Bishop Hill Library manoeuvres
Dec 14, 2015 Climate: Parliament Climate: WG2 
The opposition have called a debate on the Cumbria floods tomorrow, and so the House of Commons Library has issued a briefing paper to MPs. There's lot to amuse. For example, I read with interest that:
...there is a general understanding that climate change is likely to be linked to increased winter rain in the UK.
I think it's fair to say that this is complete drivel. As Richard Betts has quite rightly noted, predictions of UK climate are incredibly difficult because of our geographical position. Most commentators also agree that GCMs are useless when it comes to rainfall. So predictions about UK rainfall are almost impossible to take seriously. The "increased winter rain" story is of course derived from the UKCP09 climate projections, which are so wrong they put even Lord Deben in the shade. The idea that there is a "general understanding" of anything based on this farce of a computer simulation is preposterous.
There follows a mealy mouthed section insinuating that the storm that hit Cumbria was something to do with human activity, including a lengthy excerpt from a blog post from activist outfit Climate Central. Interestingly, the "Further Reading" section also includes, among other things, a suggestion that MPs might like to take a look at a paper entitled "Floods, Climate Change and Flood Defence Investment", published by Friends of the Earth.
Which is odd, because the first-named author of the briefing - one Sara Priestley - turns out to have worked at Friends of the Earth before moving to the House of Commons.
What makes me think that MPs' briefings have something of a bias?
Bishop Hill
Rob Lyons of Spiked! links to this paper from 2013, in which researchers from Oxford claim that global warming is going to bring droughts. Especially in winter.
Reader Comments (101)
It's becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between these people and a bunch of superstitious Medieval peasants.
What will they do next? Will they start to burn witches?
What will they do next? Will they start to burn witches?
No, they will try to use the law to gag all those that don't believe the alarmist creed.
From the non-peer reviewed paper:
1) Could someone explain what they think this means?
2) Can someone tell me how much of the climate change that caused this change is natural?
3) As there has been no trend in UK rainfall over the latter half of the 20th century, what change are they talking about anyway (weather is not climate)?
Not a twee Lake district type hillwalker but it may be time to deer fence the land at about 3-400m ,~ and watch the birch scrub return.
A common problem with agriculture in the western regions of these isles is a lack of intensification of land near sea level and overgrazing on high.
Its because from a labour intensity perspective its easier in many respects rather then keeping on top of marginal sea level land that is potentially more productive but harder to drain and clear of scrub.
Perhaps a look at a few historic events would give some perspective:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_tides_of_the_North_Sea
I am sorry your worship, but I struggle to find anything amusing about this. One may find amusement at some of the individuals naivety, but the continued reminder that facts count for nothing and that the green blob are allowed to completely run the show leaves me in a constant battle to stay calm and rational.
Several years ago we were constantly informed that 'weather isn't climate', and that 'climate is at least 30 years'.
Here we are the same several years later and the satellite data shows no atmospheric warming worth a fig....so what's changed since the days when 'weather isn't climate' and we needed a '30 year record' before anything DID become 'climate'?
The H of C library seems to have form on this. Alan Johnson, on This Week, said the H of C library had provided the long-debunked '97% of all climate scientists' figure to MPs, and he seemed to expect everyone therefore to accept that as gospel.
We really need to give our MPs some briefing tips.
Does Parliamentary immunity from slander, extend to immunity from prosecution for knowlingly submitting false evidence, for consideration by MP's?
Or even employing someone, within the Houses of Parliament at taxpayers expense, knowing full well that they will submit/collate false information, to subvert H M Government?
Maybe they should go look at the Met Office's own data:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/actualmonthly
I don't see any upward trend for UK winter rainfall.
And when the troll pops up, he'll be scornfully talking about conspiracy theories.
If this ISN'T a conspiracy, can someone point me towards any genuine, 24 carat, conspiracy, in any field of human endeavour?
Do not know the area but it looks like previous land use has a effect on runoff.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2622652
"an event like this is now roughly 40% more likely"
But, but.. Didn't Dame Julia say they were seven times more likely? Talk about error bars!
It's becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between these people and a bunch of superstitious Medieval peasants.
Diogenes - your observation is quite correct, but not new - this cartoon is from a few years ago, I don't know who the creator is (and I don't mean Bono).
Modern Parents
Bish
Your manoeuvres have acquired an extra 'e' :-)
[Thanks. Now dealt with. BH]
Again - catchment of one of the affected areas
Glenridding village.
Not really rocket science
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/951064
There's not a great deal I can do from here but I would seriously suggest that every UK resident email their MP and coolly, calmly, and above all succinctly and without any of the extraneous hype and blather that we are prone to now and again point out precisely where this briefing paper is wrong.
