Something very interesting happened on the BBC in the last few days. Subject to lobbying by an alarmist they appear to have modified their 'global temperatures to decrease' story.
Amazing how they omit a factual part of their story stating that temperatures have not been as high as they were since 1998 and that some are starting to question AGW theory, to a typical piece of alarmist projection that we would soon exceed the 1998 high.
Try googling "BBC Changes News to Accommodate Activist". You should find what is purportedly the correspondence between the activist and the BBC journalist.
Subject to lobbying by an alarmist they appear to have modified their 'global temperatures to decrease' story.
That's disturbing!!I read the e-mail exchange and it seemed like the "activist" threatened the reporter to make them change the wording of the story to make it more GW friendly in the opening paragraph also implying that skeptics are incapable of reading beyond that to get the full gist of the article. Heres some advice from her Blog "Climate Changers, Remember to challenge any piece of media that seems like it's been subject to spin or scepticism" ???????????????????????? How some people fill their time eh
I've 'googled' what Leo Nithic posted and followed the thread through into the blogoshpere; Into the blurry world of the true believers! I'd never seen it before, but now I know why they're called Zealots in some circles, some of these people have lost all grip with reality and I think they truly believe that mankind will be wiped out in the next 100 years if human carbon emissions aren't cut back to pre-industrial levels. Can science save us from these maniacs?(Or at least tell them that they're over-reacting)
Gone, are the days when you could apply to a 'web master' to correct a 'misquote' or an 'improper remark'.
Nowadays It's down to the 'legal beagles' to decide what is and what isn't 'distributeable' 'for the good of the company' in any 'statement' to the public at large!
Most media outlets give a 'last updated' date for their web pages as cover for any current misunderstanding, but a 'media oriented entity' such as the BBC, that wants to disclose a true account, can often find itself compromised by the legal implication of the information at its disposal (damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario).
It isn't a wonder that more of the BBC's web pages aren't 'updated' on a more regular basis when you look at the accurate report 'pressure' they endure (I just wish they'd 'show' an 'edited' time-stamp when they edit).
However, I would like to see a 'web page review service' that at least looks at the viability of the information disclosed (could this be why the page has already been changed in the past). At least the 'reviewer' would be responsible for the 'article' in the first place!! This may promote a greater responsibility towards accurate 'reportage'!
The best site for an overview of this topic is icecap, as it has both the reports and the links.
Suricat, The trouble is that the BBC and every other media outlet peddles a hell of a lot of one-sided alarmist stuff that quite often is not true or at the very least dubious, but never anything from the other side of the argument. eg- lockwood and frolichs reply to svenmark was reported by the BBC, but not svenmarks rebuttal of their claims.
In this case they have removed a true statement that some scientists are skeptical about AGW due to the lack of global temperature increase over the last few years.
In this case they have removed a true statement that some scientists are skeptical about AGW due to the lack of global temperature increase over the last few years.
Well I think that the BBC just got 'stuck in the middle'. The 'some scientists' are connected to the WMO (World Meteorological Organisation), which is an arm of the UN. The IPCC is also another arm of the UN, so shouldn't these two sort things out with the UN instead of battling with each other's ideologies by conflicting statement releases?
The issue of 'trend length' in years also comes into question. I believe it takes thirty years to prove climate. Anyone here know for sure?
How come CNN can pick this story up yet it goes largely unreported over here? I'd have thought that the BBCs competition would have had a field day with this, yet even the BBC knocking Daily Mail has left it alone! Or does this kind of "lobbying" go on all the time?
Whilst the BBC is apparently hoping this story will just go away, it has now been covered by Newsbusters on CNN.
This makes the BBC News look pathetic.....No this proves that BBC News are pathetic. Not changing date stamps on revised published material, caving in to activists. Did they learn nothing from the Gilligan affair? Disrespect for their readers/viewers is still there and clearly endemic or their computer controls are rubbish and they allow individual reporters to manipulate date stamped material.
Yes milud the text changed itself.
What's the odds this is the only time this sort of thing has happened?
What's the odds this is the only time this sort of thing has happened?
Well I wouldn't offer 'any' odds on it! Didn't you know the BBC isn't under government control?
Though I doubt the reporters can manipulate a 'time stamp' or 'edited' marker if it's 'there'. No! I think this decision and manipulation would have been made further up the hierarchy ladder and probably for reasons of 'legal compromise'. Unless, as you say, the beeb networks with reporters computers and the reporters computer isn't 'time stamped' on 'upload' for some reason (could this be 'internal buggery' in their network?).
Perhaps this will 'out' in time, though I won't hold my breath.
Though I doubt the reporters can manipulate a 'time stamp' or 'edited' marker if it's 'there'. No! I think this decision and manipulation would have been made further up the hierarchy ladder and probably for reasons of 'legal compromise'.
But why should the e-mail of some random 'activist' be taken so seriously as to be 'passed up the ladder'?
If every e-mail sent to the BBC was taken so seriously they wouldn't have time to do anything. Unless they have a dedicated 'Lets Change the News to Suit Activists' department!
But why should the e-mail of some random 'activist' be taken so seriously as to be 'passed up the ladder'?
I think it was more a matter of the construction in the original wording. These are quotes of the 'clips' that Glen Beck displayed on You Tube.
(Headline) Global Temperatures to Decrease.
Original. "This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory."
Replaced with. "But this year's temperatures would still be way above average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gasses."
The original quote is a statement on 'recent weather' and not climate, but it insinuates that 'recent weather' can bring climate change theory into question. The period the 'recent weather' spans is only 10 years and a 30 year span is expected before any comment of 'climate change' can be made. The last 30 years of weather only shows warming (with maybe a recent hint of a plateau). The 'replacement' phrasing does seem to follow a more accurate climatological terminology, even though it looks to be totally different. That just highlights the differences between weather and climate.
Don't take my word for this though, I'm only an engineer with an interest in climatology.
I think you need to remember that the beeb 'host' their own news products, so have to be accurate with news content. I notice that C4 'dodge' this problem by employing a 'third party' for news coverage and place a 'disclaimer' at the foot of their reports.
But why should the e-mail of some random 'activist' be taken so seriously as to be 'passed up the ladder'?
If every e-mail sent to the BBC was taken so seriously they wouldn't have time to do anything. Unless they have a dedicated 'Lets Change the News to Suit Activists' department!
Well I'd suggest that there is such a supine response from otherwise sane people to the threat from AGW lobby groups because the subject has moved from one of scientific interest to one where public social stigma is associated with anyone who dares to suggest that the Emporer has no clothes.
Most of the activists have no real understanding of mathematical physics which is at the base of climate predictions - I know because I've been confronted several times by them and when I reply with a scientific argument they look dumb struck and walk away.
Remember the sun revolves around the earth and anyone who disagrees is clearly possessed by devils.
Among my e-mail exchanges was one with an environmental campaigner who published our e-mails implying that we had changed our article as a result of her threat to publicly criticise our report. We didn’t change it for that reason.
And this from an e-mail from Harrabin to the campaigner as posted on Jennifer Marohasy's blog.
quote:
Have a look in 10 minutes and tell me you are happier
I love it Son of Mulder! Bring them down with their own words!
Here is how the BBC describes its 'values' on its website:
Our values Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest. Audiences are at the heart of everything we do. We take pride in delivering quality and value for money. Creativity is the lifeblood of our organisation. We respect each other and celebrate our diversity so that everyone can give their best. We are one BBC: great things happen when we work together.
I particularly choked with near hysterical laughter upon reading the first one.
"NewsBusters has just learned that a British "climate activist" was responsible for getting the BBC to radically alter its "Global Temperatures 'To Decrease'" article last Friday."
BUT!!!! Drum roll, anxious faces, mums with Kleenex...
TARAA!
Here's what the World Meteorological Organization Info Note actually said:-
The long-term upward trend of global warming, mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, is continuing. Global temperatures in 2008 are expected to be above the long-term average. The decade from 1998 to 2007 has been the warmest on record, and the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C since the beginning of the 20th Century. [...] “For detecting climate change you should not look at any particular year, but instead examine the trends over a sufficiently long period of time. The current trend of temperature globally is very much indicative of warming,”
“For detecting climate change you should not look at any particular year, but instead examine the trends over a sufficiently long period of time. The current trend of temperature globally is very much indicative of warming,”
I just checked records back to the big bang and it has definitely cooled. Long enough?
