April 2008

From NewsBusters.org

On Saturday, NewsBusters shared with readers a BBC.com report that astoundingly proclaimed "Global Temperatures 'To Decrease.'"

Some time after this was posted, the third paragraph of the original piece was changed in a fashion that radically altered the meaning of the entire article (picture courtesy AP).

In fact, what was once a realistic portrayal of new data released by the World Meteorological Organization suddenly became another hysterical report espousing doom and gloom at the hands of manmade global warming.

Here was how the piece began before Saturday's edits (emphasis added):

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.

For the record, a website called Gribbit's Word cut and pasted those three opening paragraphs exactly the same way on Friday at 12:19 PM.

Yet, some time on Saturday after NewsBusters posted its piece at 12:22 PM, the third paragraph was mysteriously changed to this (emphasis added):

But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average – and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.

Some difference, wouldn't you agree? Maybe more fascinating is that the time stamp at the top of the article doesn't reflect that any changes were made since Gribbit or I cut and pasted the version we shared with our readers: "Page last updated at 00:42 GMT, Friday, 4 April 2008 01:42 UK."

For those unfamiliar, 00:42 GMT on Friday would be 7:42 PM EST Thursday. So, according to BBC.com, this piece was last updated our Thursday evening.

Yet, Gribbit's cut and paste Friday afternoon, and mine on Saturday afternoon, are different than what one now sees if you click on the links we both posted for this piece. And, since mine was posted at 12:22 PM Saturday, it means this third paragraph was changed at least 40 hours after the last "official" update.

Why? Was someone at the BBC displeased with the tenor of this piece, but didn't want folks to know it was being altered so long after it had been posted?

*****Update: Jennifer Marohasy reports that the headline of this article was changed a couple of times as well —

Moving on to the strange happenings surrounding a subsequent 4th April article by the BBC's Roger Harrabin, blogged here, entitled, Global temperatures 'to decrease' , which was later changed to, Global warming 'dips this year, ' and then subsequently changed back to Global temperatures 'to decrease.' The changes in the text, however, did not revert back to the text in the original article.

Makes sense. After all, the alarmists certainly couldn't have an article out there titled "Global Warming 'Dips This Year.'"

—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Richard Anthes of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, writing for the Denver Post (always willing to publish a storyteller), sounds the alarm over diminishing government resources for climate research that "will drop in real terms this year — for the fourth year in a row." What "real terms" are, he does not explain. Nevertheless we are to be disturbed, because:

There is no substitute for computing power to understand and predict weather and climate. Larger and faster computers allow scientists to effectively combine diverse global observations into a meaningful whole, and to make predictions and warnings with increasing accuracy and detail. But many U.S. research and operational climate and weather centers now lag behind their international counterparts in the amount of computing power dedicated to weather and climate modeling.

In the interest of non-disclosure, Mr. (Dr.?) Anthes does not divulge whether he has received federal funds (undoubtedly there is some, if not much) for such research, nor apparently did the Post care to ask. Meanwhile, Cooler Heads friend John Dendahl gets to the heart of the matter:

Garbage in, garbage out, as they say in the computer modeling business. Inadvertently, to be sure, Richard Anthes confirmed for readers of his guest commentary exactly what the global warming scare is all about: research money for his and other related organizations….The garbage in is his introductory statement, claiming it is “clear” that the “major cause” of planet warming “at an unprecedented rate” is human beings. The garbage out is his case for more and faster computers for more exotic models.

Yes, times are tough for many. Sure, oil companies make a lot of cash. But, for that money, they get us to work, get ambulances to the hospital, keep our homes warm, and employ thousands of our friends and neighbors while financing their retirement, paying their health care, and providing energy to millions. Because of capitalism, they have the incentive to do that. I've yet to see what our government does for us with their rather large chunk of each gallon of gas we buy, and I've yet to see them offer to return it or suggest a gas-tax-windfall-tax-tax.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

A new article in the journal Science attributes the "worldwide problem" of increased algae blooms in ponds and reservoirs to global warming. The News & Observer of Raleigh reports:

Warmer weather has created longer growing seasons. It has allowed the blue-green algae range to expand from Florida northward throughout the Southeast. When algae blooms die and decompose, they pull oxygen from the water and can cause fish kills. 

"The temperature change is playing into hands of blue-green algae," [Hans] Paerl [of the UNC-Chapel Hill Institute of Marine Sciences] said. "We have to be more diligent in reducing nutrients to slow down expansion into lakes that are now amenable to these blooms."

Except the global temperature has not increased for 10 years. What gives?

The first round of negotiations for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol is taking place this week in Bangkok.  The head of the “G-77 plus China” group (which now represents 130 developing countries) told a reporter for Inter Press Service that the developed countries were going to have to meet their Kyoto commitments before asking the developing countries to make commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Dr. John Ashe, Antigua and Barbuda's ambassador to the UN, told Marwaan Macan-Markar of Inter Press, “Those who have ratified the Kyoto Protocol have to meet their targets first….  We are concerned that the (industrialized nations) have not given sufficient priority to the legal mandate of achieving quantified emissions limitations and reduction commitments through national actions.”

The G-77 are keen on Kyoto because of its two wealth-transferring programs, which are called the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation.  But they are making a larger, very strong point: how can poor countries be expected to sign a new agreement to reduce emissions if the rich countries have failed to reduce emissions?

In related news, it was reported this week that the European Union's emissions went up again in 2007.  That's on top of the 2006 increase of 1.6 per cent.

Former Vice President Al Gore's three-year, $300 million advertising campaign to sell the American public on global warming alarmism kicked off on Wednesday with television and print ads.  I can't figure out what the goal is, but I guess with that much money they'll eventually develop a coherent message. 

The first full-page newpaper ad, which I saw in the Washington Post, announces in huge letters, “You can't solve the climate crisis.”  So far, so good.  But then there's the fine print, which asks people to sign up with the Alliance for Climate Protection so that we can solve the climate crisis together.

My Google search turned up the web site for the “We” campaign (as they call it), www.wecansolveit.org, as the thirteenth site listed.  It took me about a minute to join, as the ad promised.  If that's all that's needed to solve the crisis, then I've done my part, but I suspect that further commitments will be expected.

CBS's Sixty Minutes helped Gore's campaign get started with an interview Sunday night.  It showed Gore in a totally rosy light, but—alas—he just can't help embarrassing himself with his pettty, vindictive, and laughably untrue comments about anyone who disagrees with him.  When Leslie Stahl said that there was still a lot of skepticism about global warming alarmism and some pretty impressive people disagreed with him, Gore responded, “I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view.  They're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the earth is flat.  That demeans them a little bit [oh, really?], but it's not that far off.”

So climate realists are now in the same class of people as politicians who claim to have invented the Internet?  For a different view, I invite you to watch CEI's television ad, which is part of a $60,000 campaign, and to read my comments posted by Google News on Juliet Eilperin's comprehensive story about Gore's campaign in the Washington Post.

Africa Science News reports that “the World Growth report entitled, ‘The Real Climate Threat to Developing Countries – Early, Deep Cuts in Emissions’ demonstrates that Europe’s call for steep reductions in emissions to reduce world economic growth by one percent would cut economic growth in developing countries in Asia between 12 and 15 percent…The World Growth report assessed the cost of Stern’s claim that deep cuts would only shave one percent of annual economic growth in the world economy over time. It found Stern’s 1% cut in global GDP equated to a GDP loss of 15% in China, 12% in India, 12% for ASEAN economies and 4% in Brazil.”