Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Gas crackers | Main | What's in a tax? »
Thursday
Nov192015

Guardian goes full ecobonkers

Yesterday, the IUCN, the body set up to worry about endangered species, issued the latest estimates on polar bear numbers. As Susan Crockford reports, the polar bear population seems to be at a record high, although the IUCN will not be drawn on the current trend and they seem to have been persuaded to leave the bears' status as "vulnerable".

Meanwhile, over in cloud cuckoo land, the Guardian is going the full ecobonkers on the report, with a gory headline about climate change being polar bears' 'single biggest threat'. Three subpopulations, they tell us, are in decline already. Strangely they seem to have neglected to mention the overall increase, and also the fact that two of these allegedly declining subpopulations were determined to be so more than ten years ago.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (58)

You know, you could automate most of this stuff - respected scientific body says X, Guardian reports X, loony conspiracy theorist denies X, job done.

Nov 19, 2015 at 10:52 AM | Unregistered Commentergubulgaria

You could indeed automate most of this stuff.
Politico-scientific body says x, carefully avoiding doubtful or contradictory evidence.
Guardian adoringly reports x.
Scientist points out errors.
Warmist troll bleats.

Yawn!

Nov 19, 2015 at 10:59 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

[...]loony conspiracy theorist denies X, job done
, gobby Womble makes pathetic comment about Y, job done.

Nov 19, 2015 at 10:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

gubulgaria, do you deny that the polar bear population seems to be at a record high and that the population trend is unknown?
If so, where is your evidence?

Meanwhile everyone else can discuss - What is the optimum number of polar bears?
For my home town, I'm starting with a bid of less than three.

Nov 19, 2015 at 11:04 AM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Not so long ago a wise man said:-

"(This is what comes of my having treated the Guardian as a reliable source.)"

Nov 19, 2015 at 11:06 AM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

This is the Guardian demonstrating the renewability of failed climate science scare stories. Guardian science experts must be on some kind of productivity bonus, for getting schoolchildren to rewrite old stories.

Nov 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Then the Guardian won't like the breaking NOAAgate scandal in the Washington Post which reading between the lines is: NOAA whistleblowers about to blow lid off NOAAgate

Nov 19, 2015 at 11:17 AM | Registered CommenterMikeHaseler

I suspect they realized just how HIGH the population numbers have gotten, and need to do everything they can to FUDGE the whole thing so people don't catch on.

Nov 19, 2015 at 11:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterClimateOtter

The Guardian is in full-on Paris propaganda mode. New 'devastating' scare launched every day, End of World Imminent, etc. It's a form of lying and what's more they know it.

Nov 19, 2015 at 11:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterCheshireRed

Err, they're worried the species, that adapted to changing climate conditions thousands of years ago from the brown bear, might become extinct, so want an increase in hunting licences? Beats me! AtB

Nov 19, 2015 at 11:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan the Brit

I do suspect that many of these Guardianistas have a mental image of the world which is made horrible by their vividly imagined eco-horrors to come, and coloured and accompanied by the general leftie-hatred of our society and its great accomplishments. Thus they can readily write about that world as if their image was the reality, and are all but immune, when there, to reality itself intruding upon their awful dreams in which, for example, polar bears are suffering greatly thanks to us.

Nov 19, 2015 at 11:55 AM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

M Courtney
Anywhere in the UK I would consider the optimal maximum of free roaming polar bears to be zero.
Except possibly in Caroline Lucas' constituency.

Nov 19, 2015 at 12:09 PM | Unregistered Commenterauralay

The Guardian doesn't seem to understand what decimate means. No, it's not 30 %.

Nov 19, 2015 at 12:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterCapell

If, in the race to wind the calendar back - Roman style public entertainment ever made a comeback I suspect Guardian journos vs. ursus maritimus would be quite a popular spectacle.

Nov 19, 2015 at 12:46 PM | Registered Commentertomo

S: Man-made global warming is real.
Q: Why should I believe that?
S: Because the scientists say it is.
Q: Why should I believe the scientists?
S: Because they are good scientists
Q: How do you know they are good scientists?
S: Because they have proved that man-made global warming is real.

