Jeremy Clarkson (11/01/14)
Jeremy Clarkson is a well known sceptic about global warming, not someone who is in complete denial, I would say, but he certainly likes to poke fun at some of the more exaggerated claims and, being a witty person as well as an accomplished writer, the UK's favourite 'petrol head' is in a strong position to get his case across.
But I agreed with the serious point Clarkson made in his column in the Sunday Times - why do the scientists preach to the converted, why not make more of an effort to have a serious discussion with some of the sceptics?
Now I've no doubt that Clarkson would try and get up to some of the 'school boy' mischief he gets up to on Top Gear, which would make you want to feed him to the Polar Bears or Leopard Seals.
Yet Clarkson's also a serious journalist when he wants to be, so I would take him up on his offer - at the very least it would make for good TV.
When stuck in Antarctic ice, be sure to have a patio heater
But I agreed with the serious point Clarkson made in his column in the Sunday Times - why do the scientists preach to the converted, why not make more of an effort to have a serious discussion with some of the sceptics?
Now I've no doubt that Clarkson would try and get up to some of the 'school boy' mischief he gets up to on Top Gear, which would make you want to feed him to the Polar Bears or Leopard Seals.
Yet Clarkson's also a serious journalist when he wants to be, so I would take him up on his offer - at the very least it would make for good TV.
When stuck in Antarctic ice, be sure to have a patio heater
By Jeremy Clarkson
Like many people, I awoke on Wednesday morning with a strong determination to be kinder and more sympathetic to others in the year ahead. But over breakfast this resolve was sorely tested as I read about the plight of those global warming scientists whose ship, in a delicious bout of irony, became stuck in the Antarctic sea ice.
The new me felt very sorry for them because, after all, here was a bunch of explorers trying to find out if man’s activities will one day cause sea levels to rise by 52 metres, or whatever figure they’ve plucked from the ozone layer this week.
I also felt very sorry for the team’s unbiased reporters from The Guardian and the BBC, who had to spend the whole festive period waiting for the power of internal combustion to effect a rescue. But it was no good, I’m afraid. “Ha ha ha,” shrieked the old me. “They went to Antarctica to show the world how the ice has all melted. And there’s so much of it, their ship is stuck. Ha ha ha.”
When will these people realise that it’s bloody cold down there? And that even if global temperatures rise by 40 degrees, it’ll still be cold enough to snap off a man’s nose and vacuum pack an icebreaker?
Of course, the team is trying desperately to extricate itself from the PR disaster by saying the monstrous slab of ice that’s pinning the ship in place is somehow the result of your patio heater...and presumably the ships that were trying to reach it. “Er ...” say the reporters from the BBC and The Guardian.
Apparently, the enormous slab was knocked last month from its moorings by global warming and was carried by globally warme winds and strong, globally warmed currents into the path of the ship.
Well, I have some experience of sea ice. I drove to the magnetic North Pole over miles of the stuff a few years ago, and what they’re saying has some traction. But here’s the thing. I’m a temperate-based nancy boy and learnt in just eight days how to tell the difference between new ice and old ice.
I also learnt about the effects of the tide and the wind and, as a result, I completed the journey with only a few minor problems. This lot are supposed to be climate scientists and they got stuck. Ha ha ha.
What’s more, their trip is supposed to be a rerun of an expedition by the early 20th-century Australian explorer, Douglas Mawson. Which is a bit like Nasa staging a rerun of Apollo 13.
Mawson had toured Earth’s soft white underbelly with Ernest Shackleton and was therefore an Antarctic veteran when he arrived on the continent in 1912.
Because he was an actual scientist he made it ashore with no problems, though photographs show that back then, before the invention of the Range Rover and the patio heater, there were no marauding slabs of ice. It was all rocky beaches and open water.
After setting up camp Mawson set off to explore the interior with a skiing champion called Xavier Mertz and a British Army officer called Belgrave Ninnis who, 35 days into their journey, fell down a crevasse with all the best dogs and most of the supplies.
Mawson and Mertz were in trouble. They were 300 miles from base and had supplies for only half a week. So there was no alternative. They would have to eat the remaining dogs and tow the sledges themselves.
Quite soon, Mertz’s skin started to fall off. Then he started to feel unwell. He wrote in his diary: “The dog meat does not seem to agree with me because yesterday I was feeling a little bit queasy.” Anxious not to eat any more of it, he decided to eat himself and that night bit off one of his own fingers. This seemed to agree with him even less because that night he died.
For two weeks, Mawson ploughed on alone and then he too fell down a crevasse. Luckily, however, he was attached by a rope to his sledge, which had not, and so, after a 4-hour climb, he was back on the move. It was not easy going, however, because he would have to pause once in a while to glue the soles of his feet back on with lanolin cream.
Amazingly, in a spirit of determination that would be completely lost on the people of Surrey whose turkeys remained uncooked because of power cuts on Christmas Day, he made it back to base. And was just in time to see his ship steaming over the horizon. His mates had given him up for dead. And gone home.
Just in case, though, they had left behind a few men and some supplies in an ice cave on which Mawson lived until he was rescued a year later. That’s 12 months. With not much to eat. No warmth. And nothing to do all day but endlessly glue his feet back on.
Mawson was a proper chap. And my admiration for him is boundless. But let’s get one thing straight. Most of those Victorian and Edwardian explorers did scientific research in the same way that Hollywood stars plug their movies on The Graham Norton Show. Not because they wanted to. But because it was the only way they could get funding.
They went to the deserts of north Africa and the jungles of South America and the frozen wastelands of the poles because they craved the excitement.
I have a sneaking suspicion that this is exactly what drives the scientists who travel to the polar regions today. They are paid by anti-patio-heater organisations to say it’s all Land Rover’s fault — but come on, admit it. Going to Antarctica on an icebreaker is a lot more exciting than working for a living.
I therefore say this to the scientists who were stuck over Christmas. If you really and truthfully wanted to make a point about man-made global warming, why did you take journalists from The Guardian and the BBC? Why did you not take someone who needed to be convinced? In short, why did you not take me?
The new me felt very sorry for them because, after all, here was a bunch of explorers trying to find out if man’s activities will one day cause sea levels to rise by 52 metres, or whatever figure they’ve plucked from the ozone layer this week.
I also felt very sorry for the team’s unbiased reporters from The Guardian and the BBC, who had to spend the whole festive period waiting for the power of internal combustion to effect a rescue. But it was no good, I’m afraid. “Ha ha ha,” shrieked the old me. “They went to Antarctica to show the world how the ice has all melted. And there’s so much of it, their ship is stuck. Ha ha ha.”
When will these people realise that it’s bloody cold down there? And that even if global temperatures rise by 40 degrees, it’ll still be cold enough to snap off a man’s nose and vacuum pack an icebreaker?
Of course, the team is trying desperately to extricate itself from the PR disaster by saying the monstrous slab of ice that’s pinning the ship in place is somehow the result of your patio heater...and presumably the ships that were trying to reach it. “Er ...” say the reporters from the BBC and The Guardian.
Apparently, the enormous slab was knocked last month from its moorings by global warming and was carried by globally warme winds and strong, globally warmed currents into the path of the ship.
Well, I have some experience of sea ice. I drove to the magnetic North Pole over miles of the stuff a few years ago, and what they’re saying has some traction. But here’s the thing. I’m a temperate-based nancy boy and learnt in just eight days how to tell the difference between new ice and old ice.
I also learnt about the effects of the tide and the wind and, as a result, I completed the journey with only a few minor problems. This lot are supposed to be climate scientists and they got stuck. Ha ha ha.
What’s more, their trip is supposed to be a rerun of an expedition by the early 20th-century Australian explorer, Douglas Mawson. Which is a bit like Nasa staging a rerun of Apollo 13.
Mawson had toured Earth’s soft white underbelly with Ernest Shackleton and was therefore an Antarctic veteran when he arrived on the continent in 1912.
Because he was an actual scientist he made it ashore with no problems, though photographs show that back then, before the invention of the Range Rover and the patio heater, there were no marauding slabs of ice. It was all rocky beaches and open water.
After setting up camp Mawson set off to explore the interior with a skiing champion called Xavier Mertz and a British Army officer called Belgrave Ninnis who, 35 days into their journey, fell down a crevasse with all the best dogs and most of the supplies.
Mawson and Mertz were in trouble. They were 300 miles from base and had supplies for only half a week. So there was no alternative. They would have to eat the remaining dogs and tow the sledges themselves.
Quite soon, Mertz’s skin started to fall off. Then he started to feel unwell. He wrote in his diary: “The dog meat does not seem to agree with me because yesterday I was feeling a little bit queasy.” Anxious not to eat any more of it, he decided to eat himself and that night bit off one of his own fingers. This seemed to agree with him even less because that night he died.
For two weeks, Mawson ploughed on alone and then he too fell down a crevasse. Luckily, however, he was attached by a rope to his sledge, which had not, and so, after a 4-hour climb, he was back on the move. It was not easy going, however, because he would have to pause once in a while to glue the soles of his feet back on with lanolin cream.
Amazingly, in a spirit of determination that would be completely lost on the people of Surrey whose turkeys remained uncooked because of power cuts on Christmas Day, he made it back to base. And was just in time to see his ship steaming over the horizon. His mates had given him up for dead. And gone home.
Just in case, though, they had left behind a few men and some supplies in an ice cave on which Mawson lived until he was rescued a year later. That’s 12 months. With not much to eat. No warmth. And nothing to do all day but endlessly glue his feet back on.
Mawson was a proper chap. And my admiration for him is boundless. But let’s get one thing straight. Most of those Victorian and Edwardian explorers did scientific research in the same way that Hollywood stars plug their movies on The Graham Norton Show. Not because they wanted to. But because it was the only way they could get funding.
They went to the deserts of north Africa and the jungles of South America and the frozen wastelands of the poles because they craved the excitement.
I have a sneaking suspicion that this is exactly what drives the scientists who travel to the polar regions today. They are paid by anti-patio-heater organisations to say it’s all Land Rover’s fault — but come on, admit it. Going to Antarctica on an icebreaker is a lot more exciting than working for a living.
I therefore say this to the scientists who were stuck over Christmas. If you really and truthfully wanted to make a point about man-made global warming, why did you take journalists from The Guardian and the BBC? Why did you not take someone who needed to be convinced? In short, why did you not take me?
