Two days ago, the Guardian published a story (“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’”) about a letter from the Good Law Project on behalf of Stop Funding Heat, which has apparently induced Ofcom to re-open investigations into Talk TV and Talk Radio’s coverage of climate change issues. According to the Guardian: ““Rightwing channels have been allowed to spout dangerous climate lies, unchecked, for too long,” said a GLP spokesperson.”).
Stop Funding Heat and Stop Funding Hate seem to be linked organisations owned by Reliable Media whose website is rather opaque and short on information as to who they are. It is a company limited by guarantee, and its statutory filings at Companies House can be found here. It is certainly effective, and seems to have a disproportionately high profile for what appears to be a very small company. According to its most recent filed accounts (made up to 31st July 2024) its current assets at that date were just £107,940, and it employed an average of just two people through the year (as it had the year before). The directors all seem to be well-meaning people, liberal types with whom I might be pleased to spend an evening down the pub. They are concerned about lies being spread about climate change. And I share their concern. Where I part company is that they seem to be concerned only about some lies. You never see organisations such as theirs (or the Good Law Project, which is acting on their behalf) calling out say, the never-ending propaganda in the Guardian, which may contain a sliver of truth and a lot of exaggeration. That, it appears, is because regardless of the nature of the Guardian’s reporting, it is aimed at making us all very concerned about climate change. And as the Stop Funding Heat website claims, “Now climate change is already harming people. And so are misleading media stories. Every month counts.” [their emphasis]. So inaccurate reporting by the Guardian will always be unchallenged by Reliable Media, Stop Funding Heat, and the Good Law Project, because they all endorse the Guardian’s agenda, and the Guardian can always be relied upon to produce an article about their activities and reports. It’s all delightfully and mutually reinforcing. What’s not to like?
The problem, as I see it, is who gets to decide what the truth is. There are often shades of grey. The scientific consensus can be wrong, and it has changed in the past regarding various topics. As Paul Homewood says in his piece about this story:
This is a chilling suppression of free speech. “Truth” is fine, but who decides what is true and what is not? OFCOM? The Government? BBC? UN?
It doesn’t end there, however. Church leaders are also getting in on the act. Another Guardian article today is headed “Church leaders criticise Christian owner of GB News over channel’s climate attacks – Exclusive: Paul Marshall also challenged over his own ‘misleading’ statements and £1.8bn of fossil fuel investments in his hedge fund”. It’s all starting to feel like a co-ordinated campaign to ensure that we can’t have a debate about climate change or about the policy response to it. I think the Church leaders might do well to contemplate Pastor Martin Niemöller’s words:
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
Am I over-dramatising? Perhaps, yes, at this stage. But for those of us who are sceptical about climate change, the extent to which it’s always portrayed as a crisis and unequivocally bad, and also about the policy response to it, where there must surely be room for intelligent and fair-minded debate, these attempts to close down the debate are deeply concerning. The letter itself can be read here. The letter starts by invoking the campaigns of William Wilberforce against the slave trade and Florence Nightingale to improve sanitary conditions and the care of patients. Calling for change over others’ attempts to defend the status quo has often driven positive social change, they argue. True enough, but it doesn’t seem to occur to them that today in the UK the status quo is net zero and climate orthodoxy. Those of us challenging the damage caused by net zero to our economy and environment, its further impoverishing of the poorest in society – we are the ones for calling for change. Ed Miliband, the Guardian, Stop Funding Heat, the signatories of the letter, the Good Law Project, and all the rest of them, they are the defenders of the status quo. But they don’t see it that way. Instead we get this:
In 2026, British Christians are again calling for change – this time for an end to the fossil fuel era and a rapid scaling up of climate solutions such as renewable energy, which neither pollutes our air nor overheats our planet and is cheaper than fossil fuels.
Which is more than a little ironic, since renewable energy in the UK is adding to our bills and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Nor does it avoid pollution – far from it. And arguably we’re offshoring the UK’s emissions to countries like China, with the result that global emissions are rising, not falling, all thanks to UK’s net zero policies.
So the view of the truth contemplated by the authors of the letter is certainly not the same as mine. I may be wrong, but so might they be. However, they can’t even contemplate that this might be so:
Grounding our advocacy is not a shared commitment to a political party or economic philosophy – in fact, we represent a range of political views and Christian traditions – but a shared commitment to the truth, which we believe finds its fullness in Jesus Christ.
