The headline Friday of an article on the BBC’s website read, “What happened to global warming?” The article by climate correspondent Paul Hudson prominently noted the lack of temperature increases in the last 10 years while noting that “the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over.” Yesterday, Nature railed against the story and the premise that the debate is not over.
The report from the BBC was heralded across manmade climate change skeptic websites as affirmation of their belief that their movement is growing. Indeed, the climate (pun intended) has become harder for alarmists as despite the claims that the ‘science is settled,’ skeptics are getting their long unheard cries for discussion noticed.
The BBC report was actually quite even handed in its treatment. It rightly noted that, “For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures” despite the fact that the climate models global warming alarmists and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) use did not accurately predict the change – or lack thereof. This comes despite the rising CO2 in the atmosphere that the IPCC believes to be the primary cause of global warming.
Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction and Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University offered their explanation. Corbyn cited solar activity as the primary driver of the climate while Easterbrook states his believe that changes in the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) have brought on recent cooling.
Providing a counter point were IPCC scientists Dr Piers Forster and Mojib Latif. The story further discussed the UK Met Office’s explanation for the lack of warming.
The even-handedness of the article from a normally alarmist media outlet did not sit well with the journal Nature. In a posting in the site’s Great Beyond blog, editor Daniel Cressey took great offense to the BBC presented a balanced piece.
Cressey says that, “Given that they occupy a position on the scientific credibility spectrum that could charitably be characterised as ‘fringe’, it is no surprise that those who deny climate change have to take their victories where they find them.” He continues, saying that, “Without commenting on the merits of their arguments, it is clear that it is slightly disingenuous to use the views of these two men.”
In questioning the credibility of Corbyn and Easterbrook as well as other manmade climate change skeptics, Cressey opens himself to analysis of his own standing. According to his biography on the site, Cressey is a professional writer, not a researcher. He “has degrees in Chemistry, History of Science and Journalism.” The last two of course don’t lend themselves to climate science and the first is questionable and likely not an advanced degree or presumably it would say so.
Many on both sides of the debate – alarmists and skeptics alike – continue to be frustrated by the dismissive nature of discussion and unneeded ad hominem attacks such as this. Whether it is Cressey writing stories such as this or Al Gore refusing to answer a question about the accuracy of his film, the tactics do little to help either side and drown out more rational arguments.
Click source for more
Source Link: examiner.com