From Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christensen

• The Science and Technology Committee of the UK Parliament recently held a hearing on the reliability of climatological data and results in the aftermath of Climategate. Here is an informed commentary on that hearing.

Re: http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_pn14_100122.cfm

I carefully listened to the above last night and did some thinking. As both the editor of several critical papers related to the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and a former science-policy researcher into the IPCC and climate scepticism, I thought that you and your committee , and perhaps Sir Muir Russell, might be interested in my reactions. I have recently co-edited a book (with A. Kellow, Hobart University) on the international politics of ‘Kyoto’. The book will be published by Elgar later this year. (more…)

From Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christensen

• We are honored to publish the following letter to the unspeakable BBC from Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christensen, one of the doughtiest scientists who have upheld scientific truth and integrity despite all pressures and temptations to subit to the New Superstition that is ‘global warming’. Dr. Boehmer-Christensen is the editor of Energy and Environment, a leading climate-science journal that allows scientists skeptical of the official ‘global warming’ theory to publish their papers where other journals have sold out to the money-men behind the scare. Dr. Boehmer-Christensen is here telling the BBC what she thinks of a programme by its political correspondent, Andrew Marr, in which – in a manner almost unprecedented at the BBC – he tried to allow both sides of the climate debate to be reflected.

Sir, – As an ‘expert’ on the science and politics of global warming since the late 1980s and the editor of a journal that has long given climate ‘sceptics’ a voice, I would like to complement the BBC for attempting, this morning on Radio 4 , an open-minded discussion of the science and politics of man-made global warming. Two sides were demonstrated. However, a number of outright mistakes and omission created enough bias to turn the programme into sophisticated  UK government propaganda.

Here are the main faults:

(more…)