Complaint to Ofcom Regarding The Great Global Warming Swindle

2. Complete Transcript and Rebuttal

Page 97



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


Research relating to man-made global warming is now one of the best funded areas of science. The US government alone spends more than 4 billion dollars a year. According to NASA climatologist Roy Spencer, scientists who speak out against man-made global warming have a lot to lose.

[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 Presidents Fiscal Year 2007 Budget, U.S. Climate Change Science Program, at

The over 4 billion dollars quoted by the programme includes energy technology research, tax incentives, etc. (see the US Department of State website at, which do not benefit climatologists.

Moreover, much of the climate research funding does not relate directly or exclusively to man-made global warming (see: [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 ( [NIH]), and $73 billion on military research ( [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)

[Dr Roy Spencer]

Its generally harder to get research proposals funded, because of the stands that weve taken publicly; and youll find very few of us that are willing to take a public stand, because it does cut into the research funding.

[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)

[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:
Section 2.13 / Comment 116: Misleading claims about amount of funding for climate science / Comment 117: Unsupported allegation of corruption against scientific funding bodies]


Page 97 of 176

Final Revision

Last updated: 11 Jun 2007