Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

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

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)

The thermageddon believers survival kit for Climategate was:
Never read the actual emails, just fellow believers interpretations of them.
Parrot 'theft', 'academic freedom', 'out of context' and 'vexatious' as much as possible.
Sympathise with inadequate, suicidal Jones' mental health.
Talk-up independent enquiries [ignoring they were neither independent nor contained much enquiry].
Add a few insults about anti-science, oil-funded deniers dooming us all due to evil greed.

I expect a similar pattern for NOAAgate if they even get any emails.

Off topic; there was a great documentary last night about how the environmentalists linear vision of a pristine Amazon tainted by slash and burn deforestation was shattered by the discovery of huge pre-Columbian human habitations that actually created more biodiversity. I wondered why we had stopped hearing about deforestation lately.

Nov 20, 2015 at 10:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

Grauniad spotpurs bolgal ginmarw scraes.

Nov 20, 2015 at 6:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterDean from Ohio


The Guardian ups the ante on nuttery courtesy of courtesy of aspiring deranged harridan Naomi Klein - > absolute, undiluted steaming batsh*t bonkers.

I need some mind bleach / a shower after reading that.

@JamesG yes... the BBC did some odd scheduling on that ... It was originally part of a 3 part series, the first two were re-aired via iPlayer several weeks ago and no mention was made of part 3 - The Amazon - which I recall from the first showing. Then along it comes - all on its ownsome - 10 days after the other two expire on iPlayer.... *and* a search on iPlayer returns nada/zip for "Amazon" and it's buried right at the bottom (three layers down) of the scrolling side menu in the Science and Nature category page. All purely coincidence of course.

Nov 20, 2015 at 7:42 PM | Registered Commentertomo

I should have added re: Unnatural Amazon - The Guardian sails blissfully on ...

Nov 20, 2015 at 9:13 PM | Registered Commentertomo

Always remember that in Green-land, things can get hotter and colder, wetter and drier, and bigger and smaller at the very same time. This is always accurately recorded and published by the Grauniad.

Nov 21, 2015 at 12:41 AM | Unregistered Commenternicholas tesdorf

knowsnothing claims in a very twisted illogical manner:

"@ MikeH 11.17am..."

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

Telling? Do tell. Just what does it tell?
The green spigot is shutting off and you'll have to find a real job?
That a real investigation, not those phony white wash ones, is impending?
Care to join in? Volunteer some information? Turn stool pigeon rather than face incarceration?

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

THREE meetings with Lamar Smith to explain this independently..."

Everything but the communication backgrounds and metadata.
- Why any scientist would think it a great idea to use isolated unreliable manual ship temperature records to adjust much higher quality certified scientific instruments?
- Why an allegedly scientific government agency would put support behind such a silly idea for adjusting temperatures?
- What it took to get palsy reviewers to support such an ignoble concept for adjusting data?
- Who decided to leave off accumulated error bars?
- Who supported the big NOAA push to treat Karl et al as heroic researchers rescuing those poor scientific instruments with properly tampered records so that the 'big NOAA warmy' smothers the 18 year many month pause?
- Why an organization with excellent satellites and long experience using satellites for weather observation, feels it must rely on a very spotty irregular imprecise inaccurate physical thermometers along with a prehistoric method for constantly and inconsistently adjusting said records?

That is what Chairman Smith's committee is demanding isn't it? All communications, notes, reports, discussions, versions around and about Karl et al's paper? A request that is completely within Chairman Smith's oversight.

And you are proud of NOAA defying that request? Whatever for? The sheer anarchy of it? Or the hope that the gravy train must at least last through December?

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

Really bad science backs AGW? While the good science, satellites, do not? Piltdown man of the 21st Century? Riiigghht.

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

If you haven't noticed, refusing to comply with Chairman Smith's request is illegal. Karl et al are doing wrong just refusing.
A huge question is why? There is zero benefit in denying Lamar's committee request; unless there is a greater fear of exposure.
Pointing to records and stuff on public display is not an acceptable response.


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

Another leap to a bias assumption. Chairman Smith has not made any mistakes, so he is definitely not stupid nor is Chairman Smith exhibiting dishonesty. Something that certainly can not be stated for Karl et al.

What is interesting about the reports of whistle blowers is that they are apparently responding to several impulses.
A) Is the impulse to save oneself and one's career. When bad science and politics overwhelms good people there is a desire to set the record straight.
B) And the classic sinking ship syndrome. Those that see the danger seek escape first and are more than happy to provide evidence.

Nov 21, 2015 at 1:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterATheoK

Been on the billy whizz...................again and all night mate?

Polar bear populations - nothing to say then?

Nov 21, 2015 at 1:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

I can't help but wonder if we in the UK could also call for a UK RICO style investigation in the likes of the Guardian ?
To quote from the US RICO-20 Letter -

"One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the
American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to
climate change."

Just insert "UK" for "American" & "influence" for "forestall"

Nov 21, 2015 at 9:21 PM | Unregistered Commenterdougieh

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):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>