On Friday Canada's National Post asked:
How does a BBC story that starts off saying, "Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007 ... This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory," become "Global temperatures will drop slightly this year ... But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend --and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years." All in the space of one hour and 16 minutes?
The paper answered its own question, publishing a series of emails between the story's editor and climate change activist Jo Abbess exchanged during that one hour and 16 minutes. Abbess told the editor "It would be better if you did not quote the skeptics," and threatened that unless he changed the story, she would make their correspondence public, putting him in an "unfavourable light." He complied with a terse, "Have a look in 10 minutes and tell me you are happier. We have changed headline and more." Now the BBC has responded to charges that they rolled over for Ms. Abbess:
Among my e-mail exchanges was one with an environmental campaigner who published our e-mails implying that we had changed our article as a result of her threat to publicly criticise our report. We didn't change it for that reason. We changed it to improve the piece.
So apparently their position is that "tell me you are happier" should not be construed as an indication of caving under pressure. Further, the editor now denies that there was any substantive change to the piece: "Was there any material change? I don't think so." From "prompting some to question climate change theory" to "experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend." Maybe 'material' doesn't mean what I think it means...