Complaint to Ofcom Regarding The Great Global Warming Swindle

2. Complete Transcript and Rebuttal

Page 94



[Prof Paul Reiter]

I was horrified to read the Second and the Third Assessment Reports because there was so much misinformation, without any kind of recourse, or virtually without mention of the scientific literature – the truly scientific literature – literature by specialists in those fields.

[Comment 113: This allegation that that IPCC Working Group II reports do not consider any of the peer reviewed literature by any genuine specialists in any of the fields that it covers is clearly false: in the chapter on Human Health in the Third Assessment Report, the reference list runs to nearly 7 pages of citations of peer reviewed scientific papers by specialists, and three of the references are to Paul Reiters own work (see IPCC TAR WG 2 p.483,

The chapter discusses the possibility that recent increases in highland malaria might have been caused by global warming and concludes on p.465 that there are insufficient historical data on malaria distribution and activity to determine the role of warming, if any, in the recent resurgence of malaria in the highlands of Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Ethiopia (see Thus the conclusions in the IPCC report are cautious and the criticisms Reiter makes here are factually incorrect.

Reiter must be well aware of the above, as it is all in the public domain, so the above statement by him was an apparent attempt to mislead the public.

In addition, see the statement by former IPCC co-Chair Professor James McCarthy at (PDF), describing how the IPCC processes actually work. It is difficult to see how the films position on the IPCC processes can credibly be maintained in the light of this document; and 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)


In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Professor Frederick Seitz, former President of Americas National Academy of Sciences, revealed that IPCC officials had censored the comments of scientists. He said that:

[Cut to zoomed in on-screen display of Wall Street Journal article.]


This report is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists.


At least 15 key sections of the science chapter had been deleted. These included statements like:


None of the studies cited has shown clear evidence that we can attribute climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.


No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the observed climate changes to man-made causes.


Professor Seitz concluded:


I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.

[Bookmarks on this page: Click the following link 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 113: Inaccurate claim that IPCC reports ignore literature by specialists]


Page 94 of 176

Final Revision

Last updated: 11 Jun 2007