Well, hello, hello, hello. Simply incredible the certainty with which the BBC report the findings of one group of UK scientists on the sun-spots – warming
link alleged link. Keep in mind the following is just the link descriptor, which is the first thing a viewer reads before clicking to read the article itself:
“The idea that the Earth’s climate is determined by cosmic rays and the Sun’s activity is discredited by UK scientists.”
Note the subtle avoidance of saying “disproved” by using something perhaps stronger- the great argument of all man-centred warmists, ridicule. Damn, those crazy sun-spotters are so past-tense they’re already finished- discredited no less.
But anyway, to proceed to the article, which begins in highly suggestive terms:
“Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun’s activity.”
Well I always thought that outside of opinion pieces a journalist was supposed to source subjective judgements like “compelling”, but maybe that’s a quibble.
But then, I’d quibble with the following statement too:
“This is the latest piece of evidence which at the very least puts the cosmic ray theory, developed by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center (DNSC), under very heavy pressure.”
At the very least under very heavy pressure. Heavy stuff indeed. Yet which is it that was pressurizing the cosmic ray theory (hardly rocket science anyway)? Is it the implied series of pieces of evidence which preceded “the latest”, or is it “the latest”? It’s not clear to me, and do you know, I don’t think it’s supposed to be.
Bottom line (literally): …”we had better carry on trying to cut carbon emissions”.
So not a bit politicised at the BBC, is it?