YET another example of why mainstream media outlets like @BBC, captured by the radical environmental movement, cannot be trusted on anything “climate change”.
By Paul Homewood
Readers may recall an item on the BBC World at One back in March about rising sea levels in Florida, when their correspondent claimed that:
1) Rising seas and flooding are turning Miami Beach into a modern day Atlantis, the city being submerged by water.
2) Sea levels at Miami are rising at ten times the global rate.
I covered the story here.
I complained to the BBC at the time, and, after being fobbed off the first time, escalated the complaint to the Executive Complaints Unit, who have now published the above judgment.
Astonishingly, they regard the claims about “Atlantis” to be “soundly based”, even though they now accept that sea levels around Miami are only rising at about 8 inches a century.
Of course, they had no choice but to withdraw the ludicrous claim about “ten times the global rate”!
View original post 45 more words
These are the facts:
* Sea level has remained virtually at the present level over the last 200 years
* In the last 50-70 years sea level has remained perfectly stable in Fiji
* This stability is indicated by the growth of corals (stopped to grow vertically, and forced to grow laterally into microatolls) – and corals do not lie
“Whatever economy, politics and project agendas may want to put in the center, the true scientific community must insist that only facts as revealed in nature itself and in laboratory experiments can provide trustworthy results.”
Nils-Axel Mörner signs off his open letter to Honorable Prime Minister of Fiji and President of COP23 Frank Bainimarama with this slap of reality that goes to the heart of the UN’s pseudoscientific “climate change” agenda to fulfil its (self-proclaimed) wealth-redistribution goals…
“Retournons à la Nature
That is setting field evidence in the center instead of models and ideas driven by political and/or religious agendas.”
Open Letter to Honorable Prime Minister of Fiji and President of COP23 Frank Bainimarama by Nils-Axel Mörner
The community assembled at the COP23 meeting in Bonn badly wants temperature to rise according to models proposed (but never verified, rather seriously contradicted) and sea level changes that may pose serious flooding threats to low lying coasts provided sea level would suddenly start to rise at rates never recorded before (which would violate physical laws as well as accumulated scientific knowledge over centuries).
We have been in your lovely country and undertaken a detailed sea level analysis, which beyond doubts indicates that sea level is not at all in a rising mode, but has remained perfectly stable over the last 50-70 years. Hence all threats of an approaching general sea level flooding is totally unfounded.
Whatever economy, politics and project agendas may want to put in the center, the true scientific community must…
View original post 803 more words
“Super Hot” Arctic “Death Spiral” Update…
It seems that Churchill residents and visitors woke up this morning to find most local polar bears had left to go hunting — on the sea ice that supposedly doesn’t exist. Right in the middle of the Polar Bear Week campaign devised by Polar Bears International to drum up donation dollars and public sympathy for polar bear conservation!
Frigid temperatures and north winds last night helped the process along, but this early freeze-up has been in the works for almost a week. From what I can ascertain, it appeared the only bears around onshore today were a mother with her young cub moving out towards the ice (females with cubs are usually the last to move offshore, probably to reduce the risk of encounters with adult males who might kill the cubs).
Tundra Buggy cams at Explore.org have been showing markedly fewer bears today and those that have…
View original post 463 more words
“THAT earth’s climate changes, and even now maybe changing quite rapidly, is widely recognized. The questions facing worried experts: are we warming the atmosphere of our planet irreversibly with our industry, automobiles, and land clearing practices? What sort of weather will our children and our grandchildren know? On the answers may rest the fate of nations and millions of people.”
SOUND like the all too familiar talking points of a circa 2017 warming alarmist?
NOT quite! The (edited) paragraph was from 1976, printed in NatGeo during the perceived man-made “global cooling” apocalypse.
SAME fears, different scare!
Read the full post by WUWT guest blogger Doug Ferguson…
Guest essay by Doug Ferguson
Having moved from Minnesota to Alaska this past summer, we have been making the rounds of thrift shops, stores and other venues to restock our home with things we left behind to reduce our moving costs.
Before heading out to one of our recent forays, I caught up on the news on the well known climate blog, “Watts Up With That” and read the 10/39/17 article, How Google and MSM Use “Fact Checkers” to Flood Us with Fake Claims by Leo Goldstein. You should read it. The link is here
The main example was Time magazine, but it made me think of another publication that has more subtly switched gears over the past 40 years or so to maintain the sense of impending climate doom. This is the venerable National Geographic, which currently is in full global warming alarm mode.
Therefore it was with great…
View original post 1,109 more words
Just in timefor Polar Bears International’s self-proclaimed fall Polar Bear Week (5-11 November 2017), here’s a new resource for cooling the polar bear spin. I’ve updated my 2015 summary of reasons not to worry about polar bears, which is now more than two years old. In this new version, you will find links to supporting information, including published papers and fully referenced blog posts of mine that provide background, maps and bibliographies, although some of the most important graphs and maps have been reproduced here. I hope you find it a useful resource for refuting the pessimism and prophecies of catastrophe about the future of polar bears. Please feel free to share it.
As global leaders meet in Bonn for COP23 (6-17 November 2017), it’s time to celebrate the proven resilience of polar bears to their ever-changing Arctic environment.
Twenty Reasons: the bullet points
- Polar bears are still a…
View original post 4,692 more words
“This new climate report is not an objective or an honest assessment of the state of the climate, particularly in relation to the US.
Instead, it is a highly partisan and politicised report, designed to promote alarmism.
There has been much talk of the need for red and blue teams, to challenge lazy consensus.
It is now time for this to happen, so that this Report can be constructively assessed and, where appropriate, criticised. One of the tasks of a counter group should be to produce their own state of the climate assessment.
The climate mafia have had it their own way for far too long.”
Spot-on Paul. Great re-reporting to make the non-politicised version available!
The mere fact that activist “scientist” Katharine Hayhoe was a lead on the report, speaks volumes.
Corruption of climate ‘science’ by eco-activists, gobbled up by the sycophant mainstream media without any objective analysis.
Eisenhower was right, warning of the corruption of sciences by govt in 1960:
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.”
By Paul Homewood
The Federal Climate Science Special Report from the US Global Change Research Program, mandated under the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990, has now been published.
As with the draft, which I reported on in August, it is the usual mix of half truths, exaggerations, omissions and outright lies.
Let’s look at the main sections:
View original post 2,389 more words
“It’s now clear that Mitch Taylor was right to be skeptical of sea ice models based on pessimistic climate change assumptions…”
EXCELLENT. Great post SC 🐻
You could call it karma — the death of the polar bear icon after the shameful hubris of polar bear experts back in 2009.
That year, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group booted 20-year member Mitch Taylor out of their organization, explaining that his skeptical views on human-caused global warming were “extremely unhelpful” to their polar bear conservation agenda.
Said chairman Andrew Derocher in his email to Taylor: “Time will tell who is correct.”
It’s now clear that Mitch Taylor was right to be skeptical of sea ice models based on pessimistic climate change assumptions; he was also right to be more optimistic than his PBSG colleagues about the ability of polar bears to adapt to changing sea ice conditions (Taylor and Dowsley 2008), since the bears have turned out to be more resilient than even he expected.
Fat polar bears — not starving ones — dominate photos taken in…
View original post 694 more words