BBC Response to Svalbard Complaint


By Paul Homewood

You will all no doubt recall this dishonest report from the BBC a few weeks ago:

Deep inside the Arctic Circle, the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard is home to the world’s northernmost permanent settlement, Longyearbyen, which is estimated to be heating at six times the global average. So what is being done to save it?

Experts from the Norwegian Polar Institute are among those who calculate it is heating six times faster than the global average.

The consensus is that the temperature in Svalbard has jumped 4C in the past 50 years.

Wildlife and human life are now in a struggle to survive. This is why Limstrand’s congregation is praying for help.

As I inconveniently pointed out at the time, Svalbard’s climate is only marginally warmer now than eighty years ago, but temperatures plummeted in the 1960s, which was of course the time which the BBC chose to make comparisons from:

Needless to say, I filed a complaint with the BBC about their omission of temperature trends prior to 1960. As usual they have tried to fob me off at the Stage 1 level with this response:

Thank you for contacting the BBC about the article :

We have looked at your email, the article and other sources of information on this topic.
As I understand your complaint, it is about the claims concerning the rate of warming of Svalbard and your email’s claim that the report ‘omits the crucial information that the climate at Svalbard underwent massive cooling during the 1960s, and that current temperatures are no higher than they were in the 1920s to 1950s’.
To substantiate the warming at Svalbard, the BBC’s article referred to one source within the article in the extract below:
Experts from the Norwegian Polar Institute are among those who calculate it is heating six times faster than the global average. The consensus is that the temperature in Svalbard has jumped 4C in the past 50 years.
The Editorial Guidelines recognise the BBC can report the views of credible and named individuals and organisations so long as such views are appropriately attributed. In the case of this article, readers would have understood it presented the informed views of the Norwegian Polar Institute and would have judged what was written accordingly.
The article describes a ‘consensus’ on the temperature rise, so I thought I’d include at least one other survey in this email.
This study was carried out on the effects of climate change on Svalbard and Longyearbyen by The Norwegian Centre for Climate Services (NCCS), which is a collaboration between the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, Norwegian Research Centre and the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research. Their study Climate in Svalbard 2100, published in 2019 contains many facts about the rate of warming in the area.
Here are two extracts for your information.
From 1971 to 2017, a warming of 3 – 5°C has been observed (less in the south, more in the inner fjords), with the largest increase in winter and the smallest in summer. For RCP8.5, the ensemble median projections from regional models and statistical downscaling indicate an increase in annual mean temperature for Svalbard of almost 10 °C from 1971-2000 to 2071-2100.
Especially the northern Barents Sea has experienced a rapid climate shift and is described as the “Arctic warming hotspot” where the surface warming and loss of winter sea ice is the largest in the entire Arctic.”

There is also a section on sea ice which considers the thickness over time periods and areas where sea ice has already reduced.

Here is an extract from the section on sea ice:

‘The sea ice conditions vary from region to region and from year to year. West of Svalbard, the properties of the West Spitsbergen Current play an important role for the sea ice in the western fjords. The inflow of warm Atlantic water to the fjords have strong impact on the local ice conditions. In the last decade, the fjords on the west coast have been almost ice-free in the winter (Muckenhuber et al., 2016). East of Svalbard, the East Spitsbergen Current transports Polar water and sea ice southwards, causing this region to be ice-covered most of the year. In the last decade, the whole Barents Sea, including the area east of Svalbard, has been icefree for several months in the summer and autumn.’

Not every BBC article can include all the information every reader would wish to see in it. It is the job of the BBC’s news editors to make decisions about the content of news stories.  I have not fact checked your information about ‘massive cooling’ during the 1960s but I did consider whether, if true, the omission of this information would undermine the article.  In view of the context and information laid out above in this email, I do not think that it would.

I have also attached an article from Euronews, which recently reported from Svalbard.  Of course, the output of other media organisations does not affect the BBC’s editorial decision making, but I thought it may be of interest to you.  It includes a segment on Ny-Ålesund – the northernmost human settlement on Earth, which has a year-round research station and is home to 18 scientific institutions from a host of countries.