Their letter, by the way, is addressed to Sir Paul Marshall, also a practising Christian (for the record, I’m not), and they have targeted him because of his “portfolio of media holdings (UnHerd, GB News, The Spectator)”. Alarmingly (to the authors of the letter, I suspect), these are “outlets which shape the thinking of millions of people and have a significant impact on our public discourse and politics.” Heaven forbid that people might have access to an alternative source of opinions other than the establishment-approved orthodoxy. This isn’t the Age of the Enlightenment, you know! What next? People being allowed to consider ideas for themselves, instead of having everything explained to them through an approved conduit. Who do you think you are? Martin Luther?
It’s good that you broadcast our views, they say, but not so good that you allow other opinions to be shared with the public:
While we applaud the decision by GB News to air the National Emergency Briefing – a series of talks from experts, delivered late last year from Methodist Central Hall, on the current and future impacts of the climate crisis – we also lament that, according to researchers, GB News platformed 953 attacks on climate science and climate action in the run-up to, and aftermath of, the 2024 general election.
That comment is footnoted by a reference to a report written by DeSmog (yes, that DeSmog). As DeSmog admits on its website:
DeSmog UK Ltd is predominantly funded by charitable and philanthropic trusts, including The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, Polden Puckham Charitable Foundation, Climate Emergency Collaboration Group and The Minor Foundation.
As most organisations do, it has an agenda. The idea that the authors of the letter cite (on more than one occasion) via footnotes to back up their claims, the work of an activist organisation funded by other activist organisations, while stressing their unswerving commitment to the truth, is more than a little ironic. As is their attack on Sir Paul Marshall’s interests:
We are also concerned by reporting which indicates that, as of 2023, your hedge fund had £1.8 billion invested in fossil fuels. If you have personal financial interests in fossil fuels, we ask, in the spirit of transparency, that you declare these interests before making public statements about the climate crisis and what our collective response to it should be.
Irony knows no limits. The authors of the letter make no reference to the investments overseen by the Church Commissioners. Their endowment of more than £11 billion exceeds by some margin the amount of the hedge fund said to be invested in fossil fuels. Some at least of the Church Commissioners’ money is invested (one assumes to make more money) in renewable energy projects:
As of YE2024, our exposure to solutions-focused funds, direct real assets and publicly listed companies focused on environmental solutions added up to more than £920 million.
And this:
Agreements in place to explore lithium extraction in South Durham that could provide up to 20% of the UK’s future requirements.
There are plenty of investments in similar vein. Funny they don’t mention these interests in their letter. And they’re only interested in interests being declared if they’re interests in fossil fuels – interests in renewables aren’t worth mentioning, apparently:
Likewise, we would ask that GB News presenters and guests, as well as contributors to The Spectator or UnHerd, might also, in the spirit of transparency and in the interest of honest debate, declare any personal interests in fossil fuels up front (on air or in print/online) prior to engaging in any discussion related to climate, energy, the natural world or decarbonisation.
They genuinely seem to be completely unaware that their arguments cut both ways. In their eyes, there can be only one truth. It must be a bit tricky for them, then, to be in competition with another religion, which they also seem fervently to support.
What else?
We also note with dismay that, according to researchers [De Smog again], GB News presenters have made dozens of inaccurate or misleading statements about climate change alongside platforming a think-tank which has in the past been funded by the fossil fuel industry.
The horror! And what are the statements that have upset them so much? Well, there are these:
…your assertion that decarbonisation (‘net zero’) is ‘leading the way in wrecking our industrial base’, ‘impoverishing our people’ and ‘sacrificing our energy security’…
Those are all opinions that I hold, and I hold them in all sincerity. I believe they are backed up by facts, and that they represent the truth. Are the authors of the letter really claiming that such views not only have no place in polite society, they should be censored from the mainstream media? Perhaps so:
We are concerned that these statements are misleading. As many economists and experts have shown, decarbonisation is a huge growth opportunity which will save trillions of dollars in the long-term alongside improving our health and wellbeing and contributing to the UK’s national security.
Yet many economists and experts (e.g. Kathryn Porter, David Turver, Gordon Hughes, and to an extent at least, Sir Dieter Helm) profoundly disagree with the claims being made by the authors of the letter. But even if they didn’t, alternative views about a profoundly and critically important policy, impacting as it does on the economy, on the health of the environment, and on national security, must be allowed to be heard.
These are dark days. Censorship is knocking at the door. It must be resisted, and true liberal values restored.
