Bishop Hill Missing the point
Feb 14, 2014 Climate: WG2 EU While the Guardian is in something of an ambulance-chasing frenzy, devoting its front page to a hysterical outburst from Lord Stern, in the Telegraph Fraser Nelson has a more thoughtful take on the floods.
No one can be blamed for the rainfall, but the extent of the floods has been linked to human error – and deeply flawed ideology. Some years ago, the Environment Agency took the disastrous decision to stop the routine dredging of the main Somerset rivers, as part of an overall idea that a little more flooding might be a good thing. Now, voters may have some opinions about the agency’s decision to put wildlife before people and property – but no one can be fired. It is a massive quango, outside the direct control of the elected government.
He's right about the problem of quangos, but I think that Fraser's preferred solution - bringing the EA back within the Whitehall machine - is inadequate. Decision making by environmentalists in a Whitehall department is going to be as little responsive to the needs of the people of Somerset as decision making by environmentalists in a Whitehall quango. And at the end of the day, neither will be able to make much impact because decision making in London is actually "decision making" in London. The policies are set - or effectively set - in Brussels.
Reader Comments (61)
The real problem is just how easy it is for people to reach the top in the UK despite being obviously dumb as a post.
I know that most people think that the European Elections, scheduled for may this year, are either an unnecessary distraction or just a joke but we all need to wake up. The deputy president of the European Commission who was in London this week said quite correctly that the most powerful parliament in the world was the European Parliament in Brussels/Strasbourg and she was right.
The disastrous flooding in the Somerset Levels is the direct consequence of Directives passed by the European Institutions over which the UK Parliament has no influence.
A look at DECC proves your point Bish.
I don't know about the hysterical outburst from Lord Stern but we were treated to some absolute nonsense from Lord Winston on question time, I paraphrase his words "We should look on there floods as a good thing. They are a wake up call and serve to remind us of what is in store in future years with climate change". Then we get the weasel words "...of course there is no evidence to link these floods directly with climate change but they are entirely consistent with the increase in extreme weather events we will see with climate change"
Let me interpret Robert Winstons words for him, and for the layman:
"There is no evidence to link these floods with anthropogenically induced climate change"
That is the bottom line, end of.
He could equally have said:
"There is no evidence to link these floods with anthropogenically induced climate change and they are entirely consistent with the incidence of extreme weather events in the natural climate system"
and this would have been entirely consistent with the null hypothesis.
As an academic scientist I am growing increasingly frustrated with the pronouncements of the ennobled (Stern (not a scientist), Robert Winston, Paul Nurse, Mark Walport, John Krebs and I'm sure you can name many others) which are vacuous and not based on any evidence what-so-ever. They are statements of belief and not science. They need to bring hard evidence to the table rather than the weasel words "is entirely consisted with" which are meaningless in a scientific debate.
The Guardian and the Warmists are doubling down. Too much money and power is at stake.
I mistakenly believed that after the obvious failure of AR5 to bolster the hysteria, saner voices in the climate community would finally stop their silent cowardice and stand up and be counted; to try and stop the loonies dragging them down with them.
Doesn't look like it's going to happen.
Oops..apologies for the spelling mistakes. I'm still seething from watching Winston's performance last night!
In truth, the issue of (lack of) accountability is the key to begin to understand the fundamentals of this climate-politics marriage of convenience.
The real question for Lord Stern is this; " Given that climate change is here and now, manifest by the extreme weather, how long will it take for the current UK emissions policy ( and his suggested amendments) to mitigate these effects?"
In the meantime our policy of adaption forges ahead. A few years ago, when drought was the expectation, the policy was to NOT build reservoirs but condition the people to life without water. Amidst the floods we are actively letting the drainage system decay. We pursue an energy policy which ensures no heat when we are cold and no cooling when hot.
According to Lord Stern, "China is showing leadership........ in how to invest in low carbon growth". I thought that their renewable industries were collapsing and they were building coal fired generators like there was no tomorrow, as indeed, according to Stern, there isn't.
I think that Lord Stern, hugely disappointed by the absence of the forecast "climate refugees" has found some candidates - its us! Its already happening as they flee riverside Berkshire back to Chelsea!
