well the takeaway is to not trust news media to report on science correctly and be doubly sceptical when its interesting or "newsworthy" results. That means th

well the takeaway is to not trust news media to report on science correctly and be doubly sceptical when its interesting or "newsworthy" results. That means there never was a discrepancy - it was just interesting so the news media reported on it. If you want an explanation of it you should not look with climate science - look at media studies or may be publications about great advertisement campaigns. To me the whole thing shows parallels to the is smoking bad for your health thing. If doctors are undecided it cannot be too bad - right? Also I can at least confirm from me being German and of similar age that the whole thing was not a thing in Germany at all. By asking a friend from the UK I can at least suspect that it wasn't prevalent there either (he knows about it but that is from US-sources).