The climate change lobby was pretty insistent that the ‘Pause’ was non-existent or if there was any such pause it could only be taken as statistically significant if it was over at least 15 years…..however, one month of rain and apparently that is a sign that climate change is upon us again…..not only that but it doesn’t have to be global or even national…if it rains a lot into a bucket in your back yard the Met and the BBC will report that as ‘extreme rainfall’…never mind if it was a drought everywhere else.
The BBC and the Met. Office have been trumpeting ‘record rain in December’ as proof positive of climate change…man-made.
The BBC today repeatedly told us that the Met. Office said this was a record December rainfall in the UK…
Weather records: December was ‘wettest month for UK’
which is odd….
Matt Ridley in the Times on Monday said….
‘Finally, please resist the cheap excuse of climate change[for the floods]. It was Britain’s second wettest December. The same month in 1929 was wetter’.
Now that caught my attention and so I looked up the Met. Office site...and indeed the latest news flash was this…..
It has been the wettest December on record for Scotland (333.1 mm), and for Wales (321 mm) and Northern Ireland is currently ranked 4th wettest with 208.1 mm. North west England has also seen record breaking rainfall, but central and southern England have been much closer to average.
For the UK as a whole its currently the second wettest on record.
So the Met. Office confirmed Ridley’s point.
But hold on…. has it changed its mind 24 hours later?
5 January 2015 – The latest provisional statistics from the Met Office confirm December has broken records both for rainfall and temperature
The month was not only the wettest December on record, but also the wettest calendar month overall since records* began in 1910, while 2015 is the sixth wettest year on record (dating back to 1910).
So ‘the wettest December on record‘ but for which region? Not the UK as a whole…so why did the Met. Office miss that out and why did the BBC decide to interpret it as meaning the UK as a whole?
The Met. Office goes on…
There has been a marked contrast in rainfall across the UK. It has been the wettest December on record for Scotland (351 mm), and for Wales (359 mm) and the 2nd wettest for Northern Ireland with 221 mm, just behind 1919 which recorded 224 mm.
What’s missing from the Met’s report is that important line that pulls the rug from their alarmist trumpeting….
For the UK as a whole its currently the second wettest on record.
And, according to Ridley, that record was set in 1929….apparently long before ‘man-made’ climate change began to happen.
Whilst December may be wettest for Scotland it is by no means the wettest year in the UK as a whole or in all its regions.
The BBC and the Met. Office are cherry picking not only regional weather and ignoring the bigger picture but also selecting a single month as ‘statistically significant’ evidence of climate change….If they want to do that then they should look at the records for England and Wales which show that the wettest years on record are mostly pre 20th century.
Here’s Harrabin proclaiming one month’s rain as the sign of things to come….did they say the same in 1929 then?
-
Is December weather the new normal? Is there a new normal? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35228779 …
@ECIU_UK@CarbonBrief@eciu@Revkin@aDissentient
roger harrabin
You just have to laugh at his nonsense……
Are the BBC
#climatechange deniers? Thoughts on#floods coverage on my new Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/roger.harrabin/@ECIU_UK@CarbonBrief
So in summary, this was the 2nd wettest December on record but the BBC has been telling us that it was the wettest.
The BBC….Corrupt or incompetent? Guided, misguided, by climate campaigner Roger Harrabin? You decide.
As regards “New Normal“, On past record, normally I would expect that the Met Office will predict this wet winter will be repeated indefinitely. But I don’t think an El Nino can be repeated in two winters in a row, so I expect 2016/2017 will be cooler and therefore drier. Then 2017/2018 could possibly be warmer than that, and if it was, then the Mini-Ice-Age would start in 2018/2019 as predicted by Astronomers.
The sudden disappearance of the “Pause” or “Hiatus” on the run up to Paris, is a uniquely bizarre episode being unravelled by the US Congress. The BBC usually uses the Met Office HadCRUT graph. But the Met Office will have to hold back on any plans to follow suit with the usual amendments to all those errors that make the temperatures show no warming. They would need far more significant amendments, if they are to eliminate a future Mini-Ice-Age.
Cameron has appointed a Minister of Floods, he was on the local news today. When he mentioned “Global Warming”, I got an idea of how intelligent he must be, and this is a Tory.
As for Roger Harrabin. I remember a troll doubted that I was a scientist, on the basis that my English Language skills are not perfect. I wonder if that was proof that the troll was Roger Harrabin? I like to think so after discovering this idiots qualifications.
