Doubt is cast over global warming
Emily Beament
Global temperatures may not increase over the next decade because of natural
variations in the climate which will offset man-made warming,
scientists predicted yesterday.
Researchers attempting
to model what might happen to the climate of the North Atlantic over a period of decades suggest that the
temperature of the sea and Europe and North America may cool slightly.
The researchers said the North Atlantic had variability on a 70 to 80-year cycle and the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) - a giant "conveyor belt" that brings warm water northwards into the area - had an important role to play in driving those fluctuations. When the circulation is strong, it creates warmer temperatures.
The study created a model that used sea surface temperatures and attempted to simulate the variability of the MOC in a bid to predict climate over coming decades.
The model - tested by comparing retrospective "predictions" against what has actually happened - suggests the MOC may weaken towards a long-term average, leading to slightly cooler temperatures in the North Atlantic.
Sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific will remain unchanged, the scientists led by Noel Keenlyside of Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, said.
Writing in Nature, they said: "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."
Commenting on the study, Richard Wood of the Met Office, Hadley Centre, said the model suggested the weakening of the MOC would have a cooling effect around the North Atlantic.
"Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
"That emphasises once again the need to consider climate variability and climate change together when making predictions over timescales of decades."
But he said the use of just sea surface temperatures may not accurately reflect the state of the MOC, which is several kilometres deep and dependent on factors besides temperatures, such as salt content.
If the model could accurately forecast other variables besides temperature, such as rainfall, it would be increasingly useful, but climate predictions for a decade ahead would always be to some extent uncertain, he added.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: JohnM, Perth on 12:49am Thu 1 May 08
So- much ado about nothing. But this research tends to suggest that "anthropogenic global warming" were it not present would probably mean a reduction in temperature. Woops - major deviation from the current received wisdom.
Maybe I should pop out to the local shop in my 4x4 to retain my membership of the "denier" fraternity. Or maybe just to confuse the issue check out some LPG alternatives or electric due to the insanely priced fuel.
So- much ado about nothing. But this research tends to suggest that "anthropogenic global warming" were it not present would probably mean a reduction in temperature. Woops - major deviation from the current received wisdom.
Maybe I should pop out to the local shop in my 4x4 to retain my membership of the "denier" fraternity. Or maybe just to confuse the issue check out some LPG alternatives or electric due to the insanely priced fuel.
Posted by: Dave, Away on 1:35am Thu 1 May 08
[quote][bold]JohnM[/bold] wrote:
So- much ado about nothing. But this research tends to suggest that "anthropogenic global warming" were it not present would probably mean a reduction in temperature. Woops - major deviation from the current received wisdom. Maybe I should pop out to the local shop in my 4x4 to retain my membership of the "denier" fraternity. Or maybe just to confuse the issue check out some LPG alternatives or electric due to the insanely priced fuel. [/quote] You are right on both counts.....
Yes this does mean the price of fuel must rise to save humanity!
(Research countering it will, oddly, have the same effect.....if you'll pardon the pun thesis, antithesis and synthesize!!)
JohnM wrote:
So- much ado about nothing. But this research tends to suggest that "anthropogenic global warming" were it not present would probably mean a reduction in temperature. Woops - major deviation from the current received wisdom. Maybe I should pop out to the local shop in my 4x4 to retain my membership of the "denier" fraternity. Or maybe just to confuse the issue check out some LPG alternatives or electric due to the insanely priced fuel.
You are right on both counts.....
Yes this does mean the price of fuel must rise to save humanity!
(Research countering it will, oddly, have the same effect.....if you'll pardon the pun thesis, antithesis and synthesize!!)
Posted by: Edward, Edinburgh on 1:40am Thu 1 May 08
AT last some sense!
No doubt the 'green' brigade will deny all this
But they should really understand that climate change is definately NOT man made.
I saw aprogram recently which mentioned that the UN body the IPCC had quietly amended there projections and changed some of there models, which include sea levels, that they expect now not to rise that much, with worst case senarion being 17 inches!
AT last some sense!
No doubt the 'green' brigade will deny all this
But they should really understand that climate change is definately NOT man made.
I saw aprogram recently which mentioned that the UN body the IPCC had quietly amended there projections and changed some of there models, which include sea levels, that they expect now not to rise that much, with worst case senarion being 17 inches!
Posted by: gordon Brown ate my hamster, Australia on 2:36am Thu 1 May 08
Can we all start farting again?
Can we all start farting again?
Posted by: nabodican, Rural Scotland on 6:42am Thu 1 May 08
Why am I not surprised at this ?
I do note that Richard Wood of the Hadley Centre is still in denial !
They, off course have been toeing the line as decreed by their politician paymasters in order that we can be taxed more in order to cure a problem tha tdoes not exist viz - Man made global warming !!
Why am I not surprised at this ?
I do note that Richard Wood of the Hadley Centre is still in denial !
They, off course have been toeing the line as decreed by their politician paymasters in order that we can be taxed more in order to cure a problem tha tdoes not exist viz - Man made global warming !!
Posted by: Alkie, NYC on 6:45am Thu 1 May 08
The global temperature on Earth is so dynamic and influenced by so many different factors that to for anyone to claim they know (based on twenty years of research) the Earth is cooling or warming and predict either trend to continue shows nothing but hubris of the worst kind.
Global warming alarmists who go about calling themselves scientists are unscientific fear mongers who want the world to focus on what they have to say, no more and no less.
The Scottish middle class needs to stand up against alcohol. Your acceptance of it is ruining the fabric of all Scottish society. Say no to the liquid drug.
The global temperature on Earth is so dynamic and influenced by so many different factors that to for anyone to claim they know (based on twenty years of research) the Earth is cooling or warming and predict either trend to continue shows nothing but hubris of the worst kind.
Global warming alarmists who go about calling themselves scientists are unscientific fear mongers who want the world to focus on what they have to say, no more and no less.
The Scottish middle class needs to stand up against alcohol. Your acceptance of it is ruining the fabric of all Scottish society. Say no to the liquid drug.
