Skip to content

UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017

January 28, 2017

By Paul Homewood




The government has now published its latest UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017, something it is obliged to do every five years by the Climate Change Act 2008.

The assessment looks to be wholly based on the report of the same name, published last July by the Committee on Climate Change, (CCC).

I think you might see the problem here!

  1. The CCC was established under the Climate Change Act, and filled by the government with people who, for various reasons, want to push the global warming agenda.
  2. It is called an independent statutory body, but is no such thing.
  3. The CCC then issues a report with all sorts of scary predictions.
  4. The government is obliged under the aforesaid Act to take on board the CCC’s advice.
  5. The government then publishes its assessment, based on that advice.

And so we close the circle. The government appoints a body to provide it with the advice it wants, in order to pursue the policies it wants.


The Risk Assessment has six categories of risk:







As I have repeatedly shown, there is no evidence that heavy rainfall is increasing in England & Wales, though this may be the case in Scotland.

The wettest year was 1872, which was also part of the wettest decade.




The wettest month was in 1903:




And real flood experts, such as Professor Mark Macklin and Professor Stuart Lane, will tell you that, although the UK alternates between wet and dry periods, the historical record shows that there is nothing unusual about flooding in recent years.

Even if floods get no worse, the harsh reality is that not enough is currently being done to mitigate the risk from them.

While a lot has been done in the last few decades, many problems still remain, not helped by building on flood plains.



As for sea levels, the Executive Summary wrongly claims that they are rising around our coasts at a rate of 3mm/year.

The actual rate is less than 2mm, and considerable less in Scotland, where the land is rising.

Furthermore, it is plain that the rate of rise is not accelerating.







Around most of the English and Welsh coasts, part of the sea level rise is actually due to the land sinking:





There is no evidence that such small, and largely natural, rises in sea levels pose any threat at all.


I will be looking at the other five categories in a later post.

  1. AlecM permalink
    January 28, 2017 11:19 am

    I propose a slight modification to the CCC’s remit. This is to attribute climate change to the Wrath of God with total decarbonisation of the economy and the early death of 2/3 rds of the population as the only way to Salvation.

    It goes without saying that those on the CCC who have been ennobled must wear green robes and sit with the Bishops as Guardians of our Spiritual Progress.

  2. Harry Passfield permalink
    January 28, 2017 11:20 am

    [The Report] presents compelling evidence that Climate Change may lead to increases in heavy rainfall [etc]

    So ‘compelling’ is it that they still need to use the weasel word: ‘may’.

    • Broadlands permalink
      January 28, 2017 1:25 pm

      At least they are recommending adaptation and not re-burying oxidized carbon somewhere by “negative emission technology”…which MAY be workable at scale sometime?

    • Svend Ferdinandsen permalink
      January 28, 2017 6:57 pm

      It is priceless:
      “So ‘compelling’ is it that they still need to use the weasel word: ‘may’.”
      No matter how strong the evidence is, it just only might happen.

      They could also say that there is compelling evidence that the climate is not changing, but it may change in the future.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        January 28, 2017 7:04 pm

        And because of that ‘may’, Svend, they intend to tax the buggery out of us.

    • January 28, 2017 7:15 pm

      Dont they say that politics is the art of the possible ?

      • Rowland H permalink
        January 29, 2017 10:42 am

        As I may have posted before: “The fundamental art of practical politics is keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”. HL Mencken (1880-1956)

  3. January 28, 2017 11:28 am

    There’s nothing quite like dignifying foregone conclusions with a process, of enquiry, calculation & independent scrutiny Minister, to quell dissent before publishing them.

  4. Nigel S permalink
    January 28, 2017 11:50 am

    Spotted a nice coincidence; 2050 was the year by which ‘Newspeak’ was to become universal (except for the Proles), handy for celebrating the great 80% decarbonisation planned for 2050 by CCA.

    I hope all the snowflakes buying copies of 1984 will enjoy this quote from Syme.

    ‘The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking — not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.’

    Syme’s fate was ‘vaporization’ of course for being too intelligent, seeing too clearly and speaking too plainly.

  5. Jackington permalink
    January 28, 2017 11:55 am

    File under Lewis Carroll.

  6. January 28, 2017 12:46 pm

    Or file under ‘scientism’ – which would be appropriate for making calculations agree with a predetermined target congruent to ‘consensus’ of true believers.

  7. Dung permalink
    January 28, 2017 2:24 pm

    I (no doubt really annoyingly) keep trying to proclaim what seems to me to be a self evident truth which people on this and most other blogs just sweep under the carpet.
    DISCUSSING SCIENCE is a total and utter waste of time. Not only is it a waste of time it indicates a group think just as bad as that of our opponents and also indicates an intelligence deficit of huge proportions.
    Why I should find myself a lone voice on this issue is staggering to say the least.
    Taking the word ‘science’ as a word which refers to humanity’s understanding of our planet, how it works, what rules we believe control our world; It might help if we used non scientific terminology when appropriate.
    Using techno vocabulary imparts a totally false reassurance that we know a great deal, in reality we are just a bunch of ignorant but arrogant tossers who know virtually nothing.

