This morning, I was intrigued by a new posting on the BBC website which said that “endemic” seals are leaving the Galapagos islands for a new island 1,500 kms away where temperatures are said to have risen as a result of climate change by a whopping 6 degrees Centigrade in 10 years. Such a rise could, of course, could be the result of localised warming due to volcanic activity, but the report is very definite in asserting that it’s because of climate change. On my calculations (the current temperature has reached 23 degrees), that means that we are heading for 100 degrees seas by 2110 or so. Boiling seas? That’s beyond even the wildest claims of the IPCC.
So I started checking out the writer, Dan Collyns. It turns out that he works for GRNLive, a worldwide agency supplying reports from radio correspondents to broadcasters around the world, including the BBC World Service. GRN is run by a chap called Henry Peirse, and guess what? He’s a climate change fanatic. Yet another. Mr Peirse says he is is proud to support, for example, the Earth Journalism Awards, which this year took place at the failed Copenhagen climate summit. I quote from their press release:
Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri and Internews, the international media development organization, celebrated the best in climate change reporting at the Internews Earth Journalism Awards in Copenhagen.
Among the presenters were key figures on climate and environmental issues, including Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland; Marina Silva, the former environment minister of Brazil; and award-winning Chinese movie star Li Bingbing, who is also the Global Ambassador for WWF’s Earth Hour.
“If we are to have any hope of reversing the effects of climate change, then we have a monumental task of educating the six billion people on our planet about how climate change works and what they can do to help,” Dr. Pachauri said. “The media is critical in this effort, since just one reporter has the ability to reach thousands, even millions, of people. These awards help to expand and honour these vitally important efforts.”
So, wherever you look, have no fear. There’s a Pachauri connection and a climate change activist supplying the BBC with a constant diet of the propagand it craves, no matter how nonsensical. Even from the Galapagos Islands, making predictions of boiling seas. And he’s supported in his efforts by none other than Li Bingbing. I kid you not.
Update: The BBC website now has this at the end of the item:
Correction 8 February: An earlier version of this story had the species incorrectly as sea lion – lobos marinos. The mammal in question is fur seal – lobos marinos finos. The measurements of average sea temperatures were taken by the Peruvian Geophysics Institute, and should not have been attributed to Orca as in the earlier version. The earlier version had a reference to the temperature rise being caused by climate change. This has been removed as the relevant research is still in its early stages.
In other words, the whole story was a pile of garbage. As B-BBC readers have pointed out, the reason why such animals “migrate” may be nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. The saga confirms what I have long suspected – any scare will do so long as it contains the magic phrase. Or, never let the facts get in the way of a good climate panic story.
Just a query on a point of accuracy. Can Rajendra Pachauri claim to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner as introduced? The organization he chairs won the prize. He just collected it.
To me it sounds like Alex Ferguson being described as F.A. cup winner because he managed Man U. when they won it.
deege ! good point, mind we shouldn’t be hard on the poor loves at the beeb as they are about to lose their pensions ! 😎 pmsl
All the Green nonsense is now being treated as a joke in this commercial tyhat showed during the Superbowl last night :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/07/the-superbowl-green-police-commercial/
It is time we made the Warmists look like crackpots, nutters, figures of fun. Academics and “journalists” and NGO spokesmen and politicos who are just tidy versions of crazy Swampy.
Dear God, a minute’s Googling gives me
“Since the 1980s, there have been a few observations of Galapagos sea lions off the coast of Ecuador (summarized by Palacios 1996) 1000km east of the Galapagos Islands”
[..]
“The presence of Galapagos sea lions on Isla de La Plata, a small island 30km off the coast of Ecuador, was first reported by Nowak (1986), whose observations suggested a small breeding colomy existed there”.
[..]
“Long-range movements of many species of pinnipeds out their normal range of distribution, especially among young individuals, are a usual occurrence (Reeves et al, 1992). It is possible that the appearence of Galapagos sea lions on the coasts of Ecuador and Columbia (and on Isla Del Coco) could be a regula phenomenon that might have gone unnoticed due to the infrequent presence of qualified observers”
http://www.femm.org/Zalophus%20records%20in%20Colombia%20and%20Ecuador.pdf
Beeboids, when posting junk like this, try to remember that your man Al Gore invented the internet and we can look things up.
Bingbing — isn’t that a chinese zoo Panda sent to America for mating purposes?
So the BBC publishes some report with claims about sea temperature. Firstly what scientific data has been obtained for the sea temp rises and what research has been undertaken to show that climate change is to blame?
As usual this is yet another story based on here-say, opinion and NOT scientific scrutiny. The BBC must really stop posting this crap.
The vile Alistair Campbell on the BBC yet again, this time getting lots of love from Richard Bacon. Interesting comment from Campbell (re him with Nicki Campbell this morning), “I thought he was on my side of the argument” said Alistair Campbell. Of course Alistair you were with a good Labour loving BBC type.
For a man that hates the BBC so much Alistair Campbell seems to never be off it.
I notice Bacon doesn’t seem to be reading out many negative comments about the liar. I wonder why?
