To all you Man-Made Global Warming supporters, some news:
8 inches of snow in Tokyo the HEAVIEST in DECADES: LOL
8 inches of snow fell in central Tokyo; heaviest snowfall in decades.
Lovely and sunny the next day though, so global warming was only conclusively disproved for 24 hours, after which it it was conclusively proved again.
Alternatively, your method of deciding whether there is global warming or not is not very clever. No, one thing that's crystal clear is that like lovely-and-sunniness proves nothing either way. Why would it?
By 'creepy-crawlies', I meant the insect/worm life, not the big girl's blouses that cry their eyes out when the weather discomforts them.
Where's the bodies, says I.
Bring in the Dutch, they sorted the fens out efficiently, and they didn't worry about the habitat of the lesser spotted Lincolnshire worm.
Well, the good news is that we've now got Murrayfield's pitch to rehouse any lesser spotted Lincolnshire worms that might be disturbed by the putative dredging of the Thames. They'll have plenty of company.
I'm fairly sure that the logic for not dredging out the Thames would first and foremost be the desire to avoid catastrophic flooding through the middle of London though. On the other hand, on a similar principle, I suppose the Thames Barrier *might* have been built solely to protect the small but scientifically significant population of southern striped sand eels. Unlikely though.
It's bizarre that the MP for Bridgwater is so keen for that town to be flooded, then.
Different type of river system based on draining low-lying reclaimed land - it's not the same principle as the downstream flooding risk of a higher drainage basin.
Looking to the future, it's clear that water management has failed in the Levels, not just from this year's flooding, but the previous years' as well. In addition, there will be a political impetus to try to fix the problems beyond the obvious dredging. And it's a blooming difficult one to solve. Higher banks on rivers are also a (small) part of the answer, and a very expensive one.
Could the solution be higher sea banks around the mouth of the Parrett along with a sea sluice, and/or a cut-off channel to the sea, and/or more storage rivers?
What I'm saying is that the action (slashing carbon emissions here) makes no bloody sense whether it's true or not. I am not against all things proposed primarily to stave off the phantom warming. Greater energy efficiency, for example, is a great thing either way. Some renewables (the photovoltaic windows mentioned here, which are transparent but effectively solar panels) sound like a very good idea as well. Micro-generation of hydro-electric could work well (I wonder if hydro-electric powered pumps might be an idea in certain flood-prone areas).
In point of fact, I do have a science degree. Admittedly, this is in psychology, but it did include elements of statistical analysis as well as the flaws of the peer review system, and the importance of critical thinking.
If global warming were real then the most basic prerequisite for taking it seriously would be the globe warming (at that point we could discuss reasons why). The globe is not warming, therefore the theory has no basis whatsoever.
If I put an egg in cold water for 15 minutes and then claimed it's boiled, would you take me seriously as a chef?
Mr. K, the warmery bloody annoys me. I wouldn't mind if they were making legitimate points, but it's just bullshit. Sky's science correspondent was talking about a pattern emerging (prolonged rain), which is fair enough, but you can't say "This is unusual = global warming caused largely or entirely by industrial activity of mankind". You might as well suggest Poseidon is angry.
The Earth has always warmed and cooled. It's 4bn years old, so taking records from decades or even centuries ago isn't that great, and even if we do we see warm periods during the reigns of Caligul/Claudius and Henry VIII.
And, even if it's 100% accurate, stopping it requires reducing carbon emissions from Africa, South America, China and India. How realistic is that? It's impossible.
Meanwhile, we're going to close Eggborough power station which could push prices up by 10%, because coal is the excrement of Satan and only wind farms will appease Warmor, the one true god.
And where is this bloody warming? Global temperatures have plateaued for a decade and a half. This is neither predicted nor explained by the scientists (if they're worthy of the name).
Mr. Eagles, or even longer odds than that, now and then.
It was taken for granted until recently that the drought in the south-east would continue indefinitely, having already lasted for about 15 years from roughly 1994 to 2009.
Miliband: "Move away from both central control and market-based individualism - towards a new culture of people-powered public services"
I presume that, translated into English, that means he's belatedly converted to the merits of free schools.
Sounds like local collectivism - so free schools run by community groups but not for-profit education companies. That or turning "benefit scroungers" into some kind of briquettes to burn to run district heating systems (option (b) more likely if the Blairites are indeed in the ascendent).
Panorama researchers were also sold fake bank details to show they had enough funds to stay in the UK.
Immigration rules mean that non-EU students are not allowed to take paid work and need a bank statement to show they can cover their fees and living costs.
One of the agents at Studentway, Vinod Kumar, told a Panorama researcher the agency had a solution.
He said it would use its contacts in India to find "someone else with the same name, whose account and money will be used for you. So when there is need for verification it's verified for you till you get your visa".
I assume Vinod Kumar will be prosecuted for this? It's amazing that this was going on across a number of agencies. Clearly the UKBA just has no grip at all. It seems to me we should just put immigration from countries with high rates of fraud on hold until this is sorted out. Certainly anyone that has gone through any of these agencies should have to retake their tests or get kicked out.
Sounds like local collectivism - so free schools run by community groups but not for-profit education companies. That or turning "benefit scroungers" into some kind of briquettes to burn to run district heating systems (option (b) more likely if the Blairites are indeed in the ascendent).
Sounds like meaningless bollocks to me, which is par for the Miliband course.
The globe is not warming, therefore the theory has no basis whatsoever.
This is just straightforward creationist style denial I'm afraid.
Yes it is.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.
www.ipcc.ch
Warming plateaued 15 years ago. The only reason this stupid argument is still going is the BBC won't admit it.
Under which statistical trend analysis does warming "plateau" 15 years ago? You realise you can't just do it from the maximum, right? They teach this in GCSE statistics courses...
Warming plateaued 15 years ago. The only reason this stupid argument is still going is the BBC won't admit it.
Who knew they were so influential all over the world?
I was only talking about Britain but technically the answer to your question would be everyone knows the BBC is massively influential all over the world.
If there doesn't need to be a by-election then there won't be.
The CBI's John Cridland is being floated as a possible non-politician at 5/1.
That said Paterson was being pushed by the right, speaks several European languages and may just have done all he can with badgers and floods for the moment.
"The Environment Agency is bound by the rules laid down by government so when someone says they are bound by the advice laid down by the Environment Agency what they are actually doing was following the Treasury rules that are laid down setting out how much we can spend and now much we cannot spend on any individual flood defence scheme." He said the rules applied to urban and rural areas. He explained: "It has to come to £8 of benefit to every £1 of cost, and that calculation determines what we can contribute to any flood defence scheme." He added: "In Somerset the maximum we were allowed under those rules to do was £400,000. A year ago we put the maximum we can do on the table and said here it is and now we need other people to come to the table as well. That did not happen. We were not allowed to do the full dredging…"
This is not political dynamite, but if it is true it does demonstrate the absurdity of just cutting by applying catch-all rules. It's the worst kind of short-term cost control put in place to make the cutter look good without any thought about the consequences. We see so much of it in British business too.
Personally, I am a 'weak sceptic'. I accept that the earth has warmed, and I find the NOAA ocean heat content data extremely persuasive. However, I am yet to be convinced that (a) there are easy human answers to the problem, and (b) mitigation is not cheaper than extreme carbon cuts.
What we do about a problem should be a separate question as to whether there is a problem.
I'm confused therefore why you describe yourself as a "weak sceptic". One can entirely accept the Science and still think that adapting to warming is preferable to abandoning fossil fuels. It's not my view, but it is at least a rational one, and it's best not to confuse it with views that completely deny facts.
Myles Allen is an example of a climate scientist who ploughs a lonely furrow in arguing for what might be thought of as "right-wing" solutions to global warming, in opposition to the "left-wing" consensus presented by the likes of Friends of the Earth, et al. Most climate scientists absent themselves from the argument of what to do, preferring to keep out of policy debates.
