Will the Cost of the Climate Wars be the BBC's Integrity?

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?”

clip_image002

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:

  1. “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.”
  2. “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.”
  3. 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

clip_image004

Or look at Prudhoe Bay .

clip_image006

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.

clip_image007

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

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
140 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kevin king
July 31, 2013 11:11 am

I think the article is taking the BBC a little bit too seriously. I am one of many in the UK who no longer pay the BBC licence fee. In 10 years time, there will be no BBC. It will die a slow, lingering death. Giving it free publicity in this way should not be encouraged. I would simply advise Wattsupwiththat.com to ignore it. No comment required.

July 31, 2013 11:31 am

The BBC lost all credibility here in the UK about 10 years ago. It’s a left-wing dinosaur, mostly staffed by people who went to private schools and then university – there are few comprehensive-educated staff. It is obsessed with climate change and sport. That and skewing the current governments attempts at welfare reform. If you talk to the staff there they say that it’s such a large organisation that it simply can’t change. Things get done a certain way because they’ve always been done that way – correctly or not. It’s a great shame. What many people here are now doing is to refusing to pay the licence fee. This is waiting to blow up. In the next five years it will begin to affect their revenue in a serious way. Tick, tick, tick…

July 31, 2013 11:32 am

Kevin do you remember Mr Tully from Stevenage.

Americans wont quite get the British sense of humour.
Sad news last week about Mel Smith RIP.

Schrodinger's Cat
July 31, 2013 11:40 am

The BBC is fairly immune to criticism, even if it is from senior politicians.
However, I do think it is afraid of bad publicity. Widespread criticism in newspapers and other media does concern the BBC because what it fears most is a threat to its funding. Widespread loss of trust or public anger could give some politicians enough backbone to call for cuts in the BBC budget. Sadly, most of the public are quite happy with the BBC because unless you deliberately seek out alternative sources of news and information you have nothing to make you realise how much your awareness of news and public affairs is being manipulated.
What is needed is that the above story and every one like it is launched as a press release with sufficient headline sensationalism to stimulate even the most disinterested of newspaper journalists. This, after all, is what the alarmists do on a regular basis. After about a dozen of such disclosures, the trend may just become noticeable, even to the BBC.

July 31, 2013 11:42 am

“Will the Cost of the Climate Wars be the BBC’s Integrity”

Oh!? The BBC? They’re already paid that and done that. Sadly, they’re more than happy to dig their embarrassment hole deeper, much deeper.

July 31, 2013 11:44 am

Patrick (at 3.29 a.m.) Licence Fee:
“You do not need a TV Licence if you are watching TV after it has been shown on television, eg TV programmes downloaded or streamed after broadcast.”
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/keyfacts/stories/licencefee2.shtml
Google it and you’ll see VERY many people are not renewing their licence (we plane not to renew in February 2014). This is a time bomb that will seriously affect the BBC, and no one is saying anything about it!

July 31, 2013 11:46 am

Oh no, in the above post you’ll see I have (mis)typed ‘plane’ and ‘time-bomb’. Can I expect a knock at my doo

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 31, 2013 12:00 pm

@Ghost of Big Jim Cooley – only if you live in the US.

Monckton of Brenchley
July 31, 2013 12:39 pm

Jim Steele’s pieces are a delight. More, please.

