Climate Porn From The Climate Coalition
By Paul Homewood
h/t Andrew
A group called The Climate Coalition have published a particularly pernicious piece of climate porn, “Weather Warning: Britain’s Special Places Under Threat”.
The Climate Coalition consists of over 130 charities, including the RSPB, Woodland Trust, National Trust, Christian Aid, WWF, Oxfam and the Women’s Institute (I kid you not!). Just listing its members should be enough to dismiss the credibility of the report.
It has been written in conjunction with the Priestley Centre for Climate, part of the University of Leeds and headed by Piers Forster.
The “Weather Warning” follows the all too accustomed propaganda of blaming every bit of bad weather on man made global warming.
Here are a few examples:
The assessment ignores the point that this sort of storm damage has always worked in this fashion – no damage for a few years, and then one stormy year.
I am not quite sure what they mean by “as a result of climate change” – does it mean the rock is melting because it is a bit warmer?
The UK Climate Projections, published by the Met Office in 2009, was clear that there was little evidence that the recent increase in storminess over the UK is related to man-made climate change.
It was even stormier in the 1920s, and both periods have coincided with a sustained positive NAO index.
http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/22530
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_oscillation#/media/File:Winter-NAO-Index.svg
As for sea levels, they have barely risen just a few miles along the coast at Newhaven for more than a decade.
Sea Level at Newhaven
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1548.php
Winter rainfall in the regions was the highest on record in 2015/16, but only an insignificant 9mm more than 1914/15.
There is no evidence in the data since 1910 to support the contention that winter rainfall is increasing.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Rainfall/date/England_E_and_NE.txt
A load of unsubstantiated ifs, maybes and guesses.
The reality is much more mundane. The pattern of rainfall there has changed little over the last century.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/datasets
As for temperatures, there has been a slight rise in recent decades. But last year was not even as warm as 1921.
Year on year variability still dominates. If birds can cope with that, I am sure they can manage with a half a degree or so over a whole century.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/datasets
Most of the other case histories concern floods, with the usual “scientists say they will get worse” unsubstantiated nonsense.
A good example is the flood at Corbridge following Storm Desmond, which damaged the cricket clubhouse:
As I revealed at the time, there were storms over the same region that matched the intensity of Storm Desmond in both 1897 and 1898.
The Tyne Valley has a long history of terrible floods. One of the worst in recent times was the Great Flood of 1771, when this contemporary account was written:
Great Flood on the Rivers Tyne, Tees, Wear, Eden and other rivers in the region, on the 16th and 17th November 1771.
On November 17th 1771, after torrential rainfall all the bridges in the Tyne Valley were destroyed or badly damaged except for the bridge at Corbridge. This included the washing away of sections of the Tyne Bridge at Newcastle and 3 arches of the arches of Elvet Bridge in Durham. The Tees valley was also badly affected with the loss of mills and houses; it was reported that the Tees was half a mile wide at Low Coniscliffe during the flood.
Newcastle
Sunday morning, the 17th of November, about two o’clock, with the wind at East, the inhabitants of Newcastle upon Tyne were alarmed with the most dreadful inundation that ever befel that part of the country; the water in the Tyne rising six feet higher than a remarkable fresh in the year 1763; occasioned, as may be presumed, by an incessant fall of rain from Saturday morning to Sunday, which was particularly violent in the western parts of that county, and the county of Durham. The first dawn of day discovered a scene of horror and devastation, too dreadful for words to express, or humanity to behold, without shuddering: all the cellars, warehouses, shops, and lower apartments of the dwelling houses, from the West end of the Close to near Ouseburn, were totally under water. The flood was so rapid and sudden, that it was with the greatest difficulty the inhabitants, who slept in the lower parts of their houses escaped with their lives. But what completed the public calamity was the fall of Tyne Bridge, which, having stood the brunt of time for upwards of five hundred years, yielded to the force and impetuosity of this flood. The middle arch of Tyne Bridge, and two other arches near to the South side of the water, were carried away and seven houses with shops standing thereon, together with some of the inhabitants, with their whole stocks, overwhelmed, in immediate destruction.
https://co-curate.ncl.ac.uk/great-flood-of-1771/
They had a lot more to worry about in those days than a cricket pavilion!