In my view, one of the problems of the global warming debate is that too many advocates of taking action have crafted an argument along the lines of "this is a problem, therefore we must do x, y and z to solve the problem, there is no alternative," when what we really need is a more open debate about what to do.
Since very few people are in favour of such a debate, people who are opposed to the specific actions x, y and z find themselves arguing against reality instead of arguing for alternative policies. It's a very political failing.
If I were a climate scientist I'd be very worried following Pickle's remarks about the advice of experts, as the politicians appear to be willing to throw scientists to the wolves in an attempt to avoid any of the blame, and at some point there will be a lot of blame to go around when it comes to global warming.
"The Environment Agency is bound by the rules laid down by government so when someone says they are bound by the advice laid down by the Environment Agency what they are actually doing was following the Treasury rules that are laid down setting out how much we can spend and now much we cannot spend on any individual flood defence scheme." He said the rules applied to urban and rural areas. He explained: "It has to come to £8 of benefit to every £1 of cost, and that calculation determines what we can contribute to any flood defence scheme." He added: "In Somerset the maximum we were allowed under those rules to do was £400,000. A year ago we put the maximum we can do on the table and said here it is and now we need other people to come to the table as well. That did not happen. We were not allowed to do the full dredging…"
This is not political dynamite, but if it is true it does demonstrate the absurdity of just cutting by applying catch-all rules. It's the worst kind of short-term cost control put in place to make the cutter look good without any thought about the consequences. We see so much of it in British business too.
Whether the planet is boiling , freezing , moistening or drying out - the EA is not doing a good job and seems to place its employees at the top of it's concerns.
If there doesn't need to be a by-election then there won't be.
The CBI's John Cridland is being floated as a possible non-politician at 5/1.
That said Paterson was being pushed by the right, speaks several European languages and may just have done all he can with badgers and floods for the moment.
Would Cameron be silly enough to put a pro-immigration guy in? Farage would have a field day with it.
Personally, I am a 'weak sceptic'. I accept that the earth has warmed, and I find the NOAA ocean heat content data extremely persuasive. However, I am yet to be convinced that (a) there are easy human answers to the problem, and (b) mitigation is not cheaper than extreme carbon cuts.
Same here. There is nothing wrong with increasing energy efficiency - and oil has so many valuable uses burning it seems a bit of a waste - so reducing that will do no harm - in a balanced manner.
I do think some of the proponents of AGW do themselves no favours when they label their critics as "deniers" - the scientist on R4 yesterday, despite extreme leading from the interviewer, called them "sceptics" - which is a much better description, unless what you are proposing is a faith, not a scientific theory. She also absolutely declined to agree that the flooding was caused by the government relaxing carbon reduction targets......a disgraceful interview....
Personally I think the floods are mildly UKIP positive.
This affair is an example of voters being put last by politicians and quangocrats of all persuasions.
Thousands facing the devastation of being flooded out of their homes.......versus us being able to preen and strut at the international climate and poverty gatherings of our choice?
"The Environment Agency is bound by the rules laid down by government so when someone says they are bound by the advice laid down by the Environment Agency what they are actually doing was following the Treasury rules that are laid down setting out how much we can spend and now much we cannot spend on any individual flood defence scheme." He said the rules applied to urban and rural areas. He explained: "It has to come to £8 of benefit to every £1 of cost, and that calculation determines what we can contribute to any flood defence scheme." He added: "In Somerset the maximum we were allowed under those rules to do was £400,000. A year ago we put the maximum we can do on the table and said here it is and now we need other people to come to the table as well. That did not happen. We were not allowed to do the full dredging…"
This is not political dynamite, but if it is true it does demonstrate the absurdity of just cutting by applying catch-all rules. It's the worst kind of short-term cost control put in place to make the cutter look good without any thought about the consequences. We see so much of it in British business too.
The EA's policy was to encourage flooding.
Yes, you keep saying that and blaming the BBC for no-one except you realising this.
If there doesn't need to be a by-election then there won't be.
The CBI's John Cridland is being floated as a possible non-politician at 5/1.
That said Paterson was being pushed by the right, speaks several European languages and may just have done all he can with badgers and floods for the moment.
Would Cameron be silly enough to put a pro-immigration guy in? Farage would have a field day with it.
Farage thinks anyone who isn't fiercely BOO is pro-immigration and there isn't much chance of Hannan getting the job.
No, but this is (or ammunition for his critics at any rate)
He was also presented with a 2008 EA plan for Somerset Levels that suggest the agency would take action to increase the frequency of flooding to produce benefits elsewhere.
Smith said he had never seen the document that had been prepared before he became chairman of the agency and formed no part of his policy or thinking. "It is not Environment Agency policy and has not been in the five and a half years that I have been chairman."
The 2012 EA plan does include such flooding plans - sugar coated, but still there.
If I were a climate scientist I'd be very worried following Pickle's remarks about the advice of experts, as the politicians appear to be willing to throw scientists to the wolves in an attempt to avoid any of the blame, and at some point there will be a lot of blame to go around when it comes to global warming.
It'll be interesting to see how it plays. [I hope] you can only go so far with the reality-free politics that Pickles seems to favour. Saying "we did what the so-called experts told us" only works if a) it's what the experts actually told you or b) you can deny the experts a platform to make clear what their actual views are. In this case, asserting that failure to dredge the Levels was based on expert advice when it seems demonstrable that the opposite is clear, and that expert advice could not be implemented due to funding issues.
Personally, I am a 'weak sceptic'. I accept that the earth has warmed, and I find the NOAA ocean heat content data extremely persuasive. However, I am yet to be convinced that (a) there are easy human answers to the problem, and (b) mitigation is not cheaper than extreme carbon cuts.
Same here. There is nothing wrong with increasing energy efficiency - and oil has so many valuable uses burning it seems a bit of a waste - so reducing that will do no harm - in a balanced manner.
I do think some of the proponents of AGW do themselves no favours when they label their critics as "deniers" - the scientist on R4 yesterday, despite extreme leading from the interviewer, called them "sceptics" - which is a much better description, unless what you are proposing is a faith, not a scientific theory. She also absolutely declined to agree that the flooding was caused by the government relaxing carbon reduction targets......a disgraceful interview....
Spot on, the warmists have only damaged themselves by politicising the issue and saying there's no alternative. There are surely enough things they could be pushing which would benefit all not least in the area of energy efficiency. The best way to conserve energy is not to use it in the first place. However that's not the approach we have tax hikes and regulation instead of practical measures to reduce consumption.
"The Environment Agency is bound by the rules laid down by government so when someone says they are bound by the advice laid down by the Environment Agency what they are actually doing was following the Treasury rules that are laid down setting out how much we can spend and now much we cannot spend on any individual flood defence scheme." He said the rules applied to urban and rural areas. He explained: "It has to come to £8 of benefit to every £1 of cost, and that calculation determines what we can contribute to any flood defence scheme." He added: "In Somerset the maximum we were allowed under those rules to do was £400,000. A year ago we put the maximum we can do on the table and said here it is and now we need other people to come to the table as well. That did not happen. We were not allowed to do the full dredging…"
This is not political dynamite, but if it is true it does demonstrate the absurdity of just cutting by applying catch-all rules. It's the worst kind of short-term cost control put in place to make the cutter look good without any thought about the consequences. We see so much of it in British business too.
The EA's policy was to encourage flooding.
Yes, you keep saying that and blaming the BBC for no-one except you realising this.
"In 2008, when the EA was run by Baroness Young, this was reflected in a policy document which classified areas at risk of flooding under six categories, ranging from those in “Policy Option 1”, where flood defences were a priority, down to “Policy 6’’ where, to promote “biodiversity”, the strategy should be to “increase flooding”. The Somerset Levels were covered by Policy 6."
So far the climate change experts have been wrong on the outcomes - drought, no snow, more hurricanes.
