Over the last month, it’s been whack-a-mole time as alarmists pop no less than three poster scares of climate collapse back into the mainstream headlines. The Guardian dusted down the old ‘scientists say’ favourite that there will be ice-free summers in the Arctic “possibly” within the next decade; billionaire foundation-rewarded BBC activist Matt McGrath gave us the ever-popular “Climate change: Polar bears face starvation threat as ice melts” story, while Peter Hess for the Daily Mail and Reuters filed a pack of nonsense reporting that the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) was in grave danger of disappearing due to the Earth being on the “cusp of the worst bleaching event in history”. All very confusing given that Arctic sea ice has been recovering for over a decade and on January 8th recorded its highest level for 21 years, polar bears are thriving across the Arctic and numbers are probably at record levels, while coral on the GBR has bounced back from numerous recent natural bleaching events to hit a two-year period of record high cover.
Details, details. It seems the ice, the polar bears and the corals are far too valuable poster scares to be let go that easily. The mainstream media has been captured by a false catastrophist climate narrative that is programmed to report every click-bait doomsday science paper, every bad weather event and every biased report based on incomplete statistics and data that are open to less sensationalist interpretations. In the process, citizens are left in a state of fear about global ‘heating’ and climate ‘collapse’ – more easily pushed it would seem to accept the madness of the collectivist Net Zero project.
The latest Arctic ice scare is based on a paper published in Nature where the activist scientists used “high emissions” climate model scenarios to predict ice-free conditions in September within six years. Gullible Guardian writer Helena Horton suggests that the home of polar bears, seals and walruses could be mostly water for months as early as 2035 “due to fossil fuel emissions”. In fact, summer sea ice has shown no significant decline since 2007, as the graph below shows.
Compiled by the Danish scientist Allan Astrup Jensen, the red bar shows the monthly average for the lowest extent of summer sea ice invariably reached in September. The author notes that there has been no significant downward movement during the last 17 years. In fact, it seems that for about a decade, overall Arctic sea ice has been slowly recovering from a previous fall. A line showing a decline is often drawn showing a linear trend downwards from a high point of 1979, when satellites first stared recording comprehensive data. However, records going back to the 1950s suggest much lower ice levels, and in the historical data, cycles of waxing and waning over 70-80 years can be clearly observed.
The year 1979 is a convenient starting point for Arctic hysterics since it marks the end of a four decade-long cooling period as the graph below demonstrates. The recent warming seen in the Arctic has taken temperatures back to those observed in the 1930s and 1940s.
Inexplicably missing from the Guardian’s doom-laden prose is a note that high emission scenarios suggest a fanciful rise in global temperature of around 4°C in less than 80 years. The scenario called RCP8.5 is ubiquitous in attention-seeking climate model papers, but it is regarded by the International Panel on Climate Change as “low likelihood”. Also missing from the copy is a note that ‘ice-free’ is not actually free of ice since an allowance is made for one million square kilometres of the stuff remaining. Sadly, this would appear to rule out the much anticipated summer swimming galas across the North Pole.
February 27th was ‘International Polar Bear Day’, so Matt McGrath of the BBC extended himself during this important fund-raising period with both the summer ice melting and the polar bears starving. Ring seals give birth to pups in the spring and the bears go hunting for the seals and their new-born who live on the ice for a few weeks before taking to the sea. Early sea ice melt means less pups for the bears, goes the long-running scare. “As the ice disappears in a warming world, many bears are spending greater amounts of time on shore eating bird’s eggs, berries and grass”, states McGrath.
Except of course, as we have seen, the ice is not disappearing on cue. The March ice maximum extent graph above, compiled by the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, shows the recent significant recovery going back nearly a decade. With hunting banned from the 1950s, polar bear numbers have soared with suggestions that they have grown to a record recent high of 32,000. There is still plenty of sea ice around in the spring and early summer when the bear gorge on seals, and can consume around two thirds of their annual food intake. As noted, there has been a decrease in overall ice cover since the 1979 high point and this has opened up a little more of the Arctic to sunlight. This appears to have benefited the overall aquatic food chain leading to an increase in the number of fatter ring seals – happy days for all the plump polar bears seen waddling around the far North.