Apparently they are worried about storms, even though it was a severe storm which uncovered Skara Brae in the first place.
As we have already seen, there is no evidence that storms are becoming more intense because of man-made climate change.
As for sea levels, they are actually falling:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=170-001
But why let facts get in the way of a good story?
I could go on.
Apparently salmon are declining on the River Wye because of hotter drier summers.
Let’s see how that one works out then:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/datasets
I am convinced the jerks who write this nonsense make most of it up as they go along, to fit in with their preconceived delusions.
And, of course, they feed off the climate change attribution industry, which has built up from virtually nowhere during the last few years.
As we know, all they do is programme their computer models to assume that global warming leads to bad weather, and hey presto!
And they call it science!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Link to sea level trends you gave didn’t work, so I went direct to NOAA site to try my luck at accessing the data, but lo and behold though I tried various different routes all ‘roads’ to the data have been blocked. Could it be the powers that beard trying to doctor what you found or is that being too conspiratorial ?!?
If the station data does not work, try this:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/
You just have to select station then
Although I did find this which seems to contradict your previous assertion that sea levels are falling http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html. Am I missing something or are the NOAA completely chaotic?
Peter — Sea levels are falling in Scotland because the land is still rebounding from the loss of glaciers over 10,000 years ago.
NOAA are trying to splice satellite data onto tide guages, a strict no no! There is of course the issue of land sinking/rising that makes the two totally incompatible.
Pretty much whereever you look, you can see that sea levels in the last few decades are rising no faster than the period up to around 1970, when for a couple of decades it slowed down. For instance, Newlyn:
UPDATE
Sorry Peter, I have just realised you were querying the NOAA link for lerwick – I had assumed the PSMSL one for Newhaven! Sorry for the confusion
The NOAA link is sometimes dowb, when they are updating data, so will probably be back up tomorrow, but I have added my screenshot of the graph to the post now
(The original NOAA link is down – was this what you meant?)
Yes it was. But thanks for all the feedback
I wasn’t going to comment on this post – you did far too good a job Paul. However, my blood boiled when I read the CRAP written about hotter summers leading to the crash in the Wye salmon population. Anyone like me who has been a British game fisherman since the 70s will tell you that the stocks of British salmon (which incidentally tend to run more in the spring and autumn than the summer, precisely because water levels are lower and the water is less oxygenated in the summer) have been in serious decline for decades in most regions. Even concerted attempts to buy out coastal nets in various areas have failed to solve the problem. Many of us now only fish for salmon in Arctic areas overseas – it’s that bad here. The population crash is due to over-netting at sea, especially around the salmon’s oceanic wintering grounds far away. It has nothing whatsoever to do with tiny variations in water temperature. Whoever wrote this is either a total numpty or a bare-faced liar.
These attributes tend to exist together.
Another example of confusing weather and climate.
You only have to look at the 130 charities making up the Climate Coalition to know that you will only get fake stories and propaganda from them. These people don’t do science.
There has been considerable chatter in New Zealand South Island papers about diminishing numbers of salmon in the local rivers. Numerous factors have been blamed – farming practices, irrigation, climate change – but scant mention has been made of the booming fur seal population as a result of their becoming fully protected from 1978.
Another example of “unforeseen consequences” – ban one thing – change the balance
Over the next 30 years expect to see coal, oil, and gas powering the world and most autos running on gasoline. And the climates of the World will be basically the same as they are now. I can’t see any further than 30 years — and won’t be here then either.
The point is: These groups should strive to protect and enhance the areas they love with their volunteer work — get their hands dirty and the muscles sore.
That’s what I do.
I don’t pretend I can change the climate.
Yesterday I wrote
\\More PR across the usual trash media
“Cricket hit for six by climate change. Extreme weather linked to climate change is disrupting cricket by flooding dozens of grounds, a report has found.”
“bad weather causes £3.5bn of damage to 57 clubs across the UK ” (Mail later corrected Bn to million)
” in a report by the Climate Coalition of organisations and charities. Its figures were released by the Marylebone Cricket Club”
The Times quotes Piers Foster of Leeds Uni”//
I then checked the press release on Lords
\\”The announcement launches the annual ‘Show The Love’ campaign from The Climate Coalition, whose members include WWF-UK, the RSPB, the National Trust, The Women’s Institute and Christian Aid.
