Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

November 30th, 2011:

Roger Harrabin, BBC and Tyndall

Many thanks for your very helpful comments. Essentially I agree on all counts, and indeed the "sceptics ask, scientists answer" web-page that you have set up is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind as a possible minimal response that we (Tyndall et al, and even maybe the Royal Society if it wants to get involved) might undrertake. Wherever possible this could/should refer to other reputable sites (incl IPCC, Hadley Centre, the ones you mention, etc etc) rather than duplicating the material. I would envisage that such a site could be maintained by a consortium of the willing, in this case involving (say) Tyndall, Hadley & PIK. We could then asked the RS (et al) to mention it and link to it on some sort of "sound science" page on their own web-site(s) (Rachel, do you think that this might fly ?).

We had an interesting debate on this at the Tyndall Advisory Board last week, and the consensus was very much in line with your views, except for the journalist present (Roger Horobin), who wanted something more pro-active. I am more sympathetic to his view than most of you, I think, but the question is what more would be useful, effective, and not too burdensome ?

Email 2974 (Tuesday, December 02, 2003)

Journalist? Taking part in policy discussions? Is Roger Harrabin really anything more than an embedded propagandist? Note, they couldn’t even get his name right, so much for treating their tools with respect…..

H/T Global Warming Policy Foundation

Eventually, sanity spreads

The latest release of 5,000 emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) reconfirms what the 2009’s “Climategate” files established: Global warming is more fiction than science.

(…)

Warmists dismiss the leaked emails or complain they have been taken out of context. Not so. Collectively, the emails provide evidence of various crimes against the scientific method, such as concealed or destroyed source data, selective measurement, predetermined conclusions, hidden funding sources and bowing to government influence. They knew they were doing wrong and sought to hide the evidence. “One way to cover yourself,” wrote professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU, “would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody will remember to do it.” Fortunately for science, Mr. Jones was, for once, correct.

Editorial, Washington Times

Quote of the day

I have just stumbled across the daftest and most nebulous article on climate change ever.

Comment is Free, of course.

H/T Tim Blair

AGW Redux

Louise Gray contines to spew her climate science ignorance in the face of the barely twitching corpse that is the AGW fraud.  She does this by riding to David Attenborough’s defence.

That awful Lord Lawson of the Global Warming Policy Foundation has accused rabid warmist and Malthusian thoroughly decent bloke, Sir David, of over egging the AGW pudding in the yet to be aired final episode of his latest wildlife documentary series, Frozen Planet.

In the final episode of the popular series, which will be broadcast on BBC One on December 7th, Sir David claims that the Arctic could be ice free in summer by 2020 and polar bears are already dying due to a lack of ice.

Oh, really?  Then how come it’s called Frozen Planet and not Melting Arctic Ice That’s Killing Polar Bears Planet?  I’ve been watching this programme which has been wonderfully and dramatically shot by a team of talented, wildlife cameramen.  Four of the episodes concentrate on the polar seasons.  It’s hard not to notice: a) it’s bloody cold and well below freezing no matter what the season and: b) polar bears suffer greatly in the winter because the sea freezes over making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to hunt their staple food – seals.

That’s right.  Bears are at risk of starving to death during the winter due to a lack of open water making seals scarce yet strangely we’re told it’s open water and melting sea ice that poses the greatest threat even though hunting seals is much easier as witnessed and filmed by those marvellous cameramen.  Weird and ironic, eh?

Already the programme has caused controversy after it was revealed that the BBC is offering broadcasters in countries like the US, where there is more scepticism about global warming, the option of buying the series without the ‘climate change episode’ at the end.

Maybe that’s because a number of countries, including the US, prefer to air a balanced view of the AGW controversy, something the BBC seems incapable of producing.  The Discovery Channel refused outright to purchase and air the final Frozen Planet episode, On Thin IceQuelle horreur!  How can that be?

Writing in the Radio Times, Lord Lawson points out that certain populations of polar bears are rising and that sea ice cover is in fact increasing in Antarctica.

“Sir David Attenborough is one of our finest journalists and a great expert on animal life. Unfortunately, however, when it comes to global warming he seems to prefer sensation to objectivity,” he said.

Well Lawson is correct.  As for objectivity, what can one expect when crap like this passes for BBC impartiality?

However Cambridge University scientists questioned whether Lord Lawson understands or is even aware of the wider context of the latest peer-reviewed research on global warming.

I question whether not those same Cambridge scientists understand or are even aware of the wider context of the now authenticated Climategate 2.0 emails.

For example Lord Lawson claims that polar bear populations are increasing in certain areas, although many people believe this is because the animals are spotted more around human settlements because they are hungry.

Belief is NOT evidence you stupid woman!

But Sir David makes clear that the under-nourished polar bears he is seen with on the television is from just one population.

