The print issue claims climate change warnings were 'exaggerated' whilst the online only article says climate change is very real and we need to act immediately.
Two articles published by the Daily Mail today on the same climate change study draw vastly differing conclusions.
The first article, which appeared in the print copy of the newspaper and on the website, interprets the new report from researchers at Oxford as saying climate warnings are too ‘pessimistic’; it’s titled:
“Fear of global warming is exaggerated, say scientists: Experts now have longer to reduce amount of fossil fuels we burn”
The second article, relegated to a poky corner of the online science section, says the report shows climate change could be slowed if carbon emissions are radically cut; it’s titled:
“We CAN meet ambitious Paris climate change agreement goal to limit global temperatures rise to 1.5°C by 2100 (but only if countries stop using coal)”
The online-only article, which says ‘ambitious’ reductions in emissions could limit climate change, followed roughly the same line as the rest of the science press.
The highly respected US science magazine Nature, for example, said the report showed ‘heroic efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions will still be necessary to limit warming.’
‘The threat of global warming is not as bad as previously thought, climate scientists admitted yesterday’, says the print article, clearly going against the actual findings of the report.
The Mail’s print article encourages at best complacency, at worst attacks climate scientists and gives ammunition to climate deniers.
Which article has had more readers? Well, the first appeared in the actual paper and has been shared online 300 times and has 500 comments; the second has been shared 4 times and has 50 comments.
It’s at least nice to see the Mail directly contradicting itself on an issue in the same day; this process normally happens over a series of a few weeks.
2 Responses to “Daily Mail writes two articles on same climate study with wildly differing conclusions”
Will
Which only goes to proove that everything that one reads on the net and in the papers has been written by an individual and is only their opinion—as is this artical. Always best to do positive research before forming an opinion for one’s self although admittedly it is very difficult and time consuming.
greg
It really does grate on the public’s nerves when commentators keep reciting the “climate change denier” mantra.
Climate changes – that’s what it does; and has been doing so for millennia, and we can’t deny it.
Planet Earth’s flora and fauna exist because of CO2, and to advocate the removal of CO2 from our atmosphere seems to me to be dogmatic insanity and contrary to nature.
To do so, in a quest to halt the Earth’s natural cycles, appears more fitted to Dark Age religious zealotry than science.