Opposites attract on a burning issue | The Australian

Climate sceptics also commonly recycle inaccurate "facts". The myth that global warming peaked in 1998 is a case in point. Yes, 1998 was a global scorcher, thanks to a heat-inducing El Nino. But after a dip in 1999, data collected by NASA and Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research show an upward trend, despite year-to-year variations. To claim otherwise is incorrect.

So too is the "fact" that the sun or high-energy particles known as cosmic rays are driving warming. The cosmic ray idea came from Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark in the 1990s. Since then, Svensmark's efforts to prove his case have failed. Plus, a "correlation" he reported between cosmic rays, clouds and warming holds up after 1995 only when the data is "corrected".

Still, if there is proof of these and other sceptical hypotheses - carbon dioxide does not cause warming, it follows it; a change in Earth's orbit around the Sun is causing warming; temperatures dropped for several decades after 1945 despite rising CO2 emissions - it should be published in a peer-reviewed journal. To suggest leading publications such as Science or Nature won't publish hypothesis-demolishing results is naive. They'd jump at the media coverage to be had.

Media blitzes, blogs and public pronouncements are fine, but scientists are loath to accept evidence-free assertions. True, if another Galileo is out there with the data to rock their world, some scientists would drag their heels, but others would be on to it in a career-enhancing flash.

Leigh Dayton is The Australian's sciencewriter.