“Our first responsibility is to make money for our clients….and nothing is more important than oil.”

Jeremy Grantham….Bob Ward’s boss and also that of Lord Stern.

‘Something funny’s happening to the weather’.

Just some things to consider when reading BBC exclamations that man made climate change is here…

What to believe eh?

No Arctic ice?…and yet ice is increasing….drier, colder winters?…..and yet winter is warm and wet……drought in the summer? and yet the summers are wet……..it’s the Jetstream?…or is it 4% more moisture in the atmosphere…….or disturbed weather patterns over Indonesia… .or trade winds…or ocean heat sinks….or or or….?????

Funny old world……they admit there’s been no global warming for at least 15 years and yet they claim a bit of extra winter rain one year, never mind the winter droughts, is due to global warming…..and yet the warming decades running up to 1998 were getting drier…..only since global warming stopped has it got a bit wetter in places.

Groundwater levels timeline  1970 0nwards…click on the timeline at the bottom left to run show.

From the Met Office 2013/14:

SUMMARY – PRECIPITATION:

Confidence in the forecast for precipitation across the UK over the next three months is relatively low. For the December-January-February period as a whole there is a slight signal for below-average precipitation. The probability that UK precipitation for December-January-February will fall into the driest of our five categories is around 25% and the probability that it will fall into the wettest category is around 15% (the 1981-2010 probability for each of these categories is 20%).

Decreasing amounts of ice in the far north is contributing to colder winters and drought, chief scientist Julia Slingo tells MPs

The reduction in Arcticsea ice caused by climate change is playing a role in the UK’s recent colder and drier winterweather, according to the Met Office.

Speaking to MPs on the influential environmental audit committee about the state of the warming Arctic, Julia Slingo, the chief scientist at the Met Office, said that decreasing amounts of ice in the far north was contributing to colder winters in the UK and northern Europe as well as to drought.

 

A rising trend in rain?

Record rainfall?

Stormier weather?

The recent storms and floods in the UK – new report

9 February 2014

As yet, there is no definitive answer on the possible contribution of climate change in the recent storminess, rainfall amounts and the consequent flooding. This is in part due to the highly variable nature of UK weather and climate.

Heavier but shorter bursts of rain will lead to flooding…right?

The          says:

The most notable feature of the January rainfallwas its persistence – the highest number of rain days (>1mm) registered for January in the NCIC record for southern England (from 1961).

So persistence of the rainfall…ie the number of days it falls is the important factor here…..

Which contradicts exactly what Roger Harrabin peddles:

‘The issue is the way it falls in sudden bursts not the amount of rain.‘

or

“There’s evidence to say we are getting slightly more rain in total, but more importantly it may be falling in more intense bursts” — Julia Slingo, Met Office, 3 January 2013

No sign of any unnatural increasing trend in rainfall here:

No, global warming did NOT cause the storms, says one of the Met Office’s most senior experts

• Mat Collins, Exeter University Professor in climate systems, said storms driven by jet stream that has been ‘stuck’ further south than usual
• He told The Mail on Sunday there is ‘no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter’

Em……

Prime Minister climate change opinion not backed up by science, says Met Office

“It’s impossible to say that these storms are more intense because of climate change.”

or….em…

Paul Davis, chief meteorologist for the Met Office said that very strong winds much of the UK experienced which was caused by jet stream.
“December has been the windiest spell since 1969, but unprecedented perhaps not. It probably feels unusual because the last few winters have been fairly settled and cold and we haven’t had the story conditions that just experienced.”

or…em….

Direct from the Met. Office:   There’s currently no evidence to suggest that the UK is increasing in storminess.

So we can expect wet winters due to climate change can we?……..

Drought predicted till Christmas

Published on Monday, 16 April 2012 09:19

Written by Scott Buckler

Seventeen counties in South West England and the Midlands have moved into official drought status, after two dry winters have left rivers and ground waters depleted.

Experts are now hoping for a steady rainy winter in 2012/13 to restore rivers and groundwaters, but the Environment Agency is working with the water industry to put plans in place now to deal with the prospect of a third dry winter. Water companies are looking at where they may be able to get more water, options to share water across company boundaries and how they can reduce leakage further. The Agency is urging all water users to save water now, to help prevent more serious shortages and environmental impacts next year.

Why are we in drought?

