When news of an extraordinary exchange of emails between the BBC’s Environment Analyst, Roger Harrabin, and a climate change activist called Jo Abbess broke earlier this month, it aroused my innate scepticism. It appeared that a fanatical climate change activist had effortlessly bullied our revered national broadcasting service into changing a story that displeased her. How could this be?
It may surprise warmists, who have come to use ‘sceptic‘ as a term of abuse, that many who question what the public are being told about anthropogenic climate change apply the same standards of scepticism to both sides of the debate.
Was it possible, I asked myself, that the BBC had really allowed itself to be pushed around by an unknown extremist? Was this story an example of disinformation emanating from those shadowy forces that warmists so often blame for the general public’s reluctance to embrace their beliefs? Was someone trying to discredit the BBC? Might the emails have been fabricated? It all looked just a bit too neat and tidy to be true. Was it really possible that a fanatical member of the militant pressure group Campaign Against Climate Change could influence mainstream news coverage of a topic as important as climate change?
Here is a rather sensationalised, but quite accurate, version of what happened:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=216v5AoQcFQ
For those of you who don’t have the software to play this, or would like to see all the evidence in black and white, here is the full story:
On 4th April the BBC put a news item on their website written by Harrabin. The headline was “Global temperatures ‘to decrease'”; quite surprising for an organisation dedicated to spreading alarm about climate change. What followed was based on an announcement by Michel Jarraud, head of the World Meteorological Organizations. Now this is not a body that can in any way be called sceptical about global warming; it is one of the UN agencies that set up the IPCC. Given the BBC’s proclivity for making the most of a global warming scare story, and the impeccable source of its information, there is no reason to suspect that rumours of a downturn in temperatures were being exaggerated.
The BBC’s report started like this:
Global temperatures ‘to decrease’
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.
[It also said this:]
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.
This did not please Jo Abbess, who sent an email to Harrabin headed, ‘Correction Demanded: “Global temperatures ‘to decrease'”.
Dear Roger,
Please can you correct your piece published today entitled “Global
temperatures ‘to decrease'” :-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm [this link is to the revised version of course]
1. “A minority of scientists question whether this means global
warming has peaked”
This is incorrect. 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.
2. “Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007”
You should not mislead people into thinking that the sum total of the
Earth system is going to be cooler in 2008 than 2007. For example, the
ocean systems of temperature do not change in yearly timescales, and
are massive heat sinks that have shown gradual and continual warming.
It is only near-surface air temperatures that will be affected by La
Nina, plus a bit of the lower atmosphere.
Thank you for applying your attention to all the facts and figures available,
jo.
My emphasis
Referring to Jo Abbess’ first point, it would seem that she is not a scientist either, merely a dedicated activist.
Harrabin’s response to these criticisms of his story by someone who clearly has a limited knowledge of the subject and distinctly partisan views was patient but firm: Continue reading »
Recent Comments