If you can find quotes from Richard Betts then include them, explaining exactly who he is.
Point out that Ms Priestley is, or at least was, with FoE which hardly makes her an objective contributor to the paper.
Point out that Climate Central is also an activist organisation and your member might wish to consider other sources with less of an axe to grind.
Do not get bogged down in detail but make it absolutely plain (with references preferably) that civil servants responsible for briefing MPs are in fact pushing an agenda and that "the science" does not support their advice.
The more MPs who have an objective, well argued paper in front of them, the more likely it is that they will pay some attention and some of them might just start to listen to those few Members of a sceptical bent.
Even if this only makes half-a-dozen converts it will have been well worth doing.
Sceptics need to "commission" a readable (lots of pictures) report on historical flooding and storm events in the UK, and deposit it in the House of Commons library, maybe via Peter Lilley or Owen Paterson.
Much of highland British isles probably had birch cover similar to pre Norse Iceland.
Birch improves the soil as it fixes nitrogen ,and gives it stability.
Recolonization probably needs a bit of help via the planting of seed trees nearby but not much once large herbivores are kept out.
http://www.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/tephralayers/
This type of land has little agri value but is grazed nevertheless , I cannot why ?
But these largely arts, humanities, law and PPE graduates are incapable of recognising actual science, even when it leaps up and bites them.
They will accept the drivel that is UKCP09 climate projections, as gospel.
Heaven help us.
Storm Desmond-style storms and floods are not so rare in Welsh weather history, warns scientist
Plus of course the funding pitch boilerplate:-
"Climate Central's "TV Mets" program to "leverage the power of trusted messengers' by supplying ready made programming to American TV weather personalities, seems to have gone international.
"Climate Central executes a unique form of public outreach, informed by our own original research, targeted to local markets, and designed to make Americans feel the power of what’s really happening to the climate and the range of possible solutions. Our goal is not just to inform, but to inspire people to support the actions needed to dramatically lower carbon emissions and reverse the course of climate change."
http://www.climatecentral.org/search?q=tv+mets&x=38&y=3
What is essential, I would have thought, is a close look at the flood defences which were supposed to have been put in place to reduce the risks of something like this happening again. In particular the arrangements for providing run off and diversion of flood water. Somebody quoted an EU directive which apparently calls for less dredging of rivers and channels. I don't know whether that is true. A precise and fact based information pack on that is what our representatives need.
FWIW: Even though my MP can't raise this (see earlier comment) I have written this to him:
Andrew, you say that there is "a lot to amuse". No there is not. It is utterly depressing that our MPs are so mis-informed by the drivel.
Watch Piers Corbyn v Brillo and Alan Johnston(?) with Michael Portillo acting as a voice of reason on the BBC.
Piers tells the assembled guests that he has a 1st in Physics and an MSc in Astrophysics and the 97% is bollocks.
Johnston says "someone in the House of Commons Library told me it is correct".
I used to think Johnston was the best chance Labour had but it turns out he is another know nothing cnut.
It is possible that flood defenses have been built "too-low" due to the Met Office picking a relatively dry period to define "normal", in order to attach the magic "unprecedented" word to modern floods.
Alternatively, flood defenses may just be based on the "what-can-we-afford" principle, so it is all the fault of "austerity".
It seems a case of the seemingly ever creeping entryism that has now suffused the UK population of public servants with eco activists and eco appeasers.... - who utterly regardless of the evidence continue to chant the mantras or just keep their heads down.
Couple this to abysmally low levels (non-existent?) of engineering understanding or even willingness to get an actual engineer to explain what happened - because *they all know it was climate change*...- and the only thing to do is have more windmills and solar panels
we are truly up a creek with baboons in charge scampering about looking for ripe fruit and sniffing likely meals.
@Mikky
as far as flood defence designs are concerned The Environment Agency's record speaks for itself - and that is definitely not intended as any compliment.
Harry Passfield
Thanks for that. Plagiarised and sent to the Home Secretary.
There is evidence that the reporters in Paris were not exactly unbiased: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUifD6JIdME
h/t the Galileo Movement.
Anyone mentioned God yet ? He has previous.
Bish, calling Climate Central an "activist outfit" severely mis-categorizes this "charity" receiving direct funding by 10 US government agencies as well as heavyweight oligarch foundation money. It is in fact a hugely influential backdoor propaganda arm of the central organism which inhabits and connects government with its outside facilitators.
http://www.climatecentral.org/search?q=tv+mets&x=38&y=3www.climatecentral.org/what-we-do/funding
Their World Weather Attribution program delivers the kind of high production value content which is irresistible to cash strapped media not inclined to inspect the gift horses mouth. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/extreme-uk-rains-more-likely-with-warming-19801
The Rockefellers, Bloombergs, Packards et al did not reach their positions of wealth and influence without acquiring the strategic planning smarts which they are now deploying in what they are convinced is a race to save the world. They expect and plan to win.
http://www.climateworks.org/about-us/our-history/
In response to The Dork of Cork.....
