A Warming from History as ‘Arctic Mission’ Put on Ice



If we can produce a visual image of a sail boat at 90 degrees north I think that could become an iconic image of the challenge that the twenty-first century faces. Are we serious about running this planet, which is actually what we need to start doing, and it’s biophysical resources on a sustainable basis, or are we just here for a laugh?


Funny old world…and still quite cold in places.

The BBC has been plugging ‘Arctic Mission’...an attempt to sell climate change to the public with a publicity stunt by sailing to the North Pole across ‘ice free’ seas…thus highlighting the dreadful warming of the planet.  Unfortunately, due to large amounts of ice, the mission has been put on ice and they have beaten a hasty retreat to safer, ice free, waters….now claiming it was all about the science and research and not a cheap stunt…they also claim they sailed the furthest north ever…..

Arctic Mission’s furthest North was 80 degrees 10 minutes North, 148 degrees 51 minutes West, reached at 22:04:12 (Alaskan Time, GMT-9hours) on 29 August 2017 by yachts, Bagheera and Snow Dragon II.

It is believed Arctic Mission has sailed further north from the coastlines surrounding the Arctic Ocean than any vessel in history without icebreaker support.

That’ll be except for in 1922 when a vessel reached 81° 29′ in open water [hmmm….so the Arctic was warm then too?  Thought ‘man-made’ global warming only started in the 70’s]…..

Oddly I can’t seem to find any mention on the BBC website that the mission has failed miserably…strange when you think the prestigious Today show was giving so much airtime to following the intrepid explorers’ journey….and now…not so much interest.

Here’s Delingpole enjoying the non-spectacle greatly…

Delingpole: Ship of Fools IV: Another Green Arctic Expedition Scuppered by Ice

A sailing expedition to the North Pole to raise awareness of global warming has been forced to turn back, 590 nautical miles short of its destination, after the yachts found their passage blocked by large quantities of an unexpected frozen white substance.


Amusingly another Arctic jolly has had to be put on ice as its green solar powered kit packed up due to lack of sunlight…

Stranded on Norwegian Island, Rowers End Their Arctic Mission

An international team of rowers ended a record-breaking expedition through the Arctic Ocean on Monday after becoming stranded on a remote Norwegian island partway through their month-and-a-half-long journey.

But with the skies cloudy for days at a time, the boat’s solar-powered batteries drained, and its electrical equipment shut off. That left the rowers without navigational aids and forced them to rely on manual steering, according to a post on the Polar Row Facebook page that recounted the decision to head for shore.


Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to A Warming from History as ‘Arctic Mission’ Put on Ice

  1. chrisH says:

    This has happened before hasn`t it?
    And the lefty types weren`t laughing then either were they?
    Comedy gold…let`s not cease laughing and reminding them of just how crap they are, BBC and science as approved by them. At least Colin Pillinger had good music taste and died of natural causes-his Magoo buffoons who are his equivalents in Bristol Polys “Environmental Heating Compendium College” need to die of shame really.
    Jon, Jack or Bunty…any of them would trounce the BBC and its science gonks.
    Hell, even Fred Dineage could at least boil an egg on Whych Farm Tar…these Arctic Monkeys are really funny!


  2. davylars says:

    Ha ha. Even my wife was beginning to believe all this.
    She pointed out this story to me originally.
    I said to her just wait.. and guess what….


  3. Richard Pinder says:

    Astronomers ignore the Arctic because it is the worst area for any proxy.

    It can contradict trends because clouds trap heat, and unlike the Antarctic, the Arctic receives its heat from outside the area, both under (Sea) and over (Atmosphere) the Arctic Ocean.
    So with Global Cooling, the Antarctic would respond earlier than the Arctic.
    And with the Arctic having a sea under it, and with atmospheric heat input from elsewhere being trapped by clouds, its always warmer than the Antarctic, and the last place to react to trends.

    Six miles above the equator, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, on the International Date Line is regarded by Meteorologists as the best point on the Earth for a Proxy for Global Warming. But I am told that it is ignored by the alarmists, because it has not had a change in average temperature since around 1997.


    • Broadcasting-on-Behalf-of-the-Caliphate says:

      Hi Richard, would you say the “climate change agenda” is more dangerous than the “Islamist agenda”, the “LQGBT agenda” or of a similar magnitude. I would like to assess the relative significance of the various agendas to our everyday lives and futures. Thanks.


