The international news agency Reuters has ‘fact-checked‘ a recent Daily Sceptic article on the progress of Arctic sea ice and found it “misleading”, despite not being able to point to a single incorrect fact. Its nonsensical final “verdict” noted that I quoted sea ice levels and stated that it was “not proof that climate change is not happening”. I did not say that it was, and the original article stated clearly in the second paragraph that “in historical and geological terms these changes are insignificant”. Over the last 200 years, I wrote, sometimes there is a lot of ice, sometimes much less.
Amongst those called to give evidence to the Reuters inquiry was Climate Science Professor James Screen of Exeter University. He noted the data from the EU’s Copernicus weather service, on which some of the article was based, “appeared to be authentic”, but claimed the article misread short-term variability and longer-term climate change response. One might wonder why Professor Screen couldn’t find out if the figures come from Copernicus. ‘Appears’ is a weasel word designed to cast doubt where none exists.
Below is the Copernicus graph which I included in my article on April 29th, and here is the link to the full report on the official site.
My story noted that coverage of Arctic sea ice was now very close to the 1991-2020 average, well above the 2012 low point and higher than 2020. According to the latest report from Copernicus, the 2021 March sea ice extent was just 3% below the 30-year average (March is the annual maximum extent of sea ice in the Arctic). In fact, since publication, the 2022 March level has been detailed. It is slightly higher than the year before and the seventh highest amount in the last 17 years.
I continued the article by putting the waxing and waning of Arctic sea ice in some historical context, noting that very low levels had been observed by sailors in the early 19th century. I noted that there were observations suggesting the ice returned in later years, only to retreat again. In addition, I supplied a graph produced by a group of Canadian scientists and compiled from over 25,000 records dating back to the early 1800s for east Newfoundland and the Gulf of St Lawrence. These also confirmed low amounts of ice in the near Arctic in the early 1800s, subsequent increases and lighter amounts from the 1930s onwards.
My original article circulated widely on social media. Professor Screen complains that the article mixed weather with human-caused climate change and then “cherry picks” the lowest year on record. The article does nothing of the sort of course, as we can see, but rather attempts to put recent trends in context with longer term records. As we often note at the Daily Sceptic, we know the climate will always change. Denial of this obvious fact seems more prevalent in those who seek to stop it doing so.
Reuters then goes on to quote from a 2018 NASA study that found sea ice extent is growing faster in the winter months, but that growth is offset by warming and melting in the summer months. It is said to make more sense to measure sea ice in September “because this is when it is at its lowest after the summer months”. Examination of the Copernicus graph shows we displayed both March and September figures for all to see.
Of course, Reuters wasn’t just trying to trip the Daily Sceptic up on facts, rather it was attempting to cast doubt on work such as ours that aims to place individual events in a wider context of climate history. Such work is discouraged across almost all mainstream media these days, when it fails the ‘settled’ climate change test that ultimately backs up the command-and-control Net Zero project. It seems every fact or event must be incorporated into a correct green political agenda, but this presents huge problems for any independent writer. Professor Screen shows some of the difficulties involved. Noting that sea ice levels have recovered since 2012, he went on to say it was “not an indication of ‘recovery’ in the sense that climate change isn’t real or has stopped, but just reflects starting from a very low base”.
If reporting a trend over a decade is dodgy, and drawing conclusions from any one event is certainly out, let’s see how Reuters puts this into practice with its own reportage.
In September 2020, the news agency published an article titled “Wild weather this year shows growing impact of climate change, scientists say”. It goes on to note that for decades, scientists have warned of such events, but had been wary of saying that a particular storm or heatwave was a direct result of climate change. “That’s now changing,” said Reuters. Rather than triggering an immediate ‘fact check’, the article continued: “Advances in a relatively new field known as ‘event attribution science’, have enabled researchers to assess how big a role climate change might have played in a specific case.”
On March 26th this year, Reuters quoted scientists who attributed the “disintegration” of an East Antarctica ice shelf to a period of “extreme heat” in the region. The March heatwave was said to be “off scale” by glaciologist Peter Neff. We investigated this ‘heatwave’ story, that made headlines around the world, on March 28th. We found it originated with Associated Press and was published by a number of channels including the Microsoft Network. An MSM distributed diagram was said to show a heatwave over large areas of the continent. Clicking on a caption revealed the following; “Simulation of temperature differences from normal centered over Antarctica from the American (GFS) model.” In other words, the heatwave tale was mostly based on a computer model called the Global Forecast System. Meanwhile, data from the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station during the same period found no evidence of a heatwave from March 17th-22nd, bar a very small rise to minus-56°F on the morning of March 18th. Four days later, the model-simulated heatwave had also gone.
In fact, the Amundsen-Scott station was conspicuously not in the news last year when most media did not generally report that it had recorded the coldest winter at the South Pole since records began in 1957. Possibly Reuters mentioned this interesting event when it first became public knowledge, although a Google search fails to find any trace. It did however ‘fact check‘ some general commentary about Antarctica’s coldest winter on social media, finding it was ”missing context”. “These temperatures do not discredit climate change,” it said. “A six-month period is not long enough to validate a climate trend.”
Of course – hardly worth bothering about. Move along please, we will give you all the fact-checked climate facts you need.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Rep. Jim Jordan, who inquired to the former Trump administration official: “When the government told us that the vaccinated couldn’t transmit it, was that a lie or is it a guess?”
