Another day, another fatuous ‘fact’ check from Reuters. This time the news agency accuses the Daily Sceptic of “cherry-picking” Arctic sea ice extent data to provide a “misleading” story. Being accused of “cherry picking” by an outfit that funds a course for journalists that encourages them to pick a fruit such as a mango and discuss why it isn’t as tasty as the year before due to climate change is beyond ridicule. Taking lectures on responsible journalism from a Net Zero-obsessed operation that has promoted a course speaker who has suggested “fines and imprisonments” for expressing scepticism about “well supported” science is laughable, if also a tad sinister.
One of the activists called to admonish the Daily Sceptic with a ‘straw man’ argument was Walt Meier, a research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, who said: “Comparing two specific years is not an indicator for or against long-term changes”. The Daily Sceptic did not do that. Interestingly, this would appear to be the same Walt Meier whose comments on ”mind blowing” low winter levels of Antarctica sea ice last year made headlines around the world. Meier claimed at the time that it was “outside anything we have seen”. Happily, the Daily Sceptic was able to remind Meier that he had been part of a team a decade ago that cracked open the secrets of early Nimbus weather satellites and found a similar sea ice low in 1966. At the time, Meier commented that the Nimbus data show there is variability in Antarctica sea ice “that’s larger than any we have seen” since 1979.
This latest fact check was similar to the failed attempt made recently by the BBC statistical programme More or Less. In both cases, exception was taken to our reporting that on January 8th this year, Arctic sea ice extent had soared to its highest level for 21 years. This was factually correct as both the BBC and Reuters confirm. Since the article went viral on social media, the attack focused on a claim of “cherry picking”, despite the article clearly placing the statistic in the context of long-term changes in Arctic sea ice. In the third paragraph it was noted: “We must be careful not to follow alarmists down their chosen political path of cherry picking and warning of climate collapse on the basis of individual events.”
The article featured the work of Danish scientist Allan Astrup Jensen who observed that the summer Arctic ice plateaued from 1979-97, fell for 10 years and then resumed a minimal downward trend from 2007. We also noted the work of climate journalist Tony Heller who used a four-year moving average, shown below, that revealed that the Arctic sea ice extent at its minimum level in September has been stable for over a decade.
None of this material appeared in the Reuters hit-job, although the criticism of the earlier BBC fact check was made available to the authors ahead of publication. What it did of course was cherry-pick the year 1979, when Arctic sea ice was at a probable 100-year high, and draw a line straight down to the present day. It is not in dispute that Arctic sea ice is currently at a lower level than the 1979 high point, which happened to coincide with the arrival of consistent satellite data. But Reuters used the testimony of an “expert in the modelling of the sea ice”, Miguel Maqueda of Newcastle University, to state: “There is no evidence nor reason to believe that the downward trend in winter sea ice extent in the Arctic is coming to an end.”
Despite the article fairly explaining the cyclical long-term trends in Arctic sea ice, a subject ignorned in most current mainstream media for political purposes, Reuters saw fit to headline its article: ‘Climate change sceptics use misleading Arctic ice data to make case.’
That, more or less to coin a phrase, sums up the blinkered approach that keeps climate catastrophists and their mainstream messengers focused on the fear-mongering prize. There is plenty of evidence in the historical record to show that Arctic sea ice is cyclical and the recent trend points to recovery and a possible upturn. After all, you don’t need a climate model to work that one out, just look at the data. Not to point this out is, how shall we put this, ‘misleading’. Those less charitable might prefer a considerable harsher verdict.
As we have seen in past editions, Reuters is up to its neck in Green Blob attacks on independent climate journalism. So-called ‘fact checks’ from operations like Reuters are frequently used by malevolent players attempting to destroy the possibility of competitors receiving online advertising revenue. In effect they are a form of trade protection warfare.
