Please let's be careful not to hang draw and quarter some of the most conscientious science writers out there. RH referred in a story last year to the 5 professors who wrote a critical letter on the IPCC write-up on biofuels. A much larger number of scientists wrote a critical letter over the IPCC's conclusions as to man-made global warming. So on what basis should they refer to those scientists as "a tiny minority", for example? I wouldn't have liked it if the biofuel-sceptic scientists were described as "a tiny minority", and so forth. The "The Editors" feature on BBC reporting on AGW-sceptics seemed a very sensible exercise.

What I see happened here is you disagreed with what was being reported because it went against your THEORY of climate change caused by humans. So you decided to try and influence a change in an already liberal-biased media so that the news more closely reflects what YOU think.

1- The BBC has every right to quote skeptics, it is only responsible journalism to show both sides of an argument, including the one that YOU may not agree with. You can't censor the media into only showing your side because you think that the other side gets too much play

2-While in your mind, you are absolutely convinced that climate change is the result of human intervention, it still remains a theory, not a proven fact, therefore the media is OBLIGATED to treat human-caused climate change as just that, a theory.

3-You called the science of climatology as a science in it's "infancy"...If the science is in fact in its infancy, than how can we trust that your conclusion that our societies have, as a direct measure, affected climate change is nothing more than a political agenda against corporate development?

4-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....what is the purpose of your e-mail if not to manipulate this reporter into spinning the story YOUR way?

The arena of ideas is to encompass both sides, not simply just yours. People as a whole need to examine what we accept as fact and as theory and learn to differentiate between the two. I am not saying there has been no climate change during the last century, what I am saying is you have quickly accepted a reason, laden with political agenda, as to why it has occurred. Journalism is to be objective and free of influence from ANY special interest group or activist group, including your own.

Thank You.

-Tim Jankowski
maximuspoliticus.blogspot.com

The BBC i obviously run by fools. The story should have been substanciated. To change an article in this wa shows that the BBC is not to be trusted. The New York Times and USA today are simple perversions of the truth.

They cannot be believed in any matters of importance.

climate change is just weather

Jo, your a silly one.

If the beeb is agreeing with the skeptics, this is a good thing isnt it? I mean, every other broadcasting company, vehicle manufacturer, supermarket, even washing detergent maker with their smaller bottles and child voice-overs "every child deserves a clean environment" or words to that effect - basically, almost all companies that we as the public are customers of, are saying the oposite of what the skeptics are saying.. so.. wouldnt that make the skeptics the minority.

And how can You think that people may read the title "Global temperatures 'to decrease'", and suddenly start thinking that its okay to buy big cars etc, You are a very patronising lady to think such a thing. Besides, most of Joe Public fully beleive that global warming is down to humans, so your logic is a little wrong. Its funny, cause You seems to have the belief that the rest of us have been fed, yet You actually believe it to be true. Its all hype, hype to make us go out and by hybrid cars and other 'greener' means of living.

It is true that we effect the environment, but not such that temporatures rise as they have; the effects that we have affect Us more than they do the environment, if you dont count deforestation etc etc. We normally ruin our own health rather than the health of the planet (asthma etc..).

Anyway, my beleif is that the changes in the earths climate is down to the sun and other astral bodies, its very arrogant to think its our fault.

As a final point - why are more airline companies being made, why was T5 built, why are Flight companies not cutting down.. why o why o why, if global warming is our fault. Please dear Jo, please let me know this.

Jo, kindly refrain from writing to the BBC, we can do that ourselves - we can just write to Points Of View. After all, we ALL pay for the TV license, not just you m'dear.

A

Scientific debate? Jo Abbess has apparently heard of it and strongly disapproves.
Lucky for us people such as Jo have brought humanity to it's current level of scientific understanding. Where would we be today if we just allowed any bit of reporting of facts to get to the great unwashed masses? Can you imagine the consequences?
Jo follows in the footsteps of leaders like those in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and so many others that "shape" the information allowed to citizens in order to keep them on the path of "emerging truth".
I say Brava!

Ms Abbess,

Your behaviour is of the kind that gives religion such a bad name in some quarters.

You call yourself a Christian, yet you lie repeatedly in your emails to Mr Harrabin, and you blackmail him with threats to launch a campaign to discredit him.

Not one fact in all your emails to Mr Harrabin is supported by a link or other references.

Your assertion that the oceans 'have shown gradual and continual warming' is one of your many lies. Here's a bang up to date article on how NASA researchers have found that the oceans AREN'T warming, and in fact are cooling slightly.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

Now that's what's know as 'proof'. But you probably think NASA has 'no expertise in this area'. You've clearly gone way past the point of being open to facts and reasoned debate.

No one I know says the earth isn't warming. The people you call 'skeptics' say that the warming isn't outside the range of previously observed warming. The also say that there's no proof that it's being caused by man-made emmissions of CO2, a claim that is itself easily proved: temperatures have remained stable for ten years, and have now started to fall, while emissions have increased steadily.

Can you provide one shred of evidence to support your claims?

More worrying are your sinister attempts to crush all signs of honest debate. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Fortunately your disgusting behaviour towards Mr Harrabin is now all over the web and the world's media. What little good you think you may have done has been far outweighed by the damage you've done to the 'alarmist' cause, and to the BBC, which despite the initial resistance shown by Mr Harrabin has once again shown that it cannot be trusted to report impartially on this important and complex subject.

Many people have latched on to global warming alarmism as a substitute for religious belief. The fact that your own alarmist views, your intolerance of dissent and fascistic attempts to destroy honest debate are themselves framed by your religious beliefs is truly frightening.

First, let me say that I do not believe the "catastrophic anthropogenic climate change" theory. This is for two reasons. The first is that the theory is, at first glance, so highly improbable. The idea that a gas such as CO2, which accounts for such a tiny amount of the atmosphere, can cause such massive changes as are being claimed, seems to me to be highly unlikely and therefore requires very strong and robust evidence to support it.

The second reason is that such evidence simply seems to be missing. What evidence there is seems very uncertain and open to a good deal of doubt.

There is another (admittedly far lesser) reason - the behaviour of many promoters of the "climate change" theory. This is exemplified by "Jo" and her attempts to silence any dissent from her point of view. I find her behaviour absolutely astonishing. Rightly or wrongly, she comes across more like a religious fanatic than a person who has reached a reasoned and considered opinion.

I imagine that this little episode will make anyone who believes in anthropogenic climate change cringe with embarassment. If you wish to convince people that there is a real problem, and further to convince them of the necessity of making considerable sacrifices to counter the problem, I would suggest evidence and reasoned argument might be more effective than browbeating, thinly veiled threats and a refusal to countenance the reporting of dissenting views.