Skip to content

What Kate Humble Forgot To Tell You About Yellowstone

January 7, 2017
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b087vjh4/yellowstone-wildest-winter-to-blazing-summer-3-the-blazing-summer

 

Kate Humble and the BBC have been at it again. Hotfoot from their polar bear deception, they have now been up to their necks in global warming propaganda in Yellowstone Park.

The series ostensibly looks at how wildlife copes with the enormous extremes between winter and summer there. However, as the iPlayer screed shows, the underlying theme is climate change. This is the summary of Episode 3 : The Blazing Summer:

 

The story of animals surviving one of the harshest seasonal changes on the planet continues.

It is summer and the Yellowstone beavers have a new challenge. Will the young survive as the river dries up and the colony is forced to move home? As food becomes scarce, wolves have a surprising strategy to keep their pups fed and grizzly bears are unexpected visitors on a cowboy ranch.

By midsummer, the hot dry conditions create a new danger – deadly wildfires burn out of control and threaten to engulf a family of great grey owls. 2016 was the hottest year on earth since records began, and across Yellowstone scientists reveal the effects of rising temperatures on the animals that live here.

 

Here are a few selected titbits:

 

 

2 Min

“Early July, and so far in 2016, every month has been hotter than average in Yellowstone. If this trend continues, summer could reach record temperatures and push animals to the brink of survival.”

4 Min

[After discussing the hot summer and the young recently born]

“For this latest generation, the changing climate will make their lives even more challenging…….”

 

“In spring, the beaver family was affected by the unusually warm temperatures

[which supposedly brought huge volumes of melt water]

 

32 Min

Humble to a flower specialist:

“Does it concern you that we are seeing a march towards a very different climate?”

32 Min

“Climatologists studying Yellowstone have charted temperatures that are rising by nearly 0.2C every decade.

This seemingly small change is having far reaching consequences”

33 Min

Discussion of how pine beetles are thriving because of mild winters.

 

41 Min

“Climate data has revealed that July this year was the 7th month in a row with above average temperatures.”

Cue pictures of dried up river beds.

 

The relentless heat and the early thaw are a dangerous combination. They may create perfect conditions for wildfires”

“By mid August, five major fires are burning”

Cue pictures of family of grey owls in a tree, and another of trees burning.

 

“These are the worst fires in Yellowstone since 1998. Large scale fires used to sweep through the park around every 300 years, but scientists now believe that the warming climate could result in them happening every 3 to 5 years by the end of the century”

 

And on and on!

You get the message. It is getting hotter in Yellowstone because of global warming, and wildlife is suffering.

 

But is any of this actually true?

Let’s start by looking at the annual temperature trends at Yellowstone. These are the official GISS figures, after adjustment, and include 2016. (GISS use MetAnn basis, ie Dec-Nov).

 

station

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=425004853450&dt=1&ds=12

 

We certainly see the rise in temperatures in the last three decades, but we also see the all too familiar drop in temperatures between the 1930s and 80s.

By far the warmest year was 1934, and there is no substantive difference between temperatures in the last decade and those in the 1930s to 50s.

 

But what about the unusually warm temperatures in spring?

 

image

 

Certainly a bit warmer than some other recent years, but nothing unprecedented.

The warmest spring, again, was in 1934, followed by 1987 and 1992. There is no evidence at all there was anything unusual at all about this spring, or that there is any “warming trend”.

 

And as for those supposed record temperatures of summer? Nothing that has not been seen in may previous years, again notably the 1930s and 40s.

 

image

 

 

But what about the pine beetles? Surely they must be proof that winters are getting milder?

Nope! The mildest winter was 1934. Although the last two winters have been relatively mild, there is nothing to suggest that this is part of any trend.

 

image

 

 

And while we are at it, precipitation last year was above normal, and what trend there is is to more rainfall.