Posted by: steve4349, larbet on 7:51am Thu 1 May 08
the greenwash loonies will be exposed for the lies and fears they manipulate,they should be tackling china india and the usa the biggest polluters on the planet,the trouble is they already know that the loonies are wrong
the greenwash loonies will be exposed for the lies and fears they manipulate,they should be tackling china india and the usa the biggest polluters on the planet,the trouble is they already know that the loonies are wrong
Posted by: hughmuscat, UK on 7:54am Thu 1 May 08
The bottom line is that no one knows what the hell is going on. That said, you would have to be an idiot to believe that humankind does not have a significant impact on the planet. You do not have to have a science degree to know that chopping down all the rain forest will be bad for the planet and therefore for us. Lack of evidence of global warming should not be used as an excuse to "carry on regardless". The biggest threat to us is lack of resources, water, fuel etc and too many people on the planet. If we don't conserve our resources and control our populations then in time war, famine and disease will be more pressing threats than potential global warming.
The bottom line is that no one knows what the hell is going on. That said, you would have to be an idiot to believe that humankind does not have a significant impact on the planet. You do not have to have a science degree to know that chopping down all the rain forest will be bad for the planet and therefore for us. Lack of evidence of global warming should not be used as an excuse to "carry on regardless". The biggest threat to us is lack of resources, water, fuel etc and too many people on the planet. If we don't conserve our resources and control our populations then in time war, famine and disease will be more pressing threats than potential global warming.
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 8:11am Thu 1 May 08
Could Emily please tell us, who exactly funded this research?
We can already feel the cooling effect of the Gulf Stream on the west Coast because it has lost up to 30% of it's heat. The wind feels colder and also much drier. This doesn't mean that we no longer have problems with our environment, just that it's not going as was originally predicted. Our summers are still going to be a lot hotter and wetter and our winters longer, colder and wetter.
If no one believes in global warming go and research what's happening in Africa and the Middle East where they have suffered drought and spreading desertification for the last ten years.
Could Emily please tell us, who exactly funded this research?
We can already feel the cooling effect of the Gulf Stream on the west Coast because it has lost up to 30% of it's heat. The wind feels colder and also much drier. This doesn't mean that we no longer have problems with our environment, just that it's not going as was originally predicted. Our summers are still going to be a lot hotter and wetter and our winters longer, colder and wetter.
If no one believes in global warming go and research what's happening in Africa and the Middle East where they have suffered drought and spreading desertification for the last ten years.
Posted by: Jack Gough, Lanarkshire on 8:42am Thu 1 May 08
[quote]If we don't conserve our resources and control our populations then in time war, famine and disease will be more pressing threats than potential global warming.[/quote]
Nail on head. Global warming/Climate change and the hysteria around each new report we hear of is scaremongering of the highest order. The planet has bigger problems to deal with than the output of a few cars or factories.
The damage has been done in the past with infinitely more CO2 being emitted when the whole of the UK was heated by coal fires, and heavy industries were not as clean as they are today.
Perhaps the developing world could do more but while oil based fuels and materials are around there will be CO2 emissions. We must live with that.
Personally I think the billions of pounds/dollars profit that BP/Shell and their counterparts make should forcibly be invested in the alternative fuels like Hydrogen... I am sure they exist already but are being witheld until the oil (and associated profits) run dry.
Anyway back to this massive population expansion and the drain on resources... perhaps a mass global cull of everyone who does not contribute anything to the advancement of the human race, or is deemed a drain on their society would be in order. I think that's one kind of discrimination which nobody in their right mind can disagree with!
If we don't conserve our resources and control our populations then in time war, famine and disease will be more pressing threats than potential global warming.
Nail on head. Global warming/Climate change and the hysteria around each new report we hear of is scaremongering of the highest order. The planet has bigger problems to deal with than the output of a few cars or factories.
The damage has been done in the past with infinitely more CO2 being emitted when the whole of the UK was heated by coal fires, and heavy industries were not as clean as they are today.
Perhaps the developing world could do more but while oil based fuels and materials are around there will be CO2 emissions. We must live with that.
Personally I think the billions of pounds/dollars profit that BP/Shell and their counterparts make should forcibly be invested in the alternative fuels like Hydrogen... I am sure they exist already but are being witheld until the oil (and associated profits) run dry.
Anyway back to this massive population expansion and the drain on resources... perhaps a mass global cull of everyone who does not contribute anything to the advancement of the human race, or is deemed a drain on their society would be in order. I think that's one kind of discrimination which nobody in their right mind can disagree with!
Posted by: Alastair McIntosh, Govan (Centre for Human Ecology) on 9:13am Thu 1 May 08
This doesn't surprise me in the least. Oceanographers and climate scientists have been perfectly clear in recent years that there are major uncertainties about the pattern of ocean currents.That is why the latest IPCC report expresses doubt about the idea that the Gulf Stream might get "turned off" due to Arctic melting.
I've spent the past year and a half looking at this issue while writing a forthcoming book on the psychology underlying the consumerism that drives climate change (due in June from Birlinn). My view based on the IPCC's reports (the UN's scientific advisory body on the matter) is that we're faced with a paradox. Climate change is unlikely to have more than a creeping effect on us in a country like Scotland. Some aspects of it may even be beneficial - a bit warmer. Others are problematic - gradually rising sea levels (currently about 3 mm a year). The seriously adverse impacts will hit elsewhere, and especially parts of the world with fragile ecosystems. This will highten conflict and the displacement of peoples.
The conundrum is that we in the West are causing the problem, but will be the last to feel the more adverse consequences. Long term - beyond the lifetime of the current generation - the prognosis gets very much more scary if we carry on pumping carbon into the atmosphere.
The moral - if you're only into thinking about yourself - party on and do nothing - if you're living in Scotland and you're middle aged, it'll probably see you out quite nicely. But if you care about your grandchildren and their children, or if you care about people in the world living in vulnerable ecosystems that are subject to drought or flooding, then there's a serious ethical issue facing us. What kind of a Scotland do we want to be? Selfish or caring?
This doesn't surprise me in the least. Oceanographers and climate scientists have been perfectly clear in recent years that there are major uncertainties about the pattern of ocean currents.That is why the latest IPCC report expresses doubt about the idea that the Gulf Stream might get "turned off" due to Arctic melting.