ralfellis
July 31, 2013 1:08 pm

Just as bad as the BBC’s Green Propaganda, is the BBC’s daytime programming, which is so out of touch with modern Britain it is nothing short of further deliberate propaganda. Here is a list of program titles for daytime viewing:
BBC title …………………… (My title)
Countryfile ………………… (Original Britons on farms)
Escape to the Country … (Original Britons Flight from the Cities)
Homes under the Hammer .. (Original Britons selling Houses)
Cash in the Attic ………… (Original Briton’s bric-a-brac)
Antiques Roadshow ……. (Original Britons with more expensive bric-a-brac)
Bargain Hunt ……………… (Original Britons at auctions)
Flog it ……………………….. (More Original Britons at auctions)
Money where your mouth (More Original Britons at auctions)
Gastronauts ………………. (Original Britons as chefs)
Masterchef ………………… (Original Britons as chefs)
Hairy Bikers ………………. (Original Britons as chefs on bikes)
Great Railway Journeys .. (Original Britons on Trains)
Great Walks ………………. (Original Britons with tracksuits and trainers)
Country Tracks ………….. (Original Britons in the countryside)
Coast ……………………….. (Original Britons on the beaches)
Songs of Praise ………….. (Original Britons in church)
Land Girls …………………. (When England was all Original Britons)
Britain’s Secret Sea ……. (Original Britons on a boat)
Now we all know that this is not the reality of Britain today, so why are the BBC producing programming that pretends that the nation is still composed of 100% Original Britons?
In truth, the political ploy here is to try and convince people that nothing has changed in Britain over the last 20 years, when in reality nothing could be further from the truth. It is like boiling a lobster – if you do it slowly, they don’t notice. Indeed, within the BBC this is known as ‘Lobster Programming’.
.

July 31, 2013 2:00 pm

I have lambasted the BBC many times for biased reporting – not that I could hope to keep up with Biased BBC. Comments that it is a propaganda organ for the state seem simply candid observations which are consistent with reports that ‘enviro’ groups hijacked ‘climate’ reporting so badly that the government was caught flat footed at a need for snowplows in winter. Here’s a quick return on a query about biased reporting http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html

Gail Combs
July 31, 2013 3:40 pm

WHAT INTEGRITY???
[Self-snip rest of comment, I do not want to insult the ‘ladies’]

AlexS
July 31, 2013 4:05 pm

Did BBC had any integrity?
BBC is an organization that makes leftist propaganda while at same time with the State Violence Monopoly forces everyone to pay them.

DDP
July 31, 2013 4:25 pm

The Guardian and the BBC. Two cheeks of the same arse. Same message, same effluent output.
Both do science by press release. Neither care to follow it to review or report on subsequent failures, and they never bother to follow the money train on scientific studies that are an obvious attempt to do nothing more than further ‘the cause’. The idea is to get the message out, not to report on facts. Which once upon a time was what journalists were paid to do. It’s no wonder so many politicians would like to see more rules on internet bloggers as they are outside the same rules that govern other media, i’m shocked Ed Davey hasn’t called for a block on search terms pertaining to climate like Cameron has to adult related search terms.
The BBC didn’t report on 28gate, and the amount of licence fee money they spent defending their breach of their charter yet they spent hours of live coverage to the enquiry into phone hacking. An enquiry largely driven by the BBC and the Guardian. Why no government enquiry into 28gate? Oh, I forgot, because HMGOV who hold the purse strings share the same message. Together they can feed us all the crap they want. If the BBC did report on it, viewers would be exposed to the realities of the official policies of institutional bias that runs down the yellow streak of the BBC backbone.

July 31, 2013 5:49 pm

BBC=CBC=ABC=questionable and biased reporting by taxpayer funded organizations that no longer serve the purpose for which they were created – they are adrift.

Ox AO
July 31, 2013 7:25 pm

Andrew says: “The BBC has its own agenda, set by itself and accountable to no-one.”
You are absolutely correct that BBC has it’s ‘own agenda.’
It is very important on what that means. Here is Tony Hall General Director of the BBC: Notice if you are not a team player you are out of the loop you will not be making any shows for the BBC.

In other words it is the authority over Galileo complex(don’t know if there is an official term.) Where only the established ideas will be presented for the BBC other wise you are not a team player. That is what BBC director says over and over again in that video.
Established ideas means government accepted ideas or their interpretation of academia accepted ideas.

HR
July 31, 2013 8:28 pm

Britain is essentially a centrist, socially-liberal/tolerant democracy and the BBC fairly-well represents that. It also makes some excellent TV and radio. Given it’s statist and tax-funded it’s always going to have its critics.

Fanakapan
July 31, 2013 10:14 pm

The BBC is, and has Always been, the Propaganda service of HM Government. It is a valid reflection that the late Herr Doktor Goebbels was required to actually tell his state controlled media what to say, whereas the BBC requires no instruction, it merely recognises the hand that feeds it 🙂

July 31, 2013 10:52 pm

Well, looks like many wishes might yet be realised …
UK Government May Curb BBC Media Dominance
http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-government-curb-bbc%e2%80%88media-dominance/
“THE BBC could see its powers curbed as part of a review of the rules on media plurality, the government announced yesterday.
Investigations into excessive dominance of the media market do not currently look at the role of the public broadcaster. But the review, unveiled by culture secretary Maria Miller, will consider changing this on the basis that BBC spends more on current affairs than all other UK broadcasters combined.
Existing media ownership rules – which aim to limit the dominance of one media group – still focus on measures such as newspaper sales while completely ignoring the popularity of news websites.”

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead
August 1, 2013 12:02 am

ferd berple says:
July 31, 2013 at 7:50 am
With all this global warming you would think they would be flocking northward to escape the heat.
Perfect indeed. This is the most irritating rub of all of the AGW alarm machine. The entire juggernaut feeds off the imperceptible uptick in global average temperatures. An uptick that must be calculated, and alarm based on ….wait for it….models. Oh, and lots of sheeple to drink of the font of conventional 97% wisdom. Oh, wait, Cook said 97.1%, didn’t he?

Lil Fella from OZ
August 1, 2013 12:29 am

Democracy or truth is not an integral part of the Left!

Dreadnought
August 1, 2013 1:05 am

I was very pleased indeed to see this picked up and covered at WUWT.
I saw the BBC HARDtalk programme with Stephen Sackur the other evening and I was utterly appalled – both by the agressive, arrogant, rude presentation style and by the fact that the programme was chock-full of errors, factual inaccuracies and biased assertions about global warming. That this sort of rubbish is broadcast on a ‘news channel’ is even worse.
I have submitted a formal and strongly-worded complaint via the BBC’s Complaint Website. I have requested that they make corrections to the errors in the programme, and I have requested a reply to my complaint. We shall see what comes of it.
BTW, I note that the programme in question is entitled Alaska Part 1. I think we need to keep a very close eye on Part 2 when it is broadcast….

ralfellis
August 1, 2013 1:38 am

Fanakapan says: July 31, 2013 at 10:14 pm
The BBC is, and has Always been, the Propaganda service of HM Government.
_________________________________
Not true. The Biased Broadcasting Corporation has always been at the service of the left-wing/communist intelligentsia, and very rarely tows the Conservative government line.
If you remember, the BBC even wrote Dr Who episodes to be anti-Thatcher:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/doctor-who/7235547/Doctor-Who-had-anti-Thatcher-agenda.html
And ITV was no better. If you remember, they created the Spitting Image satire, during the Thatcher years, which was very subversively critical. Was there any such satire of Tony Blair? No…
The Thatcher puppet:
http://ihatehate.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/thatcher-spitting-image.jpeg
.

DDP
August 1, 2013 2:54 am

I’d have said Spitting Image was more than overtly critical of anyone and was considerably more balanced than a lot of the news that the show followed on Sunday night. Everybody was either dislikeable, or dislikeable and an idiot.

Stocky
August 1, 2013 3:11 am

It’s bizarre, I watched a programme on BBC yesterday called Europe : A Natural History. It spoke of how after that last ice age, Mediterranean plants spread northwards at a rate of 500m per year. It spoke of lions as far north as London due to the warm climate and spoke of the rapidly changing fauna and flora across the whole of Europe.
Yet today, such events which are nowhere near as fast or extreme as shown in the past, can only be explained by man-made changes.
The BBC are a disgrace.

Solomon Green
August 1, 2013 3:15 am

The BBC was established to inform. More than twenty-five years ago a left of centre Chairman, suported by his left of centre Director General, decided to replace the word “inform” with “educate.” Thus hoi poloi should be “educated” to understand the perils posed by climate change/global warming, war-mongering Republicans, eurosceptics, Conservatives, Israel and heterosexuals (particluarly if they happen to be Christian). If inconvenient facts got in the way of education they should either be ignored or, if that proved impossible, derided with scorn.
Any expert who did not conform to the producer’s directive would have/his her contribution either edited in such a manner as to reverse the opinion or, if that was not possible, edited out altogether. If the broadcast was live and the contribution could not be deleted, the expert would never be invited back. The best-known case is Professor Bellamy but it has happened to friends of mine as well.