Author Archives: Alan

The Iraqi army retook Ramadi and is in the process of finishing off the ISIS die-hards whom you may think have not a chance in hell of winning Ramadi back…..unless you listen to the BBC which downplays the hard-won victory and sees only more war, destruction and of course refugees coming out of more such attacks on ISIS positions.  The BBC’s reports following the main battle seemed solely concerned with the suffering of the civilians rather than the extraordinary victory of the Iraqi army which the BBC has always written off as undisciplined and lacking moral and at odds with the Sunni tribes.

That has now all been turned on its head…the Iraq army defeated ISIS forces in the hardest form of combat, urban warfare, and they did it with the help of Sunni tribal militia…who the BBC now admits were present…

Over the weekend Iraqi troops and allied Sunni tribal fighters helped civilians to safer places in Ramadi.

Listening to the BBC report on FOOC you knew you were being ‘groomed’ to be expected to accept more refugees due to the war and that the plight of the civilians was so awful that they had no choice but to flee to Europe….only as an after thought did the Iraqi army’s victory get a word or two of modest praise for their achievement.

The BBC’s unwillingness to ring the bells is nothing new of course…..it has spent years attacking the British army and doing everything it could to prevent it doing its job by making the politicians run scared of casualties both ours and civilians….

A former Army commander says there is a “real risk” that Britain could lose the conflict in Afghanistan.

Col Stuart Tootal, writing in the Sunday Mirror, said a lack of political will could damage the military campaign against the Taleban.

Col Tootal said that if the conflict was lost “it will not be in places like Helmand, but in the corridors of power in cities like London and Washington.

“Counter-insurgency conflicts are rarely lost by the fighting troops, but in the arena of domestic public opinion when there is a lack of the political will to make the right commitment to see them through.”

Col Tootal said he believed the campaign in Afghanistan to be “winnable”.

But he added: “Mounting casualties and an incoherent and under-resourced strategy paint a pessimistic picture.

“It will take statesmanship to put extra troops, helicopters, equipment and proper development programmes in place, but the benefits are considerable.”

The politicians are lacking the will because they know they will be hung out to dry by the BBC….a BBC already licking its lips at the prospect of British troops being dragged through the courts once again due to ambulance chasing lawyers drumming up allegations of abuse from any Iraqi they could get to make the claims.

David Vance said it all way back in 2009…

It must be awful to be a UK military family listening to the BBC for news of the campaign in Afghanistan. Radio Taliban would be less depressing than the State Broadcaster. The meme concerning Afghanistan has now morphed into the same one that prevailed when we were in Iraq. The cause is hopeless, we cannot win, UK lives are being sacrificed for no reason, we must get out. It’s defeatism, of course, and it is something the BBC excels at promoting.

Nothing has changed…here’s the BBC today trying its best to paint an entirely negative picture of British airstrikes in Syria……Are UK bombs making a difference in Syria?

Despite the vote, the focus of British military action has continued to be on Iraq. The RAF’s much lauded brimstone missile has not yet even been fired over Syria.

The prime minister’s claim that the RAF would make a “meaningful difference” there has yet to be borne out.

It is worth recalling that David Cameron argued for Britain to join the Syria air strikes.

Before the parliamentary vote, David Cameron admitted the situation on the ground in Syria was “complex”.

But his assertion that there were about 70,000 Syrian opposition fighters, who did not belong to extremists groups, still seems fanciful.

Britain’s very limited involvement in Syria, along with its limited number of aircraft, still raises questions and doubts.

Is the UK really making a “meaningful difference”? Or was the vote on 2 December as much to do with politics as military effect?

Note the sneering tone and negative language.  The reporter asks if the Syria vote had a political element….he asks as if this was some sort of secret…and yet we always knew that the US was the main provider of airstrikes and that we would be providing very few but it was important to have that option and to stand alongside our allies especially as the Russians were getting more and more involved…..

David Cameron set out the “moral” and “security” case for bombing Isis in Syria in the Commons last week, saying it was morally unacceptable to leave the US, France and other allies to carry the burden. “If not now, when?” he asked MPs.