In 1999, the budding Guardian doomsday prophet George Monbiot noted that marine biologists had reported that 70-90% of the coral reefs they had surveyed in the Indian Ocean had just died. From this Monbiot concluded that “at least one of the world’s great eco systems is now on the point of total collapse”. In October 2020, the BBC said that the Great Barrier Reef had lost more than half of its corals since 1995, “due to warmer seas driven by climate change”. Move barely a year on from the BBC report and coral at the GBR was at a 37-year high. What alarmists do, of course, is chance upon natural bleaching events caused by localised spikes in water temperature. With El Nino currently causing such spikes around the oceans, the corals have shown some bleaching, and the Daily Mail goes into full Monbiot mode.
Tropical coral grows in waters between 24°C-32°C and will be unaffected by any gradual warming of the oceans. In fact, many varieties grow faster in the warmer waters near the equator. It is known however that they expel algae when temperatures move suddenly, but quickly recover when conditions stabilise. All of this is known, but apparently ignored by click-bait climate hucksters.
The distinguished scientist Peter Ridd has studied coral on the GBR for 40 years, and he recently published a paper stating that the reporting of coral raised “serious questions” about “integrity in science institutions and in the media”. He added: “An uncharitable observer might conclude that periodic mass coral mortality events, which are completely natural, are exploited by some organisations with an ideological agenda and a financial interest”. The full recovery is rarely reported, he observed.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor
Stop Press: Our recent article on the clearing of up to 120,000 trees in the ancient German forest of Reinhardswald, setting for mythical stories by the Brothers Grimm, to make way for a wind turbine park, attracted a wide social media readership. It was reposted on the Watts Up With That? science site where the cartoonist Josh was inspired to observe…
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.
This is silly celebrity gossip for tabloids. I hope we are not going to start with this kind of crap on this website
You might be missing the point.
Russell Brand is constantly criticising establishment narratives and has a huge following.
He is someone who for better or worse stirs the public up and turns them against authority.
It is being suggested that he is going to be taken down for that with spurious allegations.
As they have done with others like Assange (rape), Bridgen (anti-semitism), Trump (insurrection).
Others they debank, like Farage or Toby Young.
And Tommy Robinson!
Well perhaps you should go read the Mailonline . They have twenty articles on this cretin today
What’s silly is you not seeing the bigger picture…
Yep I see bigger pictures and you might and might not have noticed that in other comments I make. ———My point here is that I don’t want the Daily Sceptic to turn into the Mailonline, with celebrity gossip as the main headlines.
Looks like for a change I am suffering a heavy defeat on this one. Well you can’t win them all huh? But I don’t feel the need to support a cretinous goon just because he is supposedly perceived as some kind of anti establishment hero. I can find plenty of non cretinous goons to support.
Judging by the number of downticks you’ve gathered not everyone agrees with you! I must be in the minority as I agree that a scrote like Brand is not worthy of the DS.
Those downtickers should watch those cornflakes they are munching on this morning. I think they might be a bit tainted. ——-But then again it’s all down to personal taste what?
That’s freedom of speech in our democracy. You can say anything you want so long as no one is paying attention to you.
However, say something the establishment doesn’t like and you have a large audience, get ready to be taken down.
Anti-semetism and sexual abuse,are the goto methods of attack.
Let’s see what they’ve concocted for Brand.
Bang on! But like trump, this may backfire and make him even more popular! Here’s hoping
Yes – I hope so.
Trouble is, the sheeple glued to MSM will only remember him for the Andrew Sachs business donkey’s years ago, and lap up whatever C4 have scraped together.
I think we have to leave the sheeple grazing in the field of ignorance. They aim’t coming with us.
You mean misremember him for the Andrew Sachs business. Russell Brand was entirely blameless, it was actually all Jonathan Ross’s fault AND the BBC editors who allowed the programme to be broadcast without editing out the bits that were offensive to Andrew Sachs and his daughter.