To convert the general public to the religion of Climate Change, it is crucial to convince them that the weather is changing and that extreme weather, which is a sign of this, is becoming more common. This is what is behind the new practice of naming storms. Up until recently only very extreme weather conditions like tornadoes and hurricanes were given names. As a result, naming something gives the impression that it is an extreme event. So by now naming storms, which occur much more frequently in the UK, you give the impression more extreme weather is occurring. It is quite clever really. Soon the Met Office will be giving names to showers !
Stiff breeze Cecil & light drizzle Mohamed – oops no – could never have the latter as must repeat its NTDWI
Well it’s a completely historical Shaz here today…
meant “historically average”…bugger.
Presumably after storm Frank we have to have Gail?
LOL! Followed by Harry Kane………
Welcome back Roland ! Here in Scotland ,I am enjoying my holiday in your lovely weather !
It’s not always as warm as this, remember.
You do realise that whatever happens to the weather anywhere in the world it will make no difference to the message don’t you?
Change occurs on a daily basis so tomorrow will always be different than today. If the change is large it will be taken as evidence that ‘climate change’ is occurring, (the human element in that is ‘settled’, of course), BUT if the change is small that will be evidence that the mitigation policies are working and so the propaganda efforts will be redoubled.
Yes, Jim, that’s the beauty of the ‘climate change’ ponzi scheme – something The Met Office knows only too well (as do their ever-willing helpers at the BBC). Re-branding ‘global warming’ (when that became inconveniently unhelpful to their cause) as ‘climate change’ was, frankly, a masterstroke of marketing. Whatever the weather, it’s all ‘climate change’. Too much rain? = ‘climate change’! Too little rain? = ‘climate change’! Etc, etc.
It’s ‘climate change’ Bingo – and everyone in on the scam is a winner, every time!
Some part of me admires the sheer unashamed cheek of that conceit. The rest of me rails against the stupidity of a wider public too dim witted, it seems, to work out the deception for themselves.
The summer of 2006 was a real scorcher. June and July were so hot I remember looking forward to autumn and some respite. My grass didn’t need cutting for weeks.
The wife and I were holidaying in the Yorkshire Dales and remember watching Wayne Rooney getting sent off in the world cup whilst crammed into a pub – it was baking hot, the temperature that day had yet again reached 30 degrees centigrade.
Hosepipe bans were in force across the whole country, including my home town in the North West of England.
We were told that the reservoirs were so low that no matter what happened there was no prospect of the hosepipe ban being lifted until the following year, it was that serious.
The BBC weather experts reliably informed us that this was now the norm, it’s was due to man made global warming and we’d better get used to it. We were informed that within the foreseeable future (15 years or so), the UK would resemble a Mediterranean country weather-wise.
By October 2006 they had (quietly) lifted the hosepipe ban due to the amount of rain we’d had. The reservoirs were back to normal levels.
Nine years later we have had huge amounts of rain, very few dry hot days and are as close to resembling a Mediterranean country with our weather as Diane Abbott is to winning the Miss World title.
Strangely though, the same so-called weather experts from 2006 are still in their jobs now, the only difference being that they have decided that the wet weather is due the climate change.
‘Lessmore snow’ – any weather is proof of climate change….
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/global-warming-causes-lessmore-snow.html
Back in the drought year of 1976, thirdoption, the same ‘experts’ or their predecessors were talking of European agriculture permanently changing with crops like alfalfa and rice becoming the norm. The following year 1977 was so wet the crops rotted in the fields and the combines went down to their axles in mud when attempting to harvest them.
As you say, those highly respected and well paid experts remained as a testament to their spurious credentials with not one, to my knowledge at the time, retracting any of their patently absurd forecasts of the previous year.
As they say ‘nothing changes except the weather’.
You mention this and I was looking for the “global warming predictions” of the time relating to this on the BBC but could find none. We were living in Hampshire at the time and there were dire predictions from the BBC that this was the new norm due to Global warming. They had various “experts” all over this imploring the Government to start building a pipeline from the North West to supply water to the South East else we were all going to perish.
I was going to put together a document for the BBC and ask them to justify their recent alarmist crapola.
Presumably weather records are most likely to be broken during an El Nino year. It strikes me that since 1910 there won’t have been a sufficient number of El Ninos for the breaking of records to be statistically significant. Are there statisticians here who could confirm, or otherwise?