Somehow I feel you are on the wrong site?
Indeed the reforestation of vast tracts of seemingly barren and wasted land would have multiple benefits through habitat restoration, landscape and amenity enhancement, shelter, timber and woodfuel production and carbon dioxide sequestration should you be so concerned. However, until there is enough political will and cash incentive it ain't going to happen. Land owners want on going returns and establishing woodland is massively expensive with the fencing alone nevermind trees, stakes and protective shelters if you want to do the job properly.
There is just too much distraction with renewable toys. Imagine if thirty years ago vast acreages had been planted up with native species - they could now be being sensitively harvested to help supply Drax instead of the current ravaging of American forests. Scotland and Ireland would be benefitting economically and tourism could be enhanced. Instead vast towering icons of greed adorn the landscape with little or no lasting benefit.
I have heard that the best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago.
well the 'good news' is that thanks to the 'Tails I win , heads you lose ' approach which climate 'science' takes if their are any draughts that will also be proof of climate doom.
Indeed once again we can consider that to date they have never made it clear what would 'disprove' their theory, now I wonder way that is ?
This EXCELLENT letter in yesterday's Telegraph
Sir - It is not surprising that the rivers in Cumbria have flooded again (report, December 6), so soon after the last serious inundation in 2009.
The Environment Agency cites all kinds of reasons for this. However, it neglects to mention that its policy is dictated by the EU Water Framework Directive, adopted in 2000, which places constraints on the dredging of rivers.
Putting in flood defences does not infringe the policy, as long as the river is not dredged or embanked. Hence, for example, the erection of expensive and ineffective glass panels on the wall next to the Greta river in Keswick. Here there has been absolutely no dredging of the gravel that has raised the river bed considerably over the last decade.
There is nothing unusual about heavy rainfall in Cumbria; what is unprecedented is the refusal of the authorities to dredge the watercourses to carry it away.
Philip Walling
Belsay, Northumberland
Lapogus, Wikipedia has lots of background on The Modern Parents and their author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Modern_Parents
The briefing paper is as depressingly biased as the US 2014 National Climate Assessment. Perhaps someone should point out to yhe MPs that a University of Cambridge geologist has studied Cumbria flooding since 1700. There have been 34 events of equal or greater magnitude (detectible by sedimentary detritus). That is about one per decade on average, with two and a half century's worth having nothing to do with speculative climate change.
"Anyone mentioned God yet ? He has previous." --esmiff
I suspect He's lurking about, preparing to smite. ¿Have you noticed this odd thing about God: He has no sense of urgency.
These errors seem surprising considering the experience of two of the authors, gleaned from their entries on the Linked-In website (where I can find nothing about the last-named, Nikki Sutherland):
Sara Priestley, seven months as a Senior Library Clerk (Environment Policy Specialist), HoC Library - "Specialist in environmental policy and legislation in the UK ... predominantly providing impartial information and briefings to MPs and their staff." Her previous experience includes 21 months as an Environment Specialist with the Food & Rural Affairs Select Committee, and two months working for Friends of the Earth.
Elena Ares, for over nine years an Energy and Environment Specialist, HoC Library; previously Climate Change Specialist, Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, and Environment Specialist, Environmental Audit Committee. Ph.D, Imperial College, London (isn't it a bastion of impartial scientific research into climate change ?).
@Ed
Not a real fan of reforestation.
Just simply rewilding above 300 or 400 meters.
I come from both a hillwalking angle and recently getting some work clearing and draining lowland Kerry fields abandoned 30 ~ years ago.
In Kerry we had a major storm in 2013 that felled vast tracts of conifers.
They have no purpose as there is no local firewood demand given the lack of a winter population today.
In the past stuff like that would not be wasted as peasant societies do not do waste.
Also new health and safety laws and land access is a issue
The point is - in south Kerry with the exception of the best lowland land in Kilgarven and Valentia island the low lands is rewilding under useless rhodo and salt scrub.
The forests go unused
Biomass burning (and only directly) should be kept local but there is no local purchasimg power to hire local lads.
In Ireland guys work for pints.
If they cannot get enough tokens to buy pints in a pub they go into permanent hibernation.
Its a sort of a auto immune response.
I suppose that writing to MPs is worth trying but the chances of many of them a) reading what you have written and b) acting upon it are pretty slim. I wrote to mine (Tory, safe-seat, always votes at his Party's call) about 3 years ago - when the LDs were "in charge" - and he replied by sending a summary of DECC policy, just as if it were carved in stone and that I couldn't have read that in any case, without going through him. I might as well have a 14-year old boy - or girl - scout as my MP.
Rhododendron and sally (willow) colonization is not pretty.
It not lake district like for sure.
The area around Seem now holds vast acres of Rhodos , many 1000s of acres.
If you have a field maintained by a peasant then it is easy to keep on top of it
Let it go for 20 or 30years however..........
My point is land management in these western marginal areas is completely upside down.
There is a very remote high altitude mountain area north of Seem village with sheep fencing and grazing while the lowlands are rewilding.
Thank you Harry Passfield, Greensand and Philip Foster. I have plagiarised your comments and sent the following e-mail to my MP.
"Dear Scott,
The opposition have called a debate on the Cumbria floods tomorrow, 15th Dec. It is my understanding that the HoC Library has issued a briefing paper (file:///C:/Users/Philip/Downloads/CDP-2015-0128.pdf) where the lead author is named as one, Sara Priestly. She says in the paper that:
“...there is a general understanding that climate change is likely to be linked to increased winter rain in the UK.”
The briefing paper also suggests that further reading can be found from a paper published by Friends of the Earth which, as I understand it, is not even Peer-reviewed.
This quotation is not only at odds with the SPM issued by the UNIPCC, but is also at odds with the information issued by Dr Richard Betts at the UK Met Office.
Furthermore, I have discovered that Sara Priestly once worked for Friends of the Earth so is hardly an unbiased author. I am immensely concerned that our MPs are being given biased advice on what some world leaders say is the greatest threat to mankind. If that is the case, it would help enormously if the information provided to our legislators was from un-biased sources.
For example:
" The devastating flooding which has hit much of north west England in the wake of Storm Desmond might be more common for Britain than currently believed, a Welsh scientist is warning.
Professor Mark Macklin, an expert in river flooding and climate change impacts at Aberystwyth University , says analysis shows 21st century floods are not unprecedented in terms of either their frequency or magnitude.
Working with other experts from the universities of Cambridge and Glasgow he has drawn on historic records to build a clearer picture of the flooding.
They conclude that 21st century flood events such as Storm Desmond are not exceptional or unprecedented in terms of their frequency or magnitude and that flood frequency and flood risk forecasts would be improved by including data from flood deposits dating back hundreds of years, not just a few decades.........
....... Professor John Lewin, also from the University of Aberystwyth, said: “What is needed is far more resilience for already-developed floodplains , and much more serious insistence that future floodplain development should be virtually curtailed.
“Somewhere along the line floodplain development has been allowed by local authorities and the UK government to continue regardless.” "
Cumbria Rivers have flooded yet again and the Environment Agency cites all kinds of reasons for this. However, it neglects to mention that its policy is dictated by the EU Water Framework Directive, adopted in 2000, which places constraints on the dredging of rivers.
Putting in flood defences does not infringe the policy, as long as the river is not dredged or embanked. Hence, for example, the erection of expensive and ineffective glass panels on the wall next to the Greta river in Keswick. Here there has been absolutely no dredging of the gravel that has raised the river bed considerably over the last decade.
I can only hope that, late as it is, you will be able to pass on some of this information to your colleagues in the debate."
I hope you guys don't mind.
http://www.geograph.ie/photo/3564171
The above is the remote part of south Kerry , away from the hillwalking candy of the main reek ridge to the north.
Sheep grazing going on up here. (600m~)
Much of the small spate rivers flowing south do not flood villages as they are deep and flow directly into the sea without fanning out but Kenmare did flood last week.
Adjacent to the river a major housing estate was built.........
I have a similar problem in Ballinspittle ( a nice little west cork village and home of the moving statues)
It never flooded before 2012 , a summer rainstorm ran off a new housing estate and ran directly into a1960s bungalow.
I worked on the insurance job.
They will keep repeating that drivel ad nauseam. It is the perfect excuse to exonerate politicians from their responsibility and large insurers from their liability.
Regarding the "Dork". I have to concur with Charlie Flindt on an earlier post, after 50(-ish) posts over four days, I simply do not have any idea WTF this individual is on about ... or on.
Dec 14, 2015 at 8:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterRud Istvan
Are you referring to Ian Whyte? See:
http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1179/lan.2009.10.1.61
Or do I seek another?
I agree with Mike T and Mike Post. This is not amusing. MPs are being misled by FOE propaganda that fails to cite the IPCC report - which as we know, but most MPs won't, says there is no trend in flooding.
Paul Matthews: I also agree; but unless someone be it a Minister, MP, or member of the public, can persuade the Cabinet Secretary, that one or more of the authors of this document has breached the Civil Service Code nothing will happen to them and certainly will have no effect on tomorrow's debate.