13 03 2012

Rainfall amounts across many parts of the UK have been below average for the last two years. Importantly, this includes two dry winters – the periods when we would normally expect our rainfall to replenish river, reservoir and groundwater levels.

2010 was the eleventh-driest year in the series from 1910 and the driest since 2003

This emphasises why there are concerns about drought in parts of England and Wales.

There is no one reason for the dry weather over the last few years; it’s all part of the natural variability of the UK climate.

Spelman: Water reform needed to tackle threat of future droughts

Britain faces a future of water shortages, and lasting environmental damage, with some rivers running dry, unless attitudes to water use change, Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman cautioned today.

Is it climate change causing more moisture in the atmosphere leading to rain…or the Jetstream?

From the BBC 2012:

Why, oh why, does it keep raining?

The jet stream and its path is the cause of the repeated flooding being suffered during a British summer that has so far been one of the most miserable on record.

Normally, we would expect the pattern of the jet stream to keep shifting, for its shape to switch every few days and for our weather to change as a result.

Instead for week after week – and possibly for weeks ahead too – the meanders of the stream are sticking to the same shape so repeated rainstorms have become the norm.

The big unknown is why this current pattern is so static. The high-altitude winds that make up the stream are themselves still racing along but their path remains stuck in place so our battering continues.

This is one of the major puzzles for weather specialists and the science behind this is fairly young.

The jet stream, a massive but mysterious driver of our weather, usually passes along a steady path from West to East across the Atlantic – sometimes a bit to the North of us, sometimes a bit to the South.

As a relatively small island, on the borderline between the Atlantic Ocean and the European continent, the precise location of the stream matters hugely to us and right now we’re on the wrong side of it.

Oh wait…here’s the Met Office in May 2012:

While the jet stream may be an influence, there is nothing unusual about its current position and it regularly behaves in this way.

With that in mind, it’s possible to go a step further and say there is nothing unusual about the UK’s weather over the last few weeks.

That may sound odd on the back of a record-breaking wet month, but we do expect to see records broken and they do topple fairly regularly for one area or another.

The past April fits into this expectation – it was exceptionally wet, but only slightly wetter than the previous record set just a few years ago in 2000 and there are several years close behind.

Dredging doesn’t help to stop floods?

In the modern era, the disastrous 1947 flood stimulated a river engineering programme (including channel realignments, dredging and improvements in weir design) to increase the capacity of the Thames, particularly through its middle and lower reaches. When completed, the river could accommodate more than 30% more flow within its banks. Thus, while peak flows exhibit little trend, peak river levels – the primary cause of flooding – decreased appreciably through the 20th century.

How Somerset Levels river flooded after it was not dredged for decades

Photograph taken in the 1960s shows a wide expanse of water passing through Burrowbridge with plenty of room for water levels to rise

10 Lefty Lies About The Floods Which Have Devastated Britain

Breitbart London’s new Executive Editor James Delingpole looks at the ten ‘best’ lefty lies about the UK flooding… then debunks them:

And oh yes:

And remember this:

Bob Ward & Climate Fraud

If who finances who is so important you might be justified in asking who funds Bob Ward?  Bob Ward doesn’t want you to ask that though…because the answer ain’t pretty…it’s Big Oil…….

Ward works for the Grantham Research Institute, a “research department” at the London School of Economics (LSE)funded by an American hedge-funder called Jeremy Grantham and headed by the economist and former treasury official Lord Stern.

This is what Jeremy Grantham, Bob‘s ultimate boss (and Stern’s) and paymaster said about how he makes money:
Jeremy Grantham on how to feed the world and why he invests in oil
On whether there’s any conflict in him (via GMO and/or his foundation) investing in oil and gas companies?

“The first point is that each fund we have at GMO – maybe 80 or so – is run by its own team. I don’t think that money management can easily have too many rules coming down from the top. Our first responsibility is to make money for our clients….and nothing is more important than oil.”

Look familiar? That’s not Israel or the West Bank but Northern Ireland

What’s in a name?

Build a wall and it seems the most pressing problem is how to define what that wall is intended to do….what to name the construction…..all very difficult if you have an agenda whilst trying to appear not to have.

In Northern Ireland walls that keep the warring parties apart are ‘Peace Walls’…and they’re still being built….as this BBC report from 2013 reveals:

New ‘peace fence’ at St Matthew’s Church in east Belfast

and here explains the history of these ‘Peace walls’ as the BBC is happy to call them:

Peace walls were first erected in Northern Ireland in the late 1960s as a temporary measure to minimise violence between nationalist and unionist communities.

