Bookmarks
Key
Download PDF

Extracts from Ofcom Complaint, by Category: Falsification/Manipulation

4. Falsification/Manipulation by Quoting Selectively

It should also have been pointed out by the narrator that Reiter is not an expert on the effects of large-scale environmental change on human health; and nor is he considered to be a malaria mosquito expert – he is more of an expert on other types of mosquito (see Appendix C.18, page 142 and Comment 109, page 89 [of the full complaint]).

Thus the above narration is deeply misleading, both concerning the IPCC, and regarding the current state of scientific knowledge.]

(In breach of the 2003 Communications Act Section 265, Ofcom 5.4, 5.5, 5.7, 5.11, 5.12)

[Narrator]

In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Professor Frederick Seitz, former President of America’s National Academy of Sciences, revealed that IPCC officials had censored the comments of scientists. He said that:

[Cut to zoomed in on-screen display of Wall Street Journal article.]

[Voiceover]	This report is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists.
[Narrator]	At least 15 key sections of the science chapter had been deleted. These included statements like:
[Voiceover]	None of the studies cited has shown clear evidence that we can attribute climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.
[Voiceover]	No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the observed climate changes to man-made causes.
[Narrator]	Professor Seitz concluded:
[Voiceover]	I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.

[Cut to on-screen display of IPCC reply to these allegations.]

[Narrator]

In its reply, the IPCC did not deny making these deletions, but it said there was no dishonesty or bias in the report; and that uncertainties about the cause of global warming had been included. The changes had been made, it said, in response to comments from governments, individual scientists, and non-governmental organisations.

[Comment 114: The documentary should have made clear that this refers to events that took place in 1996, surrounding the release of the Second Assessment Report, which has been superseded by two more recent assessments.

Continued …

[Bookmarks on this page: Click the following link to go to that bookmark. You can then copy and paste the bookmark’s url from your address bar, and send it to someone as a link straight to that bookmark:
Comment 114: Wall Street Journal allegations]


Page 15 of 16	Final Revision	Last updated: 11 Jun 2007