Guest essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University.
On July 29, 2013 the BBC’s Hardtalk journalist Stephen Sackur wrote “The Alaskan village set to disappear under water in a decade.” He opened the story with “within a decade Kivalina is likely to be under water. Gone, forever. Remembered – if at all – as the birthplace of America’s first climate change refugees.” He then quotes a local who laments, “The US government imposed this Western lifestyle on us, gave us their burdens and now they expect us to pick everything up and move it ourselves. What kind of government does that?”
Given the context, such a statement sounds like the locals were feeling abandoned by global warming. But the tone also reminded me of the complaints by many native Arctic people who were relocated by the US, Canadian and Russian governments in a 20th century battle to secure claims to Arctic territory. Such a vulnerable location seemed odd for a permanent settlement.. Sure enough Wikipedia supported my suspicions Kitvalina. The original village was located at the north end of the Kivalina Lagoon but was relocated to its present location in about 1900. Reindeer were brought to the area and some people were trained as reindeer herders, suggesting there as a government attempt to force a permanent settlement. From the history I can glean on the internet “the people of Kivalina, like the Ipiutak before them, utilized the barrier reef only as seasonal hunting grounds, making camp there in warm-weather months.” Their recent plans to relocate due to erosion and an expanding population are opportunistically blamed on global warming.
The Arctic people have long been victimized by “southern people’s” politics. Relocation of indigenous families became a tactic employed by all the “polar bear countries” in an international chess match to stake claims on Arctic resources. In 1925, Denmark relocated families in Greenland to counter any Norwegian claims to the island. The following year the Soviet government moved a small Eskimo community to Wrangel Island in order to replace an occupation of Alaskan Eskimos that had been established there by American interests. The relocation of families was also a crucial cold-war tactic by Canada to insure their claims on the Arctic, but not just against any Russian threats, but more so from perceived encroachments by the United States.631
In 1944, Henry Larsen, a staff sergeant in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, became the first to navigate the Northwest Passage from the west to east and back again. This celebrated feat greatly strengthened Canada’s claims to Arctic lands, and offset any potential Scandinavian claims based on Norway’s Roald Amundsen’s successful crossing of Canada’s Northwest Passage in 1903-06. However the US military bases built during World War II were now perceived as a threatening foothold. So in the 1950s Larsen was put in charge of relocating several Inuit families to Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay in the far northern reaches of the Canadian Arctic. Grise Fiord is known by its Inuit name that means “the place that never thaws.” Although these were strategic places in ongoing international maneuverings, it was a region long abandoned by the Inuit’s ancestors. Government stories of an unspoiled land where hunting was more bountiful enticed Inuit families to leave the milder climates of their villages along the central Hudson Bay. Government officials sealed the deal by suggesting there was absolutely no risk and promised a swift return passage if the families found their new settlement unsatisfactory.
But it was a promise that Canadian officials never intended to keep. Ironically, the woman who played Nanook’s wife in the popular 1930s documentary “Nanook of the North” and her son (who was fathered by the documentary’s producer) were among the families relocated to Grise Ford. Although “Nanook of the North” had enthralled Americans and Europeans with a glamorized depiction of Inuit resilience and adaptability, their new settlements doled out such incredible hardships their resilience was severely tested. The struggles of those families have now been well documented in the book, The Long Exile: A Tale of Inuit Betrayal and Survival. It was the film producer’s granddaughter, daughter of his half-Inuit, half-Caucasian son, who finally forced the Canadian government to own up to their betrayal. The Canadian government finally made a public apology in 2008 and paid reparations to the offended families.
Sackur’s article continues the long tradition of half-truths. To indict climate change he wrote:
- “Kivalina’s story is not unique. Temperature records show the Arctic region of Alaska is warming twice as fast as the rest of the United States.”
- “Retreating ice, slowly rising sea levels and increased coastal erosion have left three Inuit settlements facing imminent destruction, and at least eight more at serious risk.”
- “No longer does thick ice protect their shoreline from the destructive power of autumn and winter storms.”
However his story relies on zombie data. It was indeed true that Alaska had been warming twice as fast as elsewhere. In a 2012 paper climate scientists from Alaska Climate Research Center, University of Alaska reported, “a sudden temperature increase in Alaska was recorded starting in 1977, seemingly driven by the change in polarity of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) Index, which went from dominantly negative before 1977 to dominantly positive values after that year” However unlike Sackur they also reported for the 21st century ” The mean cooling of the average of all stations was 1.3°C for the decade”1 Alaska is now one the most rapidly cooling areas on earth.