Four decades later many are still in place.

Belfast’s ‘peace walls’ treble after ceasefires

Funny that the BBC, so willing to recognise that the walls in NI are there to stop terrorism and violence, but can’t bring itself to admit the same motivations are what caused Israel to build its own ‘Peace Wall’.

The BBC’s advice to journalists on what to call the security barrier?

Barrier

BBC journalists should try to avoid using terminology favoured by one side or another in any dispute. 

The BBC uses the term ‘barrier’, ‘separation barrier’ or ‘West Bank barrier’ as an acceptable generic description to avoid the political connotations of ‘security fence’ (preferred by the Israeli government) or ‘apartheid wall’ (preferred by the Palestinians). 

The United Nations also uses the term ‘barrier’. It’s better to keep to this word unless you have sought the advice of the Middle East bureau.   

Of course, a reporter standing in front of a concrete section of the barrier might choose to say ‘this wall’ or use a more precise description in the light of what he or she is looking at.  

By using such non-descript terms the BBC is in fact using ‘terminology favoured by one side’…the Palestinian terrorist …because the bland, inoffensive, anodyne phrases strip the ‘Barrier’ of all meaning….and imposes another…the suggestion that this is about ‘separation’….feeding into the activists loaded ‘favoured terminology’ of  Israel as an ‘apartheid’ state.

This is a deliberate attempt by the BBC to play down Palestinian violence…just as it does with Palestinian rockets…invariably described as ‘homemade’ and ‘inaccurate’…the intention being to suggest they are essentially harmless and not a justification for Israeli retaliation.

Stripping away the real reason for the construction of the security barrier, to stop Palestinians bombing Israelis or shooting at them (hence the concrete sections), is a political intervention by the BBC on behalf of the Palestinians.

The BBC is hiding the fact that Israel has been under attack for over 60 years and is using language favourable to Palestinian terrorists.

(Remind me…why did the BBC spend £300,000 hiding the Balen report?  Does it say in effect ‘BBC News kills Jews‘?  Just which journalists and management are being protected?)

Perhaps the BBC should take note of what a Palestinian called the ‘Separation Barrier’….

Mohammed Assaf, winner of the Arab Idol says:

‘There  are many ways to make a difference in life, but my way is as an artist,” said Assaf, a graduate of Palestine University who has just become a UN youth ambassador. “I’ve always wanted to make my voice heard around the world, to sing about the occupation, about the security walls between communities, and about refugees. My first ambition is a cultural revolution through art. Palestinians don’t want war – they are tired of fighting.”

‘Security Wall’….So called because it provides security to Israelis from Palestinian terrorism.

Simple really…unless you have a political agenda and want to send a message.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-24856275

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is holding an inquiry into the BBC ahead of its current Royal Charter ending in December 2016. The Royal Charter is the constitutional basis for the BBC. It sets out the public purposes of the BBC, guarantees its independence, and outlines the duties of the Trust and the Executive Board. It is supplemented by an Agreement with the Secretary of State that sits alongside the Charter, which provides detail on many of the topics outlined in the Charter and also covers the BBC’s funding and its regulatory duties.

The Committee will consider the BBC beyond 2016 and invites written submissions on any of the following questions:

• What should the BBC be for and what should be the purpose of public service broadcasting?

• How well has the BBC performed in the current Charter period in achieving its mission and public purposes?Are the public purposes in the current Charter the right ones? How might they change?

• What scope, scale and remit should the BBC have? Should the BBC’s output and services be provided to any greater or lesser degree for particular audiences? What balance should be struck in what the BBC produces in-house, commissions externally and leaves entirely to others to create?
• How have the BBC’s commercial activities during the current Charter fitted with the BBC’s public purposes and have they achieved an adequate return for licence fee payers? What should be the aims, scope and scale of such activities beyond 2016?
• What role should the BBC play in developing technology and new ways of distributing content?
• How should the BBC be funded beyond 2016? Is there a case for distributing funding for public service content more widely beyond the BBC?What comparisons can be made with the provision of public service content in other countries?
• How should the BBC be governed, regulated and held accountable beyond 2016?In a constantly evolving communications environment, does a 10-year Royal Charter and Agreement with the Secretary of State, together, provide the most appropriate constitutional framework for the BBC?

