Complaint to Ofcom Regarding “The Great Global Warming Swindle”

Moreover, the fact that the IPCC was not given a chance to respond to the very serious allegations made against it by Reiter in the Channel 4 programme is a clear breach of Section 7 of the Ofcom Code.]

(In breach of the 2003 Communications Act Section 265, Ofcom 5.7, 7.9, 7.10, 7.11)

Conspiracy Theory About Research Funding

[Comment 116: In fact, the US spends around $1.1 billion on climate science research (not $4 billion); with an additional $570 million on satellite monitoring of the climate (see the “Supplement to the President’s Fiscal Year 2007 Budget”, U.S. Climate Change Science Program, at http://tinyurl.com/2ok5nq).

The “over 4 billion dollars” quoted by the programme includes energy technology research, tax incentives, etc. (see the US Department of State website at http://tinyurl.com/24tmvc, which do not benefit climatologists.

Moreover, much of the climate research funding does not relate directly or exclusively to man-made global warming (see: http://tinyurl.com/35cnj6 [U.S. Climate Change Science Program]), but is also are devoted to understanding natural factors and fundamental climatic processes such as “feedbacks”.

Finally, to place this funding into context, the US Government spends $28 billion on medical research (http://tinyurl.com/yr9q7u [NIH]), and $73 billion on military research (http://tinyurl.com/2bftxb [Department of Defense]).

Thus by quoting incorrect figures and by failing to put them into context, the film maker misled the audience.]

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

[Comment 117: The programme makes a serious allegation, involving the misappropriation of public funds, in saying that scientists critical of man-made global warming are unfairly denied funding. It is therefore disappointing that the only supporting evidence offered by the programme is the unsubstantiated opinion of a single, highly partisan, interviewee (see Appendix C.19, page 143), and no solid, documentary evidence is offered. Moreover, given that the allegation raises questions about their impartiality, integrity, and competence, it is clearly a breach of the Ofcom rules, that the views of scientific funding bodies such as the National Science Foundation (US) or the Natural Environment Research Council (UK) were not represented at all in the documentary.]

(In breach of the 2003 Communications Act Section 265, Ofcom 5.5, 7.9, 7.10, 7.11)