Oooh Look! A Squirrel!

Posted: December 17, 2014 by tallbloke in alarmism
Tags: , , , ,

The BBC reports on a major new source of ‘carbon’. apparently, squirrels are going to kill us all according to climate scientist Dr Sue Natali, from Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts.

If ground squirrels are adding nitrogen to an area – and that area doesn’t have plants because they dug them up – this may result in increased loss of carbon from the system

Watch out for those tree felling squirrels, a falling tree will kill you as surely as a falling wind turbine.


  1. wolsten says:

    I heard that interview on Radio5 Live this morning. I had to pinch myself and check the calendar to make sure it wasn’t April the 1st. The BBC environmental propaganda unit must be getting desperate if this is the worst climate scare story they can come up with these days, must be a new low.

  2. BelNeste says:

    Wolsten – it’s that old paradigm: first they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you have won. Hopefully we’re nearing the end of step two – but the fight isn’t over yet.

  3. Joe Public says:

    Or alternatively:

    If Woods Hole Research Center campus doesn’t have (as many) plants because they dug them up – this may result in increased loss of carbon from the system.

  4. thefordprefect says:

    can you provide documentary proof that grid connected turbines have fallen – i’m interested

    [Reply] The blog is littered with photos of them. Look around

  5. thefordprefect says:

    [Reply] The blog is littered with photos of them. Look around
    no the blog is littered with poorly designed and incorrectly installed B&Q specials <50kw machines

    I would like to see a 500kW laying flat (burning, blade breaking excluded)

    [Reply] Join the new wind turbine thread about the 100m turbine that has just come down with this. It’s off topic here. And by the way, you are wrong, there are several repost of big’uns on the floor on the blog.

  6. catweazle666 says:

    thefordprefect says: “I would like to see a 500kW laying flat (burning, blade breaking excluded)”

    Google is your friend. How many would you like?

  7. […] Oooh Look! A Squirrel! | Tallbloke’s Talkshop. […]

  8. Joe Public says:

    @ thefordprefect at 4:13 pm

    When you’ve scrolled to the bottom of the page catweazle666 has kindly linked-to, don’t forget to click the ‘View more images’ button.

  9. Joe Public says:

    The news is worse than we thought!

    There’ll be less caffeine available for us, whilst we ponder the squirrel problem:-

  10. oldbrew says:

    OK, who’s been stirring it up for us squirrels?

    [credit: / PA]

  11. oldbrew says:

    The BBC has now moved on to its next climate absurdity:

    ‘Shrinking ship bubbles ‘could counteract climate change’ ‘

    It IS as daft as it sounds.

  12. craigm350 says:

    OB – This month’s BBC Focus magazine has
    an entire cover dedicated to ‘ingenious’ solutions to the non problem of carbon. I wonder if this is part of that. I haven’t actually read Focus in years (refuse to in fact as it’s now Greenpeace approved consensus press release science) as the magazine is malodorous and has a rather steaming appearance these days despite the polished packaging. Picking my nose seems a more scientifically fulfilling endeavour.

    After recently discovering that Richard Betts is using his publicly funded job to trawl the net and twitter to find things to take offence with (he, like the IPCC, has a sensitivity problem) now bubbles for climate? Clearly Climate Science is swimming in cash as I wish my industry – dying a slow death of coalition paper cuts – was able to fund such frivolities. Climate Science works accounting wonders for the administrators and if anyone questions you just call them deniers or claim you are the victim (paper cuts can be nasty) or in real times of tough questions wheel out a quote from a John Cook paper. And they say climate science is not getting the funding. 😉

    Interesting the reporter Rebecca Morrell who writes about producing bubbles for climate (is it just cow bubbles that are bad?) came from a press office and is now fully schooled in BBC standards ensuring total commitment to copy+paste with little or no brain engagement with the subject required-and most definitely no ability to connect dots even with a crayon in hand. I mean seriously why is anyone giving space to snake oil sellers, the fame/power hungry and the clinically insane? (carefully mix these ingredients with bureaucracy and you can create Mann). This is the stuff of tenth rate science fiction writers, although I understand in rent seeking Climate Science the boundary betwixt fact and fiction has remarkably movable posts depending on if there is a UN meeting going on, so they don’t care about the quality as long as the titles keep churning out. Look if it sells great for them but I have issues with subsidising this. If I need something to wipe with I’ll just buy Aldi’s own brand. 😉

    What Noam Chomsky once said to Andrew Marr back in 1996 very much holds true for the nodding donkeys that pass themselves off as free thinking crusaders of truth when really as we all know it’s about your ability to go Squirrels! when the difficult questions start.

    Marr – I’m just interested in this because I was brought up, like a lot of people, probably post-Watergate film and so on, to believe that journalism was a crusading craft, and that there were a lot of disputatious, stroppy, difficult people in journalism, and I have to say, I think I know some of them. 

    Chomsky – Well, I know some of the best… best-known investigative reporters in the United States – I won’t mention names – whose attitude toward the media is much more cynical than mine. In fact, they regard the media as a sham. And they know, and they constantly talk about how they try to… play it like a violin: If they see a little opening they’ll try to squeeze something in that ordinarily wouldn’t make it through. And it’s perfectly true that this is a crusading profession, adversarial, “We stand up against power”, very self-serving view. On the other hand, in my opinion, I hate to make a value judgement but, the better journalists, and in fact, the ones who are often regarded as the best journalists, have quite a different picture and, I think, a very realistic one. 

    How can you know that I’m self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are… 

    I don’t say you’re self-censoring – I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying; but what I’m saying is, if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.

  13. craigm350 says:

    I just asked my brother who does read BBC Focus and yep bubbles and spraying (!) were part of this month’s cover story on Climate Change – Problem Solved .

    I believe there was a souvenir Lima edition of Focus which said wiping your feet on the Nazca lines would also help solve the climate problem 😀

    btw – My use of the D word, in jest, obviously led to my previous comment moderation. I will forthwith start moaning on Twitter about my hurt feelings 😉

  14. oldbrew says:

    Craig: ‘now fully schooled in BBC standards ensuring total commitment to copy+paste with little or no brain engagement with the subject required’

    Aka churnalism: applies to ‘journalists who are no longer gathering news but are reduced instead to passive processors of whatever material comes their way, churning out stories, whether real event or PR artifice, important or trivial, true or false’.

    As you mentioned, why licence payers have to subsidise this garbage is a mystery. It has nothing to do with real world news reporting.