Extracts from Ofcom Complaint, by Category: Misrepresentation of People’s Views

[Comment 18: Philip Stott’s credentials with respect to the subjects he discussed in the programme were greatly exaggerated. For full details, see Appendix C.8, page 34.]

(In breach of the 2003 Communications Act Section 265, Ofcom 5.7, 5.8)

[Comment 19: The IPCC is divided into three working groups: the first considers the science of climate change, while the second assesses the impacts to society and nature and options for adaptation, and the third assesses options for mitigating climate change (see: http://tinyurl.com/yvn5ym). Many of the topics in the second and third working groups are outside the expertise of natural scientists, and more appropriate for social scientists: economists, for example, and other experts from both public and private sectors. It is therefore quite appropriate that scholars with a range of expertise beyond the natural sciences are involved in writing the IPCC reports.]

(In breach of Ofcom 5.7)

[Comment 20: There are government scientists who contribute to the report, but government scientists are scientists. The reviewers of the scientific content of the IPCC reports are also scientists.]

(In breach of Ofcom 5.7)

[Comment 22: There is no evidence to support this claim, which appears to have been made in an attempt to discredit the IPCC in the minds of less well-informed viewers – for details see Comment 115, page 22.]

(In breach of Ofcom 5.7)

[Comment 23: Few scientists disagree with the ideas that the Earth orbits the Sun, that the Universe is billions of years old, and that humans are the product of millions of years of evolution. Are we to conclude that, when one hears these ideas, they are “pure propaganda”?]

(In breach of Ofcom 5.7)