Recently scientists released a study that suggests that due to natural cycles of warming and cooling, global temperatures may remain roughly constant for a few years, even though man-made global-warming will continue on top of that. There's a good discussion of the media response to this at the always excellent Island of Doubt, but I wanted to focus on one paper in particular - the Daily Mail. Why? Well, partly because along with many other sane people I can't stand the formerly-Nazi-supporting, anti-science, sorry excuse for a news outlet; and partly because they have an annoying grip over a lot of middle-class Britain.

The Daily Mail reported the news with a predictably Denialist tinge, using the headline: "Global warming could stop NATURALLY for ten years,' say scientists"; and use phrases like: "scientists claim", and "the official models"; and at one point uses the odd attribution "UN experts have said global temperatures are expected to increase by 0.3c over the next decade". This is very subtle by Daily Mail standards, and you could argue I'm being slightly sensitive picking out these quotes as problematic, but the Mail seem to go out of their way to gently suggest that these are "official" (i.e. government) claims and by extension that it is governments that push global warming. This sort of subtle "framing" is the same tactic that's "evident in the most recent post-MMR coverage, and suggests a broader strategy of "deniable denialism", publishing articles that carry a bias against the truth while claiming to offer "balance" or "healthy skepticism".

Unsurprisingly, the reader comments at the end of the article cry out almost in unison against the big "conspiracy" that is Global Warming. The first few comments set the tone - that global warming is a myth/conspiracy used to raise taxes or make more money for scientists:

"I say to all those intent on taxing us to the hilt - enough is enough. Let good sense prevail."

"Global warming is looking like one huge con."

"Here we go again, we're all going to freeze now!
Quick some more taxes please..."

"The 'scientists' don't know. Whether it's global warming or cooling they don't care; they just want our money to look into it. Then their decision will depend on which result will be financially best for them. Follow the money."

"The whole global warming myth is finally unravelling!"

It's paranoid, borderline delusional stuff - the idea that the scientists of every developed nation have come together with world governments to invent a crisis for the purpose of raising taxes is up there with some of the most outrageous conspiracy theories proposed. But reactions like those of the above conspiracy theorists are unsurprising when you look at some of the more openly hostile articles published in the Daily Mail about global warming in the past: "Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists"; "Global warming: the bogus religion of our age"; and "Global warming? It's natural, say experts" are just three examples that appear when you do a search for "Global Warming" on the Daily Mail website. The choice of headlines is very deliberate, and the tone set inside is unscientific and accusative. Here are some choice quotes from the three examples:

"And the doom and gloom merchants, who point to the threat to the polar bear from the melting North Pole, are wrong, the authors say."

"In the current warming cycle, they say there is evidence that storms and droughts have been fewer and milder; corals, trees, birds, mammals and butterflies have adapted well; and sea levels are not rising significantly."

"Completely divorced from scientific reality" (subheading).

"Stern's report 'ignores the evidence that does not suit his ideology'" (subheading).

"Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists."

"But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory. In fact global warming could be caused by increased solar activity such as a massive eruption. "

Notice again the "over-balancing" trick, not to mention the use of ad hominem attacks like "doom-and-gloom merchants". I won't go into the science behind these articles because it's all been covered many times before, but the tone is obviously biased - sometimes overtly, and sometimes more subtly, for example by giving equal credit to "other climate experts" even when they're in the overwhelmed minority.

The point of my little rant today is to point out a fundamental truth about public attitudes to science - newspapers like the Daily Mail are treated as gospel by their readership, and have an unhealthy ability to plant seeds of doubt in their minds, just as the Tobacco lobbyists did when they set out to cloud and confuse the issue over smoke-related health issues. The problem is, no amount of scientists can change those views - the agenda is set by a small but influential group of editors. The question isn't whether we can get the message to the people, it's whether we can get at those editors and bring them onside.