86 ms·
Oh come on, the Daily Mail? Really? Here's the original BBC interview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511
by russss 17y ago
Oh come on, the Daily Mail? Really?
Here's the original BBC interview:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm
And here's their article reporting it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511701.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511701.stm
If you read the interview you will see that the Mail has put an incredible amount of spin on it, as they tend to do.
- wendroid 17y agoI would say that specifying that warming 1860-1880 'not statistically significantly different' to 1995-2009 is quite an admission. Not the same as "No global warming" but not exactly evidence of runaway AGW.
- KirinDave 17y agoExcept that, as he immediately states, the data from 1860-1880 is not very good data, and thus is much less certain than modern data. That's as opposed to modern data, which is much better. It's also opposed to other lines of evidence, such as atmospheric CO2 content. It's also opposed to physical evidence like the EIS data. Have you watched the EIS time lapse videos? Go there and watch: http://www.extremeicesurvey.org/ http://www.extremeicesurvey.org/ It's both beautiful and powerful stuff.
- jgranby 17y agoWhereas the BBC displays no bias whatsoever with respect to AGW. Do you seriously think that the article you linked to doesn't have its own (pretty obvious) agenda?