The EA has proved to be crap - needs reamed from top to bottom - even better it's tasks should be put out to private tender and it shrunk to a tiny overseeing role.
I can't see Scotland (with or without independence) being axed from the Six Nations. They really do need to improve, though. It's hard to imagine Scotland being one of the dominant teams in the tournament (or its predecessors).
Was Rugby lover Salmond at Murrayfield on Saturday? Or does he just attend sporting events in London and the US ?
Maybe he was sorting out the problems with his bannockburn hootananny.
Thank you. I think Salmond avoided Murrayfield because he had reason to fear a " Ceaușescu moment ".
Ah, playing dictator bingo again. And what would you have said if Mr Salmond had been there - that he was trying to politicise sport?
And there is rather more to the Scotsman story than that. We all know unionists love to obsess about Bannockburn, but apart from it being the septencentenary, the Stirlingshire event is/was far more than Bannockburn 1314, being the occasion of a major worldwide clan reunion, part of Homecoming 2014, with all that that implied for overseas tourism. The underlying story is, in fact, that Stirling Council somehow managed to double book the Bannockburn events and Armed Forces Day. With disastrous effects. One does wonder how a Labour-Tory coalition could be so incompetent.
Here is a clan organiser's point of view and two other reports -
No, but this is (or ammunition for his critics at any rate)
He was also presented with a 2008 EA plan for Somerset Levels that suggest the agency would take action to increase the frequency of flooding to produce benefits elsewhere.
Smith said he had never seen the document that had been prepared before he became chairman of the agency and formed no part of his policy or thinking. "It is not Environment Agency policy and has not been in the five and a half years that I have been chairman."
The 2012 EA plan does include such flooding plans - sugar coated, but still there.
I'd need to read it before commenting, but controlled flooding can produce environmental benefits without causing harms. The key word, of course is "controlled". Given the budgetary restrictions under which the EA seems to have been working, do we know whether the policy was actually implemented and, if it was, how it was done and how it sits with the restrictions on dredging that the EA ran up against because of the spending rules the Treasury imposed?
"The Environment Agency is bound by the rules laid down by government so when someone says they are bound by the advice laid down by the Environment Agency what they are actually doing was following the Treasury rules that are laid down setting out how much we can spend and now much we cannot spend on any individual flood defence scheme." He said the rules applied to urban and rural areas. He explained: "It has to come to £8 of benefit to every £1 of cost, and that calculation determines what we can contribute to any flood defence scheme." He added: "In Somerset the maximum we were allowed under those rules to do was £400,000. A year ago we put the maximum we can do on the table and said here it is and now we need other people to come to the table as well. That did not happen. We were not allowed to do the full dredging…"
This is not political dynamite, but if it is true it does demonstrate the absurdity of just cutting by applying catch-all rules. It's the worst kind of short-term cost control put in place to make the cutter look good without any thought about the consequences. We see so much of it in British business too.
The EA's policy was to encourage flooding.
Yes, you keep saying that and blaming the BBC for no-one except you realising this.
"In 2008, when the EA was run by Baroness Young, this was reflected in a policy document which classified areas at risk of flooding under six categories, ranging from those in “Policy Option 1”, where flood defences were a priority, down to “Policy 6’’ where, to promote “biodiversity”, the strategy should be to “increase flooding”. The Somerset Levels were covered by Policy 6."
So Chris Smith is lying. Presumably he will be sacked immediately if that is the case.
"Warming is a fantastic catch all for socialists who like to earn good money at the same time as telling everyone else what to do."
This applies especially to that well-known Marxist Prince Charles.
I've often said Charles is a Marxist-Socialist-Communist.
For example Hereditary sucession principle as evidenced by North Korea.
Honestly, if Oliver Cromwell led a political party now, they'd win a landslide.
Oliver was perhaps the best king the English had (what the rest of the British Isles thought is another matter, of course). But, er, you do know he was succeeded by his son Richard?
No, but this is (or ammunition for his critics at any rate)
He was also presented with a 2008 EA plan for Somerset Levels that suggest the agency would take action to increase the frequency of flooding to produce benefits elsewhere.
Smith said he had never seen the document that had been prepared before he became chairman of the agency and formed no part of his policy or thinking. "It is not Environment Agency policy and has not been in the five and a half years that I have been chairman."
The 2012 EA plan does include such flooding plans - sugar coated, but still there.
I'd need to read it before commenting, but controlled flooding can produce environmental benefits without causing harms. The key word, of course is "controlled". Given the budgetary restrictions under which the EA seems to have been working, do we know whether the policy was actually implemented and, if it was, how it was done and how it sits with the restrictions on dredging that the EA ran up against because of the spending rules the Treasury imposed?
Policy Option 6 - we will take action with others to store water or manage runoff in locations that provide overall flood risk reduction or environmental benefits. By adopting this policy and redistributing water some areas will be subject to increased flooding while others will benefit from reduced flooding. The aim is to achieve a net overall benefit. The distribution of floodwater between moors can be determined to some extent by the use of sluices and other structures on the rivers.
This is a toned down version of the 2008 policy:
6. Take action to increase the frequency of flooding to deliver benefits locally or elsewhere,(which may constitute an overall flood risk reduction, e.g. for habitat inundation). Note: This policy option involves a strategic increase in flooding in allocated areas, but is not intended to adversely affect the risk to individual properties.
However you slice it, Smith did not know what EA policy is.
"The Environment Agency is bound by the rules laid down by government so when someone says they are bound by the advice laid down by the Environment Agency what they are actually doing was following the Treasury rules that are laid down setting out how much we can spend and now much we cannot spend on any individual flood defence scheme." He said the rules applied to urban and rural areas. He explained: "It has to come to £8 of benefit to every £1 of cost, and that calculation determines what we can contribute to any flood defence scheme." He added: "In Somerset the maximum we were allowed under those rules to do was £400,000. A year ago we put the maximum we can do on the table and said here it is and now we need other people to come to the table as well. That did not happen. We were not allowed to do the full dredging…"
This is not political dynamite, but if it is true it does demonstrate the absurdity of just cutting by applying catch-all rules. It's the worst kind of short-term cost control put in place to make the cutter look good without any thought about the consequences. We see so much of it in British business too.
The EA's policy was to encourage flooding.
Yes, you keep saying that and blaming the BBC for no-one except you realising this.
"In 2008, when the EA was run by Baroness Young, this was reflected in a policy document which classified areas at risk of flooding under six categories, ranging from those in “Policy Option 1”, where flood defences were a priority, down to “Policy 6’’ where, to promote “biodiversity”, the strategy should be to “increase flooding”. The Somerset Levels were covered by Policy 6."
So Chris Smith is lying. Presumably he will be sacked immediately if that is the case.
From your link
"Smith said he had never seen the document"
Which is fair enough. If i had 11 quangocracy jobs i doubt i'd have much of a clue what any of them were about.
If there doesn't need to be a by-election then there won't be.
The CBI's John Cridland is being floated as a possible non-politician at 5/1.
That said Paterson was being pushed by the right, speaks several European languages and may just have done all he can with badgers and floods for the moment.
Would Cameron be silly enough to put a pro-immigration guy in? Farage would have a field day with it.
Farage thinks anyone who isn't fiercely BOO is pro-immigration and there isn't much chance of Hannan getting the job.
And any appointment needs the sanction of Clegg - which is why Lansley is such an attractive proposition.
In the next month 21 seats will short-list their wannabe Lib Dem MPs
Here’s the full list of selection contests in the coming month available for Lib Dems on the approved parliamentary candidates’ list, together with the closing date for applications. They include five of the seats on the party’s top 50 target list: Edinburgh South, York Outer (following Nick Emmerson’s withdrawal), Devon West and Torridge, Bristol North West, and Chelmsford.
The following seats have selections in progress and are currently advertising for candidates:
If there doesn't need to be a by-election then there won't be.
