You might wonder why it is that despite its vast resources, and all those world class journalists, the BBC seem to have missed THIS explanation of why the Somerset Levels flooding. Turns out the Environment Agency (Under Labour quangocrat control since 2000) planned to flood the Levels. How awkward for those INTENT in turning this tragedy into one more excuse to advance the AGW agenda…
As I explained on the BBC this morning, one of the greatest dangers to the environment is the Environment Agency.
I believe that Richard North of the EU Referendum blog has been saying this for a long time, I mean months and years. He used to actually work in the EU government and has published a book about the EU called “The Great Deception” so he knows what he is talking about.
http://www.eureferendum.com/
The Great Deception is a ” must read”.
Get it if you don’t already have it.
Here’s another good article…
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9137131/instant-wildlife-just-add-water/
It was done to them, and the Thames Valley on purpose.
BBC Parliament from 7.10pm to 9.30pm on Monday. The Energy and Climate Change Committee hear evidence on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 5th Assessment Review. Sir Peter Williams Royal Society, Dr. Emily Shuckburgh Royal Meteorological Society, Guy Newey Policy Exchange, Jonathan Grant PricewaterhouseCoopers and James Painter Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford. The session explores a range of issues, including: Attribution of the cause of climate change, IPCC communication, media coverage and controversies.
No Steve McIntyre? Obviously an oversight (again).
‘IPCC: Fixing the Facts’
‘Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft clearly showed the discrepancy between models and observations, though IPCC’s covering text reported otherwise. I discussed this in a post leading up to the IPCC Report, citing Ross McKitrick’s article in National Post and Reiner Grundmann’s post at Klimazweiberl. Needless to say, this diagram did not survive. Instead, IPCC replaced the damning (but accurate) diagram with a new diagram in which the inconsistency has been disappeared’.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/
Just have to content themselves with the usual echo chamber stuff, then, and leave the real discussion to the internet.
There is a very good discussion about the lack of pumping on the Levels at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/16/the-real-reason-for-flooding-in-somerset-levels-not-global-warming-the-only-pump-was-turned-off/#more-103335
Excellent article. Raises some extremely serious questions about the EA and recent governments.
Excellent stuff. The evidence against the Environment Agency is now so overwhelming heads have got to roll and a full root and branch review of its function and culture carried out. Better still, close the whole eco-dictatorial, EU-driven shithole of a proxy Labour fiefdom down.
They can’t say they didn’t know.
There are several permutations to this argument.
1.There is no global warming and the pumps were turned off.
2.There is global warming and the pumps were turned off.
3. Pumps could have made a difference and were an effective use of public money.
The author doesn’t examine the issue of whether there is global warming; he justs suggest the idea is absurd but doesnt say why. If he doesnt believe there is an issue with greater variably/severity in the weather then his argument fails at the first hurdle.
Further he doesnt really explain the reasons why the EA did not implement pumping. There may have been sound practical or economic reasons ,bearing in mind that the EA works to a budget set by Government and has hitherto been restricted by spending rules.
Anyone looking out of their window or indeed the news over the last months may have noticed a spot of rain. This has been deemed to be exceptional.The question is therefore would routine management of a known floodplain be capable of controlling the exceptional level of water that Somerset and other areas have experienced. It is merely assumed by the author that the pumping station had been working all would have been ok. Is that credible?
I understand that many here are unwilling or unable to grasp the science but in any event if for reason the exceptional becomes normal then the flood defence budget will have to rise dramatically. This is something Governments ,not the EA, have been unwilling to address particularly this current Government who have made significant cuts to flood defence and were planning more until Dave started to get his feet wet.
“The author doesn’t examine the issue…he justs suggest the idea is absurd but doesnt say why”
—–
Guessing you’re flexible on whether this is good or bad, depending on whether it’s the BBC, its chums, or defenders here doing it, or not?
I can understand why many would find such hypocrisy rather ironic.
You comment is absolutely meaningless.I would suggest the best way of measuring reality is to measure it rather than pandering to the vagaries of crowd mentality.
‘I would suggest the best way of measuring reality is to measure it’
Your suggestion is duly noted in my daily log, which I post on the wall when a laugh is needed.
One day the various definitions and extent of reality between the BBC, its supporters and what actually happens will make for a heck of a tome.
Keep up the good work providing content.
