By Noel Sheppard, Newsbusters

On Saturday, NewsBusters shared with readers a BBC.com report that astoundingly proclaimed “Global Temperatures ‘To Decrease.’” Some time after this was posted, the third paragraph of the original piece was changed in a fashion that radically altered the meaning of the entire article.

In fact, what was once a realistic portrayal of new data released by the World Meteorological Organization suddenly became another hysterical report espousing doom and gloom at the hands of manmade global warming. Here was how the piece began before Saturday’s edits:

Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said. The World Meteorological Organization’s secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer. This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

Yet, some time on Saturday after NewsBusters posted its piece at 12:22 PM, the third paragraph was mysteriously changed to this:

But this year’s temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.

Some difference, wouldn’t you agree? Why? Was someone at the BBC displeased with the tenor of this piece, but didn’t want folks to know it was being altered so long after it had been posted? Maybe more fascinating is that the time stamp at the top of the article doesn’t reflect that any changes were made. Yet this third paragraph was changed at least 40 hours after the last “official” update. Read Noel’s post here.

By Dr. David Deming, in the Washington Times

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley recently warned that failure to take action on global warming could mean the extinction of the human race. Over the last few years, we’ve been repeatedly warned we are in the midst of a climate crisis that threatens our survival. Al Gore calls it a “planetary emergency.” We might take this concern more seriously if the doom-mongering wing of the environmental movement weren’t burdened by a long history of false prophecies.  In the mid- to late-1960s, the leading environmental concern was overpopulation. The 1967 book “Famine 1975!” warned “by 1975 a disaster of unprecedented magnitude will face the world ... famines will ravage the undeveloped nations, this is the greatest problem facing mankind.” A sober review of the book in the scholarly journal Science characterized the prediction of mass starvation as “self-evident,” argued that technological solutions were “unrealistic,” and concluded that catastrophe was unavoidable. The reviewer concluded “all responsible investigators agree that the tragedy will occur.” More widely read was Paul Ehrlich’s shrill screed, “The Population Bomb” (1968). Mr. Ehrlich began with the infamous words “the battle to feed all of humanity is over,” and claimed that “in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” “We must have population control,” Mr. Ehrlich argued, because it is the “only answer.”

Within 10 years, the imminent calamity of global cooling was replaced by global warming. And the mass famines predicted by Paul Ehrlich and others never happened. From 1970 through 2000, the world’s population grew from 3.7 billion to 6.1 billion. But the food supply grew faster. None of the environmental catastrophes Mr. Ehrlich predicted occurred. Since 1970, the six principal air pollutants tracked by the Environmental Protection Agency have fallen significantly, even while U.S. population and energy use have grown. In 1990, Mr. Ehrlich’s own ignorance was exposed when he lost a wager over the price of commodities to Cornucopian economist Julian Simon.

And the Green Revolution was a success. It has been estimated that the father of the Green Revolution, Norman Borlaug, singlehandedly saved the lives of a billion people. Higher crop yields from improved grain varieties also helped preserve the environment by limiting the need to convert undeveloped areas to arable land. History repeats itself. So, please excuse my skepticism when you claim global warming means the end of the world is nigh. I have heard it all before.  See full story here.

David Deming is a geologist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.

Investors Business Daily

Global warming? Don’t worry about it. It’s over. No longer does Al Gore have to fly around the world in private jets emitting greenhouse gases to save the world from - greenhouse gases. The United Nations World Meteorological Organization is reporting that global temperatures have not risen since 1998. That would be the same temperatures that models from the U.N.’s Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change said would be scorching the earth into an unlivable wasteland except for those coastal areas flooded by seas gorged with water from melting ice sheets.

Of course the IPCC spins the news. “You should look at trends over a pretty long period,” said WMO Secretary-General Michael Jarraud, “and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.” His explanation for the cool spell is the effect of the Pacific Ocean’s La Nina current, “part of what we call ‘variability.’ “ If that’s the case, then why can’t the Pacific’s El Nino current, which played a large part in the warm reading for 1998, simply been seen as a “variability” and not part of a greater warming trend? Because it doesn’t fit the agenda? Were the IPCC not dedicated to spreading fear, it would admit its climate models, on which much of the global warming madness is based, are flawed.

This is not some gas-guzzler’s fantasy but the finding of a credible study published last year in the International Journal of Climatology. Looking at the data, four researchers (Douglass, Christy, Pearson, Singer) concluded “the weight of the current evidence supports the conclusion” there is no agreement between the models and the observation temperatures. That means that projections of future warming are too high, that the entire global warming assumption is suspect, and that Gore should find something more productive to do with his time.

It also proves that Howard Hayden, physics professor emeritus at the University of Connecticut, was correct in describing the machinery of the climate model-hysteria industrial complex as one that takes “garbage in” and spits “gospel out.” Read more here.