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 Ice. Quelle 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
encouraging brown people to continue dying from treatable diseases through lack of refridgerated medicine and/or inhaling smoke from dung fires
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
ensuring that polar bears have greater difficulty hunting seals in the summer
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.