I’m not a statistician but according to Wikipedia; “Since 2000, El Niño events have been observed in 2002–03, 2004–05, 2006–07, 2009–10 and 2015–16.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o
Also; “ENSO conditions have occurred at two- to seven-year intervals for at least the past 300 years, but most of them have been weak.”
That’s a surprise to me as I was lead to believe El Nino was a permanent tropical system out in the Pacific ocean, so I guess Wikipedia is fuelling the conspiracy too.
I’d thought it was every 7-8 years, so what do I know?! Although if we’re talking about strong ones, perhaps the theory remains valid.
Someone told me that the arctic was above 0 degree centigrade , then no it was the Antarctic , much more serious .
I reckon it would be if a whole continent was of one temperature , akin to the Earth being as far away from the Sun as Pluto .
This is Dr Roger Pielke giving evidence to the senate hearing on climate change. He quotes the IPCC’s own findings on hurricanes, rainfall etc which do not support Harrabin’s and other alarmist/environmentalist claims that they are all proof of global warming. So in other words, not even the warmist UN scientists are making the claims that Harrabin is making – and remember he’s making them with the full blessing of the BBC.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=senate+hearing+climate+change+pielke&view=detail&&mid=C2E801B3A43ED97541A6C2E801B3A43ED97541A6
This is concrete proof that the BBC is filling the airwaves with propaganda and abusing – on a monumental scale given the astronomically high stakes for us all in the climate change game – its ‘reputation’ for impartiality.
N.B. Pielke is on first but it’s worth watching the full 48 mins worth for the various testimonies, including from Dr Roy Spencer, on climate models and temperature measurements where he also covers the record temperatures of the ‘pre-industrial’ 1930s.
The UK has supposedly been hit by 6 ‘storms’ so far. So far, in this particular corner of North Cheshire, we’ve had squelchy lawns (no surface water in gardens anywhere that I can see) and experienced a few gusts of strong wind (trees, roof tiles, bins, car alarms etc. intact).
In other words, situation = nothing unusual.
Climate change my arse.
At risk of being pelted with rotten tomatoes and being accused of blasphemy and being burnt at the stake, I must say the BBC has been very careful to point out the recent floods are not necessarily linked to ‘climate change’. If anyone can present any links here to BBC content that claims otherwise I would be happy to hold my hands up and admit I’m wrong.
There are conspiracy theories on both sides of the climate change argument. I’m not taking any sides, but I do need to speak up in defence of impartiality because I think there’s too much focus on the small bits of information and the cherry-picking of statistics that favour the sceptic’s view here.
I think there’s too much focus on the small bits of information and the cherry-picking of statistics that favour the sceptic’s view here.
I think you’ll find the sceptical view on here is driven by a concern for science, the scientific method and evidence – all of which the BBC fails to show any interest in covering (no wonder when it’s in hock to its environmentalist 28gate mates). If you have any proof of conspiracy theories being peddled on this website, please provide it.
As for ‘cherry-picking of statistics’ – does that include the satellite temperature record for the last 18 years or the Medieval Warm Period or the Roman Warm Period or the Little Ice Age or positive feedback or ice cover in the Antarctic or less snow or more snow or the failed climate models or Kevin Trenberth saying ‘it’s a travesty we can’t explain the lack of warming’ or…(etc etc)?
So would you class NASA as a good starting point for a real scientific view?
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Edward, do you realise that NASA is an enormous organisation with many different departments and responsibilities? It is not one single entity with one point of view. The company I work for writes software for parts of NASA for systems engineering and systems modelling. We provide support and training in systems engineering processes. We support the engineering lifecycle and we are used widely in parts of NASA.
I communicate with NASA engineers and engineers who work in companies who supply services to NASA on most days. I have to tell you that all the engineers I have spoken to about climate change tell me that NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies approach to climate change is an embarrassment to them. I am dealing with people who worked on the Constellation mission and now mainly work on the Orion project. Many of NASA’s top engineers and many of their astronauts too have written publicly to deny the opinions of NASA GISS and show clearly how unscientific they are. They oppose the way of adjusting the surface station temperature record and stand by the satellite record, which shows no overall warming for the last 19 years.
I remember seeing the names of up to fifty of the most prominent NASA astronauts and scientists including moonwalkers Buzz Aldrin, Charles Duke and Harrison Schmitt, openly coming out as Climate realists who oppose the scientific fraud of carbon dioxide induced Climate Change. But I think they have to Retire first.
