Dodgy claims, overblown headlines, basic errors of fact: can you trust anything in the papers these days? Not the tabloids, that is, but the research papers in top science journals.
This is a question raised by fresh doubts about research into one of the scariest scenarios in the global warming debate: the disappearance of the Gulf Stream. This warm current is routinely portrayed as all that stands between Europe and an arctic climate. Not surprisingly, any evidence that the current is weakening is seized on by those demanding action on climate change.
In December 2005, the leading UK science journal Nature made world headlines by publishing evidence of precisely this. Researchers at the National Oceanography Centre (NOC) claimed that measurements of the current spanning the last half-century pointed to a 30 per cent
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
When science mags go tabloid, they damage faith in science itself, says robert matthews |
| |
slow-down in its strength. The team was in no doubt about the potential seriousness of their claim, warning that any such slow-down would have 'profound implications' for the climate of Europe.
So worrying a finding in so prestigious a journal predictably sparked scary headlines in the world's media. "Scientists probing a dying current bring worst climate fears to the surface", declared The Australian; "Is Britain on the brink of a new Ice Age?" asked the Daily Mail.
Many scientists already knew the answer to that one: no, we aren't. They immediately viewed the study's conclusion with suspicion, not least because it flew in the face of so much previous research. Some quickly spotted the most likely explanation: the NOC's data simply didn't justify its conclusion. All measurements have some inherent uncertainty, and in the case of 
|