    • Up2snuff says:

      Richard, you know a lot more about this than I do but I would have thought that taking a limited reading – you appear to be suggesting a (geo-stationary?) single satellite – strikes me as rather non-global as well as inconsistent. What about planet wobble? Can the fixed positioning of the satellite compensate for that? What is the plus/minus error of temperature measurement of that method?

      I would have thought that a collection of consistent readings using conventional devices from fixed locations on land and in air and sea (as near as possible ‘fixed’ in the case of ocean and atmosphere) is the only way to capture accurate warming – and cooling – temperature data of GLOBAL WARMING.


      • NCBBC says:

        I agree with Richard Pinder.

        Taking temperature readings away from the equator makes them dependent on the seasons, as well as weather. Taking temperature readings where it is known that the temp changes quite dramatically, will not give rise to accurate global mean temp readings.

        As Richard suggests, on the equator, as far as one get from land mass, is best. Over the ocean means that the ocean provides a stable temp base.

        I would prefer black body radiation measurements from a geo-stationary orbit above the equator, with a sold beam angle – beam centre on the international date, and a cone angle allowing radiation from the ocean only, and not the land mass. Wind and clouds should not make much difference with the sensor in space. It would be cheap too, but quite likely, it would not lead to a result required by the funding bodies. So the satellite will not be launched.


        • Up2snuff says:

          NCBBC, I do to but only in part. The satellite alone – and the reliance on it by the IPCC – is insufficient. Think we now know, in addition, that the software they are using to (interpolate and?) interpret the satellite ‘scans’ may be distinctly iffy.

          The reason why a satellite alone, to my mind, is going to give an incomplete picture is down to movement. The earth wobbles. Winds move and do so on different levels. Ocean currents similarly. You need fixed point terrestrial and ocean and atmosphere measurements as well as those from a satellite.

          I agree with Richard that an equator based one is better – maximises reading opportunities and provides a constant land mass:ocean comparison – but alone it is not enough. Also, I would have thought it introduces the possibilities of error or errors from factors that we might not even know about yet. Kind of expensive, too. Get some mercury thermos, dig some holes and stick ’em in!

          With the world’s current passion for building ever taller skyscrapers, I hope they are remembering to put thermometers on the top of each one!


  4. Pounce says:

    I bet the bBC Got Jim to fix it that the crew consisted of:
    Rodger the Cabin boy
    Seaman Staines and Masterbates


  5. StewGreen says:

    When they are fundraising for Arctic capers, seems like they have a standard thing they tell the sponsors/blockquote> The BBC acts as a free advertising agency for Green causes, so our project will be getting slots on :
    …R4Today, PM, Adam Rutherford’s Inside Science, Science in Action, Breakfast TV and possibly Vine and Victoria Derbyshire as well
    ..and even if anything goes badly the BBC will help us bury the story as well


  6. StewGreen says:

    Just in BBC Peddle Fake Claims About India Monsoon


  7. Number 7 says:

    As I remember, in the 60s/70s ALL our respected (sarc.) climate scientist were predicting a new ice age.
    In 1958 the USS Skate surfaced at the North pole.

    Shame about these things called FACTS.


    • boohanna says:


      Michael Chrichton gives the subject of “consensus science” a good eviscerating in this essay from 2003.



    • Manxman says:

      Do you remember this.

      If you watch the vid, and see how cold it really was, and how much ice packs and glaciers grew to record levels, listen to the stat’s,………..then you will know why all comparisons to today start from 1973.

      Theres a 50 minute version somewhere knocking about, there are several other recordings etc about by other presenters aswell.


    • Up2snuff says:

      Correct, No.7, that was ‘the buzz’ when I was doing physics at school.

      I am starting to wonder again about global cooling on a serious scale – not necessarily an Ice-Age – thanks to some ‘puzzling data’ out of my kitchen tap of all things. Possibly more accurate, maybe, than the satellite that Richard Pinder rightly complains about below.

      We have had a cracking spring & summer in the south-east of the UK but when in the year I would expect water out of the cold tap to be unpleasantly warm to drink it is not. Drain off half a cup, no more, and the water is cool – not cold – but pleasant on its own or diluting squashes and cordials. Run the tap for two or three cupfills and it is quite chilly. No ice required. Very different from my childhood, albeit in a different part of south-east England.

