I don't like to post links in threads like these because people see bias in everything they don't agree with in the news even if the story is treated fairly.
But when a source known to slant coverage in one direction prints a story from the horses mouth contrary to the prevailing conventional wisdom, that in itself is newsworthy. The American media has steered well clear of "Climate gate" and the internal Mann inquiry (until he was found not to have altered results for political/financial reasons), the BBC has worked to fill that void.
They interviewed Phil Jones, one of the big three in the AGW debate (four if you count Gore) and his answers were not out of the AGW handbook. It gives me a glimmer of hope that the scientists can go back to conducting real science.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511701.stmThe whole article is good, and fair, and worth the read for anyone interested. The two things that I found most interesting:
Quote:
But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.
A smaller population with nowhere near the industrial capacity would have less impact than modern civiliazation, yet there were other recent warm periods.
And:
Quote:
He said many people had been made sceptical about climate change by the snow in the northern hemisphere - but they didn't realise that the satellite record from the University of Alabama in Huntsville showed it had been the warmest January since records began in 1979.
Modern reliable weather data for even the U.S. is only thirty years old and that coincides with the last cool period.
If you don't think the BBC is part of the anti-AGW crowd, the related stories at the upper right of the linked page may be of further interest.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
It does give you a sense of what the WWI boys on the western front went through....
