Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« The reverse Cassandra effect | Main | Slingo alone »


I'm due to be on Newsnight tonight to discuss the reaction to the floods with Lord Deben and Kevin Anderson.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (88)

Break a leg Bish!

Feb 17, 2014 at 9:34 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

What questions you going to ask? Where we should build to accompany the thousands of new properties needed every year if we are to allow the sea to claim coastal land? Why we don't have a dedicated flood defence agency, but instead have a bureaucracy with too many conflicting interests? Maybe why Cameron thinks throwing money at the problem will fix it? Or why there are no longer any decent engineers in the EA?

Feb 17, 2014 at 9:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterSSN

Hardly an occasion for self-effacement.

You KNOW what a weasel-wordsmith Deben is.

Pushed, he has nowhere to go.

Deep breath, then pin 'em to the wall !!

Feb 17, 2014 at 9:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterJerryM

Take no prisoners, this is no time to be civilised, the enemies of humanity certainly won't be.

Feb 17, 2014 at 9:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin Lohse

Flash that Somerset EA map showing their plan to flood them all, ('over time') - the fawn colour!.

To see it, click on the map in the Bishop's twitter page gallery

Feb 17, 2014 at 9:53 PM | Registered CommenterPharos

Well you're with a devious politician and a weirdo alarmist. You should shine like a beacon of hope in a sea of madness.

Feb 17, 2014 at 10:21 PM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

One can almost predict what will happen.

Your appearance on TV should cause more heartburn among the pearl-clutchers: The Crusher Crew Sockpuppets

Feb 17, 2014 at 10:29 PM | Registered Commentershub

Lord Deben is a liar and a hypocrite. He complains about sceptics using "innuendo and abuse" with no justification, as he uses innuendo and abuse.

Feb 17, 2014 at 10:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterDoubting Rich

So the Beeb trots out that proven liar, Chris Hulme, for his two penneth.

Feb 17, 2014 at 10:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterJoe Public

Remarkable indeed that the beeb used a convicted criminal!

Andrew was very mild but the alarmism there was great : 5-6 degrees C rise this century?. What total utter nonsense!

Feb 17, 2014 at 10:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterFarleyR

They didn't give you much talk time, did they? One sided or what?

Feb 17, 2014 at 10:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterSSN

Deben MIA. Anderson undercut by "he's not a scientist either" comment. Plus he repeated incredibly flawed "money to the banks" argument. Pitifully, he was given the last word, doom, gloom, warts and all.

Feb 17, 2014 at 10:50 PM | Registered Commenteromnologos

It was unfair to be up against an alarmist who seemed to have no need for breath.

Feb 17, 2014 at 10:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

Kevin Anderson still promoting 4, 5, even 6 degrees of warming by the end of the century? With all due respect that doesn't fit with any known knowledge re climate sensitivity whatsoever. Absolute tripe, and a perfect example of misleading the public.

As for Huhne; wtf is that criminal on TV for? He shouldn't be allowed to walk his dog in public again, let alone offer an opinion on public policy.

Feb 17, 2014 at 10:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterCheshirered

Why didn't Andrew interrupt that bloke when he predicted a 6 degree rise in temperatures and just say "Wrong". He just sat there. Very disappointing.

Feb 17, 2014 at 10:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaul

Well, of course, the BBC would give Kevin Anderson the last word - unchallenged, unproven, unscientific and hyperbolic diatribe.

Feb 17, 2014 at 10:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Maxwell

Just watched it online - very good performance your grace - no Dellingpole style mouth foaming.

Also interesting that Anderson was allowed to go unchallenged on his rather extreme predictions at the end about projected temp rises and their effects. Derbyshire returning to type.

Did anyone else note an odd "gasp" from the studio somewhere in the middle of this item ?

Feb 17, 2014 at 10:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterMorph

That was incredibly one sided and sadly predictable behaviour from BBC.

Feb 17, 2014 at 10:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterDickie

Can't see it yet.

Anderson going on and on is a good thing. It'll put off reasonable people.

