OK, now that News of the gutter is no more, we can expect the other papers to be going down gutter to try to pick up readers, but really does the independent have to stoop so low:
Climate change could …
“Climate change <add in your bit of research you are flogging and a very tenuous link to temperature based on some very fanciful imagination> … because of the effects of global warming, a study has found.”
“The findings support the view that the earth is currently experiencing <insert your favourite doomsday scenario which is the reason you were cherry picking the data to find something to support your prejudged conclusion> … Scientists said” (aka as a student who still goes home to mum to do the washing, or some academic whose main experience outside the ivory towers of academia is the people he meets at the eco-food shop)
Just to pick some of the “extreme” science here … ‘”We tried to see whether predictions were backed up by things that have already happened and this was what we found,” Dr Maclean said.’
In other words, they tried something very new … to look to see whether any of the predictions were based on evidence (what has happened) and they were so amazed that some of the predictions were actually based on real observations that they felt this meant they had to write an entire paper which the Independent also thought was so novel they had to write an entire article about predictions that were based on actual evidence.
Which really leaves one wondering about all those predictions that aren’t based on “things that have already happened” (aka evidence) … presumably they are just made up in the queue of the eco-sandwich shop?
As for any suggestions trends in the past have any bearing on the future … if they find evidence based science is so novel it deserves a whole article … I can guess their reaction: “wooh! that’s deep philosophy Mann”.