“I think it was hope that the vaccine would work in that way,” Birx replied.
https://naturalnews.com/2022-07-04-vaccine-mandates-predicated-on-hope-rather-science.html
Cut the excuse making wankers:
“Yes but ‘long-covid’”
“My granny deferred seeing her GP because she didn’t want to overwhelm the NHS”
”Tory underfunding”
What’s one more death jab sneaking onto the market? We’ll be expecting an official investigation into the excess deaths/injuries from the deployment of these gene therapies any day now, obviously…
”Bimervax, the COVID-19 vaccine developed by HIPRA Human Health, has today been authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
It becomes the 9th COVID-19 vaccine to be authorised by the UK’s independent medicines regulator.
Bimervax combines a part of the SARS-CoV-2 virus spike protein with an ‘adjuvant’ – an additional ingredient designed to trigger a stronger immune response. It can be given as a booster injection in the upper arm, to those aged 16 years and over.
The clinical evidence for this authorisation is based on data from a study of 765 adults who had received primary vaccination with 2 doses of the Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine and who were given a booster dose of either Bimervax or Comirnaty. The vaccine demonstrated a strong immune response, and the most common side effects were mild, and self-resolved within a few days of vaccination.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/bimervax-covid-19-vaccine-authorised-by-mhra
Just a reminder of the now infamous June Raine’s ”..from watchdog to enabler” clip, so as we can all feel rest assured, you know?
https://twitter.com/BandyGit/status/1686685964557545472
So we are still on emergency approval, although there is no emergency? That is doublkethink of the worst kind. 1984 here we come, and it is almost complete! This is a me too response to a manufacturer from an alleged regulator that is so far as to be fit for purpose as to be criminally liable. So much for Quangos, ban the lot!
Nick, thank you for putting pandemic in inverted commas. So important.
If SAGE estimated that 75% of COVID admissions where because of COVID and not because of a positive test upon entering hospital for an unrelated reason, it’s a safe assumption that the real number was close enough to 25% (probably from below) that they had to admit something to muddy the waters. And then, there’s of course the estimated.
If records had been kept proberly, nobody would need to have estimated the number as it would have been known. This is a tacit admission that – at no point during this ‘pandemic’ – the pandemistas really knew the number of COVID hospital admission because they really didn’t even want to know them. Which – in turn – implies that the pandemic of headlines and restrictions never coincided with a mass-outbreak of a highly infective and very dangerous disease. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have been possible to turn a blind eye to reality.
The shocking bit here is how cheaply done all of these fabrications where. Eg, people listening to Ferguson despite his record of gross mispredictions on anything. If you really want know what’s going to happen in future, ask Professor Pantsdown and bank on the polar opposite happening.
Remember too that a PCR test did not show active infection, just that there might have been some contact. Remember 40 cycles is useless for diagnosis of active, 20 is more reasonable as an active infection indicator. Everything was lies from top to bottom. The figure was more likely to be 1%.
It will be interesting, if that’s the right word, to see what happens in future.
Shouldn’t we have seen a reductiion due to seasonality, dry tinder already gone and herd immunity?
It sems as though “covid” is still very prevelant and circulating widely, entirely as GVB predicted, due to the criminal folly of jabbing erstwhile fit populations with a none sterilising jab.
GVB also says it’s a myth that virus always mutate to a more benign/more transmissible state. Their apparent seasonality effect is mainly (obviously lack of warmth/sun/vitaminD3 are factors) due to herd immunity being achieved in the general population during winter exposure – which we can’t achieve due to the jab.
If he’s correct on the latter point, the jabbed world is in big trouble.
‘I confess that as time passes, I forget just how bonkers it all was. For example, in addition to our own Sages, we had Albert Bourla, Chairman and CEO of Pfizer, along with Gates, Biden, Fauci, et al., telling us throughout 2021 that vaccines stopped transmission. I’m sure, like me, you’ll still hear people say, “But they never said that vaccines would stop transmission.”’
Would you believe that a trusted expert speaking on the trusted BBC, as long ago as three days ago, is still claiming that the Covid vaccine prevents transmission?
If you find that hard to believe, listen for yourself, if you can bear it:
Dr Sarah Pitt – a “leading virologist” and “a microbiologist at the University of Brighton and fellow of the Institute of Biomedical Science” – clearly suggested on BBC Radio 5 Live on Sunday night that the vaccine prevents transmission. Talking to Stephen Nolan, 2:47:00 to 2.47:37 into the programme, here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001p6ys
Dr Pitt said that if anyone is offered a booster vaccine:
“then they should definitely take it, because it’s much better not to get Covid, because it’s a really really nasty infection, and can have some very serious consequences for you, and you also don’t want to be passing it on to the people around you for the same reason, so definitely have the vaccine, if it’s offered to you.”
A couple of minutes earlier – at 2:45:40 – she stated that the vaccine is “very safe and very effective” and that if you “unfortunately experience quite severe side effects”, if you get to the hospital in time, you not only might be okay but you also have protection against Covid!
So that’s all good!
Anybody still proclaiming this codswallop after this long and after all the evidence that has been compiled which refutes these claims just sounds like they’re in the tight grasp of religious fervour, because it really has become more of a belief system for these cult figures now, in my opinion. They make baseless claims with nothing in the way of scientific evidence to back up their statements. They’re just saying words, basically. Pitiful really and should amount to career suicide if it weren’t for the fact we’re living in
Anybody with vaccine damage should sue her, come on lawyers, this is a good class action opportunity!
Absolutely brilliant thankyou, I needed a laugh. Good to know there is an alternative universe. I might apply to Brighton University to see if I can also pick up a clown Phd, will they accept my village idiot Bsc and my fuckwitt Msc as entrance?
Undoubtedly. You simply need to write a meaningless thesis praising every one of these “Covid experts”. You can copy their data, I’m sure they have so much supporting this!
Bourla, Fauci etc said it stopped transmission. The Pfizer study itself was never designed to test for transmission.
They cannot remeber saying this, now known as the Biden excuse!