Climate Scepticism 
Here’s an alternative view to the Guardian’s:
“Ofcom Accused of “Orwellian” Assault on Free Speech After Launching Probes into Climate Sceptic Comments for First Time in a Decade”
https://dailysceptic.org/2026/03/26/ofcom-accused-of-orwellian-assault-on-free-speech-after-launching-probes-into-climate-sceptic-comments-for-first-time-in-a-decade/
…According to the Guardian, Ofcom has received 1,221 complaints related to climate change since January 2020, with none resulting in a ruling that the broadcasting code was breached.
According to the complainants, then, the system must be flawed. It doesn’t occur to them that perhaps the complaint were unjustified and/or inappropriate.
LikeLike
“Shut up,” the first resort of those with a weak argument, who are determined to win come what may.
Ofcom won’t bite here, but it would be interesting if it did – and not bad for the sceptics’ cause on topics like Net Zero, I’m sure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve been working on an essay as my attempt to understand contemporary news reporting and beliefs. Here’s a small part of it-
The Traditional, the Modern, the Postmodern
These three examples of authority are not mutually exclusive. The main differences are described below-
TRADITIONAL MODERN POSTMODERN
or Bible SAYS EXPLAINS SAY
2) Proclamation, doctrine, Observation, experi- Goals, models, experts,
Commandments: mentation, data, replication consensus:
TRUTH : THEORY TRUTH
Time line- eternal Time line- tentative Time line- instrumental
Dogma used to explain Science used to inform “Science” used to
and control, and control, persuade,
ie. morality ie. engineering ie. political action
LikeLiked by 2 people
By the way, the propaganda runs deep. Here’s a clip from GB News (having a debate about this very issue, allowing both sides to express their views):
https://x.com/GBNEWS/status/2037279722560803114
“Climate change is a reality, it’s a fact…..even now, look how cold it is. It was really warm last week. This is climate change…“.
Really? Oh dear. That is patently nonsense. It’s weather, not climate change. I’m sure all climate scientists would agree with me about that. Should the speaker be banned from spreading this misinformation on GB News? Of course not. But I bet the people complaining about GB News and Talk’s coverage of the climate change issue won’t be in the least bothered about this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Societal change and political unrest which has nothing to do with ‘climate change’ will cause far more serious damage to us.
IMO.
LikeLike
A quick online check suggests that of the 1,221 complaints to Ofcom that the GLP, Stop Funding Heat etc complain about, Reliable Media are responsible for more than 50 about GB News since March 2024 and Stop Funding Heat made 46 complaints about GB News’ climate coverage in 2024/5 alone.
It also appears that the Good Law Project itself generated a campaign to email Ofcom to demand action:
“Thanks to the 15,000 of you who told Ofcom to take climate misinformation seriously, the regulator has announced that it will be launching two investigations into TalkTV’s broadcasting of fake climate news.”
https://goodlawproject.org/this-action-is-now-closed-climatemisinformation/
However, because the webpage on the GLP website has now closed, it’s difficult to get to the bottom of that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That page has not been archived at Wayback, it seems. On the other hand, I can’t find anything about GLP or their on-going campaign against Talktv on the Ofcom website, either.
LikeLike
It’s how propaganda works, though. Make lots of complaints, using two separate activist groups, both controlled by the same people. An organisation (GLP) with similar aims launches a campaign to encourage members of the public to complain. When the complaints thus generated don’t result in action, the GLP makes a formal complaint about the lack of action, and gets its pals at the Guardian to give the complaint lots of publicity. This results in action being taken. “Liberals”, eh? (By the way, I’m not having a go at liberalism – I believe in it myself. I just think that many modern “liberals” have become profoundly illiberal).
LikeLiked by 2 people
And while I’m on this subject, just try to imagine the headline and narrative in the Guardian if the story had been about, say, the GWPF and an associated climate sceptic organisation, making multiple complaints about, say, the BBC’s climate reportage, running a campaign to encourage 15,000 members of the public to make similar complaints, then getting supportive lawyers to make a formal complaint when Ofcom didn’t take their complaints seriously enough.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Two cheers for the Guardian. Despite its relentless campaigning, it has allowed a right of reply (of sorts – a letter isn’t anything like as powerful as an article):
“Focus on net zero policy is harming Britain
Paul Marshall says calling for an end to fossil fuels is impractical, in response to church leaders’ criticisms of GB News’s stance on climate science”
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/mar/30/focus-on-net-zero-policy-is-harming-britain
The net zero consensus is crumbling – that is the background to the open letter addressed to me last week from 60 well-intentioned but misguided clerics (Church leaders criticise Christian owner of GB News over channel’s climate attacks, 26 March). I share their concerns for stewardship of the planet and their belief in the importance of human flourishing. I also agree that the planet is in a gradual warming phase and that carbon emissions have contributed to this.
Where we differ is on their policy response. Calling for an end to fossil fuels is an impractical and ideological policy position that leads to the emasculation of our main sources of energy at the expense of millions of jobs. It is subject to what is called a collective action problem. Net zero might work for the UK if the whole world had signed up to same timeline. However, India and China have very different and distant schedules. And now that the US has left the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UK is left pursuing a path of unilateral economic disarmament.
UK industrial electricity costs are now two and a half to three times those of China, and four times those of the US. This is destroying the competitiveness of our energy-intensive industries, from steel through oil refining and chemicals to automobiles. It is also ruining our competitiveness in the industries of the future, most notably AI. Thousands of people are losing their jobs in our industrial heartlands as factories are closed and investment withdrawn. This is the very opposite of human flourishing.
Perhaps most worrying is the impact on elderly and poor people, who not only suffer from depressed incomes but also cripplingly high energy costs. It is estimated that there were 2,500 excess deaths last year among elderly people who could not afford to heat their homes.
All policies have trade-offs. Our clerical friends are proposing that the working people of this country suffer very real personal costs in the hope that this will reduce global warming. It won’t.
I like the reference to unilateral economic disarmament. It mirrors my own thinking, as expressed here:
https://cliscep.com/2021/12/05/lessons-from-history/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Welcome, but To little to late Guardian. The damage has been done & seems some are looking for the exit as reality hits.
LikeLike
I’m not far right (far from it) and I have no time for the far right, but – oh, the irony!
“‘Raise our heads and resist’: how Europe’s civil society is fighting back against the far right
Rightwing parties are using parliamentary queries, legal traps and policing to target NGOs and stifle dissent”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2026/apr/01/raise-our-heads-and-resist-how-europes-civil-society-is-fighting-back-against-the-far-right
Well, the Guardian would know all about stifling dissent!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Meanwhile, Reliable Media/Stop Funding Heat are certainly doing their best to clamp down on free speech:
“Written evidence
Building support for the energy transition”
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/8941/building-support-for-the-energy-transition/publications/written-evidence/
Yes, Parliamentary committees do see their task as building support for their preferred policy, whether than asking whether it’s what the public want. Various people (including Roger Harrabin) and various organisations, submitted “evidence” to the Committee, including Reliable Media/Stop Funding Heat:
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/140054/pdf/
…Stop Funding Heat has documented multiple instances of UK media outlets disseminating climate disinformation, alongside a clear failure by Ofcom and IPSO to intervene. Thus regulatory inaction is allowing narratives that directly undermine net zero objectives to persist unchallenged. The scale, volume and reach of this media disinformation campaign is simply too great for any Governmentrun awareness campaign to effectively counterbalance. Rather than relying solely on public campaigns to tackle anti net zero narratives, the Government must therefore work towards minimising the impact of climate disinformation in the first place, particularly across regulated media. One of the most effective actions that the Government – and Parliament – could take would be to hold Ofcom to account over its repeated failure to address the systematic promotion of climate disinformation within UK broadcast media. Another vital step will be to ensure that the UK Government’s advertising expenditure is fully aligned with its energy transition goals – and that no taxpayers’ money is spent on advertising with media outlets that promote climate disinformation.…
…Questioning or challenging ideas is a normal part of democratic discourse. However, under the guise of open debate, some actors deliberately spread disinformation to create doubt and delay action. These individuals and organisations often have ties to the fossil fuel industry and benefit from eroding public trust, deepening polarisation, and obstructing meaningful progress on climate action.…
Those with ties to the renewables industry don’t count? Those funded by “green” billionaires have no vested interests and are all as pure as the driven snow?
As for all this disinformation?