The CBI's John Cridland is being floated as a possible non-politician at 5/1.
That said Paterson was being pushed by the right, speaks several European languages and may just have done all he can with badgers and floods for the moment.
Would Cameron be silly enough to put a pro-immigration guy in? Farage would have a field day with it.
Farage thinks anyone who isn't fiercely BOO is pro-immigration and there isn't much chance of Hannan getting the job.
Perhaps, but the mileage of his argument is made a hell of a lot easier when it's someone who has called for the UK to be open to more immigrants.
No, but this is (or ammunition for his critics at any rate)
He was also presented with a 2008 EA plan for Somerset Levels that suggest the agency would take action to increase the frequency of flooding to produce benefits elsewhere.
Smith said he had never seen the document that had been prepared before he became chairman of the agency and formed no part of his policy or thinking. "It is not Environment Agency policy and has not been in the five and a half years that I have been chairman."
The 2012 EA plan does include such flooding plans - sugar coated, but still there.
I'd need to read it before commenting, but controlled flooding can produce environmental benefits without causing harms. The key word, of course is "controlled". Given the budgetary restrictions under which the EA seems to have been working, do we know whether the policy was actually implemented and, if it was, how it was done and how it sits with the restrictions on dredging that the EA ran up against because of the spending rules the Treasury imposed?
Policy Option 6 - we will take action with others to store water or manage runoff in locations that provide overall flood risk reduction or environmental benefits. By adopting this policy and redistributing water some areas will be subject to increased flooding while others will benefit from reduced flooding. The aim is to achieve a net overall benefit. The distribution of floodwater between moors can be determined to some extent by the use of sluices and other structures on the rivers.
This is a toned down version of the 2008 policy:
6. Take action to increase the frequency of flooding to deliver benefits locally or elsewhere,(which may constitute an overall flood risk reduction, e.g. for habitat inundation). Note: This policy option involves a strategic increase in flooding in allocated areas, but is not intended to adversely affect the risk to individual properties.
However you slice it, Smith did not know what EA policy is.
What the original seems to say (roughly) is that "we will allow more countryside to flood more often in order to reduce overall flooding risk. The second version is clear that this approach should be taken in a way that does not increase flood risk for properties. Given that flood management involves an element of storage (you can't just get everything downstream and into the sea instantly) it sounds eminently sensible. It certainly isn't the "we will increase the risk of flooding residential properties in order to produce habitat benefits" that's being spun in some quarters.*
*I've only read this extract though... perhaps it says that elsewhere in the policy?
If there doesn't need to be a by-election then there won't be.
The CBI's John Cridland is being floated as a possible non-politician at 5/1.
That said Paterson was being pushed by the right, speaks several European languages and may just have done all he can with badgers and floods for the moment.
Would Cameron be silly enough to put a pro-immigration guy in? Farage would have a field day with it.
Farage thinks anyone who isn't fiercely BOO is pro-immigration and there isn't much chance of Hannan getting the job.
And any appointment needs the sanction of Clegg - which is why Lansley is such an attractive propoation.
Would Clegg really draw a red line for Paterson? I was under the impression the lib dems were unhappy with a climate-change sceptic at Environment anyway. If he went that's an open slot for someone.
Personally I think the floods are mildly UKIP positive.
This affair is an example of voters being put last by politicians and quangocrats of all persuasions.
Thousands facing the devastation of being flooded out of their homes.......versus us being able to preen and strut at the international climate and poverty gatherings of our choice?
No contest.
Carswell suggests responsibility should be returned to local government. That seems like a better long term solution than firing Mr Smith.
"Sea defences, once left to district authorities and land owners, became a county responsibility. Then it became the responsibility of two or three Whitehall bodies. And finally in 1996 the preserve of just one, the Environment Agency."
What the original seems to say (roughly) is that "we will allow more countryside to flood more often in order to reduce overall flooding risk. The second version is clear that this approach should be taken in a way that does not increase flood risk for properties. Given that flood management involves an element of storage (you can't just get everything downstream and into the sea instantly) it sounds eminently sensible. It certainly isn't the "we will increase the risk of flooding residential properties in order to produce habitat benefits" that's being spun in some quarters.*
*I've only read this extract though... perhaps it says that elsewhere in the policy?
"Yet it's not all bad news. Uniquely, wetlands can be created – or recreated – much more quickly and easily than other vital habitats such as ancient woodlands, hedgerows or rainforest. As Baroness Barbara Young, chief executive of the Environment Agency, says, "Just add water!""
If there doesn't need to be a by-election then there won't be.
The CBI's John Cridland is being floated as a possible non-politician at 5/1.
That said Paterson was being pushed by the right, speaks several European languages and may just have done all he can with badgers and floods for the moment.
Would Cameron be silly enough to put a pro-immigration guy in? Farage would have a field day with it.
Farage thinks anyone who isn't fiercely BOO is pro-immigration and there isn't much chance of Hannan getting the job.
And any appointment needs the sanction of Clegg - which is why Lansley is such an attractive propoation.
Why would Mr Clegg need to be on side? It doesn't require legislation.
No, but this is (or ammunition for his critics at any rate)
He was also presented with a 2008 EA plan for Somerset Levels that suggest the agency would take action to increase the frequency of flooding to produce benefits elsewhere.
Smith said he had never seen the document that had been prepared before he became chairman of the agency and formed no part of his policy or thinking. "It is not Environment Agency policy and has not been in the five and a half years that I have been chairman."
The 2012 EA plan does include such flooding plans - sugar coated, but still there.
Policy Option 6 - we will take action with others to store water or manage runoff in locations that provide overall flood risk reduction or environmental benefits. By adopting this policy and redistributing water some areas will be subject to increased flooding while others will benefit from reduced flooding. The aim is to achieve a net overall benefit. The distribution of floodwater between moors can be determined to some extent by the use of sluices and other structures on the rivers.
This is a toned down version of the 2008 policy:
6. Take action to increase the frequency of flooding to deliver benefits locally or elsewhere,(which may constitute an overall flood risk reduction, e.g. for habitat inundation). Note: This policy option involves a strategic increase in flooding in allocated areas, but is not intended to adversely affect the risk to individual properties.
However you slice it, Smith did not know what EA policy is.
What the original seems to say (roughly) is that "we will allow more countryside to flood more often in order to reduce overall flooding risk. The second version is clear that this approach should be taken in a way that does not increase flood risk for properties. Given that flood management involves an element of storage (you can't just get everything downstream and into the sea instantly) it sounds eminently sensible. It certainly isn't the "we will increase the risk of flooding residential properties in order to produce habitat benefits" that's being spun in some quarters.*
*I've only read this extract though... perhaps it says that elsewhere in the policy?
Both versions make clear that properties should not be affected by this policy, and both mention "environmental benefits"/"habitat inundation".
I think the issue is that both versions effectively mean the same thing - just the second version has been dressed up to the extent that even Smith does not recognise it involves flooding.
It's unenforceable to run an English language test? I guess we should just not bother with our entire educational system then?
Or perhaps you mean its unenforceable to check how much money people have in their bank accounts? I wonder how mortgage providers manage...
I know you're pro-immigration, but you're taking it to silly lengths here.
It's certainly possible to pay somebody to take TOEIC in a lot of countries, and probably not particularly expensive. That's without doing anything clever and technical, which would also be trivial. (A lab I run went through the process to become an official TOEIC test centre, and the checks are minimal. It would be trivial to hook up one of those computers to somebody telling you the answers remotely.)
Checking how much money people have in their bank accounts is easily gamed, especially if you have to check bank accounts in arbitrary countries, and even more especially if the checking going to be done by some kind of government-bureaucracy-outsourced service provider, which will be exactly as competent as it sounds.
Personally, I am a 'weak sceptic'. I accept that the earth has warmed, and I find the NOAA ocean heat content data extremely persuasive. However, I am yet to be convinced that (a) there are easy human answers to the problem, and (b) mitigation is not cheaper than extreme carbon cuts.
