It's difficult to know what to make of this. There seems to also be such a massive disconnect between other media voices over what the impact of revelations like this are to the overall global warming / climate change thesis.
There has been a stunning lack of intellectual curiosity/skepticism by journalists on the issue and if anything, much of the media seems outright hostile to the possibility that the overriding thesis could possibly be wrong.
This wouldn't be such a big issue if it weren't for the policy recommendations that would have us greatly change our way of life by people who by and large are insulated from proving their work has intrinsic value/subject to markets/or even the costs if they're wrong. It is to the Telegraph's credit that they've stayed on this story but I'm not sure if I'm more surprised or worried that these revelations have not caused a greater level of introspection or reached a wider mainstream audience.
The Obama administration internally believes that cap and trade will cost the average family $1761 USD/year: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/ent... - and that's their estimate that's almost certain to be light ignoring the impact on industry itself.
Which assumes that, this time, the Peak Oil crowd is right.
I see no reason to give them any more credence than the last N times they've claimed this (my personal knowledge goes back only to the"Limits to Growth" '70s, but you can go back many more decades).
I will believe that graph is likely to contain something with any connection whatsoever to reality when shown an accurate representation of the economic situation in 2010 produced in 1970.
There has been a stunning lack of intellectual curiosity/skepticism by journalists on the issue and if anything, much of the media seems outright hostile to the possibility that the overriding thesis could possibly be wrong.
This wouldn't be such a big issue if it weren't for the policy recommendations that would have us greatly change our way of life by people who by and large are insulated from proving their work has intrinsic value/subject to markets/or even the costs if they're wrong. It is to the Telegraph's credit that they've stayed on this story but I'm not sure if I'm more surprised or worried that these revelations have not caused a greater level of introspection or reached a wider mainstream audience.
That said, it would seem at least the news is trickling out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8500443.stm. It does make me wonder even more about the news industry before internet use became pervasive.