To suggest that the Guardian and the Independent are ' trashy, and often filled with hyperbole masquerading as reporting' and suggesting that the only difference between them that the Mail is Political is laughable. Just read the damn things. It is possible to be either side of the political divide and still produce decent journalism in the main. the independent and the Guardian manage this, as do the Times, the Financial Times and, by and large, the Telegraph. The Mail, alas, is filled with scaremongering and lies. Not every article to be sure but the tone of the publication is distasteful in the extreme. You aren't a mail reader by any chance are you? If so I suggest you find a forum more suited to your prejudices.

Ahh, the voice of reason at last. I was about to post something very similar but you beat me to it. It seems very odd to me that in a forum such as this, where I assume the majority are reasonably scientifically literate (but perhaps I'm being naive), so many posters seem to have a fixed 'faith' about issues and try to shoehorn any articles they can into their ill-fitting metaphorical footwear. It's simple - just look at the data and try to work out what it means. There is NO political agenda from the scientists involved in climate science - apart from some, and only some, of the ones funded by the oil industry. So please, will a few more of you do some reading and engage your brains before touching the keyboard. i don't care who you agree or disagree with but I would like you to be well-informed.