I've spent the past year and a half looking at this issue while writing a forthcoming book on the psychology underlying the consumerism that drives climate change (due in June from Birlinn). My view based on the IPCC's reports (the UN's scientific advisory body on the matter) is that we're faced with a paradox. Climate change is unlikely to have more than a creeping effect on us in a country like Scotland. Some aspects of it may even be beneficial - a bit warmer. Others are problematic - gradually rising sea levels (currently about 3 mm a year). The seriously adverse impacts will hit elsewhere, and especially parts of the world with fragile ecosystems. This will highten conflict and the displacement of peoples.
The conundrum is that we in the West are causing the problem, but will be the last to feel the more adverse consequences. Long term - beyond the lifetime of the current generation - the prognosis gets very much more scary if we carry on pumping carbon into the atmosphere.
The moral - if you're only into thinking about yourself - party on and do nothing - if you're living in Scotland and you're middle aged, it'll probably see you out quite nicely. But if you care about your grandchildren and their children, or if you care about people in the world living in vulnerable ecosystems that are subject to drought or flooding, then there's a serious ethical issue facing us. What kind of a Scotland do we want to be? Selfish or caring?
Posted by: Fifer, kilmarnock on 9:16am Thu 1 May 08
This should come as no surprise, the original report by scientists to the UN on Climate change was hijacked by politicians as the final report was altered on their say so to reflect a position that would allow the governments to tax their populations.
The earth is 4.6Billion years old and at best temperature records have only been kept for 150 years.
You do the maths, global warming my a***.
This should come as no surprise, the original report by scientists to the UN on Climate change was hijacked by politicians as the final report was altered on their say so to reflect a position that would allow the governments to tax their populations.
The earth is 4.6Billion years old and at best temperature records have only been kept for 150 years.
You do the maths, global warming my a***.
Posted by: iang on 9:19am Thu 1 May 08
[quote]If no one believes in global warming go and research what's happening in Africa and the Middle East where they have suffered drought and spreading desertification for the last ten years.[/quote]
This is not down to Climate Change but is a direct effect of pollution, especially from the US, India and China these days. these are two very different problems.
If no one believes in global warming go and research what's happening in Africa and the Middle East where they have suffered drought and spreading desertification for the last ten years.
This is not down to Climate Change but is a direct effect of pollution, especially from the US, India and China these days. these are two very different problems.
Posted by: iang on 9:21am Thu 1 May 08
The other point is that most governments are using the last 50 years climate records to show a change, if the cows farts are a problem then how about the extra 4Billion people breathing, 3+ times the population in the 1940's and 1950's? Surely that must have an impact and yet no-one is saying anything about population control.
The other point is that most governments are using the last 50 years climate records to show a change, if the cows farts are a problem then how about the extra 4Billion people breathing, 3+ times the population in the 1940's and 1950's? Surely that must have an impact and yet no-one is saying anything about population control.
Posted by: Jwil, Lanarkshire on 9:22am Thu 1 May 08
[italic]AT last some sense![/italic] Someone said.
What is to say that this research is any more definitive than that which existed yesterday? Wait for a few more months and we will have yet another viewpoint. Instead of just latching on to what we want to believe we should keep an open mind.
AT last some sense! Someone said.
What is to say that this research is any more definitive than that which existed yesterday? Wait for a few more months and we will have yet another viewpoint. Instead of just latching on to what we want to believe we should keep an open mind.
Posted by: Carnwarth on 9:52am Thu 1 May 08
The flat-earthers who hail this as proof that man made global warming is not a problem have, not surprisingly, no logic to their splutterings. If a particular cycle in the earth's weather means there is a slight lowering of temperature that's great - it off sets a little the damage we are doing.
I don't care too much about global warming, don’t give money to anything “green” or recycle much - I've no kids so what happens to the earth in 50 years when I'm well and truly dead is of little consequence. What I do hate is selfish morons with 4x4s and patio heaters who make sure their own kids have a difficult future and who have the "intellect" of Jeremy Clarkson.
The flat-earthers who hail this as proof that man made global warming is not a problem have, not surprisingly, no logic to their splutterings. If a particular cycle in the earth's weather means there is a slight lowering of temperature that's great - it off sets a little the damage we are doing.
I don't care too much about global warming, don’t give money to anything “green” or recycle much - I've no kids so what happens to the earth in 50 years when I'm well and truly dead is of little consequence. What I do hate is selfish morons with 4x4s and patio heaters who make sure their own kids have a difficult future and who have the "intellect" of Jeremy Clarkson.
Posted by: stonehaven on 10:17am Thu 1 May 08
"because of natural variations in the climate which will offset man-made warming"
How convenient ! !
I observe the start of the "climb-down".
Anyone with half a brain knew that the whole MMGW issue had become non-scientifiic and completely politicised. What other branch of science deals with terms such as "denier", "debate is over" and "consensus"? In what other branch of science do scientists with opposite views get ostracised and have their character assassinated? There are whole industries built upon MMGW, from Environmental Journalists to Carbon Offset Companies, all of whom are quite prepared to continue pumping out the propaganda so that they can remain on the gravy train.
You know that something is wrong when, in casual conversation, any expression of doubt about MMGW causes a sharp intake of breath from the poor souls who have fallen victim to the mantra.
"because of natural variations in the climate which will offset man-made warming"
How convenient ! !
I observe the start of the "climb-down".
Anyone with half a brain knew that the whole MMGW issue had become non-scientifiic and completely politicised. What other branch of science deals with terms such as "denier", "debate is over" and "consensus"? In what other branch of science do scientists with opposite views get ostracised and have their character assassinated? There are whole industries built upon MMGW, from Environmental Journalists to Carbon Offset Companies, all of whom are quite prepared to continue pumping out the propaganda so that they can remain on the gravy train.
You know that something is wrong when, in casual conversation, any expression of doubt about MMGW causes a sharp intake of breath from the poor souls who have fallen victim to the mantra.