I’m trying to translate your comment into something intelligible. By ‘You comment is absolutely meaningless’ I suppose you mean either ‘I don’t understand what you are saying’ or ‘I don’t agree with your premise. ‘ Guest Who is saying that the interpretation of your evaluation of the issue is incident on the source of the comment, not on the validity of the argument, which seems cogent, given your subsequent reply. The next sentence is axiomatic and circular. Verb continuous object existential and then infinitive of the same verb? ‘The best way of plucking a chicken is to pluck it?’ ‘The best way of detecting nonsense is to detect it?’ ‘The best way of going to Somerset is to go there?’ There’s a bit of nonsense if you like. The last section is really revealing, because it exhorts your readers to reject democracy and embrace technocracy. The opinions of local people are bound to change en masse when huge amounts of water pour through their homes and businesses. Listening to and following through with their concerns is not ‘pandering’ to the ‘vagaries’ of ‘crowd mentality’ but representative democracy in action. This is about people, not hydrodynamic modelling.
‘ If he doesnt believe there is an issue with greater variably/severity in the weather then his argument fails at the first hurdle.’
Proof?
As ever, Richard North has got to the bottom of this. It appears it is something of a red herring.
Would that there was more journalism of North’s standard on the BBC!
‘Would that there was more journalism of North’s standard on the BBC!’
They couldn’t afford it.
He offers it to the public free.
Their variety costs a lot more.
Not entirely – over-reaction and subjects allies to “friendly fire” – BBC the would run more than a mile!
Seeing everything through a blue kaleidoscope with gold stars in it does occasionally cloud sober judgement.
On balance though – Dr. North (and Booker) are good people to have out there.
I would very much like to see climate alarmists actually begin to do some science for a change. They all but seem to have utterly abandoned the scientific method.
Clearly YOU do not understand the scientific method either Agent Smith.
The Met Office seem to have abandoned the scientific method too, which is why they were predicting a colder drier winter. Why their medium and long term predictions are so often wrong, and by a margin far worse than mere chance.
The scientific method is essential to the scientific pursiot of truth. Its central premise is that any hypothesis MUST be falsifiable and repeatedly testable against experiment or observation and ALL data, methods and protocols MUST be fully and openly shared. The aim of testing a hypothesis must be to try to find it false and reject it. IF one cannot falsify it, then it remains valid. It is NOT scientific to try to prove a hypothesis to be true.
You do not need to be a Nobel prize winning PHD Professor Emeritus to know that. In fact it is beginners science taught to schoolchildren and is the core and heart of ALL scientific discovery.
If some research fails to rigidly adhere to this basic principle, then that research is NOT scientifically valid, but is religion or politics or advocacy. It is NOT science.
The CAGW hypothesis can only be tested by observation (because we do not have identical “control” earths), and the empirical measurement of the climate. the CAGW hypothesis relates specifically to the reaction of temperature to an increase in CO2 concentrations.
The CAGW hypothesis is only demonstrated by models, which can only provide the prediction of the hypothesis. A model of a hypothesis CANNOT serve as a test of a hypothesis. In effect, that would be a self-validating hypothesis and therefore would be completely anti-scientific.
The data obtained by empirical measurement shows increasingly that the CAGW hypothesis has been falsified. The earth is NOT warming by anywhere near as much as the CAGW hypothesis predicted as demonstrated by the 73 different CMIP-5 models as used by the UN IPCC.
As for picking the last 6 month’s weather and then claiming (whatever the weather was) is proof of climate change, is NOT scientific. Claims that climate change will make the weather hotter and colder, drier and wetter are not falsifiable and hence are not scientfic.
The recent rain has been unusual, but not unprecedented. The combination of the lack of dredging, the misuse of sluices, the abandonment of pumping stations, the EA adopting the EU directives on wildlife and (as has been extensively documented all over the place) the setting of the Levels as a category 6 region set to be deliberately allowed to flood, on purpose, so that the arable farm land could be secretly returned to wild wetland on purpose, all contributed to the flooding being a hell of a lot worse than would have been the case IF the Environment agency had put the welfare of humans ahead of the welfare of migrating birds.
To abuse and corrupt science to claim that the wilful and political flooding of the Levels is proof of climate change is an act of gross fraud and is the opposite of science.
Climate Science is unique, it gets less and less answers over time, I learnt that in 2007, and it has continued to accumulate less and less answers ever since then.
To understand what I mean you should read the scientific paper below dated 1997.
Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma (Tom Segalstad).