Nov 19, 2015 at 12:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

@ MikeH 11.17am

The fact that you unashamedly quote the farce around the NOAA issue is telling.

All data provided (which was all publicly available anyway).
All methodologies provided (ditto brackets above).

THREE meetings with Lamar Smith to explain this independently.

This (the NOAA study) is one of many studies which corroborate increased AGW in more recent past.

Yet he continues to try and stir and imply wrong doing. Timed for COP21 no doubt.

Some serious doubts now raised re motivation and integrity of oil & gas funded Smith. See

http://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.house.gov/files/Ranking%20Member%20Johnson%20Letter%20to%20Chairman%20Smith%20on%20NOAA%20Subpoena.pdf

L Smith is either stupid or dishonest. What is your excuse?

Nov 19, 2015 at 12:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterYouKnowNothingBishHill

you might have had half a case, if it weren't for those darned whistleblowers

Scooby dooby doo

Nov 19, 2015 at 1:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterEternalOptimist

@RickB 12.47

Now apply that logic to say electricity? Or radioactivity? Or flight? You ever get in a plane?

Nov 19, 2015 at 1:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterYouKnowNothingBishHill

I'd like to introduce the author to one of his "charismatic bears" (he really did say that) and see who comes home in one piece.

Nov 19, 2015 at 1:09 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

YouKnowNothinGullibleGuardian is a true believer. Perhaps some of Climate Science's top psychologists would be better off turning their attention to the reason why failed climate scare stories keep failing, everytime they are recycled, for the same reason.

Why is the Guardian trying to kill off the polar bears, the more resilient they prove to be?

Nov 19, 2015 at 1:31 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

and another prat troll shows up - or is it the same Kernow genius?

Nov 19, 2015 at 1:54 PM | Registered Commentertomo

If the Creationists in the US Republican Party threatened to subpoena the US archaeologists unless they provide evidence of evolution...
Well, the archaeologists would point to the fossil record, explain their evidence and show they were honest.

This is not the approach of NOAA. I wonder why?

(Slight exception:- When an archaeologist manufactured the Piltdown Man he was less open).

Nov 19, 2015 at 1:56 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Arthur Neslen - "He has previously worked for the BBC, the Economist, Al Jazeera, and EurActiv" - nuff said.

Nov 19, 2015 at 2:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterAndre

golf charlie
You're on a hiding to nothing! This latest bot is still stuck with the idea that somehow or other oil companies funding climate research is good but oil companies funding anyone with a different point of view is evil.
You really have to wonder where the education system went wrong.
I don't know the full story behind Karl but what I do know is that he thought unreliable methods of measuring sea surface temperature were more reliable than more reliable methods. The fact that his more reliable unreliable methods showed him a way to dismiss the "pause" was just a bonus, I guess.

Nov 19, 2015 at 2:25 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

The Guardian is always ready to publish a scare story related to global warming. If it comes from the UN, or NGO, the same, no fact checking or point-of-view check needed.

This is the Guardian demonstrating the renewability of failed climate science scare stories

#guardian is using scare stories in a sustainable way! #Renewable #extinction, can happen year by year again!

- But the number of #polarbears is increasing?
- Yes, but the increase could be slowing down!
- That's not my definition of '#vulnerable'.
- Oh, but you're not paid to find vulnerable species.

Think about it, if polar bear had already done dodo, how could you use it to collect #money or push values?

(BTW. # is only good to do #include)


Arthur Neslen - "He has previously worked for the BBC, the Economist, Al Jazeera, and EurActiv" - nuff said.

And if he works for Guardian it does not guarantee he's not working for Greenpeace. These people believe in what they say. Because they believe, they won't see contradicting details.

Not that people would see contradicting details here, but on the other hand, this is a blog comment, not a world-known newspaper.

Nov 19, 2015 at 2:36 PM | Unregistered Commenterwert

When did the Guardian not go to 11 on the eco-bonkers scale?

