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.


Posted in

Jim Vicevich

Jim is a veteran broadcaster and conservative/libertarian blogger with more than 25 years experience in TV and radio. Jim's was the long-term host of The Jim Vicevich Show on WTIC 1080 in Hartford from 2004 through 2019. Prior to radio, Jim worked as a business and financial reporter for NBC30 - the NBC owned TV station in Hartford - and as business editor at WFSB-TV in Hartford for 14 years while earning six Emmy nominations and three Telly Awards.


  1. SoundOffSister on February 12, 2010 at 7:34 am

    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. Anne-EH on February 12, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    Jim, you are forgiven for not including Instapundit as the source. Great comments, very compelling. Also posted it over at Free Republic. Here is the URL :

  3. tom on February 12, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    <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.





  4. Dimsdale on February 12, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    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.

The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.