It was not a live programme, so if it was so offensive, why did the BBC allow it to be broadcast twice?
Didn’t know the broadcast wasn’t live and I have only a vague recollection of the incident (as will thousands of others). If you are correct, then of course the BBC and JR must take their share of the blame.
Commenting on Sunday pm, it seems Sachsgate forms only a small part of this hit piece; all allegations and trial by social media.
RB has a past and it has come back to bite him on the bum, but I believe he has changed along with his ditching the booze and drugs. He’s certainly highlighted some journalism that MSM wouldn’t touch, and that makes him a prime target.
I think we can guess.
Many of the big ‘awake’ accounts who oppose the forthcoming transnational bio-digital-environmental tyranny are now calling for revolution as disenchantment in the ballot box grows.
Russell Brand is charismatic, honest and articulate with a loyal following far greater than C4, The Times and BBC News channel combined – he is the perfect focal point for the leadership of a revolutionary movement.
It has been decided that he has become too powerful and therefore must go.
Matrix attack…
Marxtrix attack…
Maastricht atteck
Corporatrix attack!
Not dissimilar to Che Guevara!
Che Guevera said this “Youth should learn to think and act as a mass. It is criminal to think as individuals!”
Would Mr Brand agree with that.
I think he has more of a Jesus type vibe to him these days.
They won’t be able to get away with this attack as easily as they have done with others in the past. I believe that Russel Brand’s supporters will push back relentlessly – as indeed will Brand himself.
This reminds me of that old saying that “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Can’t you find a non moron to lead your revolution?
This is so transparent though isn’t it? Russell Brand has had a target on his back for ages now because he’s intelligent and fearless in his approach to challenging the official narratives and establishment, ergo he’s clearly a threat to TPTB, especially given his huge audience. What’s happening to him is also further confirmation that we don’t really have free speech at all ( hence the net of online censorship continually tightening around our activity, even on this site ) and democracy is an illusion.
What I will say though, if any of these allegations turn out to be sexual assault then I will be *seriously* p*ssed off because that significantly undermines the plight of genuine victims of this crime and to think that ‘TPTB’ would sink so low as to fabricate some BS accusations with zero evidence, just to go all out in a coordinated character assassination and with the intent of destroying Russell’s reputation is incredibly sick and low. However, he has such a loyal following that nobody’s going to believe a thing that emerges and it all just smacks of desperation.
Is this the threat so many politicians, business leaders etc face today? Subscribe and pay homage to the narrative, do as we say, or expect to have your life destroyed?
These allegations are of events some ten years ago, why now? I believe we can be sure that had Brand not made crystal clear to millions the absurd, in our face, lying duplicity that passes for politics and news these days or interviewed those they sought to exclude and silence such as Tucker Carlson and Jordan Peterson, he would not be facing these allegations today,
ALEX BELFIELD , anyone ???.. add him to the list , as stated on here by Stewart , if you get too big an audience telling plausible truths against tptb you will be besmirched or worse !
I think we should perhaps wait to see what the programme contains before getting too outraged.
If brand has to pre-defend himself ,then its not going to be anything good!
He has more than hinted about that in the video, by saying that he has been promiscuous in the past, but that all of his sexual encounters have been completely consensual.
I’ve never had much time for Brand; I don’t find him remotely funny, rather irritating, in fact. I’ve watched a few of his interviews with people I’m interested in, where he usually turns off the babble and listens.
Nevertheless, many others do like him; he’s got over 11 million followers on Twitter, well over 6 million on YouTube, and well over a million on Rumble. He spends his time challenging the mono-narrative. This paints a target on his back.
Lo and behold, arch-establishment defender of the progressive elites, Channel 4, and arch-establishment defender of the technocratic centre, the ToL, are apparently going to launch a full-scale assault on him later today.
Now, it’s entirely possible he is guilty of sexual offences; Twitter tells me that such allegations may have swirled around him for years, so we have to wait and see what they have. However, I am slightly puzzled as to why, if there is clear evidence, he has not been arrested and questioned and/or prosecuted for them in the past.
