Longtime climate sceptic and Mail science editor (there’s an alarming combo) Michael Hanlon wrote an experience piece this week from Greenland, where he underwent the following realisation:
I have long been something of a climate-change sceptic, but my views in recent years have shifted. For me, the most convincing evidence that something worrying is going on lies right here in the Arctic.
The Left Foot Forward piece points out some rather contradictory pieces Hanlon wrote up to a decade ago as well as noting that this editorial repositioning comes after Dr Phil Jones and his fellow UEA researchers were exonerated of any wrongdoing during the Climategate affair. There are some more articles from the Daily Mail’s fairly recent archives still dismissing climate change theories as doommongering, suggesting Hanlon has some work to do yet to convince his colleagues…
2009 was a good year for climate scepticism at the Mail, with Climategate coverage culminating in this reactionary editorial . As the majority of the British press jumped on the wrong aspect of Climategate (namely that scientists tried to twist facts, rather than the fact that academic research needs to be more open – the latter is true, the former is not). I copy and paste the majority, because the metaphor is too good to miss:
Researchers at one of the world’s leading climate change centres stand accused of manipulating data to exaggerate the extent of global warming – a deception which would represent a scandalous betrayal of trust. We rely on scientists to give us the truth about these complex and crucial issues. If they are now twisting the facts to support their own doomsday theories, they are no better than Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell, who fabricated the ‘dodgy dossier’ of lies on which we were dragged into the disastrous Iraq war.
There was a subsequent editorial in January which claimed in response to the news that UN statement around Himalayan glaciers was purely speculative:
The debate over the future of our planet and the need to cut pollution is of the greatest importance. That is why it must be based on fact – not unscientific propaganda.
Ah – propaganda. So we won’t find any blatantly commercial press release articles in your science section then?