The article by AFP reporter Shaun Tandon is introduced by a prejudicial sub-headline, “Finding debunks argument of climate skeptics” implying that the skeptical argument referred to is “bunk” to begin with.
The article goes on to uncritically report an interview with the study‘s author (Robert K. Kaufmann, Boston U.) Well, maybe that’s a bit hasty. Tandon did seek an outside expert opinion for his story - from an even more radical AGW proponent who is unhappy that the study admits that global temperature increases have stalled.
Although The Sun wouldn’t have published the article if he had, Tandon could have and, arguably, should have consulted someone with a more open-minded (scientific?) perspective, for example Dr. David Whitehouse:
It is good news that the authors recognise that there has been no global temperature increase since 1998. Even after the standstill appears time and again in peer-reviewed scientific studies, many commentators still deny its reality. ...
... The researchers tweak an out-of-date climate computer model and cherry-pick the outcome to get their desired result. They do not use the latest data on the sun’s influence on the Earth, rendering their results of academic interest only.
... Either man-made and natural climatic effects have conspired to completely offset the warming that should have occurred due to greenhouse gasses in the past decade, or our estimation of the ‘climate sensitivity’ to greenhouse gasses is too large.
This is not an extreme or ‘sceptic’ position but represents part of the diversity of scientific opinion presented to the IPCC that is seldom reported.Also, Tandon’s story confuses “the study’s co-author...”, Michael L Mann, with “Michael [E] Mann, a prominent member of the UN scientific panel whose landmark 2007 report ...”.
[via WUWT] which concludes with:
My take on it from the paper – “We don’t know what’s going on, but we aren’t going to admit that” – Anthony
3 comments:
lol. The headline should have been: 'Pollution Cures Climate Change! Start your Engines'
Truly inventive usaeage of the 70's Impending Ice Age scare (because the average temperature had been dropping slightly for a few decades) in a modern context: now the same soot/aerosols/pollution that were allegdly going to sink us into the next Ice Age are now battling the (imaginary) postive-feedback driven warming of C02. Which makes about as much sense as Alchemists claiming they couldn't convert to that ounce of gold because of mysterious "vapours".
Scientifically it's still hogwash: but it is interesting to see a shift in the arguments going back toward cooling factors.
After all, climate is controlled exclusively by human emissions, and as such, all human activities must be strictly regulated - whichever way the evidence can point to.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Post a Comment