The warmistas are braying loudly that's for sure
O/T ... Talking about marriages of convenience - The Dark Lord and The Jazz Buff... together
btw if you haven't seen it there's a comment by Corporal Jones Ghost at the end here which reinforces both the perception of the EA's incompetence and goes to show I think that individual recipes for flooding should be worked on a case by case basis rather than the usual (at the moment )handwaving of "UK floods"
How do you link to individual comments on BH?
Two catchphrases spring to mind.
The first is the Think Global, Act Local one which has had so much appeal for eco-activists for so long. It means, in practice, that the 'correct line to take' is decided by distant bodies, often in and around UN agencies targeted so effectively by multinational corporations such the WWF. That relieves the 'locals' from having to do any thinking of their own, other than working out the nuts and bolts of their obedience. Thus, I conjecture, wetlands were declared sacred for example, and so Baroness Young merely carried that message and implemented it at the EA without giving it a moment's deep thought. For her, it was just a matter of clauses, subsections, and perhaps some wheeling and dealing in committee rooms here and there. The Guardian has long been in thrall to this sort of eco-mindlessness and so their front page with Stern's current genuflections is no surprise.
The second is People First. This is also trite, but it contains a clear message about priorities. When people have some relief from immediate cares, they can readily turn to improving the environment. As has happened most notably in the most successful industrialised countries. If this were the catchphrase on the headed notepaper of the EA, more effort might have been made to protect the Levels. But that may be naive. Given the salaries, the vehicle counts, the PR budget, I have to conjecture that their interpretation of 'People' would largely consist of themselves.
I'm a Georgist (who was a Adam Smithist and David Ricardoist). So I SOLELY link tax to the unimproved value of the land.
If the EA ruin an area, then the taxable value will plummet.
A comedian (Stern) writing in a comic (Guardian), does anyone care what he writes!
Unfortunately, the Environmental Agency is not the only government funded institution infected with environmentalists!
tomo
"btw if you haven't seen it there's a comment by Corporal Jones Ghost....."
Thanks tomo, very interesting comment.
Stern is a liar and I can prove it.
"China is showing leadership........ in how to invest in low carbon growth"
China is making the solar panels and wind turbines to flog them to the subsidy junkies in the west and suck some of the subsidy into China, they also have a vast internal hinterland where wind turbines and solar make sense in the short term to provide people with their first electricity. Portraying this policy as support for "low carbon growth is delusional'
If the Chinese support his own delusions so well he should move there and try and get a job to prove it.
Huge snow fall in Scottish mountains attributed by Met office to global warming :-)
Ski Scotland: another global warming paradox
Lord Stern's piece is, indeed, hysterical. It has been evident for a long time that a position on "climate" (whatever that is) is simply a proxy for political allegiance. In this respect Stern is yesterday's man (thank goodness) using yesterday's arguments. You have to wade through a lot of guff to get to the point that seems to concern him
"The UK must continue to set an example to other countries. The 2008 Climate Change Act, which commits the UK to cut its emissions by at least 80% by 2050, is regarded around the world as a model for how politicians can create the kind of clear policy signal to the private sector which could generate billions of pounds of investment. Weakening the Act would be a great mistake and would undermine a strong commitment made by all of the main political parties."
The process of "weakening" the Act is already in hand, One assumes it can only accelerate when the waters recede. An argument based on "setting an example" while flooding poeple's homes is simply insulting (it is also manifestly pointless).
Sadly Mr Cameron wrong footed himself long ago. Let's hope Mr Crosby can get him out of a mess of his own creation. Australia offers an encouraging example that Lord Stern might reflect on.
I think the warmists are getting a taste of the public’s ability to say one thing but think another. They’re largely to blame because when they sit down at comfy green meetings and agree that returning land to nature is terribly forward thinking, they forget to include reality in their plans. On a pleasant summer day your average Brit will happily agree to save water voles and depressed molluscs but at no point do they envisage people’s homes and livelihoods under water as a consequence. When they nod to the idea that we should do anything to protect the environment what they really mean is ‘I’m happy to tick that box on your form but the result can’t cost me or hinder me in any way’.
