I have been emailed the following correspondence, purportedly between an activist, Jo Abbess, and BBC Environment reporter Roger Harrabin. It would appear that the result of the email exchange between the activist and the reporter was that the BBC changed its story. In particular instead of reporting the story as received from the World Meteorological Organisation, the BBC modified the story as demanded by the activist who was concerned that in its original form it supported ‘the skeptics’ correct observation that there has been no warming since 1998.
From Jo, April 4, 2008
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…
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
from Jo Abbess
to Roger Harrabin
date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:12 AM
subject 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
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.
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
from Roger Harrabin
to Jo Abbess ,
date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:23 AM
subject RE: Correction Demanded : “Global temperatures ‘to decrease'”
Dear Jo
No correction is needed
If the secy-gen of the WMO tells me that global temperatures will
decrease, that’s what we will report
There are scientists who question whether warming will continue as
projected by IPCC
Best wishes
RH
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
from Jo Abbess
to Roger Harrabin ,
date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:37 AM
subject Re: Correction Demanded : “Global temperatures ‘to decrease'”
Hi Roger,
I will forward your comments (unless you object) to some people who
may wish to add to your knowledge.
Would you be willing to publish information that expands on your
original position, and which would give a better, clearer picture of
what is going on ?
Personally, I think it is highly irresponsible to play into the hands
of the sceptics/skeptics who continually promote the idea that “global
warming finished in 1998”, when that is so patently not true.
I have to spend a lot of my time countering their various myths and
non-arguments, saying, no, go look at the Hadley Centre data. Global
Warming is not over. There have been what look like troughs and
plateaus/x before. It didn’t stop then. It’s not stopping now.
It is true that people are debating Climate Sensitivity, how much
exactly the Earth will respond to radiative forcing, but nobody is
seriously refuting that increasing Greenhouse Gases cause increased
global temperatures.
I think it’s counterproductive to even hint that the Earth is cooling
down again, when the sum total of the data tells you the opposite.
Glaringly.
As time goes by, the infant science of climatology improves. The Earth
has never experienced the kind of chemical adjustment in the
atmosphere we see now, so it is hard to tell exactly what will happen
based on historical science.
However, the broad sweep is : added GHG means added warming.
Please do not do a disservice to your readership by leaving the door
open to doubt about that.
jo.
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
from Roger Harrabin
to Jo Abbess ,
date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:57 AM
subject RE: Correction Demanded : “Global temperatures ‘to decrease'”
The article makes all these points quite clear
We can’t ignore the fact that sceptics have jumped on the lack of
increase since 1998. It is appearing reguarly now in general media
Best to tackle this – and explain it, which is what we have done
Or people feel like debate is being censored which makes them v
suspicious
Roger
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
from Jo Abbess
to Roger Harrabin ,
date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:12 AM
subject Re: Correction Demanded : “Global temperatures ‘to decrease'”
Hi Roger,
When you are on the Tube in London, I expect that occasionally you
glance a headline as sometime turns the page, and you thinkg “Really
?” or “Wow !”
You don’t read the whole article, you just get the headline.
A lot of people will read the first few paragraphs of what you say,
and not read the rest, and (a) Dismiss your writing as it seems you
have been manipulated by the sceptics or (b) Jump on it with glee and
e-mail their mates and say “See ! Global Warming has stopped !”
They only got the headline, which is why it is so utterly essentialy
to give the full picture, or as full as you can in the first few
paragraphs.
The near-Earth surface temperatures may be cooler in 2008 that they
were in 2007, but there is no way that Global Warming has stopped, or
has even gone into reverse. The oceans have been warming consistently,
for example, and we’re not seeing temperatures go into reverse, in
general, anywhere.
Your word “debate”. This is not an issue of “debate”. This is an issue
of emerging truth. I don’t think you should worry about whether people
feel they are countering some kind of conspiracy, or suspicious that
the full extent of the truth is being withheld from them.
Every day more information is added to the stack showing the desperate
plight of the planet.
It would be better if you did not quote the sceptics. Their voice is
heard everywhere, on every channel. They are deliberately obstructing
the emergence of the truth.
I would ask : please reserve the main BBC Online channel for emerging truth.
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.
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 because it could be
said that you have had your head turned by the sceptics.
Respectfully,
jo.
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
from Roger Harrabin
to Jo Abbess ,
date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:28 AM
subject RE: Correction Demanded : “Global temperatures ‘to decrease'”
Have a look in 10 minutes and tell me you are happier
We have changed headline and more
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
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.”
End of email reporting on Jo’s activities.
But some relevant links follow:
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/thread/1207301093.html
http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/2089
http://www.theinterface.org.uk/?q=node/60
And according to Paul Biggs who blogged on the changed BBC story here, the BBC headline has actually been changed three times and at one stage was: Global warming ‘dips this year’.
If anyone feels so inclined, complaints can be made to the BBC here.
————–
The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.
— Thomas Huxley
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Correction Demanded: The BBC Changes News to Accommodate Activist
Jennifer, it is an interesting piece, improved only by changing the headline to reflect the truth, to: The BBC Changes News to Accommodate Accuracy
Wadard – Baloney!
The article pointed out that 1998 remains the warmest recorded year globally, due to El Nino, and that 2008 was likely to be cooler than 2007, due to La Nina. It then went on to say that another record year was expected within 5 years probably due to El Nino – that sentence was removed and not re-instated.
We could change the title to ‘The Great BBC Website Swindle.’
Sounds very much like S. Africa’s Mbeki suggesting poll fraud to prop up Mugabe and his despots in Rhodesia. The same Mbeki then went on to London to rub shoulders with other Leaders of “Progressive Governments”, including Messers Brown and Rudd.!!
Well, after all the BBC is a “progressive” organisation…Isn’t it??
There it is for all to see, the AGW hoax exposed for what it is ‘a hoax’. Why can’t a reporter write his story and tell the truth??? … First rule of AGW reporting — We must not compromise the hoaxer’s narrative.
If this is true, then the BBC has some splainin to do.
Wow a real live Nazi- you really love changing the free press. Even Joseph Goebbels didn’t persuade the BBC to change their story
BBC shouls be ashamed of itself. Perhaps their motto should be changed to “All The News That Fits, We Print.”
Does the British Lion no longer have any pride?
I did a few “back of the envelope” calculations on what might happen to the HAD/CRU 2008 data. If the forecast that the average global temperature anomaly in 2008 of around 0.4 C is to be correct, then for the months April through December 2008, the average temperatures will need to be higher that the average in 2005, the second warmest year in the current data set. I suspect this is highly unlikely.
Clearly Roger Harrabin thinks it within his and the BBCs remit to change articles that climate change activists find both distasteful and are worried that the article will “play into the hands of the skeptics who continually promote the idea that “global warming finished in 1998”.
You’ll note that Roger defends his article on the basis of “We can’t ignore the fact that sceptics have jumped on the lack of increase since 1998. It is appearing regularly now in general media.
Best to tackle this – and explain it, which is what we have done.” I.e. his journalism is not objective but to rebut claims of climate change skeptics using this argument to attach the climate change hypothesis. So Mr. Harrabin is not an objective journalist, but acts to support the climate change lobby. He should resign
anybody remember winston smith working for the ministry of truth and the fact that in reality it was orwell who worked for the bbc rewriting news articles.Any of you remember this? I believe in climate change not global warming. But whereas some people believe it’s co2 the life giving gas i believe, and climate change evidence in the rest of the solar system supports my view, is that it’s driven by the sun.
Ah… The global warming zombies strike again!!!! Al Gore says it so it must be true… Just like he invented the internet, doesn’t fly on corporate jets, does not have a mansion that consumes $3,000 worth of energy per month, and is not fat….
Who has enough energy and willpower to argue that long with a crazed lefty intent on feeling important about a phony cause?
It’s sad that an email conversation like yours can change FACTS. You don’t back up your claims AT ALL! I will also be emailing Roger about his mistake… which was listening to your lies.
PS: On the issue of skeptics having their say.
In America:
ABC has featured global warming decent in a 1 skeptic to 7 Global Warmers ratio.
CBS 38 pro GW reports to 1 skeptic ratio GW report in a Global warming special.
Overall News 13 pro GW to 1 ratio skeptic ratio.
“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.”
if you could spend a tenth of the time on your own personal development that you spend on pushing your agenda, you might avoid the embarrassment you have coming to you for your childish bullying
George Orwell was right.
I heard recently about a group of scientists that had reached a consensus on the two true causes of global warming. They are doing all in their power to eradicate these threats. Massive amounts of funding will be required so they are meeting behind the scenes with officials of many nations, UN leaders and private sources to seek financial resources. Once they have stockpiled enough funding they can eradicate these serious threats to ever increasing global temperatures: HUMANS and the SUN.
I heard recently about a group of scientists that had reached a consensus on the two true causes of global warming. They are doing all in their power to eradicate these threats. Massive amounts of funding will be required so they are meeting behind the scenes with officials of many nations, UN leaders and private sources to seek financial resources. Once they have stockpiled enough funding they can eradicate these serious threats to ever increasing global temperatures: HUMANS and the SUN.
“Otherwise, I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically manipulated.”
I find it interesting that Jo psychologically manipulates the guy by accusing him of being psychologically manipulated.
Harrabin must have had a bad conscience writing the piece as he did so was prepared to listen to this insistent looney.
I have written to the Environment Editor of the Guardian today complaining about the publication of Hansen’s words on the EU’s poor showing re CO2.
I don’t expect an answer. Most of these envirojournos are part of the problem, they follow Pastor Gore wishing for Climate Armageddon.
“It would be better if you did not quote the sceptics. Their voice is heard everywhere, on every channel. They are deliberately obstructing the emergence of the truth.”
What overheating planet are you on? Every headline, documentary and TV commercial bangs on about how mankind is screwing up the planet and yet you reckon it’s the sceptics who are dominating the ‘debate’.
What you really mean is that the few squeaks of dissent that are heard should be silenced to ensure that the public (who you clearly think are a bunch of monkey-see monkey-do eejits) conform to the consensus view.
Badgering the Beeb into amending their reports because they fail to endorse your vile brand of misanthropy is an absolute disgrace. You pretend to be an earnest defender of the underdog and yet everything you do and think works against the welfare of mankind. I wish you had just an ounce of self-consciousness, so you could recognise that your wretched beliefs are just a hatred of excellence and free will masquerading as compassion and concern. Shame on you.
Pretty incredible to catch them red handed. Sure, many of us who have really dug into this issue know the truth, but like the Global Warming Nazi points out, most people only read the headlines so all they need is that little push and they are done, done, done.
And if they are lying about this story, or at least manipulating the truth, what else are they manipulating. Everything basically.
The rot is so deep that the whole structure is about to collapse.
I find it unconscionable that a group, presumably one that wants the benefits of a free press when the news is “good,” would resort to blackmail (i. e., attacking a person’s reputation) in exchange for contrived coverage of something not so favorable to their cause. Debate continues on the validity of GW theory, and all positions should be aired, despite the burden placed on Ms. Abbass’s time spent debunking “skeptic” positions.
Mr. Harrabin and BBC: shame on you!
Perhaps this article will help the “activist” understand. This is the head of the IPCC telling just what the article said. No warming since 98, period. And the new ocean sensors show no warming ANYTIME. So something is amiss.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
Where is Ocean heat now…
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
A subtle change to a balanced article. As far as I can see, Harrabin stuck to his guns.
Hurrah for Roger Harrabin for changing the article to more accurately reflect the reality of the situation. The people who are objecting are simply upset that their denialist point of view has been countered. Personally I think it is REALLY important that the BBC reflects accurately the reality of the consensus scientific view on global warming, and I entirely agree with Jo Abbess that the initial version of the article failed in this respect.
The sceptics do have an unrealistically strong presence in the media because although they represent a very small percentage of scientists, and they have yet to come up with any theories that actually hold water, they still get a significant and disproportionate share of media space. This is a distortion and means that people looking for any excuse to carry on with their current behaviour have the ammunition they need.
Ah, the good old BBC, lol.
SAME TACTIC – but a different topic here :
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/311207_bbc.htm
Made me laugh when a certain blogger called them :
British Bias Corporation LOL
You`ll find the story on this blog site
http://eye-uk.blogspot.com/
(will need to scroll down the page though)
BTW, it was only a few years ago that (darling) James Hansen was saying we would return to an ICE AGE.
Judging by last summer… maybe he was right.
But then, perhaps the lower temps might depend on what `they` are spraying into the atmosphere with all those CHEMtrail planes, worldwide, on a daily basis.
MAN MADE global warming is a total myth.
Granted the climate is changing, just as it has changed for BILLIONS OF YEARS.
It is my humble belief that Al Gore is a fraud – a mere puppet of the global elite.
The global elite have an agenda – and there is nothing on that agenda that is going to benefit you or I.
They intend to CULL billions of `feeders` and `breeders` and are planning to MICROCHIP the survivors in order to control them.
Rockefeller Admitted Elite Goal Of Microchipped Population
http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/rockefeller_admitted_elite_goal_microchipped_population.htm
Please understand that in order to CONTROL a population, they do need to frighten them to such an extent that they will SUBMIT to those things which are FORCED upon them.
Look around you at the things they are trying to frighten us with….
1. Osama Bin Laden – (albeit that the man is DEAD)
2. Bird flu
and…
3. their man-made global warming hysteria.
How do you think our ancestors survived climate changes ?
They had no PCs for information.
No weather reports.
No Al Gore movies (lucky them)
They knew when the climate was changing `against them` and they got off their butts and MOVED to places which were more temperate.
Unlike them of course, it is impractical for us to up sticks and move around.
Therefore we will need to prepare to live with certain changes.
Governments – and an imminent threat of war – is a far bigger danger to us right now.
As is the government`s agenda.
Nick~ Nice round of sarcasm there! *g*
It is now being projected that the sun will not kick off Cycle 24 completely, before the second half of this year, and possibly as late as 2009.
CO2 levels at the Mauna Loa monitoring site are Dropping, due to the cooling oceans now soaking up more CO2.
CO2 is up at least 4% since 1998 (the SECOND warmest year on record, after 1934), yet the last 7 years have been flat or down slightly in the average temp of the Earth.
I wonder what the agw hysteri-cysts are going to do when the world’s temps continue to drop over the next 12 months, as they have for the past 15?
Nick – how do you know the personal views of all the scientists invovled in climate research? How many working climate scientists are there in the world?
The memory hole just don’t work like it used to…
Unbelievable – Now that I understand the technique, there are numerous headlines in the press that I would like to have changed.
I guess all future BBC environment stories will have to be approved by rabid red-green activists.
The headline got changed back, the text didn’t.
Having compared dates and times, as at Friday afternoon 17.02 GMT, the headline said ‘Global warming dips this year’, so heck knows what motivated them to change it and change it back again.
If the e-mail trail is true and correct and keeping in mind the timelag between the various e-mail, I tend not to blame Roger Harrabin that the article changed. I would not be surprised if somebody higher in rank than Roger decided to change the article as demanded by Jo Abbess. The time between the two last e-mails, the language and the fact that the e-mail was not “signed” by Roger, might indicate in that direction. But of course, I could be wrong.
“And according to Paul Biggs who blogged on the changed BBC story here, the BBC headline has actually been changed three times and at one stage was : Global warming ‘dips this year’.”
I confirm that on 04-04-2008 at 18:30:26, the title at the BBC site was still
“Global warming ‘dips this year'”.
I saw it after reading this post in a French forum : http://tinyurl.com/47mc8b
Sensationalism is allowed by green puritans but only for warming.
Well it had to come to this. Whether any one particular reporter shows his fealty to one side of the debate is no surprise. Like the obsequity of back-pew agnostics yielding to pious church ladies, few mainstream science reporters are brave enough to do anything better than equivocate when beset by activist know-it-alls.
It’s only going to get sillier as we go along. The alarmists are waiting for the next solar maximum (solar cycle #24) to corroborate their projections in 2012. The problem is that SC #24 is off to a slow start because sun spot movement has slowed to a crawl in the sun’s southern hemisphere and is 3/4’s of what it should be in the northern. This reflects the internal conveyor belt of the sun slowing which will result in greatly reduced sun spots in less than 20 years. This is why solar researchers are predicting Solar Cycle #25 to have very low sunspot activity – through the bottom of the historical trend line, with inland winters on Earth in 2020 becoming quite harsh.
The alarmists know this, but by then the alarmists are hoping to have Kyoto’s successor in place.
This really puts the lie to the IPCC & UNEP active defense of the premises of Kyoto. They aren’t the least bit interested in entertaining evidence to the contrary — repeat the mantra. Even though temperatures have stabilized since 1998 well before the onset of the current solar minimum, even though CO2 itself can’t cause 2 – 4 degr. C. warming, and even though CO2 concentrations are 3/4’s of the way to the projected doubling and we still haven’t seen calamitous climate change, the alarmists would have the public believe that via their pro-China brand of globalization the Earth will be saved from the blight of humanity.
But a public rebellion is brewing. A recent study here in the States found that the more informed a person is about climate change they less worried they are about it. Al Gore, for all of his hot air, may have done more to awaken climate realism in the public.
There’s an old saying that insanity is defined by whether someone keeps trying the same over and over expecting a different result. Al’s response to public skepticism is going to be a new campaign targeted at the least informed – the remaining TV viewers who watch American Idol, etc. Somehow I suspect Gore’s going to be calling a lot more people flat-earthers before he and his fellow pied pipers from the Club of Rome invent a new threat, like global cooling or the Apophis asteroid in 2037.
By then maybe people will tire of these pied pipers and relegate them to the Art Bell dustbin. Especially after word gets out that Kyoto was set up to pay China to pollute while giving China a competitive advantage further pressing western firms to off-shore their pollution, production & jobs to China.
Jo Abiss quote,
“It is true that people are debating Climate Sensitivity, how much
exactly the Earth will respond to radiative forcing, but nobody is
seriously refuting that increasing Greenhouse Gases cause increased
global temperatures.”
Not true, NASA would not publish this scientific paper from one of their own, amoung the world’s top mathematician / atmospheric scientist…
http://met.hu/omsz.php?almenu_id=omsz&pid=references&mpx=0&kps=1&pri=2
– Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres.
– In short, the greenhouse effect naturally balances itself continually. Physically it can not run away.
The only way to alter the planet’s temperature is for the sun to alter it’s input, or the planet’s surface albedo to change.
I’d say that is a pretty serious refuting of increasing a greenhouse gas (CO2) or more than one would only have one outcome. Increased temperature.
Nope, it’s a natural balance maintained by the natural system.
Namely a constant optical thickness of 1.87 kms.
Funny, the Beeb did not report that either,
mind you NASA would not publish it either.
Which is worse, biased reporting or denying good science peer review,
NASA and the BBC, they are both quilty of failing their duties.
So global warming alarmist Jo Abbess is coercing (lying to) the media into reporting inaccurate information.
So global warming alarmist Jo Abbess is coercing (lying to) the media into reporting inaccurate information.
Ooops, a better link to Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi’s latest paper,
and a previous one, and his NY C.C. conference presentation.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=295
– Dr. F. Miskolczi Rederived Greenhouse Equation (Simplified)
The Greenhouse Equation rederived, well it is from 1922,
with an infinate atmospheric depth….
We just hit a solar minimum & had some unusually harsh winters in locale that never saw such weather in recorded history. Was it a La Nina, low sunspot activity or a combination of the two? NASA/GISS researchers claim only a correlation on a decadal time scale.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011206/ http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_06/
This is amusing because we may be looking at severely curtailed long-term sunspot trends.
quoted from: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/where-have-all-the-sunspots-gone/
“…If Theodor Landscheidt’ s assertions in 1999, Extrema in Sunspot Cycle Linked to Sun’s Motion, are correct and the next “Sixteenth Part” (SP) of the 178.8 Year Solar Retrograde Motion (RSI) is to happen in 2012.5 then the minima of Cycle 23 should have already happened … the delay means that the SP looks to be switching to the Solar Minima and that would mean that Cycle 23 should last until 2010.6 at the EARLIEST!. That makes for a [14] year Sunspot cycles. Nothing like that has happened since 1790! According to this paper of the deceased professor, GRHS, we are in for 4 to 5 very weak sunspot cycles. Not like the Dalton minima but like the Maunder Minima!”
see also: http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/
/leebert
Just filing these google alerts here:
Green trolls edit WMO & BBC reports
By Lumo(Lumo)
Jennifer Marohasy or Media Lens,. you will see a very revealing exchange between Roger Harrabin, a moderate and relatively non-ideological BBC journalist, and Joe Abbess, a green activist. Harrabin received the information and …
The Reference Frame – http://motls.blogspot.com/
Climate Activist Got BBC to Change ‘Global Temperatures Decrease …
By Noel Sheppard
On Monday, Jennifer Marohasy, the director of the Environment Unit at Australia’s Institute of Public Affairs, received and published an e-mail exchange between the article’s author, Roger Harrabin, and a climate activist affiliated …
NewsBusters.org – Exposing Liberal… – http://newsbusters.org
BBC Caves in to Climate Change Activist?
By Iain Dale(Iain Dale)
Over the following two days their Environment Editor Roger Harrobin came under intense pressure to change the BBC’s report, pressure which he resisted and then, according to climate change activist Jennifer Marohasy, caved into. …
Iain Dale’s Diary – http://iaindale.blogspot.com/
The End of Warming?
By admin
Here is an excerpt from the interview by Mike Duffy with Biologist Jennifer Marohasy:. [i]Duffy asked Marohasy: “Is the Earth stillwarming?” She replied: “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of …
Timothy Birdnow – http://www.timothybirdnow.com/
April 07, 2008 News and Trends
By Scott S(Scott S)
On Monday, Jennifer Marohasy, the director o Gov. Rendell: ‘Keith Olbermann Should Be On The Obama Payrol Mon, 07 Apr 2008 04:59:52 PDT Obama will never be brought to justice by the media. We never hear about how he lied about the …
Scott’s : Latest News Stories – http://current-newstrends48.blogspot.com/
Intersting to see the “leaning” tactics of Jo Abbess (if she exists) in writing.
Jo’s second email begins with a threat: “I will forward your comments (unless you object) to some people who may wish to add to your knowledge.”
Her third email ends with more explicit threats: “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 because it could be said that you have had your head turned by the sceptics. Respectfully, jo.”
Respectful she certainly is not. Like any blackmailer she has contempt for her target. Not very smart, either, to leave a written trail. A trail that brings discredit to the cause she promotes.
In supporting causes, what you do is important, but how you do it is more important. For the long haul, credibility is the only game in town.
This is all very interesting and demonstrates the desperation of the MMGW proponents. There are however people who are more desperate – those who are starving due to policies adopted since Kyoto.
http://noblesseoblige.org/wordpress/?p=2141
The margin of world food surplus has always been thin, conversion of croplands to energy crops over the past seven years has pushed us past a tipping point.
Seems as if Jo Abbess (if she exists), may have been a tutor in a Vietnemese Communist “Re-education Camp”.
Google is a wonderful thing! Jo Abess does appear to exist – well, has an e-mail address, at least: jo.abbess@gmail.com
She seems to be a Christian Ecologist who has organised events like: N4 (4th November 2006 Climate March) in the UK. She suggested :”Remember, Remember, the 4th of November” could be used as_an soundbite virus maybe ?_ I guess that didn’t work – we seem to have forgotten!
Another suggestion:
“Angels for Global Climate Justice” dressed in_white/light.colours. “Angels for Climate Justice” would represent_the positive vision that better defines the criminal negativity of_Bush and the rest.’
As opposed to:
‘Bonfire Party : we can’t have naked flame during the N4_march, but we can have a Bonfire Party at someone’s house before or_after N4._2b5. Bonfire Sculpture : suggest that it would be cool to have a_sculpture of a burning planet with George W Bush sitting on top (on_ an oil well ?) that we can take on the march.’
The irony of having a bonfire for climate change seems to escape her (and especially subjecting George Bush to a fate traditionally reserved for witches and other heretics), but it is the false dichotomisation of complex issues that really betrays such activists. The belief that they possess a greater truth that overrides all others and demands that news must be spun to conform with their views. Closing down debate and creating false dichotomies is never in ANYONE’S interest, least of all those who support her cause, because it makes the cause appear so feeble it cannot tolerate contrary information.
Sheer thuggery. Shame on you.
As a scientist myself we are very stubborn. What will happen with AGW is “old soldiers never die they only fade away” as temps fall for the next 10 years (and then rise again of course eventually). the AGW’s will just “dissapear” but will never admit they were wrong especially “climate scientists” it is in their nature and you will never change that. I’ve seen it again and again in my profession “biology”. basically I would venture to predict that within 3 years there will be no AGW sites or postions at University. However there will be environmental sites which is OK after all we are overpopulating etc..
excuse the “awful” spelling previous
Nick
There is no such thing as a consensus scientific view.
There is indeed a consensus if it is pseudoscience.
Hence you confirm that AGW theory, (AKA Climate Change theory) is simply pseudoscience.
VG’s comment is accurate but disquieting, because good science changes its theory by compulsion of contradictory evidence, and in the case here, it is unlikely, if at all.
It has been put before that scientific paradigms don’t change because of the weight of evidence, but from the dying out of the old guard, and the emergence of a new one with the younger scientific turks.
And then this is not the operation of science but of deductive science in which primary assumptions are held to be true by consensus.
It’s a lot more complex than this simple summary, but climate science, astronomy, archaeology and some areas of geology aree dominated by the deductive method; while these sciences cannot be empirically tested for obvious reasons, how do we then ensure that the theories are right?
An example of the deductive method was the IPCC chairman’s reaction to the flattening of the global temperature since 1998 when he proposed that instead of the initial assumption being falisfied, and this being the correct scientific procedure, he instead posed the existence of, yet to be discovered, factors that caused the temperature to not follow the model.
This is pseudoscience.
Is this whole post a joke?
I mean, really, why are you all so upset?
I just want to say Woo Hoo. Jennifer is a hit.
Mr T, I pity the fool that listens to you.
What flimsy evidence there may have been for the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is drying up, or is that melting away… oh sorry, it’s freezing… whatever.
In Australia the government is about to levy a A$20 billion tax on industry and a whole lot of people want to know why given there is no evidence that it is going to do anything good.
So when those of us that care see that the BBC can be coerced into changing a story by a watermelon (that’s green on the outside, red in the middle) we get upset.
I’m sorry if you don’t get that, but that’s because you were always the muscle on the A-Team…. John “Hannibal” Smith was the brains.
this jo abbess sounds like your typical nazi greenie….when she say “you are sufficiently uneducated to know that youve been conned”, i felt like bitch slapping her!! Shes the one who has been duped, by the foundations and Club of Rome who started this whole phoney crisis in the sixties!!! Stupid greenies!!!
John Smith.
You answered my question. Thankyou.
Yes, this is a joke.
No joke Mr T.
This is as real as it gets.
The BBC is now part of the Global Warming Alarmist propaganda machine.
The BBC has been part of the Global Warming Alarmist propaganda machine for quite some time – this is just the latest but most graphic episode.
This BBC stuff up is very worrying. In Australia many feel that we have similar duplicity on the ABC. I imagine that my attempt to report a mendacious lecture, pro GW, by a climate change adviser to the Rudd government, no less than one of Australia’s so-called ‘brightest and best’ (cringe by all means), at a recent meeting of the Royal Society (NSW) (April 5 2008) would likely be handled in an equally deceitful manner. However all members of the public including those of us with an academic background in ecological/environmental sciences can take heart from the panic that is clearly setting in among the alarmists – MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE BECOMING MORE AND MORE ALARMED ABOUT THE ALARMISTS and their ALARMING INFLUENCE.
However many of the NON_SCEPTIC Scientists (can you imagine such an animal?) such as the one who twittered on at the Royal Society meeting in Mittagong NSW on April 5, are clearly gaining a great deal of financial support for their support of their government, one that supports the IPCC.
But bad times await these snake oil salesmen as GC (global cooling), driven by solar cycle 24 and related dynamics may well have already started. Dont try to find out if they realise this or try to find out whether their models projected this to happen – they will villify you, in public if possible, just for asking a question!
Tipping in the terms El Nino and La Nina (ENSO) to ‘explain’ cooling does not explain what causes cyclicity in ENSO or Pacific Decadal Oscillations (PDO).
At least we know that the sun is beyond manipulation and eventually so too will be the satellite recorded temperatures.
Perhaps little will change when cooling finally takes over: there will still be the IPCC(ooling), and perhaps, if there is money in it, we shall see the BBC as the British: Broadcasting Cooling (sic.).
Produce markets on a frozen Thames can happen again as cooling continues, as in the Maunda and Dalton Minima or does “the activist” who is able to persuade BBC journalists to change news content, propose to have that historical fact adjusted also – rip down the phenomenological evidence in paintings in the London Museum and in Holland, for instance? Oh, but of course, they are mere impressionism: just ‘artistic models!’
This BBC stuff up is very worrying. In Australia many feel that we have similar duplicity on the ABC. I imagine that my attempt to report a mendacious lecture, pro GW, by a climate change adviser to the Rudd government, no less than one of Australia’s so-called ‘brightest and best’ (cringe by all means), at a recent meeting of the Royal Society (NSW) (April 5 2008) would likely be handled in an equally deceitful manner. However all members of the public including those of us with an academic background in ecological/environmental sciences can take heart from the panic that is clearly setting in among the alarmists – MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE BECOMING MORE AND MORE ALARMED ABOUT THE ALARMISTS and their ALARMING INFLUENCE.
However many of the NON_SCEPTIC Scientists (can you imagine such an animal?) such as the one who twittered on at the Royal Society meeting in Mittagong NSW on April 5, are clearly gaining a great deal of financial support for their support of their government, one that supports the IPCC.
But bad times await these snake oil salesmen as GC (global cooling), driven by solar cycle 24 and related dynamics may well have already started. Dont try to find out if they realise this or try to find out whether their models projected this to happen – they will villify you, in public if possible, just for asking a question!
Tipping in the terms El Nino and La Nina (ENSO) to ‘explain’ cooling does not explain what causes cyclicity in ENSO or Pacific Decadal Oscillations (PDO).
At least we know that the sun is beyond manipulation and eventually so too will be the satellite recorded temperatures.
Perhaps little will change when cooling finally takes over: there will still be the IPCC(ooling), and perhaps, if there is money in it, we shall see the BBC as the British: Broadcasting Cooling (sic.).
Produce markets on a frozen Thames can happen again as cooling continues, as in the Maunda and Dalton Minima or does “the activist” who is able to persuade BBC journalists to change news content, propose to have that historical fact adjusted also – rip down the phenomenological evidence in paintings in the London Museum and in Holland, for instance? Oh, but of course, they are mere impressionism: just ‘artistic models!’
Just filing this here:
April 07, 2008
BBC folds, then folds again
Marc Sheppard
The BBC appears to have serially caved-in to global warmist activism. There was much online discussion this weekend about a Friday BBC global warming / La Nina related article suddenly changing its wording and with it — its apparent balance. Today, news that an eco-activist has smugly taken credit for coercing the change has joined the conversation. And I’m now adding my discovery of a second amending in which a neutrality-vital sentence that survived the first update has now completely vanished.
The original piece by BBC News environment analyst Roger Harrabin opened with the words “Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007.” But by day’s end the lede’s start was changed to “Global temperatures will drop slightly this year.”
Read more here…
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/bbc_folds_then_folds_again.html
One of the UK’s original skeptics (he was M. Thatcher’s chancellor…)
Lord Nigel Lawson of Blaby recently interviewed about his new book,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/06/ealawson106.xml&page=1
– Lord Lawson claims climate change hysteria heralds a ‘new age of unreason’
By Christopher Booker
Exerts,
“the new religion of global warming” as “the Da Vinci Code of environmentalism. It is a great story and a best-seller.
It contains a grain of truth and a mountain of nonsense.”
“We have entered,” he says, “a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is disquieting.
It is from this, above all, that we really do need to save the planet.”
So, global warming (AGW) is a con ?
But it brings in a lot of revenue and keeps the scientists in work.
In 12 years time people will not remember any of this, and a new “mantra” will be trotted-out to amuse the people and get more tax money. And so the circus carries-on.
Derek
Good post. I’ve read the paper. It’s really complicated and very interesting.
I was staggered that the assumption of an infinitely thick atmosphere (which works for stars) was applied to an optically thin atmosphere like the earth.
The bit that really interested me was that in the original Eddington solution (as used by the “Warmers” today) there was a temperature discontinuity at the surface of the planet which is not observed in practice (and makes no sense at all because if the surface is at a certain temperature then the air in contact with the surface must also be at the same temperature. But that’s just a boundary condition… it’s not as if a boundary condition is a fundamental concept in physics and mathematics… oh, hang on… actually it is….)
In the new solution this discontinuity dissappears and the whole thing makes sense and is in much better agreement with the observations both on Earth and on Mars.
When I see things like that my gut tells me that this guy is onto something.
One little correction to your post…..
What you’ve said is basically correct except for the 1.87km constant depth.
In his paper he’s talking about a constant Flux Optical Depth of 1.87 which is not a distance.
Flux Optical Depth is a convenient way of representing the amount of optical absorbtion in an atmosphere.
If he’s right then the “Warmers” are going to look like idiots, and we’d better “rug up”, but we won’t be able to afford the clothes because the government will have already stolen $20billion from us based on a lie. Oh well……
65 comments, no Luke, Ender or SJT.
Strange!
Jo refers to the oceans as “massive heat sinks that have shown gradual and continual warming.” This appears to be at odds with a recent news item about the Argo fleet of subs in the oceans, which have reported a slight cooling since 2003.
That news item was on npr.org but strangely I cannot find any recent reference to Argo on the BBC news website.
I erred in my last post – hard as it is to find here – but as Luke now ignores me, I suppose it doesn’t matter anymore.
Re Alex Cull
One of the problems one might have with the ARGO data is how it is processed, data-wise.
I am quite familiar with geostatistics (variograms etc) but this method of analysis concerns static physical quantities, mineral deposits to be possibly mined, while the ARGO data are samples of a medium in flux, vis, the circulation within seas, or large bodies of water, and how THAT physical phenomenon can be treated statistically is another matter entirely.
(Statistical analysis was never framed for this type of data).
Let’s say that tomorrow the world’s scientists issued a unilateral statement claiming that global warming isn’t happening, that CO2 emissions do no harm, and that people shouldn’t worry about using cars, cheap flights, patio heaters, carrier bags and all the other little conveniences that environmentalists have stigmatized. Basically, we can carry on as we did before without a pseudo-religious guilt trip being laid on us all.
How do you think the Greens would react? Do you think they would rejoice at the end of the crisis, pack up their bags and go home? Would they heck. They would be livid. They would deny the evidence, they would throw around nasty accusations; they would bluster, bargain and prevaricate; they would try to find some way to keep the great global warming bandwagon rolling along.
And why would they do this? Because they aren’t interested in the truth. They want global warming to be real, because they like the conclusions that can be drawn from it. Nothing would make them happier than believing the rich and successful, and the filthy masses who line their pockets, are destroying the planet.
Maybe they’re snobs, maybe their envious, maybe they’re people-haters, or maybe they’re just wracked with middle-class guilt. Whatever their reason, they actually want global warming to exist. They long to take away people’s freedoms, to impoverish them and teach them a lesson for their arrogance.
I think anyone who is concerned about global warming should ask themselves: how would I react if it was categorically disproved? If the answer is that you would be disappointed or angry, then you need to consider the possibility that you’re a bigot.
Marcus – I’m on hols so not blogging much. But this thread is great – the greatest collection of mad frothing ravers ever assembled. Keep going crazies. What was it about again …
“I’m on hols so not blogging much”
Thanks Luke
bloggers beware, “Never open the door to strangers”
been doing some research on the thread and reckon this jo is pretty street wise
Hi Louis, re Argo, it would be good to find a website which shows how the data is processed and analysed (preferably in a way that a layman like myself can follow.) I’ve checked out the Argo Information Center at http://wo.jcommops.org but this seems to focus mainly on the robot floats plus when and where they were deployed, less on the information gained from them.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/08/bbc_blog_bully/
You cock.
Bunch of idiots, terrorists.
Our cars are not the cause of the South pole of Mars and other planets melting, it’s the sun.
Stop following the Bilderberg agenda.
Start reading books instead of following the devil.
“The people who are objecting are simply upset that their denialist point of view has been countered”. (David 03:06)
Ha! Not the other way round, then?
Having followed the subject closely for several years, I can state with confidence that the pro-warmers get far and away the greater share of coverage.
This isn’t just column inches of news but a process by which industry, educators, politicians and the media have been wholly taken in by a dodgy science. To express any contrary opinion – indeed, failing to declare yourself “green” in whatever you do or say – is to risk being outcast by this vast self-perpetuating movement.
A good illustration was the announcement earlier this year by a group of eminent space scientists that solar cooling will soon reverse whatever warming trends may have been identified. Radical stuff, yet barely a squeak in the press while the scaremongers, with their ever more extreme accounts of how we are all going to fry, continue to gain page-top headlines.
There is a close parallel in anti-smoking lobby’s media dominance with its false scares about secondhand smoke, when the real story – that the smoking ban is forcing hundreds of pubs out of business and causing widespread social exclusion – is virtually ignored.
I find all this far more frightening than the prospect of a decent summer.
Paul is right. It really beggars belief that anyone, even a global warming zealot, could believe that sceptics are hogging the news coverage. And to suggest that the BBC, champions of the illiberal Left, is not fully signed up to the official line is frankly risible.
The Beeb has a website, after all, with a section committed solely to climate change and offers no hint of dissent from the “we’re screwing up the planet!” orthodoxy. It regularly publishes stories which purport to offer more proof of the temperature rising, but very little in the way of counter-evidence. What little doubt is cast by the BBC and the rest of the media over the efficacy of the consensus view sends environmentalists into a frenzy – like parents desperately covering the ears of their child when someone mentions that Father Christmas doesn’t exist.
If they really cared about the truth, they’d welcome and open debate and would be prepared to have their views confounded. But they don’t, because man-made global warming is a faith issue. And like all fanatics, they are not interested in reality.
David [3.06am]
David, you are really Jo Abbess and I hereby claim my prize….
First the ABC News hit piece on Fred Singer two weeks ago…
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=4506059&page=1
…and now this with the BBC.
“I have to spend a lot of my time countering their various myths and non-arguments, saying, no, go look at the Hadley Centre data.”
Awww, you poor dear. Are those meanie-weenie skeptics making Josey-wosey work? We’re not so bad. In fact, we’re willing to sell you some labor offsets.
For every hour of extra work we add to your daily payload, we’ll sell you some labor offsets, during which time we’ll leave you alone while you turn your power off, sit in the dark and stare at the wall.
It’s a win-win. And think of the energy you’ll save.
The primary cause of global warming is NOT greenhouse gases. The primary cause of global warming is the sun.
I say we send Bruce Willis with a group of oil-drillers to blow up the sun. That’ll solve global warming once and for all.
Plus, who’s to say that trying to prevent climate change won’t be more catastrophic then letting it be. We saw how well Smokey the Bear worked in terms of putting out forest fires that forests depended on.
Plus, the only people who will be affected by the hyped-up catastrophic nature of global warming will be people living on the coast: In the US, California and Florida, but we don’t like those people anyways.
“I say we send Bruce Willis with a group of oil-drillers to blow up the sun.”
Why not just send the bunch to blow up the beeb, ABC (both of them!), CBC, New York Times, The Guardian, The Globe & Mail, CNN and all the other lying dog mainstream media!
The movie would be called “Die Hard You Scum Bag Fascist Media” (or something like that!)
Whew! I feel better already!
I thought the BBC was impartial!!!!!111
Just filing these here:
Notable balance corrected Newsbusters has done a great job of …
By ed thomas(Tomalak)
The email dialogue apparently came to light because environmentalist Jo Abbess fell to blabbing about it online to her pals. Thanks to Jennifer Marohasy and Newsbusters the BBC’s willingness to appease the environmental activists is …
Biased BBC – http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
greens exposed manipulating global warming facts
By schmoo
The emails on this excellent environmental blog by Jennifer Marohasy, show green media manipulator Jo Abbess is guilty of a conscious effort to suppress scientific information which shows that Global Warming has been decreasing since …
– http://schmoontherun.blogspot.com/
BBC beatdown to change Global Warming Story
By RadioPatrol
On Monday, Jennifer Marohasy, the director of the Environment Unit at Australia’s Institute of Public Affairs, received and published an e-mail exchange between the article’s author, Roger Harrabin, and a climate activist affiliated …
Southern Maryland Community Forums – http://forums.somd.com
About Sun Bear
By spectacularwave(spectacularwave)
photo quoted from Jennifer Marohasy’s site. The sunbear (Helarctos Malayanus) is known as “Beruang Madu”(Honey Bear) in Malay and Indonesian. It is found mostly in the tropical rainforests of Southeast Asia.
THE JEDI INCORPORATED – http://jediship.blogspot.com/
ECO TERRORISTS NAME REVEALED
By zeakster
This morning, Jennifer Marohasy of Australia’s Institute of Public Affairs, revealed an exchange between the author and climate alarmist Jo Abbess she found on the Campaign Against Climate Change message board. …
fort wayne right Weblog – http://fortwayneright.wordpress.com
There is a book by Gerard DeGroot title “Dark Side of the Moon, The Magnificent Madness of the American Lunar Quest” in which he describes the process that led America to the Moon.
Take a influential politician with a need ( Kennedy needing to ‘win’ over the Soviets) a Scientist with a passion (Wernher von Braun ) and capable bureaucrats which sold the idea of a race to the moon to the American public.
I was drawn to the many similarities in the process of selling the race to the moon with the race to put a price on carbon.
No dissent the ‘Official Line’ will be tolerated.
At least we wont be short of ‘Dealers in Carbon Credits’ with all the ‘Dealers in Mortgages’ being currently under utilised.
Similarities were also made between Kennedy’s Space Race and ‘Climate Engineering’ in the ABC’s Background Briefing program on Sunday. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/
It seems that many concerned scientists (and others) are seriously considering such engineering projects as they believe the political will and international cooperation required to solve the ‘climate problem’ does not exist.
Great blog Jennifer. This thread has been notable in the number of comments from those other than the usual contributors. This topic has touched a nerve.
The organisation ‘Media Lens’ has form. It routinely engages in this sort of activity on issues aside from AGW. It also has the habit of making public its private correspondence with journalists, editors, etc. and has had a series of run-ins with print and electronic journalists. Its stock-in-trade is harressment until the victim yields. Harrabin appears to have yielded, others in the past have not and simply returned fire.
I’m therefore surprised Mr T finds this all to be a joke. I think it is a disappointing trend.
One of the most telling passages in the email exchange is this, from Jo:
“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.”
Considering the subtle psychological manipulation implied in all of Jo’s emails, the above is somewhat ironic. I’m sure the irony is beyond his/her cognitive abilities. It is also indicative of his/ her and this movements intellectual and moral dishonesty.
Kevin and Mark 2.22 and 5.18
The sun is a no go, because I need it for when I take Holidays and it’s important for my Malibu residence and it’s property value.
The addresses of BEEB ABC indoctination centres please and they shouldn’t be too hard to make die hard, they are only Terrorists and I can chew thru a thousand in any movie, they don’t even have bang sticks or C4 silly putty only keyboards and egos.
Die Hard 6, Kill the Party Pissers.
PS Tarantino wants in with production.
energy independence is much more important than global warming. when the US is energy independent there will be no more oil wars and the terrorists will all be too to reach us. This will save lives AND energy. The global warming crowd can’t claim this. They can claim that they will damage and perhaps destroy capitalism which is their true aim. I for one am not done using capitalism. So I want to keep it. True believers in global warm are free to starve and freeze to death next winter–their choice. Think of all the energy they will save! By the by, don’t ever expect a Greenie to sacrifice anything in his own life to “show the green way.” Global warming is about controlling you and emptying your wallet. When it becomes about something else one of the first things you will notice is that you will understand nothing that is said about global warming. That is because it will all be said in Mandarin Chinese. Only the Chinese can stop man made climate change. They are going through an industrial revolution that is sure to dwarf our own. Does this mean we should do nothing? Far from it. Let’s study what Denmark, France, Brazil, and Australia have done on energy and do likewise. Let’s drill wherever we have oil and put a new nuclear power plant in every state. Let’s use all our coal and natural gas. We don’t need foreign energy. The only people who say we can’t get off foreign oil are greedy conservatives who are getting paid every time a new oil war starts.
The U.S. may be able to become more energy independent than anyone thought:
http://www.willistonnd.com/usrimages/Bakken.pdf
“This topic has touched a nerve”
This story has run out of blog steam.
That this story has not made the mainstream Media, just goes to show what a good job the ‘political commissars’ in Big Media do.
Imagine the Media Rage if someone in ‘Big Oil’, or ‘Big Coal’ had been caught like dear Jo and the BBC !!!
Mundus vult decipi
Gavin – what you should say is “has not made the mainstream Media in Australia or UK”. Just because the local media has long ago abandoned objectivity or impartiality on this issue, does not mean that this is the case everywhere (thankfully!).
Check out this item — just aired a short while ago on CNN.
Funny youtube clip! Thanks for letting us know about.
Ivan: sorry I don’t bother u tube
try google
april 09 2008 Jo Abbess Roger Harrabin LETTERS
ignoring odd blogs there is nothing going on
It looks to me like Roger H has attracted just the sort of publicity depicting him as an unreliable reporter lacking moral courage that he had hoped to avoid by caving in.
Ah, Gavin!
But if you try: “april 09 2008 Jo Abbess Roger Harrabin Emails”
the results are different!
And Gavin, you really should see that youtube clip.
I see you, the BBC are part of the NWO, perverting what your reporters supply. Why bother having reporters, just do it yourself. I`m glad you have been caught out, it shows what your really made of. How can anyone believe in what you produce.
Please understand that in order to CONTROL a population, they do need to frighten them to such an extent that they will SUBMIT to those things which are FORCED upon them.PSYchOPS workers every time.
Please understand that in order to CONTROL a population, they do need to frighten them to such an extent that they will SUBMIT to those things which are FORCED upon them.PSYchOPS works every time.Try it
Just filing this here:
Global Warming – BBC Revises Article to “Comply”
By angelatc
This morning, Jennifer Marohasy of Australia’s Institute of Public Affairs, revealed an exchange between the author and climate alarmist Jo Abbess she found on the Campaign Against Climate Change message board. …
Ron Paul Forums – http://www.ronpaulforums.com
How the Left Cooks Reporting on Global Warming
By Mike’s America
Jennifer Marohasy, the global warming skeptic whose views we featured in a post two weeks ago got ahold of the email exchange between the BBC reporter and the envirozealot. In it, the envirozealot used the full set of big lie talking …
Flopping Aces – http://www.floppingaces.net
Global Warming Activist Pressures BBC to Significantly Alter Article
By STAFF:(STAFF:)
On Monday, Jennifer Marohasy, the director of the Environment Unit at Australia’s Institute of Public Affairs, received and published an e-mail exchange between the article’s author, Roger Harrabin, and a climate activist affiliated …
Netizen News Brief – http://netizennewsbrief.blogspot.com/
Correction Demanded: BBC article “Global temperatures ‘to decrease'”
By A Dog Named Kyoto(A Dog Named Kyoto)
Jennifer Marohasy reveals a fascinating trail of emails between environmental activist Jo Abbess and BBC Environment reporter Roger Harrabin, which eventually led to the BBC changing their original story Global temperatures ‘to …
A Dog Named Kyoto – http://adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com/
Just filing this here:
There is now unequivocal evidence that the temperature of the planet is dropping like a stone. As the DailyTech site reports:
All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASAGISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. A compiled list of all the sources can be seen…The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years.
Here’s some other data you may not have seen. The troposphere hasn’t warmed for the past five years. And the oceans haven’t warmed for five years either, which has got this poor NPR reporter scratching his head, poor chap:
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren’t quite understanding what their robots are telling them. This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.
And here is Ross McKittrick (who exposed the fundamental flaw in the research underpinning the whole of MMGW theory, the hockey-stick curve whose upward warming trend was achieved by omitting several hundred years of global climate history) revealing that there is an error in groundstation measurements such that past warming as measured by near-surface air has been over-estimated by 100% for over 20 years to 2002 (since when there has been cooling). While at Climate Audit, John Goetz says that the temperature record for 2005-2007 has actually been falsified to produce an upward trend. Crumbs!
keep reading here…
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/601511/an-emerging-truth.thtml
Just filing this here:
Hi Benny:
You would think Roger Harrabin had learned his lesson about bullying after his experience with Al Gore and staff. However, it seems he wants to cling tenaciously to his personal views to the exclusion of facts and balance.
Harrabin interviewed Al Gore and experienced the wrath of those who dare to ask questions Mr Gore doesn’t like. He reported on the experience and his ambivalence about the situation is evident here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7040370.stm
The article is a bizarre confession of confusion and may help explain why Harrabin was bullied into changing his article to suit the climate activist. It shows he is willing to compromise however necessary to ensure his view of the issue is maintained. This is as far removed from journalism as Mr Harrabin should be.
Tim Ball
This comment is also old news
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/14/schools.film
hardly science hey
Why is it always ‘there has been no warming since 1998’? Why never 1997, or 1999, say?
I think the question answers itself, especially if you learn how to understand a graph.
“As soon as Winston had dealt with each of the messages, he clipped his speakwritten corrections to the appropriate copy of the Times and pushed them into the pneumatic tube. Then, with a movement which was as nearly as possible unconscious, he crumpled up the original message and any notes that he himself had made, and dropped them into the memory hole to be devoured by the flames”.
“He who controls the past controls the future”
John Smith wrote, (regarding Dr. Miskolczi’s work)
“In his paper he’s talking about a constant Flux Optical Depth of 1.87 which is not a distance.”
Thank you for the clarification. I’m trying to understand the papers and this will help me along the way significantly.
Just an observation, but how can a “gavin” write,
“hardly science hey”..
His last name must start with an S, end in a T have have “chmid” in the middle.
Or a very BIG tongue in his cheek.
That said, who is the idiot, him who “believes” in AGW, or me, a factory worker who is skeptical of AGW…
Maybe his midddle name is “I’ll rubbish lorry drivers as well, when needed”.
LOL.
Or maybe the middle name is,
Doing my best to make NASA and RC a ROFLMAO…..
(RC always was and is.)
Derek of Echoes Inc: We should have guessed your link to Sunsettommy who also insists on connecting me with a Schmidt on RC. Has it not occurred to your lot that sunshine doesn’t radiate from the USA?
Enlightenment starts downunder mate.
Nice to meet you.
I had a look at blog.
Please link to this site.
http://www.geocities.jp/edokmet/
heh looks like the BBC has been caught out again.
I can no longer them seriously. BBC bias is something that I often notice – in many areas.
Often it takes the form of things that they DON’T report, such as the leaked document NIS options Analysis Outcome. I would have said this was of considerable interest to the British public.
heh looks like the BBC has been caught out again.
I can no longer them seriously. BBC bias is something that I often notice – in many areas.
Often it takes the form of things that they DON’T report, such as the leaked document NIS options Analysis Outcome. I would have said this was of considerable interest to the British public.
In contrast to predictions from last month of a very protracted La Nina, it now appears that La Nina is weakening. This increases the prospect for a warmer 2008 than previously anticipated. It will still be unlikely to set a record, and may remain cooler than 2007, but the difference will very likely be slight, and the possibility of a record high within the next 2-4 years appears probable.
Fred Moolten
Gavin wrote,
“Enlightenment starts downunder mate.”
You have a good point, Prof. Robert Carter, and David Archibald for instance.
As for the Northern hemisphere you also have a point,
Al Gore and the BBC for instance.
Whomf – thread back on topic…the BBC and activists.
I agree with the loud AGW activist. The BBC headline suggests the science of Global Warming is false and the planet is cooling.
A more neutral BBC headline would feature: “La Nina temporarily halts Global Warming”.
Jo Abbess is correct, if not rude.
A headlined designed to educate readers (as opposed to pandering to the very wealthy and the uberpowerful oil lobby) as a public service would read: “La Nina temporarily masks Global Warming”.
Perhaps the activist is taking offense to an accidental headline wording by Roger? Not surprising, since so many such headlines are purposfully worded to dumb down readers to unethically enrich a few.
Doomed, doomed I say. We are all doomed and we don’t know how or when. And we are curious. So we argue about it in search of the truth. The pessimists, the optimists, and caught in the middle…. the realists. For all we know we may have to start pumping out CO2 to moderate an ice age or move to the poles to escape the heat. One thing we all agree on is that something is coming. It’s just a matter of when, and if we are here for something other than war then we’d better hurry because for all we know it can turn around in a year.