DV: You HAVE to listen to the Richard Bacon show today on BBC playback. If you thought the love fest between Bacon and Brigestock was vomit inducing, listen to Alistair Campbell and Bacon verbally sharing a shower together.
Richard Black finds endorsement of Pachauri by the Indian government reported in http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8499702.stm backs up the warmist case. Why? Because “his [the Indian PM’s] government finds no reason to dispute the panel’s core projections about the progress of climate change or its impacts.” So now, according to a BBC warmist advocate, to back up a scientific case you don’t require scientists or even science. An assertion by a politician is sufficient. Is Black mad? Or just desperate?
BTW, no mention on the BBC site of the latest IPCC cock-up noted on this post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/08/ipcc-gate-du-jour-aussie-droughtgate/ at WUWT.
That’s the problem with the BBC, it’s full of arts graduates who are used to the arty world where anyone can give an opinion that is as valid as another. Well science doesn’t work like that (or at least it shouldn’t). It should be based on a theory that can be backed up with reliable experimentation that can be repeated more than once and peer reviewed by anyone who wants to do so.
Black is giving a similar sermon on his blog. Instead of admitting that the “facts” on which his religious beliefs are based are continuously proven to be false, he’s fretting about why the flock are turning away from the Warmist Church.
Never mind the latest pillar collapsing: that the claims about Global Warming affecting the poor Africans worst of all (over which we were all supposed to cough up hundreds of billions of dollars to African kleptocrats) was actually based on non-peer reviewed claims in the discredited Synthesis Report.
Notice how he’s quick to point out that the unwashed masses are easily dissuaded by one bad winter, which doesn’t count as climate. Yet a hot summer will draw them back, and that’s just fine with him. No points for integrity there. So long as the masses come back to the fold, he doesn’t care how or why.
******Heads up for Robin*****
Robin, on Radio 5 at about 18:50 they interviewed someone from the Galapagos Conservation Trust ( http://www.savegalapagos.org/) who er wasn’t on message with the BBC re the above story.
He said he had read the BBC’s story and it didn’t make sense as the Seals in question prefer cooler water to warm water, so the Seals moving to warmer waters to him made no sense.
What he did say was that perhaps the water around the Galapagos (being an archipelago) often has warming and cooling phases due to El Nino (not climate change) and perhaps that’s why the seals have moved because of the water warming there.
Can I suggest people might want to check out the interview once the BBC upload the programme (Drive)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0070lvr
(It isn’t up yet)
But it’s quite obvious that yet again this is a load of crap the BBC have put up with no peer review or fact checking.
Seals are declining the only explanation is “climate change caused by people breathing out” Lets not bother at looking at natural climate variability.
“The global weather anomaly hit the Galapagos hard. While an entirely natural occurrence, the weather pattern took a vital part of the ecosystem out of the chain. Many fish searched for different waters to feed upon. The fur seals were most greatly affected as they depend on the fish closer to the surface. The surface waters were heated more during the attacks of El Niño, and the fur seals between ages 1-4 were virtually all wiped out. El Niño also affected coastal birds. The absence of fish in the coastal waters meant that many of the traditional nest areas for birds were abandoned.”
And here are some man-made causes.
Migration
“The population is doubling every eleven years, which means that there will be 40,000 people on the Galapagos Islands by 2014.”
Tourism
“The National Park charges a $100 entrance fee on foreign tourists, yet receives only 25% of that. Nevertheless, the park has to deal with the conservation problems that motor yachts and their trash bring to the island.”
Over-fishing
“Recently, overfishing or illegal fishing has become a large issue.”
http://www.galapagosislands.com/html/environment.html
Something else the BBC forgot to tell you about IPCC Warmist fraud:
Netherlands adds to UN climate report controversy
The Netherlands has asked the UN climate change panel to explain an inaccurate claim in a landmark 2007 report that more than half the country was below sea level, the Dutch government said Friday.
The Beeboids don’t want you to know this because they report it as fact on the BBC website.
The Dutch, however, say this is false.
According to the Dutch authorities, only 26 percent of the country is below sea level, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be asked to account for its figures, environment ministry spokesman Trimo Vallaart told AFP.
So how did the IPCC – and the BBC – get it wrong?
IPCC experts calculated that 55 percent of the Netherlands was below sea level by adding the area below sea level — 26 percent — to the area threatened by river flooding — 29 percent — Vallaart said.
“They should have been clearer,” Vallaart said, adding that the Dutch office for environmental planning, an IPCC partner, had exact figures.
Correcting the error had been “on the agenda several times” but had never actually happened, Vallaart said.
The spokesman said he regretted the fact that proper procedure was not followed and said it should not be left to politicians to check the IPCC’s numbers.
Or to Beeboids.
I eagerly await the correction on the BBC website.
If you look at the web page now it has the following at the end:
“Correction 8 February: An earlier version of this story had the species incorrectly as sea lion – lobos marinos. The mammal in question is fur seal – lobos marinos finos.
The measurements of average sea temperatures were taken by the Peruvian Geophysics Institute, and should not have been attributed to Orca as in the earlier version.
