I was watching the BBC1 main news a few moments ago and in particular the rather fascinating coverage of the Titanic Memorial cruise reported here. ALL seemed fine until from nowhere, came the pronouncement that “thanks to global warming” this memorial cruise will not encounter the icebergs and icefield that brought the Titanic to its icy grave at the bottom of the North Atlantic. Such a pity that an otherwise decent report had to be spoiled by a totally pointless piece of evangelising for AGW.
THAT SINKING FEELING – 100 YEAR UPDATE
Bookmark the permalink.
Surprised it took them that long to mention it!
Thanks to global warming we can’t skate across the North Sea any more – but so what? At least German panzers couldn’t toboggan across to Britain during WW2.
excuse me
but isn’t global warming allegedly respojsible for huge chunks of ice breaking off ice flows and floating here there and everywhere?thus MORE icebergs?
talk about trying to have your cake and eat it
do these people never think shame?
Spot on, and how symptomatic of the self-righteous BBC. However, their arrogance could be their undoing as increasingly it looks like they can’t even be bothered to check the logic of their own pronouncements, and are starting to look a bit amateurish, not to mention foolish.
Or am I just living in hope…..?
Quite right, Itwf1964
John Kay, BBC News tonight: “Global warming means icebergs are less of a hazard these days.”
National Geographic, four days ago: “If the legendary ship sailed today, it would likely encounter many more icebergs, possibly due to global warming, scientists say. ”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/04/120403-titanic-100-anniversary-science-icebergs
So, not only did the BBC’s John Kay confidently push ‘global warming’, he also got what scientists pushing the AGW cause are claiming completely the wrong way round. That’s some going!
BBC – “Global warming means icebergs are less of a hazard these days.”
National Geographic: “… today, it would likely encounter many more icebergs”
Must try and locate a BBC quote per the first in writing to run by my new chums at ECU, who can actually look at black and still say it it is white…. at least by they and their colleagues’ ‘belief’.
Maybe only used in spoken narrative, as all I have heard refers more to modern tech?
OT, but I liked this bit:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/titanic_01.shtml
‘the high and somewhat dubious moral code of the US press. Almost universally condemned in America, when he finally arrived home he was cheered and applauded as he descended the gangway at Liverpool. The British press had treated the whole episode in a far less judgmental way.’
A noble difference of course continued to the present day.
Great point. It’s like their blaming Global Warming for hot, dry summers, for cool, wet summers. For cold, icy winters and mild winters. This is both the cleverness and stupidity of their arguments. Clever because they are able to use sny argument to fit their narrative and fool the less intelligent. Stupid because anybody who is prepared to think for themselves can see how contradictory and nonsensical their arguments are.
They are so wonderfully ignorant. The propensity (or lack) of icebergs has absolutely nothing to do with temperature and everything to do with the direction of the wind. Icebergs are bits of iceshelf that have broken off and drifted away. As far as I know, Greenland still has a massive ice shelf covering it so we should still be seeing Arctic icebergs for the next 30,000 years or so (at the current alleged rate of “melt”)
Arctic ice sheet showing steady growth:
http://thegwpf.org/best-of-blogs/5396-arctic-ice-extent-shatters-more-records.html
Viking explorer Leif Erikson didn’t name Greenland “Greenland” for nothing – it was quite a warm, fertile place. But now thanks to global cooling all they’ve got is fish.
(Good job they left the EU – even that industry was starting to die out)
That wasn’t a dig at you ltwf 1964, but at the lovely journos at the BBC.
I know my friend
I think we posted just seconds apart!
Just tweeted the same. Bloody BBC, they just had to slip it in. Complete nonsense of course, but all rather sickening that they spoil an otherwise interesting report for no good reason.
How many decent natural science programmes have the spoiled because of this zealotry – Orbit springs to mind. Ironic in that they focused on the importance of the sun in its influence on our ‘ickle planet.
BBC you are a joke!
And where is Jim Dandy? Can’t he see any profit in supporting the bbc on this subject?
Don’t encourage him, for God’s sake…
Let’s hope they don’t run into an iceberg …
Wow, ice melts, the ultimate arts-graduate awareness raising communication metaphor for climate alarmism. A death blow to skeptics, except of course its tosh. Its more a reflection of the climate in the bBC, that you can throw in this tosh knowing it will be benignly nodded through because its “on message”
As the wonderful Greeniewatch says, the temperature at the Poles are -40°. So 1° warming means… nothing.
Presumably the BBC will hope that a wreath is thrown over the side when the ship passes by where the iceberg melted with the loss of a cormorant, a penguin and a relocation of a family of polar bears.
Any news of the iceberg…was it the first martyr of global warming, or was that the Snowman I wonder?