It also accompanies the publication of a ’Weather Warning’ report highlighting how extreme weather conditions are affecting some of Britain’s favourite places – from gardens to local pubs, rivers to our parish churches, iconic cliffs to woodlands.”//
it’s a mass begging letter.
I have visited Skara Brae a few times over the years. It pre-dates Stonehenge and was mysteriously abandoned at roughly the same time as the end of the Bronze Age warm period. It is not likely that cooling was the cause of that abandonment. After all, the houses were part-buried and interconnected, so would have been naturally quite warm and sheltered. Current theory is likely coastal erosion brought on by sea level rise, and societal changes at the end of the neolithic period.
http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/skarabrae/abandon.htm
It is ironic that it was severe storms in 1850 that revealed the ancient settlement, and further severe storms in 1925 that prompted the building of the sea wall to protect the site.
“European cities will be plunged beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020.” -Paul Harris, UK Ecojournalist, 2004
The more obvious it becomes that temperature rise is going nowhere fast, the more we’ll hear about so-called ‘extreme weather due to climate change’, as though it had never happened before.
Exactly. ‘Extreme’ meme’s are there to keep alarmism at boiling point while temperatures do nothing in particular. They’re a safety net, a back-up. Gotta maintain the hysteria ya know otherwise the money dries up.
(I love the title Athelstan). Yes, Britain’s special places are under threat and the culprit is greed and execrable policy chasing by successive British governments. There is a special sort of numbers game played by the leading parties whereby, in most cases, more of anything is seen as a positive. That departments given over to the accumulation of mere numbers are bound to go rogue sooner or later and to overstep the mark on sustainability and discrimination, it goes without saying. If a person is doing well when in maximum toady mode then we are lost. There is not enough opposition even within the parties in power.
Britain must have the worst record of any nation in the sphere of planning. While in Germany whole towns were resurrected in the full splendour of their medieval origins after being bombed to dust was a nod in the direction of continuance, perpetuity. In Britain the answer was seen as modernism, which inevitably means fashion, and the awfulness perpetuated on places such as Coventry, a city of great architectural delights which was given the hardboard and concrete slab treatment.
Today other cathedral cities are being attacked and none more that those great cathedrals our ancient forests. Talk about a coach and horses, HS2 represents and coach an horsepower and the levelling of forest resources with which we are so lightly endowed. This is a Brexit focus. Sitting behind a desk in London and ordaining the lives of constant, respectful people by invading their landscape and tearing it up is unsettling and disheartening. It is said that the tribe who follow the AGW belief are humane and concerned but how does that relate to maintenance of our countryside and natural balms? How many windmills is a forest worth? How many crazy tidal schemes correspond to the wholesale building over of ancient pasture?
Coventry that was once praised as being thoroughly modern now looks shoddy and has no context. The obliteration of the stable and the familiar in favour of fly-by-night schemes endowed a wilful destruction of the human psyche that begs for order and the familiar, a solid basis of some certainty on which to found a life so bedevilled by uncertainty. There is a sort of equality in all that is attempted: even if Climate Change was the certainty that some claim it to be and that all the measures to save the planet and its environs were purpose, then a balance is found in the wanton destruction of flora and fauna and the obliteration of the landscape, We are city dwellers. The city has been shown since ancient times to be more secure and suitable to the human temperament. Yet, even with the model of London as a cultural and business model, for some reason, the planners believe that moving out of the city is somehow desirable whereas it adds immeasurably to the demands on the earnings of folk and may well yet prove to be a demographic time bomb in the delivery of social services.
Since our successive governments have stubbornly supported immigration for strategic reasons and focused on the the earnings of life rather than that life’s quality we have found that nowhere but London offers a cultured existence and an abundance of choice. The RSPB has stood guard over massive declines in all its species and mammals are suffering now too. It all goes together to inform that it is our environment that is killing us, harming us, as the creatures are the litmus of our being. But as long as this or that party can virtue signal, promote their cause on the back of statistical juggling and allow prominent individuals to have legacy projects of little practical use then Global Warming is actually on the back burner behind sensibility and the adornment of man’s inner demand for continuation and moderation.