Same here. There is nothing wrong with increasing energy efficiency - and oil has so many valuable uses burning it seems a bit of a waste - so reducing that will do no harm - in a balanced manner.
I do think some of the proponents of AGW do themselves no favours when they label their critics as "deniers" - the scientist on R4 yesterday, despite extreme leading from the interviewer, called them "sceptics" - which is a much better description, unless what you are proposing is a faith, not a scientific theory. She also absolutely declined to agree that the flooding was caused by the government relaxing carbon reduction targets......a disgraceful interview....
Spot on, the warmists have only damaged themselves by politicising the issue and saying there's no alternative. There are surely enough things they could be pushing which would benefit all not least in the area of energy efficiency. The best way to conserve energy is not to use it in the first place. However that's not the approach we have tax hikes and regulation instead of practical measures to reduce consumption.
Well, I do recall Ken Clarke put VAT on domestic energy and claimed that he did so to encourage us to use less of it. Labour, of course, screamed blue murder and when they took power reduced the rate of VAT - then slammed on their own price increases. So it is not really a political issue in the sense that there is a fundamental disagreement on policy.
As for practical measures to reduce energy consumption, is there not a limit to how far these can go? A limit imposed by politics as well as practicality?
What the original seems to say (roughly) is that "we will allow more countryside to flood more often in order to reduce overall flooding risk. The second version is clear that this approach should be taken in a way that does not increase flood risk for properties. Given that flood management involves an element of storage (you can't just get everything downstream and into the sea instantly) it sounds eminently sensible. It certainly isn't the "we will increase the risk of flooding residential properties in order to produce habitat benefits" that's being spun in some quarters.*
*I've only read this extract though... perhaps it says that elsewhere in the policy?
But all land is one or more "individual properties" so that is meaningless. But you are probably right to gloss it as "residential properties" - meaning, farmers are fair game because they vote tory and want to gas badgers.
What the original seems to say (roughly) is that "we will allow more countryside to flood more often in order to reduce overall flooding risk. The second version is clear that this approach should be taken in a way that does not increase flood risk for properties. Given that flood management involves an element of storage (you can't just get everything downstream and into the sea instantly) it sounds eminently sensible. It certainly isn't the "we will increase the risk of flooding residential properties in order to produce habitat benefits" that's being spun in some quarters.*
*I've only read this extract though... perhaps it says that elsewhere in the policy?
"Yet it's not all bad news. Uniquely, wetlands can be created – or recreated – much more quickly and easily than other vital habitats such as ancient woodlands, hedgerows or rainforest. As Baroness Barbara Young, chief executive of the Environment Agency, says, "Just add water!""
I realise I may be falling into the common trap of reading words with regard only to their normally understood everyday meanings, but I can't see anything in the quote you published which says that those wetlands will be (re)created in people's living rooms. Or any other residential location.
If there doesn't need to be a by-election then there won't be.
The CBI's John Cridland is being floated as a possible non-politician at 5/1.
That said Paterson was being pushed by the right, speaks several European languages and may just have done all he can with badgers and floods for the moment.
Would Cameron be silly enough to put a pro-immigration guy in? Farage would have a field day with it.
Farage thinks anyone who isn't fiercely BOO is pro-immigration and there isn't much chance of Hannan getting the job.
And any appointment needs the sanction of Clegg - which is why Lansley is such an attractive propoation.
Why would Mr Clegg need to be on side? It doesn't require legislation.
We must presume there's an informal agreement in the quad to okay big appointments but that may be far more in theory than in practice.
"Yet it's not all bad news. Uniquely, wetlands can be created – or recreated – much more quickly and easily than other vital habitats such as ancient woodlands, hedgerows or rainforest. As Baroness Barbara Young, chief executive of the Environment Agency, says, "Just add water!""
Unfortunatley, the lack of oxygenated water over vast areas of the Somerset levels will actually kill many of the sources of food that would support viable wetlands. The wildlife reserves currently there may actually be looking at a disaster for their resident rare wildlife.... The area has recently seen breeding by Little Bitterns and Great White Egrets, the only place in Britain where they do.
What the original seems to say (roughly) is that "we will allow more countryside to flood more often in order to reduce overall flooding risk. The second version is clear that this approach should be taken in a way that does not increase flood risk for properties. Given that flood management involves an element of storage (you can't just get everything downstream and into the sea instantly) it sounds eminently sensible. It certainly isn't the "we will increase the risk of flooding residential properties in order to produce habitat benefits" that's being spun in some quarters.*
*I've only read this extract though... perhaps it says that elsewhere in the policy?
"Yet it's not all bad news. Uniquely, wetlands can be created – or recreated – much more quickly and easily than other vital habitats such as ancient woodlands, hedgerows or rainforest. As Baroness Barbara Young, chief executive of the Environment Agency, says, "Just add water!""
I realise I may be falling into the common trap of reading words with regard only to their normally understood everyday meanings, but I can't see anything in the quote you published which says that those wetlands will be (re)created in people's living rooms. Or any other residential location.
Question 1: does the EU have biodiversity targets? Question 2: would meeting those imposed targets require parts of Britain be sacrificed? Question 3: is deliberately reducing flood defenses in selected areas the easiest way to do this? Question 4: is every step of this process documented somewhere because the quangocracy is so sealed off from democracy it never occurred to them to keep it secret?
The way the Govt have played the flooding has been astonishing.
The minute it became a game of politics and blame, they were bound to take a hit. And with worse flooding possibly on the way, it might get worse for them.
Why didn't they 1) point out, loudly, that nothing could've prevented the flooding we've seen because of the severity of the weather.
2) talk up the (generally good) response of the authorities / Govt
3) point to the excellent way flood defences generally are coping, with thousands of properties saved so far
But no. They went straight on the hunt for scapegoats. Idiots.
There is no evidence whatever for 1). And no one should call anyone else an idiot, least of all someone so thick they think David Cameron is a "right wing ideologue". Grow up.
It's unenforceable to run an English language test? I guess we should just not bother with our entire educational system then?
Or perhaps you mean its unenforceable to check how much money people have in their bank accounts? I wonder how mortgage providers manage...
I know you're pro-immigration, but you're taking it to silly lengths here.
It's certainly possible to pay somebody to take TOEIC in a lot of countries, and probably not particularly expensive. That's without doing anything clever and technical, which would also be trivial. (A lab I run went through the process to become an official TOEIC test centre, and the checks are minimal. It would be trivial to hook up one of those computers to somebody telling you the answers remotely.)
Checking how much money people have in their bank accounts is easily gamed, especially if you have to check bank accounts in arbitrary countries, and even more especially if the checking going to be done by some kind of government-bureaucracy-outsourced service provider, which will be exactly as competent as it sounds.
There's a big difference between something that is easy to do in the current poorly run system and something that is "unenforceable". Certainly we could require much higher checks on providers, including prison sentences for fraud; heavy requirements for proof of ID for tests, and for bank account incomes. I don't particularly see why we should have a laxer requirement to accommodate people in "arbitrary countries": if the local banks are dodgy, then it should be your responsibility to find one that is reliable, out of country if necessary. It is the applicant's responsibility to convince the UK authorities of the necessary information. This whole mentality of not being rigorous so as not to upset certain communities needs to end: in policing, in education, in immigration.
Personally, I am a 'weak sceptic'. I accept that the earth has warmed, and I find the NOAA ocean heat content data extremely persuasive. However, I am yet to be convinced that (a) there are easy human answers to the problem, and (b) mitigation is not cheaper than extreme carbon cuts.
Same here. There is nothing wrong with increasing energy efficiency - and oil has so many interview....
Spot on, the warmists regulation instead of practical measures to reduce consumption.
Well, I do recall Ken Clarke put VAT on domestic energy and claimed that he did so to encourage us to use less of it. Labour, of course, screamed blue murder and when they took power reduced the rate of VAT - then slammed on their own price increases. So it is not really a political issue in the sense that there is a fundamental disagreement on policy.
As for practical measures to reduce energy consumption, is there not a limit to how far these can go? A limit imposed by politics as well as practicality?
The Clark VAT wheeze was a cynical ploy to take the sting out of a tax rise. Ever since he got away with it we have had energy tax rises heaped upon us until our pips squeak. I notice Osborne is having to roll tax rises back. The rationale of the increase was credible at a time when energy prices were low, now that they've shot up the artifical price ramping is largely redundant but we've become too dependent on the tax to replace.
As for energy reduction, yes of course there are limits to how far we can go, but I still think we have a lot to go at. UK houses for example are some of the worst insulated in the developed world. That's partly a function of the age of the housing stock and partly a function of us not trying to insulate properly. Technically it's possible to make an energy independent house but it' still expensive. if we concentrated on reducing the cost of such we could make real headway. As a country we will soon be faced with a massive energy deficit either in 2014 courtesy of Salmond or maybe 2025 when oil starts to run down. Currently we're not really doing much about it and are heading for a nasty shock.
It's unenforceable to run an English language test? I guess we should just not bother with our entire educational system then?
Or perhaps you mean its unenforceable to check how much money people have in their bank accounts? I wonder how mortgage providers manage...
I know you're pro-immigration, but you're taking it to silly lengths here.
It's certainly possible to pay somebody to take TOEIC in a lot of countries, and probably not particularly expensive. That's without doing anything clever and technical, which would also be trivial. (A lab I run went through the process to become an official TOEIC test centre, and the checks are minimal. It would be trivial to hook up one of those computers to somebody telling you the answers remotely.)
Checking how much money people have in their bank accounts is easily gamed, especially if you have to check bank accounts in arbitrary countries, and even more especially if the checking going to be done by some kind of government-bureaucracy-outsourced service provider, which will be exactly as competent as it sounds.
There's a big difference between something that is easy to do in the current poorly run system and something that is "unenforceable". Certainly we could require much higher checks on providers, including prison sentences for fraud; heavy requirements for proof of ID for tests, and for bank account incomes. I don't particularly see why we should have a laxer requirement to accommodate people in "arbitrary countries": if the local banks are dodgy, then it should be your responsibility to find one that is reliable, out of country if necessary. It is the applicant's responsibility to convince the UK authorities of the necessary information. This whole mentality of not being rigorous so as not to upset certain communities needs to end: in policing, in education, in immigration.
Who said anything about not being rigorous so as not to upset certain communities? The issue here is that security is expensive, so security systems are only built to be sufficient to secure the thing they're supposed to be securing. If you require enough security to be able to use something designed to find out how good you are at English for some other purpose like deciding on immigration, you can't use normal tests like IELTS or TOEIC, so you have to make your own, specially-secured test, and push up the cost to the point where your customers go somewhere else.
More likely the goal here isn't so much to do something as to look like something is being done, so the government will set a bunch of hurdles knowing perfectly well that they'll mostly serve to annoy genuine students, but not to annoy people trying to game the system who will be able to find a way to game it anyway.
As someone who has had the slightly disinterested perspective on the floods here I think is what the public will note:
The Gov't not doing enough or doing the wrong thing - then starting a blame game.
That Labour chappie blaming the Gov't for making a horlicks of the situation. Whether he did or not I have no idea and is irrelevant to the perception.
Pickles coming out with some claptrap about sending aid to Sudan will keep the floods away in Somerset.
Prince Charles wading in with his wellies off the back of a tractor to offer encouragement and support to the locals, getting there before the Gov't. Obviously won't help in the overall scheme of things and is a totemic gesture - but then again the Royal Family is an entirely symbolic thing anyway.
I reckon marks out of 10:
Prince Charles 8/10 Chris Smith (& Labour) 4/10 Gov't 3/10 Pickles 0/10.
"Kevin Pietersen's international career was ended so captain Alastair Cook could create a culture where players 'trust each other', the England and Wales Cricket Board has said."
Question 1: does the EU have biodiversity targets? Question 2: would meeting those imposed targets require parts of Britain be sacrificed? Question 3: is deliberately reducing flood defenses in selected areas the easiest way to do this? Question 4: is every step of this process documented somewhere because the quangocracy is so sealed off from democracy it never occurred to them to keep it secret?
1: probably. As would the UK outside EU (I hope) 2: I don't think "imposed targets" is a particularly accurate term. For example, the National Trust (which goes in for this kind of thing) has >3m members UK/Ireland members who probably don't feel it is an imposition. That aside, meeting biodiversity targets could (for example) involve keeping fenland wet rather than drying it out. Or even creating new wetlands from heath or moor. Not sure that would be sacrificing a part of Britain unless you have a particular ideological objection to water qua water. 3: unlikely, as MarqueeMark points out, uncontrolled flooding can damage wetlands. So you'd want to control or modify your flood defences to facilitate managed wetland, not reduce them. If you just reduced them, you might fail to meet your imposed targets, and that would be a disaster, clearly. 4: some steps of a process are documented somewhere because there's no reason for them not to be. IF there's a conspiracy to privilege biodiversity above all else AND that involves deliberately flooding residential areas AND it's done by sneakily reducing flood defences while pretending that you're doing so in order to comply with Treasury cost control/VfM rules then you could be onto something - the documents evidencing it would look remarkably like the existing policy documents. Though of course it would be a good idea to evidence the elements of that conspiracy rather than just to argue that it's a technically plausible hypothesis, despite being neither the most efficient nor the most rational for the policy you're using as evidence for it.
Question 1: does the EU have biodiversity targets? Question 2: would meeting those imposed targets require parts of Britain be sacrificed? Question 3: is deliberately reducing flood defenses in selected areas the easiest way to do this? Question 4: is every step of this process documented somewhere because the quangocracy is so sealed off from democracy it never occurred to them to keep it secret?
1: probably. As would the UK outside EU (I hope) 2: I don't think "imposed targets" is a particularly accurate term. For example, the National Trust (which goes in for this kind of thing) has >3m members. That aside, meeting biodiversity targets could (for example) involve keeping fenland wet rather than drying it out. Or even creating new wetlands from heath or moor. Not sure that would be sacrificing a part of Britain unless you have a particular ideological objection to water qua water. 3: unlikely, as MarqueeMark points out, uncontrolled flooding can damage wetlands. So you'd want to control or modify your flood defences to facilitate managed wetland, not reduce them. If you just reduced them, you might fail to meet your imposed targets, and that would be a disaster, clearly. 4: some steps of a process are documented somewhere because there's no reason for them not to be. IF there's a conspiracy to privilege biodiversity above all else AND that involves deliberately flooding residential areas AND it's done by sneakily reducing flood defences while pretending that you're doing so in order to comply with Treasury cost control/VfM rules then you could be onto something - the documents evidencing it would look remarkably like the existing policy documents. Though of course it would be a good idea to evidence the elements of that conspiracy rather than just to argue that it's a technically plausible hypothesis, despite being neither the most efficient nor the most rational for the policy you're using as evidence for it.
As someone who has had the slightly disinterested perspective on the floods here I think is what the public will note:
The Gov't not doing enough or doing the wrong thing - then starting a blame game.
That Labour chappie blaming the Gov't for making a horlicks of the situation. Whether he did or not I have no idea and is irrelevant to the perception.
Pickles coming out with some claptrap about sending aid to Sudan will keep the floods away in Somerset.
Prince Charles wading in with his wellies off the back of a tractor to offer encouragement and support to the locals, getting there before the Gov't. Obviously won't help in the overall scheme of things and is a totemic gesture - but then again the Royal Family is an entirely symbolic thing anyway.
I reckon marks out of 10:
Prince Charles 8/10 Chris Smith (& Labour) 4/10 Gov't 3/10 Pickles 0/10.
"Some have suggested that Lord Smith should resign. Replacing leftie Labour placement with Tory placemen will not solve the problem. Passing responsibility back to local government, and making government agencies properly accountable to Parliament, just might."
@Polruan - at some stage there is no point in continuing. Some people will want to believe that what is happening is all a conspiracy led by the BBC and the EU, and there is literally nothing you can say and no evidence that you can present that will change their minds. And, who knows, they could be right. Most people would believe it unlikely, but then most people once though the earth was flat. It is possible that a secret cabal of international bankstas (perhaps of a certain religious persuasion), Euro-fanatics and BBC executives are running the country, After all, can you prove that they are not?
Can anyone explain the interrelationship between the government and the EA? How much are the EA allowed to get on with making their own decisions at a strategic or local level according to the rules and money passed down, or do the government intervene on a routine basis?
"Some have suggested that Lord Smith should resign. Replacing leftie Labour placement with Tory placemen will not solve the problem. Passing responsibility back to local government, and making government agencies properly accountable to Parliament, just might."
As might not imposing arbitrary rules on spending cuts.
More local decision making and increased Parliamentary scrutiny are definitely good ideas. What that may mean for people in areas susceptible to flooding, of course, is much higher local taxes.
"Kevin Pietersen's international career was ended so captain Alastair Cook could create a culture where players 'trust each other', the England and Wales Cricket Board has said."
Japanese consumer confidence also weakened unexpectedly, falling to 40.5. Despite massive money printing, Abenomics seems to be stalling.
Consumption tax going up by 3% and possibly more later, which will tend to dampen demand. The government's bright idea of doing that, but simultaneously offsetting it by spending extra money on construction projects run by its donors, doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
@Polruan - at some stage there is no point in continuing. Some people will want to believe that what is happening is all a conspiracy led by the BBC and the EU, and there is literally nothing you can say and no evidence that you can present that will change their minds. And, who knows, they could be right. Most people would believe it unlikely, but then most people once though the earth was flat. It is possible that a secret cabal of international bankstas (perhaps of a certain religious persuasion), Euro-fanatics and BBC executives are running the country, After all, can you prove that they are not?
Oh, but I think they are. I'm just not convinced they have a biodiversity agenda...
Comments
Alternatively, your method of deciding whether there is global warming or not is not very clever.
No, one thing that's crystal clear is that like lovely-and-sunniness proves nothing either way. Why would it?
Could the solution be higher sea banks around the mouth of the Parrett along with a sea sluice, and/or a cut-off channel to the sea, and/or more storage rivers?
All very, very expensive.
What I'm saying is that the action (slashing carbon emissions here) makes no bloody sense whether it's true or not. I am not against all things proposed primarily to stave off the phantom warming. Greater energy efficiency, for example, is a great thing either way. Some renewables (the photovoltaic windows mentioned here, which are transparent but effectively solar panels) sound like a very good idea as well. Micro-generation of hydro-electric could work well (I wonder if hydro-electric powered pumps might be an idea in certain flood-prone areas).
In point of fact, I do have a science degree. Admittedly, this is in psychology, but it did include elements of statistical analysis as well as the flaws of the peer review system, and the importance of critical thinking.
If global warming were real then the most basic prerequisite for taking it seriously would be the globe warming (at that point we could discuss reasons why). The globe is not warming, therefore the theory has no basis whatsoever.
If I put an egg in cold water for 15 minutes and then claimed it's boiled, would you take me seriously as a chef?
Palace to beat Everton at 15/2
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/everton-v-crystal-palace/winner
Sunderland to beat Man City at 18/1
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/man-city-v-sunderland/winner
Adebayor as FGS at 13/2
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/newcastle-v-tottenham/first-goalscorer
Raheem Sterling as FGS at 10/1
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/fulham-v-liverpool/first-goalscorer
Jim Pickard @PickardJE 1m
Miliband: "Move away from both central control and market-based individualism - towards a new culture of people-powered public services"
As it stopped while CO2 continued to rise the warming wasn't caused by CO2 (probably the sun same as it has been for millions of years).
The obvious answer therefore is ignore all the carbon nonsense and build better flood and sea defenses.
Nature is always freakish and any freakish event, be it warm, cold or whatever, could be passed off as man made.
An inbuilt and ever-lasting way of telling other people what to do and lining your own pockets at the same time. Perfect.
Immigration rules mean that non-EU students are not allowed to take paid work and need a bank statement to show they can cover their fees and living costs.
One of the agents at Studentway, Vinod Kumar, told a Panorama researcher the agency had a solution.
He said it would use its contacts in India to find "someone else with the same name, whose account and money will be used for you. So when there is need for verification it's verified for you till you get your visa".
I assume Vinod Kumar will be prosecuted for this? It's amazing that this was going on across a number of agencies. Clearly the UKBA just has no grip at all. It seems to me we should just put immigration from countries with high rates of fraud on hold until this is sorted out. Certainly anyone that has gone through any of these agencies should have to retake their tests or get kicked out.
Pickles' comment on overseas aid and global warming was a particularly stupid piece of politics and smacked of desperation.
This applies especially to that well-known Marxist Prince Charles.
Ed wants to drive services like education and politics closer to people.
Is that why he opposed elected police commissioners in favour of unelected bureaucrats?
For example Hereditary sucession principle as evidenced by North Korea.
Honestly, if Oliver Cromwell led a political party now, they'd win a landslide.
The CBI's John Cridland is being floated as a possible non-politician at 5/1.
That said Paterson was being pushed by the right, speaks several European languages and may just have done all he can with badgers and floods for the moment.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bbc-panorama-investigation-finds-english-3130112
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2555459/Theresa-Mays-grave-fears-student-visas-Huge-fraud-revealed-lets-200-000.html
Presumably UKIP are smart enough to run with it?
He said the rules applied to urban and rural areas. He explained: "It has to come to £8 of benefit to every £1 of cost, and that calculation determines what we can contribute to any flood defence scheme."
He added: "In Somerset the maximum we were allowed under those rules to do was £400,000. A year ago we put the maximum we can do on the table and said here it is and now we need other people to come to the table as well. That did not happen. We were not allowed to do the full dredging…"
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/10/lord-smith-ea-staff-know-100-times-more-on-flooding
This is not political dynamite, but if it is true it does demonstrate the absurdity of just cutting by applying catch-all rules. It's the worst kind of short-term cost control put in place to make the cutter look good without any thought about the consequences. We see so much of it in British business too.
I'm confused therefore why you describe yourself as a "weak sceptic". One can entirely accept the Science and still think that adapting to warming is preferable to abandoning fossil fuels. It's not my view, but it is at least a rational one, and it's best not to confuse it with views that completely deny facts.
Myles Allen is an example of a climate scientist who ploughs a lonely furrow in arguing for what might be thought of as "right-wing" solutions to global warming, in opposition to the "left-wing" consensus presented by the likes of Friends of the Earth, et al. Most climate scientists absent themselves from the argument of what to do, preferring to keep out of policy debates.
In my view, one of the problems of the global warming debate is that too many advocates of taking action have crafted an argument along the lines of "this is a problem, therefore we must do x, y and z to solve the problem, there is no alternative," when what we really need is a more open debate about what to do.
Since very few people are in favour of such a debate, people who are opposed to the specific actions x, y and z find themselves arguing against reality instead of arguing for alternative policies. It's a very political failing.
If I were a climate scientist I'd be very worried following Pickle's remarks about the advice of experts, as the politicians appear to be willing to throw scientists to the wolves in an attempt to avoid any of the blame, and at some point there will be a lot of blame to go around when it comes to global warming.
Smith should be fired.
I do think some of the proponents of AGW do themselves no favours when they label their critics as "deniers" - the scientist on R4 yesterday, despite extreme leading from the interviewer, called them "sceptics" - which is a much better description, unless what you are proposing is a faith, not a scientific theory. She also absolutely declined to agree that the flooding was caused by the government relaxing carbon reduction targets......a disgraceful interview....
Personally I think the floods are mildly UKIP positive.
This affair is an example of voters being put last by politicians and quangocrats of all persuasions.
Thousands facing the devastation of being flooded out of their homes.......versus us being able to preen and strut at the international climate and poverty gatherings of our choice?
No contest.
He was also presented with a 2008 EA plan for Somerset Levels that suggest the agency would take action to increase the frequency of flooding to produce benefits elsewhere.
Smith said he had never seen the document that had been prepared before he became chairman of the agency and formed no part of his policy or thinking. "It is not Environment Agency policy and has not been in the five and a half years that I have been chairman."
The 2012 EA plan does include such flooding plans - sugar coated, but still there.
"In 2008, when the EA was run by Baroness Young, this was reflected in a policy document which classified areas at risk of flooding under six categories, ranging from those in “Policy Option 1”, where flood defences were a priority, down to “Policy 6’’ where, to promote “biodiversity”, the strategy should be to “increase flooding”. The Somerset Levels were covered by Policy 6."
Now I think its quite strongly UKIP positive....
The EA has proved to be crap - needs reamed from top to bottom - even better it's tasks should be put out to private tender and it shrunk to a tiny overseeing role.
And there is rather more to the Scotsman story than that. We all know unionists love to obsess about Bannockburn, but apart from it being the septencentenary, the Stirlingshire event is/was far more than Bannockburn 1314, being the occasion of a major worldwide clan reunion, part of Homecoming 2014, with all that that implied for overseas tourism. The underlying story is, in fact, that Stirling Council somehow managed to double book the Bannockburn events and Armed Forces Day. With disastrous effects. One does wonder how a Labour-Tory coalition could be so incompetent.
Here is a clan organiser's point of view and two other reports -
http://www.clans2014.com/2014-when-good-councils-go-bad/
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/call-for-probe-into-clash-between-armed-forces-day-and-bannockburn-celebration-1.181168
http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/arts/news/rethink-over-battle-of-bannockburn-celebration-1-3238660
'Not 'arf!'
Queen Dick and Tumbledown Dick
By adopting this policy and redistributing water some areas will be subject to increased flooding while others will benefit from reduced flooding. The aim is to achieve a net overall benefit. The distribution of floodwater between moors can be determined to some extent by the use of sluices and other structures on the rivers.
This is a toned down version of the 2008 policy:
6. Take action to increase the frequency of flooding to deliver benefits locally or elsewhere,(which may constitute an overall flood risk reduction, e.g. for habitat inundation). Note: This policy option involves a strategic increase in flooding in allocated areas, but is not intended to adversely affect the risk to individual properties.
However you slice it, Smith did not know what EA policy is.
"Smith said he had never seen the document"
Which is fair enough. If i had 11 quangocracy jobs i doubt i'd have much of a clue what any of them were about.
Or perhaps you mean its unenforceable to check how much money people have in their bank accounts? I wonder how mortgage providers manage...
I know you're pro-immigration, but you're taking it to silly lengths here.
*I've only read this extract though... perhaps it says that elsewhere in the policy?
"Sea defences, once left to district authorities and land owners, became a county responsibility. Then it became the responsibility of two or three Whitehall bodies. And finally in 1996 the preserve of just one, the Environment Agency."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100258653/quango-britain-is-flooded-by-policy-failure/
If the 2008 crash was anything to go by, they can't.
"Yet it's not all bad news. Uniquely, wetlands can be created – or recreated – much more quickly and easily than other vital habitats such as ancient woodlands, hedgerows or rainforest. As Baroness Barbara Young, chief executive of the Environment Agency, says, "Just add water!""
I think the issue is that both versions effectively mean the same thing - just the second version has been dressed up to the extent that even Smith does not recognise it involves flooding.
Checking how much money people have in their bank accounts is easily gamed, especially if you have to check bank accounts in arbitrary countries, and even more especially if the checking going to be done by some kind of government-bureaucracy-outsourced service provider, which will be exactly as competent as it sounds.
As for practical measures to reduce energy consumption, is there not a limit to how far these can go? A limit imposed by politics as well as practicality?
Question 2: would meeting those imposed targets require parts of Britain be sacrificed?
Question 3: is deliberately reducing flood defenses in selected areas the easiest way to do this?
Question 4: is every step of this process documented somewhere because the quangocracy is so sealed off from democracy it never occurred to them to keep it secret?
As for energy reduction, yes of course there are limits to how far we can go, but I still think we have a lot to go at. UK houses for example are some of the worst insulated in the developed world. That's partly a function of the age of the housing stock and partly a function of us not trying to insulate properly. Technically it's possible to make an energy independent house but it' still expensive. if we concentrated on reducing the cost of such we could make real headway. As a country we will soon be faced with a massive energy deficit either in 2014 courtesy of Salmond or maybe 2025 when oil starts to run down. Currently we're not really doing much about it and are heading for a nasty shock.
http://insidetheenvironmentagency.co.uk/
More likely the goal here isn't so much to do something as to look like something is being done, so the government will set a bunch of hurdles knowing perfectly well that they'll mostly serve to annoy genuine students, but not to annoy people trying to game the system who will be able to find a way to game it anyway.
The Gov't not doing enough or doing the wrong thing - then starting a blame game.
That Labour chappie blaming the Gov't for making a horlicks of the situation. Whether he did or not I have no idea and is irrelevant to the perception.
Pickles coming out with some claptrap about sending aid to Sudan will keep the floods away in Somerset.
Prince Charles wading in with his wellies off the back of a tractor to offer encouragement and support to the locals, getting there before the Gov't. Obviously won't help in the overall scheme of things and is a totemic gesture - but then again the Royal Family is an entirely symbolic thing anyway.
I reckon marks out of 10:
Prince Charles 8/10
Chris Smith (& Labour) 4/10
Gov't 3/10
Pickles 0/10.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/26106902
2: I don't think "imposed targets" is a particularly accurate term. For example, the National Trust (which goes in for this kind of thing) has >3m members UK/Ireland members who probably don't feel it is an imposition. That aside, meeting biodiversity targets could (for example) involve keeping fenland wet rather than drying it out. Or even creating new wetlands from heath or moor. Not sure that would be sacrificing a part of Britain unless you have a particular ideological objection to water qua water.
3: unlikely, as MarqueeMark points out, uncontrolled flooding can damage wetlands. So you'd want to control or modify your flood defences to facilitate managed wetland, not reduce them. If you just reduced them, you might fail to meet your imposed targets, and that would be a disaster, clearly.
4: some steps of a process are documented somewhere because there's no reason for them not to be. IF there's a conspiracy to privilege biodiversity above all else AND that involves deliberately flooding residential areas AND it's done by sneakily reducing flood defences while pretending that you're doing so in order to comply with Treasury cost control/VfM rules then you could be onto something - the documents evidencing it would look remarkably like the existing policy documents. Though of course it would be a good idea to evidence the elements of that conspiracy rather than just to argue that it's a technically plausible hypothesis, despite being neither the most efficient nor the most rational for the policy you're using as evidence for it.
O/T, he always reminds me of Baron Harkonnen.
"Some have suggested that Lord Smith should resign. Replacing leftie Labour placement with Tory placemen will not solve the problem. Passing responsibility back to local government, and making government agencies properly accountable to Parliament, just might."
Skip ahead to the 8:30 mark to see some amazing stats about fertility ratios. (And watch for at least 5 minutes!)
More local decision making and increased Parliamentary scrutiny are definitely good ideas. What that may mean for people in areas susceptible to flooding, of course, is much higher local taxes.
(Not that the EU is mentioned once. Which just goes to show how cunning and subtle these BBC media-types are.)
http://www.ukip.org/newsroom/news/1150-ukip-calls-for-revival-of-a-british-civil-defence-corps