Feb 17, 2014 at 10:54 PM | Registered Commentershub

Did Deben bottle it then? Kevin Anderson ( engineer) said certainly 3,4 or 5 degree temperature rise by the end of the century (I think he said 4,5 or 6 when first asked?) and he seemed to believe we've got billions to spend on decarbonisation.

You could tell he was just waiting to paint an apocalyptic picture.

Feb 17, 2014 at 11:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterCurfew

A metre of sea level rise and 4-6 dec C temp rise by the end of the century. Box meet frogs.

Feb 17, 2014 at 11:04 PM | Unregistered Commenterson of mulder

How disappointing. Mr Montford said that rainfall was higher in the 1920s.

When you look at the data, annual rainfall was around 1100 mm/year in the 1920s and 1230mm now. That's an increase of 130mm or 11%.

He also glossed over the fact that the rate of sea level rise has tripled since 1920 from 1.2mm/year to 3,2mm/year after staying almost stable for the past two millennia.

The rest of his points were the usual vague sceptic pap. His only valid suggestion was to use money on flood defence, rather that decarbonising.

Feb 17, 2014 at 11:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Well done for getting in the "precedented" point.

I mentioned your appearance to Wotty on his blog, since I know he is a fan, and he said he thought you had been interviewed more than anyone else on climate in the last 6 months. I wonder if that is true.

Feb 17, 2014 at 11:11 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

And the results from the computer models are proof?

Feb 17, 2014 at 11:16 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

There's enough floodwater for Kevin Anderson to have a wash. Meanwhile, Lord Deben was terribly polite in calling some Green extremists (such as Anderson?) "Close to Trotskyists" recently. And the BBC give yet more platform to the Greens.

Feb 17, 2014 at 11:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterIt doesn't add up...

Meanwhile Moonbat blames the Farmers, who are flooded.

Its desperation time, no prisoners now.

Feb 17, 2014 at 11:22 PM | Unregistered Commenterc777

Well done Bish, not having any such experience I can only speculate, but video link must be very difficult. Really need to be face to face. Good man for taking it on.

Nice opportunity to enlighten the world to KA being an engineer and therefore an amateur with regard to climate science.

Slowly, slowly, softly catchee monkey

Feb 17, 2014 at 11:22 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

One of the most overtly shameful examples of alarmist predilection by the BBC yet. But putting up Huhne was a big fail.

Feb 17, 2014 at 11:27 PM | Registered CommenterPharos

Entropic man @11:11

Rainfall - Do keep up old chap eh!

Sea Level? - wheeling that one out? without a reference? c'mon...

Why do you bother ?

Feb 17, 2014 at 11:27 PM | Registered Commentertomo

Typically skewed BBC debate, with the foaming alarmist allowed to trot out spurious nonsense uncontested. Only Andrew Neill seems to have some grasp of the facts at that organisation, and pulls up interviewees when they stray from known facts, or offer the latest urban myth (97% of scientists etc).
Shame you were not given time to quote Met Office forecast last November, to get Anderson's response, which would have been interesting, as he knows what will happen for the next 86 years.

Feb 17, 2014 at 11:34 PM | Unregistered Commenterlindzen4pm

EM, 2013 was 52nd wettest. 6 out of 10 years in the 1920s were wetter.

Feb 17, 2014 at 11:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterBruce

Lots of politicos, activists and wannabes trying to catch a wave.

I have waited long for our elite to make the claim "this event is a result of global warming" because from that moment on they become responsible. If they claim to "know" what has caused the event they then have to say what they will do to stop it. No longer can they wave hands about taking a lead, showing the world etc.. Since their declaration they have only one responsibility and that is the well being of UK citizens. From that point on we have people to hold responsible. If they have not maintained our flood defences, not cleared our drains and rivers, not provided enough reservoirs, not stopped the building on flood plains, they are responsible. They have their Climate Change Act, why are they not fulfilling their responsibilities to UK citizens?

They surely know it

Feb 17, 2014 at 11:45 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

Entropic man said:

How disappointing. Mr Montford said that rainfall was higher in the 1920s.

When you look at the data, annual rainfall was around 1100 mm/year in the 1920s and 1230mm now. That's an increase of 130mm or 11%.

I don't remember Mr. Montford's exact words but it was perfectly obvious from the context that he was disputing the claim that last month was the wettest January on record. The link you cited above shows that for the UK as a whole there was a wetter January in the late 1920s, but it is difficult to tell the precise year from the graph.

Entropic Man also said:

The rest of his points were the usual vague sceptic pap. His only valid suggestion was to use money on flood defence, rather that decarbonising.

Mr. Montford didn't really have the time to get around to the subject of the Green plans for bankrupting the British economy with all the mass unemployment and misery that would entail.

Feb 17, 2014 at 11:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoy

January 1928 and January 2008 were wetter than January 2014.

1929 had the wettest December. 2013 was 6th.

1929 was 4th wettest November. 2013 was something the like the 70th wettest November.

Feb 18, 2014 at 12:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterBruce


Look at the smoothed curve. Mr Montford said that there was more rainfall in the 1920s. The graph gives annual averages, with a smoothed curve showing the long term trend. Why is everyone here so keen to cherry pick individual figures that fit their convenience, rather than look at the overall picture?

Feb 18, 2014 at 12:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Kevin Anderson is obviously a drama-green of the first rank. Andrew stuck to the point ie floods, no point in engaging seriously with K.A. and the well known left of centre Victoria - she loved the bank bail out bit.
80% Kev, who disagrees with the IPPC view on projected warming and sea level rise, 10% Vickie and 10% Andrew.
Major step to be on Newsnight - maybe the first signs of the floodgates opening.

Feb 18, 2014 at 12:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterG. Watkins


I have recently been discussing sea level rise on the Sea Level Rise - Some issues thread. You will find the references in comments by myself and Sandy S.

Feb 18, 2014 at 12:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

"Look at the smoothed curve."

A smoothed curve is not actual rainfall. 2013 was 52nd wettest.

But using your logic, the smoothed curve also shows Annual Sunshine is at record levels. Does anyone from the Met go around demanding an end to more sunshine because of the evil climate change.

Feb 18, 2014 at 1:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterBruce

Carry on being reasonable, Mr Montford.
They can, and do, claim pretty much everything about the science, but you know the key point: The models suck.
The outrageous, almost hysterical, predictions are still being made, and are still not coming true.

Feb 18, 2014 at 1:42 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

The question not asked, nor answered, was "If we spend that money proposed by Kevin Anderson on 'combating climate change' by decarbonisation, home insulation, etc, will the flooding stop? Will the seas stop rising? Are we saved?"

Feb 18, 2014 at 6:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob Schneider

Entropic man (11:11 PM): "He also glossed over the fact that the rate of sea level rise has tripled since 1920 from 1.2mm/year to 3,2mm/year after staying almost stable for the past two millennia."
A comparison with 1920 is a cherry-pick; one might equally well say that the rate of sea level rise is pretty much the same as in 1950. [An equal but opposite cherry-pick.] Not helpful.

Feb 18, 2014 at 7:13 AM | Registered CommenterHaroldW

EM: "He also glossed over the fact that the rate of sea level rise has tripled since 1920 from 1.2mm/year to 3,2mm/year after staying almost stable for the past two millennia"

I keep trying to politely point out your figures are wrong, but you keep repeating it so I'll have to be bit more forthright about it. Your numbers are false. AR5 is very clear on sea level rise.

1. Average rate is 1.7 mm/yr over the period 1901 to 2010.
2. There appears to be an increased rate of 3.2 mm/yr (larger error bars) over the period 1993 to 2010.
3. The IPCC AR5 notes there is also a similar high rate over the period 1930 to 1950.

Note that CO2 warming can only be significant from the 1950's so the accelerated sea level rise in (3) above must be natural and of course it follows the natural warming of the 1930's (which on adjusted temperature records is the same magnitude as the latter part of the 20th century).

Of course, if we believed your continual acceleration nonsense from 1920 onwards we would have to conclude it were linked to some natural process as CO2 effects are minimal before 1950's.

But, hey Entropic Man, never let data and facts get in the way of a beautiful model eh?

Feb 18, 2014 at 7:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

Entropic Man
From my view of the discussion we'd come to the conclusion that there's only a couple of decades worth of decent data. For my part I found even more evidence to confuse the issue and confirmation of. 1-3 ft sea level rise in the dark ages.

Your last major post on that thread was

Sandy s

There is not much CO2 in ice. The big carbon sinks are ice and dissolved gas in the oceans.That is where the CO2 was released into the air as the Holocene warmed.

11mm/year at the start of the Holocene! That's way more than I estimated.

The Amsterdam graph is illuminating. The sea level rise started around 1800. Good evidence for your LIA recovery hypothesis.

The earlier pattern looks pretty static. Score one for me?

I grew up on the edge of the Fens. They are now like the Somerset Levels. Peat shrinkage has lowered the land below sea level and below the drainage channels (confusingly we called them dykes). It can feel odd to drive along looking up at the boats. Hope the pumps keep working :-)

Feb 17, 2014 at 12:09 AM | Entropic man

Feb 18, 2014 at 7:46 AM | Unregistered CommentersandyS

Disappointing, you need to be more assertive if you are going on newsnight. You let him control the discussion and hardly challenged him at all.

Feb 18, 2014 at 8:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterDisappointed

Thinking Scientist - EM is probably using the Envisat sea level data after the retrospective 'adjustment' was made:

blink graph

Feb 18, 2014 at 8:27 AM | Registered Commenterlapogus

Always remain calm Andrew, keep it factual and straightforwards [particularly for Deben] but then - you know this better than me.

Or, with guns primed, give them a triple broadside.

Feb 18, 2014 at 8:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

Entropic man has the figures to hand so perhaps, armed with the numbers, he can tell us what we can expect in terms
of sea level rise and annual rain fall as a result of the decarbonisation on which he seems so keen.

After all everyone agrees it's rather a lot of money and misery for the supposed gain so at the very least he should vouchsafe us the magnitude of that light at the end of the tunnel.

Put another way for the UK: Entropic man - please show us the numbers that reveal the fallacy in this statement "If there is a problem (CAGW) and you do whatever you think necessary in the UK to resolve it by spending billions, you will make no measurable difference to the UK's climate and none at all to the globe. "

Feb 18, 2014 at 8:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlleagra

I see that our very own EM(ily) has come up with the answer to flooding and sea-level rise: spend some tens of billions on decarbonising. Yep, that'll work! That nasty old jet stream will dump over all parts of the NH but as it passes over GB it'll say, 'Mustn't dump on the Brits, they've decarbonised'. Nice one Emily.

Feb 18, 2014 at 8:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Good luck, Bish; I couldn't be in the same room with that slimeball. He makes me want to vomit. (past experience).

Feb 18, 2014 at 9:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterStephen Richards

Why is everyone here so keen to cherry pick individual figures that fit their convenience, rather than look at the overall picture?
EM, Whatever I may have said about you I have always assumed I was dealing with someone reasonably intelligent and moderately well-informed. You are now coming across as being more than a little thick. Let me spell it out.
The answer to your question is that we are responding to a specific claim with a specific rebuttal. The claim which is being bandied about is that we are in the middle of or have had the wettest winter 'evah!' The rebuttal is to find a three-month winter period — any three-month winter period will do — that proves this claim to be false.
1929-30 rainfall figures for Nov-Jan do the trick. OK?
As for the rest, I would be delighted to accommodate your pedantry anywhere except in the sound-bite territory of a TV three-way interview. Anderson (by all accounts; I didn't see the programme) rabbited on and did himself no favours; Andrew seems to have made the succinct and accurate point that there was a comparable period in the past when the rainfall exceeded this so-called record.
WTF is your problem?

Feb 18, 2014 at 9:23 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>