      That suggests to me that soil temperature – just as important as readings from ‘inner space’ – has not recovered fully from last winter.

      I think our planet possibly, probably, has a built-in ability to adjust to human & animal life as well as heal itself after all sorts of disasters, natural as well as man-made. That, I think, is how it was always designed to be. For evidence of this, look at what had happened at the site of Hurricane Katrina less than one year after the event.

      When the ‘mentalist-enviros’ and then the politicians got going on Anthropogenic Global Warming around 1990 and insisted on cutting ‘carbon emissions’ instantly, I did wonder whether a rapid cut or restriction in the growth of CO2 emissions might upset our planet’s natural adjust and recover facility and instead trigger the opposite of global warming.

      Time will tell.


  8. StewGreen says:

    Caliphate said ‘Hi all, I read an article purporting to be scientific, that said an increase in concentration of carbon dioxide” ‘ in a lab experiment increases the temperature, everything else being equal’

    “all other things being equal”
    ..but in the real world that doesn’t happen with all the positive/negative feedbacks etc.

    Properly conducted ‘lab science’ is not contested, but the real world is more complex.
    Shouting “denier, denier, denier” at people who dare to challenge your arguments is the fallacy of Ad Hominem so demeans your own arguments.


    • Broadcasting-on-Behalf-of-the-Caliphate says:

      Hi Stewart – thanks for the answer – this is the question (edited).

      Hi all, I read an article purporting to be scientific, that said an increase in concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere would result in an increase in the Earth’s surface temperature, assuming there were no other changes. I am now wondering – Is that true?

      The article was actually part of a science text book for schoolkids. I am now thinking if it is lies, or misdirection, then what other lies are they teaching our schoolkids?

      ps I am not calling anyone a denier (or a “believer”) – I just now want to try to understand what this is all about (claims of climate change, claims of no climate change etc) and what impact it is having politically and socially. I can understand the Islamist agenda and other agendas, but the climate change agenda is something I haven’t really considered.


      • imaynotalwaysloveyou says:

        Climate change is used as an excuse to justify wealth redistribution as far as I can tell, with the final aim of economically destroying the former ‘first world’ countries. I can’t fathom out a reason why this would be a good thing, but the west has been suicidally inclined for a while now, the madness has gone runaway. A big war is probably in the offing, might be the only thing to shake people out of their dream state.


        • Broadcasting-on-Behalf-of-the-Caliphate says:

          imaynotalwaysloveyou “Climate change is used as an excuse to justify wealth redistribution … with the final aim of economically destroying the former ‘first world’ countries. I can’t fathom out a reason why … but the west has been suicidally inclined for a while now …

          Hi, I think the “Internationalism” agenda is part of it as well as “short term political correctness” – but why it should be “politically correct” is unclear – it seems to be linked to an “Environmentalist – Industry is bad” type of agenda. I agree with the suicidal aspect of it – the energy policy in Britain seems to be a disaster and not well thought out.


          • StewGreen says:

            “justify wealth redistribution” yeh from us common people to the already rich
            There you are running an electric system where the wholesale cost from fossil fuels is say £35/MWh
            and the distribution cost £10/MWh so £45MWh total

            Then a bloke say David Cameron’s father-in-law builds some wind turbines with guaranteed first priority and FIT Feed In Tariff of £100/MWh

            #1 Fossil Fuel plant runs less hours so pushes up it’s cost to £40
            resulting the average wholesale cost inc FossilFuels and wind/solar as £50
            #2 extra distribution and inefficiency costs push distribution to £15 ,
            so new total £65/MWh vs old of £45MWh total

            Who pays those £20 extra costs ? Not unicorns .
            Ultimately they are paid in higher electricity cost for everything ..ie every service/product granny pays for costs more.