Another great post, Ken. Worth keeping by and using ad nauseam as a reply to agentsmith’s sterile mantras until he either understands or simply buggers off never to be heard from again.
Nice analysis of the basics of science, Ken. ‘Tis a pity that none of the so-called BBC ‘climate experts’ seem to have a clue that this is the basis against which they should judge all claims by the AGW brigade – or any other scientist/hypothesis combo, for that matter.
Nice try and lurverly intro about the scientific method. Actually the science behind global warming was carried out yonks ago amongst the biggest sceptics of all – the scientists. What you seem to misunderstand is that the current problems are one of measurement not science. An example is how do you measure a 0.1 cm sea level rise when the difference between high and low tide is 2 metres. Another ihe so called ‘no warming for 17years’ which was the result of taking exceptional years due the el nino/ la nina SO’s as points from which projections were taken (by others not the IPCC) It is all very tricky to measure but the fact is they do within the limtations specified in the IPCC reports.The purpose of the projections is to demonstate the possible outcomes based on differing scenarios. They are not forecasts. Many within the scientific community take a different view as to the significance of recent experience ie record temperatures in the last few years along with miriad of droughts plus the rainfall /snowfall in the northern hemisphere. Some of these outbursts are undoubtedly bourne of frustration probably because science is regarded by many along the same lines as christianity. However, the ONLY thing predicted by IPCC is that extreme weather events will occur more frequently as indeed they are appearing to do. Youre right in that we dont have a parallel world wherewe can wait and see what happens although we do have the ultimate globally warmed planet in the solar system. I would say however that the use of models and statistics is universally used in science today and has proved staggeringly sucessful. The Higgs boson is one recent example together with all of quantum mechanics from which modern electronics derives.
I think the detractors here should really ask themselves whether a few pumps is all that is needed in the future.Clearly the current conservatives have gone along this line since they had cut plans for defences in Somerset along with other areas as well as limiting funds for river dredging.
I personaly feel that if the spot of rain we have just had isnt particularly different then we should really not bother with extra resources. Once everyone drys out we can all happily live for another 300 years until the next time.
But a word of caution – the current CO2 levelsl affect us for 1000 years. Good news is the air and sea levels should harmonise in about 100 years. Should make for an expensive fish and chip supper but there defintely wont be a chance of going back.
So as the alarmist scientist’s produce all that CO2 flying around the world to lecture the rest of us on why we should not fly, and the evidence they present for this ONLY comes from models. And they repeatedly and regularly regurgitate the output from MODELS as evidence to back up their assertions…. “look what the models show will happen if we do not stop CO2!” they confidently proclaim….
Sorry, but when you put the data into a model, run that model output showing what should happen over the next 100 years, then tell me I have to make massive sacrifices in my lifestyle and we MUST make massive changes to industry and our economy and entire way of life, because of what these models say is likely to happen….
THAT IS A PREDICTION!!!
The CMIP-5 models being 73 of those PREDICTIVE models used by the UN’s IPCC for this specific purpose, but their are others being developed all the time….
Yet as soon as it is pointed out that, actually, the real actual climate has not behaved as ANY of those predictive models, under ANY of their scenarios suggested it would, the fraudulent fall-back position becomes, “These are NOT predictions and are only projections of possible scenarios”
Yes, which are ALL wrong. Every single one of them and so are not PREDICTIONS, and are NOT even projections of the real climate, but of conditions within a model written with the falsified CAGW hypothesis at its core.
So if they are NOT predictions after all, why the hell should we spend one pound on mitigation for something that you are not even confident enough to predict at all?
OK so the models are wrong. Flat out totally and completely wrong.
Then the other fall-back position is “the dates which falsify the models are cherry-picked and do not count. You can only use these {other cherry picked} dates. Funny how an arbitrary set of dates can only be valid and not “cherry picked” if it supports the hypothesis, but not when it happens to be the most recent 2 decades where warming has mostly ceased, in which case it then becomes “cherry picked”. Sorry, try harder.
Science does not work like that either. If the CAGW hypothesis was correct, then it would not matter what range of dates you pick. A hypothesis need only be falsified ONCE to be false. It matters not how many times it appears true, once it is falsified once, it is dead!