Cameron also stated that…

I’m not saying that we will solve this problem simply by crossing a line from Iraq into Syria.

“We’ll solve this problem if we have a political strategy, a diplomatic strategy, a humanitarian strategy.”

It is an irony that the BBC, which complains so bitterly about airstrikes happening, is now complaining that there aren’t enough of them.  It seems that the BBC is solely intent on creating negative news about the war and about the government.  Also an irony that it is the BBC et al who always say that bombing alone cannot defeat the likes of ISIS…..and now complain impatiently as Cameron pieces together a political, diplomatic and humanitarian strategy as well as the necessary intelligence to complement and guide the military action…after all getting all those ‘moderate’ rebels to unite won’t be a quick  nor easy task.

And let’s not forget...the UN sanctioned action against ISIS….

The resolution unanimously agreed at the UN security council on Friday gives us a compelling mandate to act – legally and morally.

I’m guessing the BBC must be desperately casting around for as much negativity as possible in light of the UN approval pulling the rug from under their usual anti-war rhetoric.

The BBC was shut down for a while by hackers.  You wouldn’t put it past them to have organised it themselves in order to generate an ‘OMG!!!  Where’s the BBC?  What am I going to do with my life without the brilliant BBC, I miss it so much!?’ reaction in the run up to charter renewal…however of course that is conspiracy central nonsense….it was hackers practising their dark arts as they prepared to go to war with the Islamic State, its websites and social media presence.

Have to say the hackers couldn’t actually have started in a better place if they wanted to attack a news service and website that produces endless streams of pro-Muslim terrorist narratives.  That would definitely be the BBC.

The Guardian reports…..

Activists who say their goal is to disrupt online propaganda by Islamic State have claimed responsibility for a cyber-attack on the BBC website.

The New Year’s Eve attack took down the iPlayer and other services for a few hours, according to Joe Lynam, the BBC’s business correspondent.

Lynam told BBC Breakfast that the technology correspondent, Rory Cellan-Jones, had received a tweet from a group calling itself New World Hacking (NWH), claiming responsibility for a distributed denial of service (DDoS). It bombarded the system with 600 gigabits a second of messages.

Lynam said: “Their ultimate goal, believe it or not, is not to attack the BBC but to go for Isis, the group which often calls itself Islamic State, and all their servers so they cannot spread propaganda from various different websites.

ISIS, the BBC, The BBC, ISIS.  Yeah, I can definitely see why they’d start with a dry run at the BBC.

If only we could see ourselves as others see us.

The Left has an everpresent and unfounded conviction that they, and their ideology, are the end of history.  They are wrong, that would be Islam über alles.  They make a desert and call it peace.

You can see the Left’s self-deceiving belief in action in the way that they report on the Republican Party as if it was toxic and the Democrats the Second Coming….a classic line illustrates that..‘When Donald Trump says something that I would consider insane’.…..that line says it all….there’s no analysis, no looking at the reasons for Trump’s comments…they’re just ‘insane’…why?   Because I, the lefty commentator, don’t agree with them!   For the Left there is no alternate way of looking at life, just through a soft left lense.

You can see it in the way they report on the ‘crazies’ who inhabit the internet with, shock horror, opinions of their own that don’t compute with the Left’s vision.  Such opinions should not, cannot, be allowed.  We’ve seen Tommy Robinson run out of town and climate sceptics derided and scorned before being silenced by the BBC, but it’s always interesting see the latest bit of railery against ‘unacceptable’ opinion and the demands for censorship that go with it.  The Internet and bloggers are of course a major annoyance for the entrenched self-interested opinion formers who used to dominate the airwaves and print.  No longer do they have a monopoly on information, no longer can they get away with disseminating one-sided propaganda without challenge, and more importantly no longer can they silence and cut out of the debate those who have other opinions who are able to voice them on the internet even as the likes of the BBC still block access to their own networks.

The funny thing is of course that they don’t ever see themselves in their critique of the Internet and its freeflowing opinions….for instance this from the Guardian…the description is one that fits, for example, the BBC, or the Guardian itself,  to a tee…

Is Facebook the enemy of truth and civic unity?

Every new technology threatens to kill off some revered institution. But in the waning months of 2015, more than a few smart and tech-savvy commentators began suggesting a radical hypothesis: that the rise of social media threatened to deliver a death blow to civic consensus and even to truth itself.

“The news brims with instantly produced ‘hot takes’ and a raft of fact-free assertions,” Farhad Manjoo observed in the New York Times. “The extremists of all stripes are ascendant, and just about everywhere you look, much of the internet is terrible.”

In the Washington Post, Anne Applebaum went so far as to demand that Mark Zuckerberg donate the entirety of his fortune to undo the damage Facebook has done to democracy. “If different versions of the truth appear in different online versions; if no one can agree upon what actually happened yesterday; if fake, manipulated or mendacious news websites are backed up by mobs of internet trolls; then conspiracy theories, whether of the far left or far right, will soon have the same weight as reality. Politicians who lie will be backed by a claque of supporters.”

The BBC, the enemy of truth and civic unity?

The BBC which refused to reveal the truth about Labour’s mass immigration plot, the BBC which refuses to challenge the ‘consensus’ on climate change, the BBC which has decided you are wrong about immigration and does all it can to persuade you to change your mind, propaganda not news, the BBC which supported the Labour narrative on the economy, the BBC which campaigns against all military action and puts our troops in danger, the BBC which is still fighting the Iraq war, the BBC which has joined forces in effect with Muslim terrorists in order to justify its own actions regarding the Iraq war, the BBC which believes Jews are legitimate targets in Europe, the BBC which supports terrorist organisations which seek to destroy Israel, the BBC which thinks ‘conservative’ Islam is no different to British values, the BBC which manages to find far more people who voice support for Europe than who support Brexit, the BBC which hates the nation state,  the BBC which seeks to destroy any sense of ‘British’ identity in order to create a mongrel nation where no-one ‘beloings’ so therefore, the BBC thinking goes, everybody belongs.  Shame the utopian dreamers of the BBC have no idea of human nature.

Democracy, free speech, British values and identity, national cohesion and a civil society, truth.

All things the BBC is the enemy of, not the Internet or Facebook.  Far from supporting and maintaining them the intolerantly ‘liberal’ BBC is the real enemy of truth and democracy and civil society.  The internet is the one thing that protects us from the power of the BBC, it gives us access to, and the ability to broadcast, vast amounts of information that before was jealously guarded by the likes of the BBC.  Knowledge is power. The BBC can no longer get away with with impunity with its one-sided world view that pumps out allegedly liberal, progressive views that are ironically defended by the illiberal and intolerant method of silencing the voices who don’t adhere to the orthodoxy.  And the BBC hates that fact.

The BBC, too arrogant, too conceited, too full of sacred illusions, too big not to fail.

H/T  Dave S in the comments….

The BBC’s a winner….

The 2015 Dishonest Reporter of the Year: Why the BBC Won

When we looked back over our 2015 archives, it was clear which media outlet deserved this year’s Dishonest Reporter Award. The honor goes to perennial contender, BBC News.

At any given time, the insidious nature of the BBC’s anti-Israel bias is its constant drip, drip effect. But this year, the pipes burst with some genuinely shocking moments of coverage that generated a huge amount of anger and offense.

Not one the BBC will be trumpeting from the rooftops as they normally do when they win an award for their journalism.

Turkey’s Islamist president has been praising Hitler’s Germany and looking towards a political system that brought Hitler to power…from the Telegraph…

Turkey’s president says all he wants is same powers as Hitler

The BBC doesn’t bring you this disturbing news…or rather does but doesn’t prefering to downplay the rise and rise of the fascist Islamic fundamentalist leading Turkey by saying he doesn’t really understand English very well and doesn’t know anything about European history….well he’s speaking Turkish and seems pretty well versed in European history.

Wonder why the BBC would seek to hide this story away…you have to Google it to find a BBC report [on iPlayer] as it’s not openly on the website despite being a prominent story today.

