OFCOM’s Clampdown on Free Speech

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

The Government’s state censor, OFCOM, is now actively attempting to clamp down on any debate about climate change that challenges establishment orthodoxy.

Two decisions by OFCOM this month have made this crystal clear.

Climate Change is a Hoax – Trump

The first concerns a GB News interview with President Trump, in which he called climate change a “hoax”.

According to the Telegraph:

“GB News is facing an investigation over claims it broke broadcasting rules by failing to challenge Donald Trump when he called climate change “a hoax”.

Ofcom said it had launched an investigation into a re-run of a GB News interview with Mr Trump for the midday broadcast of The Weekend

The regulator previously declined to launch an investigation into the original airing of the same interview 12 hours earlier, on GB News’ The Late Show Live, stating the programme had featured “alternative perspectives” as part of a panel discussion.

The new investigation concerns a second screening of the sit-down interview on Nov 15. OFCOM is expected to examine the surrounding content shown alongside the interview.”

I am not quite sure what right OFCOM think they have to challenge anything a foreign leader says. The President is fully entitled to his views and, whether OFCOM like them or not, the public have a right to hear them and make their own judgement.

Interviews with foreign leaders are broadcast on all channels, and they often include incorrect statements and outrageous views – is the BBC, for example, now expected to dispute everything that Putin, Xi or von der Leyen tells them that sounds a bit dodgy?

And it is the BBC, of course, who regularly report propaganda from Hamas or the Iranian regime as if it were factual and without any challenge at all.

Interviews with foreign leaders tend to be deferential, unlike ones with our domestic politicians, who we expect to be grilled. The public want to hear what Trump and the rest have to say, not listen to interviewers’ gotcha questions.

Was what Trump said controversial? Yes.

But the BBC has often broadcast equally controversial claims from the alarmist side of the climate debate.

Take, for instance, one Greta Thunberg!

In 2019, BBC Radio 4’s Today programme aired a pathetically servile interview with the then 16-year old schoolgirl, during which she made several outlandish, factually incorrect claims, including that climate change was an “existential crisis”. No serious scientist believes this to be true.

She also blamed climate change for starving polar bears and causing environmental damage. But at the time of the interview, it was already known that polar bears were thriving, with numbers having risen since hunting was banned in the 1970s. And whatever the cause of environmental destruction, it certainly is not the weather.

Thunberg then went on to incorrectly state that “most emissions are not caused by individuals”, but by corporations and states.

At no stage during the interview was she challenged about any of these claims. Nor did the programme offer the chance for other guests to present different views.

For some reason, OFCOM never investigated the BBC for their egregious failures.

It’s Heresy To Criticise The Met Office

Much more chilling though was OFCOM’s decision last week to uphold a Met Office complaint against Talk TV.

Last October, while still working for Talk TV, Mike Graham interviewed the highly respected energy analyst, Kathryn Porter. Most of the interview concerned high energy costs imposed by Net Zero, but at one point the conversation turned to the poor quality of the Met Office’s weather station network, with Porter commenting:

And the other thing is that some of these weather stations that do exist produce junk data. There’s one I think in Regents Park or St James’s Park, one of the London parks, where the equipment is surrounded by a concrete wall and right next to a diesel generator. So, obviously, there’s a huge amount of heat being both created in that little space and contained by this wall and, obviously, that equipment is going to record higher temperatures than it would on the other side of the wall….you shouldn’t use a weather station that’s in such a compromised position. And then they will say, ‘oh, well, you know, it’s, it’s so much hotter than it was in the past’.

OFCOM outlined the Met Office’s complaint:

Ms Porter suggested that Met Office weather stations produce “junk data”. The complainant said that this was untrue, and that it had a “world-class network of over 350 land-based weather observation sites”. It explained that each station is located in accordance with World Meteorological Organization (a UN Agency) best practice

OFCOM upheld the Met Office’s claim that they had been unfairly treated, but significantly made no judgement about the accuracy of Porter’s claims. If the Met Office is using shoddy scientific practice, it should surely be exposed, whether they like it or not.

So, was Kathryn Porter right about junk temperature data?

In 2024, the Met Office were forced to admit,following a FOI request, that most of their temperature station network was not fit for purpose. Of the 380 sites in their network, 297 were classified as Class 4 or 5, based on the World Meteorological Organisation -(WMO)- classification system:

The WMO classification system has five classes based on siting, with “1” being pristine and “5” worst of all. WMO explain the factors that can cause poor ratings:

They specifically state that class 5 sites should not be used for climatological purposes:

A class 5 site is a site where nearby obstacles create an inappropriate environment

for a meteorological measurement that is intended to be representative of a wide area (at least

tens of km2)

Yet that is exactly what the Met Office does. Those 380 meteorological stations are used to calculate regional and country-wide average temperatures. When you hear claims that last summer was the hottest on record, remember that the temperatures were based largely on data from sites which have been artificially heated by as much as 5 degrees because of poor siting. The Met Office assure us that they know the UK’s average temperature to a hundredth of a degree!

The Met Office’s claim that “each station is located in accordance with World Meteorological Organization best practice” is an outright lie. Best practice is to NOT use junk Class 4 and 5 sites.

According to the WMO, Class 5 sites can have added uncertainty of up to 5C. Class 4s are little better with uncertainty of 2C, and even Class 3s can add 1C to underlying temperatures.

Plenty of examples have been found of just how poorly sited many Met Office stations are – next to roads, car parks and airport runways, in suntraps and even in the middle of heat reflecting fields of solar panels. Some are even located in walled gardens, which were built deliberately to create a warm micro climate!

Kathryn Porter’s comment, “So, obviously, there’s a huge amount of heat being both created in that little space and contained by this wall and, obviously, that equipment is going to record higher temperatures than it would on the other side of the wall” sums the issue up perfectly.

Lying to OFCOM is surely a serious offence and they should immediately reverse their decision, apologise to Talk TV and hold the Met Office to account.

Threat to Free Speech

The implications for free speech, from the Talk TV decision in particular, are chilling.

The statements made on the Mike Graham show were not incorrect in any way. The suggestion that criticisms of the Met Office cannot be broadcast because they might be offended is preposterous and a threat to free speech.

OFCOM’s bias in this case is there for all to see in their findings. Kathryn Porter, they say, is “described as an independent energy analyst”. She is not “described” as one, she is one. OFCOM then proceed to dismiss the Daily Sceptic as a reliable source of information.

At the same time, they clearly regard the Met Office as being beyond criticism, a fountain of truth.

There are similarities here with OFCOM’s attempts to shut down debate during the pandemic; any criticisms back then of lockdowns, facemasks or jabs were quickly suppressed by OFCOM. Now it seems that challenges to the establishment climate and Net Zero orthodoxy are also going to be suppressed.

An exaggeration?

Just two months ago, OFCOM announced that they are reopening investigations into three Talk TV programmes broadcast last year, which they had already looked into and found no issue with. Since then they have been pressured by Jolyon Maugham’s Good Law Project and as a consequence reopened them.

All three programmes featured guests offering their personal opinions about Net Zero and climate change. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and have the right to express it. But not for much longer, if OFCOM get their way.

Their plan is now clear. If you put enough pressure on the likes of GB News and Talk TV, they will stop inviting these pesky sceptics onto their shows. In other words, censorship by the back door.

It is truly Orwellian. Who is to determine what is correct and what is not correct? OFCOM, BBC Verify, the Government?

We might just as well go the whole hog, and have a Ministry of Truth!