The last two sentences form the salient quote, I think:
"Bryden's paper as submitted for publication to Nature included a question mark at the end of the title, suggesting only a possibility that the circulation might be slowing down. On the editor's insistence, the question mark was removed, and the title was changed into a positive statement that caused a considerable stir." [emphasis mine]
But of course there is no bias in the media, right?
Reading Seitz' article, it looks like the data which demonstrates Gulf Stream slowing is of a lesser magnitude than the uncertainty of that data. In other words, there is no way to tell if the Gulf Stream is slower now than it was in 1957.
"It is a mystery how such an error was missed by Levi and by the editors and reviewers of the original paper." Is it? It's no mystery if you realize that the people involved wanted the Gulf Stream to be slowing down, because "slower Gulf Stream=global warming=man-made=apocalypse". It's the media template for global warming.