...wrong about what constitutes good journalistic practice. See what I did there? I cheated with a headline. The Guardian had one a bit like that today.

I particularly like the 'Climatologists insist' bit. You really get the sense that their views are under pressure and they're trying not to crumble.

The start of the article looks even worse:

But if you read all the way to the end, you get one or two little footnotes which kinda sorta totally reverse the sense of the article:

Is that what it takes to 'raise questions' over the statistics Al Gore used to highlight the faster pace of climate change? Statistically insignificant errors in 2% of the data? You might have thought it would take a bit more than that. But this isn't about the truth; that's not the point. The point is, there's still doubt about whether man-made climate change is real. That's what you're supposed to take away from this. That doubt may not have any bearing on the predicament we're in, but for those who like to say scientists aren't sure, no one knows, it might be nothing, these sorts of newspaper articles are vital and they keep appearing. The only difference is that they used to challenge the consensus regarding man-made climate change and now they have to content themselves with criticising the workings-out and the P.R. skills of those involved. It's not much, but if it helps us put off taking action for a little while longer then it will have served its purpose.