Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 10/14/2009 10:09:06 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Andrew's Mailbag It's been a fascinating week for climate reporting and the BBC. On Tuesday, an astonished Jeremy Paxman was heard asking Global Warming advocate Chris Rapley on Newsnight to confirm that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen this century.
(No, Rapley agreed, it hasn't. But clearly, from the amazed look on his face, nobody had ever thought to fill Paxo in on this minor detail - until now).
Last week we described the hurried amendments made to a BBC News Online story about global warming, and this ran round the internet like a contagion, prompting widespread commentary on US TV - and universal ridicule for the corporation.
The Beeb's Roger Harrabin had noted remarks made by the chief of the UN weather quango, concluding that "...this would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory".
Big mistake, Roger.
Harrabin initially stood by his words, but shortly after an eco-warrior made a threat to humiliate him before the Court of The Hive Mind ("I am about to send your comments to others for their contribution, unless you request I do not. They are likely to want to post your comments on forums/fora, so please indicate if you do not want this to happen. You may appear in an unfavourable light") the story was severely edited.
We've a couple of updates for you.
Firstly, Ms Abbess (who declined to respond to our request for comment) wasn't alone in demanding - and getting - changes to the story. The UN's World Meteorological Organisation - a parent of the IPCC - was also in touch. It shared its statement with us about the BBC's report. And here it is:
"Just wanted to point out a few other outlets that fixed their story,.....
(Excerpt) Read more at theregister.co.uk ...
Lawrence Solomon: The end is near ( global warming scare is all over but the shouting )
Globull, bed-Wetting.
Blog bully crows over BBC climate victory---Emergent Truthiness
******************************EXCERPT*************************************
By Andrew Orlowski
Posted in Environment, 8th April 2008 12:07 GMT
Bullying bloggers are no strangers to online media - especially when they're Single Issue Fanatics (SIF). "They're deeply emotional, they're bullies, and they often don't get out enough," the BBC's Adam Curtis noted here last year. This week, campaigner Jo Abbess is boasting about how she browbeat the BBC into modifying a story about Global Warming. The BBC has defended the changes to its story.
Abbess swung into action on Friday after the BBC's Roger Harrabin reported comments by World Meteorological Organisation secretary general Michel Jarraud. In a story titled "Global temperatures 'to decrease'", Harrabin wrote:
"The World Meteorological Organisation's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Niña would continue into the summer. This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory."
La Niña is the cooling phase of what's called the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which affects the sea surface in the central and eastern Equatorial Pacific. Niña alternates with El Nino, which raises temperatures. We're entering the Niña phase. Global temperatures have been static from their 1998 peak, when El Nino peaked.
It's nicely illustrated by this graph:
The ENSO cycle
Which also shows how foolish it is to extrapolate anything from short-term trends.
The plateau in temperature this century was acknowledged by IPCC chief Dr Rajendra Pachauri back in January.
Abbess fired off an email titled "Correction Demanded: 'Global temperatures 'to decrease'". She argued that anyone who doubts the scientific orthodoxy is not qualified to hold an opinion.
"Several networks exist that question whether global warming has peaked, but they contain very few actual scientists, and the scientists that they do contain are not climate scientists so have no expertise in this area."
Harrabin initially stood firm.
But we must tax the rich and give to the poor until there are no rich no more!
Global temperatures 'to decrease'
*************************************EXCERPT***********************************
By Roger Harrabin
BBC News environment analyst 
 La Nina caused some of the coldest temperatures in memory in China
|
Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.
The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.
While Nasa, the US space agency, cites 2005 as the warmest year, the UK's Hadley Centre lists it as second to 1998.
Researchers say the uncertainty in the observed value for any particular year is larger than these small temperature differences. What matters, they say, is the long-term upward trend.
Rises 'stalled'
 |
LA NINA KEY FACTS
 La Nina translates from the Spanish as "The Child Girl"
Refers to the extensive cooling of the central and eastern Pacific
Increased sea temperatures on the western side of the Pacific mean the atmosphere has more energy and frequency of heavy rain and thunderstorms is increased
Typically lasts for up to 12 months and generally less damaging event than the stronger El Nino
|
La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world.