            Yet you wouldn’t judge that from BBC headlines
            eg Solar power deal will lower social tenants’ energy bills


        • Payne by name says:

          Mark Steyn talks about this very thing here

          that being that Ottmar Edenhofer admitted that “climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth”


      • Old Goat says:

        The reverse is true – a warming of the earth’s atmosphere may well increase the concentration of CO2, as the Vostok ice cores have proved. The lag between warmth and increased CO2 is approximately 800 years. But the poor kiddywinks must be given the politically correct version of “events”…


        • Manxman says:

          That ofcourse makes perfect sense OG.
          Everyone knows how quickly a cold fizzy drink goes flat in direct sunshine, i only see that connection for the last 20 million years.

          before that we had ice ages with 4000 ppm of co2, we as humans exhale 35,000 to 75,000 ppm of just walking about., all 7 billion of us, and everything else that exhales on this earth..

          Climate science claims the blue is totally dependant on the purple line,………….i say spec savers.



      • StewGreen says:

        @Cali yes you didn’t user the smearword “denier”
        but @Tabs did (on the other thread September 2, 2017 at 6:04 pm)
        “.. I usually cannot be bothered to comment on the confirmation bias of certain posters here with an obsession of climate change denial.”


        • Broadcasting-on-Behalf-of-the-Caliphate says:

          Hi StewGreen, I think climate change sceptic is the appropriate term. I haven’t looked into the meaning of “climate change denier” as to exactly what that term means. Hopefully at some stage I can get my head around it so as to properly represent everyone’s position and attempt to agree a consensus (or an agreed difference) at least amongst everyone here who is a BBC sceptic. I don’t want anyone here to have a falling out over it. In my view the big issue is to expose the BBC bias and end the BBC tax – or have a major reform and cutting back of the BBC.


          • Manxman says:

            No it isn’t the correct term,………… there is no ”term” get it.
            No one here thinks or believes the climate doesn’t change, or is not changing.

            The debate is about co2 and the so-called radiative greenhouse effect, whether it is even physically possible, and then the human element in that.

            Trading names whilst debating symptoms of a changing climate is a worthless endeavour.


            • Broadcasting-on-Behalf-of-the-Caliphate says:

              Manxman No it isn’t the correct term,………… there is no ”term” get it.

              I don’t understand. I referred to the terms “climate change sceptic” and “climate change denier” – are you claiming there are no such terms? Yet I have seen people use those phrases? So I don’t understand your point here.

              Manxman The debate is about co2 and the so-called radiative greenhouse effect, whether it is even physically possible, and then the human element in that.

              I don’t understand what you mean here – what do you mean by whether it is even physically possible? Are you saying that CO2 does not absorb infra red radiation? I am doing my best to try to understand your position. Thank you.

              ps. I think I am in agreement with StewGreen – that lab. experiments are not the same as the real world Earth system – which is of course vastly more complex.


              • Manxman says:

                There are no climate change skeptic’s here either, everyone knows the climate changes, most believe naturally still.

                This debate has been created like an onion for the idios-phere.

                Start at the heart of the debate, the greenhouse mechanism, of an ice cold atmosphere at -30c minimum for co2 to operate, warming an already much warmer surface, via co2 molecule surface emitted photons of a greatly weaker frequency LWIR…….i.e. LWIR coming Directly from a minus _minus -30c skin.
                Cold molecules making warm molecules warmer, cold warming hot, is the greenhouse effect mechanism.


                • Broadcasting-on-Behalf-of-the-Caliphate says:

                  Hi Manxman, I have heard people calling themselves “climate change sceptics”. When I tried to see if Wikipedia recognised the term I could only find “climate change denial”

                  I agree with those that say “climate change deniers” is a “loaded expression” – which acts to close down discussion and debate in this area.

                  I am going to have a time out now. I will look into what you say about the “heart of the debate” and get back to you later. At some point I also want to try to understand Richard Pinder’s position – he seems to specialise in this area. Once again I don’t want to cause any aggravation. This area is maybe a little more complex and extensive than just BBC bias which is the main focus of this website.


  9. Manxman says:

    The term denier is meant as insult demonisation and meant as such, anyone here who uses the term to desrespect another user here is a twat, it isn’t rocket science, so expect some ‘incoming” if you use term, as you will be treated as a hostile twat.

    Now twatism can be ingrained, or temporary, i understand that.

    People speak their minds and move on, with climate change, bring the data not your opinion, and sophistry.

    @ Broadcasting…………
    We had words once, you used the ”term” but you have turned out to be one of the best posters here, you have provided me with many facebook replies, your syntax is great, twatism works both ways, i was wrong about the air not being able to warm the surface under certain conditions, i re-read what i was taught at school, ‘gravitational’ forced kinetic flux’s do indeed warm the air, then the earths surface very efficiently …we were talking lwir.



