I find the OFCOM ruling a bit of a nit pick. Its all about, did so and so say this or not. Oh ok then they say they didn’t etc etc etc. What the OFOM ruling does not do is challenge the basic point of view. Three cheers for free speech. But if you were to read the BBC (the official spokespeople for the AGW faithful) website you would not get this impression. Indeed their headline just states that Channel 4 “broke the rules”. It also gave them another chance to spout their propaganda through this page, which also highlights the much derided hockey stick. The only real casualty is once again science, which cannot prosper from such mud slinging attacks.
From that BBC link it looks like the bumper 176 page complaint came from this Dave Rado character rather than my earlier guess that it was Bob Ward.
It's another BBC article with a strange, misleading title: "Opinion: A reluctant whistle-blower". That's the first time I've ever seen anybody using the term 'whistle blower' in the context of someone who is acting FOR the establishment. Usually whistle blowers also have some sort of inside information, which Dave Rado doesn't appear to have.
That’s a good point, since when did a “whistle-blower” get such exposure. A full page on one of the most read news web sites in the world. Doesn’t sound as though he had to fight too hard for his honour!