The recent sessions (click on headings for link to video of session):

Future of the BBC  14th January
Witnesses

1. David Elstein, Chairman, openDemocracy.net and Broadcasting Policy Group, Claire Enders, founder, Enders Analysis Ltd, and Steve Hewlett, Guardian columnist and presenter, BBC Radio 4 Media Show

 (Text version)

Future of the BBC   11th February
Witnesses

1. Gavyn Davies OBE and Greg Dyke
2. Lord Birt and Lord Grade of Yarmouth

(Text version)

“I don’t like monopolies and we are facing a situation where the BBC has an increasing monopoly on creative matters.”

John Birt

The serious criticism by a distinguished media professor suggests that the BBC has compromised its impartiality by depending too heavily on sources from business, the media, law and order and politics.

Professor Justin Lewis, Dean of Research at Cardiff University and an experienced analyst of the BBC’s output, suggested that the BBC Trust had “played down” the findings, which were presented to the governing body last year.

So the BBC’s news agenda is skewed by powerful vested interests since the election in 2010?

Hmmmm…funny I thought it had been reshaped by a Marxist academic named Justin Lewis pre-2009:

Cardiff research recognised for reshaping the BBC’s post-devolution news agenda

22 May 2013

A Cardiff University research project that helped change the way the BBC reports on political issues has been recognised for its impact at the University’s prestigious Innovation and Impact Awards.

Professor Justin Lewis and Dr Stephen Cushion of the University’s School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies were awarded the Regional Impact Prize for their work which helped reshape the BBC news agenda so that programming more accurately reflects post-devolution politics in the UK.

“As a result of our work, the BBC was able to significantly improve the quality and accuracy of their news coverage,” said Professor Lewis.

Guess not….must have been a different Professor Lewis.

But hang on…..this contorted theory that the Media is right wing…..and  is controlled by the Right…haven’t we heard that before …and from someone calling themselves Justin Lewis in 1997…..

In fact the belief that the Media is ‘Liberal’ is just a myth…for which there is NO evidence at all Lewis assures us:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2ZldKrInPE

Could it possibly be that Justin Lewis is a bit of a fraud as an academic….his ‘research’ merely confirming what he already wants to believe….the ‘facts’ are shaped to prove his theory?

After all who funded the research he bases his conclusions on?    Mike Berry, one of the report’s authors, and a confirmed  lefty, said this:

Along with a group of colleagues at Cardiff University, I recently completed a major content analysis of BBC coverage. This research was funded by the BBC Trust as part of an ongoing series of studies examining the impartiality of its reporting in areas such as regional news, the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Arab Spring, business and science.

And :

This is Berry’s final conclusion:

So the evidence from the research is clear. The BBC tends to reproduce a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world, not a left-wing, anti-business agenda.

Bonkers….I’ll bet he never has to buy a drink when in the company of any BBC journo!

We’ve already looked at him and Cardiff…..

They seem to be flogging this bit of research to death…getting as much mileage out of it as possible…astonishing that the ‘right wing media’ fall for it again and again and keep publishing this story….is it in their interests, either commercial or political,  if ‘right wing’, to propagate the idea that their big rival, the BBC, is in fact right wing?

Of course the Media is right wing….there’s the Guardian, Observer, Independent, the Mirror, the Telegraph moved decidedly more leftward and the Daily Mail goes its own way……it happily attacks anyone of any political persuasion if it makes a good headline.

Then there’s the BBC…massively dominant in broadcasting and on the web.

Yep…the Media landscape is controlled by the Right.

The BBC is ‘depending too heavily on sources from business, the media, law and order and politics.‘?

Really?  This is the BBC which is desperate to give voice to the IRA, to Muslim terrorists, to Occupy and environmentalists, rioters and turbulent priests…lefty Giles Fraser getting a job….along with Richard Coles…..there’s hardly a rightwing journo at the BBC….who’s out of the closet and admits to it anyway.

The same BBC that trashes Big Business, that trashes the Banks, that has supported Labour’s Plan B, that has consistently attacked welfare reforms and has relentlessly undermined the economy and the recovery….only a couple of days ago Ken Livingstone’s stunt double, Micky Clark, on Wake up to Money, told us there were statistics and there were lies…and government unemployment figures….meaning of course that you couldn’t believe a word of it….employment increasing?….all a big lie fed to us by the right wing media no doubt.

