You’ll Soon Need A Boat To Get To Great Yarmouth!–Potty Green Councillor
By Paul Homewood
h/t Dave Ward
Regular readers will be aware that the Eastern Daily Press long ago lost all common sense over climate issues. It is of course based in Norwich, home to the University of East Anglia, which might explain a lot!
This is their latest offering:
OK, it was the councillor from the Looby Loo party who uttered these words, but one would have thought the reporter might have taken him to task.
For the record, a few miles down the coast at Lowestoft, sea levels have been rising by 2.55mm/yr since 1955.
http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=lowestoft&co2=0&lin_ci=0
But the rate of rise has actually slowed to 1.27mm since 2001. Roughly half of this is cause by land sinking.
The road and rail links into Great Yarmouth, although close to sea level, survived a 2-meter storm surge in the deadly floods of 1953.
I can’t see five inches of sea level rise in the next century causing too many problems.
Of course, as Dave Ward points out, things looked slightly different in Roman times!
http://norfarchtrust.org.uk/burghcastle
FOOTNOTE
Sea level data comes from Dave Burton’s excellent new site.
It uses official data from NOAA and PMSML, but Dave has built some excellent tools around it, to provide user friendly graphs etc.
I would thoroughly recommend it for anyone wanting to obtain sea level data.
The site is here:
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Greens are good at spending other people’s money. How about building a lunatic asylum for the Green Party group on the city council?
Since a high proportion of Norfolk people have webbed feet, this must have happened many times before: why worry?
Hi Paul
It’s most unlike you to omit a relevant fact!
Have you forgotten Climate Change / Global Warming isn’t the only reason a boat service to Gt Yarmouth might be needed? 😉
Ooops. No label on Durham Uni’s chart, but negative figures are land sinking.
“Current rate of relative land- and sea-level change in the British Isles in mm a–1, showing relative land uplift as positive and relative subsidence as negative.”
Thanks for that info, Joe. I was about to make a similar point.
Though we know just how misguided, not to say mendacious, your average greenie can be, we do need to remember that whether it is water rising or land sinking your feet get just as wet.
So Cllr Bearman could turn out to be correct — albeit for the wrong reasons and not for at least another couple of hundred years so it is more likely a problem for his great-great-great grandchildren.
Our potty Green Party MEP (Molly Scot Cato – or something like that) was on Farming Today advocating a tax on meat (to save the planet from climate change of course). Of course then only the rich could afford to eat meat, but let the rest eat vegetable cakes. If sheep and cattle were not farmed where I live, then the land would quickly become scrub and most wildlife would die out (as would all the farmers and people who depend on farmers for their livelihood). The land is only suitable for growing grass or poor quality crops such as oats to feed to animals. Potty Green Party members haven’t a clue what would happen if their potty ideas were put into practice.
With respect I think that the Greens not only have a clue about what would happen but have a very definite plan. Once rendered unsuitable for traditional farming it becomes perfect for wind farms, as has happened to much of the moorland to the north and east of Manchester.
A cleverly thought out longterm plan and immensely successful so far .
In the USA there has been moneyed connections among those wanting to do away with furs, pets, meats and so on, and those believing in over population and global warming. For some, the approach would be to collapse all modern society and depopulate the world.
It is not clear to me how anyone could survive — “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. [Hobbes]
You have just described the efforts of one, George Soros nee Georg Schwartz.