Posted by: daydreamer, Edinburgh on 10:29am Thu 1 May 08
[quote][bold]Alastair McIntosh[/bold] wrote:
This doesn't surprise me in the least. Oceanographers and climate scientists have been perfectly clear in recent years that there are major uncertainties about the pattern of ocean currents.That is why the latest IPCC report expresses doubt about the idea that the Gulf Stream might get "turned off" due to Arctic melting. I've spent the past year and a half looking at this issue while writing a forthcoming book on the psychology underlying the consumerism that drives climate change (due in June from Birlinn). My view based on the IPCC's reports (the UN's scientific advisory body on the matter) is that we're faced with a paradox. Climate change is unlikely to have more than a creeping effect on us in a country like Scotland. Some aspects of it may even be beneficial - a bit warmer. Others are problematic - gradually rising sea levels (currently about 3 mm a year). The seriously adverse impacts will hit elsewhere, and especially parts of the world with fragile ecosystems. This will highten conflict and the displacement of peoples. The conundrum is that we in the West are causing the problem, but will be the last to feel the more adverse consequences. Long term - beyond the lifetime of the current generation - the prognosis gets very much more scary if we carry on pumping carbon into the atmosphere. The moral - if you're only into thinking about yourself - party on and do nothing - if you're living in Scotland and you're middle aged, it'll probably see you out quite nicely. But if you care about your grandchildren and their children, or if you care about people in the world living in vulnerable ecosystems that are subject to drought or flooding, then there's a serious ethical issue facing us. What kind of a Scotland do we want to be? Selfish or caring?[/quote] Very nice post. It's interesting that the people with the most to lose from acting against climate change are those that most strongly deny its existence, and somewhat bizarrely, these same people ascribe selfish motives to those who are putting the case for anthropogenic climate change, or attempting to do anything about it. I suspect some of these nay-sayers see the whole world in terms of selfish motives - classic projection.
The headline to this article appears deliberately misleading, equivocating as it seems to between global warming and anthropogenic global warming. Doesn't indicate the temporary nature of the effect described in the article either. Obviously you can't stick a bunch of qualifiers in a short headline, but you would (one would hope) want to reflect the information contained within the article with some degree of honesty. "Anthropogenic global warming may be temporarily offset in some places by natural cooling phenomena" might be a less sensational, but more accurate alternative.
Alastair McIntosh wrote:
This doesn't surprise me in the least. Oceanographers and climate scientists have been perfectly clear in recent years that there are major uncertainties about the pattern of ocean currents.That is why the latest IPCC report expresses doubt about the idea that the Gulf Stream might get "turned off" due to Arctic melting. I've spent the past year and a half looking at this issue while writing a forthcoming book on the psychology underlying the consumerism that drives climate change (due in June from Birlinn). My view based on the IPCC's reports (the UN's scientific advisory body on the matter) is that we're faced with a paradox. Climate change is unlikely to have more than a creeping effect on us in a country like Scotland. Some aspects of it may even be beneficial - a bit warmer. Others are problematic - gradually rising sea levels (currently about 3 mm a year). The seriously adverse impacts will hit elsewhere, and especially parts of the world with fragile ecosystems. This will highten conflict and the displacement of peoples. The conundrum is that we in the West are causing the problem, but will be the last to feel the more adverse consequences. Long term - beyond the lifetime of the current generation - the prognosis gets very much more scary if we carry on pumping carbon into the atmosphere. The moral - if you're only into thinking about yourself - party on and do nothing - if you're living in Scotland and you're middle aged, it'll probably see you out quite nicely. But if you care about your grandchildren and their children, or if you care about people in the world living in vulnerable ecosystems that are subject to drought or flooding, then there's a serious ethical issue facing us. What kind of a Scotland do we want to be? Selfish or caring?
Very nice post. It's interesting that the people with the most to lose from acting against climate change are those that most strongly deny its existence, and somewhat bizarrely, these same people ascribe selfish motives to those who are putting the case for anthropogenic climate change, or attempting to do anything about it. I suspect some of these nay-sayers see the whole world in terms of selfish motives - classic projection.
The headline to this article appears deliberately misleading, equivocating as it seems to between global warming and anthropogenic global warming. Doesn't indicate the temporary nature of the effect described in the article either. Obviously you can't stick a bunch of qualifiers in a short headline, but you would (one would hope) want to reflect the information contained within the article with some degree of honesty. "Anthropogenic global warming may be temporarily offset in some places by natural cooling phenomena" might be a less sensational, but more accurate alternative.
Posted by: GBW, Largs on 10:48am Thu 1 May 08
[quote][bold]gordon Brown ate my hamster[/bold] wrote:
Can we all start farting again?[/quote] Enjoy yourself... It's later than you think
Enjoy yourself... Enjoy yourself
It's later than you think..!
Thank you the Specials!
The only effect on my family, myself and others I know is that climate change/global warming/war/famine/d
eath and distruction has caused are higher taxes/fuel charges/food and drinks bills.
How long has the human race been in existance?
How long have climate records been kept for?
How long has planet earth been around for?
Once during a light hearted discussion about climate change/global warming I was having with a collegue, she suggested this was a cunning plan (a la Baldrick!) by governments world wide to raise more taxes on already taxed to the hilt populations... how we laughed... we're not laughing now 'cause it's not so funny or far fetched now.
gordon Brown ate my hamster wrote:
Can we all start farting again?
Enjoy yourself... It's later than you think
Enjoy yourself... Enjoy yourself
It's later than you think..!
Thank you the Specials!
The only effect on my family, myself and others I know is that climate change/global warming/war/famine/d
eath and distruction has caused are higher taxes/fuel charges/food and drinks bills.
How long has the human race been in existance?
How long have climate records been kept for?
How long has planet earth been around for?
Once during a light hearted discussion about climate change/global warming I was having with a collegue, she suggested this was a cunning plan (a la Baldrick!) by governments world wide to raise more taxes on already taxed to the hilt populations... how we laughed... we're not laughing now 'cause it's not so funny or far fetched now.
Posted by: GBW, Largs on 10:48am Thu 1 May 08
[quote][bold]gordon Brown ate my hamster[/bold] wrote:
Can we all start farting again?[/quote] Enjoy yourself... It's later than you think
Enjoy yourself... Enjoy yourself
It's later than you think..!
Thank you the Specials!
The only effect on my family, myself and others I know is that climate change/global warming/war/famine/d
eath and distruction has caused are higher taxes/fuel charges/food and drinks bills.