The greenies only have themselves to blame because they’ve been deliberately missing out on mentioning the side effects of their plans. It's a very risky strategy because the public are much more wise to scams than they used to be and once they dig their heals in, they'll be so anti green, the warmists won't know what's hit them
There's another article in the Guardian today promoting the flawed ideology of promoting more flooding mentioned in the Nelson quote.
"Let’s go back to nature, plug up the drains and slow down the rivers, argue many experts. Bring back beavers and their dams, say a few. But making space for water, as the experts call it, takes time, not a commodity in great supply in an emergency. It also inevitably means the controlled flooding of fields."
Lets abandon science, technology and engineering and go back to the dark ages
The real question may be neither political or scientific. Any reader can obtain and read a copy of the statute and regulations under which an agency operates.
The question is whether or not the statutory body had a statutory duty to the property owners to protect them from flooding by management of the infrastructure provided for that purpose and whether or not the flooding resulted from negligence in the management of flood protection infrastructure and related operations.
Loss of property that results from the failure of a statutory body to perform its statutory duties may be actionable.
http://www.lawteacher.net/tort-law/lecture-notes/statutory-duties-lecture.php
Failure to perform a statutory duty is a "wrong" if it results in injury (loss of life or limb or property).
http://francisbennion.com/pdfs/fb/1996/1996-002-breach-of-duty.pdf
The property owners affected need to form an association, unincorporated to begin. They need to set up a web site and get publicity so others will join in.
Next they have to get a little pro bono legal advice. If favourable, then they may need to incorporate to raise money for legal advice concerning how to proceed.
This stage may take up to one year. But the people injured are not going anywhere and by then they will know roughly the total costs of their losses and the cost of legal action.
For a start the persons affected should get a CHARTERED SURVEYOR to estimate direct losses. Consequent loss of income should be estimated after determining the actual physical losses.
On the surface, I believe that the prospects are good. In my opinion the courts will agree that the statutory body did have a special duty of care to the property owners and that they failed to manage the flood protection system according to the intention of Parliament.
The reasons I have seen given for not complying with the intentions of Parliament may not count for much in a court of law.
You can claim you went through a red light because the car following was too close and by doing so you avoided an accident. But if you strike a pedestrian while avoiding a collision with the car following, you are liable for striking the pedestrian. The driver of the car behind may also be liable.
For that reason it may be no defense for an independent agency to say they followed government policy as set out by the Minister.
So the legal action should proceed against the agency and the responsible minister who represents the Cabinet in their collective policy-making function.
My advice is to go after the tortfeasors and make them pay.
Paul Dennis (8:57 AM): I, too, watched most of Question Time last night (and I really ought to stop doing, just to protect my teeth and voice – the only advantage is that it deters the cats from coming too close). It appalled me how Dumbledore let so many of the discussions wander far off topic, into areas he felt were where they should be; then, the constant referral to Winston as a “scientist”, as if that gave him complete knowledge of all things (I am a car driver, so – by following the Dim-dim-bee logic – as a driver, I must also be an expert on driving lorries, busses, trains and planes). Then Winston came up with “carbon storage” – does he not know that that idea is dead in the water?! (Pardon the pun – entirely unintended, and in very poor taste... but quite funny.)
The only person who was consistent with any really sensible contributions was the UKIP lady, so, no, we still have a long way to go to get the message across that the MSM is aiding and abetting the lies about the climate.
@ Paul Dennis
Thank you ... although eventually - for the good of your health - you have to work through shouting "UTTER BOLLOX" at the TV and instead simply wonder at the hubris and stupidity of these supposedly-intelligent people.
For example, it seems that Jon Snow (Channel 4 News @ 7) now has a brief to badger a(ny) guest into agreeing with "It was us wot done it", regardless of the interview topic. Last night the unfortunate recipient was Russell Brand during a piece about - I think - electoral anarchy. (Actually the two of 'em probably deserve each other).
Way back pre-Climategate I had it all down to "follow the money". Now I'm really not so sure.
The Telegraph's been running some good letters recently about the floods and the EA, from people old enough to know some of the history. For instance today
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/10637036/Neglecting-upkeep-and-ignoring-local-know-how-have-made-floods-worse.html
Jon Snow has completely lost the plot. And I cannot, for the life of me, understand WHY they give that raving lunatic Brand, so much air time. It's not as if he really says anything..
