Polar bears "having fewer cubs due to global warming"


Creating the next IPCC report?

Various other commitments means not much going on at Climate Madness Towers today, so I thought I’d post a cuddly polar bear story. You have to hand it to the warmists, they never give up. Even when the general public are sick to the back teeth with hippies banging on about polar bears, they still insist on doing it. Even the bears themselves are sick of it, I expect. From the UK’s moonbat Telegraph and the even moonbattier Louise Gray:

Researchers at the University of Alberta looked at how melting sea ice in the 1990s effected [sic] the breeding success of polar bears.

During the spring and summer months the females are hunting seals on the ice to build up energy for the autumn and winter when they will hibernate for up to eight months and give birth.

The study found the early melting of the ice made it more difficult for the bears to hunt seals successfully and build up energy.

Therefore there is less chance of a successful pregnancy.

In the early 1990s 28 per cent of energy-deprived pregnant polar bears in the Hudson Bay region failed to have even a single cub. (source)

The comments are far more entertaining, like this one from torch12volt:

Time is flying by, the cut and paste queen is at it again, more drivel, still never let the truth get in the way of a very weak story.

Now the Telegraph looks up to Hello as a shining example of quality journalism.

Cancun heading for a train wreck


Climate talks

Could it be worse than Copenhagen? Very possibly, says the UK Telegraph, under the headline ‘Global warming summit heads for failure amid snub by world leaders’:

World leaders have snubbed the next round of international climate change negotiations in Mexico next month amid fears the talks will collapse.

The last United Nations summit on global warming in Copenhagen, at the end of last year, ended in failure and recrimination. More than 100 heads of state turned up hoping to be part of a deal that would “save the world” [ha, ha, my aching sides], but failed to get any legal agreement to stop rising temperatures [or should we say, more accurately: “to redistribute global wealth by forcing developed countries to shut down their economies and pay climate debt to the developing world in order to cut emissions of carbon dioxide which might, but probably won’t, stop rising temperatures, which are in all likelihood part of the planet’s natural climate cycles…”].

This year, they are declining even to attend, instead sending environment ministers and playing down the talks as much as possible.

The process is dogged by a disagreement over the best way to limit the growth in greenhouse gases, which are blamed by scientists for rising temperatures. Environmentalists believe the best approach is a binding treaty that will force all countries to cut carbon emissions. But at the last major meeting before the Cancun summit, held in China last week, delegates were still in dispute.

So, Julia and Greg, just explain to me again why Australia is rushing headlong into a unilateral price on carbon when the rest of the world has no intention of following suit. I’d love to hear the answers.

Read it here.

Postcards from the future of climate change


Buckingham Palace surrounded by shanty towns full of "climate refugees"

Another post that had to interrupt my short break. The UK Telegraph, which used to be a respectable newspaper, but which has been changing slowly into little more than an upmarket gossip rag, has lost its mind completely and has published a gallery of ridiculous postcards depicting a post-climate change London. There are the hackneyed images of a flooded River Thames and “extreme weather”, but the two “artists” have here gone much further. From the introduction:

A display of photomontages imagining how London could be affected by climate change is on display at the Museum of London from 1 October 2010 to 6 March 2011. The display and events form part of the Mayor’s Story of London festival and the events are funded by Renaissance London. Like postcards from the future, familiar views of the capital have been digitally transformed by illustrators Robert Graves and Didier Madoc-Jones. They bring home the full impact of global warming, food scarcity, rising sea levels and how all Londoners will need to innovate and adapt to survive.

That the Telegraph chose to publish, with serious and weighty captions, and without any rational comment or criticism, these fictitious, alarmist images, whose purpose is solely to advance by fear the agenda of taking urgent action climate change, shows clearly how far journalism has sunk.

You can view the gallery here, but I couldn’t resist posting one more – the Houses of Parliament surrounded by rice paddies (honestly, you couldn’t make this stuff up):

UK Telegraph's hysterical alarmism


Still there?

The Telegraph is the home of those formidable sceptics Christopher Booker and James Delingpole. Unfortunately, it is also the home of some moonbat environmental reporters who will regurgitate any old rubbish that flops onto their desks. This is an example of the latter:

Climate change could be accelerated by ‘methane time bomb’

Climate change could be accelerated dramatically by rising levels of methane in the Earth’s atmosphere, scientists will warn today.

Atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas, which is as much as 60 times more potent than carbon dioxide, appear to have risen significantly for the past three years running, scientists say.

Experts have long feared that vast amounts of the natural gas trapped in the frozen tundra of the Arctic could be unlocked as the permafrost is melted by rising temperatures, triggering a “methane time bomb” that could cause temperatures to soar.

More melting of the Arctic ice caused by accelerating warming would release further gases, setting off a “feedback” mechanism which could send climate change spinning out of control.

A brilliant example of irresponsible, hysterical, unfounded scaremongering, especially considering the final sentence:

Professor Nisbet told The Independent at the weekend that the new figures did not necessarily mark a departure from the trend. “It may just be a couple of years of high growth, and it may drop back to what it was,” he said.

Shame on the Telegraph for printing it.

Read it here.