The BBC reports:

French soldiers shoot car attacker outside mosque

The motive for the attack, which occurred between prayer sessions when many people were outside, is not known.

Police say the man drove twice at the soldiers. They shot him when he reversed his car and came at them again after the first attempt, AFP reports.

The driver is said to be 29 years old and from Lyon, an hour away from Valence.

Motive unknown…but importantly we know the attacker lives an hour from the scene of the crime.

However the motive might be guessed at if the BBC provided all the information…

France: Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” tries to run down soldiers guarding mosque

One man of North African origin, aged about thirty years, was driving. He twice rushed his car at the soldiers, and according to several witnesses, was shouting “Allah akbar.”

The driver acted alone. “We have seen this person, he is of North African origin,” one of the imams of the mosque, Abdullah Dliouah, told AFP.

The BBC isn’t as bad as the Independent however.  The BBC merely leaves you guessing and asuming this was an attack on the mosque…the Independent claims it was one…despite not providing any further evidence of this in the actual article….

France mosque attack: Soldiers open fire on car ‘attempting to ram mosque’

The Guest Editors on the Today programme have been the ‘usual suspects’, even the supposedly right-leaning’ ones carefully selected to be sure they present the correct meassage.

We’ve had the actor who was a socialist, anti-Tory and pro foreign aid spending, a cyclist who voted for Gordon Brown and gave us a broadcast on behalf of the Corbyn fellow, an immigrant wife of someone famous who preached immigration, a disabled person who filled Today with stories of disabled people and a black person who couldn’t get over slavery…..and tomorrow a ‘famously gay’ oil businessman….I imagine he will not surprise us with tales from the left bank.

Oh yes, not forgetting one of Osborne’s advisors, so putatively right-wing, Rohan Silva, who was invisibly low profile  in the background all week as the Today programme’s business editor…did anyone notice?

Let’s take a look at the ‘right wing’ Silva…..

So first off he ticks the ‘ethnic’ box…his immigrant parents came to the UK from Sri Lanka.

And just how influential is he in government and what policies does he espouse?

Funnily enough, just why did the BBC choose him?, he’s big on progressive policies…on open data, aid spending and he’s big on visa’s for people with ‘exceptional talent’…so immigration likely to be a subject he talked about.

All things the BBC will look approvingly upon.

Oh but one other thing….to undermine the BBC’s and Labour’s narrative about the Tories and race [Possibly timely given the ‘outrage’ about Letwin’s comments]….

It is a curiosity of the present generation that despite the Coalition being derided as out of touch, or dominated by Old Etonians, the two advisers spoken of as being the most influential within No 10 have brown skin and didn’t grow up in London.

One is Ameet Gill, protégé of Niall Ferguson, who partly through the historian’s executive TV producer Melanie Fall — twin sister of Prime Ministerial aide Kate Fall — caught the eye of the Cameron coterie. The other is Rohan Silva.

For the past five or six years, if you asked late twentysomethings in the Westminster milieu which young adviser had the most impact on policy, the answer was often reliably “Silva”.

The Guest Editors were just the BBC on steroids giving us the usual left-wing fare with an excuse to be particularly partial as guest editors, choosing subjects that I suspect didn’t surprise anyone, least of all those in the BBC who chose this dull, tokenistic, backward looking, jaded bunch knowing full well that they would load the programme with ‘right-on’ left-wing kitsch.

Proud Iraqi soldier waves the Iraqi flag as Ramadi is recaptured

The Iraqi Army, that is the Iraqi National Army, has recaptured Ramadi from ISIS, with the help of Sunni tribal militia.

The BBC’s ME correspondents must be distraught, this news having undermined their carefully crafted campaign and narrative about the Middle East that gloated about the rise of ISIS and the ‘fall’ of the ‘indiscriminately drawn borders’ that were imposed when Britain and France ‘carved up the Middle East’ with the ‘secret Sykes Picot’ agreement….and that no Sunni would support the Shia majority government of Iraq anymore.