    • Broadcasting-on-Behalf-of-the-Caliphate says:

      Hi Manxman, I haven’t been on facebook – maybe that is someone else? I think your contributions are valuable too. I don’t want to cause any aggravation. I just want to try to understand the various viewpoints et cetara. I am not going to make any claims as to having any knowledge in this area.


      • Manxman says:

        No i copy and paste sentences of yours, when i am making an effort, even paragraph’s sometimes, facebook comments sections, i do it with alot if it directly conveys my thoughts, since the early 2000s ive spent my time reading, not talking, when i write i cant help using it as a release of the scorn i have for all things left,…..

        Especially their habit of the casual insult, and then whining when they get it back, which they notice instantly funny enough.

        Start at the heart of the debate, you are a smart guy, if you can convince yourself that a block of dry ice next to a candle, will make the flame burn brighter then you believe in the GHE postulate.


  10. Richard Pinder says:

    I think it was an environmental activist called Maurice Strong who became a United Nations senior advisor, who started up the loony Climate Change agenda. He started up the Climate Change Conference gravy train for thousands of Environmental Activists, Bureaucrats, Diplomats and Politicians. Which produced all the bullshit and cherry picked science, such as the fraudulent Hockey Stick.
    On the other hand, Climate scientists such as Atmospheric Physicists and Solar Astronomers, have to hold Climate Conferences, off University property, which are then ignored by the BBC and Main-Stream media.


    • jazznick1 says:

      Quite correct.

      Dr. Tim Ball (a real scientist) explains it here:-


      The IPCC was set up ‘to find the link between mankind and ‘global warming”.
      It was NOT set-up to to ascertain the reasons for climate variation (up and down) – as many people think.

      Mankind was ‘pre-accused’ it was just a matter of supplying the UN funding to ensure that CO2 was ‘fitted-up’ as the bogeyman.


      • Manxman says:

        This, where all energy is heat, all the energy is treated as sunlight energy potential .. whereas in the real world heat is a product of work.

        LWIR radiation in the atmoshere is photonic [sic] none physical, with the potential to add /enhance a molecule’s frequency only if the molecule it inpinges is operating at a lower frequency, i.e. colder, that is the only way the none physical can become physical, as thermalised energy flow……….work………fast enhancing slow frequencies………..no work no physical thermalised energy flow.

        LWIR is simply redundant energy, and cannot be transformed back into physical energy.it cannot even pearce the ocean surface more than a fraction of a millimetre, 76% of the earths surface is water.


  11. Manxman says:

    Strong Jim Hansen and Thatcher, there were other players ofcourse, the rest before it is invented history, for the ”100’s” of years meme.

    this read is quiet informative. a portion.

    “An Inconvenient Truth About Margaret Thatcher: She Was a Climate Hawk,” declares Will Oremus in Slate. In “The Iron Lady’s Strong Stance on Climate Change” (Daily Climate, reposted at Climate Progress), author Douglas Fischer notes “how seriously [Margaret Thatcher] viewed the threat of climate change and the robustness, more than 20 years ago, of climate science and United Nations body tasked with assessing state of that science.”

    True, UK Prime Minister Thatcher was the first and most important international figure to champion the cause of climate alarmism. But the above authors conveniently stop their discussion with her pronouncements in the early 1990s. For possessing an open mind, and coming to see the climate propaganda machine in action, she changed her mind quickly and completely. And the last 20 years gave her little reason to doubt her skepticism.

    Early Alarmism (1988–93)

    Thatcher “broke quite new political ground,” in her words, by “speaking ominously on climate change to the Royal Society (U.K. Academy of Science) in September 1988, just several months after James Hansen’s U.S. Senate testimony on the same subject. [1]

    “It is possible … we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this climate itself,” she said. [2] This would require more, not less, government “for energy production, for fuel efficiency, for reforestation,” she concluded. [3]

    Thatcher went on to found the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research and gave early direction to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to elevate the issue at home and abroad. [4] She held a press conference upon the release of the first IPCC assessment (1990) and warned that “greenhouse gases … will warm the Earth’s surface with serious consequences for us all.” [5]

    Thatcher, who left office in 1990, lobbied George H. W. Bush to sign the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change (1992), the parent document of future climate treatises. As much as she might have regretted it, the process she set into motion resulted in the ill-fated Kyoto Protocol of December 1997. [6]

    In her retrospective, The Downing Street Years (1993), Thatcher, while wary of “green socialism,” described how her environmental concern expanded from stratospheric ozone to “another atmospheric threat,” man-made global warming. [7]

    Why Alarmism?

