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=
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