A Place to Stand

James Nansen was the principle defence witness here & he has put what he said here It runs to 14 pages & mostly consists of treating the Catastrophic Warming Theory as true rather than a theory with no actual supporting evidence. Beyond that there is a fair bit of being economical with the numbers, giving the impression of things without actually saying so. For example "Present rates of sea level rise and species extinction are already rapid compared to rates of change in recent millennia". Nobody knows what the rate of species extinction is because nobody knows how many there are & the rate of sea level rise may have as much as doubled from the 6" a century it has been for the last 10,000 years, or it may not since the margin of error is greater than the measurement. Since "rapid" is a subjective term it cannot be said without question that Hansen was lying on that.

On the other hand he said:

"....Sea level is now increasing at a rate of about 3 cm per decade or about
one-third of a meter per century..."

"....What has changed recently is the steady global warming, at a rate of about 0.2°C per decade" in fact it has declined since 1998 & is now back to where it was when Hansen first predicted 0.5 per decade 20 years ago

"business as usual [ie warming at this rate] would lead to a great increase of extinctions and the possibility of ecosystem collapse" there is no evidence whatsoever of this

"These summary facts were known by the UK government, by the utility EON, by the
fossil fuel industry, and by the defendants at the time of their actions in 2007:
(1) Tipping Points: the climate system is dangerously close to tipping points that could have disastrous consequences for young people, life and property, and general well-being on the planet" It is not "known" & it is not true. Temperatures are lower than in the Medieval warm period, in turn lower than the Late Roman warming, in turn lower than 5,000 BC. None of these had the promised "disastrous effects" though the Sahara was lush 5,000 years ago.


These are all lies told under oath in court. They are lies which could have been easily refuted had the "prosecution" made the attempt. A fair trial is only possible if the prosecution & defendant are on different sides. Somehow I doubt if the authorities will show the zeal in prosecuting perjury here as in the Tommy Sheriden case.