Nov 19, 2015 at 2:56 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Mike Jackson, Guardian attempts to kill off polar bears remain their biggest threat. If only the environmentalists intent on tranquilizing them with drugged up dart guns, switched their aim and habitat to wine bars frequented by Guardian science writers, the polar bears would be a lot happier. It might even improve the output and understanding of some of the Guardian's science experts aswell.

Nov 19, 2015 at 3:18 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

In the meantime, the World Wildlie Fund (did you see what I did there..?) still puts out its TOTALLY b*ll*cks commercial with the doom-laden voiceover, stating that the Arctic ice is melting and the polar bears are all going to die, especially the cute-looking baby ones, so send us three quid that we can squander and now we've got your details we'll pester the life out of you for more dosh....

Nov 19, 2015 at 3:20 PM | Unregistered Commentersherlock1

It could be said that the whole Polar Bear scary is itself a reflection of the history of CAGW .
The first phase consisted of poor research, who can forget the overfly drowning Polar Bear claims , and lack of knowledge , Polar Bear are often where no humans are , which produced claims which because they become ‘useful’, by given validity to politically useful scary claims .

Next phase occurred when these claims entered the dogma of ‘the cause ‘ here instead of the research progressing through critical review , has is normal , all the effort went into protecting these claims despite the many know problems with them and often this defences consisted of little more than just smearing any who dared question them .
The next phase can be called the ‘band wagon’ , in this part we saw 101 hangers on releasing there was grant money to be had and careers to be made by those that offer the ‘right results ‘ and even better it did not even require hard or even honest work .

We now moved unto the ‘could , may , models ‘ phase , in this part with see grand claims of ‘doom’ made for many years ahead based on little more than BS. And it is not by lucky chance that these times scale mean that those making these claims will either be dead or retired by the time they can be disproved , so in no position to be asked way they got it so wrong .

While underlying all of these phases is that reality has vomited on their claims, and no amount of smoke and mirrors can hide this from any who care or dare to look.
Polar Bears may stand for many things , but one things we can say is that research in this area offers a reflection of the very ugly story, where honesty goes missing and scientific integrity means nothing , that is ‘the cause ‘

Nov 19, 2015 at 3:31 PM | Unregistered Commenterknr

sherlock 1, the WWF need to photoshop a panda on to a small lump of sea ice to regain some credibility. The Guardian will love it for their readers benefit.

Maybe a celebrity polar bear could appear in one of those jungle survival game shows, to raise the public profile of the other celebrities who no one can really remember. It would get a public seal of approval, and would save the life of a number of seals.

Nov 19, 2015 at 3:40 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I think a photo of a Polar Bear eating a baby seal would be better.

Nov 19, 2015 at 4:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

JamesG, a photo of a panda skating on thin ice? It would sit well in the Guardian's otherwise empty, integrity awards cabinet.

Nov 19, 2015 at 4:35 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

You are disregarding climate alarmist's right to cherry-pick only facts and subpopulations that suit them. Buy only cherries picked by scientists! BTW, that would be a great job for these "scientists".

Nov 19, 2015 at 5:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterCurious George

Some people must read the news today and think "The world is going to hell due to global warming!"

What they overlook are words like "might", "could", "is projected", and so on.

Nov 19, 2015 at 6:12 PM | Unregistered Commenterrabbit

More climate kook propaganda to deceive the gullible.
Polar Bear populations are increasing in the age of the climate crisis, but CO2 is going to kill them.
And the true believers lap it up.
And right on time, the trolls show up to demonstrate how they can parrot climate fanatic talking points and avoid critical thinking.

Nov 19, 2015 at 6:12 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

The Guardian does good service to mainstream climate scientists. I see no disparity between the standards of one and the other.

Nov 19, 2015 at 6:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterAila

I'm so glad the Guardian exists. It does the world a great service by creating a home for the mentally befuddled.

Nov 19, 2015 at 7:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn B

Nov 19, 2015 at 2:56 PM | michael hart


When did the Guardian not go to 11 on the eco-bonkers scale?

'If we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do? Put it up to eleven? Eleven, exactly' ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5S4vxi0o

[for those unfamiliar with the context of Michael's comment; it's a hilarious interview with a Guardian reader]

Nov 19, 2015 at 7:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterBilly Liar

Always figured Nigel Tufnel to be a Sun reader, myself.

