Lots of weather and not much climate

 

          The BBC has been full of stories that last year was the hottest on record in Australia. That must have been a bit of climate breaking through. It has not been so full of the figures for England in 2013, which show we had a very cold spring, and an overall temperature performance down on previous years. That must have been a bit too much weather.

            The latest development of climate change theory appeared on the Today programme, with a scientist telling us there is a 20 year lag between generating more greenhouse gases and the frequency of extreme weather events. Apparently the latest storms are partly the result of greenhouse gases emitted in the 1990s, though the scientist agreed there have always been “extreme events” or bad weather. His concern is that extra past greenhouse gas means in 20 years time more frequent storms. He did not forecast future temperatures.

          Nor have we heard much about the continuing struggles of the scientists and journalists on the MV Akademik Schokalskiy, transferred to  a Chinese ice breaker. It has just been mid summer in the Antarctic. The party apparently  expected to find evidence of retreating sea ice as global warming takes hold of a once inhospitable and icy cold south. Instead they ran into record levels of ice, and the ice packed hard around their ship and then around the ice  breaker. It sounds as if the midsummer Antarctic is having a bad dose of weather as well.

           More interesting is the news that the EU is turning  against the green policies that are meant to provide the antidote to too much global warming. We read of a Competition investigation into German windpower, examining it to see if the subsidies are excessive and if  the exemptions for German industry unacceptable. This follows hard on the heels of the announced investigation into the proposed contract to buy forward electricity from a  new nuclear plant planned for the UK. Does this mean the EU itself is now no longer so concerned about greenhouse gases?

               The EU looks as if it is getting itself into the position where it places member states in an impossible situation. They are not allowed to continue with much coal or oil based generation of power under one set of rules, but are then challenged for seeking subsidised energy from dearer renewable sources in an effort to comply with environmental legislation. The UK too is going to have to look at the high subsidy levels paid for renewables.

          Energy is fast becoming the big issue which will cause electors to query their EU government, as well as condemning the actions of energy companies. The last Labour government welcomed the EU policies and put us under them. The Coalition has carried on with the EU requirements.

               Surely the message of the bad gales of the last few days is that we need to adapt  more, so that more homes and businesses are protected from tidal surges and from the bursting of  river banks.  Whatever the cause, all agree we have just had some bad weather and may well have more bad weather in the future. Where too many homes have been built on floodplain we need better drainage. Where the coast is subject to sea attack we need better defences. Where rivers can struggle from too much water we need better management  of where the excess water is run off or parked, away from homes and businesses.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

215 Comments

  1. Posted January 6, 2014 at 6:25 am | Permalink

    Australia is quite a bit bigger than the UK. 7.7 million square kilometers vs 0.24 million square kilometers which by by arithmetic makes it around 32 times bigger. So the data does count that much more even though the population density is much lower.
    In any case the warming which is of most concern is global warming. And as most of us live on land the warming on land may be of most interest.
    http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/3549/berkeleyprelimglobaltem.png

    Not that windturbines are going to do much to fix the problem if mainstream science is right about the extent of it. That can only be done by switching to nuclear power in a big way. I agree that is an uncomfortable claim to make, but I can’t see any alternative.

    • oldtimer
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 10:40 am | Permalink

      You fail to mention that the land accounts for only c30% of the earth`s surface, whereas the sea accounts for c70%. There is also some 30 years of satellite data now available. Even when based on the alarmists numbers and their methodology (FWIW), global temperatures have been flat for the past seventeen years, confounding their confident predictions over the past twenty years.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

        And no mention of the polar vortex weather and record breaking cold in North America and Canada I notice. Globally overall there has been little change in temperature on any basis with no rise at all getting on for twenty years. I should like to hear a lot less about warming all round. All something of a puzzle to me because if there is a need to be a bit worried (which is different from panicking and wasting mega billions, at least till we know something a gr8 deal more definite) being a tiny bit warmer, even if it were the case, would seem on balance more good than bad whereas there is an effect of increasing CO2 which definitely does seem real and significant. I refer to the CO2 dissolving in the oceans and making them acidic. If the shellfish that I love are going to die out because their shells are dissolving that is worth my paying attention to.

      • Posted January 6, 2014 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

        Hopefully you are right and global temperatures won’t rise as much or as quickly as feared. The most likely explanation for the current respite is that the cooling effects of increased particulate emissions (smoke) are offsetting the warming effects of increased CO2 emissions. That can’t last indefinitely though.

        Australian temperatures which have risen more than anywhere else in the last 100 years are less restrained by this effect due to Australia’s clear skies. Overall particulate emissions are low even though Australia doesn’t have a good record on per capita GH gas emissions.

        Yes, the oceans do warm more slowly than land. They have a much larger thermal mass. But eventually the warming will be the same in both.

    • Old Albion
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 10:58 am | Permalink

      That graph indicates that in a period of over 130 years the temperature has (allegedly) risen by no more than 1 degree.
      Throughout a period of massive industrialisation and of course a couple of significant wars. Both events (industry and warfare)which caused massive CO2 generation.
      Look at the lower industrialisation now and the smaller war events (in Europe at least) Alleged warming, clearly will not get close to 1 degree in the next 130 years, as the last two decades show.
      In fact if the warmists theory was correct. This graph indicates a need to increase CO2 to keep the global temperature stable

      • uanime5
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

        Old Albion even a rise of 1 degree will cause problems. Also given that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for at least 100 years this means that the problems will continue to get worse as more and more CO2 is produced.

        • Cary
          Posted January 6, 2014 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

          Not so. Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University has argued that 2 degrees C of global warming will have a net benefit for humanity; warming beyond that has a net negative effects (
          http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.23.2.29)

        • oldtimer
          Posted January 6, 2014 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

          More CO2 in the atmosphere is good for plant growth.

        • Old Albion
          Posted January 6, 2014 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

          Alarmist nonsense!

        • lifelogic
          Posted January 6, 2014 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

          One degree hotter sounds rather pleasant to me, just a shame the average Worlds temperature has not actually increased for the last 16 years, this despite the C02 increases. It is -23C in Chicago right now I hear.

        • Richard1
          Posted January 7, 2014 at 8:33 am | Permalink

          According to the IPCC, there are net positive benefits from warming up to 2C. The climate sensitivity of carbon is a logrithmic scale. If there is a rise of only 1C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, it takes another doubling (a further 250 years at the current rate) for the next 1C rise. The sceptical case on global warming is not that the science is wrong, it is that the evidence is we have decades and perhaps centuries longer than had been thought before we see net negative consequences. This being the case the green carbon reduction policies do not justify their very high cost.

          • peter davies
            Posted January 7, 2014 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

            In that time there will probably be large volcanic eruptions which emit sulphur cooling and poison gases which will reduce temperatures in any case

        • peter davies
          Posted January 7, 2014 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

          If your theory on CO2 is correct how do you propose asking India and China to stop building new dirty coal power stations and how do you propose that countries around the equator stop destroying their rain forests?

      • acorn
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

        When it comes to the calculating the likelihood of catastrophic weather, one group has an obvious and immediate financial stake in the game: the insurance industry. And in recent years, the industry researchers who attempt to determine the annual odds of catastrophic weather-related disasters—including floods and wind storms—say they’re seeing something new.

        “Our business depends on us being neutral. We simply try to make the best possible assessment of risk today, with no vested interest,” says Robert Muir-Wood, the chief scientist of Risk Management Solutions (RMS), a company that creates software models to allow insurance companies to calculate risk. “In the past, when making these assessments, we looked to history. But in fact, we’ve now realized that that’s no longer a safe assumption—we can see, with certain phenomena in certain parts of the world, that the activity today is not simply the average of history.”

        This pronounced shift can be seen in extreme rainfall events, heat waves and wind storms. The underlying reason, he says, is climate change, driven by rising greenhouse gas emissions. Muir-Wood’s company is responsible for figuring out just how much more risk the world’s insurance companies face as a result of climate change when homeowners buy policies to protect their property.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 11:56 am | Permalink

      Land temperatures are affected by urban heat effects which can be misleading. It does not always indicate heating due to co2.

      But if the BBC is going to pick places, times, dates they will always find some record temperature or weather event somewhere (after the event) it proves nothing but the selective bias of the BBC. They could find record lows too selectively.

      • Bazman
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

        The BBC reported findings from the Australian Govermnts Bureau of Meteorology. How is this bias and in a country such as Australia where a large number of bush fire occur it is material fact and not bias. They should not have reported this and let other broadcasters tell us of theis hottest year.
        Some record temperatures at a certain time and place as if Australia is some small insignificant place? Australia is a developed country and one of the wealthiest in the world, with the world’s 12th-largest economy and mostly uninhabited. Ram it.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted January 6, 2014 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

          Well it is the usual BBC bias technique, just selectively reporting so it suits their idiotic agenda.

          • Bazman
            Posted January 7, 2014 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

            Reporting massive bush fires in Australia during the hottest summer ever is only selective reporting in your dream world. What would you have said had they not reported and every other channel did? Is there no limit to your idiotic agenda?

          • Bazman
            Posted January 7, 2014 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

            Channel 4 News reported record extreme cold in America is this just selectively reporting so it suits their idiotic agenda too? Oh no! Its cold and not hot…How idiotic of me! Ram it.

          • APL
            Posted January 8, 2014 at 4:23 am | Permalink

            Bazman:”only selective reporting ”

            More importantly, it’s sensationalist.

          • Bazman
            Posted January 8, 2014 at 9:08 am | Permalink

            It’s also news and your all covering points of sensationalism or selective reporting for any story you do not like is not real. They are to only report what you see fit and all report the same in same sort of biased right wing way? Well at least the BBC because you pay for that by force and advertising you have a choice? As if.

          • Bazman
            Posted January 8, 2014 at 11:59 am | Permalink

            That bias and selective Daily Telegraph have also been spreading sensationalist news about weather in Australia and America with story of dead bat due to heat. They must have fell to the conspiracy too. Interestedly how to use aluminium foil correctly with a video and survey asking if they knew. Most Telegraph readers already did which I suspected..LOL! I didn’t watch the video. Ram it.

      • alan jutson
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

        Lifelogic

        “Land temperatures increase”.

        Indeed the more tarmac the greater the temperature, very simplistic I know, but ask any glider pilot who is constantly searching for thermals to get lift, where they tend to find them !

        Track temperature on racing curcuits are higher than the grass which surrounds them, buildings also act as thermal collectors.

        Thus it all depends on where you take te,peratures from and what surrounds that area.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted January 6, 2014 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

          Indeed.

        • APL
          Posted January 7, 2014 at 7:06 am | Permalink

          Lifelogic: “Land temperatures are affected by urban heat effects which can be misleading. It does not always indicate heating due to co2. ”

          This was known decades ago, and was one of the things that contributed to the distortion of the temperature readings. A temperature station that was sited forty years ago, has since been encroached by buildings and concrete, presto! Global warming. It was covered extensively by Anthony Watts over at the wuwt blog.

          • lifelogic
            Posted January 7, 2014 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

            Indeed but very useful for the merchants of doom.

