Pursuing its campaign of climate alarmism, the BBC World Service today headlines the news of a receding Arctic ice-cap. They say that melting is “nearly as bad as last year” — which I take it means that there is less melting than last year. In 2007 they trumpeted the record level of melting, but as Christopher Booker later pointed out in the Sunday Telegraph, the subsequent re-freezing took the ice-cap back to normal dimensions. Indeed there were photographs of Newfoundland fishing boats exceptionally iced-in to their harbours and unable to leave, and stories of unusual number of polar bears making their way across extensive pack-ice to Iceland, and posing a threat to local residents.
As an aside, I recently heard a presentation in Chicago by Bjorn Lomborg, the “Skeptical Environmentalist”. He cited studies showing that if all the planned measures were taken to mitigate climate change, it might eventually save the life of one polar bear a year. But (he said) we currently shoot three or four hundred polar bears a year — for example to protect residents in Iceland. Rather than spending trillions of dollars a year to save one bear in many years’ time, couldn’t we just shoot one less?
Now the data show that the world has been in a cooling phase for ten years, since 1998. Of course it takes a while for the ocean temperatures to catch up, so we should not be surprised if the Arctic ice-cap is still responding to the warming that took place 1975/1998.
Funnily enough, the BBC made much less of the news of exceptional cold and snow which caused huge disruption of transport services in China last winter, nor of the exceptional cold weather events in the Southern Hemisphere winter in recent months. But then if the facts don’t fit the narrative, it’s easiest to ignore the facts.
Search the blog
Calendar of posts
Blogroll
Pages
-
Recent Posts
- My final speech in Strasbourg – Two-seat parliament a perfect metaphor for the hubris and futility of EU project
- The European parliament: an apology
- COP21 climate agreement: An eye-watering amount of money for virtually no return
- £100,000 mis-spent?
- EU energy labelling: confusing consumers and creating problems for industry
Recent Comments
Jane Davies on The European parliament: an… catweazle666 on The European parliament: an… Sheila White on The European parliament: an… charles wardrop on The European parliament: an… Mike Maunder on The European parliament: an… Top Posts
Blog Stats
- 941,028 hits
- Add new tag
- Air fares
- Alan Johnson
- Al Gore
- Animal Welfare
- banking
- BBC
- betrayal
- Broughton Astley
- Brussels
- C02
- Cameron
- campaign
- CAP
- capitalism
- Carbon
- Climate Change
- CO2
- Constitution
- Copenhagan
- Credit Crunch
- Croatia
- David Cameron
- David Davis
- Education
- Elections
- emissions trading
- Energy
- Energy Security
- Environment
- EPP
- EU
- EU Presidency
- Europe
- Freedom Zone
- Free Speech
- Galileo
- Georgia
- Global Warming
- GM Food
- gordon brown
- Greenpeace
- Gurkhas
- Lib Dems
- Liberal Democrats
- Lisbon
- McCain
- Monetary Union
- No Campaign
- Obama
- OfCom
- Oil
- Peer reviewed papers
- pesticides
- Philip Lardner
- Politics Show
- Refereendum
- Referendum
- Renewables
- resignation
- roger helmer
- Russia
- Sarah Palin
- Sarkozy
- smoking
- Stem Cell Research
- St George's Day
- Tax
- The Freedom Zone
- Tobacco
- UKIP
- USA
- Vice President
- windfall tax
It is interesting to note that the BBC did not pick up on these stories:
For BBC bias, one only needs to watch Climate Wars. There are articles and discussions here:
The BBC is well aware of its bias and justifies it thus:
How can I be expected to believe with so much propaganda and so little actual data from the Eco faithful?
Can anyone point to the data to show that all other global warming influences were actually static as is assumed by the fact that IPCC computer models choose to ignore them?