I hope this email taken with our first response helps to resolve your concerns about the article and thank you again for contacting the BBC again.
Kind regards
Quentin Smith
BBC News

The response does not address my complaint at all.

They spend most of the reply trying to prove that the climate in Svalbard has got warmer since 1960, but this was never in dispute.

Their only defence of the omission of all relevant facts is that BBC News Editors can choose to include whatever they want!

As for the comment that “but I did consider whether, if true, the omission of this information would undermine the article.  In view of the context and information laid out above in this email, I do not think that it would”, it is simply absurd, given that the article is all about the “race to save Svalbard”. Most independent observers would agree that the fact that Svalbard was just as warm a few decades ago was highly relevant.

Naturally I have responded to the BBC and moved the complaint to Stage 2.

4.9 51 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 23, 2022 2:46 am

“”I have not fact checked your information about ‘massive cooling’ during the 1960s “”

Obviously, the facts destroy the narrative

Reply to  strativarius
November 23, 2022 5:02 am

Actually, I bet he DID check the facts (or a minion did) – and promptly ‘forgot’ about the results!

Bryan A
Reply to  Ian_e
November 23, 2022 5:30 am

At least they didn’t cherry pick the nadir of 1968 as their artificial starting point. 1968 (-5) – 2017 (+2) gives a warming of >7c. However 1922 (-1) – 2022 (-.5) gives a century scale warming of .5c. It all depends on which cherries you examine and compare

Reply to  Bryan A
November 24, 2022 7:26 am

Even given the limited facts the BBC accepts, how is warming from an average around -3 or -4 to about 0 or so now a disaster? How are better living conditions for plant, animal and human a bad situation in anyone’s sane judgement. I can tolerate the hyperbole about India, say, getting an additional 4 degrees in summer a bad thing (when it’s already in the 40s) but a frozen island warming up slightly is not a bad thing and the BBC article is silly and stupid and hopefully even their woke adherents can see the stupidity.

November 23, 2022 3:12 am

Please do pursue a stage 2, and if possible report back. Its never a good idea to assume malice when incompetence is an equally likely explanation, but in this case it seems the individual is either not fit for their job (i.e. can’t discern why prior temps would matter), or intentionally obfuscating to avoid admission of error and/or protect the narrative. Either case is not a good look for an entity funded through forced payments from the proles.

Reply to  MJB
November 23, 2022 3:25 am

incompetence is an equally likely explanation”

I would refer you to the BBC’s infamous seminar of 2006. That is where any pretence at objective reporting was thrown out of the window.

Reply to  strativarius
November 23, 2022 3:48 am

And in case you have forgotten, the names of the thirty “best scientific experts” (according to the BBC) who attended the 2006 seminar and on whose advice the BBC abandoned impartial reporting of man made climate change and whose names the BBC tried and failed to conceal were:
Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
Anuradha Vittachi, Director,
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
Claire Foster, Church of England
Saleemul Huq, IIED
Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
Matthew Farrow, CBI
Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
Joe Smith, The Open University
Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
Anita Neville, E3G
Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Stoic
November 23, 2022 4:05 am

Wasn’t this organised by Richard Black former big shot BBC reporter, pre-Harrabin? Now a director of ECIU

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
November 23, 2022 4:29 am

It woz Roger Harrabin…

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Stoic
November 24, 2022 4:50 am

Greenpeace China, huh.

Reply to  strativarius
November 23, 2022 4:15 am

I agree whole-heartedly. While the individual may also happen to be incompetent, I am of the opinion that this result is firmly in the category of malice.

I suppose they may have even convinced themselves that they are acting for good, noble cause corruption and so on so don’t personally see it as malice, but no objective person would say the article or response to complaint meets professional standards for reporting/ombudsman/auditor/etc. Present the same error of omission on any non-political topic and I would think better than 9/10 people would see the problem immediately.