  2. Brian Taylor
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    Well, we can’t say we were not warned,Christopher Booker and Dr Richard North have been telling us for years that the targets from the EU and the 2008 Climate Change Act have cost us all Billions of Pounds!
    We should TELL the EU we intend to keep our cheapest form of generation going, COAL and cut even further the Green subsidies and spend the money on defending our homes and coast line!
    Also as the economy grow as predicted we will not keep increasing the support to the bloated overseas aid budged but it will be capped as it appears that this industry is the new home for failed or retired MPs!!!!

    • Duyfken
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 11:10 am | Permalink

      We should tell that to Mrs Cameron as well.

  3. me
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 6:56 am | Permalink

    For me this is the most important issue we face, it’s the issue that convinced me to become a UKIP voter.

    As a country this “green crap” is causing us to cut our own throats. Billions a year spent hobbling our industry and killing our pensioners.

    Tell Osborne to stand up and say no more green crap, here’s 5p off VAT instead.

  4. Mike Stallard
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 7:03 am | Permalink

    Hooray! At last some good news: people – even in the EU – are beginning to see through the Climate Change Scare. But will it go away in time to save our power stations and prevent us having to use those already installed climate friendly and non greenhouse gas emitting diesel generators for national electricity production?
    If any national government cannot keep the lights on – as we saw over Christmas – it will be blamed. (The EU is never blamed because that is just banging on.)

    PS All through last year flood defences here at Wisbech were strengthened and when the tidal surge came before Christmas, they saved the crumbly old town centre completely. Well done government!

    • cosmic
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

      The real problem is always getting rid of the legislation and the regulatory mechanisms put in place on the back of the scare.

      The Large Combustion Plant Directive was put in place to deal with the acid rain scare of the 70s.

  5. Old Albion
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 7:13 am | Permalink

    Well said John.S
    Slowly the green alarmists are seeing the folly of their dogma unravelling.

    • uanime5
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

      Slowly the green alarmists are seeing the folly of their dogma unravelling.

      Care to provide any scientific evidence to support this claim.

      • oldtimer
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

        For once you are right. There is no scientific evidence to support the idea that green alarmists are seeing (or admitting) the folly of their dogma unravelling. They are indeed sticking to it.

      • Old Albion
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

        Let’s start with the FACT there has been NO rise in global temp. for the last two decades and for the previous 110 years there may possibly have been a 1 degree rise. Which as any person with reasonable intelligence will tell you, is irrelevent.

      • APL
        Posted January 7, 2014 at 7:08 am | Permalink

        uanime5: “Care to provide any scientific evidence to support this claim.”

        Care to provide the evidence of CO2 concentrations doubling in the last one hundred years? We’ve waited a long time for something you were so sure about, you should just be able to furnish the figures since 1913 straight away!

  6. lifelogic
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 7:19 am | Permalink

    Indeed sensible engineering is what is needed adapt as required. High spring tides, storms and heavy rain are hardly new. We had the East Coast floods of 1953 with 2551 deaths in the UK and on the continent, mainly in Holland, Lincolnshire, Suffolk and Essex.

    Was it not droughts the government/BBC endlessly & even gardener’s question time kept warning us about and telling us to plan for anyway?

    The “BBC think” favourite (and pro the idiotic ECHR regardless of their stupidity) Lady Helena Kenedy was on BBC message again yesterday, it is now “extreme weather events” that are to blamed. That way the warmist predictors cannot lose as they can then always find some events to blame on co2. It is largely scientific drivel, extreme weather events have actually declined significantly.

    Adapt as needed, engineer real solutions for floods, hurricanes, tides, storms, ice storms, forest fires, earth quakes as appropriate and hope for the best. This is by far the best approach. Spending billions on wind farms and photo-voltaics with current technology is clearly economically bonkers.

    • lifelogic
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 7:22 am | Permalink

      See Christopher Booker in the Telegraph:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10550801/The-lunatics-take-over-the-asylum-in-caring-Britain.html

      Not just the ice that’s sadly thick.

      • Richard1
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 9:53 am | Permalink

        The emergency explanation from the global warming establishment is that the extra sea ice is due to melting (fresh water) icebergs. Leaving aside the fact that this was never predicted, and we haven’t heard that in relation to the Artic, lets do a little maths. We read in this link that there is c. 1.5m sq km of extra sea ice and that (even at the edge) its 10 ft thick. That means c. 7 trillion cubic meters of icebergs have unexpectedly melted! Are there any state-funded climate change scientists reading this who could help us out – it does all sound rather implausible?

        • uanime5
          Posted January 6, 2014 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

          How exactly are you calculating how much water is in these icebergs? Did you remember to factor in that ice takes up more space than water so the volume of ice will be more than the volume of water?

          Given that the Antarctic land ice and eastern Antarctic sea ice have continued to melt it’s entirely possible that the extra water originated from these two sources.

          • Richard1
            Posted January 6, 2014 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

            We will see. Neither you nor I are experts in this field. It seems however implausible that 1.5m sq km of extra sea ice, at least 3m thick, and probably much more on average,comes from melted ice bergs. The most likely explanation for extra sea is…..its rather colder than the global warming models forecast.

          • APL
            Posted January 7, 2014 at 7:10 am | Permalink

            uanime5: “How exactly are you calculating how much water is in these icebergs?”

            Arithmetic and an education. Two things you should aspire to obtain.

    • lifelogic
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 7:38 am | Permalink

      The “green crap” coalition have merely switched the emphasis from land based wind farms, to offshore wind farm subsidies. These are even more economically bonkers than land ones. Just stop the whole subsidy lunacy and the green deal drivel and kill this artificial industry (other than for some r&d), reduce energy prices, reduce taxes and get some sustainable growth in real jobs.

      • Bazman
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

        That will include nuclear and subsidies for fossil fuels then? Nuclear is an industry that can never exist without massive state subsidy unlike wind or solar power. It can never stand alone. Repeating the same nonsense will not make it true.

        • APL
          Posted January 7, 2014 at 7:13 am | Permalink

          Bazman: “Nuclear is an industry that can never exist without massive state subsidy”

          Given you are correct – almost never the case. It then boils down to how much energy do you get for your state subsidy. For your nuclear power station you get massively higher energy density plus reliability.

          Bazman: ” unlike wind or solar power.”

          Wrong!

    • lifelogic
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 7:40 am | Permalink
      • Bazman
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

        Dingbat is not a scientist and has not scientific qualifications. He is like the PPE graduates you rant on about only his qualification is in English literature. When it suits you huh?

        • Lifelogic
          Posted January 6, 2014 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

          I however do have good and appropriate scientific qualifications. Anyway if you follow through his links you get to the appropriate scientific details and full details from well respected scientists.

          • Bazman
            Posted January 7, 2014 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

            You need to look to him to lead to these ‘respected scientists’? Like who for example? When asked you cannot say and when you have quoted names the internet soon flags them up as dubious. Much of what Dingbat stands for is right wing and delusional. Like your solipsism really. He blames every organisation from here and across the sea to even SKY for being in on a conspiracy theory which has not found one he doesn’t like. LOL! Ram it.

        • Mark
          Posted January 6, 2014 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

          Not much point in attacking the journalist who is merely reporting a scientist’s conclusions. Have you read the actual paper, available via the article or here:

          http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/11/Khandekar-Extreme-Weather.pdf

          • Bazman
            Posted January 9, 2014 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

            He works for the Global Warming Policy Foundation founded by Nigel Lawson who will not reveal its funding sources.
            A bit like Americas Heartland institute. A right wing organisation funded by secret backers often with religious and fossil fuel links. Tells us all we need to know really.

        • R.T.G.
          Posted January 6, 2014 at 10:54 pm | Permalink

          Bazman, please don’t indulge in name-calling, because it degrades what you have to say.

          The point you are making applies broadly to some journalists and commentators with opposing views.

          Perhaps it would interesting to discuss to what extent those without advanced academic, practical and research backgrounds in science should pronounce shamanistically on physical phenomena, where the potential for misinterpretation could prove unhelpful.

    • zorro
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 10:42 am | Permalink

      Indeed, I saw the verbal gymnastics being employed on the Andrew Marr show to say that global warming was really climate change that meant we would get more extreme events (wet and cold so far)…… It was tangible to see how the BBC think was straining to make some sense of the weather to fit their global warming religion…. That was then followed by the PM trying to sound credible but not with much success either…..

      zorro

    • uanime5
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

      It is largely scientific drivel, extreme weather events have actually declined significantly.

      According to the IPCC the number of category 5 hurricanes has increased greatly since the 1970′s. So the facts show extreme weather is increasing, not decreasing.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

        Selective reporting, extreme weather events have actually declined as is very clear from the figures and would also be expected from the science. Hurricane activity is actually substantially down in recent years.

      • stred
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

        Check p 3.8.3 of IPCC 2007 – Evidence for changes to Tropical Storms.
        There is little evidence for a change in the number of cat 5 storms but they may have increased in strength and duration. The graphs show higher number after 1970, then a dip and an increase to 2007 to about the same level.

      • Mark
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

        I did find this recently revised paper that appears to support your claim:

        http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

        However, it is noticeable that it reaches its conclusions based on data that ends in 2006. Since then, the number has fallen sharply, as illustrated in this chart:

        http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YAO92b5mz2Q/UL-77ukhO7I/AAAAAAAACSI/NUhR0fVdLJ4/s1600/globalTClandfalls2012.jpg

        It is odd the the climate scientists ignore the recent data – perhaps because it doesn’t fit their preconceived ideas of what should be happening.

      • APL
        Posted January 7, 2014 at 7:15 am | Permalink

        uanime5: “According to the IPCC ”

        According to the Vatican, the instance of child abuse by clerics has declined.

        Yea! gonna believe neither source on either topic.

      • Edward2
        Posted January 7, 2014 at 8:41 am | Permalink

        You are very careful to be selective in your data Uni, as a number of scientific sites show very little change in the number of hurricanes “since records began”
        It is only since satellite monitoring of weather patterns became worldwide that we are beginning to get more accurate data and are recording more storms.
        One of many sites which give data on this which seem to contradict your assertions.
        http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/top10.asp

        PS Those Al Gore islands still not under water yet and Met Office temperature figures for post 2000 when it was predicted by warmists there would be runaway increases, still not showing any rises I note.

        Are the Met Office now deniers?

      • Hope
        Posted January 7, 2014 at 9:01 am | Permalink

        The IPCC…… Come on, this is not a real source. They changed their report to suit politicians concerns. How can that be scientific! Always a a socialist giggle with you Uni.

  7. Andyvan
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 7:49 am | Permalink

    I’ve got an idea. All government, regional, national or EU ceases it’s pointless, destructive and expensive interference with power generation and lets the private sector provide it in whatever manner is most appropriate to it’s use. That way we are far more likely to get cheap, locally generated power that is not subject to large scale failure in the event of some “weather”. Central planning does not work no matter whether it comes from the Kremlin, Brussels or from Westminster.

  8. Richard1
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    Indeed the BBC’s reporting has been highly selective. I assume the news on Australian temperatures is a preemptive strike by global warming alarmists before we get the global temperature data for 2013, which will perhaps show another year with no global warming.

    Climate Change Professor Turkey’s expedition to Anatartica is a joke, albeit one with a cost to UK taxpayers (apparently we’re paying). Alarmists have rushed out an explanation- its melting icebergs which cause more sea ice. If this is the case we should ask why it was not forecast, why a prof of climate change didn’t realize that and why we haven’t also seen increased sea ice in the Arctic for the same reason. I suppose the explanation that there is more sea ice because its colder than expected is banned from the airwaves.

    The important point is these are more instances as a result of which the public will rightly question ‘green crap’ policies. This is a real electoral opportunity for the Conservatives.

    • uanime5
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

      I assume the news on Australian temperatures is a preemptive strike by global warming alarmists before we get the global temperature data for 2013, which will perhaps show another year with no global warming.

      This information is already available and has shown that the average global temperature is continuing to increase.

      If this is the case we should ask why it was not forecast, why a prof of climate change didn’t realize that and why we haven’t also seen increased sea ice in the Arctic for the same reason.

      Firstly the professor’s ship was hit by a blizzard, which are difficult to predict and avoid.

      Secondly the sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic are formed by different winds, so it’s entirely possible for the western Antarctic sea ice to grow while the eastern Antarctic and Arctic sea ice both shrink.

      I suppose the explanation that there is more sea ice because its colder than expected is banned from the airwaves.

      The data for satellites over the Antarctic show that it’s not colder than expected, which is why the land ice is still melting.

      • Richard1
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

        You’ve ducked all these points. 2013 insofar as data are available points to another year with no statistically significant global warming. The ship got stuck in sea ice 10 ft thick where it expected to be able to sail because they thought the ice would have melted due to global warming. You do not explain why the fresh water ice bergs haven’t all melted leading to much increased sea ice in the Arctic. This year saw record low temperatures in Antarctica. What is your source for saying land ice is decreasing,I think you’ve just made this up?

        What’s going on in Antarctica is at odds with the forecasts made by global warming models, upon which green policies are based.

  9. JohnOfEnfield
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 8:03 am | Permalink

    The EU has a great deal to answer for. Our own British Government has even more responsibility for the now inevitable “brown outs” starting this winter or next.

    1. The Climate Change Act. This committed us to a totally unnecessary carbon reduction programme.
    2. No new base load capacity was constructed for almost two decades whilst we pondered our future.
    3. The recently passed Energy bill. This commits us to a staggeringly expensive wind & wood based energy strategy.

    The closing down of Eggborough power station now removes the last remaining vestige of spare capacity.

    How can any government decide to put the basis of our modern economy so much at risk without standing up for their peoples? I can only hope that the government of the day will pay the price of this folly at the ballot box.

  10. colliemum
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 8:23 am | Permalink

    Your last paragraph ought to be the ‘new’ basis for the policies of this government. ‘New’ because many of us have been saying this for years. Instead, we’re still made to pay through the nose for the discredited green policies of the Left.

    The ‘adventures’ of the ‘science’ tourists in the Antarctic, who became stuck in the ice they were going to prove had vanished should be the death knell for the green climate warriors. It is not by accident that a BBC reporter and two Guardian reporters were in that group on the ship – and it is no surprise that the BBC is so very reticent about this adventure now.

    John, perhaps you could ask how much money the BBC contributed to this adventure. After all, the BBC was using our licence fee money for that.

    • uanime5
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

      The ‘adventures’ of the ‘science’ tourists in the Antarctic, who became stuck in the ice they were going to prove had vanished should be the death knell for the green climate warriors.

      Actually they were going to examine this sea ice to find out why it was growing but got hit by a blizzard. But don’t let facts get in the way of your denial.

      and it is no surprise that the BBC is so very reticent about this adventure now.

      Well not much is happening there as all the passengers have been evacuated.

      • Edward2
        Posted January 7, 2014 at 8:53 am | Permalink

        Chris Turney, the expedition’s leader, is a Professor of climate change at the University of New South Wales. According to Turney’s personal website, the purpose of the expedition is to “discover and communicate the environmental changes taking place in the south.”

        “Hit by a blizzard” in the Summer season you say Uni.
        It wasn’t a blizzard that got them frozen solid in ice several meters thick.
        But no doubt you will say if its colder, its climate change or if its warmer its global warming, and if there are floods or storms then this is climate disruption.
        Got all the bases covered.

  11. Turbo Terrier
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    As usual spot on John. At long last the EU are beginning to understand that for every process you must have a cause and effect investigation and the effect of all this RE madness is that companies are relocating to the USA. Who ever is brave enough to slash all subsidies and get fracking will be very attractive to new foreign industries let alone or own diminished industry base. That could help the £1.2 trillion government debt and revive our industrial base

    More and more land is being covered in concrete and whether it be Turbine bases, roads or housing and therefore this effects run off and in heavy rain. I have never seen any provision for example in controlling heavy rainfall in windfarm sites. You can divert water to rivers which helps the local area but the effect is always further down stream. Areas of land must be given up to deal with the effect of heavy rain similar to the massive culverts crisscrossing Spain. There is still flooding but it is not so sudden and forceful.

    • uanime5
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

      Who ever is brave enough to slash all subsidies and get fracking will be very attractive to new foreign industries let alone or own diminished industry base.

      Given that Osborne has to promise huge subsidies to the fracking companies I doubt they’ll come here if you cut subsidies.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

        He is actually taxing them! Not subsidies.

  12. Roy Grainger
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    The greatest storm recorded in UK history was probably the one in 1703 which was far more severe than the recent storms. However, the recent storms have been dragooned in to support the cause of man-made climate change by the media elite such as Jon Snow of C4 News who tweets on the topic. It is correct that the best approach is to adapt to changing climate (whatever the cause), not try to engineer climate itself.

    • margaret brandreth-j
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 11:19 am | Permalink

      No Too many forests are being cleared. we can stop that and help maintain the natural habitat for other creatures, we can reduce the consumption of fossil fuel, we can respect other aspects of nature and work with them, we can reduce the amount of meat consumption and think of inproved ways to produce crops for countries which need them . We are by omission of doing what nature intended and abuse engineering the future of the human population and other animals. As a globe we are not good gardeners.
      When something so obvious is happening and we have historical geological proof of how animals affected their environment and were wiped out due to lack of balance, it seems fatuous to dispute it. The important factor is time. How does nature redress that balance in our time on earth?

  13. alan jutson
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    I thought we had long since abandoned a policy of full sea defences as too expensive, accepted that coastal erosion in some areas as being natural risk, by allowing the sea to first flood and then reclaim such low lying land on parts of the Eastern Coastline.
    Think it was given a title of natural conservation or something similar.

    Given we are but a small island with a growing population, I would have thought the last thing we would need is to lose land.
    Too expensive to protect.
    Then why not make use of some of the fit unemployed and train them at the same time.
    We must have thousands of miles of coastline which needs protecting, and we certainly have many fit unemployed.
    This would be sensible government spending, as would upgrading and repairing roads and would be a genuine investment in both people and the infrastructure.

    • alan jutson
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 8:59 am | Permalink

      Climate change.

      Yep

      Different tomorrow from today, as it will be next week, next month, next year.

      As yet no one has proved anything, plenty of theories, plenty of calculations, meanwhile governments World wide tax all sorts of things, but that tax is spent on what exactly ?

      • uanime5
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

        As yet no one has proved anything, plenty of theories, plenty of calculations, meanwhile governments World wide tax all sorts of things, but that tax is spent on what exactly ?

        What about all the scientific evidence in the IPCC report? Is it only proof when if supports your position?

        • Edward2
          Posted January 7, 2014 at 8:56 am | Permalink

          Have you re-read the original IPCC report or watched the Al Gore film yet Uni.
          I hope this latest report is better.
          See as predictions made then have already not come true.

          Still no response from you despite many requests.

        • peter davies
          Posted January 7, 2014 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

          Have you actually read the IPCC report apart from the summary UNI?

          The summary reflects opinions and guesses but buried in the reports are the facts that temperatures are roughly 1.1c higher than in 1880

          There is a lot of data in that report but nothing conclusive at all. I fail to see where they get their data from volcano emissions and methane leakage from the sea bed.

    • Alan Wheatley
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

      Alan, as to sea defences, I think it depends on where you mean and who wants it. So London does have its very expensive barrage. On the Jurassic Coast steady erosion is seen as a jolly good thing; as long as it’s not your house that is falling into the sea, of course.

    • A.Sedgwick
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

      Galvanising mainly young unemployed people to work on land projects such as flood defence, coastal protection and canal regeneration could be a worthwhile use of tax. There is the possibility that the cost may be minimal with the savings on welfare and social costs. Doing something visibly useful and satisfying as well as learning skills in land development that could be transferred to commercial use later seems a no brainer to me.

      BBC’s Countryfile programme a few weeks ago had an item on the national coastal path, which basically is years behind schedule and funding and the concept in all practicality is a dead duck. One of the many places to start such a venture.

    • Bazman
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

      The sea defences on the Barrow-in-Furness coast road were built in the 1920′s by the unemployed. Still there today and considering the amount of time passed do not look in not bad nick. Hardly possible today, but is a good example of investing in infrastructure. Is this the parasitical state sector too?

      • alan jutson
        Posted January 7, 2014 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

        Hi Baz

        “Is this the parasitical State sector too” ?

        No it would be a sensible use of taxes which gives improved and protected infrastructure for many, and at the same time it would train some unemployed people in the skills to keep them in work.

        Does not have to be the State sector that actually runs or completes it, but clearly the State would need to get value for money if it were to award the contract to private industry.
        It would also need to agree certain caveats within the contract (whoever completed it) about training unemployed people with a industry agreed and accepted qualification.

        In addition work would need to be completed to the standard required, within an agreed budget.

        Looks like your example listed may be a good model to follow, although times, circumstances and attitudes were a little different in the 1920′s compared to now.

        • Bazman
          Posted January 7, 2014 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

          Build it out of sand and match sticks and then blame it on the weather and a lack of regulation. Especially in the weather, but not global warming. Would be the most likely outcome after a legal battle costing the taxpayer a fortune would be the most likely outcome. The state should have been more careful of the contractors used as they where employing cheap labour it seems. Council could have built it but that would have been to expensive and inefficient with some councillors getting kick backs and real wages being paid.

          • alan jutson
            Posted January 7, 2014 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

            Baz

            I think I get your point by reading between the lines.

            I would certainly agree governments record of negotiating anything over the past few decades is miserable, as is there ability to produce and supervise any sort contract agreement.

            Perhaps one day we will have some people in government who are capable of such things.

            I guess we must live in hope, but not hold our breath.

  14. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    However we look at the variations in temperature, it is proven that the ice caps are melting and the sea level is rising.We are told that land mass is warming due to the cities which use heat and keep large areas warm. That sounds logical. We know that there was a gap in the ozone layer and are told that this was due to CO2. We know that Co2 is required for life and we know that in life , there is a balance which we must not spoil.To even assert that man does not have any effect on the planet when we change every aspect of it daily is far fetched.
    We also know that the core will eventually cool as with other planets. We know that our life on earth is finite.

    • Old Albion
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 9:42 am | Permalink

      That sounds like a member of the ‘green warmists’ backing away……………

    • Mark
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 11:54 am | Permalink

      Did you know that we currently have near record levels of polar sea ice for the time of year globally?

      http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

      The ozone hole was originally blamed on chlorofluorocarbons – used in refrigeration until they were banned. The fact that this hasn’t solved the ozone hole problem has led to other theories about its cause, but no settled science. CO2 is not being blamed at all – it doesn’t react with ozone. Interesting that you have absorbed the myth from somewhere.

      • uanime5
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

        Sea ice is increasing in the eastern Antarctica but is decreasing in the western Antarctica and Arctic. I suspect you used a chart showing global sea ice to hide this fact.

        Also the hole in the ozone layer has reduced in size because chlorofluorocarbons were banned. So the science was right.

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

      We also know that the normal state for the earth is to have no ice on it anywhere at all and it has been in that state for 80% of its history. We also know we are still coming out of the last ice age and inevitably progressing towards that normal state totally irrespective of anything man does or doesn’t do. Adapt or die.

      • uanime5
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

        We also know that the normal state for the earth is to have no ice on it anywhere at all and it has been in that state for 80% of its history.

        Care to provide some evidence to back up this claim. I trust you’re not comparing the current earth to the lifeless rock 4.5 billion years ago.

        • Edward2
          Posted January 7, 2014 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

          Why not compare the climate now, to millions of years ago?
          Is it because your pet theory blames only mankind for changing the climate?
          Care to explain how the climate changed before mankind arrived?

          • cosmic
            Posted January 7, 2014 at 10:54 pm | Permalink

            It also changed after mankind arrived; the Roman Warm Period, the Dark Ages Minimum, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age.

            There is absolutely no reason to suppose that CO2 drives climate. Computer models, which even the IPCC admitted were useless, and which are written on the assumption that CO2 drives climate, are not evidence. Various other bits of evidence, such as the Hockey Stick, have been trumpeted and them shown to be worthless.

            For the current stasis, in the face of an increase in CO2 from around 360ppm to 400ppm over the period, you either have to assume that natural variation is perfectly balanced with CO2 caused warming, or that we are only seeing natural variation, as in the MWP and the LIA (which are not well understood) and CO2 plays little or no part.

            CO2 mediated global warming is a theory which has failed; all of its predictions have failed. The usual way of dealing with a scientific theory which has failed is to dismiss it.

            This keeps being warmed up. When increased hurricanes fail to materialise, forget them and come up with other scary predictions. Pacific islands not being drowned (they’ve coped with approx 120M sea level rise since the end of the last Ice Age (20,000 BP) with a notably slower rise since 8,000BP) – forget ‘em and talk about something else. No tropospheric hot spot? Stop talking about it.

            I venture that the reason is that we are not looking at a scientific theory at all, we are looking at a political agenda flying under false colours – one that couldn’t be sold on its merits because no one would want it.

  15. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    You know as well as we do that Cameron is not going to go against the wishes of his EU masters. Two of the most important issues to the electorate are immigration and energy supply and prices – both are dictated by the EU and willingly implemented by Cameron. I suppose after all these years of supporting a party which has done as much as any to make this country subservient to the EU, your default position of continuing to support a party that does not share your views, particularly regarding our EU membership and all that means for our democracy and self-governance, is one that comes naturally.

    Reply I support a party which is offering us an In/Out referendum which I think we need.

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 10:13 am | Permalink

      Reply to reply,
      What is your response to this story from the Telegraph website: ” The Conservative Party’s bill committing Britain to a referendum on European Union membership is “unlikely” to become law because of delays in the House of Lords, peers have warned.”?

      Reply There is always the danger that peers who do not want a referendum will try to talk out this Bill.Its fate rests with Parliamentary performances I n the Lords, and how good the two sides are at marshalling their peers and arguments.The Conservatives do not enjoy a majority in the Lords.

      • ian wragg
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 10:59 am | Permalink

        So John an unelected body stuffed with pro EU pensioners will deny the people of Britain a vote. The Parliament Act will be subject to legal challenge so that’s that then. Cameron knows this so when you lose the next election you can plan your strategy for a long period of opposition,
        The LIBLBCON has become a joke and insurrection will be the ultimate answer as you slowly bankrupt us.

        • A.Sedgwick
          Posted January 6, 2014 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

          The situation with the House of Lords is a democratic disgrace, exacerbated by Cameron continuing the creation of more peers. This matter is posssibly the only one I agree with N.Clegg and the fact that Conservative MPs declined to support its re-structure or seemingly negotiate some level of control on numbers or membership is another example of the Westminster Old Boys Club maintaining the status quo regardless.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted January 6, 2014 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

          While I have no objection at all to a Bill like Wharton’s just as a PR exercise to show up Labour and the LibDems I always thought it unlikely to even get through the Commons, let alone the Lords.

        • bigneil
          Posted January 7, 2014 at 1:47 am | Permalink

          slowly ???? – -oh come on – - -we are deep in financial dudu – -while they give £53m a DAY to the EU- – -also want a stupid megabucks train – -and importing thousands of freeloaders who will cost us a fortune financially – -never mind the health treatment costs for them all – any bailout for banks resulted in the bankers laughing their Argyle socks off and sticking millions in their pockets – -absolute power corrupts absolutely. – -and the EU is intent on getting it.

    • peter davies
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 11:59 am | Permalink

      I had a tweet from a high profile Eurosceptic Tory Politician yesterday when I asked about forcing the PM’s hand to take the steps necessary to prepare for BREXIT

      quote “that is never going to happen, we are in the EU for good”

      Reply Who said that?

      • Lifelogic
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

        I have not idea who, but he is clearly right, it will not happen under ratter Cameron that is for sure not with the current Tory party make up.

      • Brian Tomkinson
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

        Reply to reply,
        Whoever it was, I think that view represents the opinion of the majority of your parliamentary party.

        • bigneil
          Posted January 7, 2014 at 1:54 am | Permalink

          I agree -they all want to be on the “up” side of the EU – -to get a ridiculous wage for sodall. – -and why do you want to know john? – -so he/she can be punished by the party ?? – -I witnessed this strategy at work – -the manager made me the target – -and made my worklife a bloody misery – -for 3 years – -HR didn’t want to know – -this was before the compensation brigade so there was no backup for me – -and everyone else on that factory floor was terrified of that manager – -he only got his comeuppance during a change when another manager found out what was going on – -and the “bad” one was finished.

      • peter davies
        Posted January 7, 2014 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

        I’ll email you privately

  16. Atlas
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    John, as usual you speak sense.

    As a scientist, what I find disheartening is the scientific “Consensus”. Have any of these people studied Chaos and Complexity theory?? It is not as if these are new scientific topics – and they go right to the heart about whether it is possible to predict future events in highly interconnected systems such as the weather system (before somebody complains – the climate is merely the average of the weather over a chosen timescale, which could be 3 months or 1 year or 30 years).

    • Mark
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 11:59 am | Permalink

      Did you listen to the recent programme on Complexity on Radio 4? Melvyn Bragg swiftly closed down discussion of precisely this point. He didn’t want listeners to be informed.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

        What on earth is Melvyn Bragg (History Oxford) doing presenting a science program? It is rather like my presenting one on Ancient Greek, but as least I could mug up. He simply does not follow half of what his guests are saying. I quite like him sometimes but he is totally out of his depth in science and logic often saying “so what you mean Prof is ………………….” No you dope that is not at all what he meant!

        • Bazman
          Posted January 6, 2014 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

          The same as your idol Dingbat it seems telling us of the fallacy of global warming armed with an English lit degree. Can you not see that? No you can’t it seems.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

      As a physicist/mathematician now engineer I agree fully. Prediction, especially about the future, are rather difficult & usually impossible. Try the outcome of the lottery balls,the cloud formations or a game of snooker – then when you have mastered those move on to the hugely more complex and chaotic World climate system. Oh and you do not even have most of the input data either for good measure.

      They cannot even predict the suns output next month for heaven sake!

      • Bazman
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

        If you were a physicist/mathematician now engineer with some knowledge of rocket science you would know that is not how weather prediction works….You struggled to understand how you could get KW/h from windmills a few months ago too.

      • uanime5
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

        They cannot even predict the suns output next month for heaven sake!

        Actually they can because the sun follows a predictable 11 year cycle.

        • cosmic
          Posted January 7, 2014 at 11:00 pm | Permalink

          It follows an approximately 11 year sunspot cycle, together with other longer period cycles. The cycle is largely apparent in retrospect. The intensity of the cycle is much harder to predict, and this one does not appear very intense.

          You really don’t know much about this at all, do you?

          • Bazman
            Posted January 9, 2014 at 10:26 am | Permalink

            Scientist have yet to confirm the existence of the moon, so what do they know about the sun apart from not pointing a telescope at it?

    • uanime5
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

      Atlas if you were a scientist you’d perform tests and create a range of likely outcomes, not claim about how complex it is or make reference to unrelated branches of science.

      Also your definition of climate is incorrect as most classifications of climate are over the course of a year. This also leads me to believe you haven’t undertaken any scientific research.

      • Bazman
        Posted January 7, 2014 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

        Bean counters and rent parasites normally do not. Hence many of todays problems in many areas such as the benefit and tax systems.

      • margaret brandreth-j
        Posted January 7, 2014 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

        I have not found any definitions which back up your assertion that climate is measured over a year.

  17. The Prangwizard
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    I can’t think of anything more pathetic than a ‘scientist’ coming up with the lame idea that there is a twenty year time lag. It makes no sense, but I suppose he thinks he there are still gullible people to be fooled, with the help of the BBC.

    Let’s hope the tide is turning, if you will excuse the expression. BBC and Sky too are all over us with scare stories about high tides, waves etc., rain and more rain ‘when is all going to end?’ they whine. Exceptional and extreme weather ‘events’, and so on. I say don’t worry poor things, it will. It has happened before and it will happen again, but all will pass and life will go on.

    I have followed ‘The Ship of Fools’ saga, it will be interesting how the BBC spins it when their people get back. They will need to be careful because we are on to them. On the very early BBC TV news (the business bit) they commented on it and the ice and mentioned that it was winter of course! More foolishness.

    You are right to say that better management will, and has I think, made a big difference; it is certainly true in my village. After years of neglect and after flooding about 5 or six years back, frontagers, farmers and others got to it at the instigation and with the urging of the Parish Council to clear blockages in the long established drainage ditches which encircle us, and last year and this the water got away promptly. It was a good and sensible co-operative effort. On a larger scale those responsible must get on this summer with dredging the rivers. Environmentalists and conservationists have been indulged for far too long, and must be told their time is over and common sense and the common good must prevail again above their special interests.

    • Mark
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

      It is of course summer in the Antractic. Do the BBC know that?

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

        Maybe they don’t, given that in the past they’ve had their globe turning the wrong way.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

      “I can’t think of anything more pathetic than a ‘scientist’ coming up with the lame idea that there is a twenty year time lag.”

      Most pathetic would be if he has said there is a 20.456587…….. year lag as they often do. It is clearly complete and utter drivel.

      • Credible
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

        The coldest week of the year on average is the second week in February. The month with the least possible sunlight is December. Hence a 2-month lag. It seems time lags do happen.

    • uanime5
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

      I can’t think of anything more pathetic than a ‘scientist’ coming up with the lame idea that there is a twenty year time lag.

      Well it will take some time for the CO2 to get into the upper atmosphere and start trapping heat.

      It has happened before and it will happen again, but all will pass and life will go on.

      Care to provide some occasions when there has been rain, storms, and floods on this scale before.

  18. Bryan
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    It is always the loonies who take over the asylum (BBC) and to whom every Government seems to pamper.

    Economists, Climate Change Scientists, the Green-eyed Brigade are all part of the ever growing group of people who are never wrong, despite being never ever,it seems,
    right.

  19. Alan Wheatley
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    Re building on flood plains: this has been a long time folly, and the more we have built on flood plains the bigger the size of the problem we have been building up for ourselves. We knew we should not do it, but planning authorities either chose to ignore the obvious stupidity or were forced into allowing development against their better judgement.

    For those properties that have already been built on floodplains and are now being periodically flooded I have some sympathy with the owners, for they could reasonably expect that if planning had been granted by authorities who should know what they are doing they would not be buying into a flood risk.

    But when in comes to alleviating such flooding it needs to be born in mind that one person’s drainage can turn into another person’s flood: the water has to go somewhere.

  20. Roy Grainger
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    The EU needs to be careful. If it alienates the lefties by scrapping green levies then it will have truly run out of support. It would be interesting to see the effect on support for the EU of them imposing a few more “right wing” policies – not very likely but maybe in the economic area … I suspect then the UK liberal elite may suddenly develop a distaste for the EU’s anti-democratic influence.

  21. Alan Wheatley
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    Re climate change: I do not think there is any serious doubt that the climate is changing; the Earth’s climate has changed many times, and we are currently heading towards another ice age, so climate change is nothing new and has been going on long before humans inhabited the Earth. What is far more debatable is the cause.

    No doubt humans are having an effect; there are so many of us doing so much. I am decidedly unimpressed by those who blame humans for climate change, especially when at the same time they accept without comment a rapidly increasing human population.

    On the UK scale, I take it that our carbon targets are not being adjusted for population growth. I do not hear of changing government plans to further restrict our activities in step with increasing population so as to keep within the targets they have said we must meet.

    • uanime5
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

      the Earth’s climate has changed many times, and we are currently heading towards another ice age

      If we’re heading towards an ice age then why has the average global temperature been rising for decades? Shouldn’t the temperature be falling if we’re approaching an ice age?

  22. santerclause
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    What is especially irritating about climate alarmism is the way weather ‘events’ are treated. On the one hand, storms, record high temperatures etc are immediately seized upon as evidence of the effects of global warming. Immediate action is required. On the other hand, the lack of increase in the global temperature ‘anomaly’ over the past 10-17 years is not significant because climate has to be viewed over decades. Time is needed for identification of the ‘signal’ from the ‘noise’. It really is ‘heads I win, tails you lose’.

    • Man of Kent
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 11:07 am | Permalink

      The pause is now 17 years 3 months.

      Human produced CO2 is a miniscule factor in global temperature levels.

      Humans have added 0.00004% CO2 to the atmosphere in the last 50 years.

      The UK produces around 2% of this ;so 0.0000008%.

      Future generations will think we were mad to base our energy policy on such a basis .

      • Lifelogic
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

        Future generations will indeed wonder at the governments, the EU, BBC think collective insanity over AGW. Or perhaps they will just see it as a gigantic scam against the tax payer and energy bill payer.

    • uanime5
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

      On the one hand, storms, record high temperatures etc are immediately seized upon as evidence of the effects of global warming.

      Well there is evidence that the rising sea temperatures are causing storms to become more violent.

      On the other hand, the lack of increase in the global temperature ‘anomaly’ over the past 10-17 years is not significant because climate has to be viewed over decades.

      There has been an increase in the average global temperature over the past 10-17 years. Perhaps you should try getting information from scientific studies, rather than deniers.

      • Edward2
        Posted January 7, 2014 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

        Rising sea temperatures you say….less than a degree in over 100 years.
        Global temperatures..still rising you say….less than one degree in the last 100 years and no rise since 2000 according to our Met Office who get their data from the peer reviewed Hadley Centre for Climate Science.
        Please tell us where you get your figures from and how much you say the rises are.

        I hope you are not going to claim the Met Office is a denier Uni?

  23. Chris S
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    Unlike the USA, Nobody in Europe has been thinking strategically about energy requirements perhaps with the exception of the French with their inexpensive Nuclear Power programme. This is worrying, especially when Putin will have control of Russia’s gas pipelines for the foreseeable future.

    Germany has no choice but to subsidise energy costs for industry : Mrs Merkel took fright and decided to close all Germany’s nuclear power plants which were producing 25% of her electricity. The replacements are wind and solar which we all know are unreliable and much more expensive. This needs to be considered alongside the fact that for gas, Germany is almost 100% dependent on Putin

    Most of the German nuclear plants had at least another 15 years of service life remaining and decommissioning costs will now be incurred much sooner creating a double whammy in terms of expense.

    This has not been done at the behest of the EU, it’s entirely an own goal and will cost the German tax payer dear although there is a real chance that Brussels will ban the subsidies to try and reign in German industrial success.

    Without oil or gas in abundance, Europe is at an acute disadvantage which is why France , with 59 low cost reactors has got it right. Electricity in France is completely independent of outside influences, inexpensive and reliable because 75% is from nuclear. We should be following suit. If you build lots of reactors all of the same type, costs are dramatically reduced and much of the power can be generated from recycled fuel rods. Just building one of two plants here will be expensive by comparison.

    Friends have found it perfectly possible to afford to run electric underfloor heating in a modern French home. Just as well as I’ve found it’s almost When to find a French plumber to service a oil fired boiler !

    • uanime5
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

      The replacements are wind and solar which we all know are unreliable and much more expensive.

      Given that German gets 20% of their energy from renewable sources they’re clearly not unreliable.

      This needs to be considered alongside the fact that for gas, Germany is almost 100% dependent on Putin

      Why would they be 100% dependent on Putin when they get their most of their energy from German coal and renewables?

      Electricity in France is completely independent of outside influences, inexpensive and reliable because 75% is from nuclear.

      Unless all the nuclear material is mined in France it is vulnerable to outside influences.

      If you build lots of reactors all of the same type, costs are dramatically reduced and much of the power can be generated from recycled fuel rods.

      Are you proposing building a few power plants each with a lot of reactors or a lot of power plants each with a small number of reactors?

  24. Mac
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    Over at Watts Up With That there is a posting relating to the Antarctic folly.
    Way down in the comments is a very good piece by Caleb posted on Jan. 4 and this
    clip from his lengthy comment says so much;
    “They blame fossil fuels, and progress, and those things that uplift mankind, and every honest engineer ever born. They blame religious people, and hard working blue collar types, and the history of mankind, and old-fashioned morality. They sneer at tradition, insistent they are progressive, however Truth is not a thing you can progress beyond. All you can do is deny it.
    These people are the true deniers, and rather than laughing at the absurdity of this dunderheaded Antarctic exploit we should all be shuddering in fear, for these bozos have a grip on the reins of humanity’s destiny.”

  25. Bert Young
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    Thames Water have informed householders in S. Oxfordshire of the need to conserve water ; at the same time there is pressure on local authorities to build more houses and to supply more sand and gravel from the area ( there is still an outstanding application to extract sand and gravel from the Thames flood plain near Wallingford -already threatened by floods ) . Of course this is all nonsensical and a typical illustration of how national and local policies get out of hand ; add to this the overall EU green policy – bedlam is the result and a very disenchanted local population . Bring on fracking and the Spring asap .

  26. Man of Kent
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    I see that Tim Yeo ,who I thought had been de-selected, is being strongly backed by Cameron,Gove,fellow Suffolk MPs and others to stand again .

    After his warmist and personal interests as Chair of theClimate Change Committee I would not want such a person having any input in energy policy.

    A pity that the PM seems to want him.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

      If this Cameron support for Yeo is true my Contempt for Cameron will grow still further – if that is still possible.

  27. backofanenvelope
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    This morning Sky sunrise was camped out on a beach near Newquay. It was dark, so you couldn’t see much. However, the usual doom and gloom was trotted out.

    My wife was born in Newquay and can still remember the weather when she was a girl. In the winters it was quite normal for the sea to remove all the sand from a beach, bringing it back in the spring.

    It seems that the BBC and Sky, both based in London, have just discovered that we are surrounded by this wet stuff called water.

  28. ian wragg
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 11:03 am | Permalink

    This last week, Country file managed to get “Climate Change” mentioned within about 20 seconds of starting. This is a record I think as it usually takes 1 – 2 minutes.
    I think every BBC programme including the soaps is instructed to mention CC at every opportunity.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

      Certainly seems that way children’s programs, gardening programs, farming programs, the weather, news, nature programs ………………

      Yes sure the climate changes always has always will!

  29. APL
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    JR: “The party apparently expected to find evidence of retreating sea ice as global warming takes hold of a once inhospitable and icy cold south.”

    One might wonder why they are looking for retreating sea ice in the Summer, when one might expect the extent of the ice to be at its minimum.

    If you wanted to investigate retreating sea ice you’d probably be better off measuring it in the winter, as the extent of the ice at the coldest time of year may give you more information about allegedly warming global temperatures.

    • uanime5
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

      If you wanted to investigate retreating sea ice you’d probably be better off measuring it in the winter, as the extent of the ice at the coldest time of year may give you more information about allegedly warming global temperatures.

      How can you measure how far the ice retreats in summer during the winter?

  30. oldtimer
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    The reported EU position on the need to eliminate subsidies for green energy is an interesting development but is at odds with its directives on reducing CO2. Is it going to about face on the latter directives too? Unless and until the EU does so, I remain wary of its intentions. The EU has been at the forefront, together with the present and past UK and German governments, on preaching the CAGW hypothesis and the need for extreme actions, and billions of euros expenditure – which have duly been spent and committed.

    I have read elsewhere that the final draft of the latest IPCC report, AR5, has slashed predictions of global warming far below previous estimates. This, unsurprisingly, has received little publicity. If these reports prove to be correct they will leave politicians with no excuse but to suspend/repeal the Climate Change Act and the institutions, regulations and subsidies that it sustains. That should enable the implementation of a rational energy policy that serves the interests of the nation and the end of a policy calculated to set the country back by decades. I note in passing that Roger Helmer, the former Conservative MEP who defected to UKIP has long been on this page; it has the potential to be at least as big an issue for UKIP as immigration will be over the next year.

    • uanime5
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

      I have read elsewhere that the final draft of the latest IPCC report, AR5, has slashed predictions of global warming far below previous estimates. This, unsurprisingly, has received little publicity. If these reports prove to be correct they will leave politicians with no excuse but to suspend/repeal the Climate Change Act and the institutions, regulations and subsidies that it sustains.

      Why? Even if the temperature is increasing more slowly than predicted the evidence still shows that it’s increasing. Thus the UK will still have to deal with the problems caused by rising temperatures.

      • Edward2
        Posted January 7, 2014 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

        Uni
        What are the major problems in the UK being caused by a rise in temperature of 0.7 of one degree since 1880?

      • oldtimer
        Posted January 8, 2014 at 9:58 am | Permalink

        You ask why the Climate Change Act should be suspended/repealed.

        The reason is very clear. It was sold to Parliament (by Ed Miliband the then Energy Secretary) of the hypothesis that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming was upon us. This, it was claimed, was caused by the rise of man made CO2 in the atmosphere which was, in turn, amplified by feedback. Neither proposition has stood the test of public and scientific scrutiny despite billions of US£, euros and £s of research money being thrown at the hypothesis. The hypothesis rests on models. The models have failed.

        This comes as no surprise to me. Miliband and the green lobby failed to note the wise advice in successive scientific sections of the IPCC reports about the inherent uncertainties and lack of knowledge that underlie the assumptions behind the climate models. They also ignored the explicit statement, posted by another commentator on these blogs, that the climate is a chaotic system and as such is incapable of being forecast.

  31. lojolondon
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    Good article John, it may surprise you to realise that the ice cap in Antarctica has been growing steadily over nearly a decade – a fact kept very quiet by the Global Warming / Climate Change / Extreme Weather promotion brigade / BBC, as that absolutely does not fit the agenda!
    So it is pretty hilarious that these BBC and Guardian journalists went blindly down on an all-expenses-paid jolly to the Southern pole, only to be trapped in the ice (entirely their own fault!) and having to be rescued.
    The best part is that since “global warming ” disappointed and we moved to “climate change” but that disappointed so we moved to “extreme weather”.
    The obvious benefit of worrying about “extreme weather” is that any weather occurrence can be blamed on humans, CO2 and “warming”, and they are never wrong. The bizarre result is that now they are pointing to a ship trapped in an ocean of ice as evidence of “global warming”, and the Biased BBC is STILL not questioning them on the science.

    Time to remove the “TV Tax” from the shoulders of British citizens, and to remove the charter from the BBC.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

      Lots of ice in the Arctic too at the moment.

      • uanime5
        Posted January 6, 2014 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

        Lots of ice in the Arctic too at the moment.

        That’s because it’s winter, when Arctic ice is at it’s greatest. Though there’s still less than there was 10 years ago.

        • Edward2
          Posted January 7, 2014 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

          Yes Uni, the size of both Polar icecaps has been changing for millions of years and continues to do so today.
          Care to explain why they changed in size before mankind arrived on this planet?

    • uanime5
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

      Good article John, it may surprise you to realise that the ice cap in Antarctica has been growing steadily over nearly a decade – a fact kept very quiet by the Global Warming / Climate Change / Extreme Weather promotion brigade / BBC, as that absolutely does not fit the agenda!

      Only the eastern sea ice in Antarctica has been growing, the land ice and western sea ice has been decreasing. But don’t expect the deniers to give people real information.

      The best part is that since “global warming ” disappointed and we moved to “climate change” but that disappointed so we moved to “extreme weather”.

      The climate has changed due to global warming, which is why the weather has become more extreme.

      The obvious benefit of worrying about “extreme weather” is that any weather occurrence can be blamed on humans, CO2 and “warming”, and they are never wrong.

      Actually it would be wrong if the number of severe storms decreased. But science they keep increasing I guess the scientists are right.

  32. peter davies
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    I find it hard to add Labour’s wish to build thousands of new homes and effectively manage the environment at the same time – given that its human development that is the issue with regards to flooding, the last thing we need is more country side covered in concrete.

    The fact is that inland residential properties built in low lying areas increase the likelihood of flooding. Planners all over the UK have allowed large developments in areas where they should not or at a minimum such properties need to be designed to cope with floods – 1st floor living, garage space at ground level etc.

    On the coast we have had strong winds (nothing unusual apart from the fact that we keep getting more than unusual) coupled with spring tides to create the perfect storm which has happened many times in history and will happen again.

    Windmills won’t help and we have no control of emissions in any case, particularly with regards to the likes of Indian and Chinese activities so the answer has to be strengthening sea and river defences and perhaps building extra drainage run off for flooded rivers.

    Bring some common sense into politics – tell the EU where to go and shape the policies that are needed to ensure that we have infrastructure to cope

  33. behindthefrogs
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    The energy policy that this country needs is one that reduces dependence on imports, particularly of coal, oil and gas. If that means we need more energy generated by wind, waves, water mills and nuclear, then we must be prepared to pay a little more to harness these resources.

  34. Bazman
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    The fantasists are not about science, but have right wing religious views that no matter what humans do to the planet such as emitting massive amounts of pollutants such as Co2 and other gasses, CO2 is a pollutant in large amount as all gasses are, all will be well or at least begnign.No artificial eco system has ever been created by science and survived for any time. So why everything will be OK and we just need to adapt and adaptation means money, is not explained. Apart from CO2 there is the shear amount of dirt and pollution to contend with even in London its quite dirty as can be seen after a days shopping. Pollution from cars contributes to million of deaths across Europe and the world. The idea that this and power station pollution is not real is for the birds.
    Climate change says rising temperatures leading to extreme weather conditions and this is what is happening a colder or hotter place at a certain time proves nothing unless you are a denier and the day is cold. Russian weather is extreme extremes of heat and cold, but in general the rain can fill a pint glass in seconds as it sweeps down the river or street. chasing the sun. The storms with lightening like out of a horror film puts the fear of God into anyone as the thunder sakes the windows. These idea we can control effects and we have no effect is foolish in the extreme. The same ones are telling us we need to introduce better safeguards, but are then telling us there is nothing to safeguard against. If these events occur only once in a blue moon why bother? Fatalistic fantasy wins the day as usual huh everything will be OK as nothing is changing?

    • Edward2
      Posted January 7, 2014 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

      Again Baz you are confusing and grouping several different things.

      Pollution…very different to global warming and very good to try to reduce. The Clean Air Act of 1963 shows the UK was ahead of most nations in its determination to reduce pollution and its adverse effects on health.
      The richest, most technically advanced nations generally are the least polluting nations.

      CO2…man has little control over the vast majority of this planet’s CO2 output. Of the small amount man does create, the UK is responsible for tiny percentage of this and even if we were to reduce our CO2 output in the UK by 75% it would have little effect on the total global figure.

      Extreme weather events…there is a new determination by warmists to try to link any weather event to global warming but the evidence that there are more events or that these events are driven by warming is very tenuous as research which can be seen on the web shows.
      We certainly see and hear of more events as 24/7 news channels report from every corner of the globe as they happen.

      Doing nothing/fatalistic fantasy… well it for those who are believers like you, to explain to everyone else just how they will control the climate for evermore like Gods.
      First you will need to get every nation on Earth to agree to a maximum CO2 output and then monitor that for ever.
      Then you need to get global agreement what the optimum temperature target is.
      Back to 1880 levels of 0.7 degree less than it is now?
      Then you need to reduce CO2 levels until the temperature starts to fall (if your theory is correct) and agree on a future level.
      It will never happen as there will never be a global agreement at this level of sophistication.
      Even now China, Australia, USA and many other nations will not sign up to any global agreement.
      How is going to actually work?

      • Bazman
        Posted January 7, 2014 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

        You are arguing that the first world person puts less pollution and C02 into the atmosphere and land that of a third world person? and the CO2 we do produce is is insignificant no matter how much is produced? Sounds like you are. Never. All reasonable scientific thought and common sense says this is not true, though 100′s of millions of vegetation destroying dirty cooking fires are a real problem they use very little. The banking problem that no one can control them is a fantasy put forward by do nothing right wingers like they do about E-waste and Co2 is no different. Maybe you could tell us child labour is the same? Co2 and pollution tend to go hand in hand especially in the case of coal. Trade agreements, energy policies, technology can all be used to get the right outcome cheap clean energy. Making Kerosene available to the worlds poor would go some way to help their health and the pollution and maybe this could be linked to oil deals. I Know nothing is possible in you do nothing right wing world, but fate may say different.

        • Edward2
          Posted January 7, 2014 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

          Again you are mixing up pollution and the level of CO2 which the IPCC says is a cause of global warming.
          Two seperate things.
          I’m not saying do nothing.
          But our current policies seem counter productive.

          • Bazman
            Posted January 8, 2014 at 9:23 am | Permalink

            Pollution and CO2 are hand in hand especially from coal which is where most of the worlds energy comes from. You can count on scrubbers not being fitted or maintained in third world countries as they are not in waste incineration plants here. In your dreams… It’s the height of stupidity to burn rubbish anyway. A circuit board burns like a piece of wood. No circuit boards? Dreaming again. Filthy process and you can be sure that no director of the plant will live near it.

          • Edward2
            Posted January 8, 2014 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

            Its not the height of stupidity to burn rubbish Baz.
            There are many modern incinerator plants in the UK and in Europe which burn household rubbish which otherwise would go to landfill and create much greater long term pollution.
            This one of the aims of the landfill tax.
            It creates power easily and efficiently and they pass all current EU pollution regs.

            You don’t have many forms of power generation left, as you seem to be firmly against using nuclear, fracking, coal, oil and now incineration.
            Just gas, windmills, tidal and PV panels.

          • Bazman
            Posted January 9, 2014 at 10:38 am | Permalink

            It’s the height of stupid. In Middlesbrough in the 1990′s the cars in the street which all faced a waste incinerator had damage to their paint on the panels facing and a fine mustard coloured dust on them. All of them all makes. Complaints about health by the local were common though difficult to prove. The filters on waste incineration plants get overwhelmed at peak times or do not work correctly due to lack of maintenance. I put it to you again how clever it is to burn electronics and can they be burned with paper and wood? No its stupid. Another point is that the waste is put beyond future use as rubbish tip mining becomes more viable like reprocessing old slag banks for iron. You live next to one as nobody else want to, by the number of protest across the country. Not all green lefties as you would like to believe. They just do not want to breath in dirt.

          • Edward2
            Posted January 9, 2014 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

            As you say no proof that there was actually any dirt from the plant just accusations from those who wanted the plant closed down.
            No chance the dust came from anywhere else in such a clean air town.
            I will not change your opinions but incineration plants are popular with local authorities in the UK and pass strict EA and EU pollution regs.
            PS metal parts (like circuit boards) are screened out by magnets and staff on the conveyors belts and sent for recycling as they contain valuable scrap.

          • Bazman
            Posted January 10, 2014 at 10:44 am | Permalink

            Ho! Ho! You are a gift ain’t you? You can live next to one then and breath in dioxins. Never did me any harm!
            As you looked down the street the chimney seemed to be just at the end, In reality it was about 2-3 miles away the illusion being caused by the height. They may pass the regulations at that moment in time, but at peak times the managers will, as they do, overload the system and maintenance being maintenance, corners get cut and standards are not maintained. You are still putting the waste beyond recovery methods as yet imagined. The circuits and the like? Get real and how does plastic burn the same as wood and paper? It does not. No amount of flim flam will change this. Ram it.

          • Edward2
            Posted January 10, 2014 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

            Your lack of engineering knowledge is showing Baz.
            I suggest you go away and do some research into incineration plants in operation in the EU and the UK before your anecdotal stories make you look even more foolish.
            EG “Overloading the systems” as you put it, is not possible because of 24/7 monitoring by computers which keep a records of all outputs as needed to obtain an EA licence.
            In most plants these records are copied and backed up constantly to remote locations and the EA can log in and audit these readings at any time.
            If you conspired to falsify these systems you would go to jail and fines could be in the millions.
            The main one by me, is run by the local authority and develops a substantial amount of electricity for the city from rubbish which otherwise would just rot in a landfill.

          • Bazman
            Posted January 11, 2014 at 10:37 am | Permalink

            Can’t escape the facts edward thing combust in different ways and some item that should not be incinerated get through plus you are putting a future resource beyond use or recovery as yet unimagined. You faith in technology is just foolish there are a number of health risks from living near one of these plants from their emissions such as heavy metals and fine particulates. Legal limits included which in reality mean little. There is also the problem of fly ash its effects and the large number of lorries used.
            Another problem is they encourage waste and offer no incentive to reduce this.
            Maybe you could tell us why there are so many protest against these plants. Green lefty people with no knowledge of engineering? See above. Ram it.

          • Edward2
            Posted January 11, 2014 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

            Again you show your compete lack of knowledge as to how incineration works and how licencing by the EA operates.

            Just carry on believing what you want to, along with many other lefties who use unproven myths and propaganda to make absurd negative claims about any technology they just cannot understand.

          • Bazman
            Posted January 11, 2014 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

            I knew lefty would come into it. As a righty then you would not have a problem living next to one or the ash dumps with children then? Any concerns about safety or questioning the authorities on this is absurd? Your faith in technology and regulation on this is just foolish. Where does the ash go? Landfill in many cases ask Bishops Cleeve incinerator ash dumping nearby residents. How about the point of putting waste beyond recovery? Think that is a good idea too? The massive costs of these plants should be put towards reducing waste instead of this flawed idea of using an expensive future resource and causing pollution to produce electricity. As clean as coal? As if.

      • Bazman
        Posted January 11, 2014 at 10:53 am | Permalink

        If you conspired to falsify these systems you would go to jail and fines could be in the millions.
        Like in banking edward….As if. LOL!

        • Edward2
          Posted January 11, 2014 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

          As hard as you try there is no connection between your current pantomime villains the wicked Bankers and the powers of the EA to audit licences of energy plants and their outputs.
          You are struggling now
          Just give up.

          • Bazman
            Posted January 12, 2014 at 8:45 am | Permalink

            There is every connection and probable if you looked into it some sort of cosy relationship between the waste contractors and their regulatory bodies. As I have said you live next to an incinerator or ash tip. Personal? You bet it is. There will be few of the elite living nearby, Count on it.

  35. Clive
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    I would like to see some changes in building / development regulations to the effect that for front garden parking and in new developments for cul-de-sacs where there are only a few houses impermeable hard surfaces from whic water runs straight off and contributes to the flooding problem are discouraged / not allowed in favour of permeable solutions. Also better publicity that having a soakaway for your roof gutter, rather than sending the water to the sewars, reduces your bills.
    Better to prevent the problem than spend vast sum of money ‘fixing’ it, which as has been mentioned generally has the effect to simply move it elsewhere.

  36. Denis Cooper
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    Very good article, nicely satirical but with serious points.

  37. Antisthenes
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    RedEd is apparently against fracking that does not bode well for the UK economy when he enters no 10 come 2015. Coupled with all the other damaging policies he will introduce Hollande style the UK is in for a very rough time.

    Because of the closure of so many high co2 emitting electricity generating plants and because of the unreliability of wind power many diesel power generators are on standby to keep the lights from going out when other forms of energy production cannot cope. They are of course very costly and high co2 emitters so what is gained. With RedEd, Davey, EU and the eco-loons now in full control of energy policy we really are seeing the clowns running the circus.

    The climate alarmists would have us believe that the science is settled and we should now all accept without question that the world is warming. However when questioned (although the BBC, Guardian and the like ensure that questioning does not occur) they are evasive, disdainful and spout platitudes not inviolable facts. It is obvious that neither the alarmists or the sceptics have any real knowledge of what climate change is occurring and what effects it is having or will have. The only thing that is certain is the energy and climate change policies that are being pursued currently are the wrong ones. Until such time as there is irrefutable evidence that can predict with reasonable certainty what the climate is actually doing and what will be the effects of any detected changes in climate will be then we should stop squandering billions on inefficient and costly energy production. Worst of all I have not seen anyone take a worst case scenario from the climate models (it does not matter that they appear to be grossly inaccurate) and do an actual cost and benefit analysis which may show that in the long run the cost of tackling it is outweighed by benefit of not doing anything. If global warming is happening there will be winners and losers and it is possible there will be more gain than loss.

    • uanime5
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

      Because of the closure of so many high co2 emitting electricity generating plants and because of the unreliability of wind power many diesel power generators are on standby to keep the lights from going out when other forms of energy production cannot cope. They are of course very costly and high co2 emitters so what is gained.

      Care to provide some evidence regarding how much CO2 these generators produce compared to a coal or gas power plant.

      The climate alarmists would have us believe that the science is settled and we should now all accept without question that the world is warming.

      Well that’s what all the evidence shows.

      It is obvious that neither the alarmists or the sceptics have any real knowledge of what climate change is occurring and what effects it is having or will have.

      So you’re claiming that all the scientists who have spent decades researching the average global temperature of the planet and what effect increasing this temperature is having on the planet lack any knowledge regarding what is occurring. It’s the deniers who don’t know what’s going on, not the scientists.

      The only thing that is certain is the energy and climate change policies that are being pursued currently are the wrong ones.

      Care to provide the evidence that you’re basing this certainty on.

      Until such time as there is irrefutable evidence that can predict with reasonable certainty what the climate is actually doing and what will be the effects of any detected changes in climate will be

      That happened decades ago. Scientists predicted the the average global temperature would rise if man made CO2 levels continued to increase and it did.

      Worst of all I have not seen anyone take a worst case scenario from the climate models (it does not matter that they appear to be grossly inaccurate) and do an actual cost and benefit analysis which may show that in the long run the cost of tackling it is outweighed by benefit of not doing anything.

      The worst case scenario of the temperature constantly rising is that all humanity will be wiped out. So any cost-benefit analysis would show that the cost would be justified instead of doing nothing.

      If global warming is happening there will be winners and losers and it is possible there will be more gain than loss.

      Global warming is happening and has created only losers as large parts of the planet become uninhabitable deserts. So there won’t be more gain than loss.

      • Edward2
        Posted January 7, 2014 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

        All this for a rise of 0.7 of one degree since 1880 and no rise since 2000 according to our own Met Office.
        Amazing, the end of mankind you say Uni.
        Somehow I think man may adapt and survive faced with these figures.

      • Edward2
        Posted January 7, 2014 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

        Uni
        It seems that a quick check on the Web shows your assertion that “large parts of the planet become uninhabitable deserts” due to global warming to be wrong
        The National Geographic site has an article saying there are less desert areas now and that the Sahara has shrunk and is greener than 100 years ago.

        But don’t let facts get in the way of religion eh?

  38. Tom William
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    There has always been “extreme weather” , even when temperatures were far colder and far hotter. The recent inland flooding could have been much less if houses were not built on flood plains (ignorance/greed), if there was better street drainage (particularly when houses have paved forecourts), if farmers/councils cleared ditches, and if rivers were still dredged. Landslides on railway lines could be avoided if the banks of viaducts were planted with low growing shrubs. This all costs money – which if found, would cost less than repairing the damage later.

    Meanwhile I am convinced that there is a 20 year lag between increased CO2 emissions and the increase in urban foxes.

  39. Antisthenes
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    Instead of squandering billions on a religion because that is the level of the current climate alarmist’s belief as climate change predictions contain little more evidence than that for the existence of a god or gods we should use a fraction of that amount to tackle environmental issues that are measurable, tangible and obvious. You have already alluded to localised problems of flooding and coastal erosion which the diversion of some of the money wasted on subsidising inefficient and in themselves environmentally damaging energy production could alleviate. There are other environmental projects that are well worth having money spent on them such as the reversal of deforestation and developing habitats that are nature and human friendly and ensuring rivers and oceans are kept clean. The problems of pollution from motor vehicles and high co2 emitters should of course be tackled not because of climate change but for health and standard of life reasons. This of course is being tackled already albeit slowly and unevenly and will continue to be so because the direct effects are being felt. China for example will not continue for ever it’s energy policy because the effect of the pollution is being directly felt by it’s citizens however I suspect a much more economic friendly way will be found to solve the problem. If the effects of pollution and environmental damage are tackled locally and where necessary with global cooperation then if indeed man made climate change is happening then that problem will be solved in a much more sustainable way.

    • uanime5
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

      Instead of squandering billions on a religion because that is the level of the current climate alarmist’s belief as climate change predictions contain little more evidence than that for the existence of a god or gods

      The scientific evidence shows that the average global temperature is increasing. It is the deniers who are acting like a cult that refuses to accept any evidence that conflicts with their dogma.

      • Edward2
        Posted January 7, 2014 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

        Still no reply from you to repeated requests to look at the Met Office figures showing no rises since 2000 Uni.
        Remember that 2000 was the time we were told to expect catastrophic runaway rises as a tipping point would be reached, or perhaps you still havn’t re-read the original IPCC report nor watched the Al Gore film recently showing their predictions have not come true.
        EG sea rises of several meters with several islands which should by now be underwater, except they are not.

        And you have the cheek to call others “acting like a cult that refuses to accept any evidence that conflicts with their dogma.”

    • Bazman
      Posted January 7, 2014 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

      ‘China for example will not continue for ever it’s energy policy because the effect of the pollution is being directly felt by it’s citizens however I suspect a much more economic friendly way will be found to solve the problem.’
      They will all choke and then have a look into it if they need to is what you are saying? Like we would in Britain as this would be ”sensible’?
      They are already investing a great deal into cleaner energy whether the right wingers like it or not and using us to subsidise it by selling solar panels at below cost price. That is you local solutions in some cases. Better building design another, How much would a fuel free tower block be worth in London? Lotteries for car ownership even, in Beijing. The dreamers have no idea and just want to produce more energy funded by right wing energy companies and their chums. Ram it.

      • Edward2
        Posted January 7, 2014 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

        You’ve been reading too many conspiracy theory sites on the web again Baz.

  40. dumpling
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    It was just the southern half of Australia up to the 32nd parallel which had the hottest Summer ever. In the Northern part up to the 11th parallel the temperature was average.

  41. Posted January 6, 2014 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

    Have you noticed how the phrase ‘global warming’ have been quietly morphed into “climate change’. We are all falling for it of course as the big brother BBC coaches us to adopt B-BC-speak.

    • Bazman
      Posted January 7, 2014 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

      Global warming is causing the climate to change.What do you not understand?
      It is the same as it was here as the 1990′s. You know it is not and not in a natural way. Anyone can see this…Anyone want to tell us about a hot summer this year? You do not as you know there will not be one. Global warming causing climate change. I could be wrong and lets hope so. If you have predicted a hot summer for the last five years this does not make you right this year though by saying this.

      • Edward2
        Posted January 7, 2014 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

        Im not sure what you are saying here Baz.
        All weather, be it hotter or colder is now driven just by global warming?
        That pesky 0.7 of one degree rise since 1880 and no rise since 2000 must be behind it all.
        PS The latest politically correct phrase is “climate disruption”.
        You guys change your name nearly as often as the EU

        • Bazman
          Posted January 7, 2014 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

          You think the weather has not changed since the 1990s? Most seem to think it has in some way and not for the better. A common perception that you do not seem to like for some reason? A lot cooler and wetter in Cambridgeshire. The garden regularly used to turn to dust and form large cracks without water in the summer. Seems a like a few year go since we had that..You can huff and puff and say its just me, but many say the same, maybe we are all involved in some sort of conspiracy and are all brainwashed except you?

          • Edward2
            Posted January 8, 2014 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

            Yes the climate changes and ever since the beginning of time its changed.
            In the sixties it was colder in many winters than in the eighties and summers in the seventies were hotter than summers in the eighties in my experience.

            I notice changes in weather patterns in my lifetime same as you do.
            The problem is deciding what, if anything, is driving climate change.
            You firmly believe it is all caused by the 0.7 of one degree increase in global temperature since 1880 caused in turn by man made CO2 increased output.
            I think it it simply random weather patterns created by mother nature over which we have no control.

          • Bazman
            Posted January 9, 2014 at 10:52 am | Permalink

            This is what you believe and is your opinion the consensus is that this is not the case and the scientists wheeled out by the right and in America the religious right have connections to the energy business and are often dubious. Many have no scientific background like Delingpole, and by their own words form opinions of opinions. Climate change denial is often just anti science by the right and in the extreme by creationist who are against any form of science or protection of the environment.
            Mitt Romney’s proposals on energy policy and climate issues, so far as they can be discerned, are indistinguishable from those of the fossil fuel industry. And anyone who thinks that Republican party policies won’t be informed by some of that old-time religion simply hasn’t been listening to what its candidates have to say about women, reproductive rights, and what they speciously call “religious liberty”. Same in this country.

          • Edward2
            Posted January 9, 2014 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

            In late news for you Baz the Met Office have issued a statement that there is no proven correlation between global warming and recent weather events as I believe it is politically correct to now call any bad winter weather.
            They say there has been no proper scientific study yet.

          • Bazman
            Posted January 10, 2014 at 10:47 am | Permalink

            That a licence to just pump massive amounts of polution and CO2 out? Few! Thats OK then.

          • Edward2
            Posted January 10, 2014 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

            You are being silly now.
            No one wants pollution, be it in the air or the rivers or the land which is very different to CO2 as you know already.
            Pollution is strictly controlled (in the UK at least by the Environment Agency).

  42. Jennifer A
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    Wind turbines need subsidy because the resources needed to provide them is greater than their output. Worse – the monies for wind turbine subsidies must be raised through carbon emitting trade and industry. This ‘solution’ is anything but green.

    Credit (especially taken out against property) is the most un-green of activities. It enables people to consume far more than they’ve earned up to that point. The natural payday-to-payday brake on spending is freed.

    Yet Labour loves borrowing.

    • Jennifer A
      Posted January 6, 2014 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

      The word ‘spending’ can just as easily be replaced with ‘consumption’ in my previous comment. In fact it makes more sense.

  43. uanime5
    Posted January 6, 2014 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

    It has not been so full of the figures for England in 2013, which show we had a very cold spring, and an overall temperature performance down on previous years. That must have been a bit too much weather.

    This decade has still been warmer than previous decades and this November was warmer than last November. The vast majority of the evidence shows that the average global temperature is rising, not remaining static or falling.

    Instead they ran into record levels of ice, and the ice packed hard around their ship and then around the ice breaker. It sounds as if the midsummer Antarctic is having a bad dose of weather as well.

    You seem to have ignored that they were hit by a blizzards while investigating the part of the Antarctica that has seen an increase in sea ice (mainly because this sea ice is more dependant on the winds than sea temperature).

    We read of a Competition investigation into German windpower, examining it to see if the subsidies are excessive and if the exemptions for German industry unacceptable.

    And what exactly where the results of this investigation? If it hasn’t been published then it isn’t supporting your position.

    This follows hard on the heels of the announced investigation into the proposed contract to buy forward electricity from a new nuclear plant planned for the UK.

    There were serious questions raised as to why Osborne was guaranteeing double the current price of energy to these companies, something that may breach EU anti-bribery laws.

    They are not allowed to continue with much coal or oil based generation of power under one set of rules, but are then challenged for seeking subsidised energy from dearer renewable sources in an effort to comply with environmental legislation.

    They are only challenged when the subsidies are considered excessive. Odd that you’re objecting to the EU trying to get a better deal for taxpayer.

    Surely the message of the bad gales of the last few days is that we need to adapt more, so that more homes and businesses are protected from tidal surges and from the bursting of river banks.

    Well that would be easier if the government didn’t keep reducing the amount they spend on flood defences and stopped firing people working in the environmental protection agency.

    In other news because Osborne’s austerity plans for the economy have failed he’s planning to introduce even more austerity by cutting welfare. Unsure how that’s going to encourage more people to vote for the Conservatives when the poor economic performance has resulted in more people needing welfare than when Osborne took office.

    • Edward2
      Posted January 7, 2014 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

      Uni
      Care to give us the actual figures and sources for your assertion that “This decade has still been warmer than previous decades and this November was warmer than last November. The vast majority of the evidence shows that the average global temperature is rising, not remaining static or falling”

      • Bazman
        Posted January 7, 2014 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

        This organisation thinks so.
        http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
        Interesting to hear your views on a bit less complicated ideas a little bit anyway, like benefits Lets see how far that are in the grass. Notice how the fantasists cannot argue this one. Clue: They are wrong and it is their own bigotry like on climate change only they are out in the open on this subject for full and deserved ridicule and so keep silent. Come out wherever you are we are going to find you..

        • Edward2
          Posted January 8, 2014 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

          Shame the Met Office doesn’t agree with you Baz
          No rise in temperatures since 2000 according to them, so you are now having to search for one odd month and compare it to another month in another year to find any rise.
          Getting to be a bit of a struggle.
          I note a carefully measured rise of a tenth of one degree is now being called a rise…wow.

          I also note no response to any challenges of mine to Uni on this subject so who is the one hiding away?
          I’m always very happy to state my views thanks Baz and without resorting to personal abuse too.

          • Bazman
            Posted January 9, 2014 at 11:09 am | Permalink

            Only you and your right wing sources say that. The personal abuse is free and when the right is linking climate change to religion is entirely justified,
            Dr. Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office, said: “Although the first decade of the 21st century was the warmest on record, warming has not been as rapid since 2000 as over the longer period since the 1970s.
            http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/global-temperatures-2012
            Which way is the graph going up or down since 1850? Down? Oh really? It’s like saying houses are getting cheaper because they have fallen in price. They are not. In the last fifty years house prices have steadily rising sometimes fast sometime slow sometimes falling, but always rising. Same here it seems.

          • Edward2
            Posted January 9, 2014 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

            Baz
            The Met Office …”a right wing source” Please write and tell them I would love to see their response to you.
            You can wriggle as much as you like but graphs on the Met Office site derived from Hadley Centre peer reviewed data are showing no rises after 2000.
            So stop blaming me and shout at them.
            PS I’ve never said temperatures haven’t risen over the last century.
            The rise is quoted in the IPCC report and it is 0.7 of one degree.

          • Bazman
            Posted January 10, 2014 at 10:53 am | Permalink

            I mean you and your right wing sources interpretation of the met office they said the rise was slower than they thought. Deluded as ever.
            0.7 degrees? Why do you think this is a small amount? We are not talking about a cup of tea or the melting point of tungsten. 0.7 of a millimetre is not much, but you car would not even start if these where the machining errors. The earth is vast and such a rise could be significant. Populist crap like making the market ‘the market’.

          • Edward2
            Posted January 10, 2014 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

            Just go onto the Met Office site and look at the data for yourself Baz.
            There are graphs showing no rise since 2000.
            Stop shouting at me and shout at them if you don’t like their data.
            Its not about right wing or left wing politics, just simple peer reviewed data.
            And as an engineer for 30 plus years I have learnt that looking for myself at actual data is the best way to see what is really happening.
            This is why the statistic:- 0.7 of one degree rise in over 100 years is worth constantly repeating because it is a figure nevr mentioned by those who talk in terms of “apocalypse” and “catastrophic” and “the end of the human race”.

            If you stopped a few hundred people in the street and asked them to guess how much global warming there had been in the last 100 years how many would say “less than one degree”?

          • Edward2
            Posted January 10, 2014 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

            As you don’t like the Met Office any more Baz, I thought this graph would help, again showing no rise since 2000

            http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.png

          • Bazman
            Posted January 11, 2014 at 10:51 am | Permalink

            That in no way means it has stopped and the met office and many other organisations agree with this. Interesting how your faith in this is as solid in man made systems such as companies and finance too. Is it a sort of religious view like that American right and their religious fatalism being that everything is preplanned according to the bible or at least their interpretation of it.

          • Edward2
            Posted January 11, 2014 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

            For me its nothing to do with faith, right wing politics, the American Christian right or any religious belief or trust in pre-ordination.
            It is just about looking at scientific data and the data shows no rise since 2000.
            Perhaps the increases will continue at some time in the future who knows?
            But if those, like you who truly believe, will not even concede the facts as presented by the Met Office then who is actually the deniers?
            Back in the early nineties Al Gore said there was a strong probability the ice caps will have melted by 2013
            He also said there would be no snow left on Mt Kilamanjaro by now
            He also said a huge glacier in Europe will have melted by now
            He also said various islands in the Pacific will be under water by now due to sea rises of several meters
            He also said after 2000 there would be a rapid rise in global temperatures as a tipping point will be reached.

            He has been proven to be completely and utterly wrong on all these predictions.
            And you have the nerve to call me deluded!

  44. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted January 7, 2014 at 2:38 am | Permalink

    Why can’t I have access to the CO2 readings and their locations that give rise to our estimate of global CO2? Why can’t I have access to the temperature readings and their locations that give rise to our estimate of average global temperature? Then I would be in a position to say whether I thought the locations to be appropriate and whether the trends were statistically significant.

    Could it be that there are a bunch of scientific fascists who believe that they alone have a right to analyse the data? It’s a bit like the Church of Rome, which believed that it alone had access rights to the Dead Sea Scrolls and their translation. Fortunately for honest and transparent scholarship, some nice man put images of the documents in the public domain. Without this, the translation might have been as accurate as the Nixon tape transcripts.

  45. Paul DimWatt
    Posted January 8, 2014 at 1:45 am | Permalink

    Germany NOT building coal fired power stations? Eh….. no!
    Currently 10 new hard coal power stations are under construction or planned. I say hard coal because lots of others, lignite coal based (makes hard coal quite saintly in terms of CO2 emissions!), are under construction or planned. In consequence CO2 emissions in Germany are rising!

    And of course the UK government carries on its merry way closing down coal stations (that produce 40% of our electricity) with no new power stations being build (power meaning dependable power!). So our general national bankruptcy will get a real sugar boost in the next year when the lights start going out. A deliberate policy of this government and a criminal folly.

  46. APL
    Posted January 8, 2014 at 7:10 am | Permalink

    Martin Schulz: ” [currently European Parliament president] Mr Cameron’s campaign to rewrite the terms of Britain’s membership of the EU is, he says, “wishful thinking”, which is likely to be rejected by many other EU member states.

    From the horses mouth!

  47. Posted January 9, 2014 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    You write, whatever the cause, all agree we have just had some bad weather and may well have more bad weather in the future.

    God is behind it. The new normal weather phenomena is Ice Age Winter .

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College, and has a DPhil from All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.
  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page