El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.
It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.
Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.
This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.
Watching trends
A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.
Video at Website....not sure what it says....
Animation of El Nino and La Nina effects
Nothing like name-calling when your sorry arse is caught in a lie.
Adam Curtis: The TV elite has lost the plot.....The stupidity of crowds
****************************************EXCERPT*********************************
By Andrew Orlowski
Posted in Music and Media, 20th November 2007 11:18 GMT
Beeb Week Adam Curtis is one of the jewels in the BBC's crown - as well as one of its fiercest critics.
His documentaries are rich, complex histories of ideas that have surprised BBC executives with their popularity amongst younger viewers: his montage technique and visual jokes reward repeated viewings.
The Century of the Self told the story of how Freud's nephew invented modern public relations [pt3]. The Power Of Nightmares [video] described how the myth of the al-Qaeda "network" had to be invented so a terror trial could be heard under America's RICO laws. The Trap [pts1&2] describes how reductionist and paranoid logic of game theory influenced psychology, biology and eventually social policy.
(Curtis is also an advisor to Popbitch)
Over two interviews with us, Curtis lays into a TV class that has lost its confidence, run out of ideas, and fallen back on "user generated content" as a salvation.
He explains how bloggers are bullies, warns of the snake oil salesmen of the internet's "new democracy", and suggests how to repair a BBC in crisis.
[There's a short excerpt from the first interview in MP3 format here, and we'll air a follow-up later in the week. This one isn't broadcast quality, but it's such a fine rant, it's too good not share.]
Implicit behind a lot of this stuff, like being asked to do blogging, is that we're getting a more representative view of the public.
That's a great paradox. It's a wider thing than the internet, but the internet sums it up. It's that on the surface it says that "the internet is a new form of democracy". So what you're seeing is a new pluralism, a new collage, a new mosaic of all sorts of different ideas that's genuinely representative.
But if you analyse what happens, it simplifies things.
First of all, the people who do blogging, for example, are self-selecting. Quite frankly it's quite clear that what bloggers are is bullies. The internet has removed a lot of constraints on them. You know what they're like: they're deeply emotional, they're bullies, and they often don't get out enough. And they are parasitic upon already existing sources of information - they do little research of their own.
What then happens is this idea of the 'hive mind', instead of leading to a new plurality or a new richness, leads to a growing simplicity.
The bloggers from one side act to try to force mainstream media one way, the others try to force it the other way. So what the mainstream media ends up doing is it nervously tries to steer a course between these polarised extremes.
Pachauri on Recent Climate Trends
************************************EXCERPT*************************************
January 14, 2008
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Climate Change | Prediction and Forecasting | Scientific Assessments
*************************************
Last week scientists at the Real Climate blog gave their confirmation bias synapses a workout by explaining that eight years of climate data is meaningless, and people who pay any attention to recent climate trends are "misguided." I certainly agree that we should exhibit cautiousness in interpreting short-duration observations, nonetheless we should always be trying to explain (rather than simply discount) observational evidence to avoid the trap of confirmation bias.
So it was interesting to see IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri exhibit "misguided" behavior when he expressed some surprise about recent climate trends in The Guardian:
Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century."One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents," he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.
He added that sceptics about a human role in climate change delighted in hints that temperatures might not be rising. "There are some people who would want to find every single excuse to say that this is all hogwash," he said.
Ironically, by suggesting that their might be some significance to recent climate trends, Dr. Pachauri has provided ammunition to those very same skeptics that he disparages. Perhaps Real Climate will explain how misguided he is, but somehow I doubt it.