Trouble is the BBC’s narrative is complete and dangerous tosh…a deliberate deception and misreporting of history with the usual aim of painting Britain or the West as the villains in the piece.

The problem with the BBC narrative of an Imperial Britain imposing its will is that Arab forces were united with Britain to end the rule of the Caliphate, that is, the Ottoman Empire, they also welcomed Britain remaining in the area to help them establish their countries which fairly quickly gained independence.  Sykes Picot was not an agreement drawn up in secret and imposed upon the Arabs…the Arab leaders were deeply involved in negotiations and there were many debates and arguments about the borders…they were not just drawn up with a random stroke of a pencil along a ruler.  As for an unworkable nation state composed of different ethnic groups? [Where now the BBC’s love of multiculturalism?]  It was Turkey that insisted the Kurdish area become part of Iraq…they didn’t want an independent Kurdish state….the Kurds also had most of the oil in their region and it was thought that Iraq would prosper as a whole with that source of revenue.

There was nothing secret or random about the creation of Iraq and other Arab states.  They were the result of long drawn out negotiations between many states and groups all with vested interests.  The BBC’s journalists paint a picture that is so untrue that it is obvious that it is designed purely to attack Britain and give credence to the Muslim grievance narrative that feeds into the Terrorist narrative and serves to draw in more unjustly disgruntled Muslims as recruits.

Lord Hall Hall’s news organisation is as much responsible for creating the anti-Western narrative that portrays Muslims as victims of the West as any Jihadi social media propaganda.

About time politicians and the security services sat up and took note of what one of the world’s most powerful and influential news services is doing.

Blair blames spate of murders on black culture

Tony Blair yesterday claimed the spate of knife and gun murders in London was not being caused by poverty, but a distinctive black culture. His remarks angered community leaders, who accused him of ignorance and failing to provide support for black-led efforts to tackle the problem.

One accused him of misunderstanding the advice he had been given on the issue at a Downing Street summit.

Black community leaders reacted after Mr Blair said the recent violence should not be treated as part of a general crime wave, but as specific to black youth. He said people had to drop their political correctness and recognise that the violence would not be stopped “by pretending it is not young black kids doing it”.

Oliver Letwin is in Labour’s sights as they martial all the indignant outrage they can muster and bluster…the BBC giving them every chance to pillory Letwin as a racist.

Right from the off the BBC deliberately misled people as to what Letwin actually said.  Justin Webb on the Today programme(07:09) stated that Letwin ‘believed that black Britons had bad moral attitudes’….implying Letwin thought all black Britons had bad moral problems.  The BBC news and various programmes that followed up on this ‘important’ story  about a small memo from 1985 all took the same narrative and chose not to tell us what Letwin actually said in full….which is…

“The root of social malaise is not poor housing, or youth ‘alienation’, or the lack of a middle class.  Lower-class, unemployed white people lived for years in appalling slums without a breakdown of public order on anything like the present scale; in the midst of the depression, people in Brixton went out, leaving their grocery money in a bag at the front door, and expecting to see groceries there when they got back.

“Riots, criminality and social disintegration are caused solely by individual characters and attitudes. So long as bad moral attitudes remain, all efforts to improve the inner cities will founder.”

Did Letwin casually assert that the whole Black community was predisposed to be criminals due to their inherent bad moral attitudes?  No he didn’t.  You don’t have to read that at all carefully to see exactly what he meant….I’m sure the many English graduates with gainful employment at the BBC can explain what ‘individual’ means…..seems some just don’t want to know what Letwin actually said….nor were they at all bothered about mentioning PC Keith Blakelock, beaten and stabbed 40 times, almost beheaded by Black rioters as they shouted ‘kill the pig’, nor did the BBC bother to mention Labour man Bernie Grant saying the police got ‘a bloody good hiding’.  Curious how unbalanced the BBC can be, dodging the inconvenient ‘context’ that might distract from their own narrative.

All Letwin said was that certain individuals who commit these crimes or who riot do so because they, individually, have bad moral attitudes…he did not make a broad, sweeping statement condemning the whole Black community.