Well that’s 150 charities I will never give a penny to.
The infiltration of the green blob into these charities has put them way beyond what they were initiated to achieve. As such, the money they recieve from donations, is fraudulent.
I feel a letter to the Charities Commisssion may be in order.
NeilC: The Charities Commission is as much use as a gelding at stud.
There is a registered charity in my area that helps with the provision of homes for the needy. My son-in-law’s company completed a large contract for them but the firm defaulted on payment (well over 150k) and continue to stone-wall demands for payment even though their accounts show they are able to do so. I wrote to the CC to ask if there was a general standard of governance that the CC required registered charities to abide by. They said, no, it’s entirely up to each company to follow their own rules and ethics. As a result my S-i-L’s firm has gone bust and they may well lose their house. And a lot of people have lost their jobs.
Charities, my arse!
I hope that your son-in-law takes the defaulting charity to court. This seems to me to be the right thing to do before the charity fails its intending needy clients. Don’t forget the ‘Kids Company’ example and pile in before the money melts away!
Great article Paul (as usual!). Where could I access the full list of the so called charities who make up this coalition? Thanks.
There appears to be a full listing here:
http://www.theclimatecoalition.org/members
Strangely, they don’t seem to be a charity in their own right, at least not according to their “About Us” page:
http://www.theclimatecoalition.org/about-us
There is no mention of charity status or charity number at the bottom of the page, although they give contact details as “c/o Oxfam ” I entered the name into the Charity Commission search box:
http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/AdvancedSearch.aspx
but it came back with nothing. However, I think you’ll find that most of the individual members will give results, and you can then research further by following the link. There you can view details and download a PDF of recent accounts from the links on the left of the page.
Try here
http://www.theclimatecoalition.org/about-us
Somebody show this to the Charities, please.
U.N. Official Admits Global Warming Agenda Is Really About Destroying Capitalism
by Tyler Durden
Feb 3, 2017 8:07 AM
Submitted by Martin Armstrong via ArmstrongEconomics.com,
A shocking statement was made by a United Nations official Christiana Figueres at a news conference in Brussels.
Figueres admitted that the Global Warming conspiracy set by the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which she is the executive secretary, has a goal not of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism. She said very casually:
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
She even restated that goal ensuring it was not a mistake:
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
I was invited to a major political dinner in Washington with the former Chairman of Temple University since I advised the University with respect to its portfolio. We were seated at one of those round tables with ten people. Because we were invited from a university, they placed us with the heads of the various environmental groups. They assumed they were in friendly company and began speaking freely. Dick Fox, my friend, began to lead them on to get the truth behind their movement. Lo and behold, they too admitted it was not about the environment, but to reduce population growth. Dick then asked them, “Whose grandchild are we trying to prevent from being born? Your’s or mine?
All of these movements seem to have a hidden agenda that the press helps to misrepresent all the time. One must wonder, at what point will the press realize they are destroying their own future?
why do they do it? is it only ideology (little we can do about that?), or financial interest.? Can anything be done against getting money via lies? probably not….too widespread and fundamental to our world. Pessimist.
I just sent this email to The Climate Coalition (via its website):
QUOTE
Your vision is “a world with 100% clean energy within a generation”. To achieve that, you refer to the need “to support the recent global climate change agreement” – i.e. the 2015 UN Paris Agreement. But that’s a problem: the Paris Agreement specifically exempts developing countries, responsible for about 65% of global greenhouse gas emissions and for the entire increase in emissions since 1990, from any obligation – moral or legal – to reduce those emissions. It means that 100% clean energy within a generation is in practice impossible unless the Agreement can be radically renegotiated – something that seems most unlikely. It also means that any action taken by the UK, responsible for little more than 1% of emissions, is pointless.
I’d be interested to learn your views on this difficulty and how it might impact your programme. Thanks.
References:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0958305X16675524
Click to access cop-21-developing-countries-_-2.pdf
UNQUOTE
A reply might be interesting
Of course these green parasites don’t “get it”.
Their livelihood entirely depends on them not “getting it”.