…GB News hosts and guests regularly belittle climate advocacy as “scaremongering” or “alarmism.” On 17 September 2024, GB News presenter and former Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg lamented “climate change alarmism” and cited the “medieval warm period” and the “cool period at the beginning of the 19th century” as supposed evidence of the naturally fluctuating climate. He then said: “I’m not trying to argue with whether there is an effect of what mankind is doing. What I’m saying is that this is manageable, and some parts of it are actually good because they increase productivity”. On 31st July 2024, the same host also made the misleading argument that climate change will reduce cold-related deaths and is therefore beneficial overall.…
I love that! “As supposed evidence…”. And they lecture others about mis- and disinformation. BY the way, there is plenty of evidence that mild warming is reducing net deaths from extreme temperatures, since there is good evidence that more people globally die from cold than from heat. To suggest otherwise is at best controversial, at worst misinformation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
More from the Reliable Media/Stop Funding Heat’s submission to the Parliamentary Committee (this is under a sub-heading “”GB News airs misleading attacks on renewable energy”):
Renewable energy is consistently portrayed on GB News as unreliable, costly, ugly, and even harmful to the environment…” [I would argue that all of those claims are either factually correct or at least a very legitimate opinion that cannot simply be dismissed as misleading or wrong].
They also complain about the Daily Express:
…In March 2025, the Daily Express told its readers that “climate change is not an existential threat but one we can adapt to” and misleadingly claimed that “a little more carbon dioxide makes the world greener.” [Again, both claims are are at least arguably true and are certainly not unarguably false or misleading. They are a legitimate point of view that most certainly should not be banned or censured].
The Daily Mail, the Telegraph and the Sun all receive criticism for daring to question the wisdom of the government’s energy policy and for having “platformed anti-net zero rhetoric”, How shocking!
If people like this lot get their way, freedom of speech is in serious jeopardy. As is the truth.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Is this a storm in a teacup, or is it – as some would have us believe – more sinister? I am inclined to dismiss Farage’s carping, but I take Toby Young’s point:
“Ofcom under fire for handing £50,000 to The Guardian’s charity
Nigel Farage accuses broadcasting regulator of being part of ‘cosy media club’ after payment”
https://archive.ph/pkyXj#selection-2241.4-2245.96
...Filings show Ofcom provided £50,000 in funding to The Guardian Foundation last year to support its Untold Stories project, which teaches news and media literacy skills to children in impoverished areas of Greater Manchester and London.
In addition to outreach programmes, the scheme invites young participants to a dedicated classroom in The Guardian’s London headquarters to learn about news reporting.…
…Lord Young of Acton, the Tory peer and founder of the Free Speech Union, said the payment was particularly concerning given The Guardian is not a member of the press regulatory Ipso, instead policing complaints internally.
He said: “It’s genuinely odd that Ofcom has given £50,000 to The Guardian when, almost alone among UK newspapers, The Guardian eschews any regulation of its content.
“If you’re misrepresented by The Guardian, your only recourse is to complain to its internal ombudsman – in other words, it marks its own homework. If only Ofcom granted the same latitude to GB News and Elon Musk.”...
…A spokesman for The Guardian Foundation said: “The Guardian Foundation’s Untold Stories project delivers resources and workshops in schools and at our education centre.
“The aim is to support young people to develop their voice, think critically and build resilience against misinformation. Led by our education experts, the project will provide vital data to inform future work across the sector.”
The Guardian Foundation was set up to promote press freedom and access to liberal journalism around the world. Its primary funder is the Scott Trust, the £1.2bn fund that owns The Guardian.…
And yet the Guardian seems to support (it certainly provides publicity for) organisations such as the Good Law Project and Stop Funding Heat, who seek to persuade Ofcom to clamp down on freedom of speech in respect of media outlets that enable people to tell inconvenient truths of which said activist organisations disapprove.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One of the authors of the letter written by Church leaders, has a letter in the Guardian today:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/apr/05/paul-marshall-and-the-truth-about-net-zero
It concludes this:
…It is both curious and disheartening that as our dependence on expensive and volatile fossil fuels continues to lead to dangerous climate tipping points and wild spikes in energy prices, Sir Paul and GB News appear so dedicated to keeping our unsustainable status quo intact. Why?
Rev Dr Darrell Hannah
Chair, Operation Noah
Perhaps reading more widely than the Guardian might give you some idea? But I’m glad that you think the status quo (which includes net zero) is unsustainable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But Mark, what do you expect fro the Chair of Operation Noah – https://www.operationnoah.org?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well at least they are “Science informed” –
“Faith and science should complement each other, and at Operation Noah, we see no conflict between the two.
Our work is informed by the latest scientific research, which helps us understand the natural world and gives us insights into the environmental challenges we face and how the Church might be called to respond. We regularly cite research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Energy Agency (IEA) and other respected scientific and research bodies. We strive to communicate the latest climate science to churches and Christians around the UK.”
LikeLiked by 1 person