I read today the Daily Mail Headline:
Was this I thought, “someone like Rose celebrating the resurgence of science against the pseudo science of global warming” ….or was it “someone like AFP pushing pseudo-science claptrap”.
And that’s what I love about the Daily Mail. Because whilst I hate papers like the Guardian that are just an rag mag for climate activists, I’d also hate to see any paper that (like the Guardian) spent its time regurgitating fake news supposedly supporting sceptics.
Because science is science because it is tested thoroughly and stands up to scrutiny. And if the Daily mail were to just print one side of the argument – even if it’s the only sensible side of the argument – however daft the insane ideas of alarmists like AFP, they might one day (almost by mistake) make a valid point which might cause sensible people to re-examine the science. And that would be progress.
Because unlike people like AFP, sceptics want to know the actual truth – even if it is unpalatable to us.
As for the Article
I went off it as soon as it said the US had ratified Paris. Nothing of the sort has happened. You ratify treaties and treaties cannot be ratified just by a president. Instead all Obama has done is the equivalent of a facebook “like”. And what has been done by one president can be easily undone by the next. To be blunt, the US can simply pull out the Day Trump arrives – there will be howls of protest, but there is no legal process that can force the US to comply when countries were told it was illegal under US law.
There’s not much else in the article. They lie about severe weather, go on about Arctic ice – but ignore e.g. growing Greenland ice. Obviously ignore the pause, etc.
Can I be bothered to dissect such trash, when in a very few weeks, Trump will be tearing up all the pseudo-science and everything Obama has built on it?
And the fact they don’t allow comments on AFP’s articles (and who is AFP?) really shows that it’s just a filler piece – low content