For the record, I accept the conclusions of IPCC Working Group I. I don't know how to interpret climate observations of the early 21st century, but believe that there are currently multiple valid hypotheses. I also think that we can best avoid confirmation bias, and other cognitive traps, by making explicit predictions of the future and testing them against experience. The climate community, or at least its activist wing, studiously avoids forecast verification. It just goes to show, confirmation bias is more a more comfortable state than dissonance -- and that goes for people on all sides of the climate debate. Posted on January 14, 2008 08:02 AM Dr. Pachauri throws out, once again, the strawman here: "He added that sceptics about a human role in climate change delighted in hints that temperatures might not be rising. "There are some people who would want to find every single excuse to say that this is all hogwash,"" This is typical alarmist misdirection. Skeptics don't say that. Denialists say that. In fact, Pachauri represents another type of denialist - those that deny the major effects *could* be other than CO2. Skeptics are simply skeptical that controlling CO2 (and enriching a few carbon traders, not a few of whom are in the tight circle of the UN) is the magic bullet here. The current question is why has Antarctica been cooling now for decades? Does this not mean that the warming is not global? Of course that's what it means. Is CO2 not increasing down there? Of course it is. How difficult is it for those in their individual rooms of this huge Tower of Babel called climate science to admit something's not quite right here? I submit the last ones to realize that are the slowest ones... Posted by: Harry Haymuss Roger, Pachauri would do well to remember that because someone delights in finding a climatologist has made a failed prediction, it does not follow that that delight negates the prediction error. If this sort of thing was true, then every bit of evidence for significant man-made temperature change that was held up with glee by activists would have to be discounted. In Pachauri's logic, the side that cheered the loudest would lose. Briggs Posted by: mattstat Comments
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 14, 2008 02:08 PM
at January 29, 2008 10:24 PM
Orlowski at a going-away party in San Francisco.
Andrew Orlowski (born 1966) is a British columnist for the online IT newspaper The Register.
Orlowski has produced numerous articles that aim to cast doubt over anthropogenic climate change, or global warming.[15] His articles often favour non-scientific pundits over the expert scientific community, for example his defence of Christopher Monckton against the American Physical Society.[16]
Interesting story....Andrew Orlowski needs a prize....
global wetting? lol. This is a water planet.
We have this....from the Blog...
:
************************************EXCERPT*****************************
April 4, 2008 by jo
Climate Changers,
Remember to challenge any piece of media that seems like it's been subject to spin or scepticism.
Here's my go for today. The BBC actually changed an article I requested a correction for, but I'm not really sure if the result is that much better.
Judge for yourselves...
(private email exchange removed 13-may-2008 ja)
ORIGINAL
================
Page last updated at 00:42 GMT, Friday, 4 April 2008 01:42 UK
Global temperatures 'to decrease'
By Roger Harrabin
BBC News environment analyst
Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007 due to the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years.
Rises 'stalled'
La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world.
El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.
It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.
Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.
This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.
Watching trends
A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.
But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 1998 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.
"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.
"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."
Adam Scaife, lead scientist for Modelling Climate Variability at the Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, said their best estimate for 2008 was about 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average, and higher than this if you compared it with further back in the 20th Century.
Mr Scaife told the BBC: "What's happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended."
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
UPDATED VERSION (note : the page date and time has not changed)
==============================================
Page last updated at 00:42 GMT, Friday, 4 April 2008 01:42 UK
Global temperatures 'to decrease'
By Roger Harrabin
BBC News environment analyst
Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.
The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.
While Nasa, the US space agency, cites 2005 as the warmest year, the UK's Hadley Centre lists it as second to 1998.
Researchers say the uncertainty in the observed value for any particular year is larger than these small temperature differences. What matters, they say, is the long-term upward trend.
Rises 'stalled'
La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world.
El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.
It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.
Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.
This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.
Watching trends
A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.
Animation of El Nino and La Nina effects
But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 2008 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.
"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.
"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."
China suffered from heavy snow in January
Adam Scaife, lead scientist for Modelling Climate Variability at the Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, said their best estimate for 2008 was about 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average, and higher than this if you compared it with further back in the 20th Century.
Mr Scaife told the BBC: "What's happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended."
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
What happened to global warming?
***********************************EXCERPT from BBC Article*****************************
By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News
 Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade
|
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?
During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.
Please ignore implied links in posting at #16...
Thanks Ernest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Comments
BBC reporting
April 5, 2008 by jimroland, 1 year 27 weeks ago
Comment id: 1922
Please let's be careful not to hang draw and quarter some of the most conscientious science writers out there. RH referred in a story last year to the 5 professors who wrote a critical letter on the IPCC write-up on biofuels. A much larger number of scientists wrote a critical letter over the IPCC's conclusions as to man-made global warming. So on what basis should they refer to those scientists as "a tiny minority", for example? I wouldn't have liked it if the biofuel-sceptic scientists were described as "a tiny minority", and so forth. The "The Editors" feature on BBC reporting on AGW-sceptics seemed a very sensible exercise.
"Influencing" The Change
April 7, 2008 by timjankowski08, 1 year 27 weeks ago
Comment id: 1925
What I see happened here is you disagreed with what was being reported because it went against your THEORY of climate change caused by humans. So you decided to try and influence a change in an already liberal-biased media so that the news more closely reflects what YOU think.
1- The BBC has every right to quote skeptics, it is only responsible journalism to show both sides of an argument, including the one that YOU may not agree with. You can't censor the media into only showing your side because you think that the other side gets too much play
2-While in your mind, you are absolutely convinced that climate change is the result of human intervention, it still remains a theory, not a proven fact, therefore the media is OBLIGATED to treat human-caused climate change as just that, a theory.
3-You called the science of climatology as a science in it's "infancy"...If the science is in fact in its infancy, than how can we trust that your conclusion that our societies have, as a direct measure, affected climate change is nothing more than a political agenda against corporate development?
4-Otherwise, I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently
educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically
manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable reporter....what is the purpose of your e-mail if not to manipulate this reporter into spinning the story YOUR way?
The arena of ideas is to encompass both sides, not simply just yours. People as a whole need to examine what we accept as fact and as theory and learn to differentiate between the two. I am not saying there has been no climate change during the last century, what I am saying is you have quickly accepted a reason, laden with political agenda, as to why it has occurred. Journalism is to be objective and free of influence from ANY special interest group or activist group, including your own.
Thank You.
-Tim Jankowski
maximuspoliticus.blogspot.com
Disgraceful behaviour
April 8, 2008 by Rustigjongens, 1 year 27 weeks ago
Comment id: 1929
I have to concur 100% with Tim Jankowski, the behaviour of this activist brings shame to the whole enviromental lobby group.
Behaviour such as that exibited by Jo will only cause more people to question anything said by the green lobby, I find her email threatening and judging from the comments on many other blogs my opinion is the majority view.
For this person to then gloat about her behaviour on a blog has turned her so called victory into one big own goal for ALL enviromental activists.
Coming from the Netherlands we have a history of allowing freedom of speech and behaviour from this activist would be highlighted and treated with the contempt it deserves.
Joseph
Maastricht
The Netherlands
Well said Joseph ! Jo's
April 9, 2008 by Randomtox, 1 year 26 weeks ago
Comment id: 1931
Well said Joseph !
Jo's belligerent behaviour does not create an atmosphere conducive to discussion; which is needed for any element of change to occur. As you say - this is an own goal !
We HAVE to be able to question things in an open manner. Anything less is propaganda !
I wonder if the MMGW lobby have thought what might happen in, say 50 years, if things suddenly start to get much colder ? Those scientists and activists who so ardently supported the theory will be left without a leg to stand on. Any future attempts to engage in discussions or make an observation will be greeted with a closed door. There are a lot of reputations on the line here...and I'm not sure everyone sees it !
Global warming may be happening. But by far the most pressing problem facing this planet is over-population. Worry about that before you worry about climatic cycles which are largely beyond our control.
Jo is the dangerous one!
April 9, 2008 by pat, 1 year 26 weeks ago
Comment id: 1932
Well said to the above posters! Its a dangerous world that we live in when half cocked crackpots can alter what the media reports for consumption by the rest of us. Despite much scientific fact to the contrary to which Jo and her crowd dont subscribe, they would rather plug our ears and cover our eyes than let us hear and see the facts because they dont meet their own beliefs. I believe this was done before when proponents like Jo espoused the 'World is Flat' and put to death those that disagreed as heretics.
BBC is corrupt
April 9, 2008 by pviverito, 1 year 26 weeks ago
Comment id: 1933
The BBC i obviously run by fools. The story should have been substanciated. To change an article in this wa shows that the BBC is not to be trusted. The New York Times and USA today are simple perversions of the truth.
They cannot be believed in any matters of importance.
climate change is just weather