Sackur’s reference to “slowly rising sea levels” are also questionable. Go to the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level website and view the 2 stations nearest to Kitvalina. At Nome Alaska the sea level is rising so slow it appears to be dropping over the last decade.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/1800_high.png
Or look at Prudhoe Bay .
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/1857_high.png
Except for a brief surge for a few months in late 2013, Prudhoe Bay sea level has been dropping there as well. The shifting PDO is also known to change sea level across the Pacific Ocean.
Finally it is hard to understand Sackur’s claim, “No longer does thick ice protect their shoreline.” In 2012 the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported “ice extent in the Bering Sea was much greater than average, reaching the second-highest levels for January in the satellite record.” NASA’s Earth Observatory wrote, “For most of the winter of 2011–2012, the Bering Sea has been choking with sea ice… NSIDC data indicate that ice extent in the Bering Sea for most of this winter has been between 20 to 30 percent above the 1979 to 2000 average. February 2012 had the highest ice extent for the area since satellite records started.” And in 2013 Bering Sea ice was again above normal as seen in National Snow and Ice Data Center picture.
So why has the BBC published this story filled with references to zombie data and half-truths? The region’s temperatures are cooling, sea level is dropping and sea ice is above average. The story about Kivalina has been published many times before and residents sued Exxon six years ago. Are they trying to rekindle global fear in a time of paused global warming? Are they now tools of the IPCC? Climategate emails revealed Michael Mann’s distress at a BBC’s story that the PDO could delay global warming, and he told his fellow advocates he would have a talk with their “science” writers. Did Michael Mann and the fellow IPCC warming advocates successfully pressure the BBC to present such a biased and unsupported story that does not educate the public about the complexities of climate change but instead attempts to instill gloom and climate fear? I once saw the BBC as a trusted source, but count me as a climate war casualty. I will never again trust another BBC climate article.
1. Wendler,G., et al. (2012) The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska. The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2012, 6, 111-116
Mr. Steele is author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism
Other_Andy says: July 31, 2013 at 2:30 am
Oh,and… Bring back David Bellamy!!!!!!
________________________________
For our US readers, David Bellamy was a well-loved ecologist with a passion for nature, who made more than 400 programs for the BBC and others. Then he denounced Global Warming as a fraud and *** POW *** he disappeared. And so sudden and so complete was his disappearance, that some did wonder if the KGB had taken him to a Gulag.
But Bellamy’s disappearance gives the lie to the “97% of scientists” claim, because if a scientist refused to back the scam, the KGB came and abducted them. How can any old ‘bog-standard’ scientist stand up to the Climate Scam, when someone as famous as David Bellamy can be ‘abducted’ and ‘imprisoned’ for speaking his mind?
David Bellamy:
.
Just like PBS and NPR, the BBC doesn’t have to pay attention to viewer complaints because it is tax funded, and even its opponents have to pay. That needs to change.
How does winter ice disprove falling summer ice levels? I don’t understand how someone in academia can make such an obvious error.
markstoval says: “The BBC has always been a propaganda arm of the state.”
Exactly. Many here hasn’t grasped the full magnitude of the problem.
CAGW is a symptom of a much greater problem.
The internet is a double edge sword for the government. They need it to watch us and they hate sites like this. As long as the propaganda is going their way they will will leave it alone if not they will figure out a way of protecting us.
*** Will the Cost of the Climate Wars be the BBC’s Integrity? ***
Sorry, but the Biased Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has not had any integrity for years. It is merely the Court Jester to the Grauniad, and plays the fool to keep the left-wing & liberal ‘intelligentsia’** happy and spread their propaganda. Its reporters are brain-dead media-studies students, who have never had to do a real job in their lives, and hate the nation that has educated them and paid for their nice safe and secure lives. To the BBC, the only good and virtuous people in the country are immigrants, while the native working class who generate Britain’s wealth can go to hell.
I am surprised there has not been a people’s revolt, with a mass refusal to pay the BBC licence fee. I have not paid for 6 years, and have no intention of doing so.
** Note that ‘intelligentsia’ now has the complete opposite meaning of what it had 30 years ago. It now refers to dreamers who live in a looking-glass world and have absolutely no idea what is going on in the real world.
.
The BBC, once known as the gold standard for news, is now mostly recognized as the TV station that hosts the Top Gear, Sherlock and Dr. Who programmes as their journalistic reputation has been falling into disrepair in the last two decades.
How does the BBC have even a smidgen of respectability after several decades of covering for Jimmy Savile? Close them down.
I very much doubt that the people of Newtok or Kivalina can ever be called “America’s first climate change refugees.” Then we have the dustbowl of the 1930s. I thought the BBC was there to educate.