The mango nonsense, meanwhile, is promoted in the six-month study sabbatical offered to journalists around the world by the Oxford Climate Journalism Network. Immersion in the correct political narrative surrounding climate collapse, the ludicrous idea of ‘settled’ science and the need for extreme Net Zero measures, whatever the cost, is the order of the day. The obvious aim is to insert fear mongering stories into all sections of the media. Current attendees include BBC ‘disinformation’ reporter Marco Silva. The course is run by the Reuters Institute and funded by the Thompson Reuters Foundation. Direct funding has been provided by the Laudes Foundation and the European Climate Foundation. The latter operation is heavily supported by past Extinction Rebellion paymaster Sir Christopher Hohn.
Reuters is also one of the partners of Covering Climate Now (CC Now), a billionaire-backed offshoot of the Columbia Journalism Review. This operation claims to feed over 500 media operations with free, pre-written climate catastrophising stories.
Guaranteed, no doubt, to be spared a ‘fact check’.
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.
There are always unintended consequences. They never learn.
Sometimes, with progress, things do get better, for example, when I was boy, many children wore leg irons to counter the effects of polio, their legs were weak. There was one boy at school, we called him popsy, because of how he walked. He came from a football family called Rush, and popsy became the only footballer in the world to ever play well wearing leg irons. I’m not shitting you. I know you would not believe it was possible, but it was. And his brother became an Anfield legend called Ian who is to this day Liverpool’s leading goalscorer. So sometimes things occur without the side effects being worse, and one thing was polio vaccine. I’m sure the covid19 vaccine is another in the vast majority of cases.
The polio vaccine was actually a vaccine though. Well, the original one was. The new oral one that doesn’t need refrigeration – not so much. In fact that one actually causes polio. Wasn’t Bill Gates involved in that one?
https://journal-neo.org/2020/09/28/gates-vaccine-spreads-polio-across-africa/
But we can’t compare covid to polio, they are nothing like each other.
“when I was boy, many children wore leg irons to counter the effects of polio”
A few did – not many – and most of the decline in the incidence of polio had actually happened before the invention of the vaccine. As with most infectious illness, the key factor was improvements in public health.
This pattern is true of most vaccinations, useful though they may be in specific circumstances.
The situation re. SARS-CoV-2 isn’t remotely similar to these instances.
Pretty sure the destruction of the youth is intentional social engineering.
Well you can always give them more vaccines. And lovely profitable drugs.
Apart (so far) from vaccine, it seems impossible to take any measure that does not have some unintended consequencesthat turns out to be equal to or worse than the original problem. For example the dearth of flu over the last year (a supposed good effect) is likely to be offset in some future flu season when our collective loss of immunity will be revealed. I expect there will be moves to find a catchup vaccine to attempt to undo some of the loss of immunity, but I fear any such patches will only add to our debt to nature even more. In any case , I hope we will be done with lockdown in the near future, it has been an act of naive madness.
The risk/benefit analysis is at the heart of almost every prescription.
What has been different with Covid is that measures (basically of poisons, like lockdowns, masks and testing) have been prescribed with no proper risk assessment and, in many cases, in direct contradiction of previous strategic evaluations.
Unknown ‘vaccines’ have been given with no proper assessment of efficacy or risk.
We haven’t lost ‘flu it has simply been renamed – Covid 1984.
Lock up children. Hide human faces from them. Knicker their own faces. Jab them with monkey gunk. Forbid interaction with other kids. Stop school. Forbid sport. Forbid play. Blight childhood.
All worth it to make zombie cretins feel safe.
Methinks the covid period will go down in the history books as the stupidest time in human history.
If they had PCR tests for witches . . .
When our daughter was seven and being treated for cancer at the Children’s Hospital her oncologist mentioned that childhood leukaemias had increased 25% in a generation. The theory was that this was reaction to the fact that children were living in much more sterile environments, less contact with other children, less play outdoors, less dirt, less exposure to germs, and hence poorer immune systems.
