I had an opportunity last night to watch the original Netflix ‘Frozen Worlds’ walrus episode and have some addition thoughts.
One big eye-opener was the final shot of the walrus sequence: a polar bear approaching from the water to feed on the carcasses below the cliff at Cape Kozhevnikov. This is additional proof that polar bears were in the area while the crew were filming. Yet the narrative in the film was silent on the risk to walruses on the cliff from polar bears and not a word was spoken of the hundreds of walruses that had fallen off that very cliff just days before after being spooked by approaching bears.
Oddly, I have also discovered that the Russian scientific advisor to the film, Anatoli Kochnev, wrote a scientific report in 2002 (translated into English) on walrus deaths at two regularly used beach haulouts on Wrangel Island from…
View original post 456 more words
By Paul Homewood
I said the other day that the BBC might have gone too far with Attenborough’s pack of lies, and risked a backlash which would ultimately undermine their credibility on climate.
Well, the fightback has begun, with attack from David Rose:
One of the most talked-about programmes of the past week – a primetime documentary on BBC1 – featured two people many seem to regard as living saints.
One was the presenter, Sir David Attenborough, the other Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenage activist inspiring climate change ‘school strikes’ in several countries, including Britain.
The film’s title was Climate Change: The Facts, and these, Sir David claimed, are now ‘incontrovertible’. The film’s message was so bleak it could have been made by Extinction Rebellion, the eco-anarchist protest group which has brought Central London to a standstill.
No one has done more to convey the marvels of the natural world…
View original post 1,997 more words
By Paul Homewood
Ross Clark has also joined the party:
Given the reception that awaited Richard Madeley when he ventured last week that David Attenborough is “not a saint, just a broadcaster” – something which is evidently true, though I haven’t formally checked with the Vatican – one delves into this subject with some intrepidness. Nevertheless, great documentary-maker though he may be, Attenborough cannot be allowed to get away with the propaganda element of his latest piece, his documentary Climate Change: the Facts which went out on Thursday evening….
If you are going to present a film called Climate Change: the Facts the very least you should be doing is, well, presenting the facts. Well here they are, in two of the areas which made up such a hefty part of the film: wildfires and hurricanes. Are wildfires increasing? They are according to Attenborough. One of the scientists who takes…
View original post 519 more words
By Paul Homewood
Jaime Jessop has written the first of what may be a series of posts on Attenborough’s documentary the other day.
She has taken a close look at the Isle de Jean Charles, which you will recall is gradually being flooded:
Well, I sat through it, much to my disgust. It wasn’t easy. I don’t really know where to begin with the dissection of this truly awful climate change documentary from the BBC, so I guess I’ll just fire off this initial post picking up on one of the more obvious and egregious attempts to misinform the public.
The Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana. It’s been largely submerged beneath the sea over the last 6 decades. The program gives the definite impression that the main reason for this inundation is sea level rise due to melting ice and thermal expansion of the oceans – driven by man-made climate…
View original post 275 more words
By Paul Homewood
In Part I, we looked at Attenborough’s claims about the effects of climate change to date, most of which bore very little resemblance to reality.
The whole programme is clearly designed as an exercise in propaganda rather than establishing the facts. This is evident from the choice of “experts” wheeled on to provide the science.
Michael Mann, for instance, offered his views on hurricanes, flooding, heatwaves, droughts and wildfires, none of which is he especially qualified to talk about. Indeed, he probably knows no more than me about them.
The BBC could easily have invited a forestry expert, a meteorologist or hurricane expert, but it probably would not have got the answers it wanted.
Another “expert” is James Hansen, so you get my drift.
As a propaganda exercise, it is already working. Yesterday in the Express, the TV correspondent, in his preview, warbled on about how…
View original post 676 more words
A recent post Climate Hearsay featured an article by Ross McKitrick noting how climatists rely on charts and graphs to alarm people about temperature changes too small for them to notice otherwise. For example, NOAA each month presents temperature measurements globally and broken down in various ways. To illustrate McKitrick’s point, let’s look at the results for Quarter 1 of 2019, January through March. Source: Global Climate ReportSo the chart informs us that for this 3 month period, the whole world had its third warmest year out of the last 140 years! 2016 was a full 0.27℃ hotter on average over those 90 days. Well, maybe not, because the error range is given as +/- 0.15℃. So the difference this year from the record year 2016 might have been only a few 0.01℃, and no way you could have noticed that. In fact where I live in Montreal, it…
View original post 209 more words