Scientists take Mail on Sunday to task over ‘completely incorrect’ climate claims


Dr Roz Pidcock of the Carbon Brief has done an exellent job of fisking the Mail on Sunday’s latest crackpot piece of climate change denial.

Climate changeIn yesterday’s Mail, self-proclaimed climate skeptic David Rose wrote that he had seen information which “reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong”.

According to the climate scientists, however, it is David Rose who is the one that is “drastically wrong”.

Cue Dr Pidcock:

“The Mail on Sunday gives the story a generous double page spread, and repeats many of the same arguments Rose has made in previous pieces. So let’s focus on what’s new – the central claim of the article that scientists have cut their assessment of warming since the middle of last century by half.

“The Mail on Sunday says:

“‘Back [in 2007], [the IPCC] said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2 degrees Celsius every decade … But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12 Celsius per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction’

“Dr Richard Allan, a climate scientist at the University of Reading, tells us this statement is quite simply wrong. He says Rose has mixed up the numbers in the last IPCC report.

“‘The main claim by David Rose in the Mail on Sunday is that rate of global warming since 1951 has been halved since the last IPCC report. This is completely incorrect.’

“In 2007, the IPCC said the rate of warming since 1951 had been not 0.2 but 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade. If the new report says 0.12 degrees Celsius, as the Mail on Sunday suggests, this is a very minor revision of 0.01 degrees.

“Professor Myles Allen from Oxford University, who is quoted pretty heavily in the piece, posted a comment below the article pointing out Rose’s error….”

Read the full article here.

This entry was posted in Media Integrity and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
  • OldLb

    Ah yes. The cherry pick. So easy to spot. Pick 1951 because its a low point.

    However, we’ve a far better scientific test.

    Science. Hypothesis, prediction and test. If the test fails, the theory is wrong. No iffs, no buts.

    Now how did the global warming lot manage on their predictions?

    Yep over 95% probability they are wrong. If its good enough for a drug, its good enough to axe all funding, axe all taxes, …