Bryan A
Reply to  MJB
November 23, 2022 5:36 am

Since Svalbard still shows the 1940 – 1970s cooling event the data should be subjected to strict Karlization first prior to considering the temp increase indicated to be accurate

Reply to  MJB
November 23, 2022 7:27 am

If it were merely incompetence, you would expect errors in both directions.
In this case, all errors support the global warming narrative.
If it were merely incompetence, there’s a chance that someone would notice the errors and fix them.
These errors have been on going, and getting worse, for over 40 years.

The time where one could reasonably assume incompetence, is long past.

Dave Burton
November 23, 2022 3:31 am

If anyone needed proof that climate alarmism is cray cray, this should do it: climate alarmists actually complain that the ARCTIC is TOO HOT.

Arrhenius understood that, by any sane measure, the Arctic is much, much too cold. How is that not obvious, to anyone?

comment image

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Dave Burton
November 23, 2022 6:29 am

Ah, the thing Arrhenius was most correct about-warmer climate IS AN IMPROVEMENT, not a “catastrophe.”

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Dave Burton
November 23, 2022 9:09 am

I regularly see articles describing “super hot” and “ultra warm” temperatures in the arctic only to find deep in the article that the temperatures they are describing are still below freezing. Just some number above the average, well below freezing temperature.
It is almost as if somebody wants us to ignore the reality that temperatures will be above average half the time.

Reply to  Dave Burton
November 23, 2022 5:11 pm

Excellent point Dave!
We are supposed to believe that the ideal temperature and CO2 level for life on planet earth was when humans started burning fossil fuels and the increase since then is causing us to get farther and farther away from the optimal level.

Never mind all the indisputably proven science based on empirical data from thousands of studies that tell us the optimal level for plants is more than double the current level.

Never mind earth massively greening up, which are plants screaming “Thank you for the CO2 and climate! Can we have more, please?” in plant language.

All animals eat plants or something that ate plants. Besides the extra food, most creatures do better when it’s a bit warmer like it is now. Cold kills!

Before climate science was hijacked, it was universally accepted/agreed on by scientists that the period that featured temperatures as much as 2 deg. C WARMER than this and even less Arctic ice between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago was a climate OPTIMUM. Not despite those conditions but exactly BECAUSE OF them.

Holocene climatic optimum

By today’s redefined climate standards, the historical Holocene climate OPTIMUM was actually a more severe climate crisis than today’s climate crisis.

Fact: Warming the coldest places on the planet the most actually reduces the meridional temperature gradient and decreases some types of extreme weather.

In addition, CO2 is the building block for life. It’s a beneficial gas. We rescued the planet from near CO2 starvation.

Another thing is the absurdity of calling energy forms like wind “green” energy.
The truth is that it’s the ANTI green energy. Energy from environmental hell, replacing the energy form that is indisputably greening up the planet……..CO2 emitting fossil fuels.

Wind turbines and fake green energy is actually what’s wrecking the planet more than fossil fuels by an extremely wide margin.

This is mostly about:

  1. Crony capitalism.
  2. Political agenda that includes wealth REdistribution and carbon penalties that generate income/power for governments .
  3. Misled/brainwashed (but very sincere) science illiteracy and environmental groups.
  4. Extremely biased scientists that should know better but have rejected the scientific method in this particular realm because they let politics or money/funding or mainstream, group think rule their mindset and sabotage their independent, critical thinking because it’s better for their career than opposing those things.

How did we get here?

The world today has completely transformed the way that we communicate compared to how we got information 30 years ago. People’s way of thinking has been permanently altered.

Compared to before the internet, for instance, there’s a billion+ times more information available in an instant here in 2022.

As we all know, if you have a bias, even a small one it affects the way that you process information. 50 years ago, people with a bias 1 way would mostly be subjected to the same information that everybody else was, including people with a bias the other way.

Not so in the last couple of decades. Now, there are many hundreds of thousands of choices that we can make about where to get our information from.
Unlike 1972, when everybody had the same 3 tv news networks and the local newspaper for their city, in 2022, they have limitless choices.