How long has the human race been in existance?
How long have climate records been kept for?
How long has planet earth been around for?
Once during a light hearted discussion about climate change/global warming I was having with a collegue, she suggested this was a cunning plan (a la Baldrick!) by governments world wide to raise more taxes on already taxed to the hilt populations... how we laughed... we're not laughing now 'cause it's not so funny or far fetched now.
gordon Brown ate my hamster wrote:
Can we all start farting again?
Enjoy yourself... It's later than you think
Enjoy yourself... Enjoy yourself
It's later than you think..!
Thank you the Specials!
The only effect on my family, myself and others I know is that climate change/global warming/war/famine/d
eath and distruction has caused are higher taxes/fuel charges/food and drinks bills.
How long has the human race been in existance?
How long have climate records been kept for?
How long has planet earth been around for?
Once during a light hearted discussion about climate change/global warming I was having with a collegue, she suggested this was a cunning plan (a la Baldrick!) by governments world wide to raise more taxes on already taxed to the hilt populations... how we laughed... we're not laughing now 'cause it's not so funny or far fetched now.
Posted by: sam the god on 10:48am Thu 1 May 08
i wish they would make up thier minds
i wish they would make up thier minds
Posted by: spagan, heisker, scotland on 10:51am Thu 1 May 08
I guess we all need a few more years, decades, centuries before we can be more certain about projections - or best estimates.
However, whatever the future holds, it makes sense to use fewer of the earth's limited, non-renewable resources.
The economic growth in China, India etc will probably continue to push the price of scarcer commodities upwards - so learning to use less oil/petrol is what we'll be faced with.
Slainte Mhor
I guess we all need a few more years, decades, centuries before we can be more certain about projections - or best estimates.
However, whatever the future holds, it makes sense to use fewer of the earth's limited, non-renewable resources.
The economic growth in China, India etc will probably continue to push the price of scarcer commodities upwards - so learning to use less oil/petrol is what we'll be faced with.
Slainte Mhor
Posted by: clayton-moore on 11:09am Thu 1 May 08
Anybody remember "The Great Rabies Scare" of 1974?
Anybody remember "The Great Rabies Scare" of 1974?
Posted by: David Cromwell, National Oceanography Centre, Southampton on 11:49am Thu 1 May 08
"Doubt is cast over global warming"
What a deeply misleading headline. To use the word "doubt" so prominently in relation to human-induced global warming is very unfortunate. Many readers will just see that word and think, "Oh, so the whole thing has been over-hyped", before turning the page or clicking on another link.
The article itself is basically sound but the sub-editor responsible for this howler of a headline needs a gentle word in the ear. And The Herald's editor should apologise for misleading readers.
[I'm a climate scientist, writing in a personal capacity.]
"Doubt is cast over global warming"
What a deeply misleading headline. To use the word "doubt" so prominently in relation to human-induced global warming is very unfortunate. Many readers will just see that word and think, "Oh, so the whole thing has been over-hyped", before turning the page or clicking on another link.
The article itself is basically sound but the sub-editor responsible for this howler of a headline needs a gentle word in the ear. And The Herald's editor should apologise for misleading readers.
Posted by: David Cromwell, NOC, Southampton on 11:51am Thu 1 May 08
[quote][bold]David Cromwell[/bold] wrote:
"Doubt is cast over global warming"
What a deeply misleading headline. To use the word "doubt" so prominently in relation to human-induced global warming is very unfortunate. Many readers will just see that word and think, "Oh, so the whole thing has been over-hyped", before turning the page or clicking on another link.
The article itself is basically sound but the sub-editor responsible for this howler of a headline needs a gentle word in the ear. And The Herald's editor should apologise for misleading readers.
[I'm a climate scientist, writing in a personal capacity.]
[/quote] Above comment written in a personal capacity.
David Cromwell wrote:
"Doubt is cast over global warming"
What a deeply misleading headline. To use the word "doubt" so prominently in relation to human-induced global warming is very unfortunate. Many readers will just see that word and think, "Oh, so the whole thing has been over-hyped", before turning the page or clicking on another link.
The article itself is basically sound but the sub-editor responsible for this howler of a headline needs a gentle word in the ear. And The Herald's editor should apologise for misleading readers.
Above comment written in a personal capacity.
Posted by: UDI NOW, Aberdeen on 12:22pm Thu 1 May 08
I note the total lack of appreciation of the meaning of the word [bold]TEMPORARILY[/bold] by most of the posters above..
...READ IT AGAIN ...
"Writing in Nature, they said: "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific [bold]temporarily[/bold] offset the projected anthropogenic warming."
"Such a cooling could [bold]temporarily[/bold] offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
Are you all completely thick ?
No.. don't bother to reply - I'm sure all we'll get is more of the same unthinking drivel.
I note the total lack of appreciation of the meaning of the word
TEMPORARILY by most of the posters above..
...READ IT AGAIN ...
"Writing in Nature, they said: "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific
temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."
"Such a cooling could
temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
Are you all completely thick ?
No.. don't bother to reply - I'm sure all we'll get is more of the same unthinking drivel.
Posted by: sandy, scotland on 12:29pm Thu 1 May 08
Great!
Does this mean we can have the bins emptied every week again?
Great!
Does this mean we can have the bins emptied every week again?
Posted by: Stew, Aberdeen on 12:40pm Thu 1 May 08
An awful lot of people educated by TV and newspapers here I fear.
There is a huge contribution to globall warming as a result of human activity. Those who say otherwise tend to be proved wrong by peer review or found to have a hidden agenda behind there assumptions and the conclusions they draw from them.
The green brigade are often just as guilty of over egging things by advertising worst case scenario as most likely.
Even if you don't believe in global warming surely the things people are asked to do in its name are common sense in terms of efficency and reducing pollution? People complain about high oil prices then buy 4x4s or don't recycle plastic adding to the demand and hastening our journey towards Peak Oil (if we haven't already passed it). There a no real shortages of oil just now, strange market forces are behind the current high prices, but in the relatively near future there probably will be. Small acts on a large scale can have surprisingly large effects.
An awful lot of people educated by TV and newspapers here I fear.