    The one subject that has been studied more than any other (for understandably selfish reasons) is medicine so how well are we doing on that front?
    Are we agreed on on the causes and treatments for even the most common medical problems?
    Even a simple question like “is it really a good idea to treat ourselves with drugs when every usage reduces their effectiveness?
    Is animal fat good for us or not?
    We are close to total ignorance when considering huge swathes of medical problems but we believe we are doing a good job.

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      January 28, 2017 5:05 pm

      I thought you used to read my meanderings, Dung.

      I have been saying for years that climate “science” has nothing to do with science and everything to do with enviro-political activism. I have a raft of quotes from people directly involved in the scam admitting as much — on the other machine, I’m afraid, so I can’t access them at the moment but they include Strong, WIrth, Edenhofer, all of whom have admitted, or implied, at one time or another that climate per se is irrelevant and the aim is de-industrialisation of the west.

      For as long as we argue the science we will not get very far. Pierre Gosselin over at NoTricksZone has been listing a veritable tsunami of papers over the past year debunking the hockey stick, climate sensivity, and even the part played by CO2 in the whole affair.

      Who is listening? Nobody. Or at least nobody that matters.

      And for as long as there are bucks to be made or careers or honours and/or until nature or somebody who patently does know what he is talking about convinces the decision-makers that nothing that is happening now or will happen in the foreseeable future will bring about any of the scaremongering fostered by the activists and their useful idiots in the media then that situation will continue.

      I have (very cautious) hopes of Trump. Less so of May though I thought initially from reports that her kitchen cabinet were on “our” side. It seems not!

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        January 28, 2017 7:10 pm

        I’m with you, Mike (and Dung). ‘The science’ is the diversion. The whole exercise is nothing more than a means to make a few people filthy rich at the expense of many, many more. And reorder the political landscape at the same time. But they reckoned without Trump…

    • Athelstan permalink
      January 28, 2017 5:13 pm

      A pretty bleak assessment Dung but I’d not argue with a word of it.

      No doubt of it, ‘we’ mankind are preposterously, vaultingly arrogant and now also we’ve become soft. I think on the fortitude of these people and ‘hear’ the haughty disdain from modern day historians who scoff at dearly cherished beliefs and in so doing belittle not only themselves but those who lived through such events. “coz they ditent have science!” Oh really, they had their minds though and what sacrifice they also knew – when you think people break into tears if they break a nail or Donald Trump becomes president. Thus, to denigrate and sneer, to look down on such people [Eyam] demeans the human race – forever or, until the end of the Sun.

      ‘We’ know next to nothing, apps are going to solve our ills and the more you get to know they less you realize that you actually do think you know, we yet haven’t begun to scatch the surface.

      These days, I firmly believe we live in an age of ignorance and superstition – that our forefathers would scoff at us.

      • Mike Jackson permalink
        January 28, 2017 7:24 pm

        Good points, Athelstan.

        And the latest educational idea is to do away with rote learning (which I might be in favour of beyond a certain point) and to replace teaching facts with more concentration on researching sources.

        Which 50 years ago I might have agreed with but that was before Connelly got his grubby, biased fingers on Wikipedia. Now I don’t feel that it would be safe to trust anyone below graduate level to use the internet for reliable research — and that is not a criticism of our children.

        We are living in an age of ignorance but I would replace your “superstition” with “gullibility” though the two probably share a grandparent!

      • Athelstan permalink
        January 28, 2017 9:53 pm

        You’re every paragraph but particularly to the final one, agreed gullibility and yes grandparents; superstition and gullibility was something to which maybe I was searching – so thank you.

        Further, we need to teach wonder and STEM subjects but also the art of language, the ways to glean learning are in all subjects but logic must be the key. The next generation should be able to, expand their minds in learning how to think, perhaps in the discipline of philosophy but how to do that objectively?

        Lastly we’ve lost the science’ to be patient, to observe and experiment, to allow others indeed everybody to see it and if necessary to find fault – the definition of science should perhaps be, “quest”.

      • January 29, 2017 1:59 am

        “If learning the truth is the scientist’s goal… then he must make himself the enemy of all that he reads. ”
        Ibn Al Haytham

  8. roger permalink
    January 28, 2017 2:48 pm

    O/t but went to Inverness from the Solway last Saturday and have just returned home.
    There are many more new onshore turbines than at the end of November along the M74/ A9 route.
    Not once in three trips this season have the turbines been turning except for a handful here and there propelled by some peculiar force that had no effect on the trees,dead leaves, and dried out grasses around them.
    Without doubt the profusion of follies blots long tracts of the 250mile route and render once majestic scenery ugly and depressing to the traveller.
    Scotland under the control freaks Salmond and Sturgeon, whose joyless edicts affect more and more facets of life here becomes less and less of an attraction by the day.