When Lammy, Watson, Umunna and Phillips and all the rest assert he was wrong are they saying that the criminals and rioters were morally right to be acting in that way?  It does look that way.

The BBC quoted Trevor Phillips all day telling us he thought Letwin’s words were outrageous and racist and that basically all white people thought like that back in 1985.  Trouble is Phillips, whilst saying that the comments were outrageous, [no, they weren’t…see above] actually went on to say he wasn’t interested in dragging over something from 30 years ago when Letwin, whom he knew well, didn’t have such an attitude now.  Justin Webb ignored that and demanded to know if Phillips thought Letwin should resign…clearly not understanding a word Phillips had said, or blatantly ignoring it in the hunt for a Tory scalp.

And anyway….this is a Labour attack….desperate as they are to fling mud at the Tories after being nailed as Terrorist sympathisers.  Shame the BBC didn’t spend half as much time on the allegations against Labour as they do with Letwin.

Let’s look back at some Labour history on race and culture….Jack Straw in 2007…

Gang crime ‘due to absent dads’

The “continuing problem” of gang violence is due to the absence of fathers in black communities, Justice Secretary Jack Straw says.

He said young black men needed their fathers as role models, otherwise their development suffered.

He was responding to US civil rights activist Jesse Jackson who said inner city violence was an economic problem.

“Gang violence is rooted in the economics of desperation,” said Rev Jackson, adding that some people were “profiting” from providing guns to deprived areas.

But Mr Straw, speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, said the problem was not due to economics.

“One of the striking things is the difference between the attitude and the success in life of black girls from exactly the same backgrounds compared to black boys.”

Black girls perform around the average at Key Stage 4, aged 16, compared to the overall population, he said.

‘Lads need dads’

“Black boys go backwards when they get to secondary school.

“It’s a cultural problem. It’s the absence of fathers who are actively involved in parenting.

So Straw is making the very same claims that Labour are now trying to claim Letwin was making…..crime was due to cultural factors in the Black community….oh and look who else was talking the same talk….

And last March Commission for Racial Equality chairman Trevor Phillips implied some absent fathers were partially to blame for the under-achievement of black boys at school.

Barnardo’s spokesman Errol John said the Babyfather Initiative acknowledged there were problems to be tackled.

“Some black men aren’t playing as full a role in their children’s lives as they should be.

“That’s an issue we don’t shy away from when talking to communities, along with the political stuff that needs addressing,” he said.

And again…

Mr Phillips said a lack of self-esteem and positive role models for black boys also compounded the problem, as well as an attitude that being clever is not cool.

“If the only way to break through the wall of attitude that surrounds black boys is to teach them separately in some classes, then we should be ready for that,” he said.

Phillips laid into multi-culturalism and the cultures that produce criminals and terrorists…..

Because I had made it my business to spend part of each week in a community outside London, I already knew some groups were becoming so isolated that values and ideas which most people would find alien were tolerated and even encouraged.

And I saw a looming danger that these communities were steadily shrinking in on themselves, trapping young people behind walls of tradition and deference to elders.

Of course none of this was secret. But anyone who pointed the finger could expect to be denounced for not respecting diversity.

Our desperation to avoid offence is itself beginning to stand in the way of progress. And all too often the losers are minority Britons.

If African Caribbeans are statistically more likely to commit some kinds of crime than other people, as indeed they are — we are especially proficient at murdering other African Caribbeans, for example — it might make some sense to understand why, so we can stop it happening.

Even the Guardian’s Michael White backed Phillips whilst others tried to silence him for saying we were sleepwalking into segregation….

Trevor Phillips says the unsayable about race and multiculturalism

Petty crime patterns, high exam performance and levels of affluence are usually taboo if they threaten to carry a racial dimension: stereotyping is the usual complaint and, of course, it has some merit. Only some. Even a word of out place – think Benedict Cumberbatch’s well-meant remarks about the shortage of “coloured” actors – can raise a media mini-storm, though colour is again being used in the US to embrace all sorts of non-white ethnic groups.