Well of course. I mollycoddled my precious first born in the most ridiculous (I now see!) way. It was bleach-central in my house for about 12 months. Then when the little ming vase went to nursery I was flabbergasted to find that despite the breastfeeding forever and the general ‘healthful foods always’ mantra, she was ill all the damn time! Unlike the crazed covidians though, I realised the error of my ways and can now laugh at my madness and see it for what it was – that I was veering into mental health problems. Veering into mental health problems with absolutely no self awareness seems to be where most of society now is. And I hate to denigrate my own cohort but mums are some of the worst. Most of this stupid mask-shit and ‘we can’t see granny as you’ ll kill her’ shit is frankly child abuse.
Yes. I was delighted that a slight cold has just run round my four-year-old’s class, despite masks (adults), open windows, bubbles, distanced drop offs etc.
My daughter had a slight chesty cough and husky voice for about half a day; other children are a bit worse (perhaps because I’ve ignored as many restrictions as possible & continued seeing family throughout, so better immune system?).
It never crossed my mind not to send her into school. But for the other mums – ah, WhatsApp’s been lighting up with the opportunistic virtue signalling. The competitive shoving of tests up infant noses, the debating over appropriate testing protocol and where best to procure tests from, the days their little darlings have been kept home “just in case”. Bonkers.
The week our daughter went to nursery for the first time there were cases of hand, foot and mouth (which she caught) and impetigo in her class. She, and we, were ill for pretty much the next three months while we all caught all of the various bugs her classmates had. She seems pretty robust now healthwise.
Power of the media….needs to be repressed.
File this under ‘well dur’
New Zealand and Australia are going to suffer this problem in spades. And not just in their children either. Think of all of those strains of influenza and rhinovirus and indeed coronaviruses they are not being exposed to. And how devastating it could be for them if any one of those viruses arrives in the country if they continue cutting themselves off from the world for several more years.
And isn’t this just exactly as sunitra Gupta said!!!! Oh but government knows best!
“RSV can spread when an infected person coughs or sneezes, releasing contaminated droplets into the air. Transmission usually occurs when these droplets come into contact with (or inoculate) another person’s eyes, nose, or mouth. RSV can also live for up to 25 minutes on contaminated skin (i.e. hands) and several hours on other surfaces like countertops and doorknobs.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_syncytial_virus#Transmission)
If the NPIs did materially curtail respiratory syncytial virus transmission, are we clear why they can’t work for SARS-CoV-2?
I’m not sure of your point? I believe that covid has only “killed” three(?) babies in the UK, all of whom were already seriously ill. RSV is indistinguishable from a common cold to you or I – yet historically it’s responsible for the deaths of around 80 babies per year in the UK. They do their best to keep it out of neonatal ICU, and we as humans do our best by not kissing and cuddling our friends babies if we have symptoms of a cold.
But what else is there? Should we all isolate at home forever to save these 80+ babies? It is a shocking number but until now no one seemed to care. Perhaps we should?
I know that if were an expectant parent I’d certainly be cheesed off if the maternity unit expected to screen me for asymptomatic covid which is unlikely to be a serious threat, and yet simultaneously not be bothered if I actually had symptoms of RSV.
Worlds gone covid crazy.
“It is too early to know for certain”
Of course. But, as a hypothesis, it is in line with everything that is known about the development of the immune system.
It’s not too early, however, to know that there is absolutely no evidence to support the use of lockdowns, as opposed to the harms caused.
It is also too early to know that the vaccines have net benefit. But that seems not to matter.
Not just the development of their immune system that is damaged by the fanatics.
Perhaps someone at New Scientist can look through the archive editions back to 1979/80. I’m pretty sure there was a front cover shot around that time of a couple of cloth capped urchins poring over a puddle with a Glasgow tenement block (or similar) in the background with a caption along the lines of “Please leave me alone while I build my immune system”. Those were the days!