Complaint to Ofcom Regarding The Great Global Warming Swindle

2. Complete Transcript and Rebuttal

Page 22



Given this overwhelmingly positive reaction from the scientific and business communities, it is difficult to see how one could credibly conclude that the final conclusions of the IPCC are politically driven”.]

(In breach of the 2003 Communications Act Section 265, Ofcom 5.7, 7.2, 7.3, 7.6, 7.9)

[Comment 18: Philip Stotts credentials with respect to the subjects he discussed in the programme were greatly exaggerated. For full details, see Appendix C.8, page 133.]

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

[Prof Paul Reiter]

This claim that the IPCC is the worlds top 1,500 or 2,500 scientists – you look at the bibliographies of the people and its simply not true. There are quite a number of non-scientists.

[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: 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)

[Professor Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT]

And to build the number up to 2,500 they have to start taking reviewers and government people and so on – anyone who ever came close to them; and none of them are asked to agree. Many of them disagree.

[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 21: Professor Lindzen is a respected meteorologist (weather scientist); but his credentials with respect to the specific subjects that he discussed in the programme were exaggerated; and his links to fossil-fuel industry–funded lobby groups that campaign against greenhouse gas emissions reductions should have been mentioned and were not. In addition, the direct funding he has received from the fossil fuel industry was not mentioned. For full details, see Appendix C.17, page 141.]

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

[Bookmarks on this page: Click any of the following links to go to that bookmark. You can then copy and paste the bookmarks url from your address bar, and send it to someone as a link straight to that bookmark:
Comment 18: Stotts credentials / Comment 19: Composition of IPCC / Comment 20: Pretence that government scientists and IPCCs reviewers are not scientists / Comment 21: Lindzens credentials, links to lobby groups, and industry funding']


Page 22 of 176

Final Revision

Last updated: 11 Jun 2007