USA mega droughts during the Holocene.
Dustbowl refugees of the 1930s.
And for a discussion of the recent high levels of ice in the Bering Sea, see this post of mine from December 2012: http://polarbearscience.com/2012/12/10/now-that-bering-sea-ice-cover-is-high-again-variability-is-normal/
I concluded:
“However, 2009 is now three years ago. Bering Sea ice is not only still above average but the NSIDC says that last year’s maximum extent for the Bering Sea exceeded the highest amount recorded in the satellite record period. The May 2012 extent (presumably the annual maximum) was 350,000 km2, considerably more than the previous annual high of 256,000 km2 and almost 3x more than the lowest extent reported by Brown et al.”.
Sackur is not even consistent. Back in 2009 he interviewed Leipold of Greenpeace. This is from a piece written by Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney (who they? Don’t know) and found on Yahoo Answers; http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090820100119AAIDxtc
Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.
“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” he said.
Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.
The BBC reporter accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” and using “exaggeration and alarmism.”
Ah! The irony…
JMT says: July 31, 2013 at 2:05 am
A strong complaint to the BBC would seem to be in order!
________________________________
Here is the BBC online complaint form – please do make a complaint:
https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/?reset=#anchor
You will need the first 3 letters of a UK postcode. Here is a list of post codes – just add a single number to any of these letter pairs. A postcode will look like ‘LE7’ or ‘CT3’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_postcode_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom
The programme was ‘Hardtalk’ on July 29, 2013 at 12:30 hrs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b038h3yn/HARDtalk_Alaska_Part_1
(will not play outside the UK)
.
The fundamental question about the BBC is why, if you live in the UK, you are obliged to subscribe to it in order to be legally permitted to watch TV.
Why? You don’t have to subscribe to Tesco to be allowed to buy groceries. You don’t have to subscribe to the Guardian in order to be legally allowed to read a newspaper. You don’t have to subscribe to Foyles in order to be allowed to read.
Let everyone pick the broadcaster of their choice.
michel says: July 31, 2013 at 8:50 am
Let everyone pick the broadcaster of their choice.
______________________________________
That would be a better system – just tick the box of the broadcaster you want the money to go to. Now that would scare the Biased Broadcasting Corporation witless.
.
Peter Hannan says: ” If it fails in that respect, well, let’s criticise and correct it. After all, that’s what democracy and freedom are about, aren’t they??”
In the US when I was growing up (60’s) both of the two major parties had a conservative majority (should be called classic liberal) today there isn’t one person that can be rightly called a conservative in either the house or Senate. Statistically when i was growing up conservatives made up of about 75% of the population today it is still around 60% that call themselves conservative in the US.
In other words representative democracy has completely and utterly failed in the US. I am not sure about other western countries how they have fared the quite revolution. This should bother even hard core socialists once it is checked.
This is what the people of Kivalina use for heating. Tip: see the tanks at the top of the WUWT post. I wonder why they don’t use wind turbines and solar panels.
http://www.usa.com/kivalina-ak-housing–historical-house-heating-fuel-data.htm
I must admit I am starting to find the climate wars to be fascinating. Do the BCC understanding what they are fighting for?
There appears to be a change happening in the war. The BCC and liberal media have been pushing (telling fibs to promote the belief that climate change is so very important any expense is justifiable) and hence directly and indirectly promoting very expensive green scams that do not work.
There is now discussion of capitulation – Why are we fighting to promote green scams? – on the green scam front. Liberal think tanks and senior officials in governments are just starting to understand there are consequences to pushing green scam energy and that there will be unavoidable significant consequences/pain/sacrifices to achieve a real reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of lets say 60%.
The fantasy that has been promoted and it is a fantasy, is Western countries can get to 60% real carbon dioxide emission reduction without nuclear power, without a wartime like reduction in standard of living (this point is key), and without super high taxation on the estimated carbon content to manufacture and transport the goods and services we purchase. The cost to achieve 60% carbon dioxide reduction using green scam energy increases by a factor of three to four times as energy storage is required. There is no viable energy storage system. Green scam energy can only reduce CO2 emissions by 10% to 20% without storage. That is a fact not an opinion.
The importance of the answer to the scientific questions concerning is there or is there not a warming problem to solve changes if one accepts the reality of what it would take to get to 60% carbon dioxide emission reduction.
The BBC lost their integrity years before AGW became popular with their still lasting profound anti-semitic agenda in their ‘journalism’. This only proves it’s a systemic lack of integrity.
What Americans will find amazing is the sheer dominance of the BBC in UK “news” delivery. The UK has a vigorous daily press, commercial channels and Sky TV – but the BBC accounts for over 50% of news delivery – that is, people take over 50% from the BBC’s TV and radio channels and its huge website.
No organisation should have such a large role in the “news market” Especially when it has been skewed to the left for decades now. Its science reporting is a disgrace, especially on climate issues. Endless deliberate bias towards the warmists – which we find was planned by a special summit meeting comprising mostly eco-activists. And virtual complete suppression of views or evidence that cuts against the warmists’ case.
And we are forced under threat of fines or eventual imprisonment to fund this dinosaur, $200 per household per annum. Over $6 billion a year. BBC TV programmes these days are mostly rubbish – but its news services are pernicious. It is way past the point of reform. Itb needs to be abolished or put on a voluntary subscription basis with no more of the harshly-regressive TV tax.
@Ryan Spear “Ryan says: How does winter ice disprove falling summer ice levels? I don’t understand how someone in academia can make such an obvious error.”
First of all it was Sackur who blamed the lack of protection from winter storms so you should ask him why. “No longer does thick ice protect their shoreline from the destructive power of autumn and winter storms.”
Second the Bering Sea and the Alaskan coast are always been ice free by the end of summer. You seem to be confusing the loss of ice in the Arctic Basin with ice that could protect Kivalina.
Your attempt to denigrate my, simply reflects your own lack of knowledge.
I think the BBC lost all respect and their reputation when 28 gate took place. I am sure that the more they continue to peddle CAGW, the more viewers will also lose any respect they may once have had for the BBC.
@ur momisugly Jim Steele you said “Second the Bering Sea and the Alaskan coast are always been ice free by the end of summer. “
Where can we expect to see the first signs of an ice age beginning, in the Bering Sea perhaps.
I’ll believe BBC integrity has at least been partially restored when this professional doom monger no longer graces our screens:
It is incorrect to regard the BBC as an agent of the British Government. The BBC has its own agenda, set by itself and accountable to no-one. Also, it is not helpful to use the expression “left-wing” in this context. That’s 1960s talk. The BBC takes up positions on subjects and everything they report on that subject serves to support that position. Global Warming is their favourite topic just now.
It was actually Steven Sackur BBC Newsnight report (BBC late night flagship current affairs show in the UK)Still available on the BBC iplayer. Funny thing is they conveniently filmed it in the middle of the Alaskan Summer.24 Hour day light when the sea ice has slowly melted .Makes great TV Climate Change watery ice footage.Unfortunately go to the Arctic in the middle of the Alaskan winter 24 darkness contiuous for 6 months and 60 degrees below zero .You wont find many Climate Scientists or any help if you fall down a hole or a polar sniffs you out from three miles away. Too dangerous for humans to be out there. Or rescue pilots to navigate .But plenty of ice
Unfortunately pitch black with no flood lighting does not make for great TV.
Sorry about the swearing.But night and day periods is the great plot hole of John Carpenters classic Horror Film.
I first became suspicious of the BBC when I saw how global warming politics transformed their video representation of polar bears and walruses. Google “Polar bear vs walrus – BBC wildlife “ or go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk-BE4Vxny4. In what appears to be an older BBC video from decades ago, several polar bears are shown attacking a walrus herd. In the final scene, the narrator explains that in a time where bears are believed to lack food, the walrus have provided a feast with plenty of left overs. From this video it would seem attacking walruses was quite normal. In fact ipre 1970s accounts by Russian biologists in the Laptev Sea bears have observed bears making pits and hiding behind driftwood to attack walrus, and researchers on Wrangel Island report bears waiting at traditional spots where walrus haul out each summer.
What a difference a video makes. Google “Polar Bear Versus Walrus Colony – BBC Planet Earth” or go to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6iDtvGbIOU . This is a more recent BBC video, narrated by David Attenborough It starts with walruses on a sand bar. What appears to be a young male polar bear who are known to have difficulties attacking walrus, approaches and Attenborough tells us that the bear, after “several days at sea”, serendipitously arrives where they are filming the walrus. The bear is shown to be too tired to attack until the next day. The bear not only fails to capture a walrus but is injured as well. Attenborough then tells us that bear hasn’t eaten in months, and “only in the height of summer will polar bears attack such dangerous prey.” (Of course it is well documented bears attack walruses at polynya in the winter but that is not shared.) The final scene overlaid with sad music, has the injured bear lying down in defeat, with the warning that continued global warming and melting ice will undoubtedly lead to more tragic polar bears deaths by walruses as bears are driven by desperation