NASA needs to learn from the EU, which stops the pensions of any retired critic.
Some of those astronauts and engineers are also creationists. I suppose we can forget about evolution then.
You beat me to it.
Ah, the ‘Wernher von Braun’ assault. What is your point? By the way, it had better be good, because I really hate that condescending anti-science crapola you have just posted.
Some of those astronauts and engineers are also creationists. I suppose we can forget about evolution then.
Two different subjects and their views on creationism do not disqualify any hard evidence they may come up with about the climate, much as you would like it to.
Also, creationism to some is simply a belief that someone or something created our universe – not necessarily a religious God. If you have hard evidence that the universe definitely does not have a creator, then let’s hear it. (Equally, such creationists are unable to provide hard evidence that it has – in other words, the jury is out on both counts.)
Actually, creationism is the rejection of Darwinian evolution. It is the belief that all species of life were created separately by god. What you’re referring to is the ‘first cause’ argument for the origin of the universe or ‘intelligent design’ – which is basically a creationist pseudoscience.
What you’re referring to is the ‘first cause’ argument for the origin of the universe or ‘intelligent design’ – which is basically a creationist pseudoscience.
Am I?
Nobody knows how or why the Universe was created, that is all I am saying. I have an open mind – that’s why I used to believe scientists in the 70s when they told us that the CO2 in the atmosphere was leading to the next ice age (post-war cooling, since airbrushed from the temperature record by the likes of NASA) then even believed the same scientists when they said oops we got it wrong it’s actually going to lead to runaway global warming.
Then after reading Lawson’s ‘An Appeal to Reason’ I started to take a closer interest in the subject. And the rest, as they say, is history….
“that’s why I used to believe scientists in the 70s when they told us that the CO2 in the atmosphere was leading to the next ice age”
You weren’t looking at reliable scientific sources.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
“Then after reading Lawson’s ‘An Appeal to Reason’”
And you still aren’t.
Marvin: I’ve quoted plenty of reliable scientific sources on here over the years (including this thread).
As for Nigel Lawson’s book, he points out what a lot of people have begun to realise and that is the divergence between the IPCC’s scientific reports and its ‘Summary for Policymakers’, the first being a cautious (though still AGW-biased) attempt to scientifically assess global warming and the second a propaganda document constructed by politicians and environmentalists. This will give you a flavour:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/09/26/why-the-ipcc-meeting-isnt-being-televised/
And you might like to have a watch of this to understand the crude level of debate these environmentalists – in this case the Sierra Club – are limited to:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=senate+hearing+climate+change+you+tube&view=detail&&mid=98740C36D3D4004973C698740C36D3D4004973C6&rvsmid=9C2559FE85775BE481B99C2559FE85775BE481B9&fsscr=0
And then this, from a scientist, to understand where the IPCC actually stands with regard to many of the wild claims you hear from the BBC’s own environment correspondent, amongst others:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=senate+hearing+roger+pielke&&view=detail&mid=9C2559FE85775BE481B99C2559FE85775BE481B9
“that’s why I used to believe scientists in the 70s when they told us that the CO2 in the atmosphere was leading to the next ice age”
You weren’t looking at reliable scientific sources.
a) I was actually there in the 1970s when they were telling us – where were you?
b) Here are the sources:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html
E.g. Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age
Scientists See Ice Age In the Future
The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959-1973) – Washington, D.C.
Author: Washington Post Staff Writer; By David R. Boldt
Date: Jan 11, 1970
Start Page: A1
Pages: 2
Section: General
Get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters–the worst may be yet to come. That’s the long-long-range weather forecast being given out by “climatologists.” the people who study very long-term world weather trends.
Got that?
The Theory of Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of the universe, the origin of life or the existence of gods. No-one has evidence that a creator does not exist because generally it is very difficult to prove a negative. More importantly, there is no scientific evidence that gods exist.
As far as evolution is concerned, the jury has delivered a verdict based on the available evidence. The science is settled.
Hi Marvin,
Have you voted here yet ?
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/end-the-bbc-licence-fee
As far as evolution is concerned, the jury has delivered a verdict based on the available evidence. The science is settled.
Oh heck, ‘available’ evidence doesn’t sound quite that settled does it? Evolution, adaptation, survival of the fittest etc makes a lot of sense to me but I can also appreciate the arguments behind intelligent design (but not in the religious god sense) – why can’t both be true? That is not a leading question as I honestly don’t know, it’s not an area of science I’ve spent much time looking at.
