If a frog had wings...

Haven't read the study and am not saying it isn't true--but I believe some back-spin is needed here.

Here is the headline: "Scientists Say Warming Devastates Frogs in Latin America"

The New York Times then goes on to warn us about the dillution of the speckled frog population in the tropics, which the paper authors claim is being caused by global warming. But not just any global warming (like say one following the last ice age), no sir...they are much more specific:

Climate scientists have already linked most of the recent rise in the earth's average temperature to the buildup of greenhouse emissions from smokestacks and tailpipes. Thus the new findings, according to the researchers and some independent experts on amphibians, imply that warming driven by human activity may have already fostered outbreaks of disease and imperiled species with restricted habitats.

In other words, since it was human induced warming it must be Bush's fault. But wait, did you catch all the "weather words" used in the above paragraph? Most..imply..may have..ie--a 30 percent chance of showers mainly over the mountains.

To their credit, the Times tried to attain some balance. They included comments from several skeptics who suggested the study failed to make any links to the frog fungus and rising temperatures (ah, that bothersome data--always getting in the way). Here was a real beaut:

Rising cloudiness, a long-projected consequence as warming increases evaporation, can keep days cooler by blocking some sunlight and nights warmer by holding in some heat.

Just an observation here--heat buildup during the day usually leads to cumulus clouds, assuming there is enough moisture content (which is always pretty high in the tropics). After sunset these clouds normally dissipate. It's the higher cloud decks that trap nighttime heat. Maybe that's what they meant by "rising cloudiness", if so they didn't explain it very well.

Another scientist summed it up thusly:

Cynthia Carey, an expert in amphibian diseases who teaches at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said that while both climate and amphibian die-offs are serious problems, this particular paper failed to offer anything beyond circumstantial evidence of links between the fungal illness and warming.

So why wasn't the headline "Frogs dying off, some say linked to warming"?

Who cares. Bush is clearly a frog-killer. Or maybe it's Alito's fault. If Ted Kennedy could get a subpoena he'd probably find Alito owns a thermometer made by a greedy corporation. The heartless SOB just doesn't care.

.........NEW IMPROVED VERSION 1/12/06.........

The Times has now changed the story.

How? Mainly the headline. In my story above it was suggested the headline was too dramatic, and the new one "Frog Killer Is Linked to Global Warming", is a tad less. I am not boasting. The Times didn't read Fore Left and rush to change the story. But someone apparently complained about the same thing.

Here's another small change:

Old story--
"Rising cloudiness, a long-projected consequence as warming increases evaporation, can keep days cooler by blocking some sunlight and nights warmer by holding in some heat."

New story--
"Because warming increases evaporation, it can create clouds that tend to make days cooler by blocking sunlight, and make nights warmer by trapping heat."

The old version was really not meteorological, so maybe it was the Weather Channel who complained.

Finally, it was slightly bothersome in how the update was done. The two stories have different URLs (see below) and different headlines, but during the update they matched the text. The quotes from above have now disappeared. That's bordering on sneaky, and it makes me wonder how often this is done. Aside from a cached version one would never know. Now, I admit to occasionally re-entering a post to clean up errors or confusing text (see sidebar), then again, I'm me.

Old story: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/science/11cnd-frog.html?hp&ex=
1137042000&en=f7467427728d23ac&ei=5094&partner=homepage

New story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/12/science/12frog.html