Something seems very off when Channel 4 go to the length of making a 90-minute programme about him to air their allegations. Why have they not gone straight to the police/CPS? Maybe they will, or the police will take an interest after making what I anticipate will be a full-on hatchet job and personality attack to undermine his message and poison public sentiment towards him.
Meanwhile, Epstein’s clients walk around, untroubled by any significant legacy media investigations. Strange, that.
Your first sentence describes exactly how I’ve always thought about Brand, I never understood the appeal. But then I just ignored him, never considered he should be cancelled or taken down, many other people clearly did like him.
I do know that he’s been showing some serious cajones in the past few years bucking the narrative, and by and large I’d probably agree with him (only saw a couple of minutes here and there). But exactly what you said – if any of these allegations are true, waiting till now just means they are out to get him, not that they care about any alleged victims or something as humdrum as the law. A mistake, I think it will fire up more people, if even someone like me who does not particularly care for him thinks this is very, very wrong and is already prepared to side with Brand. Let’s see if his colleagues have the balls to support him.
I’m curious to see who else is in the firing line, apparently it’s not just about him. I wonder if they’ll be going after Neil Oliver or Laurence Fox? Never thought I would be living in a 21st century version of Soviet Russia and Stalinist persecution, particularly in countries like the UK and the US.
Agreed but, ‘cojones’. ‘Cajones’ are drawers.
I know. You can only edit a post within a few minutes, and there’s no need to correct it in a separate reply, as some schoolmarm will come along to do it for you.
I am guilty sometimes of putting yours instead of your’s, but by the time I notice it it’s too late. ——-But like you I have never had much time for the likes of Brand. Just because he is seen as anti the authorities, people on here seem to sweep his despicable behaviours under the carpet. I can think of better people than this to listen to as my anti-establishment hero.
MSM want to shut Brand down, I think they will have the opposite effect
Maybe time to do a Huw and go into the Priory until it all dies down.
Has he come out yet?
I saw Brand live last year – not a big fan, but went along with a chum who has a major crush on him. I was struck, not so much with his edginess or comedy (although enjoyed the anti-establishment stream of consciousness thing he does), but by his almost painful personal transparency: he’s more open about his life and past transgressions than I am about my weekly shopping bill. He’s had a target on his back for a long time, and it looks like C4 drew the short straw for this particular hatchet job. They may well be taking on far more than they realise given the amount of global support Brand has – and I hope they reap their just rewards for doing so.
For those of a religious persuasion (as he is), a prayer or two in his direction wouldn’t go amiss.
You’re making a very good point – reality is chaotic, not algorithmic. No matter what the intentions of the PTB may be in humiliating him, this can go in all sorts of unpredictable ways. And as it happens, I feel that it just might.
Russell has been very vocal in his criticism of the ‘narrative’ and it has been very refreshing watching a ‘lefty’ slowly, or quickly realising there is some pretty bad stuff going on in the name of ‘being kind’ or ‘saving lives’ or ‘saving the planet’. Therefore the ‘Politburo’ are moving to de-person him. What were the chances of this happening?
Given Brand’s very serious, even disturbing, entanglement with the dark forces in the past, he has always been an easy target for a public take-down like the one that’s coming.
Charismatic and articulate as he is, and seemingly enlightened as he presents himself these days, it was a matter of time for this to happen.
So, they want us all talking about Russell Brand for a week or so whilst something else is happening. Maybe the signing of the Pandemic Treaty or The G20 Digital ID agreement or something WW3 related.
So why did C4 not pass on their “information” to the Police, if it is so damaging?
I think that’s pretty obvious.
They’ll use this to smear by association. There’ll be lots of footage with him talking to Jordan and Mikhaila Peterson, Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan and others that TPTB don’t like.