Anyway, we digress as this thread is about global warming and BBC bias. Do you believe the AGW hypothesis has been proven? Is it also ‘settled science’?
Available evidence is as good as it gets and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Intelligent design is a religious belief not a scientific theory. There is no evidence to support it. It is a ploy thought up by religious fundamentalists to try and get creationism taught in American schools. See the Wedge Strategy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
“Do you believe the AGW hypothesis has been proven? Is it also ‘settled science’?”
Science isn’t about belief, it’s about evidence. Given the evidence we currently have, AGW is the best explanation for the changes we observe in the earth’s climate.
Marvin obviously has nil scientific qualifications or ability to understand what science is about. Well – maybe he has a measly GCSE or O level.
Science relies on hard data. AGW does not – it was a theory that has long since been disproved by the hard fact that global temperatures have ceased to rise for almost 2 decades. And a lot of the “climate scientists” have been shown to have played fast and loose with data, and have nil understanding of proper statistical methods,
Well said John Anderson. You’ve got me bang to rights.
Using the scientific method to prove the existence of God would mean you may not get an answer you would like.
One idea would be to us the logical presumption that nothing should exist. Therefore everything that does exists is God.
Therefore the Big bang was the moment of creation, Zero became (-1+1) and Evolution is Gods way of creating new things after the Big bang, not just life forms.
So the mathematical proof of God is Zero = -1+1
I suggest the reason idiots like Marvin are convinced that AGW is as settled a science as Evolution is ignorance caused by the BBC‘s censorship policy for climate science, scientists and scientific debate.
(1) Evidence for Evolution is relatively patchy, but always logically fit’s the theory, even if the rate of evolution is variable.
(2) Evidence for AGW theory is non-existent, but the assumption fit’s the theory in patches from the last mini-ice-age, from 1960, and from 1975 to 1997
(3) Proxy evidence from the atmospheres of Mars and Venus disprove the carbon dioxide theory, and therefore the AGW theory for the Earth
(4) Sun spot number was known to influence Climate Change two hundred years ago. Length of the Solar Cycle has always correlated with Climate Change before and since. Therefore proof of what causes Climate Change exists in scientific papers on Sun spot number, length of the solar cycle, the wobble of the barycentre of the Solar System, and its influence on the speed of plasma in the Sun to effect the Solar magnetic strength on Galactic Cosmic Ray input, which regulates the Earths Cloud Albedo. That’s what causes Climate Change. For Space weather such as predictions for a Sudden Stratospheric Warming event, look to Piers Corbyn’s Weatheaction website. Piers comes to the same conclusions using correlations with his weather records.
Well surprising as it may seem, there is a form of creationism that is compatible with the scientific method, and Evolution.
But which ones of the fifty are Creationists. And are they a “Seven days in the Bible Creationist“, or are they one of those relativistic Creationists who regard Evolution as an ongoing process of Gods creation, and the fact that there are still particles that have not yet completed seven days since the big bang.
There are two types of scientists who support Creationists (1) Those who support “Intelligent Design” (2) Those who fit Evolution into Creation by using both the Big Bang as the moment of creation, and relativity to fit the beliefs inside the seven days of creation.
The non-scientific idiots are Number (1) and the left-wing creationists who think that “All Men are Created Equal“. This is the first commandment of left-wing ideology.
So the left-wing morons have a creationist belief for their first commandment, while intelligent right-wing people who do not agree with this creationist belief are called racists.
Surprisingly, someone at the Met Office has been very careful to point out the recent floods are not necessarily linked to ‘climate change’. This may have leaked on to the BBC from those who present the Weather. But on past record, Harrabin and his gang would try to get Richard Ayre to censor this in future.
As for the science, I would avoid government funded institutions, all are corrupted. The Heartland Institute is friendly to independent scientists, and does not censor the Atmospheric Physics and Solar Physics in Astronomy.
Also the Cato Institute is independent of Government control, and publishes books on climate science censored by science magazine editors, and other publishers. In Britain we have the GWPF, but they are more concerned with the Fuel Policy. But as far as I can see, all the scientific papers produced by independent scientists, exist uncensored on Google Scholar.
But before using Google Scholar, you could look on Climate sceptic websites for a guide on what to look for. But I find that they can be years out of date on the science.
Just make sure you look at sCeptic as opposed sKeptic.
NASA / NOAA is not a reliable source for the truth about the climate .
