Leaks to newspapers last week indicated that Sir David's fairness complaint - that the programme attributed comments to him that he had not made, and did not allow him a chance to reply - would be upheld.My hunch is that the programme will be found to be in breach of both misrepresentating and misleading contributors, and failing to signal that it was, essentially, a shrill piece of hysterical opinion, and counter-factual opinion at that, not investigative journalism.
It is also believed Ofcom will back a complaint from Carl Wunsch, an oceanographer interviewed for the programme, that he was misled as to its intent.
Dr Wunsch, from the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, said he believed he was being asked to take part in a programme that would "discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change", but "what we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance".
The accuracy code, meanwhile, includes an instruction that "a personal view or authored programme or item must be clearly signalled to the audience at the outset", and that programmes covering issues of political controversy must not give "undue prominence" to any particular point of view. (1)
Which will be interpreted as an attempt by the 'elitists' and the 'so-called scientific consensus' to silence the clarion voice of truth, or some such delusion twaddle.
1 - "Ruling expected on climate film," unattributed BBC article, published online, 21st of July, 2008. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7512916.stm)