Must see TV: BBC’s Andrew Neil grills Britain’s Global Warming Chief – Update

Update: This is my bad. I was in such a hurry to post this after watching I forgot who tipped me off. Of course it had to be the Instapundit. My bad. Tiny post, so visit the whole site.

I debated posting this, but after watching it for the second time, I think it’s a must for everyone, including your schools.

This is what happens when the Global Warming scientists are faced with a reporter who is more than prepared. They end up looking foolish. Not the reporter, but the scientist.

The debate is between BBC’s Andrew Neil and Chief Scientist at the Department for the Environment, Professor Robert Watson and IPCC head honcho Professor Robert Watson.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzb8FljvGGI

4 replies
  1. SoundOffSister
    SoundOffSister says:

    That is, without a doubt, one of the best cross examinations I have ever seen.  After it, no juror would believe anything that witness said.

  2. tom
    tom says:

    <cite>I'm happily shocked that BBC aired this,as their pensions are heavily invested in climate and carbon trade companies,as well as their past chicken little reports.</cite>

    <cite>Good work,Jim !</cite>

    <cite>p.s. was glad to hear you play Alison Krauss' 'too late to cry' last week</cite>

    <cite>now i know you enjoy the cd.

    </cite>

    <cite>

    </cite>

    <cite>climateresearchnews.com/…/bbcpension-funds-linked-to-climate-policy/</cite>

  3. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    When he said that he couldn't read the spurious report because it was "6000 pages", I immediately thought of the legislative horse squeeze coming out of Congress, under the guise of "reform".

     

    After the "voodoo science" remark, Pachauri should have been fired on the spot, as well as the alleged "peer reviewers" that are supposed to weed out crap like that glacial melting error.

     

    They aren't "small mistakes" when hundreds of referees miss them, apparently blinded by their own biases that made them think it was an acceptable figure.  All it does is make the rest of the figures questionable.  Six pages of crap or six thousand, it is still crap.

     

    Now you know why magicians love to get scientists as subjects in their shows: they are the easiest people to fool.

Comments are closed.