|
The polar bears thing has nothing to do with global warming theory. It's an example of how the media manipulates both sides to get attention.
The media is not a valid source of information about global warming, and everyone needs to be suspicious of any information that comes from commercial media sources.
As for the radiation study, first, the article you describe was written for Forbes, and Forbes has a clear bias which I'd be happy to discuss with you if you care. My comment on polar bears in the media, and how the media cannot be trusted to provide science infomation, applies to Forbes as well.
However, global warming theory is complex, and scientists are always looking for new information that can add new elemenst to the models that are used. If this new study provides new information that peer review agrees applies, it will be added to the emerging cluster of dominant models.
That's how science works, it collects measurement, shares them, proposes possible hypothesis about what the new information means, and builds theories when those hyposthesis are confirmed or refuted by experimenst and further measurements.
The title of the article you posted tho clearly shows it's spin.
Tell you what, I'll keep my eyes open for how this new finding is assessed and try to remember to let you know.
I may make you my special project for discussion. You don't seem impossible to inform.
|