Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by russss | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

russss·

Oh come on, the Daily Mail? Really?

Here's the original BBC interview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm

And here's their article reporting it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511701.stm

If you read the interview you will see that the Mail has put an incredible amount of spin on it, as they tend to do.

View on HN

Whereas the BBC displays no bias whatsoever with respect to AGW. Do you seriously think that the article you linked to doesn't have its own (pretty obvious) agenda?

Primary sources are always better than secondary sources.

That's not true of analysis. You of course go to the primary source for the quotes, but beyond that....

What analysis?

I would say the BBC displays absolutely no bias in quoting the guy's responses verbatim...

I would say that specifying that warming 1860-1880 'not statistically significantly different' to 1995-2009 is quite an admission. Not the same as "No global warming" but not exactly evidence of runaway AGW.

Except that, as he immediately states, the data from 1860-1880 is not very good data, and thus is much less certain than modern data.

That's as opposed to modern data, which is much better. It's also opposed to other lines of evidence, such as atmospheric CO2 content. It's also opposed to physical evidence like the EIS data.

Have you watched the EIS time lapse videos? Go there and watch: http://www.extremeicesurvey.org/ It's both beautiful and powerful stuff.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com