It does seem that Justin Lewis is not speaking from any actual knowledge or experience but purely spews forth a stream of consciousness, a tide of wishful thinking.

The problem with Lewis is that he is too closely tied to the BBC and of course is ‘of the left’ himself’.

Perhaps so far left that the BBC might look right wing to him.

He, and the equally closely tied to the BBC, Cardiff University, does seem to come up with ‘research’ that conveniently supports the BBC against its critics:

Alastair Campbell made the following assertion:

“In the run-up to conflict there was an agenda in large parts of the BBC—and I think the BBC is different from the rest of the media and should be viewed as different from the rest of the media because it is a different organisation in terms of its reputation, in terms of its global reach and all the rest of it—and there was a disproportionate focus upon, if you like, the dissent, the opposition, to our position. I think that in the conflict itself the prism that many were creating within the BBC was, one, it is all going wrong.”

Lewis refutes that:

Study on Iraq coverage shows

BBC was most pro-war of British networks

“Indeed, far from revealing an anti-war BBC, our findings tend to give credence to those who criticised the BBC for being too sympathetic to the government in its war coverage. Either way, it is clear that the accusation of BBC anti-war bias fails to stand up to any serious or sustained analysis.”

This is a BBC that produced an extremely negative documentary about the Iraq War called ‘Fighting the War’.   ‘        ‘Fighting the War’….geddit?

The documentary’s timing will fuel the debate over the legitimacy of the conflict as the hunt continues for any evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

It comes after the BBC clashed with the government over an edition of its Correspondent programme, which will include a clip of the bodies of two dead British soldiers first shown on Arab station al-Jazeera.

…..and a BBC that has spent 10 years trying to discredit politicians, motives and outcomes, not from journalistic principles but purely because they lost ‘Hutton’ and were proved to have misled the Public by broadcasting lies.

One of the reasons I started looking at the BBC’s coverage of events more closely was because of their anti-war stance…not from the Iraq War but from the start of the war in Afghanistan in 2001…the BBC is innately anti-war as you can see in the way it reacts to any sabre rattling….over Iran for example….suddenly we have lots of programmes about Iranian artistic and culture achievements and little warmhearted chats with Iranians in the UK….all designed to show us how warm and human Iranian people are….and they don’t deserve to be bombed….not to mention they didn’t broadcast the film of a school in Syria that had been bombed just before the vote on military action in Parliament….the likely hood was that the horrors on the film would have influenced the vote…so the BBC hid it…..which is why we have the same bombing of women and children now.

The BBC right wing, pro-war?

The drugs do work.

What we have is a BBC reliant on a band of Marxist academic activists and ex-BBC employees to produce pro-BBC propaganda to cover up  the corruption, professional, political and financial, that lies at the heart of the Corporation.

A BBC that refuses to accept the truth about its failure as a news organisation…a failure that is not just one of political bias but of a ‘journalism’ that is all too often slow to pick up on stories and is all too evidently reliant on press releases (or lifting other’s exclusives) rather than investigative journalism.

A BBC that is all too evidently left wing…except to those who have their own agenda to work to.

This from Bishop HIll:

The Environment Agency Chair, Lord Smith, has lied twice when talking about flooding and his agency’s reaction to events.

Once when he claimed the Agency had no policy to deliberately flood the Somerset Levels, and again when he claimed Eric Pickles was wrong when he said the Agency had advised the government wrongly about dredging.

The BBC has ignored the huge inconsistencies in his story and continues to report and support Smith’s line unchallenged.

Today the BBC, in the shape of Chris Mason, has decided to look at the ‘politics’ of the floods….But the last paragraph is the most interesting….it seems not only has history actually been forgotten but has been rewritten.

Hilariously he starts with:

‘….the last few days have been an insight into the raw politics of crisis management.’

The ‘raw politics’ has seen a Labour peer lying and getting away with it…possibly with the collusion of  ‘Labour’ supporting BBC journalists….and a distinct lack of interest in Smith’s own ‘raw politics’.

Mason goes on…..

‘The political rewards of getting it right can be huge – as shown when Gordon Brown was judged to have had a good flood in 2007, confounding sceptics with a popularity boom in his first few weeks as prime minister.’

So Gordon Brown had a ‘good flood’ did he?  And Labour can stand tall now and criticise the Government for causing the floods because of their budget cuts?

