...in fact I seriously doubt you even attempted to find and read the article in question- Do you really want to compare who did more research and thought in this thread TB?

Not to put too fine point on it, but my link was to the original article, not a blog. I had looked up the original forum post, but since it didn't differ significantly from the news story, and the comments there were mostly noise, I didn't bother to post the link.

I don't consider length and detail of posts and "thought" as equivalents. If I didn't spell the premise out paragraph by paragraph in my original post it was because, as I usually do, I assumed the readers could pick it up on their own from the e-mail exchange. You might have noticed that the National Post article made the same assumption. This is the extent of their editorial comment:

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.

Come to that, the extent of MY editorial comment was "Sausage being made here."

It kind of makes me wonder where your detailed and indignant response came from if the point of the e-mail exchange wasn't glaringly obvious on its own.

For the sake of fairness and completeness, here's the BBC side of the story.