Summer Sea Ice Is Causing Havoc for Shipping in the Arctic

AP/David Goldman

Summer sea ice is causing havoc for shipping in the Arctic. This is the same Arctic sea ice that climate change experts predicted would have vanished by 2013.

According to the Barents Observer:

It is late June, but the winter has not abandoned the Gulf of Ob. The shallow bay, which houses two of Russia’s biggest Arctic out-shipment terminals for oil and gas, remains packed with fast ice.

It has created a  complicated situation, Rosatomflot says. The state company which manages the Russian nuclear-powered icebreakers, confirms that  independent shipping in the area is «paralysed» and that LNG carriers and tankers are stuck.

Global warming? What global warming?

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Big Freeze Means Global Warming Is Worse Than Ever, Alarmists Warn

AP/Alastair Grant

Swathes of Europe and North America have been hit by blizzards. They’re having snowball fights outside the Colosseum in Rome. Scotland is closed. The sheep outside my garden are buried in white stuff.

So how lucky we are at times like these to have the liberal media explain to us dullards what’s really going on.


Yes. How could we ever have doubted it? All this freezing weather we’ve been having is, of course, yet another sign that global warming is real. And anyway, we shouldn’t take any notice of all this white stuff that is shutting down schools, making journeys impossible, and generally freezing our asses off. Rather, we should be focusing our attention on what’s happening way to the north where no one actually lives. Apparently.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

NOAA Caught Lying About Arctic Sea Ice

The Associated Press

The Arctic is melting catastrophically! Sea ice levels are experiencing their most precipitous decline in 1500 years! Something must be done – and fast!
Well, so claims the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and we know by now what that means, don’t we?

Yep: the Arctic sea ice is doing just fine. Yep: yet again, the NOAA is telling porkies.

As usual, Paul Homewood has got its number.

First, here’s what the NOAA is claiming, as relayed in a scaremongering piece at Vox:

The Arctic Ocean once froze reliably every year. Those days are over.

Arctic sea ice extent has been measured by satellites since the 1970s. And scientists can sample ice cores, permafrost records, and tree rings to make some assumptions about the sea ice extent going back 1,500 years. And when you put that all on a chart, well, it looks a little scary.

In December, NOAA released its latest annual Arctic Report Card, which analyzes the state of the frozen ocean at the top of our world. Overall, it’s not good.

“The Arctic is going through the most unprecedented transition in human history,” Jeremy Mathis, director of NOAA’s Arctic research program, said at a press conference. “This year’s observations confirm that the Arctic shows no signs of returning to the reliably frozen state it was in just a decade ago.”

Now, courtesy of Homewood, are the facts:

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Ship of Fools IV: Another Green Arctic Expedition Scuppered by Ice

Riccardo Bresciani/Pexels

A sailing expedition to the North Pole to raise awareness of global warming has been forced to turn back, 590 nautical miles short of its destination, after the yachts found their passage blocked by large quantities of an unexpected frozen white substance.

According to Arctic Mission’s website:

A meeting of the four skippers was held led by Erik de Jong, with Pen Hadow present, and it was agreed further northward progress would increase considerably the risks to the expedition, with very limited scientific reward. The decision to head south, back to an area of less concentrated sea ice in the vicinity of 79 degrees 30 minutes North, was made at 18.30 (Alaskan time).

Concentrated sea ice? In the Arctic Circle? Whoever would have imagined?

As usual, on these occasions, the expedition leaders are covering their embarrassment by billing their failure as a great success.

Arctic Mission has undertaken an extensive oceanographic, wildlife and ecosystem research programme during the voyage, led by Tim Gordon of the University of Exeter (UK). This has included work on acoustic ecology, copepod distributions and physiology, microplastic pollution surveying, inorganic carbon chemistry, seabird range expansion and microbial DNA sequencing. Scientific findings will be released following comprehensive data analysis and formal publication in peer-reviewed journals in 2018/19.

It is believed Arctic Mission has sailed further north from the coastlines surrounding the Arctic Ocean than any vessel in history without icebreaker support.

Well maybe. But that wasn’t the original point of the expedition when it was announced in the Sunday Times earlier this summer:

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Ship of Fools II: Green Arctic Expedition Frustrated by Large Quantities of Ice

An Arctic expedition designed to raise awareness of the perils of man-made climate change is being frustrated by unexpectedly large quantities of ice.

The Polar Ocean Challenge, whose aim is to circumnavigate the Arctic in a sailing boat while the summer ice-melt allows, is being led by veteran explorer David Hempleman-Adams. He justifies the expedition thus:

Permanent irreversible change in the sea ice landscape of the Arctic seems inevitable. This will / is already having global economic political, social and environmental implications. A significant change in my lifetime.