 

multigraph

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/48/0/pcp/12/9/1895-2016?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1895&lasttrendyear=2016

 

 

 

 

Now let’s come to the topic of wildfires, which is one of the most common climate myths.

Unfortunately, the National Interagency Fire Center has not yet published data for 2016, but their previous data, which goes back to 2002, shows how much wildfire acreage can vary from year to year. It is simply impossible to derive any meaningful trends from such sparse data.

 

image

https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_statistics.html

 

Not also that 2016 was supposedly the worst year since 1998. These are weather related events, connected to El Nino, not climate.

The claim that wildfires were much less frequent in the past is, in any event, sheer drivel, as any forestry expert could have told the BBC.

(Humble’s comment in the programme that “scientists now believe that the warming climate could result in them happening every 3 to 5 years by the end of the century” is a common BBC trick. They only need to find one wacky, grant addicted junk scientist to spout some easily debunked claptrap, and they turn into a “scientists say” gospel truth).

 

The USDA explain:

 

Fire is the most dominant abiotic agent in terms of area affected across the landscape, but is also an integral part of many forested ecosystems. Between 1945 and 2000, fire suppression substantially reduced annual acreage burned. Since 2000, an increase in area burned has occurred, although it has not yet reached the levels recorded between 1925 and 1960.

image

https://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/criteria-indicators/indicators/indicator-316.php

 

It is well known by forestry experts that the programme of fire suppression after the war led to the build up of combustible material, which now makes fires much worse than they would otherwise be.

And it was the regular burn, prior to fire suppression, that used to keep the population of pine beetles in check.

 

 

The whole programme from start to finish was little more than global warming propaganda.

It is understandable that naturalists in the field see changes over the last two or three decades that they have been studying Yellowstone.

But it is the BBC’s job to give us the full picture, and put current events into a proper perspective. Not for the first time, they prefer disinformation to the truth.

 

 

UPDATE

The graph on wildfires was wrongly labelled as “million acres”, but should be “thousand acres”.

Now amended.

Advertisements
55 Comments
  1. Joe Public permalink
    January 7, 2017 2:29 pm

    Should readers sense another formal complaint in the offing?

    • January 8, 2017 9:03 am

      Quite pointless – the Complaints Procedure is rigged.

      • Nigel S permalink
        January 8, 2017 10:11 am

        Agreed; I complained about an article stating ‘Sledging on London’s hills at Christmas hasn’t been possible for many years due to lack of snow.’ (caused by guess what!). The reply started ‘I understand that you feel the article contained an inaccuracy with regard to the weather.’ (impressive bait and switch)

        There’s little point escalating complaints since the final response is just a refined version of the original obfuscation.

    • wert permalink
      January 8, 2017 3:16 pm

      No. Defund.

      • January 14, 2017 4:43 pm

        Seriously put in two tickboxes at the end of your complaint.
        [. ] Do you intend to deal with my complaint properly,
        …..or [. ] Do you intend to signal we should defund the BBC ?

  2. Ex-expat Colin permalink
    January 7, 2017 2:35 pm

    Would the Park Rangers agree..did they dress a few odd bods up for on que comments?Would never listen to her gushy claptrap.

  3. January 7, 2017 2:38 pm

    I live in Wyoming and am quite familiar with weather and fires here. The Yellowstone Fire in 1988 burned nearly 800,000 acres, lasted all summer. The fire even affected local weather across the state. The National Park Service page is showing 62,000 acres burned as of September 21, 2016. ( https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/management/fire-summary-2016.htm). Except to the news media outside of Wyoming, these 2016 fires were pretty much a nonevent.

    As for hotter, in the early 90’s my husband was hunting in a wilderness area SE of the Park. It was 90 degrees in October at 9000 feet.

  4. January 7, 2017 2:46 pm

    One of the prevalent pines in Yellowstone is the Lodgepole pine, “Pinus contorta” Doug. ex Loud. It bears “serotinous” cones and accumulates large in place seed banks. Fire is required to generate the heat required to melt the resins and open the cones. Following fire, such as those in Yellowstone in 1988, a carpet of lodgepole seedlings germinates on the bare mineral soils.