Strange how history hasn’t provided the journalists of the BBC with any perspective at all, perhaps this article from 2007 can help whent here is talk of ‘cuts’ and ‘having a good flood’:

Brown axe cuts flood fight fund

GORDON Brown ordered a freeze in Britain’s flood defence budgets just weeks before the deluge that left huge swathes of the country under water.

Documents shown to the Sunday Express reveal the Environment Agency has been told not to expect any more money for its floods budget the next three years. With the impact of inflation that means the budget is effectively being cut.

The news comes after last year’s flood defence budget was slashed by £15million as the Government tried to claw back £200million in cost overruns elsewhere.

Sources at the Environment Agency, responsible for Britain’s crumbling flood defences, said the Treasury was demanding further budget cuts as recently as a few weeks ago.

Or perhaps this from the Socialist Worker in 2007:

Flood warnings that were ignored by the government

Hilary Benn, the secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, said earlier this month, “It is vital that we learn lessons now about how to manage and respond to this type of disaster in the future.”

But this is not the first time the New Labour government has promised to learn lessons. After severe flooding in 2000 the government said the devastation was “a wake up call” and Hull MP John Prescott, then the environment secretary, told parliament, “We must take practical action now.”

There have been 25 reports since then from parliamentary committees and official bodies on how to reduce risks. They have all talked about the need for funding and planning ahead to deal with floods.

But money for flood defences has been systematically cut and vital infrastructure such as transport and water maintenance have been allowed to suffer at the hands of the market.

Last year then chancellor Gordon Brown cut the Environment Agency budget by £14 million, prompting cuts in flood defence plans.

Mark Serwotka, the PCS general secretary, said, “There is a real fear that cuts will hamper the ability of Defra to coordinate future responses to floods and extreme weather conditions.

“We urge Gordon Brown, as part of the promised review into the flooding crisis, to halt the cuts in Defra and ensure that department has the capacity and resources to respond to future floods.”

In Mason’s article you’re led to believe that any criticism of the Environment Agency and Smith was the result of pure spin from his political enemies……

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles apologised for the flooding and caustically observed: “We thought we were dealing with experts.”

While Mr Pickles went further than any other minister in his criticisms of the agency, plenty of others refused to endorse Lord Smith, who is due to stand down in a few months anyway.

But in fact the most anger came from the flood victims themselves who were highly critical of the Environment Agency:

Anger at environment chief in flood-hit Somerset

Residents of the flood-hit Somerset Levels have accused Environment Agency chairman Lord Smith of “letting everyone down”, as he visited the area.

Lord Smith said he had “no intention” of resigning in the face of criticism for not doing more to help but resident Jim Winkworth said he was “bloody mad” not to get an apology from the peer.

Farmer Julian Green confronted Lord Smith during his visit and claimed he should resign, telling him: “We’ve had this for too long now. We’ve had this for five weeks.”

And speaking to reporters after meeting Lord Smith, Mr Winkworth said: “He is letting himself down, he is letting his organisation down and he is letting us down.

“He hasn’t come down here to apologise, which is what he should be here for.”

And the discussion on the floods and their causes, apart from climate change, has led onto where houses are built…..such as on flood plains.

Not heard any comment from any BBC presenter that the pressure to build houses is due mainly to the vast increase in population due to immigration…just one more ‘benefit’ to add to the BBC’s list.

What also doesn’t get mentioned now is this from 2007:

Flood crisis test for Brown 

There have already been fears that might see incursions into the green belt – now there are more pressing fears that such a massive programme will see homes built in areas liable to flooding.

Take control

Meanwhile, minister Yvette Cooper, in charge of the house building plans, suggested that opponents of the building programme were “playing politics” with the floods.

That article was from 2007…interesting to compare it to Mason’s one from today…the 2007 article defends Brown and explains his actions whilst subtly suggesting the opposition are playing politics:

He wants to reassure the public that he has a grip of the issue. But with more flooding expected, and opposition parties questioning the emergency preparations, this crisis seems far from over.

….Whilst Mason’s is critical of the Government’s 2012 approach and their ‘political spin’  he defends the Labour peer Lord smith.

As for climate change…the floods in 2012 in the Somerset Levels…what caused them?  The rainfall for November 2012 was heavy but nothing out of the ordinary…there have been 18 years when the rain in November exceeded the 2012 total in the South West…..so what caused the floods?

Was it the Environment Agency’s actions?

The BBC are not investigating too hard….they just accept the ‘climate change’ line and roll from there.

Name: Lord Smith

Rank: Incompetent

Number:  Well, his number’s up.

Or his number should be up if the BBC were doing its job properly and fully investigating Lord Smith’s role as Chair of the Environment Agency and its policies.

Lord Smith has made two statements today which can unequivocably be called lies….about issues that go right to the heart of the flooding in the Somerset Levels.

This morning on the Today programme Evan Davis asked Lord Smith about an Environment Agency flood management plan from 2008 which stated that it was a policy to allow the Somerset Levels to flood, to encourage it to flood in fact so that other areas would have less flooding.

Lord Smith stated that there were no such plans….the document was an old document that he had never seen.

He repeated all this in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxvolaXDQmw

The problem with all that is that in 2012, when Lord Smith was in position, there is this flood management plan for the Somerset Levels from the Environment Agency:

Somerset Levels and Moors

The vision and preferred policy

Policy Option 6-  We will take action with others to store water or manage runoff in locations that provide overall flood risk reduction or environmental benefits. By adopting this policy and redistributing water some areas will be subject to increased flooding while others will benefit from reduced flooding. The aim is to achieve a net overall benefit. The distribution of floodwater between moors can be determined to some extent by the use of sluices and other structures on the rivers

The distribution of floodwater has developed to some extent by historical ‘accident’ rather than design. When considering the distribution of assets across the sub-area it makes sense to direct water to areas which have limited assets at risk. By redistributing floodwater, primarily from upstream of Langport to the King’s Sedgemoor Drain, the overall damage and disruption from flooding would be reduced. Other redistribution options may also be possible, although modelling has shown that technically not all options are feasible.

So either Smith is incompetent or a liar.

Question for the Biased BBC website is why the BBC only chose the 2008 document which allowed Smith to deny all knowledge and brush off all accusations that he was to blame for the flooding in the Somerset levels…or at least for exacerbating the flooding by having a clear policy for using the area as a storage area for flood water.

The 2012 document proves it was policy at a time when he was at the helm.

Smith even admitted to prioritising certain areas...which means allowing others to flood:

He [Smith] also insisted that the agency was right to focus on homes rather than agricultural land. “Lives and people’s homes have to come first,” he said.

So clearly he knew of the policy and agreed with it.

As for ‘politicisation’, Pickles blamed the government and the Environment Agency not Labour……it is Labour politicising the issues….with the BBC cheering things on.

The second lie?

Eric Pickles stated that the Environment Agency gave the government the wrong advice about dredging…and that he now believes they should have dredged….so clearly the advice was not to dredge.

Lord Smith said, in the video above, ‘He is wrong’.….Smith then diverts and tries to blame lack of money.

But was Pickles wrong?  What advice did the Environment Agency give about dredging?

Could it have been something like this from August 2013?

To me that advice is saying dredging has too many downsides and should be used sparingly and only in very certain circumstances.

In fact what Lord Smith himself was advising:

Same story…..completely different take:

From the Guardian 13 Sept. 2013:

Amazing what a difference a month makes.

One month ago:

Storms’ link to climate change uncertain – Met Office

One month later:

Met Office: Evidence ‘suggests climate change link to storms’

Originally they told us:

The recent storms that have brought heavy rain and floods to much of the UK cannot definitely be linked to climate change, the Met Office has said.

A spokesman said that was “a research project which hasn’t been done”.

Guess they must have rushed through that research project…..

Now we have:

Dame Julia Slingo said the variable UK climate meant there was “no definitive answer” to what caused the storms.

“But all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change,” she added.

“There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly rain events.”

I guess that’s ‘all the evidence’ as in ‘all the evidence points to the Boston Bombers being white supremacists’.

Don’t you just love that ‘There is no evidence to counter the basic premise…..’?

…but there is no evidence to prove the basic premise either…..

and hang on….the lack of evidence to counter AGW causing storms?…..emm….17 years of no warming is evidence of no warming….for 17 years…so how is global warming causing storms?

The lack of evidence that CO2 causes global warming doesn’t stop them closing down Western industry does it?

Science eh….who needs it when you’ve got the Voodoo princess, Julia Slingo, making it up as they go along and the BBC unquestioningly printing everything she prophesises.

Guess…conjecture, surmise, speculate, reckon, dare say, dodgy…hocum.

Some words for any BBC environmental journo looking to investigate the issues.