Nov 19, 2015 at 8:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterBloke in Central Illinois

Bloke in Central Illinois:

Do you imply that Sun readers move their lips while reading, or that they can't read at all?
Based on the one copy I bought when visiting England in 1977 I am inclined to the latter view, although I am open to being told that it has improved since (but can't believe it has got worse).

Nov 19, 2015 at 9:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterGraeme No.3

Flick on the car radio and it's Tamsin Edwards. She's done some new model of the South Pole. Unusually it breaks the First Law of Climate Science ("It's worse than we thought").

I was only half listening but it seems that the new bit is that her new model covers all of Antarctica unlike some previous models. No mention at all of whether the model reflected reality - or not. She seemed to have skipped this step and instead she was excited because she could change some parameters of the model and get different results. And the model came up with a similar answer to an IPCC prediction - she seemed to think this was somehow good.

Nov 19, 2015 at 10:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterJack Hughes

Jack Hughes, unfortunately in climate science, they use each other's models to verify their own. As none of them have ever got close to replicating the actual climate, this enables them to pronounce confidently the accuracy of their own model, whereas they are actually stating it is no more inaccurate than any others.

Painting one side of a coin red, and the other side blue, would have shown some considerable cost savings.

Nov 19, 2015 at 10:36 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

You call that ecobonkers?

http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/11/wheels-on-fire-on-road-to-paris.html

Nov 19, 2015 at 11:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Been watching the congressional hearings into climate today, and there were three really good witnesses and a "Ms Dyke" who seemed clueless. Slowly and methodically, they are cutting down each of the false assertions. We've seen many "scandals" before which come and go in a few days (e.g. Gleick) but I've never seen such a methodical demolishment of the global warming scam over such a sustained period.

It's not if NOAAgate will break, but when it will break.

Nov 19, 2015 at 11:41 PM | Registered CommenterMikeHaseler

MikeHaseler & Green Sand,

Wouldn't this NOAA debacle be a bit embarrassing for Karl and all his dependant scientists?

It seems that climate scientists should fear each other, more than their lack of science. Meanwhile the climate remains as benign as ever, unless you have gambled your professionalism on the predictions of climate science.

Nov 20, 2015 at 12:27 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golf charlie

Science has been allowed to get dangerously political. It is not restricted to any particular scientific discipline, however what we see as observers of so called 'climate science' is a high profile demonstration of the long term damage it can inflict upon the majority of the populous.

Attempts to rewrite the laws of physics are destined to fail. It takes the same amount of energy to melt a ton of steel no matter where you are on this planet! Some have demonstrated the ability to make the steel making process as clean as is, at present, possible and for that admirable ability they are penalised!

Nov 20, 2015 at 1:17 AM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

Biologists estimate there are roughly 25,000 polar bears alive at present, which is higher than 40 years ago. They do not seem to be in any danger unless we start shooting them again. The Grauniad only does fully bonkers these days, not reporting.

Nov 20, 2015 at 5:21 AM | Unregistered Commenternicholas tesdorf

This incessant disneyfication of ideas of somehow fluffy whitey white cuddly things, all paws and moaning, wandering about worried about melting ice, CO2 and among other stuff...........Mabye BP, Shell could afford a trip and to stick a few graun reporters in some camp site up on Prudoe bay, Baffin Island or Svaalbard for a few winter nights - in tents AND with no rifles issued, how about it?

Nov 20, 2015 at 9:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

Late yesterday evening I half caught on Sky a trailer for a programme on Monday(?) which carried a voice over by Prince Charles and pictures of bears on melting polar ice.
I was struck by his demeanour and strangled accents, which had gone far beyond the excesses of the late lamented Brian Sewell, to an almost alien rendition of Anglophone speech and natural behaviour.
I would suggest that before he starts parroting the lies fed to him by his advisors, he finds time to tell us why the summer arctic ice is in rude health some eight years after he predicted it's demise and which of his plants is responsible for imparting the latest nonsense infecting his brain.

Nov 20, 2015 at 9:26 AM | Unregistered Commenterroger

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>