No, U.S. climate scientists didn't trick the world into adopting the Paris deal

[Eugene]

Note: The Daily Mail story and various right-wing sites are prominently listed in the Google News science feed for this issue.

_______________________________________________________________________

Source: Mashable

No, U.S. climate scientists didn't trick the world into adopting the Paris deal

BY MARIA GALLUCCI
3 HOURS AGO

The climate-denial camp has new ammunition: A widely refuted Daily Mail article that claims top U.S. climate scientists exaggerated their data for a 2015 study to "dupe" world leaders into adopting the Paris Climate Agreement.

That agreement, which went into force in November 2016, for the first time committed the world to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

For his incendiary story, British journalist David Rose, who has reported inaccurately on climate science and Iraqi weaponry in the past, spoke to a "high-level whistleblower" in a top U.S. climate agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The whistleblower-scientist, John Bates, claimed that NOAA broke its own rules for scientific integrity when it published a noteworthy scientific study debunking the so-called "hiatus" in global warming.

U.S. and European scientists swiftly denounced the Daily Mail story this weekend, pointing to multiple independent analyses supporting NOAA's findings.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://mashable.com/2017/02/05/noaa-global-warming-hiatus-story/#S63mldnl2sqG

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. The Daily Mail is the British version of the New York Post.

Very tabloidy, very right-wing.

[Eugene]

2. Despite their right wing political stance, their science reporting is usually much better than this.

They found a formerly reputable scientist with an axe to grind.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. No, the Mail is infamous for bad or simply lying reporting about climate

David Rose is one of the worst climate deniers there is. And the Mail is also crap about cancer - a never-ending parade of stories about whether a food, or almost anything, either causes cancer or cures it.

http://dailymailoncology.tumblr.com/

It's no coincidence that the Mail has now been designated an unreliable source by Wikipedia.