There is a huge contribution to globall warming as a result of human activity. Those who say otherwise tend to be proved wrong by peer review or found to have a hidden agenda behind there assumptions and the conclusions they draw from them.
The green brigade are often just as guilty of over egging things by advertising worst case scenario as most likely.
Even if you don't believe in global warming surely the things people are asked to do in its name are common sense in terms of efficency and reducing pollution? People complain about high oil prices then buy 4x4s or don't recycle plastic adding to the demand and hastening our journey towards Peak Oil (if we haven't already passed it). There a no real shortages of oil just now, strange market forces are behind the current high prices, but in the relatively near future there probably will be. Small acts on a large scale can have surprisingly large effects.
Posted by: daydreamer, Edinburgh on 1:14pm Thu 1 May 08
[quote][bold]David Cromwell[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]David Cromwell[/bold] wrote: "Doubt is cast over global warming" What a deeply misleading headline. To use the word "doubt" so prominently in relation to human-induced global warming is very unfortunate. Many readers will just see that word and think, "Oh, so the whole thing has been over-hyped", before turning the page or clicking on another link. The article itself is basically sound but the sub-editor responsible for this howler of a headline needs a gentle word in the ear. And The Herald's editor should apologise for misleading readers. [I'm a climate scientist, writing in a personal capacity.] [/quote] Above comment written in a personal capacity. [/quote] Nice to see David Cromwell agreeing with me.
It would be great to see some of the stuff printed in the Herald featured in Medialens, but unfortunately I suppose they regard it as regional, and its low circulation may make it seem less worthy of attention. Somebody should start a Scottish equivalent - there's a fair amount of material for it. If I had the time and money I would give it a go myself.
David Cromwell wrote:
David Cromwell wrote: "Doubt is cast over global warming" What a deeply misleading headline. To use the word "doubt" so prominently in relation to human-induced global warming is very unfortunate. Many readers will just see that word and think, "Oh, so the whole thing has been over-hyped", before turning the page or clicking on another link. The article itself is basically sound but the sub-editor responsible for this howler of a headline needs a gentle word in the ear. And The Herald's editor should apologise for misleading readers.
Above comment written in a personal capacity.
Nice to see David Cromwell agreeing with me.
It would be great to see some of the stuff printed in the Herald featured in Medialens, but unfortunately I suppose they regard it as regional, and its low circulation may make it seem less worthy of attention. Somebody should start a Scottish equivalent - there's a fair amount of material for it. If I had the time and money I would give it a go myself.
Posted by: Im no really here, but over there on 1:35pm Thu 1 May 08
I bet that won't stop Maggie Brown stealing "green" taxes from you.
And these are the same scientists who pontificate with absolute certainty about the THEORY of Evolution, and if anybody doesn't agree with them they are crackpots. Hell, they can't even tell what the weather is going to be like.
Just watch out for the "global warming" backlash. As with the Evolution crap, you can bet that we will get to the stage where anyone who raises any doubts about global warming will be ridiculed by the scientific mainstream mafia - there is just too much money invested and at stake, there are too many over funded research projects at stake for global warming NOT to be true.
There is a simple truth in science: If you are biased toward a particular theory, and you start looking for evidence that the theory is true - you will find it.
I bet that won't stop Maggie Brown stealing "green" taxes from you.
And these are the same scientists who pontificate with absolute certainty about the THEORY of Evolution, and if anybody doesn't agree with them they are crackpots. Hell, they can't even tell what the weather is going to be like.
Just watch out for the "global warming" backlash. As with the Evolution crap, you can bet that we will get to the stage where anyone who raises any doubts about global warming will be ridiculed by the scientific mainstream mafia - there is just too much money invested and at stake, there are too many over funded research projects at stake for global warming NOT to be true.
There is a simple truth in science: If you are biased toward a particular theory, and you start looking for evidence that the theory is true - you will find it.
Posted by: Economic Migrant, Darkest Oxfordshire on 1:56pm Thu 1 May 08
Although the anti-green brigade are parading this as proof against global warming, nowhere in the Nature paper do the authors say anything to support this. By 2030 their model agrees with the IPCC simulations.
Although the anti-green brigade are parading this as proof against global warming, nowhere in the Nature paper do the authors say anything to support this. By 2030 their model agrees with the IPCC simulations.
Posted by: stonehaven on 2:11pm Thu 1 May 08
[quote][bold]UDI NOW[/bold] wrote:
I note the total lack of appreciation of the meaning of the word [bold]TEMPORARILY[/bold] by most of the posters above.. ...READ IT AGAIN ... "Writing in Nature, they said: "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific [bold]temporarily[/bold] offset the projected anthropogenic warming." "Such a cooling could [bold]temporarily[/bold] offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." Are you all completely thick ? No.. don't bother to reply - I'm sure all we'll get is more of the same unthinking drivel. [/quote] Now, now! Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them thick. This is typical controlling behaviour from the pro lobby.
And, incidently, there has been no proof that rising CO2 levels leads to rising global temperatures. Even consensus does not constitute proof and the idea that their is virtually 100% consensus on this issue is a myth.
So, debate if you like, but do not try to shut down opposing views by being abusive.
UDI NOW wrote:
I note the total lack of appreciation of the meaning of the word TEMPORARILY by most of the posters above.. ...READ IT AGAIN ... "Writing in Nature, they said: "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming." "Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." Are you all completely thick ? No.. don't bother to reply - I'm sure all we'll get is more of the same unthinking drivel.
Now, now! Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them thick. This is typical controlling behaviour from the pro lobby.
And, incidently, there has been no proof that rising CO2 levels leads to rising global temperatures. Even consensus does not constitute proof and the idea that their is virtually 100% consensus on this issue is a myth.
So, debate if you like, but do not try to shut down opposing views by being abusive.
