On the side of reason

First of all, she suggests that the siting of Chinese weather stations demonstrates a systematic attempt on the part of the climatic research unit to manipulate the temperature record.

Ms Johnson has rather exaggerated the common sceptic conspiracy theory that all the increases in global temperatures can be attributed to the urban heat island (UHI) effect, where urban development artificially increases measured temperatures.

This has been exhaustively dealt with elsewhere, but suffice it to say the following. More recent studies of the UHI effect - with more comprehensive data on siting of weather stations - have backed up Jones's 1990 study.

This recent research is ignored or misrepresented by sceptics who continue to complain about Jones's 1990 paper.

They aren't interested in more recent studies because they aren't interested in the truth.

Second, Ms Johnson attempts to cast doubt on the "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures, asserting that the little ice age and the medieval warm period depart markedly from the hockey stick.

She should know that the evidence for the medieval warm period is far weaker than the evidence that increasing CO2 levels are causing global warming.

This lack of evidence won't stop sceptics from using the medieval warm period to attempt to discredit climate science, which it won't do, even if it is shown to exist.

Anti-science and disinformation currently dominate the British media's reporting of the Earth's climate.

Thankfully this doesn't include the Morning Star. Long may our paper stay on the side of reason.

Paul Levy Lancaster