    What was behind Thatcher’s “conversion experience” to climate alarmism in 1988? Part of the answer was the pressure she received from her advisors John Houghton and Sir Crispin Tickell, who were in step with the emerging environmental movement. Also, global warming was an issue that provided her with enhanced international prestige.

    But perhaps most important was her vigorous battle against the nationalized, unionized coal-mining sector, the leadership of which was socialistic at heart and determined to break her reform agenda.



  12. Martin Pinder says:

    Did they meet Frankenstein & his creation?


  13. Manxman says:

    No Merkel and Obarmy came later.


  14. StewGreen says:

    The trouble is alarmists don’t mean “Climate Change” when they say “Climate Change”,
    They actually mean “Catastrophic Climate Change” (CAGW)
    Cos they are almost certain more human CO2 has to lead to catastrophe.
    They think there is a known sensitivity between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the actual temperature.
    (fallacy of certainty beyond the available evidence)

    Non-catastrophic climate change doesn’t really matter,
    .. just as rivers change their paths over hundreds of years… some local conditions change , odds on when something happens to one piece of land, the opposite happens to another somewhere else in the world
    ie where a lake dries up somewhere …another one appears somewhere else
    ie where the coast erodes somewhere ..a new island arises somewhere else.


  15. Manxman says:

    They talk about coastline lost to a 1c rise, as if it is a disaster, do not consider for a millisecond the millions of hectacres of prime permafrost free arable land that will be freed up to help feed the world, cant grow crops on beaches.

    It is not human c02, it is natures co2, and it is supposed to be circulating in its natural cycle, we liberate co2 and create more oxygen and a healthier more abundant biosphere, we have extended the human average life-span simply by making our oxygen richer, which enhances our body mass,…………….it is anti-life to want to restrict co2.


    • Manxman says:

      About 85 percent of Earth’s ice-free lands is covered by vegetation. The area covered by all the green leaves on Earth is equal to, on average, 32 percent of Earth’s total surface area – oceans, lands and permanent ice sheets combined. The extent of the greening over the past 35 years “has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system,” said lead author Zaichun Zhu, a researcher from Peking University, China, who did the first half of this study with Myneni as a visiting scholar at Boston University.

      Every year, about half of the 10 billion tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere from human activities remains temporarily stored, in about equal parts, in the oceans and plants. “While our study did not address the connection between greening and carbon storage in plants, other studies have reported an increasing carbon sink on land since the 1980s, which is entirely consistent with the idea of a greening Earth,” said co-author Shilong Piao of the College of Urban and Environmental Sciences at Peking University.


  16. Charna says:

    Yes, the BBC and the rest of that type in the MSM completely ignore and bury these stories. One of these days the whole scam will be exposed and this mob should be held accountable for their deception. They have been complicit in this from the start – every programme has been infested by their Green narrative and their left leaning dialogue (e.g. continual use of “community” in every single report).
    Time and time again these green buffoons have been exposed and discredited by sites like Breitbart. Typical response from the BBC/ MSM – don’t respond or argue the point but attempt to discredit the people highlighting the facts.


  17. lojolondon says:

    The whole scam is called ‘Global Warming’. Alarmists only called it ‘climate change’ when warming failed to materialise. No-one can argue against ‘climate change’ because the climate changes every few minutes. But we all know the earth is NOT warming. Therefore I ALWAYS give the scam it’s proper name – GLOBAL WARMING – and that brings clarity to the situation.


    • Up2snuff says:

      lojo, that’s right and as the change occurred during Blair’s Premiership, that name change alone rang alarm bells in my head.

      I wouldn’t say the climate changes every few minutes but I suspect you do not mean that literally. I think and understand that climate change in various locations around the globe has enabled and protected the planet’s and wildlife’s and humankind’s ongoing survival.