"The UK must continue to set an example to other countries. The 2008 Climate Change Act, which commits the UK to cut its emissions by at least 80% by 2050, is regarded around the world as a model for how politicians can create the kind of clear policy signal blah blah blah......"
One of the things that never ceases to entertain about 'Progressives', who regarding themselves as high-moral-ground-inhabiting creatures of penetrating intellect, is just how wonderfully old-fashioned and unoriginal they actually are. Someone of Stern's grandfather's generation could have expressed exactly the same sentiments in terms of the White Man's Burden, or, more vulgarly, 'showing the w*gs how to do things properly'. Well its one thing to be patronising and superior when you are the unrivalled world power, when you are not its really rather ridiculous, just another indication of how out of touch one is. Who does Stern think is observing this wonderful 'example' we are offering to the world? Who actually is following where we are 'leading'? I suspect if anyone from 'abroad' is even aware of this example, their kindest reaction is to snigger....
Paul Homewood discusses the UK 100 year rainfall data in a post at WUWT. There is no evidence that Climate change is having an effect. He is critical of the MO for frantically searching for GHG links instead of analysing their own precipitation data to compare this winter with previous wet ones.
The points made above about environmental policymaking are important in a wider context. Democratic accountability is at the heart of the matter. I remember when every new or changed legislation was hotly debate in parliament and reported by the MSM. There was so much of it that it was difficult to keep up.
Today, there is so little for our politicians to do that the Queen's speech may have to be cancelled because there is nothing for her to announce. At least 70% of our legislation is made in Brussels. Very little of that is reported here and in many cases there is little that we can do about it if we disagree with it.
Government departments and quangos like the EA simply implement directives from Brussels. There is no discussion in parliament and little effort to explain the source, rationale or even the existence of the legislation.
Responsibility for food, agriculture, transport, the environment, to name just a few, lies squarely with the EU. These are EU comptences which means the EU calls the shots and member states must obey. It is against EU law for member states to introduce their own initiatives that contravene EU directives.
If Mr Cameron wants to dredge rivers he will probably have to seek special permission from Brussels. He will probably find that the EU legislation prevents him from getting rid of the dredged material.
The key point is that quangos like the EA have their instructions and there is not much national government, local government or anyone else in this country can do about it.
There are masses of EU sites on legislation in the pipeline.
A summary of their environmental programmes is to be found here:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment/index_en.htm
There are two certainties coming out of all of this mess. We need to get out of the EU and take back control of our own destiny. We need to repeal the Climate Change Act 2008. When do we need to do these things? Now.
Lord Winston on Question Time last night stated that "all respectable scientists" agree that humans are responsible for climate change. Therefore, by definition, he obviously regards any scientist who proposes an alternative hypothesis, e.g. Svensmark with his cosmic ray theory, to be not respectable.
Winston's "respectable scientists" have given us computer models that failed to predict "the pause" in global warming. Until a few years ago those "respectable scientists were telling us that "snow will be a thing of the past." They stopped telling us that after December 2010. Such predictions stopped after that month. Why? Well, it is just possible that the weather that month made those predictions look slightly unreliable.
December 2010 update: Second coldest since 1659
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2011/01/december-2010-update-second-co.shtml
Met Office provisional figures show that December 2010 with a mean CET temperature of -0.7C was the second coldest since records began in 1659, beaten only by December 1890 which had a mean of -0.8C.
Until recently "respectable scientists" said that Britain, of all countries, could expect as a result of climate change.
Environment Agency report issues stark warning over East Anglia’s future water supplies
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/environment_agency_report_issues_stark_warning_over_east_anglia_s_future_water_supplies_1_1191083
The water shortages already threatening East Anglia’s parched countryside could worsen drastically in future unless urgent action is taken to mitigate the twin threats of climate change and population growth.
The EA report, named The Case for Change – Current and Future Water Availability, predicts warmer and drier summer weather, particularly in the south-east of England, causing rivers and reservoirs to dry up.
Today, "respectable scientists" (or at least Dame Slingo) claim that climate change is causing the floods in Britain.
Why Is Climate Change Denier Owen Paterson Still in His Job?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/uk-floods-owen-paterson_b_4767153.html
Swathes of the country are under water. More than 5,000 properties have been flooded in the last two months, with the wild weather now heading out from the south west of England into Wales, parts of the Midlands and the Home Counties. The army has had to be deployed, while insurance experts warn that the clean-up costs could hit £1billion.
We have endured, the Met Office's chief scientist revealed on Sunday, the "most exceptional period of rainfall" for nearly 250 years. Dame Julia Slingo, a professor of meteorology, also made it pretty clear where she placed the blame for the floods crisis - and it wasn't on the Environment Agency or spending cuts or Eric Pickles.
"All the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change," she said, adding: "There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly rain events."
Why do I get the feeling that "respectable scientists" are making it all up as they go along? Would it be too radical to suggest that respect should be earned by making accurate predictions - preferably in advance and not in retrospect?
JamesG: "The real problem is just how easy it is for people to reach the top in the UK despite being obviously dumb as a post."
I'll see your post and raise you two short planks (made from Ego-ny) <geddit??>
Worse thing about Winston's rants on Question Time was that he was given the last word on the flooding issues, and he came up with his 6-point plan to avoid future flooding.
Not ONE SINGLE POINT of his 6-point plan had any connection to flooding whatsoever - it was 100% about proposals to fix global warming, from switching to nuclear, more renewables, reduced enegy usage, better international CO2 targets, etc. and the audience gave this rubbush a massive round of applause.
Perhaps Paul Dennis can try contacting him directly and try a bit of re-education. At a minimum he should stop the insulting rubbish about "all respectable scientists".
steveta_uk,
a good idea. Does anyone have any contact details for Lord Winston?
Like Paul Dennis, Radical Rodent and others I sat through Question Time in a state of some agitation.
Thanks Fred Colbourne for an interesting contribution and no doubt insurance companies will also be looking closely at the statutory obligations of the E.A.
Maybe the light shone on these disasters will raise public awareness of the EU role in our lawmaking.
Paul Dennis, see
http://www.robertwinston.org.uk/contact/
steveta-uk: Thanks for pointing out Winston's six-point plan. He obviously never learned the difference between tactics and strategy: It is difficult to remember that your objective was to drain the swamp when you have alligators snapping at your a*se"
Bring back the Local drainage Boards and put then in full control of flood mitigation. You then get local people with local knowledge working for the locals. Always worked before the descent into the EA.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
If I remember rightly, QANGOs were intended to carry out government functions free of the inefficiencies thought to plague the civil service, and I had supposed that the legislation establishing (each of) them had been appropriately worded.
Wrong!
How can the government axe 1,200 jobs in the Environmental Agency if it is sufficiently independent of government to carry out its functions free of the inefficiencies that were presumably thought to plague its predecessors? Only because it is not independent.
How, as Nelson says and the Bishop endorses, can the Environmental Agency not fire people? Again, only because it is not independent.
So the fault lies with successive governments. They have been happy to take whatever credit they could find as a result of supposedly making government efficient by hiving off activities to QANGOs while, at the same time, failing to so establish them in a form that would enable them to get on with their jobs any more efficiently than the government departments they displaced. They lacked the courage to let go of the apron strings.
In a logical world government would only be able to sack EA staff it had appointed - probably only poor old Smiffy. In the normal way, the only other control that should interest government would be financial - they would be in order to cut any contribution they made to EA's budget. Exceptionally, it might be that the EA strayed outside the objectives given it by parliament and it might then be the govrnment's business to act in addition to private action as explained by Fred C above.
Wot a lot of wxnkers we have had as politicians for a very long time!
How do you link to individual comments on BH?
Feb 14, 2014 at 9:14 AM | Registered Commentertomo
At least using Firefox...
- highlite the comment right click and choose 'view selection source'
- at the top you should find something like <div class="comment" id="comment20774775"> (in red)
- take the URL at the top of the page containing the comment eg
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/2/14/missing-the-point.html#comments
- modify it to contain the id of the comment - like this
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/2/14/missing-the-point.html#comment20774775
That should be the URL of the comment you wish to appear.
Seems to work...
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/2/14/missing-the-point.html#comment20774775
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/2/14/missing-the-point.html#comment20774775
I don't know if there is a way to make the comment appear on its own with nothing following. Anyone know?
I'm just wondering, at what point in Bishop Hill's coverage of the floods and the policy agenda behind them, will BH actually link to the original work to uncover this done by Richard North on EU Referendum and Christopher Booker in the Telegraph?
They actually explain the important background rather than just saying 'Brussels is behind it'.
So far BH has linked to the Mail and Fraser Nelson, both of which published derivative pieces that have missed out important elements of the story. Surely BH readers should be given the opportunity to see the original and accurate details rather than cherry picked write ups?
- Jeez, You guys and your porn, your climate scare porn. You read the Guardian & watch progs from Green producers like Question time where they don't even understand the basic principles of science. Like that a "scientists opinion" is NOT science. ... anyways what counts is how it effects the public & I suspect the public can see these idiots are painting themsevles into a corner "never ending floods", when 5 mins ago they talked about "never ending droughts" .. and magic solutions which the public can see in their rising energy bills.
Sorting the EA - In a rational world it should be job of insurance corps especially the mutuals to kick the EA, as they are the ones paying out for EA incompetence. When EA make a decision to stop maintaining a drain, that can end up taking millions out of the insurance corps. So you'd think they be right on EA's ar-se watching their every decision.
- but maybe just like banks sales commissions skew the market. The more flood DAMAGE happens the more insurance claims money is paid out but the more commission sales teams stand to make... Heads of Insurance corp heads should set sales commissions so that they are effected by that years level of claims payouts, otherwise what comes in sales just goes out in extra payouts.
Renwables industry headed for collapse:
What is happening in ChIna
Don Keiller calls Stern a liar and says he can prove it.
I certainly trust Don, and do believe Stern is probably a liar .. but then Don is posting as an unregistered user so that commenter actually could be anyone
bill - you make the point admirably which I have made in the past.
Has it never occurred to anyone in political authority that the reason why no-one is following the UK's 'lead' with the Climate Change Act and the targets enshrined therein, is because it and they are jaw-droppingly STOOPID..?
Hey, everyone - remember (not long ago) when 4x4's were the work of the devil..?
Now, which are the only vehicles capable of keeping going through the floods..?
What goes around comes around, as my old granny used to say...
Whenever you hear a politician espousing a policy "to set an example to the rest of the world", it means that they are scraping the bottom of the barrel for justification. Lacking concrete arguments, they appeal to absurd, vainglorious notions which boil down to the fact that no other country is stupid enough to do what they are proposing.
If Stern really thinks that the world is looking to the UK for energy policy, he is living in a fantasy land. Arguably, the only relevant example at play in this case is what not to do.
The recently defeated Labor government here in Australia used that line frequently. Strangely enough, the punters don't give a rat's about "setting an example to the rest of the world" about anything. What they want is policies that work at home in the here and now.
"...The IPCC has concluded from all of the available scientific evidence that it is 95% likely that most of the rise in global average temperature since the middle of the 20th century is due to emissions of greenhouse gases, deforestation and other human activities..."
Ceteris paribus that must mean that climate sensitivity is lower than their previous 'estimates' as a portion of what was previously blamed on carbon dioxide is now being attributed to deforestation and other human activities.
"...the UK should be increasing aid to poor countries to help them develop economically in a climate that is becoming more hostile largely because of past emissions by rich countries..."
Does anyone have to hand the figures for total historic emissions of the UK compared to say China and/or India? My gut says that maybe China should be paying us if we follow Lord Stern's logic.
Agree with A.M. at 12.40
Richard North is a must read on all things relating to the EU. BH has the link of course on his side-bar.
AM
See here http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/2/10/follow-the-money.html
The EU story has also been in my "Seen elsewhere" list for a couple of days.
In the linked Guardian article Stern claims:
Does anybody know the basis for that claim?
Thank you, folks. With all your comments, I felt I ought to read the article. While someone ought to do such things, could we not just allocate a few, and trust their views? I feel Sternly soiled, and feel the need to take my daily dose of G&T a bit earlier and more enthusiastically, now.
One good thing was to see Jason Statham turning out to help.