Saw a hit post on RB looking at X over wife’s shoulder ( I’m not on it ) saying he’s a mate of Klaus & a Mason of sorts ! Surely not
Also – please has anyone got the dirt on Belfields conviction ! Was it right & proper ??.. 5 years !!!…
Brand’s challenges and exposure of the globalist cabal and complicity of the main stream media is clearly getting through, and his audience is getting big enough to require a hatchet job and likely lawfare against him as is the modus operandi of the Blob against those to be silenced and excommunicated who haven’t actually done anything wrong, but claims and accusations tie them up in defence – and the ‘no smoke without fire’ slur will stick.
noticed no comments on the daily mail article
No comments allowed on any of the many Mail pieces on him today. And they usually allow comments on pretty much everything!
To the woke down thumber..
Why has it taken 15 years and the efforts of a woke media organisation for these allegations to come to light???
Please answer.. If you can
I downvoted you, Jon, because it sounds an awful lot to me like you’re describing and legitimising rape. That’s why I’m asking you to clarify your post. Are you being sarcastic?
I think you need to define what you mean by “taken by force” because you’re sailing very close to the wind with language like that and you’ve ran out of editing time. I know what my interpretation of that is, and it’s definitely nothing positive, but I’d like you to clarify your post before I jump to conclusions.
You’ve already jumped to conclusions….
Well here we have the point Mogs… You’ve jumped right in..
basically calling what occurred between 2 consenting adults as rape
Point made
It doesn’t matter what OUR definition of “force” is.. What’s that got to do with anyone else???
We were consenting adults, she enjoyed a bit of rough sex and so did I occasionally….
Sounds like you need to grow up and realise these things happen in the real world…. Have you never taken drugs Migs?
“I know I’ve taken my partner by force before in certain relationships…” How is any woman meant to interpret that? Well keep it as is if you like but I’d ask the DS team to remove it as it’s definitely open to misinterpretation, in my opinion.
This is the point….. Can’t you see why I posted what I did..
Your “interpretation”….. Channels 4 interpretation..
The courts interpretation…. About 2 adults having sex 15 years ago..
How ludicrous can society get
My post is getting to the exact issue about Brand here, it’s a personal experience, so why would you wish it taken down..
I hoped this forum was woke free
So you can’t bear to hear /read something that doest align with your personal ideology and want it removed..
You know what Mogs.. I’m done and you should go work for Channel 4 and try your hardest to get Brand convicted..
I’m sure you’d be happy then… Well that’s after getting my post removed
“Sounds like you need to grow up..” Yeah, says the man who presumes all women like to be “taken by force” and if they don’t they’re liars. Very dodgy territory there, Jon.
No I didn’t say that…
So you think you can dictate what 2 consenting adults can and can’t do in the bedroom.. Where on earth are you at
Mogs, have you ever heard of Bondage?
I feel for Brand, it’s going to be extremely difficult to fight these allegations in this feminised world we live in
Consensual sex becomes rape 15 years later….
People need to realise various sexual activities occur in the bedroom,, It’s not all missionary position…. Some are into Bondsge.. even….wow!
I see you got your wishes and had my posts removed Mogs..
Can’t be having a serious accurate debate can we now
I don’t know what your post was, but there was a post yesterday (can’t remember the name of the poster) from a man who said he’d forced himself upon women in the past and was asking whether that was rape!!!! Incredible. And, yes, for any men left in the country who don’t understand, that is rape.
And, I’m not a young woman. I’m 65. Somehow, in 40 years, my husband has managed never to do that to me.
Are you saying we a have complaints department on here and that your posts have been removed because a complainer complained?
Yea yea yea, we know the narrative…
Can’t be a man anymore it’s all “toxic masculinity”
So Brands a narcissist and liked shagging around…
I have mixed feelings here…I’ve always found RB rather odious and cringe-making, but people I know and love are fans. The allegations made on the programme last night were certainly dreadful and the clips of his stage acts did nothing to improve my opinion of him. On the other hand, BBC Internet News is headlining a ‘testimony’ from an (alleged) victim that includes this ‘I swear to God…his eyes had no more colour…they were black, like a different person literally entered his body’. I mean…what?!