Complaint to Ofcom Regarding “The Great Global Warming Swindle”
Appendix G: Professor Bert Bolin’s Peer Review Comments
I find this article exceedingly well and carefully written and cannot spot any inaccuracies. I wish here simply to add further factual information that I recall from my time as chairman for the IPCC, 1988 – 1997.
Comment 1. [Note by the authors of this complaint: this is Comment 17 in the current document.] I have seen this comment that that “the conclusions of the IPCC are “politically driven”. I have never seen this statement elaborated to show by whom such political initiatives have been taken, nor have any aims of such political motives been specified.
Comment 2. [Comment 19 in the current document.] I fully endorse the analysis made. On the other hand, in 1998 Professor Seitz, in his capacity of being President of the George Marshall Institute initiated a pubic appeal in the form of a Petition that was circulated widely across the US, in which case reference was made to 15 000 experts in the field that clearly was a fallacy, see further Comments 9.
Comment 7. [Comment 73 in the current document.] A somewhat longer quote from the Summary for Policy Makers seems most appropriate. ‘The size of the warming [so far] is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability; alternatively this variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger human-induced greenhouse gas warming. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from observations is not likely for a decade or more.’This statement describes very well the state of knowledge in 1990 and research during the fifteen years since then shows that this conclusion was indeed well expressed and largely correct.
Comment 8. [Comment 74 in the current document.] This is a very common criticism that still appears for example on the Internet. The last IPCC Assessment Report again shows the lack of credibility of such views, but of course recognises that variations of solar radiation probably plays some minor role
Comment 9. [Comment 114 in the current document.] The incident that is referred to occurred in 1996 in the aftermath of the appearance of the Second IPCC Assessment Report, SAR. I had been present at the Working Group 1 Plenary session in November 1995 in Madrid, when the conclusions referred to by Professor Seitz were agreed by representatives from about 90 countries. It is most appropriate to cite the key paragraph that repeatedly came up for discussion during the year and also on many occasions later:
[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:
Last updated: 11 Jun 2007