Seems to me that there is a huge amount of hypocrisy around Letwin’s comments and not a little political opportunism.  The BBC has indulged itself and gone on the attack instead of doing its job and sifted out the sanctimony, hubris and moral grandstanding as well as the far more dangerous attempt to stir up race conflict…something the BBC itself specialises in.  Phillips has let himself down and made some cheap comments playing to the baying mob attacking Letwin whilst admitting Letwin doesn’t actually have an attitude like that, and Phillips says he knows him well.

This isn’t directly about a BBC programme….well maybe it’s in line with Harrabin’s programme of climate change indoctrination as it illustrates the propaganda that is being manufactured by the climate change lobby in order to fool us into believing their narrative….using ‘evidence’ that isn’t evidence at all.  The planet may be warming but the below is not evidence of man-made global warming, just a continuation of a trend that has been happening for hundreds of years.

The Exit Glacier in Alaska has become a poster child for the the climate change alarmists…Bear Grylls escorted Obama around the climate change crime scene in order to scaremonger about the supposed dangers of climate change.

This was a specifically designed programme to illustrate the threat from climate change as evidenced by the ‘retreat’ of the Exit glacier, Obama saying ‘It underscores why it is so important to pay attention to climate change.’

Bear Grylls told us that ‘this[ice] will go and if it goes it won’t come back’.

Unfortunately that is just so much self-serving nonsense and underscores the importance of not paying attention to celebrities and politicians who are flogging you something…..the trend may be a retreat but the glacier can grow again……

At two of the six sites — the highest-elevation sites monitored by the Park Service — some of last winter’s snowfall was retained, according to the data.

That has been the general pattern so far, said Deborah Kurtz, a Park Service scientist who is coordinating the Kenai Fjords glacier-monitoring project. “At lower sites, we are seeking overall melt, or ablation,” she said. “The melt is usually greater than the accumulation.”

But there is great variation between years and specific sites, Kurtz said.

Two of the past five years’ measurements showed a gain in mass — more accumulation than melt — one year’s measurements showed no change and measurements in the past two years showed a net loss, with more melt than accumulation.

The ice loss was biggest in 2013, a particularly warm year, Kurtz said. The past year was not quite as warm, and there was significant high-altitude snowfall in October and December that contributed to the icefield mass, she said.

The Exit Glacier has been retreating and reforming for thousands of years….growing or shrinking yearly….the trend since the end of the Little Ice age has been a slow retreat overall….

From 1815 to 1999, Exit Glacier retreated at an average rate of 43 feet a year, though at widely varying rates, according to a Park Service analysis. Since then, retreat has continued at an uneven pace. The average annual retreat between 1973 and 2013 was a little over 30 feet or 9.2 meters, according to Park Service records.

So for nearly two centuries the retreat has been averaging 43 feet per year, then during the period of man-made global warming it only managed 30 feet per year until last year when it managed 187 feet in one year…

At Exit Glacier, a major Alaska tourism attraction, the terminus retreated 187 feet in the past year, according to measurements taken last month. About 80 percent of that retreat happened during the summer, according to the Park Service measurements.

You will say…whoaa, 187 feet in one year!!!…climate change!….the world’s obviously boiling…..hold your horses though…..check this out…

So from 1894 to 1899 the retreat was…em…that magical and terrible 187 feet per year…oh, look….in 1914 to 1917 it was 302 feet per year.  Is 302 more than 187?  I think it could be.

So in a period when climate change, man-made, wasn’t happening the glacier was retreating at the same or faster rate than at present in our climate alarming scenario…..which needs ‘fixing’ at great cost.

Not saying someone is lying to us about climate change but you might interpet it that way.

Oh yes….don’t forget the medieval forest uncovered by the ice retreat…

Retreating Alaskan Glacier Reveals Remains Of Medieval Forest

A medieval forest under the ice?  Wouldn’t that indicate that the planet was a lot warmer in Medieval times before ‘man-made’ climate change?…and if so what made it so warm if it wasn’t CO2 belching from our factories, cars and chimneys?

Is this climate change or just climate?

Could it be that what made it warm in Medieval times is the same thing that makes it warm now?