    Did the Humble Kate forget that also?

  5. Harry Passfield permalink
    January 7, 2017 2:48 pm

    BBC know that ‘warmer’ is a relative term and that the man in the street would think that temps were really discernably different, listening to Humble. Yet, if you gave that mints two stones to hold with one being ambient and the other half a degree warmer he’d tell the BBC not to be so bloody stupid as to say one was warmer.
    By such lies and dissembling are we now governed.

  6. Russ Wood permalink
    January 7, 2017 3:04 pm

    -And wasn’t Ms Humble head of the RSPB when they promoted bird-choppers instead of natural gas?

    • Joe Public permalink
      January 7, 2017 3:41 pm

      Ah yes. Those super-intelligent birds & wildlife which could identify a building site as a future frack pad and be drawn to it, whilst avoiding future turbine excavations.

  7. January 7, 2017 3:17 pm

    I have been in Yellowstone 3 times over 20 years, in June, July and September and it snowed up to blizzard level each time. Problem is with warmists is that they can’t distinguish weather from climate. Terry Langford.

    • January 8, 2017 9:38 am

      Oh, they understand the difference all right. They simply will not accept facts that run counter to the narrative. It’s not understanding they lack, it’s integrity. After all, they had the Climategate tapes a month before the story broke, but chose to say nothing.

      • wert permalink
        January 8, 2017 3:19 pm

        You hit the nail on head. They lack integrity, they are also bloody stupid thinking how educated they are.

  8. January 7, 2017 3:26 pm

    My favourite was that the snow is now too hard for the owls to penetrate, even though there is less than there used to be. If there was too much snow, no doubt the fear would be, the owls couldn’t reach the mice, so are dying out.

    The spring program was possibly worse. Even without the factual errors, it is a terribly weak program. More suited to CBBC than adults.

    • Nigel S permalink
      January 8, 2017 10:15 am

      The owls will have to make do with bats instead.

  9. Athelstan permalink
    January 7, 2017 3:37 pm

    Humble is in a race to the bottom “how green am I?” – this lot have kicked out those who go soft on the green religion – remember Oddie? In order to maintain her excessive stipend [what else could she do?] she has to be ‘on message’ and whatever lie needs to be spouted – Kate’s yer gal.

    Humble is, no 2 to that eco fanatic Chris Packham an animal rights type, he is a disdainful, preposterous, nastily childlike in his blind, unquestioning adherence to alarmunism.
    Hells teeth, Packham is worse even than is, Harrabin, at least Harrabin displays some echo of humanity, if not humility. With Packham, his whole demeanour oozes contemptuous bombast and always you get the feeling that and probably he would not deny it, that, he likes dumb animals rather than higher species who burn “fossil fuels – the bastards!”

    Kate this is a zero sum game, you really require to ship out, if for nothing else then – for the sake of her own sanity – lying like you do, you’ll come to regret such overt dissembling, it becomes corrosive, like an Ebola pathogen eating at you, relentlessly.

    • Adam Gallon permalink
      January 7, 2017 9:34 pm

      Packham is actually mentally ill. He did a slot on Jeremy Vine’s show on Radio 2, last year. He suffers from Aspergers, depression and suicidal thoughts.

      • Athelstan permalink
        January 8, 2017 9:41 am

        It might be observed that, when the ‘countryside alliance’ went after him, this bloke threw himself on the mercy of public sympathy, even though he ponders on and scatters ideas of Malthusian catastrophe, the irony grows thick.

        All jobs entail pressure, he needs therapy and attend to getting well, popular TV exposure surely can only add to his woes.
        Because, the programmes he presents are corrupting young minds and for me that’s unconscionable – the bbc, the nature watch series should be aware, propaganda poisons minds or, all along, indoctrination: is that the idea? He needs, surely to get out of the kitchen.

