GWPF: Bad Weather & Bad Policies = Bad Flooding

Posted: February 13, 2014 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

Updates from the GWPF

flood-towncentreIt has emerged that the Environment Agency rejected calls to dredge the flood-hit lower reaches of the Thames because of the presence of the endangered mollusc. In a 2010 report, seen by the Mail, they ruled out dredging between Datchet and Staines because the river bed was home to the vulnerable creatures. And even though a public consultation indicated support for de-silting work, the quango said it would be ‘environmentally unacceptable’ due to the ‘high impact on aquatic species’. –Daniel Martin, Daily Mail, 13 February 2014

There is “no evidence” that climate change is leading to more extreme weather, Lord Lawson has said, as he called on the Government to use the floods as a “wake-up call” to stop “littering the countryside” with wind turbines and solar panels. Britain needs to have “cheap and reliable” forms of energy to ensure that the country is “resilent and robust to whatever nature throws at us”, Lord Lawson said.  –Peter Dominiczak, The Daily Telegraph, 13 February 2014

I don’t blame the climate scientists for not knowing. Climate and weather is quite extraordinarily complex and this is a very new form of science. All I blame them for is pretending they know when they don’t. What we ought to focus on is what we’re going to do. I think this is a wake-up call. We need to abandon this crazy and costly policy of spending untold millions on littering the countryside with useless wind turbines and solar panels, and moving from a sensible energy policy of having cheap and reliable forms of energy to a policy of having unreliable and costly energy. Give up that. What we want to focus on – it’s very important – is making sure this country is really resilient and robust to whatever nature throws at us, whether there’s a climate element or not. Flood defences, sea defences – that’s what we want to focus on. –Nigel Lawson, BBC Radio 4, 13 February 2014
BUNGLING weather bosses predicted a drier than usual winter, it has emerged. The Met Office’s staggeringly inaccurate forecast was made at the end of November last year – just a month before the record-breaking deluge began. And the agency gave just a one in seven chance the three following months would “fall into the wettest category”. On Nov 21, its experts predicted: “For the December-January-February period as a whole, there is a slight signal for below-average precipitation”. The calamitous estimate emerged as Downing Street dubbed the devastation caused by the floods as “Biblical”. –Tom Newton Dunn, Political Editor, The Sun, 11 February 2014

 
 

Contingency planners were advised by the Met Office to expect a dry winter less than four weeks before the heaviest rainfall in 250 years. The official guidance to expect “drier than normal” conditions was issued in mid November, just weeks before the onset of the wettest new year period on record. The Met Office report, which claims to use “cutting edge science” to “help contingency planners prepare for and respond to emergencies”, predicted a pattern of high pressure weather systems would lead to dry conditions. It added: “The weakening of the prevailing westerly flow means that the normally wetter western or northwestern parts of the country may see a significant reduction in precipitation compared to average, while the east or southeast may be closer to average.” —ClickGreen News, 11 February 2014

 
 

1) Bad Weather & Bad Policies = Bad Flooding – Daily Mail, 13 February 2014

2) Nigel Lawson: Floods Are A Wake-Up Call To Focus On Resilience – The Daily Telegraph, 13 February 2014

3) Met Office Told Planners To Expect A “Drier Than Normal” Winter – ClickGreen News, 11 February 2014

4) BBC Today Programme: Lawson Vs Hoskins On Flooding & Climate Change – BBC Radio 4, 13 February 2014

5) And Finally: Met Office Forecasts – A Reality Check – The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 10 February 2014

Comments
  1. Joe Public says:

    “It has emerged that the Environment Agency rejected calls to dredge the flood-hit lower reaches of the Thames because of the presence of the endangered mollusc. ”

    Today the Beeb reports:- UK storms: Living with contaminated flood water – “(Wraysbury in Berkshire) ….. the water is heavily contaminated with faecal coliform. There are too many bacterial colonies to count.”

    I wonder if the molluscs will survive?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26169373

  2. Euan Mearns says:

    Meanwhile in Scotland there is more snow in the Scottish mountains than the piste bashers can cope with:

    Ski Scotland: another global warming paradox

  3. Richard111 says:

    Booker and North cover this quite clearly pointing to EU directives. See this link I found on the EU Referendum site:

    http://www.th-eu-nit.com/index.php/blog/4114-somerset-flooding-was-eu-plan-all-along

  4. tchannon says:

    Roll the clock back…

    “It’ll have to be the Hudson then”

    Shortly afterwards the wildfowl were shot. Excess enviros were curiously silent instead of bleating even when told what would happen if the animals were not severely controlled.

    It is very rare for a fast jet to crash land on water without total loss.

  5. AJB says:

    All indications are that we’re likely entering another period of solar grand minimum. History tells us that UK weather becomes more extreme in exactly the way we are beginning to experience during the onset and exit from these periods. There is no evidence that any of it is due to CO2 induced climate change. There has been no warming for well over a decade and a half.

    We desperately need to “cut the green crap” for real and get on with preparing for what now seems pretty much inevitable. Especially where our badly dilapidated power, coastal and flood defence infrastructures are concerned. The only questions left are how much the variance will increase and for how long. It’s looking like a minimum of a decade and maybe two or three.

    These storms are a wake-up call and the real shame of it is that the establishment has convinced itself it’s the other way around – all based on propaganda sustained for two decades and bogus pseudo-science. Modern indulgence in the veracity of statistics has a lot to do with it too, people endlessly arguing over 0.1 of a degree are simply nuts. There is no identifiable signal of temperature dependence on CO2 concentration on any timescale that I can see, absolutely none! If anything it seems to be the other way around.

    No doubt we’ll have to put up with the nonsense for a year or two yet until the cold arrives and then it’ll be too late. Oh! well, keep the chain saw serviced and firewood stocked up; look after the neighbours.

  6. tchannon says:

    The story about shellfish seems to me to be more about dysfunctional humans than any real problem.

    1. The Thames has been dredged many times over the years, so how come there are shellfish there today?

    2. The Thames has been heavily polluted at various times which is a related complaint, so how come there are shellfish there today?

    3. The Thames ceased being a natural river at any point from below London to almost the source starting over 500 years ago and essentially complete more than 50 years ago, so how come there are shellfish there today?

    3a. We do not know what is natural.

    4. I see no sign of a precautionary principle being applied.

    4a. Clarifying, such a principle, or rule, must take into account everything from all perspectives and must be applied recursively, which is reapplied to the previous result until the result is stable and complete from all perspectives.

    4b. (4a) simplifies to common sense.

  7. catweazle666 says:

    Here is the BBC R4 ‘Today’ excerpt of the debate between Hoskins and Lawson.

    It is remarkably even-handed for the BBC, Hoskins ends practically spitting feathers and Lawson has the last word.

    http://audioboo.fm/boos/1918919-is-climate-change-a-factor-in-the-recent-extreme-weather

    Taken along with the decision by the HoC Select Committee inquiry into IPCC AR5 to take evidence from equal numbers of both Warmists and AGW sceptics – which hugely enraged the hilarious Guardian blogger ‘Drillbit’ Dana Nuttyjelly, incidentally – there is at least some evidence that the tide is on the turn.

  8. dscott says:

    The MSM is babbling again about AGW causing “extreme weather” in US. They are claiming AGW is affecting the Jet Stream from the Arctic. So to cut out the spin, we have a de facto admission that the Jet Stream is causing the increase in snow fall in the US.

    So now that the AGW people are admitting to the Jet Stream controlling climate, we need to focus on what controls the Jet Stream. This starts with the declination of the Moon’s orbit about the Earth…

  9. ren says:

    Jetstream dependent braking and acceleration polar vortex result of temperature fluctuations in the in the zone of the ozone.

    Temperature rises inhibits jetstream.