My impression from the article (and I could very likely be wrong, as my retention seems to be slipping in my ripe age of 28) is that the hockey-stick theory is showing that global warming is increasing at an alarming pace - and that this scientist's finding's were never directly verified therfore there is no global warming, therfore Kyoto is a mistake. However, the journalist fails to quote any other study that supports global warming, and I would bet that there are other studies performed that support the same theory.
Yes, I realize there is no conclusive evidence and there will always be scientists willing to take some cash to produce a report with some numbers arranged in a different way thereby telling a different story - thereby confusing the issue.
In regards to this article, I think the journalist is using the question of one study's evidence to further his opinion on Kyoto as a whole (and for Canada).
My opinion based on questionable reasoning from flawed logic? Global warming is real and harmful, Kyoto is flawed and unreasonable however the underlying objective is a necessary issue.
Edited once for spelling & grammer. Edited twice to write this statement
|