I see this possibility to circumnavigate the Arctic as one I wanted to take despite the risks associated with it in order to increase the worlds attention on the effects of Arctic climate change. There may be a possibility still to curb this progressive warming and melting in the Arctic. But even if this is not possible the next most important thing is to at the very least highlight the need to ‘Navigate the Future of the Arctic responsibly’.

Well, yes, of course, David. That’s just the kind of eco-friendly blah which will have landed your expedition sponsorship from a City of London finance firm. But what if, as the real world evidence increasingly suggests, your prognostications of climate doom are flat out wrong?

Already the expedition is around 4 to 6 weeks behind schedule having been held up in the Laptev Sea by the kind of ice which experts like Cambridge University’s Peter Wadhams – of whom more in a moment – assure us will soon disappear permanently from the Arctic in summer.

Here, for example, is an entry from their August 18 ship’s log:

Well I came up on watch this morning at 0800.  ice, ice and more b****t ice.

and here

A Stamukha is an iceberg that is touching the bottom.

We had to turn round from the ice by the coast last night and find somewhere safe to moor/anchor. There were strong winds so we needed to find somewhere else to sit them out, and the answer was a stamukha.

We knew it might drift, and it did, so when it had drifted into a more dangerous situation, Ben (who was on anchor watch) woke Nikolay and we’ve moved off it to go and have a look at the ice situation just up ahead again

and here’s one from crew member Ben Edwards, who is 14 years old…

Read the rest at Breitbart.

RRS Sir David Attenborough Is a Terrible Name For a Ship

Boaty McBoatface was the name the public overwhelmingly voted for after the decision was thrown open to a competition. But as we know, Boaty McBoatface was the name they were denied by Science Minister Jo Johnson – who decided it was too silly for anything but a poxy midget submarine. The big ship, meanwhile, is going to be given a name that barely anyone wanted or asked for: RRS Sir David Attenborough.

Johnson is an ass. And a po-faced ass at that.

There are lots of reasons why he was quite wrong to diverge from the public’s preferred name. Here are some of them.

Johnsons are supposed to be funny

Even their name is a bit rude, sounding like a euphemism for the membrum virile, as Jo’s Classicist brother Boris would probably call it. Boris, sister Rachel and Dad Stanley understand it, even if Jo does not: the job of Johnsons is to add to the gaiety of nations not act like boring grown-ups with pokers up their arses. Jo’s decision was a betrayal of everything his family stand for.

It is unlucky to give ships male names

This is a fact. We once had a boat named John Peel. It sank. After that we gave our boats girls’ names, as is proper. Short of naming a boat RMS Titanic II, it’s hard to think of a better invitation to collision with an iceberg than calling your Arctic research vessel after a man.

Democracy, anyone?

Yet again the remote elite demonstrates its utter contempt for the masses by giving them the illusion of democratic choice – a free vote on the name of a ship which, after all, they have paid for out of their tax money – only to snatch it away from them when they make the “wrong” decision. This is just how the European Union conducts its referendums – so perhaps we shouldn’t be at all surprised that, unlike his big brother Boris, Jo Johnson is very much a “Remain” man.

On at least two occasions, he has prostituted his ministerial prestige to argue that Britain should remain shackled to the EU corpse – alleging that it would threaten Britain’s financial sector  and that it would damage UK science. Neither claim bears the slightest scrutiny. Tosser.

Boaty McBoatface was the perfect Wankers’ Litmus Test

No seriously. I checked on Twitter. When Boaty McBoatface won the competition, you could scarcely move for tweets from pompous, self-righteous gits telling anyone who’d listen how disgusted they were that so frivolous a name had been picked, and what did this tell us about the state of modern Britain that a vessel conducting research so magisterially important could be treated so lightly by the common herd, etc. And every one of them was a wanker.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Free the Greenpeace 30!

(And spare us any more whingeing from Damon Albarn, Jude Law and that bloke out of the Clash)

The Arctic Warrior: a fine marine reserve in the making (photo: Greenpeace)

Like most caring, nurturing souls who believe in a cleaner, better, happier world I’m keen for the 30 Greenpeace activists currently being held on piracy charges by the Russians to be released from prison as soon as possible. If you saw last Thursday’s coverage of the issue on BBC Newsnight, you might understand why.

