average temperature of Miami and Las Vegas provide a useful number? Is their average representative of Missouri’s average temperature?
A conditional statement is,
If an average temperature over a large area can be calculated then it is a good representation of the average climate over that area.
One simple counterexample can show this statement is false.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/what-we-do/what-is-ofcom
Ofcom is the regulator for the communications services that we use and rely on each day.
We also help to make sure people across the UK are satisfied with what they see and hear on TV and radio, and that programmes reflect the audiences they serve. We consider every complaint we receive from viewers and listeners. Often, we investigate further and we sometimes find broadcasters in breach of our rules.
We are independent, and funded by fees paid to us by the companies we regulate.
Bingo. Just looking for a new revenue source.
Did OFCOM survey the audiences or just go with a single of moderately small number of complaint? If the audience is 1M (for example) and they received 100 complaints, is serving those complaints addressing the audience?
Sorry to say, you may not have wanted the end of free speech, but you did vote for it.
re: “This is a sad day for Britain. Britain can reasonably claim to be the birthplace of modern parliamentary democracy. The history of British parliaments stretches back to AD 1236”
AND, may very well be first, the first place in western democracies to fall to those wielding the sword and whose name shall not be mentioned (Charlie Hebdo, Salman Rushdie anybody?)
Restore Party meetup 11 April in Swindon https://www.mecaswindon.co.uk/events-tickets/lotus-eaters-live/
Moar [sic] – “The Winds of Change” (UK) Carl Benjamin / Akkad Daily, Restore Britain
From the article: “Climate change is not fake, in the sense the world has warmed since the mid 1800s. What is fake is this represents any kind of emergency.”
Or that CO2 has anything to do with it.
Here is the problem.
“We have, therefore, opened investigations [on] whether they breached our rules on due impartiality and material misleadingness.”
It is not a question of whether those in question spoke the truth or not rather it is a question whether they obeyed the rules. It doesn’t matter whether the rules are proper or legal. Once again out of control government raising its ugly pathetic head.