  10. January 7, 2017 3:50 pm

    And there’s the difference between entertainment and science. Don’t even get me started on Brian Cox…

  11. January 7, 2017 3:50 pm

    “What Kate Humble Forgot To Tell You About Yellowstone”. There is nothing forgetful about Kate Humble’s deliberate deception, as you would expect from a regular propagandist from the Biased Broadcasting Corporation.

  12. mikewaite permalink
    January 7, 2017 4:40 pm

    The sad bit for me is that they threw away the chance to make a very good programme .
    The photography, as usual, was outstanding and the expectation of that would draw people to the programme, as it did me.
    They showed some of the difficulties of life for different species and how that life is so dependent on the conditions, but instead of simply assigning all the problems to global warming , they could have asked the question: Is it really due to global warming ?.
    They could have produced the graphs that Paul has above instead of just 2 years , and that briefly. . Bearing in mind, for an example, that the wolf packs in Yellowstone only date from 1995 and later, and that the cubbing success is monitored by the Forestry Service, they could have correlated cubbing records against snowfall, temperature, El Nino years , etc to determine whether the environment is changing for the worst for this key predator.
    The tragedy is that the chance to make a really intelligent analysis of what is almost a laboratory closed system was thrown away to score political points – bad , bad , bad .

  13. Michael Oxenham permalink
    January 7, 2017 5:33 pm

    Well done Paul….another excellent analysis and very appropriate comments by all your fans. She has hopefully got a terminal dose of horobinitis and her chances of succeeding Attenborough are now doomed. Better not say anything about Packers as he used to be a client years and years ago!

  14. DMA permalink
    January 7, 2017 6:09 pm

    I live 60 miles NW of the park and have lived in south western Montana for nearly 70 years. It was colder in the 70s but not as cold as my dad’s stories of the 30s.
    What Ms Humble left out but implied the opposite is how well the critters are doing. There are too many elk and bison in the park now and the herds have to be trimmed. The recently reintroduced wolves have spread rapidly and pose problems for ranchers all over the area. Beavers have never been threatened but have to be controlled as they cause stream bank problems. The one critter I know has it tougher lately in the park is the coyotes. The wolves kill them whenever they cross paths. Life for wild critters is always tough and they exist in a realm of constant danger and competition but none of those that currently live in Yellowstone have roots in a climate that was not warmer in the distant past than it is now.

  15. January 7, 2017 6:28 pm

    Can Paul Homewood or anyone explain why the BBC has such a bias to “Global warming”.
    Whilst I am well aware of their leftist,warming propaganda I cannot understand why they do it. The comments by Paul are superb,as are all the comments,many thanks.
    All explanations greatly welcomed.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      January 7, 2017 8:14 pm

      Michael, let me answer for Paul: They don’t do it to cool the world, they do it to rule the world.

      • January 8, 2017 9:42 am

        Good summary. Ditto many another – UN, EU, George Soros etc

    • Ex-expat Colin permalink
      January 8, 2017 8:19 am

      Journalists and part of the huge BBC News service. News I think gives them a wide remit and is thus global in all respects. Its a remit that has gone wild and no doubt counters the problem of the BBC not able to produce sufficient quality programming…of the interesting and entertaining variety. Too many fingers in too many pies really. However, being State and EU funded relieves the BBC of having to worry about where the next meal comes from?

      Just before the service was to go digital a concern expressed was what would fill the multi channels….I remember those discussions. Rolling repeating programmes and News drivel is what we now have..simple! Quality is in the camera systems …that only I think.

    • NicG permalink
      January 8, 2017 12:54 pm

      I would like to expand on Harry P’s answer. CAGW aka global warming is one tip of a very large iceberg which, at its heart, is called social control. The bbc have been cheerleaders for the socialist cause for a while.

      • NicG permalink
        January 8, 2017 12:57 pm

        Ooops! …’aka climate change’….

  16. Broadlands permalink
    January 7, 2017 6:48 pm

    These same “experts” wanted to consider the American wolverine as “threatened” because it was being affected by “global warming”…

    AGENCY: “Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).” “We recognize that there are scientific uncertainties on many aspects of climate change, including the role of natural variability in climate.” “…we find that McKelvey et al. (2011, entire) represents the best scientific information available regarding the impacts of climate change to wolverine habitat.”
    McKelvey et al. 2011… “This [our] approach does not account for changes in winter temperature and precipitation patterns (i.e., it does not predict future climates)…”

    AGENCY CONCLUSIONS: “We expect that the geographic extent and connectivity of suitable wolverine habitat in western North America will decline with continued global warming.”

    COMMENT: The temperatures and the temperature history (derived from NOAA NCDC databases) in the four American wolverine states (Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Washington) does not support the Agency’s global warming conclusion. The winter (Dec-Feb) trend in each of those states in the last 14 years (since 1998) has been downward. Chart attached). Winter temperatures in 1998 were an average of 0.8°F warmer than in 2012. Winter temperatures in 1934 (one of the warmest years on record) in those four states were 3.2°F warmer than in 2012. The wolverine habitat has experienced cooler winters and even the 14 full-year trend is down.
    Protecting species from human activities is laudable but using the IPCC regarding GLOBAL climate change and MODEL projections to promote and justify it LOCALLY is, in this instance, an error. The American wolverine may deserve our protection but some other factor(s) than global warming deserve reconsideration before passing rules and regulations that can impact the future.

    The proposal was denied…

  17. roy andrews permalink
    January 7, 2017 7:08 pm

    Alarmist Fascism is now so deeply entrenched in the ‘scientific’ world and the BBC that anyone wishing to pursue any sort of career in either know that they must toe the party line. Ask Johnny Ball or David Bellamy.

  18. tom0mason permalink
    January 7, 2017 8:02 pm

    What Kate Humble Forgot To Tell You About Yellowstone…
    exactly how much of your TV tax contribution was wasted on this bucket of bilge.

  19. Don permalink
    January 7, 2017 8:32 pm

    Paul, I believe the chart for Wyoming wildfire acreage burned should be scaled in thousands, not millions. NIFC statistics are like a lot of government reports these days: the more the merrier. Year end totals include categories for numerous federal agencies and County & Local fire districts. The threshold for reporting is .1 acre (.04 hectare). Children playing with fireworks who set a vacant lot on fire may generate a “wildfire” report.

    • January 7, 2017 10:40 pm

      Thanks Don

      That’s right, it should be thousands.

      I have amended

  20. John F. Hultquist permalink
    January 7, 2017 8:36 pm

    High altitude continental locations are tough places to call home.

    Yellowstone N. P. is a high altitude area and inland. Old Faithful Geyser is about 2,240 m. above sea level. In the ~1,000 k. (~660 miles; about London to Venice) between Old Faithful and the Oregon Coast there are mountains aplenty for the moisture to leave the ocean-sourced air masses.
    Fire is necessary for the landscape:
    https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/management/firemanagement.htm

    Regarding: Beetles and bud worms
    We visited that area in 1970 and took photos of the dying and dead trees.
    Here is a good report (pdf – from Oregon) about Mountain Pine Beetles and Western Spruce Budworm. Photos are great.
    Beetles & Worms

    As forests age and grow old something is going to kill the trees. Then the cycle repeats.

