Complaint to Ofcom Regarding The Great Global Warming Swindle

2. Complete Transcript and Rebuttal

Page 23



[Prof Paul Reiter]

Those people who are specialists but dont agree with the polemic and resign – and there have been a number that I know of – they are simply put on the author list and become part of this 2,500 of the worlds top scientists”.

[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 96.]

(In breach of Ofcom 5.7)

[Prof Richard Lindzen]

People have decided you have to convince other people – that since no scientist disagrees, you shouldnt disagree either. But whenever you hear that in science, thats pure propaganda.

[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)


This is the story of how a theory about climate turned into a political ideology.

[Patrick Moore]

See I dont even like to call it the environmental movement any more because really it is a political activist movement; and they have become hugely influential at a global level.

[Comment 24: Patrick Moores credentials with respect to the subjects 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.5, page 132.]

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


It is the story of the distortion of a whole area of science.

[Comment 25: The narrator is again expressing contentious opinions as if they were undisputed facts, without any supporting evidence being provided.]

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

[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 22: Inaccurate claim about IPCC author lists / Comment 23: False claim that evidence-based scientific agreement equals propaganda / Comment 24: Moores credentials, links to lobby groups, and industry funding / Comment 25: Narrators opinion regarding distortion of science expressed as fact]


Page 23 of 176

Final Revision

Last updated: 11 Jun 2007