It’s human nature, because of our bias to pick sources that tell us the news/information which lines up with what we already believe….our ideologies. Almost nobody goes to sources that give them the other sides views to try to understand them and learn new things.
People gravitate towards echo chambers…………which feeds bias with constant positive feedback to amplify whatever it is you already believe.

In this age, this means whoever can control the messaging, controls peoples thoughts. Just getting people to initially connect to a part of a message is often enough to capture their attention. Then they will respond by going to sources that tell them more of what they now believe and it amplifies enormously over time. In today’s world, the amplifiers are astronomically greater than 50 years ago.

After several years of this, people are completely unable to recognize any truths that contradict the messaging of the sources they have relied on for years.

That’s great if their sources are always 100% right about everything all the time.

For instance, the planet greening up can’t be comprehended by a brain that is programmed to think that the planet is dying from the pollutant, CO2.

That same brain goes only to sources that tells it things that line up with CO2=pollution and rejects information that contradicts that.
The brainwash on the fake climate crisis starts with the sources altruistic motive of “saving the planet”. This imposes an unwavering amount of impenetrable trust and great sense of urgency on that brain.

It’s profoundly stunning to see that this defines our world today. Not just on the fake climate crisis but in numerous other realms.

Even after 3+ decades of making extreme predictions that continually bust, the millions of captured brains are unable to recognize the big busts and unable to appropriately reconcile the massive disparity between the predictions and what actually has (not) happened. There is 0 accountability for being wrong by these sources because the captured brains are programmed to assume everything stated about the climate crisis is correct and ignore everything that shows otherwise.

Fact: The exact same things that caused the scientific Holocene Climate OPTIMUM, 6,000 years ago are causing a climate CRISIS in 2022……based on NON scientific elements and dishonest science.

It’s hard to imagine this going on forever. At some point, authentic science and truth should be able to break thru. Maybe we are in the early stages because of the fake green renewable energy schemes are massively failing and its started to really hurt in many countries.

There is no magic, green energy fairy that will come to the rescue to fill in for all the huge deficits in physical laws that make these fake green energy schemes impossible. The bigger the commitment, moving forward, the greater the damage to economies and energy security.

At some point, hopefully very soon, the impossible fake green energy promises, thriving on promises alone and captured brains for 2 decades, will cause an increasingly strong dose of awakening (penalties) as they are imposed, that’s great enough in the real world to sink deeply enough into brains for them to snap out of the brainwash and come to their senses.

That will be the starting point of a new age for authentic climate science and energy truth.

When fully realized, mankind will look back and appreciate this current age for being the “Dark Ages” for climate science and corrupt energy schemes.

November 23, 2022 3:47 am

The BBC complaints department is a total and utter sham. They hide behind the regulator’s “guidelines” on reporting, which they interpret to suit their own position.

I complained some time ago about a report on the BBC website that claimed renewables “are nine times cheaper” than fossil fuels. I pointed out this was a gross simplification and that when capital and back-up costs are taken into account — as they should be — this was factually incorrect.

In response I received a woolly reply, which inevitably backed the original piece and failed dismally to address the points I’d raised.

The BBC is no longer about news but propaganda, which wouldn’t be so bad if we — the UK public — weren’t having to pay for it. As things stand I’m having to fund an organisation in which I have no trust just to watch my television.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  MarkW2
November 23, 2022 4:15 am

The BBC has a standard procedure for complaints.
If you don’t specifically say you want a reply you won’t hear again, it goes straight into the bit bucket.
Ask for a response and you get a standard, thank you, we’ve checked with the programme maker and they say they are correct.
Appeal (Stage 2) and they’ll say we checked with the source and they say they are correct. But thank you and we’ve made a note of your concerns for Programme Editors.

There is a third stage which I’ve never tried, this sometimes (rarely) gets a change to an article. Any changes are done secretly.

Russell Cook
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
November 23, 2022 8:22 am

Been there, done that regarding the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are ‘on the payroll of Big Oil’, taking it all the way up to the Ofcom level. The solitary victory I scored was prompting the Beeb to place a, well, to put it mildly, massively lame clarification at one of its web pages that was promulgating the accusation. The correction was buried deeply enough at the page that likely nobody ever saw it. More on that here: “BBC ( sort of … ) Corrects Radio 4’s ‘How They Made Us Doubt Everything’ Episode 6: ‘Reposition Global Warming as theory, not fact’

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Russell Cook
November 23, 2022 9:38 am

I have to admire your dedication

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  MarkW2
November 23, 2022 5:21 am

Is there a movement to terminate it? Or at least to stop tax payer funding.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 23, 2022 5:36 am

The BBC has a thing called a [Royal] Charter (its constitution, if you like), which is discussed in Parliament on a ~decadal time frame, the next one is due in 2027.

It’s where the government can threaten, cajole and reward etc.

What changes can government make to the BBC?

November 23, 2022 4:09 am

The BBC was set up to inform, educate and entertain, but achieves none of these goals. It is paid for by a mandatory TV tax that has to be paid by all UK citizens that watch any TV as it is broadcast, regardless of what you watch, the channel through which it’s received or the device you use. For the privilege of watching a broadcast you pay the BBC who then produces sloppy, error ridden programmes and news. As I’ve said before, the BBC lives by the mantra ‘never let the truth get in the way of a good story’. Or, in their case, a poor story.
The BBC is a disgrace, I don’t watch any live broadcast TV so that I don’t have to fund this awful corporation.

Reply to  Jackdaw
November 23, 2022 4:32 am

“The BBC was set up to inform, educate and entertain, but achieves none of these goals”

That was then, and 100 years later this is now. It’s mission is now to patronise, indoctrinate and dumb-down.

If you have been affected by any of the issues raised in the programme etc….

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Jackdaw
November 23, 2022 8:57 am

It is all about thought-control people.

One of the primary bases for the power to advance an agenda (in this case an anti-fossil fuel agenda) must be to control what the masses think and how they think. The big-wigs at the BBC no doubt know this, as do those who control the mainstream media here in the U.S. Often enough, the majority of the MSM here in the U.S. are just mouthpieces for the Democrats and the CAGW and renewables narrative that are embraced on the Left.

When media outlets and govts are willingly taking their cues from Orwell’s Nineteen-eighty-four, the freedom to think for oneself is under attack. The human intellect is degraded in value, and Big Brother becomes a replacement for it. In my mind, that is not one of the characteristics of a democracy — especially a healthy one.

abolition man
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
November 23, 2022 10:01 am

Agree with you wholeheartedly, CD, but you can’t just blame Demoncrats for this!
The Repubican Party establishment is just as committed to the Green Raw Deal as the Dems, their Wall Street donors are ravenous for the opportunity to suck more tax dollars out of that trough of swill! The Repubican wing of the Uniparty went so far as to pull funding from candidates in closely contested races if they didn’t kiss the ring properly and prostrate themselves!
Until we start operating on the basis that DC and most Western government leaders are almost completely corrupt, we will never be able to deal with the crooks in an appropriate manner. Without liberty the human intellect can not fully prosper; creative endeavors and the advance of our civilization are at risk!

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Jackdaw
November 23, 2022 9:44 am

I’m not sure the BBC was ever a completely truthful organisation. It’s first Director General Lord Reith set the tone for the organisation.

November 23, 2022 5:12 am

Perhaps the worst for the people there is slated to occur in 2025 with the closure of its Longyearbyen coal mine.

Joseph Zorzin
November 23, 2022 5:18 am

estimated to be heating at six times the global average”

Is it time to plant some palm trees? No? Then time to worry about other things.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 23, 2022 7:09 pm

Nor can we plant citrus trees. Lemon, Lime, Grapefruit, Orange, Kumquat, and many others.

Heck, I can’t even plant most large muscadines. While we’re south of the Mason-Dixon line, but well north of Florida, Texas and New Orleans,

Tom Halla
November 23, 2022 5:49 am

Anyone not using the whole record is usually intending to decieve.

DD More
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 23, 2022 1:01 pm

Would the Whole Record include past reporting.
Probably the best known and most widely quoted item is this from the Monthly Weather Review of Oct 1922.
The oceanographic observations (reported that) Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81o29′ in ice-free water. .
observations of Capt. Martin Ingebrigtsen, who sailed the eastern Arctic for 54 years past. He first noted warmer conditions in 1918, since that time it has steadily gotten warmer, to-day the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same region of 1868 to 1917.
He pointed out that formerly the waters about Spitzbergen held an even summer temperature of about 3o Celsius; this year recorded temperatures up to 15o, and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitsbergen.”

H/T Judith Curry –

So until there is no ice on the north shore and they can sail north of 81o29′ in ice free waters, there is no modern records.

November 23, 2022 5:58 am

It seems like their defense is that they were citing experts to support what was being reported, so it is merely a case of cherry picking “experts” as opposed to cherry picking the data. One wants to leave the cherry picking of data up to the “experts”.

November 23, 2022 6:30 am

Not only is Paul Homewood’s assessment on target, I was struck by this whopper of a statement in the article: “Wildlife and human life are now in a struggle to survive.

Huh? Isolated humans living in a hostile, frigid environment are at risk from warmer weather? Wow! We must tell that to the tens of thousands of northerners who go south to retire in Florida, Spain, or Mexico, or vacation in the Mediterranean or Caribbean. They are walking into a deadly trap. They should move north instead? Is Hudson Bay rapidly becoming a retirement paradise?

Reply to  pflashgordon
November 23, 2022 7:33 am

The only animals that are “struggling to survive”, live inside models. In the real world, all of the animals are thriving.

Reply to  MarkW
November 23, 2022 12:46 pm

Thats line alone would have made a very valid claim for the BBC to retract a unsubstantiated item.
I found with these sorts of things , that you have to go through them with fine tooth comb and make your inaccurate claim against every single one

November 23, 2022 7:02 am

I loathe BBC ‘climate science’; they are obsessed about a supposed impending climate catastrophe.

Facts are distorted, exaggerated or ignored in order to ensure the same tedious narrative of doom is maintained. 

I made a formal complaint to the BBC about one of their programs reporting on a rapidly eroding sand cliff on the seashore in Norfolk as being the fault of climate change - it's made of sand for God's sake. Also blamed were rapidly rising and fast accelerating rises in sea level. I pointed out NASA data showed circa 0.24mm/year rise and no acceleration. I quoted the name of the program and the time I viewed it. The response made clear they were not even prepared to comment on my complaint.
November 23, 2022 7:27 am

why focus on distant history when the claim that the place needs saving is ridiculous. warm climate will bring life and the community can benefit from agriculture, tourism etc. the reason nobody lives in the arctic is because it is too COLD.

November 23, 2022 7:42 am

looks like an 80yr cycle

Nick Stokes
November 23, 2022 11:47 am

The BBC in fact referred to Longyearbyen, which is indeed on the main island of Svalbard at 78.25N. The graph shown here is of a different location, Bjørnøya, which is at 74.52N, about halfway between Longyearbyen and mainland Norway,

Longyearbyen (Svalbard airport) does not have such a long record, but does in fact behave as the BBC says.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 23, 2022 1:01 pm

The airfield at Svalbard was constructed during WW2, Im 100% certain weather conditions were recorded even then.
the war for the weather continued. The Germans kept establishing secret weather stations in Svalbard as well as northeast Greenland and Franz Josef Land. Only in 1944-45, with an increasingly difficult situation in Europe, the Germans ran no less than four staffed weather stations in Svalbard, in addition to other, similar ones elsewhere in the north Atlantic. “
That was one of the objects of the British codebreaking, German weather conditions were transmitted by radio/Enigma and were deciphered as well, as the information was useful for Arctic convoys to Russia

The BBC is happy to mention another location further North , but still on Svalbard, but not the temp record at Bjørnøya/ Bear Island , further South

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Duker
November 23, 2022 1:14 pm

 Im 100% certain weather conditions were recorded even then.”