It featured an interview with Paul Simonon, formerly guitarist with the Clash, about his experiences in 2011 when – after getting involved in a similar Arctic rig protest with Greenpeace – he found himself arrested by the Norwegians. The way Emily Maitlis’s brow furrowed sympathetically during the interview, you’d think he’d been banged up for a year in the punishment block of Black Beach prison in Equatorial Guinea, not held for a day or two in a cell in Greenland. Little was left to the imagination as to where the programme’s sympathies lay; nor, perhaps, would one expect otherwise from a programme now edited by an ex-Guardian man Ian Katz.

Simonon’s heartbreakingly moving account of celebrity suffering nicely set the tone for the subsequent studio non-debate between Greenpeace’s Executive Director Kumi Naidoo and a Russian journalist. Naidoo was given carte blanche to chant the green mantra: “Scientists have told us we are heading for catastrophic climate change”…”children and grandchildren’s lives at risk”…”addicted to oil” etc. Not one of these extravagant claims was challenged by Maitlis. (To be fair, she probably wasn’t sufficiently well informed to question or contradict them – and in any case had she tried to do so she would have been in breach of the BBC’s semi-official policy to big up the great climate change threat at every opportunity.)

Maitlis did at least question Naidoo on the wisdom of sending RIBs full of Greenpeace activists against an installation as high security (and vulnerable to terrorism) as an oil platform owned by the Russians. Naidoo described Greenpeace’s action as “responsible and proportionate” – apparently because the threat posed to the world by ‘climate change’ is so grave that no action to raise awareness of it could possibly be deemed irresponsible and disproportionate. (Though as Pierre Gosselin notes at No Tricks Zone, he appears to be developing a more emollient line now that he knows that Russia means business and that any more goading and grandstanding from their mouthy executive director could cost the Greenpeace 30 rather longer in the slammer than they’d anticipated).

My sympathies in this regard are mostly with the Russians. (As are Dominic Lawson’s in this excellent piece here) They’re being painted by the BBC as the bad guys for over-reacting by imprisoning supposedly harmless, peace-loving activists as “pirates.” But how, exactly, is a country meant to react when one of its most vital industries is threatened with economic sabotage? Russia – unfortunately for the Greenpeace 30 – has yet to fall prey to the kind of intellectual decadence which now afflicts much of the West on green issues. In Europe, for example, our industry has a longstanding tradition of caving to Greenpeace’s every bullying demand – as we saw when Shell gave in over Brent Spar. And even on those rare occasions when industry stands up to it – as Kingsnorth Power Station did when it sued Greenpeace for the £30,000 of damage carried out by its protestors – Greenpeace can not only afford the best legal teams you can buy when you’re a multi-national organisation with annual global revenues of £196 million but can also rely on a sympathetic hearing from juries which have been brainwashed from childhood by a farrago of Greenpeace lies, half-truths, junk-science factoids and emotive propagandising.

I understand perfectly why the Russians wish to teach Greenpeace a lesson so hard that hereafter it will concentrate its anti-capitalist activities against countries of a more surrender-monkey persuasion. But if they really want to hit back at Greenpeace they should do so where it really hurts – financially – rather than handing it an unnecessary propaganda coup in which, day after day, the likes of Kumi Naidoo and his celebrity mates Damon Albarn, Jude Law and Paul from the Clash are able to go on presenting a bunch of hard-Left activists hell bent on destroying industrial civilisation as lovable, heroic martyrs.

If they’re feeling generous, the Russians could impound the Greenpeace boat Arctic Sunrise until Greenpeace pays them a swingeing fine. If they’re feeling a bit more hard core, they could take a leaf out of the French’s book and sink it.

Personally I’d favour the second option – purely on environmental grounds, of course. As we learnt from the disposal of the Brent Spar and also of the Rainbow Warrior, a sunken boat or a sunken oil platform do quickly make a truly excellent marine habitat.

Related posts:

  1. Redfaced Greenpeace insists ‘we didn’t make it up’ – we just ’emotionalised the issue’
  2. Greenpeace goes postal
  3. Greenpeace and the IPCC: time, surely, for a Climate Masada?
  4. Climategate: Greenpeace hoist by its own petard

One thought on “Free the Greenpeace 30! (And spare us any more whingeing from Damon Albarn, Jude Law and that bloke out of the Clash)”

  1. Uncle Bobby says:17th October 2013 at 10:00 pmI love the smell of victory in the afternoon:

    “A finding in a study on the relationship between science literacy and
    political ideology surprised the Yale professor behind it: Tea party
    members know more science than non-tea partiers.”

    Dig deeper into the article, and it appears that the RINOs are weighing the conservative movement down enough to the point where the liberals have the slight edge in scientific literacy.

    Still, I think it’s high time for a gloat.

    Let it be known that real conservatives are at the head of the class.

Comments are closed.