Posted by: daydreamer, Edinburgh on 2:19pm Thu 1 May 08
[quote][bold]Im no really here[/bold] wrote:
I bet that won't stop Maggie Brown stealing "green" taxes from you. And these are the same scientists who pontificate with absolute certainty about the THEORY of Evolution, and if anybody doesn't agree with them they are crackpots. Hell, they can't even tell what the weather is going to be like. Just watch out for the "global warming" backlash. As with the Evolution crap, you can bet that we will get to the stage where anyone who raises any doubts about global warming will be ridiculed by the scientific mainstream mafia - there is just too much money invested and at stake, there are too many over funded research projects at stake for global warming NOT to be true. There is a simple truth in science: If you are biased toward a particular theory, and you start looking for evidence that the theory is true - you will find it.[/quote] I agree about the bit where if you go looking, you are more likely to find evidence that supports your previously-establish
ed position.
But I don't agree with the rest of your post. There is a big picture to be seen. I have no figures to back this up but I don't imagine for a second that those who are attempting to prove the dangers of anthropogenic climate change or do something about it have more to lose than the oil and gas industry, the transport industry, the holiday industry, manufacturing industry, retail industry, car drivers, taxpayers, and pretty much everybody else - basically everybody whose life could be negatively affected by any serious action that might be taken against anthropogenic climate change. Sure there are jobs in science, and global warming is what some people are working on for a living (and no doubt there are businesses getting rich too), but this pales into insignificance beside the amount it is worth to most people in the developed world for things to go on in a business as usual, no such thing as man-made climate change manner. In other words, for many people, there is too much at stake for (man made) global warming to be true. A record-breaking number of heads are now buried in the sand.
Im no really here wrote:
I bet that won't stop Maggie Brown stealing "green" taxes from you. And these are the same scientists who pontificate with absolute certainty about the THEORY of Evolution, and if anybody doesn't agree with them they are crackpots. Hell, they can't even tell what the weather is going to be like. Just watch out for the "global warming" backlash. As with the Evolution crap, you can bet that we will get to the stage where anyone who raises any doubts about global warming will be ridiculed by the scientific mainstream mafia - there is just too much money invested and at stake, there are too many over funded research projects at stake for global warming NOT to be true. There is a simple truth in science: If you are biased toward a particular theory, and you start looking for evidence that the theory is true - you will find it.
I agree about the bit where if you go looking, you are more likely to find evidence that supports your previously-establish
ed position.
But I don't agree with the rest of your post. There is a big picture to be seen. I have no figures to back this up but I don't imagine for a second that those who are attempting to prove the dangers of anthropogenic climate change or do something about it have more to lose than the oil and gas industry, the transport industry, the holiday industry, manufacturing industry, retail industry, car drivers, taxpayers, and pretty much everybody else - basically everybody whose life could be negatively affected by any serious action that might be taken against anthropogenic climate change. Sure there are jobs in science, and global warming is what some people are working on for a living (and no doubt there are businesses getting rich too), but this pales into insignificance beside the amount it is worth to most people in the developed world for things to go on in a business as usual, no such thing as man-made climate change manner. In other words, for many people, there is too much at stake for (man made) global warming to be true. A record-breaking number of heads are now buried in the sand.
Posted by: stonehaven on 2:22pm Thu 1 May 08
We need to get rid of junk science and say things like "the debate is over," because stifling debate and accusing anyone who disagrees with the 'consensus' is in bed with big oil is what science is all about.
We need to get rid of junk science and say things like "the debate is over," because stifling debate and accusing anyone who disagrees with the 'consensus' is in bed with big oil is what science is all about.
Posted by: daydreamer, Edinburgh on 2:35pm Thu 1 May 08
[quote][bold]stonehaven[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]UDI NOW[/bold] wrote: I note the total lack of appreciation of the meaning of the word [bold]TEMPORARILY[/bold] by most of the posters above.. ...READ IT AGAIN ... "Writing in Nature, they said: "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific [bold]temporarily[/bold] offset the projected anthropogenic warming." "Such a cooling could [bold]temporarily[/bold] offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." Are you all completely thick ? No.. don't bother to reply - I'm sure all we'll get is more of the same unthinking drivel. [/quote] Now, now! Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them thick. This is typical controlling behaviour from the pro lobby. And, incidently, there has been no proof that rising CO2 levels leads to rising global temperatures. Even consensus does not constitute proof and the idea that their is virtually 100% consensus on this issue is a myth. So, debate if you like, but do not try to shut down opposing views by being abusive.[/quote] UDI NOW appears to have noticed that although the article didn't in any way deny any of the causes or dangers of anthropogenic climate change, that many of the posters here were holding it up as if it did. One can only speculate as to why this is - these posters only read the headline perhaps. UDI NOW's lack of tact is disappointing, but nevertheless the point is valid.
stonehaven wrote:
UDI NOW wrote: I note the total lack of appreciation of the meaning of the word TEMPORARILY by most of the posters above.. ...READ IT AGAIN ... "Writing in Nature, they said: "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming." "Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." Are you all completely thick ? No.. don't bother to reply - I'm sure all we'll get is more of the same unthinking drivel.
Now, now! Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them thick. This is typical controlling behaviour from the pro lobby. And, incidently, there has been no proof that rising CO2 levels leads to rising global temperatures. Even consensus does not constitute proof and the idea that their is virtually 100% consensus on this issue is a myth. So, debate if you like, but do not try to shut down opposing views by being abusive.
UDI NOW appears to have noticed that although the article didn't in any way deny any of the causes or dangers of anthropogenic climate change, that many of the posters here were holding it up as if it did. One can only speculate as to why this is - these posters only read the headline perhaps. UDI NOW's lack of tact is disappointing, but nevertheless the point is valid.
Posted by: JBlackley, Florida on 2:46pm Thu 1 May 08
Amazing news. I fully expect tomorrow's Herald to run the story, "Doubts cast on ducking as method to identify witches".
The operative phrase in all of the above article is "attempted to simulate". The 'scientists' (How discredited that word has become!) used a computer to 'attempt to simulate' one element of the world's weather system and found, much to everyone's amazement (sarcasm), that the end of the world may not be nigh after all.
I don't doubt that the activities of modern society are contributing to climate change. I don't know precisely in what way or to what extent and I do not trust anyone who claims to know. (Similar to my distrust of people who come knocking on my door, telling me they know 'the answer' and, if I but subscribe to their particular brand of superstition, they'll share it with me.)
