Click to get your own widget

Wednesday, February 03, 2010


Channel 4 News last night did an item about climategate leading off with a sttatement read out from Professor Jones saying how he never done nothing gov. He didn't even have to read it personally let alone answer questions to lead the report. The rest of the first half was of the same "nothing to see here" variety. However the 2nd half was a discussion between Lord Lawson & Professor Bob Watson, a professor of Environmental Science who certainly ought to know the facts better than Lawson. Near the end of the discussion Watson stated that the substantial sea level rise we are seeing is proof of this catastrophic warming. Lawson denied this saying it is in line with the historic trends.

I have emailed him & C4
I note that during your appearance on Channel 4 last night you stated that the catastrophic warming theory was supported by the current substantial sea level rise. Lord Lawson said this was not so & that such rise was in line with what has been happening for thousands of years. This is a clear disagreement on fact.

As a Professor of Environmental Science one must assume you are well aware of the facts, whereas Lord Lawson is not a scientist. We must assume this statement of yours represents the standard of honesty to which you proponents of catastrophic warming generally aspire.

What evidence do you have that this substantial & unprecedented rise is actually taking place? I had understood the rise was between 1.8 & 3.1mm a year & has been since the last ice age which does not appear to justify the description of catastrophic.

If there has not been such substantial warming both you & Channel 4 will of course wish to give the correct facts on air.
I know the BBC have maintained their lie that sea level rise has been so enormous that the delta of the river Ebro in Spain has been subsumed & Al Gore that it has subsumed Pacific islands but that is simply the sort of total lies that represent the highest standard of honesty they ever aspire too.

If Prof Watson or indeed C4 reply I will publish. To be fair to them later results put the rise at 3.1mm & earlier at 1.8mm but neither is a significant rise & seems to be inside the limits of measurement error.

Labels: , ,

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.