In a post hosted by the Guardian, Abraham and Nuccitelli make a good job of shredding two articles that are at best inaccurate, at worst criminally misleading.
When it comes to climate science reporting, the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph are only reliable in the sense that you can rely on them to usually get the science wrong. This weekend’s Arctic sea ice articles from David Rose of the Mail and Hayley Dixon at the Telegraph unfortunately fit that pattern.
Points covered include:
- Regression toward the Mean
- When Will the Arctic be Ice-Free?
- Continuing Global Warming
- Yes, Humans are Driving Global Warming
- Shoddy Climate Reporting
They are particularly scathing – and rightly so – on claims that “some scientists” are predicting that we’re headed into a period of global cooling.
Both [Rose and Dixon] named just one scientist making this claim – Professor Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin, whose research shows that slowed global surface warming is only temporary. In fact, Tsonis’ co-author Kyle Swanson wrote,
“What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf.”
These two articles at the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph, they conclude:
…continue the unfortunate trend of shoddy climate reporting in the two periodicals, particularly from David Rose. They suffer from cherry picking short-term data while ignoring the long-term human-caused trends, misrepresenting climate research, repeating long-debunked myths, and inventing IPCC meetings despite being told by climate scientists that these claims are pure fiction.
Based on their history of shoddy reporting, the safest course of action when reading a climate article in the Mail on Sunday or Telegraph is to assume they’re misrepresentations or falsehoods until you can verify the facts therein for yourself.