    • January 28, 2017 6:27 pm

      There’s still not a turbine to be seen in in the whole of Rannoch, from the A9 west to Glencoe. Thanks largely to visual impact imaging by JMT & a timely change in policy from Westminster in 2015 that scuppered the proposed Talla-da-bheithe project.

      This clip may not have your latest additions but seems to illustrate your point quite nicely.

    • Athelstan permalink
      January 29, 2017 2:22 pm

      Heck of a drive mate but what the scenery!

    • Matty permalink
      January 29, 2017 3:31 pm

      I tend to do that route overnight from the South East & waking up to the dawn among earily still turbines towering on all sides somewhere after crossing the border is well spooky.

    • Ava permalink
      January 30, 2017 2:10 pm

      They were all turning this morning, in a light 20 km/h from the East, along the M74.

  9. January 28, 2017 3:41 pm

    I’ve given up expressing my contempt at the members of the “independent” CCC. They are in it purely for the money, the power, the prestige and the promised honours. Integrity does not come into it.

    • Athelstan permalink
      January 28, 2017 5:22 pm

      Fake news?

      Faux committees and false premises, plastic men and waxwork women can only fashion, to make for a disaster – this day as tomorrow: we are living through it – truly it is: the age of stupid.

      I know of and do meet with ‘consultants’ with BAs, Msc’s, PHDs and none of them impress me, though actually they worrry me greatly, kids playing at experts – and think on of those civil servants acting as geeks in the wet office/WMO/NOAA/IPCC – God help us.

  10. Ross King permalink
    January 28, 2017 4:11 pm

    “And so we close the circle. The government appoints a body to provide it with the advice it wants, in order to pursue the policies it wants.”
    Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose!”
    One can easily imagine — in this Post-Truthian World — the incoming Chairman asking his/her political pupeteer: “What do you want us tho say in our Report, Minister?”
    And being handed the 1st. draft!

  11. January 28, 2017 5:25 pm

    It must be quite tricky to determine whether flooding is ‘worse’ than it used to be, or not. What figures are they comparing?

    Number of ‘floods’ (definition?), volume of water (data?), costs incurred (inflation, regional differences?), area flooded (more built up than before?) and so on.

  12. Svend Ferdinandsen permalink
    January 28, 2017 7:16 pm

    The wordings: It is not called an assesment, but specifically “risk” assesment. It sounds OK, but it has some implications.
    In that way they are sure only to look at the risks without comparing them to benefits or just the normal climate, wich has always posessed risks.
    There is a reason why Owells 1984 has gained some interrest lately.
    We have to be carefull of the words, what they mean and how they are used.

  13. January 29, 2017 1:29 am

    But isn’t just estimating the way to go ? Haven’t you seen these latest adverts for Smart Meters that are airing.

    How could you possibly not want a Smart Meter ?

  14. tom0mason permalink
    January 29, 2017 5:23 am

    This report is based on the Met Office information?
    The Met Office admit that they can not give an accurate seasonal forecast because there are too many changes occurring in to many variables. Yet these same scammers unashamedly say they can predict climate for decades into the future. This is utter crud.
    If they are not lying about this (defining future climate trends) maybe they can say exactly (within 5 years) when the rainiest year will be for 90% of the British Isles in the next 100 years.
    Can do it can they? No! Because their probabilistic computer games machine has NO SKILL at such things, it can’t even keep up with the climate variability of the last 5 years.

    Any forecasts or projections made by the Met Office are just guesswork, hunches based on mathematical dross of the known mixed with pie-in-the-sky estimates for the unknown, These models by intent have never truly been verified or validated.
    In any other profession outside astrology this would be called BS. The models are the metaphorical cloak for climate magicians to hide behind.

    They have the temerity to come up with this report that will affect real people, their lives and livelihood. A report which at best is based on micron thin veneer of science over a steaming pile of guesswork.

  15. NeilC permalink
    January 29, 2017 6:28 am

    I still don’t understand why a Conservative government want to adhere to a marxist Climate Change Act (written by well known marxists Ed Miliband and Bryony Worthington (now baroness).

    It is well understoof the marxist policy is to de-industiralise the western world. At present they are succeeding in the UK.

    This is a plea to Mrs May, repeal the CCA. Make Great Britain GREAT again.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      January 29, 2017 12:58 pm

      We may have a Conservative party government but we certainly don’t have a conservative government. Going further, you might want to note that when the CCA was voted on only a handful of MPs voted against it. The Tories supported it just as mush as Labour and LibDems. Of course they then tried to label it Labour’s Climate Change Act which is misrepresentation if not an outright lie.

      Don’t expect much conservative from the Blue Labour government.

      • Matty permalink
        January 29, 2017 3:39 pm

        Save us from that urge when faced with uncertainty of feeling compelled to enact.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: