GW Activist Pressures BBC to alter article

[ascendinglark]

Have you read this from Newsbusters? They report on an exchange between global warming extremist Jo Abbess and BBC journalist Roger Harrabin which eventually spurred Harrabin to significantly alter an article on global warming that he wrote - I found this simply incredible...

newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/07/climate-activist-got-bbc-change-global-temperatures-decrease-article

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.

To which Harrabin replies:

Have a look in 10 minutes and tell me you are happier

We have changed headline and more

Speechless....

[Teddy Bear]

Good Find AL

I see from your link that there is quite an exchange of emails between the two. In checking into the credentials of this Jo Abbess I came across this blog, which while heatedly passionate in the emotions expressed, does succinctly put her into context.

I enclose this extract:

Do go and read the rest, but I must say, it was very nice of the BBC to change its article in response to Jo "not a scientist" Abbess but, to be fair to Harrabin, he does at least attempt to defend himself.

One of the things that comes across particularly clearly is that Jo Abbess is a big, fat, stinking liar who has deliberately brow-beaten the BBC into changing its coverage. Liar? Really? OK, let's just give one example, shall we? Remember this bit, right at the beginning? [Emphasis mine.]

[glow=red,2,300]

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.

[/glow]

OK? Got that? Right.

Now, just for fun, let me quote the opening section of the Manhatten Declaration which, amongst other things, states that "there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change." [Emphasis mine, once again.]

[glow=red,2,300]

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change...

[/glow]

Now, remember, according to Jo Abess, there are no climate scientists amongst the sceptics and those scientists that are sceptics "have no expertise in this area". This is quite obviously untrue.

Let's take another of Jo's pronouncements, shall we? [Emphasis mine.]

[glow=red,2,300]

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.

[/glow]
This is, once again, a total lie. The Earth's atmosphere has changed dramamtically over the 4 billion years or so that it has been around. CO2 concentrations were, for instance, far higher in the Cambrian period (during the Cambrian "explosion"). Indeed, when the very first life started on this planet, the atmosphere was primarily composed of CO2 and almost no oxygen (this was supplied, so the theory goes, by vast quantities of cyanobacteria). It may be true to say that humans have never experienced this kind of atmospheric chemical adjustment, but to say that the Earth has not is quite patently untrue.

So, from just these two examples alone, we can see that Jo Abbess is a stinking, fucking liar who should have her tongue cut out for telling stinking, fucking lies. Quod erat demonstrandum.

She's right about one thing when she says to Harrabin "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."

He is insufficiently educated and doesn't know when he's being psychologically manipulated - BY HER!