Under-nourished isn’t the same as dead or in decline.  So far, on Frozen Planet, I’ve seen penguins and ducks that have frozen to death.  What has been conspicuously absent are scenes of polar bears that have died from lack of ice.   If their populations are so sensitive to sea ice extent how come the Arctic seas don’t turn white with the drowned corpses of polar bears every time the sea ice melts sufficiently to allow the opening of the North West Passsage?

Also, the programme makes clear that certain animals such as the killer whale will actually benefit from less sea ice in the summer.

Gosh, there’s an upside to annual Arctic sea ice reduction.  Who knew?

According to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) most populations of polar bears are declining as the animals struggle to hunt when there is less sea ice.

IUCN actually expect people to believe that no polar bear, in the long history of the species, ever adapted to climate change?  How on earth did they survive the end of the last ice age or the Holocene Climatic Optimum?  Yet Attenborough’s team still managed to find enough bears to star in his documentary series.  Lucky or what?  But I’m confused.  Who are we non-scientific plebs expected to believe?  Is it the NGO AGW advocates who claim polar bear populations are in terminal decline, basing this opinion on three or four polar bears (glimpsed from an aircraft in 2006) who drowned at sea after a storm, cause of death unknown since the bodies weren’t retrieved and examined but attributed to AGW anyway.   Or do we believe a scientific study (deliberately ignored by warmists) that concludes polar bear populations, far from being endangered, are actually thriving?

Lord Lawson says that that an ‘objective’ point of view would have pointed out that Antarctic sea ice has expanded over the last 30 years.

He also claimed that evaporation from the melting ice is countering the warming effect by providing cloud cover.

Dr Ian Willis, a senior researcher at the Cambridge University Scott Polar Research Institute, said neither of these points counteract the overall loss of sea ice.

“It is indeed the case that while total sea ice extent in Antarctica over the last three decades has increased slightly, the total sea ice extent in the Northern hemisphere has decreased more substantially. So there is now less sea ice on the planet than there was 30 years ago,” he said.

Lord Lawson quite rightly points out that Antarctic sea ice has expanded over the last three decades.  Dr. Willis agrees and then throws in a straw man argument about Arctic sea ice.   Thirty years ago there was a lot less ice than there was 12,000 years ago.  Scientists have recently postulated that there may have been a total absence of summer Arctic sea ice during the warmest part of the Holocene Climatic Optimum.  Should we be worried?  Do polar bears shit in Antarctic woods?

I do not know of one sensible AGW sceptic that disputes the 2007  summer Arctic sea ice minimum.  There are plenty of warmists that dispute the post 2007 recovery of summer sea ice though.  Arctic ice death spiral anyone?  The major  disagreement between sceptics and warmists is the cause of the 2007 summer Arctic sea ice decline which, by the way, isn’t unprecedented or proven to be caused by rising levels of CO2 no matter what the warmists or their deeply flawed global climate models claim.

Sir David admitted that much of the science is in the early stages but having visited the Poles, he is convinced of man-made global warming and warned of the “devastating effects”, especially in coastal communities due to sea level rise.

The science is in the early stages yet for Attenborough, like Al Gore, the science is settled.  Perhaps he’d like to explain why we’re not seeing any of the alarming, global warming driven “devastating effects”, especially of sea level rise, on our screens?  Maybe it’s because there’s a “complete lack of evidence” .

As the world meets in Durban for the latest round of UN climate talks, he urged all countries to cut emissions.

I’m all for cutting emissions too.  That’s why I won’t be watching the eco-flatulence entitled On Thin Ice.  It’s troubling that telly licence payers were forced to pay for this blatant propaganda whether we believe in it or not.  I’d like to know how Attenborough travelled from pole to pole.  I’m pretty certain dog sleds, bicycles and ocean-going sail boats didn’t feature highly.  I’d also like to know the production cost and the size of Frozen Planet’s carbon footprint that has given Attenborough yet another platform from which to preach his sanctimonious Church of AGW doctrine to us.

“I don’t think anyone can seriously deny it is happening,” he said.

Climate change is real.  Anyone who seriously denies that climate change is real is a moron.

“What the controversy is about is whether mankind has been a factor in that.”

The real controversy is wheather or not the warmist climatologists fudged the data and perpetrated a fraud in favour of AGW in order to blame mankind thereby handing politicians an excuse to tax a vital, non-polluting, naturally occurring trace gas.  It seems this is precisely what the bastards did.

“I personally think we have and it would be surprising if we hadn’t given what we have been doing for the last 125 years.”

What Attenborough personally thinks is irrelevant.  Personal opinion that is not underpinned by falsifiable evidence is not science.

“But in the way it is irrelevant given temperatures are increasing and we know that is potentially doing a lot of damage and if we can we should try and stop that happening.”

The average global temperature stopped increasing in 1998.  The only damage being done is the obscene and totally unnecessary cost of “climate mitigation” based upon fraudulent science that is evidentially harming the poor while enriching corporations and wealthy people.  Atmospheric CO2 is rising.  The temperature isn’t rising.  Even warmists are finally acknowledging that temperature has flatlined for the last ten years or so.  Maybe they should share their epiphanies with Attenborough and the BBC.

“Whether it is caused by us or not, we can bring down carbon emissions and that could stop temperatures rising.”

Wow!  That’s one hell of a WTF money quote.

That’s right.  Attenborough believes that even if mankind isn’t to blame he’s still up for redistributing wealth from the poor to the rich

er…

encouraging brown people to continue dying from treatable diseases through lack of refridgerated medicine and/or inhaling smoke from dung fires

um…

taxing people into energy poverty in a cooling climate and allowing a growing number of vulnerable people to freeze to death for no good reason

ah…

ensuring that polar bears have greater difficulty hunting seals in the summer

oops…

As if forcing people to pay huge taxes for natural emissions of a trace gas they have no control over (natural CO2 outstrips emissions from human industry by magnitudes), will magically reduce global temperatures that are falling due to natural, multidecadal cycles anyway.

All because cretins like Attenborough hate people and would like to see billions of them disappear.  For the sake of the chiiiildren and the grandchiiiildren of course.

How times change…

In 1997 the BBC telethon “Children in Need” released this charity single that went straight to #1 and stayed there for three weeks – the song was everywhere. My mother even bought the CD single.

Yup, Lou Reed’s song “Perfect Day”. These are the opening lyrics…

Just A Perfect Day,
Drink Sangria In The Park,

Try drinking sangria in the park these days and see what happens if there is a PCSO about (and God help you if there are kids in a paddling-pool – do they still have them? – and you have a camera). Yes, even if it’s a couple having a picnic. But think of the children! What message does that song send out to the kiddies as a charity single for deprived kids!

But wait it gets worse…

The song has a sombre vocal delivery and slow, piano-based instrumental backing balancing tones of sweet nostalgia (“it’s such a perfect day, I’m glad I spent it with you”) with an undercurrent of menace (“you’re gonna reap just what you sow”)…

The song’s lyrics are often considered to suggest simple, conventional romantic devotion, possibly alluding to Reed’s relationship with Bettye Kronstadt (soon to become his first wife) and Reed’s own conflicts with his sexuality, drug use, and ego.

Some commentators have further seen the lyrical subtext as displaying Reed’s romanticized attitude towards a period of his own addiction to heroin; this popular understanding of the song as an ode to addiction led to its inclusion in the soundtrack for Trainspotting, a film about the lives of heroin users.

- Wikipedia

A movie released not that long before the single. But flash forward to 2011 and…

An X Factor contestant has come under fire for performing a song about heroin abuse during the family show. But with so many narcotic references in popular music, is it possible to insist on drug-free cover versions?

When wholesome would-be popster Janet Devlin trilled Under the Bridge by the Red Hot Chili Peppers on reality television programme The X Factor, the Saturday peak-time setting was somewhat removed from the track’s lyrical message of degradation, squalor and despair.

I dunno. Somehow I suspect “degradation, squalor and despair” descibes ITV1′s Saturday vile crap-fest to a T.

Devlin and the show’s producers were attacked for exposing family audiences to a song about heroin abuse.

The horror, the horror!

This is the original of the song…

It can hardly be said to romanticise heroin addiction can it? Anyway, if we are to excise from the cannon of popular music any references to drugs then I suspect you’ve got very little left. Perhaps my colleague RAB might chip in here…

Charity Kidscape called the song choice “disturbing and irresponsible” while counselling service Focus 12 warned producers that their duty to protect young people from the horrors of addiction was “not something that should be taken lightly”.

Fourteen years is a short time in bansturbation is it not?

Guess who else joined in…

The Daily Mail attacked the show’s lack of concern over “troubling lyrics about heroin needles drawing blood”. In fact, during her performance Devlin – who was subsequently voted out of the contest – omitted the song’s final verse, the only part of it to deal directly with intravenous drug use.

Classic Daily Fail.

The same paper that has this on the front page of it’s website today. A tawdry and vile attempt to disguise showing pictures of scantily clad lasses out clubbing in Britain for the purpose of titilation by serving up a side-order of moral outrage. It is moral hypocrisy of the sort that would have the sterotypical Victorian of popular imagination reach for the smelling salts (which are probably illegal now anyway). If he wasn’t also having a crafty Barclay’s…

Just read the whole thing if you can. It’s foul – I dunno the word – “slutsploitain”?

Welcome to the new moral hectoring, same as it always has been. Welcome to Iran or The Republic of Gilead.

I’m not even going to mention a certain shift in British politics that happened in 1997 but you might think it.

%d bloggers like this: