Thursday
Jan092014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Met bashes Cameron
Jan 9, 2014 Climate: MetOffice Climate: Parliament The Met Office, ever ready to knock back climate alarmism, has taken issue with David Cameron's linking of floods and climate change yesterday.
Nicola Maxey from the Met Office said the Prime Minister failed to draw the crucial distinction between weather and climate change.
“What happened at the end of December and at the beginning of January is weather,” she said.
“Climate change happens on a global scale, and weather happens at a local scale. Climate scientists have been saying that for quite a while.
“It’s impossible to say that these storms are more intense because of climate change.”
Reader Comments (66)
ThinkingScientist - agree re the circulation figs of the various newspapers (loosely described). The Indie with 76k includes the many free copies handed out at various hotels etc. However the Guardian as we know is the "in-house magazine of the BBC" (nicely put by Richard Bean in the Melanie Phillips I/V) and it's influence is probably larger than the circulation implies.
But you are absolutely right re The Sun, that paper's influence is immense which is why PMs including Blair have tried to get into bed with Murdoch over the years. This could be the breakthrough.
Many have commented re Cameron's quote on the recent storms. This will be a pragmatic message to the "tree-huggers" and "green" voters to keep them on board as much as he can. His goal, like most politicians, is retention of power - his own. He will say and do whatever is necessary to keep as many voters onside as he can. Like it or not the green message resonates with many people as it "feels nice" and of course it makes people feel good about themselves. The fact that it "costs" other people their lives probably doesn't register.
I believe the tide is turning but there is a long way to go yet - my thanks go to Andrew and all the other bloggers and commenters who have been a thorn in the side of the CAGW charlatans over the years.
johnbuk: Good summary.
Actually this was not the only instance of the Met Office correcting someone in the last few days. A young lady from the Met Office (I wish I had caught her name) emphatically corrected a BBC Radio 4 reporter who started banging on about a link between the recent bad weather and climate change. I had great admiration for the young lady from the Met Office for putting the silly fool from the BBC in his place in such a firm manner.
One swallow does not make a summer as they say but.....
In both this one and the recent one he made linking Typhoon Haiyan to CC, the take home nuance was that in both cases he is now being careful to make statements that are tempered with qualifications and issued as a personal opinion only. He's treading far more cautiously than he once did, as if he knows he's in a minefield of his own making.
Haiyan
'Asked on Friday whether climate change was linked to the Philippines disaster, Cameron said: “I’ll leave the scientists to speak for themselves about the link between severe weather events and climate change. But the evidence seems to me to be growing.”
http://www.globalsocialchange.com/2013/11/16/at-last-cameron-links-typhoon-haiyan-to-climate-change/
Christmas Storms and Floods
'In response to a question from Tim Farron during Prime Minister's Questions in which the Liberal Democrat MP suggested the recent weather was a "destructive and inevitable consequence, at least in part, of climate change", Mr Cameron said: "I agree with my honourable friend that we are seeing more abnormal weather events. “Colleagues across the house can argue about whether that is linked to climate change or not. I very much suspect that it is.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10560734/Prime-Minister-climate-change-opinion-not-backed-up-by-science-says-Met-Office.html
Martin A
Both the BBC and the Met Office say something you agree with and you call them liars.
Are you saying that you do link these storms to climate change?
Jan 9, 2014 at 8:18 PM Entropic man
EM - do you really not get it? You are kidding, right? You are pretending to not to understand, surely?
Can you really not see the difference between the two?
Here is my translation into terms where I hope you can see the difference:
"It’s impossible to say that these storms are more intense because of climate change” = "there is no known correlation between them"
"The recent storms that have brought heavy rain and floods to much of the UK cannot definitely be linked to climate change, the Met Office has said" = "the correlation between them is less than 100%"
Does that make it clearer why I called the Beeb liars in their reporting of what the Met Office said?
Listening to Ian Dale discussing Cameron and the floods on the LBC Radio Drivetime show this afternoon
Coastal true blue Tory areas he sold out the Conservative grass roots to political correctness because hes a weak leader running a weak Coalition Government.
The other big news story is the Mark Duggan court case.
The judge ordered a minutes silence for him in court but not for any of his victims
We had to read about his criminal record in the Daily Mail.
Gay Marriage ,Fox Hunting Ban Smoking Ban ,Health Fascism ,Too Pro Europe Soft on Drugs and Crime Immigration NHS Cuts Turbines Fuel Bills Fuel poverty, Nigel on the march and lets not all forget "Climate Change"
Something struck me.I think Cameron visiting the flooded areas he would have got booed anyway
Two months ago Cameron was complaining about Green Crap and now hes back kissing up to Environmentalist
On Spiked they call it the Crisis of Authority.
Politicians just dont know what to believe in.So they will believe in anything
Now the Telegraph story has changed to:
"At the moment there's no evidence to suggest that these storms are more intense because of climate change."
The original wording is still here:
http://www.ezspk.co.uk/archives/114380
“It’s impossible to say that these storms are more intense because of climate
change.”
Martin A
You are splitting hairs.
Mr EM was accused of splitting hairs when he protested that the news report was misleading.
retireddave,
"We see everyday that politicians are now more extreme in their pronouncements about cAGW than most climate scientists - it is as if they have not had an update briefing for the last 5 years or so - the same applies to the Royal Society and sundry jobbing scientists who continue to spout about "global warming" in what may become a cooling world."
================
This is following the dynamics of a scare or a craze. The public has lost interest. The problem is that there's a hierarchy of investment in it. Politicians invested the most and can't admit they were wrong. Various institutions such as the RS invested heavily and would take a very serious knock. There are True Believers who see it as a pathway to a Greater Truth - a return to a sentimental view of the Middle Ages, but there aren't that many and they wielded disproportionate influence for a time. There's a large number of people, formerly enthusiastic, who can afford doubts and are quietly edging away.
In many ways, the politicians are the most exposed. I'm not surprised that they are the most desperate to maintain it. The alternative is to admit that they have been utterly kidded and have been responsible for a staggering amount of money being wasted, amounting to a significant misdirection of the efforts of the human race over at least a decade.
In terms of politics, we had 'Greener than thou' around the mid noughties. Now it's looking like we have problems to be blamed on someone else and addressed by windfall taxes or price freezes - not dealing with the root of the problem. I think it will end in a game of pass the parcel, avoiding at all costs the idea that it was a silly game to get into, but knowing that the one to undo the final layer will have it explode in his face.
From the GWPF:
He urged the PM to support the CRAPPP!
Re: Martin A
Sometimes I wish BH had a +1 button.
EM, what's not to like with splitting hairs?. It can be quite important.
But I don't think either Martin A or Chandra ought to call people liars on the basis of such fine and arguable distinctions (or at all,, preferably).
osseo,
The BBC have form in misrepresenting what is said to suit their own agenda.
I called them fools, but I think liars works too.
In any case, the BBC have changed the headline to
"Storms' link to climate change uncertain - Met Office"
Because even the Met Office won't put up with their
liesunfortunate misrepresentations any more.I agree. But it's not necessarily deliberate. We all have to make sense of the world, so we naturally tend to present facts in ways that fit with our preconceptions.
"
I've always found a bit of history is usually in order around these discussions:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34439/34439-h/34439-h.htm
August 8, 1808.—A remarkable storm occurred at Norwich. Streets were inundated and cellars flooded. “The roaring of the waters in falling from the roof to the lower leads of the Cathedral was so tremendous as literally to drown the noise of the thunder that accompanied it.”
January 28, 1809—In consequence of a rapid thaw, the low lying parts of Norwich were flooded. “Some of the houses were six or seven feet under water,” and boats were rowed in the street at St. Martin-at-Oak. The marshes below Norwich were so inundated that the course of the river could not be traced, and the barge proceeding to Yarmouth had to return, in consequence of the men being unable to find the channel.
February 16, 1816—A high tide at Yarmouth. The Denes and the west side of the haven were inundated. A similar occurrence had not been recorded since 1791. A flood also took place at Lynn.
January 15, 1820—Very severe weather set in. The thermometer fell to seven degrees. A rapid thaw took place on the 18th, and a flood ensued.
March 1, 1820—A severe storm and high flood occurred in the Lynn district.
November 16, 1821—A severe storm took place. The roads were in many parts of the county rendered impassable by the heavy rains, and the marshes and low grounds were flooded.
July 14, 1824.—A severe thunderstorm occurred at Norwich after a period of very sultry weather. “Almost immediately after the tempest a cloud of immense magnitude and extreme density, having the appearance of a mass of snow, passed over the city. Drifting with a strong westerly wind it was so low as to envelope a considerable portion of the Cathedral spire. Its passage was attended with a very curious phenomenon. The current of the river, which had previously been sluggish, suddenly became very rapid, as if propelled by the irruption of some mighty flood. This acceleration lasted about ten minutes, the cloud having once passed over, the stream gradually resumed its former rate of progression.”
Etc, ad nauseum.