They are being investigated by the American Congress for falsifying temperatures & weather records .
http://www.thegwpf.com/us-congress-to-investigate-noaas-temperature-adjustments/
. They also claimed in 2014 & 2015 , just before the climate conference , that it was the warmest year ever .
Then, at the of 2014 after the climate junket was over , they quietly admitted it was highly unlikely that 2014 was the warmest .
So anything but a good starting point for a scientific view ,. In fact just as biased as the BBCs climate propaganda .
Do you mean this NASA, the one that fiddles its own temperature records?
http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.Cyulo9cv.6NfCHUkD.dpbs
From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”
As for your link, the fact NASA is perpetuating the ‘consensus’ propaganda shows it does not have a scientific view of anything – science is not about ‘consensus’, as any true scientist knows.
So the answer to your question is an emphatic ‘no’.
Have they been caught out again?
Oops!!!!
Edward. You’re OK. On this site you are allowed to say what you think, unlike a certain other state broadcaster website where ‘moderation’ and ‘censorship’ seem all-too-often indistinguishable.
But this site is called biased bbc and whether climate change is happening or not and whether it is man-made or not, there is no doubt about the bias of coverage of the BBC on this issue. The words ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ occur with alarming frequency on bad weather reports, and indirectly through selective reporting and use of statistics.
I’m far from a denier. CO2 levels are measurably going up. We are pumping out a lot of CO2. Correlation or causation? Average temperature on a 100 year view are on the rise. Correlation or causation? The evidence is patchy.
Weather averages are the sum of huge variability and both are abused by both sides of the debate. ‘Average’ rainfall hardly ever occurs, just as the ‘average’ 7 score of two rolled dice occurs only 17% of the time. But I’ve yet to hear that get a mention by our state broadcaster, when bigging up the rainfall and temperature values for December.
It’s only natural that the question of climate change will arise when we get disastrous weather conditions like those that caused the floods recently. However, in the last few days the main message I have got from the BBC is that of the failure of flood defences, failure of this Tory government (predictably) and deforestation. Not much about climate change.
It’s only natural that the question of climate change will arise when we get disastrous weather conditions like those that caused the floods recently.
1. Why?
2. What do you mean by ‘climate change’?
Don’t ask me, I’m just making an observation.
The clue might be in the use of the word “weather”.
“Weather is not Climate”. c. IPCC.
Don’t ask me, I’m just making an observation.
I think you were stating an opinion.
I’m speaking in the third person context. Like; ‘it’s only natural that a dog will piss up the trunk of a tree whilst out for a walk.’
I’m just stating the bleeding obvious.
Funny, I thought I’m was first person singular.
‘….in the last few days the main message I have got from the BBC is that of the failure of flood defences, failure of this Tory government (predictably) and deforestation.
And nothing about this:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/what-the-authorities-wont-tell-you-about-the-floods/
Amid all the devastation and recrimination over the floods in Cumbria hardly anybody mentions one factor that may not be the sole cause, but certainly hasn’t helped, and that is the almost complete cessation of dredging of our rivers since we were required to accept the European Water Framework Directive (EWF) into UK law in 2000.
Yet until then, for all of recorded history, it almost went without saying that a watercourse needed to be big enough to take any water that flowed into it, otherwise it would overflow and inundate the surrounding land and houses. Every civilisation has known that, except apparently ours. It is just common sense. City authorities and, before them, manors and towns and villages, organised themselves to make sure their watercourses were cleansed, deepened and sometimes embanked to hold whatever water they had to carry away.
And we all know why – 28gate.
Very insidious piece on bBBC1 6pm news tonight.
First of all bBBC editorial decided to prioritise the floods !!!???? Obviously a ploy to ‘ bury the bad news’ about the Corbyn reshuffle. At the very end of the story, Mark Easton Closed with the words ‘ …our changing climate’ !!!!!!! Note the words. Not only a sly way of getting in the climate change agenda but also a way of suggesting we all subscribe to that agenda and that it is taken for granted.
Absolutely disgusting bias writ large.
It is becoming even more and more apparent, Roger Harrabin is out of control and needs to be replaced at the BBC:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/uk-winters-not-getting-warmer-or-wetter-will-someone-tell-comrade-harrabin/
Can someone please tell me what climate we are changing to? We are temperate- are we changing to arctic, continental, mediterranean, sub-tropical, tropical, desert or something new? I am looking forward to growing(or going) bananas in my garden