4 ms·

Not really an accurate title - The BBC didn't "fire" him, they just stopped making programs he suggested. Regardless, I think he makes some pretty convincing a

• cedsav 18y ago
  on "Global warming 'stopped in 1998'", from http://mediamatters.org/items/200703230007 http://mediamatters.org/items/200703230007 Fox News host Brit Hume and a Washington Times editorial both cited a misleading statistic to suggest that global warming might have "stopped in 1998" because of a "negligible decrease in temperature" since that year. While 1998 was the hottest year on record, according to the Climatic Research Unit, an examination of temperature data since 1998 undermines the assertion that global warming "stopped" in that year. For example, neither mentioned the fact that five different years since 1998 (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005) have seen warmer temperatures than any year preceding 1998, according to Climatic Research Unit figures. Nor did they explain that 2005 was the second-warmest year on record, according to the Climatic Research Unit, and the hottest year on record when analysis of warming in the Arctic is taken into account, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
• 1gor 18y ago
  I agree with your point, but the essence is the same. He was a fixture on TV screen at one point -- then they stopped inviting him for the reasons he stated. They fired him from being a regular contributor.
  • axod 18y ago
    Reminds me of Milton @ Office space... "We fixed the glitch"... It'll work itself out :) There is quite a difference though between actively firing someone, and just ignoring them.
  • pg 18y ago
    the essence is the same No; there is a big difference between that and firing someone for their opinions.
    • 1gor 18y ago
      BBC bans respected scientist for denying man-made climate change should have been the title. Sorry, my fault.