The remaining argument that the decade from 1980-1990, then 1990-2000 was warmer still then 2000-2010 was the warmest decade is true, however that only shows that it warmed a bit. At the same rate through the 80s and 90s as during the 20s and 30s actually, so not unprecedented…
However the statement that the last 10 years are the warmest yet is not entirely true, as there has been a tiny amount of cooling over the last 13 years.
The decade from 2010-2020 may NOT be the warmest yet and may be cooler than 2000-2010. Time will tell.
But IF that does turn out to be the case, then even the “the last decade was the warmest in over a hundred years” argument will be dead.
The temperatures from the 1950s – now shows a gradual curve downwards to the mid 1970s, then flattening and then curving upwards from 1976 – 2000 before leveling off and now appears to be beginning to curve downwards again.
Your religion of CAGW is just that. A religion underpinning a political agenda and NOTHING more than that.
CAGW has been falsified. You claim it is a problem of measurement? Too right it is, and the problem for the Alarmists is that they cannot measure the warming that their CAGW hypothesis predicted would happen. This means the hypothesis is FALSIFIED!
‘Science does not work like that either. If the CAGW hypothesis was correct, then it would not matter what range of dates you pick’
Totally wrong! If you pick an unrepresentative point to start a projection the projection is going to be unrepresentative from day one. Statisticians regularly discount outliers as part of their day job because of the unrepresentative nature of such data. This is also how modern science proceeds – its not deterministic its probablistic .
Global warming isnt about just air temperature .The sea is a much bigger absorber of heat and Co2. There is also the interaction bewtween the two. If you have extreme weather events which encourage one to give heat up to another I am sure you would accept that this should be taken into account.
‘the problem for the Alarmists is that they cannot measure the warming that their CAGW hypothesis predicted would happen. This means the hypothesis is FALSIFIED!’
Neither of these points is correct. All measurement and all forecasts/predictions encompass variables and are inaccurate to some degree. In fact short term forecasts tend to be more inaccurate because of the ‘noise’ of the data. But that doesnt mean measurements and projections from those measurements cant be made. Everything has a tolerence. In the event 1000’s of measurements are regularly taken and there’s plenty of evidence showing warming and none showing cooling.
There’s plenty of data swilling around on the NASA site for example and plenty more on the internet for you to look at.
Global warming is a scientific fact. It has nothing to do with the kinds of data you are talking about and neither has it anything to do with the IPCC or ‘lefties’ (whatever they are). Greenhouse gases are so called because they demonstrate specific physical features in relation to certain frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. Just like magnetism is a fact.
Put more and more of those gases into the atmosphere and those effects will be felt. Same as if you fill your car with fuel you will go further. Cause and effect.
‘ So if they are NOT predictions after all, why the hell should we spend one pound on mitigation for something that you are not even confident enough to predict at all?’
This is consistant with the government stance of cutting the environmental budget the results of which this site has been jumping up and down about. So no money on protecting homes or land from something that isnt happening then? I think if you were living in Somerset you would be doing a little projecting at this time and would not be content to ‘wait and see’.
If you look at the IPCC publications you will see and explanation for the graphs and also the confidence levels of various aspects of the data. You wont find a more conservative organisation.
‘I understand that many here are unwilling or unable to grasp the science….’
That would be a version of the science which has relied and continues to rely on failed climate models – disastrously failed climate models, in fact.
Couldn’t be anything to do with the huge assumptions about positive feedback built into these models could it, agentsmith? As you obviously think you have ‘grasped’ the science, an explanation would be appreciated. (PS Hiding the decline not allowed.)
What huge assumptions? If you looked at the IPCC AR5 you will see what they have high confidence in and what they dont have high confidence in. Not sure what grasped the science really means. I have read something about the subject but I’m no expert since my interests lie more in physics rather than climate science.
My understanding is that there are no negative feedbacks in the shorterm. There are some in the long term. I think the carbon cycle takes 36K years but stand to be corrected on this. Not sure what ‘hiding the decline means either’. If you are refering to the socalled lowering of air temperature after 1997 (or thereabouts) I would point out that record air temperatures have been recorded by NASAwithin the last 10 years. The myth stems from where you plot your trend. The 1990’s showed 2 extreme events in the el nino/la nina SO.
Using one of these events as a basis for trending is a school boy error. It was not in the ipcc Publication for this reason.
You do not even know the prominence of “hide the decline?”
Oh dear.
“I would point out that record air temperatures have been recorded by NASAwithin the last 10 years.”
Which is the same logic behind saying “this 40 year old’s last decade is amongst his tallest ever, so he will continue growing until he is 10 feet tall”
Actually warming peaked at the turn of the century and could well be heading for a decline for a couple of decades. We will know much better by 2020.
Not the same logic at all Your lack of understanding then leads you to make the ridiculous assertion that ‘warming peaked’ (assertive) and then say ‘could well be heading’ (speculative). In any event NASA has and does measure the air temperature and 2005 and 2010 hits records which suggests when taken with other relevant data suggests there has been no decline in the overall temperature of the earth. All left wing stuff this science. If only reality were somewhat different.
Remember ‘global cooling’ back in the 60s and 70s when the ‘climate scientists’ were threatening us with another ice age because temperatures had declined after the war?*
Or are you too young?
*And that moron Harrabin recently re-allocated the ’53 storms and floods to global warming. Kinnell, is there no limit to that prick’s brainless propaganda?
And, apparently, Russian scientists studying the Arctic in the early 1930s were of the opinion that if the then current trends continued the Arctic would be ice free by the end of that decade. What is even more interesting is that at least they didn’t need to spend tens of millions of pounds in order to get their predictions, just like the Met Office, totally wrong.
Look let’s knock this one on the head. Global cooling and a new ice age were interesting ideas that caught the imagination of one Horizon producer. But it wasn’t an idea that had much currency in mainstream science. How to refute your “argument” though? Oh yes. A newsreel about Arctic scientists worrying about an increase in temperature, in 1963 http://www.britishpathe.com/video/is-world-getting-warmer/query/barnstaple
I think your comments are born out of a misconception of what the model is trying to achieve. The climate model has been validated numerous times and is open to the public to try for themselves (hardware not included). Its easy to debunk something in ignorance; much harder to put in the effort to understand whats going on.
There was a long traffic jam on the M4, and a driver called out to a policeman who was walking from car to car: “What’s happening?”
“Well,sir, there’s a group of farmers further up the road who’ve taken Lord Smith (Head of the EA) hostage. They say that they’ll set fire to him and his entourage unless they get immediate cash compensation now. So we’re going from car to car asking for contributions…”
“Good Lord! How much do you want?”
“That’s very kind, sir. A couple of pints of petrol will be fine…”
Lord Smith or Agent Smith ,both the same B-Bbc mindset ,here is 2 more pints of petrol ,to finish the job .
remember one thing about the green party,they are just dominated by ex members of the socalist workers party who they fell out with and split over alleged allegations of rape and sexual abuse by one of there leading members comrade delta martin smith.apart from that,this lunatic proposal by the leader of the green party natalie bennett that any member of the goverment who denies climate change should be sacked just exposes these lots for the hard line fascist communist reds they are and not a bunch of tree hugging greenies.
How can you be a fascist communist?
Fascist/communist. Start with Hitler and the National Socialists. Perhaps there is a deep distinction between communism and socialism, But Hitler was a socialist. Now look at the revolutionary socialists and communists who support the UAF, which in its street thuggery, attempts to suppress views deemed unacceptable to the unelected and unquestioned leadership, exhibits all the signs of fascism. Try this too.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html
Something else you obviously no nothing about.
You “no” nothing about?
Dear oh dear.
Try asking Natalie (Gordon) Bennett
‘As I explained on the BBC this morning’
How much did they pay you?
‘How much did they pay you?’
—-
There’s a familiar one-line refrain.
Given the explanation was likely not one to the BBC’s taste, hardly relevant.
Do share the BBC’s answer to any similar question you have posed, of them, when they trumpet more supportive quotes, polls, research, etc, to the narrative.
and how much do they pay you ?or are you one of the truly dumb sheep who actually pay them to do their PR work for them ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560300/Why-did-floods-agency-spend-hundreds-equali-tea-gay-awareness-mugs-30-000-gay-pride-marches-As-Britain-counts-cost-shoddy-defences-reveal-bizarre-spending-quango-bosses.html…how does spending £30,000 on gay pride stop this flooding ?
Well, I’ve heard that these natural disasters are all the fault of the gays, so maybe we should offer gifts to the gods to appease them. The gods I mean, not the gays.
I think you’ll find the EA’s remit is more than flooding. The focus of the invetment in this case was to heighten awareness in respect of recycling I believe. This is within the remit of the EA.
Yes, you’ve said that before.
So I’ll ask again what I asked then.