On Natural World: The Iceberg that sank the Titanic, the narrator treated the iceberg like it was a living entity rather than an inanimate piece of ice. I’m sure the narrator had a lump in his throat when he referred to the icebergs ‘death.’ I got the feeling that the makers cared more for the iceberg than the one and a half thousand people who died. Now, seeing this is the beeb they are probably quite glad that all those nasty capitalists, toffs and white people froze to death. Imagine how da beeb would’ve treated the iceberg if it had ‘murdered’ a thousand ethnics?
I’m surprised that the BBC/Guardian/Independent/Sky haven’t yet linked institutional racism to the White Star line. Bound to be there somewhere!
Not yet, but they are majoring on elitism and the fact that the first and second class had a better survival rate than steerage passengers. Not pointing out, of course, that the lower deck passengers had further to go (I believe) to reach the lifeboats. I’m sure there was a class thing in play as to which people were allowed in the boats but 1912 was a different world to 2012.
This from Natural World :The Iceberg that sank the Titanic ‘they (icebergs) and the currents that transport them play a crucial role in regulating our climate. There is a delicate balance between the amount of ice melting from the Greenland Icesheet and the way in which currents flow through the Atlantic Ocean. Global Warming is threatening this balance. Scientists predict that a flood of polar water could change the salinity of the North Atlantic, weaken the Gulf Stream and bring a bit of the arctic permanently to European shores.’ Apocalypse Now!!! Argggghhh, I’m gonna invest in a woolly hat. Seriously though, the Beeb can’t help themselves can they?
The global warming line removed from the 10 o’clock news bulletin (replaced with a line/footage of radar tracking of objects). Did they feel the heat?
Insidious damage done earlier.
‘The global warming line removed’
Ah, that would explain it not being evident in all ‘edits’ I have seen. Enough witness testimony to say it happened. Is there a video/audio newsniffer?
Maybe they could then claim the ‘story evolved’ needing this change, from April 1912 to 8th April 2012… to the 9th.
Seems a day is now a long time in ‘news’.
If a recording appeared I’d love to run that by ECU ‘never happened’ Unit and ask a) why it was aired and b) changed. Pumping out inaccuracy and quietly changing later is not really the education or information I feel a £4Bpa media monolith should be issuing if wishing to retain that unsinkable most trusted reputation.
No, the BritishBrainwashingComediens should’ve rather more accurately said “thanks to state-of-the-art navigational aids..”
Probably just a slight oversight, eh? ..lol
A jaw dropping moment wasn’t it.
Totally OT (well, there is a misdirected green obsession aspect) , but this was also fun…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17621269
‘some MPs in Canberra fear the party is heading towards a titanic loss’
Bar a rather odd ‘thrilling’ last few paras, it seems pretty realistic, especially on how saying one thing but doing another does get noticed and punished. BBC please note, though of course no votes every few years to worry about.
I guess it was on the six news because children would probably be watching……nothing like a bit of pre- watershed brainwashing.
Well done to everyone who spotted this shameless CAGW propaganda in an otherwise enjoyable documentary. As others have said, it’s really a shame that so much of the Biased Broadcasting Comintern’s output is now ‘compromised’ by the obligatory pro-CAGW disclaimer – seemingly inserted without (any longer) any thought as to its relevance or merit.
With Arctic ice doing very nicely, likewise a healthy polar bear population, no significant global warming for nearly 15 years according to official statistics and a host of other recent news stories, all of which seem to directly contradict the dominant narrative of CAGW (all unreported by The Corporation, of course), one does wonder for just how long the BBC can keep up this ‘fingers-in-my-ears-I’m-not-listening-la-lal-la’ pretence. Not really very professional, is it?
And it’s always the Arctic isn’t it? That’s because Antarctica, which comprises 80% of the world’s ice mass, has shown no loss at all, though the ‘black is white’ warmists will try to tell you otherwise (albeit in an uncharacteristically half-hearted fashion).
And don’t get me started on bloody Tuvalu disappearing under rising sea levels….
We’ve been told countless times over the years that we’ll soon be seeing ice bergs off the Cornish coast.
Anyone would think that this lot are confused and will change their rhetoric according to current weather patterns . . .
You simple people must realise that all observations are compatible with the settled science of global warming. The only problem I have with the previous sentence is my vague memories of a course on the philosophy of science where it was stated than an unfalsifiable hypothesis is outside the scientific domain.
Although i agree with evryone’s take on the BBC bias regarding global warming, i wonder how many on this site still accept the theory of evolution, pushed and promoted on pretty much every BBC natural history programme, does anyone not see the parallels here?
Excellent article. I certainly love this website.
Thanks!