The earlier version had a reference to the temperature rise being caused by climate change. This has been removed as the relevant research is still in its early stages.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8503397.stm
The story shouldn’t even appear on the BBC website, it’s all unsubstantiated crap from another newspaper.
“…The earlier version had a reference to the temperature rise being caused by climate change. This has been removed as the relevant research is still in its early stages…”
What research?
If they went through editing all their articles remoiving anything that vrelied on dodgy assertions, half the crap on “climate change” at the BBC website would be affected.
That would leavce only about a million articles altogether. 800,000 too many.
Only half? How about most? And think of the money saved if they got rid of the Beeboids whose jobs are based exclusively on reporting Warmist stories.
Sarcasm aside, the first thing the BBC needs to do in order to have any hope for redemption is to separate the “Environment” section of the website from “Science”. Until that happens, we should consider them committed, unrepentant Warmists.
The BBC simply trawl Google News searching for the phrase “Climate change”. As soon as they find some half assed article, instead of handing it over to their ‘science dept’ (ha ha I know) to fact check it, the BBC simply type it up and stick it up on their website and because it carries the BBC logo, people believe it.
The more the BBC does this the worse they make themselves look. It really is about time that the REAL scientists out there simply stood up and told all the left wing arts liberals to “please leave the room…”
The BBC can hardly complain that people don’t believe climate change when story after story is shot down by the most basic fact checks.
The two are not mutally exclusive, but agreed.
Sadly as far a the BBC is concerned, if it is not some narrative enhancing bit of interpretative ‘art’ such as a ‘drama’ pushing their favoured issues, where pretty much everyone with a brain expects the factual aspects to be totally rigged, their reputation for probity with anything science-based is shot.
This is so wrong, wrong and wrong again.
If the seas are warming, surely they will be water ‘otters not seals…
I’ll get me coat.
The earlier version had a reference to the temperature rise being caused by climate change. This has been removed as the relevant research is still in its early stages.
Err, no it isn’t. I would refer the duty Beeboid to the 1982 -2008 sea temperature graphs here. These are for Paita, roughly 30km from Foca Island where these fur seals have turned up. No trend towards boiling seas there, I’m afraid. You will add a link to these graphs to your fur seal story, won’t you?
Isn’t it interesting too that the mean surface temperature has barely changed over time and is in fact lower than in the 1980’s.
Where is the warming there?
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/the-money-trail/6318-green-electricity-certification-scheme-attacked-for-not-being-green-taking-advantage-of-consumers
‘Solitaire Townsend, who is heading the new certification panel, insisted the new rules would make a difference. .. Ms Tonwsend admitted that no existing “green” tariff had had to be withdrawn from the market because it failed the new green tests but some had been forced to tweak their terms in order to qualify.
She added: “My foremost priority is consumer trust.’
Now, where have I heard that name before? I guess you can buy a lot of ‘trust’ when you are hand in glove with a certain multi-billion organisation. I wonder if she ‘advises’ their pension fund too?
Tweak, tweak!
Guardian seems keen..ish:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/ofgem-green-tariff-certificate?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
It ill be ‘interesting’ to see how it is ‘sold’ by the PR as news fact checkers and narrative enhancers at the BBC.
Last outing I thought Ms. Townsend had a PR/marketing company that journos and activists how to ‘sell’ the ‘correct’ message on various topics, and enjoys a nice retainer from the BBC to do so.
Now she seems to be active in deciding what is, or isn’t green enough on renewbales.
On the face of it fine, but it might be ‘interesting’ if any link turned up between her efforts in one area, investments in another, and how it all gets reported… or not.
I have also been covering and analysing this story after I complained about it. This migration is nothing more than a small group of seals heading to cooler waters in search of food:
http://blackswhitewash.com/2010/02/09/galapagos-sea-lions-no-fur-seals-and-its-gets-odder-still/
Did anyone else see Shuckman on the BBC news about this report from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology about Spring coming earlier?
A few things got me, yet again we got Shuckman doing a Harrabin (showing some plant bulbs blooming early in a built up area – that’s an old one BBC) and when talking about the causes, even though the report author said they couldn’t sat it was to do with climate change, Shuckman had to get it in. What about OTHER possible causes?
Also, this report was done it appears in the UK only, so how can Shuckman try to make out this is climate change without any other data backing it up from across the world?
The UK has become a more densely populated Country over the last 30 years, perhaps the urbanisation is having an effect? Who knows, but yet again the BBC are typically misleading stating it MIGHT be climate change without giving any other possible causes.
The Pacific coast of South America has very cool water for the tropics due to the upwelling of cold water here. Equatorial waters are usually around 30 degrees as opposed to the quoted 17 C.
The only plausible explanation for such rapid warming is a change in cold water upwelling or currents (volcanic activity cannot warm the ocean significantly, unless the thermometer was right on top of some lava because the ocean is just too big). If either shifted it could easily result in a rapid warming due to the natural heat of the tropics. Such a change <i>may</i> be a result of climate change but it’s definitely reckless to announce it as such without evidence that it is not simply a natural shift. The cold water may simply have shifted slightly in the ocean because currents can shift around naturally.