Do they give that much money to every festival?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumbleweed_Connection
“Burn Down the Mission” (BBC session) – 6:52
Takes me back.
A lot is again being said today.
Oddly, answers to this… Not so much.
£30,000 on ‘raising awareness in respect of recycling’ in one parade.
That takes some doing.
Let’s see, assuming the tax and nat. ins. paid on the annual average income is around £4000, that’ll take 7.5 people working full time for a year to pay for that little lot.
Value for money?
Cost of living crisis?
Austerity?
Nah, just the public sector – the land of money trees.
But is the promotion of buggery also in their remit they spent £30,000 of our money on it ,no mention on the BBC though ,strange that!
shaw-iz boy
http://www.insidetheenvironmentagency.co.uk/
If the E.A. has implemented the policy of allowing nature to take its course (no pun intended) on the Somerset Levels and Moor, where else in the U.K. is this policy in action? My mind thinks to the flooding at Cowley Bridge just north of Exeter which closed the main rail line between the South West and the U.K. earlier this year causing havoc to thousands of peoples travel plans. And of course, both Ben Bradshaw ex Beeboid and Labour politician and with the BBC told us all, it was Climate Change that caused the flooding. Is there any journalist out there reading this that is worth their salt by looking into the actions of this Quango called the Environment Agency?
If there is no global warming and these events are rare why worry?
Good point so why do you support the greens BBC who live the ‘end of days’ fantasy ?
Do you have any evidence that I support the ‘greens BBC’ .If you explained what that is I might be able to confirm one way or another.
Incorrect.Cowley Bridge is a well known trouble spot. I have photographs of the flood water there taken over the years. When the semaphore signals were replaced by lights the control boxes were placed at ground level. Incredibly stupid. Steam locomotives were able to negotiate deeper water than the diesels. The old GWR put up with the flooding because it was manageable.
The current situation could have been foreseen. Incompetence ruled as usual. A vital transport link could have been protected long ago.
The same applies to Dawlish. Endless problems with the sea wall. Not one of Brunel’s brightest ideas.
Dawlish was one of the sites the Conservatives would not fund.
Because global warming is used as an excuse to tax us more and more. I am assuming you are a student so you wouldn’t understand
If you are talking about me I am 60 years old as a matter of fact. I also run an accountancy business and pay a lot of tax as it happens.
“…as a matter of fact.
…as it happens.”
Pop in a ‘I think you’ll find ‘or ‘it appears to me’ and you will be well on route to ‘comfort in belief’ BBC director status too.
Thing about forums is you could be anyone. Doesn’t really matter in comparison to content, but protestething so much is always worthwhile.
Good job you run the business as the time devoted not to accountancy daily must make a dent in the billable hours. Unless you load your time here onto clients who must already be inspired by a financial representative dedicated to maximising tax obligations.
Global warming has stopped, but it hasn’t stopped the eco-socialist alarmists from spouting their hysterical chicken licken crap.
Guess that includes you, agentsmith.
And why are you on here anyway? Were you a failed missionary in a previous life?
I am against BBC bias which is why I am here. Why are you here to post something intelligent perhaps?
“Why are you here to post something intelligent perhaps?”
Who no’s, eh?
The odd comma would not go amiss either. Maybe not covered in the new post 60 student curriculum?
I think you’ll find the process is the EA /Select committee on the environment come up with strategic solutions for water management and then the Government chooses whether or not to fund these solutions. In the past Governments have not been willing to fund what is deemed necessary. More so with the current Government who immediately cut the budget by 100million and then some thereafter. In relation to travel one of the EA recomendations was to reinforce the sea wall around Dawlish where the Brunell line has just collapsed. This funding was withdrawn by the Conservatives. I think this is why the focus is on what the future holds and how, as acountry,we are going to practically and finacially address it. The EA is just a pawn in all this. But as for us Lawson types we need not worry. This kind of thing ,so my Polish coal paymasters tell me , is once every 300 years.
“You don’t understand, Mr Gitz– flood control isn’t about our being able to prevent flooding, it’s about being able to insure we have just the amount we want, in order to make our point…”
“Forget it, Jake– it’s Westminstertown…”
A conversation circa 2001..
Activist Scientist : Because of the amount of CO2 we have pumped into the atmosphere, global warming is locked into the system for generations to come. Global warming will cause more frequent extreme weather events. There will be more extreme floods, droughts, storms, hurricanes, heatwaves, freezes. Of these, floods, storms and droughts are most likely to affect us here in the UK.