  21. CheshireRed permalink
    January 7, 2017 9:35 pm

    Hey, Kate, you reading this? Go fu****ck yourself on a giant Douglas fir, there’s a good ‘climate change’ propagandist poppet. Sweet dreams, sweetheart. XX xx

  22. Malcolm permalink
    January 7, 2017 9:36 pm

    As Yellowstone is just is just a giant volcano about to happen it rather puts the powers of nature thing into perspective. All these people saving the Earth when the Earth has that within in it to rend itself in two. The piecemeal housing development of Britain speaks volumes. Destruction is alright as long as a sincere media friendly case can be made for it and enough people are getting their piece of the action. So rather than having expansion of cities with all their roads and amenities in situ lets not only build on green fields but then enfilade that poor nature with the transportation routes that such ventures will need, Eco-villages, what a nerve.

    They announced that millions of trees would be planted along the HS2 route which informs me that by the time that such plantations become viable the wild life would be defunct. Wildlife developed out of a certainty of landscape, our treatment of our landscape is on a par with the US wiping-out the native Americans. But regret is alright, there’s a book in it.

    Our ancient landscape survived the coal era only to be wiped-out by population expansion. Coalbrookdale in depictions of its time as a manufacturing centre looks like hell on Earth and yet today there’s what, an iron bridge? Left alone and with a fair wind our country has its own salve.

    Was it Santorini that gave us darkness, temperature fall and the failure of crops? Some itsy-bitsy volcano in the Med closed the shades on the world. For all our efforts all we get is barely calculable and inconsistent figures and Roger Harrabin, a shamanic figure created by the BBC. The whole of the planet harbours powers that make Global Warming look like a bedtime story. If Yellowstone goes up the lights will go out not just all over Europe.

  23. January 7, 2017 10:01 pm

    The BBC was formed to inform, educate and entertain. Time they went back to basics – could do with elocution lessons too – their articulation is appalling.

    • Athelstan permalink
      January 8, 2017 9:57 am

      I would settle for plain old newsreaders who do not stress every word and emote as if they were treading the boards and reciting the Bard. Mind you, paying them £600k p/a, you maybe come to expect more of the monkeys.

      Then watch if you will, some attempting to review the daily newspapers, of the luvvie talking heads or usually wanabees, not luvvies, particularly those of the gentler sex. Switch off the sound, observe the passion and emotion, arm waving and nodding, bowing, beseeching eyes burning with whatever and all the faux outrage they are able to muster, “Aleppo! the children!”
      “the world, climate change, the children, our future, poverty, the children, rapefugees it’s their right to live here, now – in Britain, we owe them a living!”

      and by implication:

      “you bastards”.

      Aye – ’tis a sight like watching one of those over the hill but bulging eyed sanctimony Hollywood slebs telling us all how to live our lives.

  24. Al Kahn permalink
    January 8, 2017 3:00 am

    Dimwits will sell their souls to make a buck.

  25. January 8, 2017 10:23 am

    I think we have to distinguish between the warmists and their opponents with political or financial acts to grind…and the genuinely concerned believers and non-believers. My own assessment of the data leaves me with little doubt that the climate change and warming scenarios are not proven. Far from it. However, I have some good academic colleagues who genuinely believe there is a concern and worry about the future. I do not insult their views. My concern is that students are taught only one way themes when they should be given both sides…including data and opinions…to sort out for themselves. Terry Langford.

  26. January 8, 2017 11:09 am

    Why exactly do we need Humble to add a layer of drivel to a programme on Yellowstone? She has no special expertise or knowledge and the local experts were generally more interesting, albeit uniformly white, which we know is not acceptable under BBC diversity policy – hence the token black presenter in the silly woolen hat. He managed to be even more inane than KH, a superlative achievement!

    In 2009 the BBC broadcast a nature documentary series on Yellowstone which was much better presented and constructed. A re-run would have been cheaper and more informative.

    • Joe Public permalink
      January 8, 2017 11:19 am

      Part of her remuneration package, a part which escapes the Taxman, is an ‘*All*-expenses-paid’ holiday in the USA, in return for an hour’s mouthing-off.

