Let's take a look at that link, shall we?

Note: I will be quoting from your link to the National Post, a canadian News site: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=436616 where they quote from an email exchange between BBC News environment analyst Roger Harrabin and Jo Abbess of Campaign Against Climate Change.

Your link starts out:

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? Climate-change activist Jo Abbess of the UK group, Campaign Against Climate Change, explains how on her group's Web site, where she posted her exchange with BBC News environment analyst Roger Harrabin.

Sounds quite sinister, doesn't it!

The site then posts the exhange starting with Abbess' opening e-mail:

From: Jo Abbess

To: Roger Harrabin

Date: Fri., April 4, 2008, at 10:12 a.m. Subject: Correction Demanded: "Global temperatures 'to decrease'"

Dear Roger,

Please can you correct your piece published today entitled "Global temperatures 'to decrease'" :-...

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 time scales, 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.

My god! The gall of that Abbess person to do something so malevolent!! Abbess DARED to write to the author of a news article to complain about what she viewed as innacuracies. STOP THE PRESSES!

Her first point: " '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." is quite reasonable- you DO remember the discussion we had on the fact that there is a scientific consensus on this, dont you?! I will be happy to link it to you... you remember the thread, dont you? The thread where I showed that even your own sources that you used to argue that there wasn't a scientific consenus had retracted their claims?

Her second point: ' "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 time scales, 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.'

WHAT exactly is your problem with this point? It is factually correct as far as I can see...

So... A person involved with a group on Climate Change emailed an author of a news article asking him to correct what she viewed as innaccuracies. She did so politely, and raised what seem to be valid points. In the Author's defense I have no idea what else he said in the original article that led to Abbess' concerns, but the article in question may be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm

Harrabin replies:

Dear Jo,

No correction is needed. If the secy-gen of the WMO [World Meteorological Organization] 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

It is a polite reply, but he seems to be missing her points - in his defense he probably is busy and probably gets many dozens of emails a day. His response of "There are scientists who question whether warming will continue as projected by IPCC." completely misses the point Abbess was making in her first objection. You can find "scientists" that claim that the moon landing was a hoax, it doesn't mean their claim has any validity....

Abbess replies:

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?

I assume the position Abbess is referring to is the implication that there is a serious disagreement on the scientific validity of AGW, when there really isnt.

Abbess continues:

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. ...

Abbess stated her opinion on the matter and why she feels it is important- is there a problem with her doing this, in your opinion, TB? If there is, why dont you state your opinion on the matter and why you feel it is important? :)

Abbess Continues:

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.

Abbess is quite correct on this point, I dont think even you would argue with that.

Abbess Continues:

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.

Abbess should have said instead: "Humans have never experienced the kind of chemical adjustment in the atmosphere we see now". The Earth's atmosphere, of course, has seen far greater chemical change in the distant past- for instance the Oxygen Catastrophe of 2.4 billion years ago...

Abbess concludes:

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

The first sentence in this last part is true pretty much by definition....

Harrabin replies:

jo.

From: Roger Harrabin

The article makes all these points quite clear. We can't ignore the fact that skeptics 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

Seems to me he is responding to her more clearly in this email, he seems to agree with her statement of the facts of AGW, but he differs in his view of how the media should cover it. Abbess feels that his article implies the skeptics have more standing than they have in reality.

Abbess replies:

Hi Roger,

... . 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.

Clearly this is shaded by her own beliefs and values, after all- what exactly is a 'desperate plight'? How much does the ocean have to rise by to be a desperate plight? Does climate change become a desperate plight when millions of people are displaced, or does it take a few hundred million? How many species going extinct does it take? Its a value judgement that cannot be quantified- This is where, as I have said before, the discussion becomes a political, not a scientific one.

Abbess continues:

It would be better if you did not quote the skeptics.

I disagree, I think they can be quoted, just as long as when they are quoted that it is pointed out that their claims are contradicted by an ever growing mountain of scientific fact...

Abbess:

Their voice is heard everywhere, on every channel. They are deliberately obstructing the emergence of the truth.

This is quite true, we have you and gbaikie constantly spouting easily debunked skeptic talking points on here- hell, this thread is just another example... And very often the skeptics have been shown to be deliberately dishonest.

Abbess:

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.

That last bit is a little harsh, but less harsh than many posts here on CE- It certainly doesnt fall into the category of coerscion, or force, or even pressure...

Abbess Concludes:

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 skeptics. Respectfully,

jo.

Harrabin replies:

From: Roger Harrabin

Have a look in 10 minutes and tell me you are happier. We have changed headline and more.

Honestly, TB, what upsets you in this exchange? Is it that Abbess was so crude as to express criticism of a reporter's work? I know what you are thinking TB, you are thinking:

"But, Arrell, can you not see that her words were like a cold cruel dagger into the pure breast of a hard working noble reporter, cutting a delicate flower of truth to the very quick, nay, to its very heart! Is a reporter not human? If you would tickle him would he not laugh, if you would wound him would he not cry, if you would prick him would he not BLEED?! If those paragons of all that is noble and pure in humanity are subject to slings and arrows such as these then the world is indeed a dark place...I, TB, could never criticize these dear creatures frolicking in the bright dewy glenn that is the first amendment!"

I know, TB, that you would NEVER criticize a reporter- and we respect you for that, really we do! But you you must understand that there are some people that feel they have the right to challenge the words of that institution that you worship, the Main Stream Media- its just one of those hard facts that, alas, you must accept as much as it wounds your delicate sensibilities.

On A side note, I couldn't help but notice that by odd coincidence you YET AGAIN happened to pick up on a talking point used in numerous blogs- a coincidence I am sure.... if I were cynical I would think you stumbled upon it while reading a blog online... (I am sure that is not the case, of course!). In fact, if I were a wagering man (I am not a wagering man because, as it says in the bible Romans 6:23: "The Wager's sin is debt") I would bet that you got it from The Weekly Standard Blog here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/04/bbc_rolls_over_for_climate_cha.asp, where you read what the blog told you to think about it, and then posted it here without actually reading it for yourself and thoughtfully evaluating the exchange between Abbess and Harrabin and drawing your own conclusions.

Of COURSE you have to much integrity to EVER stoop that low!

Was that really all you had?

(Are you going to complain that I didnt read your link now?)