The Great Unwashed : That sounds terrible. What should we do?
Activist Scientist : Build windmills.
Build windmills and pay trillions in compensation to third world countries and dismantle your evil capitalist empires whilst you’re at it. Oh, and whilst we’re at it we’ll ban you from having kids unless we graciously grant you a licence, but we will then bring up those kids for you as willing eco-zombies through an education system which does not progress beyond second year juniors (because educated people have sophisticated tastes which are too materialistic and therefore a huge drain on the world’s resources) – hope you have noticed we’ve made great progress here already.
You forgot to mention to keep taking your medication. If you hadn’t notice the capitalist empires have dismantled themselves.
For all those who liked and/or followed James Delingpole in the Daily Telegraph (which has now turned poisonously leftie), he can be found here, where he is causing a well-deserved stir:
http://www.breitbart.com/Columnists/James-Delingpole
Thanks for this link OG now agent red will be able to troll in a new place Oh and your right about the Telegraph, the place has more SWP /BBC/Labour sheep then a UAF riot !
ESPECIALLY THAT DELUDED ECOLUNATIC GEOFFREY LEAN
Maybe the owners of The Telegraph have some kind of interest in renewables.
Just a theory, like.
The Telegraph high command’s actions are theirs to play with at whim, along with consequences. But they are hard to fathom.
It seems fairly clear they do see merit in driving numbers online though controversial heat over informative light, so the likes of Lean, Chivers, Diddel, Gray, etc appear hired more to see their pontifications roundly countered in the comment threads.
However they have at least offered up ‘counter’ posts from such as Mr. D, and seen healthy numbers from the sidebar exchanges created by the trolls he attracts.
However, purging all but the former bunch rather makes the Telegraph into the Guardian, only with better cartoonists.
And while HideMyAss can circumvent their monthly quota, it still is enough of a pain to see this obstacle hardly worth overcoming if the content is utter pants.
One can only wish them well in their new venture.
I’m wondering whether the Telegraph’s “cunning plan” is to steal enough readers from the Guardian and Independent so that those titles fold.
Are we yet at the stage where you can fit all the remnant Graun and Indy readers together in the same minibus ?
With space left over for Eric Pickles.
If this is ever proven, all those affected will have excellent grounds to sue for compensation and even punitive damages , it seems ‘call me Dave ‘ was not so wide of the mark with his ‘money no object’ statement .
Meanwhile, on FaceBook…
BBC News
2 hours ago · Edited
Does new research mean we might have to get used to the weather staying the same for longer? http://bbc.in/1kNwUzZ
What’s interesting is that little ‘Edited’ notation, which gets one reading comments, like this top one..
Daft Vader that question doesn’t read well, is it just me? maybe need more toast…
85 · 2 hours ago
It did prompt this….
BBC News Apologies, have now corrected it to make sense [ED – me – a first time for anything, one supposes] about an hour ago
To which my question follows this chap…
Tommy MonkeyWrench Taylor What did it say?
At least the ‘evolution’ of a market rate BBC story is laid out fully:)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26023166?
Pallab Ghosh: “We may have to get used to winters where spells of weather go on for weeks – or even months”
After decades with October to March being a smorgasbord of variable ‘weather’, I stand ready to cope with this new onslaught of predictability in… ‘weather’.
Plus side, the forecasts will be a breeze (see what I did there?).
So, the signs of
global warmingclimate change to watch out for are:– hotter
– dryer
– colder
– wetter
– less ice
– more ice
– weather staying the same
Have I missed any?
Yes, loads.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
“and all on 0.006 deg C per year! ”
Brilliant
Listening to reports, from the BBC, about the economy or weather is like having to stand next to Private Frazer, for long periods of time.
“We’re doomed!”
“Global warming did not cause UK storms and floods, says expert.
“With the British media and many high profile scientists and activists blaming the storms and floods on global warming, it is a major embarrassment that a top ‘mainstream’ scientist has said it has nothing to do with it.”
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4729/global_warming_did_not_cause_uk_storms_and_floods_says_expert
It’s only an embarrassment if people find out about it. The BBC will do its best to ensure that doesn’t happen.
‘Professor Mat Collins was quoted by the Daily Mail this weekend as saying the storms were driven by the Jet Stream moving south for reasons that are simply unknown:
“There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge,” he said.
Shouldn’t take the eco-socialist warmists long to find a way of bringing it within their knowledge with more bullshit ‘science’.
I think you’ll find that the IPCC position is very clear. That a consequence of global warming isthe greater frequencey of extreme whether. The fact is that the movement of the Jet stream is not understood and therefore I suspect the prominent scientist has been misquoted. As for the rest of the article it is pure crap. You must really be hard up to dredge this rubbish up for your so called ‘facts.
agentsmith asks how can you be fascist communist, the millions of victims of stalin,chairman mao,pol pots murderous purges who are feet under in there graves would are not here to answer that question agentsmith,get the drift.
Not your drift unfortunately. None of the people you quoted are fascists.
‘Daily Mail’ Comment:-
“Ed on the Bandwagon.”
“Yesterday Professor Mat Collins, who is one of the Met Office’s most senior climate experts, said there was ‘no evidence’ that global warming had caused the recent floods and storms.
“But Ed Miliband wasn’t going to let the small matter of the facts stop him from leaping aboard the latest passing bandwagon.
“In a typically opportunistic intervention, the Labour leader said the floods should be a ‘wake-up call’ to a country ‘sleepwalking’ into a ‘global warming crisis’.
“Risibly, he then added that climate change should in future be treated as a matter of ‘national security’, alongside the likes of terrorism and war.
“A populist, bandwagon-hopping Prime Minister Miliband in charge of real issues of national security – now that truly is the stuff of nightmares.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2560967/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Army-gives-birth-new-rights-farce.html#ixzz2tbMuFlnE
” It’s a crisis! Miliband’s in need of your votes”
By PETER MCKAY.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2560968/PETER-MCKAY-Its-crisis-Milibands-need-votes.html#ixzz2tbO3SC95
A while ago there was a rather (darkly, given his relative performance) funny collection of pictures of Kim Wrong ‘Un pointing at things.
It did seem that in the nu-North Korea, success was measured very much by how well you managed a faraway look and complementing out-stretched arm and digit locating stuff at distance.
If Mr. M’s effort in this is not reversed out in red on the BBC home page by the top of the hour, there will be hell to pay.
Funny, John Kerry was saying the same thing at the same time in a speech in Indonesia.
Coincidence, magic, or just an Agenda 21 conspiracy theory?
I think you know the answer, dear reader.
Those Burrowbridge photos from WUWT are now covered in a Telegraph article:
River banks of vegetation</a<
This is the bit I like: They reveal between December 1993 and Febuary 1994 around 20 inches of rain fell – five inches less than during the same time this year. So BBC, how come all this flooding? Anything to do with the directive from the E.U. that the labour party swallowed so readily, to turn the wetlands back to their original state? Care to comment BBC?
Today programme this morning was accompanied by squeals that no one had been to see the flood victims besides the UKIP man and then an interview with the very same who just happened to be passing by. Well I know it is no good crying over spilt milk, but I have just looked on line and flood barriers for your doors can be bought for just over £150. Where is people’s own sense of responsibility? Why would they feel better if some local or national politician comes to them and says ‘Oh, dear’. Surely the best thing for people who are in a state where they can start to clean up would be for their non-flooded friends and relations to put on their wellies and rubber gloves and give a helping hand? But for the BBC giving these people victim status allows further BBC’s attack on the Conservatives (who would be in power if they did not have the LibDem noose around their neck)
You might want to read this:
Click to access wetlands.pdf
and then this:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123162956/http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/esas/stage1/somerset.htm
…..or as the BBC would have us believe, Climate Change.
and then digest all this:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123162956/http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/docs/national/annexes/annexx/slmrex2.htm
And within the *scheme* read this section:
Tier 3 – Permanent grassland raised water level areas
I wonder just how many bought into the Kings ransom?
Climate Change?? My arse!
Newsnight had two guests on. Neither was a climate scientist yet the pro AGW guest (a civil engineer – who should have been on last week when they discussed the practicalities of flood defences with a Dutch politician and a counsellor) was allowed to estimate the temperature rise (3-4 degrees according to his best estimate).
I’m not sure what that segment achieved other than to reiterate the belief system.
Have the bBBC ever interviewed any of the 100,000 residents in Taunton and Bridgwater whose homes have been saved from flooding by the Environment Agency’s policies on the Somerset Levels (according to the map in DV’s introductory post)? Or just the handful of loudmouths who expect our money to be used to protect their low-lying properties?