“The Germans kept establishing secret weather stations in Svalbard”

They may have been recorded, but do we have the records?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 23, 2022 5:11 pm

The airport wasnt the only location. The weather at the town would have been recorded since the settlement began mining around 1917
In 1917, the first workers, on behalf of the company AB Spetsbergen svenska kolfält, travelled to Svalbard to start mining coal at the far end of the Van Mijenfjord in the so-called Svea mine (Sveagruvan). For the next eight years, around 2,000 Swedes lived in the small community. The Svea mine was expected to supply Sweden with coal for hundreds of years”

Barentsburg , the location of the Soviet era mining town also had weather records since 1932 when the Dutch who established the site sold it They started in the 1920s

The modern ‘Svalbard airport’ data is a red herring to ignore the older records from the area.

And yes someone has already compiled the historical data
“One of the few long instrumental records available for the Arctic is the Svalbard Airport composite series that hitherto began in 1911, with observations made on Spitsbergen, the largest island in the Svalbard Archipelago. This record has now been extended to 1898 with the inclusion of observations made by hunting and scientific expeditions. Temperature has been observed almost continuously in Svalbard since 1898, although at different sites. It has therefore been possible to create one composite series for Svalbard Airport covering the period 1898–2012…”

The 1960s were a cold period as they were again around 1910

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Duker
November 23, 2022 8:43 pm

Nordli et al, which you reference, have written an update with data to 2018 here. The plot of annual data is below. The BBC’s claim of 4C rise in fifty years seems modest, looking at the smoothed curve. It’s more than 5C since the beginning. Even the earlier peak in the 30’s is nearly 3C less than recent.

comment image

November 23, 2022 12:34 pm

If you read the article in it’s entirety, the facts presented are that the race to save Svalbard is limited to praying, closing a coal mine and shooting polar bears that will eat you.

November 23, 2022 12:58 pm

The BBC complaints process is fundamentally flawed. It exists to confirm that the BBC was right. It does not exist to determine if the BBC was right. So, it takes no account of the truth.

After all, in a post-modern world there can be many different truths and the BBCs job is to pick the truth that’s most fitting for the BBC. By definition, the truth the BBC has chosen once is the right truth.

We do still need a UK media corporation. Otherwise, UK culture will be swamped by the USA with its similar language and far bigger market. The problem is that the news is so biased.

So next charter, keep the funding the same but ban all news coverage except for overseas correspondents and local journalism outside of London. Losing the London lies will liberate lots of lolly for productions.

November 23, 2022 1:27 pm

You have to remember that the neutral /unbiased BBC employs an army of Climate Disinformation journalists to help ensure that they remain within the rules /sarc

Messrs H and G from 1940s Germany would be very proud of the work being done by the BBC and its journalists 😉

November 23, 2022 2:22 pm

NPR has completely ignored my email.

I still have not heard back, I have sent this multiple times since August.


On Nov 5, 2022, at 10:14 PM

xxxxxx wrote:

I hear blatant untruths on NPR regarding climate almost daily, this seems to have become policy.

“No story touches as many people as climate change. Heat waves, mega-droughts and unprecedented floods are all becoming more intense and frequent.”

This contradicts known science and cast serious doubt on the credibility of NPR as a whole.

There is no detectable increase in any of the events listed.

How will this be corrected? Why was such a blatant untruth allowed to be published?


Last edited 11 days ago by aaron
November 24, 2022 3:33 am

The BBC is on it’s last.
Disband it. It isn mouthpiece for activists of all left wing kinds
Not surprised they are churlish over saying sorry. After all, they are the BBC! they tell US what to think! WHO ARE YOU to question that?

Eamon Butler
November 25, 2022 5:47 pm

I had pretty much the same experience with our National broadcaster a few years back. Essentially, they didn’t want to know and said it would be irresponsible of them to broadcast the views against their narrative. (I’m paraphrasing.)
Since when is ”Svalbard” the Globe? If the LIA wasn’t global, what’s good for the goose…

%d bloggers like this: