A British school party goes on an outing to a part of Norway where there are polar bears to study the effects of global warming. It’s so cold up there that the trip wires meant to protect campers from the bears are frozen. The result is that tragically, a member of the party is mauled to death and a polar bear is shot dead by these “conservationists”. Richard North paints the scene with his usual acuity. So what does the BBC do? Like a shot, it gets one of its climate zealots, Victoria Gill, to put together a background homily saying that such attacks “could become more common” because of “climate change”.
And of course, the now compulsory alarmism is thrown in:
Recent studies have suggested that climate change will trigger a dramatic and sudden fall in the number of polar bears.
Actually, Ms Gill, that’s not entirely true, because even ardent warmists think otherwise. But hey-ho, this is the BBC, the world’s most expensive platform for climate change claptrap. The report was both inevitable and unsurprising, I suppose, given the BBC’s activism, but I record it because I never cease to marvel at the utter dishonesty involved.
“Victoria Gill, to put together a background homily saying that such attacks “could become more common” because of “climate change”.”
It’s possible. So could we send arch-AGW Bore, and self-acclaimed Polar expert, Prickstocke to Spitzbergen to test this scientific hypothesis ?
Dressed in a meat-suit, bien sur.
To be fair, due to the Climate Change alarmists, there is already one fewer polar bears in Spitzbergen. If they hadn’t sent yet another team up there, that polar bear would be alive today probably (as well as the lad who was killed).
‘Could become more common’ eh? Well that’s all the proof I need. Tax me till there’s nothing left.
“Incidents like this, however, could become more common.
The reason is climate change. As rising temperatures melt the sea ice, the number of polar bears may rapidly dwindle. That could mean that there are far fewer bears surviving for people to come into conflict with. But if polar bear numbers fall, we may revere them even more, with more tourists and adventurers flocking to catch a final glimpse of these animals.”
And I could put a pig in a bright yellow dress and I may tie a pretty blue bow round its head, and if it looked nice I may call it Shirley and I could take it for a walk in the town square and I may ask the mayor to join me. Then again, I may not.
“The reason is climate change.” Don’t you just love the definitive nature of that statement? You can’t argue with reason, can you? Never mind that every sentence in close vicinity is conjecture. Pisspoor, even by the standards of BBC eco-propaganda.
A question to Victoria Gill.
“Science_bird Victoria Gill
On train to Manchester. Girl next to me just left and abandoned Heat magazine. So tempted to read it. Must resist bad celebrity journalism.”
http://twitter.com/#!/Science_bird
But not “bad nature” reporting
That needs to be reprinted (the answer, on suspects, will not be forthcoming)
@Science_bird COULD polar bear attacks decrease IF other vague stuff MAY happen?
The state of BBC ‘science reporting’ summed up, and damned, in a sentence.
Actually the whole of the AGW theory is “ifs”,”mays” and “coulds”. There is not one provable fact in their playstation “science”.
“The bottom line is that there could scarcely be a more ill-posed scientific question than whether global warming is human-caused: a one of a kind event, the Earth can’t be put into a laboratory to study, cause and effect are intermingled, and the political and financial sources of bias in the resulting research are everywhere”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/why-most-published-research-findings-are-false/
I like what you did there, DB. 🙂
I might be an expert on climate science. Or I might not. Can I join the IPCC, please?
Looks like AGW (that’s what they were studying!) just claimed its first real victims, a schoolboy and a polar bear. As they seem to have a taste for Etonians, can we send Dave and George
Let me see if I get this. Less polar bears is bad, meaning “species extinction”, but saving the planet means more polar bears which means more “schoolboys as packed lunch”, unless you can keep the number of polar bears at exactly the same number indefinitely.
Look forward to the IPCC -Independent Polarbear Complaints Commission – investigation into the shooting of this innocent furry mammal, who was only following his own natural feeding practices, only to be summararily executed, without first reading him his animal rights.
http://tinyurl.com/3bo9pgt A comment was posted on a Polly Toynbee article about the recession about “clearing Old Etonians one at a time via polar bear” but it was simply deleted from Guardian CiF an hour later although others refer to it. toriello’s comment at 1052 has simply vanished yet is commented on by others. See also toriellos reply at 1157 (page 8) His initial posts were at 1019 and 1021 according to his profile but they’ve gone. Note also that 6 people recommended his pathetic and sick reply on page trying to justify his comment! Guardian Comment is Free ? rubbish – more totalitarian rubbish from the lefties. And I wondewr juts how many of the same lefties at the Richard Bacon school of human relationships laughed when they saw the comment.
‘Incidents like this, however, could become more common’.
‘As rising temperatures melt the sea ice the numbers of Polar Bears may rapidly dwindle’.
So, less Polar Bears = less attacks on British school boys, surely?
‘….we may revere them even more, with more tourists and adventurers flocking to catch a final glimpse of these animals’.
The logic is somewhat strained to say the least….
‘If the sea ice retreats, it will also mean that more polar bears will be forced to hunt further inland. And that means more polar bears roaming around parts of the Arctic and sub-Arctic that people call home.’
Well that sounds a little more logical. So given all this global warming we’ve been having what’s the score vis-a-vis bears versus Arctic dwellers?
‘Generally, attacks on humans are extremely rare.’
So it’s not a big issue after all? And some figures are quoted that pretty much confirm this.
I get the impression someone is trying to make something out of nothing. I can only hope that the brighter of our young people might soon be able to see through the propaganda and notice the lack of any logic or facts in such BBC nonsense.
‘If the sea ice retreats, it will also mean that more polar bears will be forced to hunt further inland. And that means more polar bears roaming around parts of the Arctic and sub-Arctic that people call home.’
Alternativey …
The polar bears move North because the ice becomes thinner and there is more chance to catch their food – seals – creatures that take advantage of thin ice to breath at holes in it – where polar bears wait for them …
So thinnner ice means more polar bears up North not less.
In Canada they are getting more and more polar bear attacks as the bears are pushed South by a scaricty of food. They are becoming the raccoons of the tundra cities often found rummaging in bins and eating the odd passerby. They are moving South not North. Why? Because its getting too cold up North for the seals to break through the ice. More ice means more Southerly bears.
I was wondering about that as well. Less polar bears means more attacks? Will they all be moved into inhabited towns and villages then?
I’m a little suprised at how the bBC try to claim that due to global warming we will see more Polar bears attacking humans.For a start the Islands are almost 2000 miles north of London. (Around the same distance as Cyprus is away from London)
The capital Longyearbyen is the northen most town in the world with a popualtion of around 2000 souls, yet the bBC presumes that Polar Bears are going to get in their longboats and sail to Main Land Europe in which to kill the humans who are melting all their ice.
The sad thing is people take the bBC for gospel.
I expect the bear was an active member of the EDL as well. You can’t make it up…… (except they do)
The Nazis were in Spitzbergen on weather-forecasting business for part of WW2. No doubt they spent the long nights doing other things: reading, crochet-work, creating the Waffen SS Bear……..
The polar bear was ‘hideously white’.
Sick use of a dead youngster for political purposes…especially when his body hasn’t even been flown home yet.
That’s what we pay our licence fee for.
These people are sick – they will use anyone to push their perverted “science”
http://lonelyconservative.com/2011/05/after-blowing-children-up-climate-alarmists-plan-to-use-children-in-lawsuits/
Was this Polar Bear sent mad from years of living under Sarah Palin in alaska I wonder.
Newsnight will send 10 reporters to Alaska to investigate.
By the way whatever happened to the lefty wank fest that was the Sarah Palin emails?
That all died off quickly, the BBC were salivating at those.
They ‘died off’ Martin because they showed Palin to be a regular, down-to-earth public servant who took her personal and professional responsibilities seriously.
It’s very difficult to portray this in a negative light, so the BBC did what they always do when faced with such a challenge, and dropped the matter entirely.
Yep, global warming made the bear act crazy ;o)
The bear was’t acting crazy it was acting bear. Polars are not white and fluffy, they are the colour of cigarette stained walls and are killers
These last few years has seen the infantilisation of children and adults who have been manipulated into seeing these giant killers as cuddly fluffy bunnies. Fluffy bunnies they aint, you do not want to be caught near a polar bear at any time unless you have a thick glass wall between you or a powerful pump action shotgun, 9mm rounds only make them angry, you could put a mag into an adult polar bear and he would still have time to rip you to shreds before he bled out.
Living in the vicinity of polar bears is a pain in the arse, you always have to be on guard whether getting in/out the car or walking up the drive to your door. But the aim of the ecotards has been to garner public empathy and sympathy and that has led to tourists being eaten. These kids went out to a danger area unprepared conned into thinking these creatures are somehow fragile victims of humanity. You camp near polar bears or any bear and you are merely a lunch item for them. And the more these brainwashed kids go to these places without the right security the more are going to end up in bits.
The lesson is simple, nature aint cuddly and fluffy, you go into the world of the predator with extreme caution and respect, these kids went in carefree with no respect and they paid the price. They believed the crap pumped out by the MSM and they paid the price.
The poor chap hadn’t been dead for 24 hours before they seized the opportunity to post their “Can polar bears and people coexist?” article, with its typical annoyingly jokey tone, on the front page. Disgusting.
It’s alright, though, because he was a ‘toff’.
Did the bear leave a manifesto?
Apparently he had meetings with EDL last year but they don’t believe in all the things that bears do. For instance they disagree on immigration into Spitzbergen.
Get on the riot in Tottenham tonight, BBC are running with ‘its the polices fault’ ‘anger in the community’ (that the police stop and search gangsters) local ‘young people’ *cough* are concerned about the Polices actions, unbelievable stuff. Broadwater Farm (which we now know was a cultural highlight) comparisons.
Yes the ‘local community’ are upset that one of “da lokul hoods woz takun owt coz e ad a gun on im…man”
Here’s a thought, if yo udon’t want plod to slot you, don’t carry a gun around.
For those non UK BBBC readers, the best way to sum up Tottenham is to take a look at this link
http://tinyurl.com/yknsz2c
The Beeb are calling the rioters ‘demonstrators’ apparently a peaceful demonstraation had taken place before the same peaceful demonstrators set fire to a bus, with some petrol bombs, they presumably found somewhere.
And certainly don’t use it either. He shot a police officer (who was tailing him as part of an operation dealing with…gun crime in the black community) in the chest (who was saved by his radio), and was then shot and killed by another officer.
What are the ‘community’ upset about? Your ‘respected member of the community’ (who was a filthy, shit-eating criminal) and ‘good daddy’ tried to murder a cop and got pwned in the process. Sounds fair to me.
The BBC are in Moaty mode this morning, their vile lefty mates out telling us what a decent human being he was and howe he’d never do anything wrong.
Funny as well how many beeboids used to live in Tottenham.
If these people were really worried about the climate and polar bears they would stay at home and leave them alone. Instsead they must go on a selfish adventure to “prove” themselves while poluting the environment and disturbing wild animals in their diminshing habitat
Sorry maybe me but why were they in possession of guns ?? as a defence against what ?the birds? clouds? heavily armed rampant seals? lost Somali pirates? maybe they had them to shoot any skeptics they found? !
Or could a history of bear attacks going back for as long as men have ventured into their territory be the reason ?
I see the BBC are following a team of explorers as they attempt to row to the magnetic North Pole. This trip would have been “impossible” a few years ago, according to expedition leader Jock Wishart, but due to the “lessening of the ice shelf”, they’re going to make the impossible possible.
They have adapted their boat to be able to be dragged across the ice – just in case. What could possibly go wrong?
Surprised the BBC haven`t spotted the riot trends-1981( too many to mention-Brixton etc), 1991( Meadowell etal) 2001( various Pennine towns like Bradford, Oldham).
We were due one then-bit like the 27 rule of Amy Winehouse etc!
Funnily enough all the riots were under the Tories…excapet 2001…but that was white chavs up north grumbling about Islamic groups getting their Surestart…so Labour-as ever-were not to blame!
Believe Newsnight have been filming the whitewashing of 2001(dare I say that?)…and will have already reported on their conclusion, that Thatcher was indeed to blame!
On top of this, reality has once again forced the BBC to report something which doesn’t suit their agenda:
Arctic ‘tipping point’ may not be reached
Scientists say current concerns over a tipping point in the disappearance of Arctic sea ice may be misplaced.
Danish researchers analysed ancient pieces of driftwood in north Greenland which they say is an accurate way to measure the extent of ancient ice loss.
Writing in the journal Science, the team found evidence that ice levels were about 50% lower 5,000 years ago.
They say changes to wind systems can slow down the rate of melting.
They argue, therefore, that a tipping point under current scenarios is unlikely.
Black or Harrabin will be around shortly to explain why this is wrong and how you must reduce your consumption and economic activity anyway.
How can this be true, when the BBC have already told us this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm
Totally OT, but as there are some science literate types here…
How does a bear leave teeth in victims’ skulls?
Unless it’s shark hybrid, one would presume that would but it near on a par with bumble bees in terms of lasting a lifetime after each attack.