I do believe that, as usual, the issue of climate change is being used as both a diversion and an excuse. The excuse is to increase taxes, fees and penalties. (Ask yourself where that extra money is being spent on actually improving the climate - anywhere - by any government.) The diversion is in drawing attention away from problems governments cannot or do not want to solve, such as sustainable drinking water and adequate food supplies.
Amazing news. I fully expect tomorrow's Herald to run the story, "Doubts cast on ducking as method to identify witches".
The operative phrase in all of the above article is "attempted to simulate". The 'scientists' (How discredited that word has become!) used a computer to 'attempt to simulate' one element of the world's weather system and found, much to everyone's amazement (sarcasm), that the end of the world may not be nigh after all.
I don't doubt that the activities of modern society are contributing to climate change. I don't know precisely in what way or to what extent and I do not trust anyone who claims to know. (Similar to my distrust of people who come knocking on my door, telling me they know 'the answer' and, if I but subscribe to their particular brand of superstition, they'll share it with me.)
I do believe that, as usual, the issue of climate change is being used as both a diversion and an excuse. The excuse is to increase taxes, fees and penalties. (Ask yourself where that extra money is being spent on actually improving the climate - anywhere - by any government.) The diversion is in drawing attention away from problems governments cannot or do not want to solve, such as sustainable drinking water and adequate food supplies.
Posted by: stonehaven on 2:58pm Thu 1 May 08
[quote][bold]daydreamer[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]stonehaven[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]UDI NOW[/bold] wrote: I note the total lack of appreciation of the meaning of the word [bold]TEMPORARILY[/bold] by most of the posters above.. ...READ IT AGAIN ... "Writing in Nature, they said: "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific [bold]temporarily[/bold] offset the projected anthropogenic warming." "Such a cooling could [bold]temporarily[/bold] offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." Are you all completely thick ? No.. don't bother to reply - I'm sure all we'll get is more of the same unthinking drivel. [/quote] Now, now! Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them thick. This is typical controlling behaviour from the pro lobby. And, incidently, there has been no proof that rising CO2 levels leads to rising global temperatures. Even consensus does not constitute proof and the idea that their is virtually 100% consensus on this issue is a myth. So, debate if you like, but do not try to shut down opposing views by being abusive.[/quote] UDI NOW appears to have noticed that although the article didn't in any way deny any of the causes or dangers of anthropogenic climate change, that many of the posters here were holding it up as if it did. One can only speculate as to why this is - these posters only read the headline perhaps. UDI NOW's lack of tact is disappointing, but nevertheless the point is valid. [/quote] And the point I would like to make is that there is nothing certain in this science as the pro lobby would have us all believe.
Read the article and notice the language used like:
"may"
"predicted"
"attempted to simulate"
"in a bid to predict"
"suggests the MOC may weaken"
"could"
"may not accurately reflect"
And best of all:
""If the model could accurately forecast other variables besides temperature, such as rainfall, it would be increasingly useful, [bold]but climate predictions for a decade ahead would always be to some extent uncertain[/bold] " he added."
Clearly, from the last paragraph, he is quite rightly saying that this is not an exact science and would be open to challenge. That's the way science works.
daydreamer wrote:
stonehaven wrote: UDI NOW wrote: I note the total lack of appreciation of the meaning of the word TEMPORARILY by most of the posters above.. ...READ IT AGAIN ... "Writing in Nature, they said: "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming." "Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." Are you all completely thick ? No.. don't bother to reply - I'm sure all we'll get is more of the same unthinking drivel.
Now, now! Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them thick. This is typical controlling behaviour from the pro lobby. And, incidently, there has been no proof that rising CO2 levels leads to rising global temperatures. Even consensus does not constitute proof and the idea that their is virtually 100% consensus on this issue is a myth. So, debate if you like, but do not try to shut down opposing views by being abusive.
UDI NOW appears to have noticed that although the article didn't in any way deny any of the causes or dangers of anthropogenic climate change, that many of the posters here were holding it up as if it did. One can only speculate as to why this is - these posters only read the headline perhaps. UDI NOW's lack of tact is disappointing, but nevertheless the point is valid.
And the point I would like to make is that there is nothing certain in this science as the pro lobby would have us all believe.
Read the article and notice the language used like:
"may"
"predicted"
"attempted to simulate"
"in a bid to predict"
"suggests the MOC may weaken"
"could"
"may not accurately reflect"
And best of all:
""If the model could accurately forecast other variables besides temperature, such as rainfall, it would be increasingly useful,
but climate predictions for a decade ahead would always be to some extent uncertain " he added."
Clearly, from the last paragraph, he is quite rightly saying that this is not an exact science and would be open to challenge. That's the way science works.
Posted by: Corrupt EU, Fife on 4:43pm Thu 1 May 08
It's all unravelling for the IPCC liars!
http://www.prisonpla
net.com/articles/mar
ch2007/100307Swindle
.htm
It's all unravelling for the IPCC liars!
http://www.prisonpla
net.com/articles/mar
ch2007/100307Swindle
.htm
Posted by: Don McLean, Glasgow on 12:26am Fri 2 May 08
[bold]bold[/bold] Well we have to say something to secure our research grants, don't we.
Perhaps, this is the answer to the purpose of Stonehenge and Avebury.
Well we have to say something to secure our research grants, don't we.
Perhaps, this is the answer to the purpose of Stonehenge and Avebury.
Posted by: David Cromwell, Southampton on 6:21pm Fri 2 May 08
[quote][bold]daydreamer[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]David Cromwell[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]David Cromwell[/bold] wrote: "Doubt is cast over global warming" What a deeply misleading headline. To use the word "doubt" so prominently in relation to human-induced global warming is very unfortunate. Many readers will just see that word and think, "Oh, so the whole thing has been over-hyped", before turning the page or clicking on another link. The article itself is basically sound but the sub-editor responsible for this howler of a headline needs a gentle word in the ear. And The Herald's editor should apologise for misleading readers. [I'm a climate scientist, writing in a personal capacity.] [/quote] Above comment written in a personal capacity. [/quote] Nice to see David Cromwell agreeing with me. It would be great to see some of the stuff printed in the Herald featured in Medialens, but unfortunately I suppose they regard it as regional, and i
News
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (42)