      Without climate change our world might have reverted to its original state as described in Genesis: “without form and void”.

      Instead we are blessed with an amazing and wonderful bio-sphere. I can image some galaxies out there looking on with envy!


      • Manxman says:

        I would say the climates change because the physical energy driving climate changes by the minute or by century.

        The primary driver of the physical forces created is sunlight, daylight plays no part, sunlight heating half a sphere on a rotisserie 24/7 with the thermalised flows created by that sunlight flowing to the cold of the poles and space.

        Sun cycles is where its at imo, solar science and it isn’t good news for warming buff’s up2. but they could be wrong about the maunder minimum, but i doubt they are, its almost a sure bet.

        I hope very much they are wrong, who wants to be paying for heating 6 months a year, or 7 or 8 months for that matter….we are due a 1970s.


    • StewGreen says:

      Climate Alarmism is all about PR tricks
      That’s why there are no climate shows on TV/radio, dramagreens consistently refuse to show up for debate
      cos many many of their claims don’t stand up to scrutiny.
      Their min trick is turn it into a YES/NO thing so that individual points can avoid being scrutinised.
      And then if anyone does try to challenge their person attacked instead of their argument
      The meme being they are “denier, so don’ listen to them…just expect them to pay for what we greens demand”


      • StewGreen says:

        oops typo ..that should be
        That’s why there are no climate DEBATE shows on TV/radio
        … dramagreens consistently refuse to show up for debate


    • Manxman says:

      Yeah Global warming between the coldest year on record as per the 1977 vid above, 1973 to the peak of the strongest El Nino year on record 1998, that 25yrs was global warming with a steep trend line.

      Then flat line trend for the next 20yrs as they talked about climate change to cover the flatline trend.

      You see Global slight cooling doesnt have quite the appeal GSC as AGW or even CC.

      Completely ignored is the fact that during those 20yrs the human race liberated 30%+ of all the co2 we have ever liberated to the atmosphere, zilch nada, not an iota of difference, except a healthier biosphere with year on year record yields of all staple food crops across the globe.

      Cutting co2 liberation, is the same as cutting 3rd world throat’s, anti- humanist to try and slow the boispheres enrichment of its primary molecule.


  18. Manxman says:


    I used to visit the bbc science page alot, because before Monckton’s group the GWF applied for a judicial review of the bbc climate change coverage pre april 2015, their page was propaganda central, and if you had read alot about CC you could debunk them easy.

    Every now and then one came up that needed researched, like the link above, and the paragraph below, that paragraph holds the link to reality, Petrov got $740,000 for the survey.

    Prof Petrov said it was important to try to halt the decline.
    “Reindeer are tremendously important for biodiversity – they are part of the Arctic food chain and without them other species would be in trouble,” he explained.
    “But on the other hand, in all the areas they inhabit, they are vital for people’s survival.
    “Thousands and thousands of people rely on wild reindeer; it is the basis of their subsistence economy. So it’s about human sustainability too.”

    The deer had owners, those owners, tribesmen/nomads/farmers/villagers have their own combine and web site.
    I went there and spent a couple of hours reading about their lives.

    bbc 700,000 deer starve to death because of climate change, irrefutable.
    Reality 700,000 culled by order of the Russian government.

    Reason sustainability, deer are prolific breeders, because they are vulnerable to climate .. disease and predation [sic].
    The 700,000 deer didnt starve to death, they died by bullet in the head, to bring the worlds largest herd back to their proper un-managed proportion.

    $740k for a fiction, peer review worthless, ………………a Fraud of public funds with no over-sight…….. times petro’s paper by 1000s, just as worthless, also peer-reviewed, also without any real over-sight, if they sings climate change they’z chart toppers.


  19. Manxman says:

    Sorry, the cull was incentivised [sic] by guaranteed dead weight kilo prices, and it was 250,000, to bring the over-population down, too 700,000, environmentalists saw it differently, they viewed it as Russia clearing the way to exploit natural resources in the area,……..

    The natural carrying capacity was what the cull reduced them to.

    His paper came out in december, the first cull was in september, its looks like there was a further 100,000 cull at christmas asell. after his paper.
    That 350/400,000 would make the bbc/petrov 40% reduction from the year 2000 population of a million, correctish.

    Petrov is america based or was at the time.