Complaint to Ofcom Regarding “The Great Global Warming Swindle”

The issue of the once apparent discrepancy between modelling predictions and the satellite observation of tropospheric temperatures was a subject of much debate in the climate literature. Recent literature, however, suggests that the discrepancy is due to the methods used to collect and analyse satellite and radiosonde (weather balloon) data from the troposphere, rather than a fault in the theory (see Realclimate: http://tinyurl.com/39ayzf). This was summarized in the Executive Summary of the US Climate Change Science Program report, titled Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences, published in April 2006 (http://tinyurl.com/logfl), which was co-authored by John Christy himself (the interviewee here); and which states:

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies. [Emphasis added.]

Moreover, the programme focused exclusively on the results of Christy and Spencer, who find the smallest increase in tropospheric temperatures. Due to corrections that must be applied to the satellite measurements, alternative analyses of the same data by other groups (most notably, Mears and Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems: http://tinyurl.com/22a2hy) have found significantly larger trends. Yet these other analyses, considered by other experts in the field as being credible, were not even mentioned.

By leaving out this discussion and these findings – which cast into serious doubt the claims made by the narrator – this was an apparent attempt to mislead the public about the science of climate change.]

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