  27. CheshireRed permalink
    January 8, 2017 11:55 am

    The flora and fauna of Yellowstone must be some of the hardiest on earth, withstanding temperature variations from very hot to sub-zero fffff’kin freezing, yet we’re led to believe a minute fraction of degree shift one way or another poses serious threats. It really is just pathetic.

  28. January 8, 2017 12:40 pm

    Yes, I have seen the original series on Yellowstone twice and it was much better than this Humble offering. As an ecologist, I have generally stopped watching so called “nature” programmes as so many of them have staged pictures…many from film libraries. Occasionally, one gets some good filming but even the great Attenburg had to admit some “not quite as it seemed” filming. On the other hand there are some great and genuine films from superb cameramen but I suspect that if they don’t fit the “agenda” they may get lost.

  29. Singer beneath bridges permalink
    January 8, 2017 12:40 pm

    I only got to see the first Yellowstone programme about Winter. Mrs K comes out in hives every time Katie utters a single syllable. In our home she is designated Kate not-so-humble. Between the invective being hurled at the TV screen I gathered that the usual climate mantra was being being broadcast – namely there being less snow. I found this very difficult to reconcile with another season-related TV series on Yellowstone where it was explained that the Yellowstone area acts as a snow trap, attracting significantly more snow than its surroundings. This was brilliantly exemplified by filming an employee who has to sweep roofs of the Yellowstone park buildings to prevent them collapsing under the weight of the incredibly thick snow. Climbing onto the roofs he had to shift snow that had built up to 2-3 metres. Some scarcity.

    There was an interesting section in this years programme where it was shown that wolves can run faster than elk on thick snow. It was suggested that years with thick snow favoured wolves, whereas years with less snow favoured elk. All they could show however was elk deliberately going out of their way to avoid crossing snow.

  30. January 8, 2017 12:45 pm

    Liked the comment about Ironbridge. Worked on the river ecology for about 10 years…it had obviously recovered without much help though God knows how long it took. The Trent took a good number of years and still some streams have not attained a good status ecologically.

  31. jimmmy permalink
    January 8, 2017 6:03 pm

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-visit-with-yellowstones-winter-caretaker/

    This little blurb informs way more than that Humble propagandized junk..

  32. bill borez permalink
    January 8, 2017 6:09 pm

    Interesting, I just watched that documentary myself ( Jan 8th ) and searching for some kind of data that backed up her facts ( 50 year historic Yellowstone temp records for example ) I ended up here reading this article. Great read, told me exactly what I needed to know.

    To be honest I’m sick to death of the BBC spreading this propaganda, every nature documentary they make now has to have a climate change angle backed up with editing and twisted rhetoric that is clearly pushing this agenda, yet when you actually check the facts it’s never the case. Its nothing but disgusting misinformation to be honest.

  33. YellowstoneFan permalink
    January 14, 2017 9:50 am

    Agree with the above. I’m 30 minutes through the first episode and have already had enough. Sensationalist dribble from overt propagandists with a hubris level of limited knowledge and sophistication relative to the ecosystem itself. A great shame.

    Glad this page comes up first though on googling for reviews of the programme – no doubt Humble and the BBC will read it. Minded to quote Trump on the BBC the other day: “there’s another beauty”. Not!

    • January 14, 2017 1:10 pm

      Haven’t seen the programme yet…not sure I want to. The earlier series was apparently much better and I enjoyed that, Did Kate Humble deal with the geysers and the thermal springs.? No doubt they thought those were a result of global warming too. I really get fed up with the pseudoscience lot…most of ’em have never done any real field research in their lives. I suppose the BEEB thinks it will keep its cash from the Government if it supports the tax scam. I wonder if Mr.Trump will be consistent or back-track when he realises how much false environmental taxes bring in. I hope not.,

  34. January 14, 2017 6:09 pm

    Not easy to take Brian Cox as an entertainer and scientist but at least he is a very good working academic…unlike the normal BBC presenters. He just picks some very silly programmes but the media bug is hard to break.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: