Article by James Delingpole, one of the staunchest skeptics writers out there:
Breitbart London's new Executive Editor James Delingpole looks at the ten 'best' lefty lies about the UK flooding... then debunks them:
1. This is the wettest winter since records began.
No it's not. As Paul Homewood reveals at his website Not A Lot Of People Know That, it was considerably wetter between November 1929 and January 1930. Yes, this January was wet, but it still only ranks as the sixteenth wettest month since records began in 1766.
2. The Environment Agency has been doing a great job with inadequate resources.
No it hasn't. With a staff of 11,200 and an annual budget of £1.2 billion, this bloated quango is grotesquely overmanned and overfunded, bigger almost than the size of the Canadian, Danish, French, Swedish and Austrian Environment Agencies combined. It is also - like most government agencies - extremely wasteful, inefficient and poorly managed.
Here is a sample quote from the website Inside the Environment Agency, a talking shop for (understandably disgruntled) EA insiders and ex-staffers: "It doesn't help that 99 per cent of the staff, mostly Environment and Flood Officers, refuse to do standby or volunteer work to deal with flooding emergencies. This is despite it being in their contracts. It leaves us undermanned and ill-prepared but managers won't do anything about it but claim they need to employ more staff."
Nor should we listen to its complaints about poor funding. It claims to have been forbidden by Treasury rules from spending the £4 million needed to dredge the River Parrett, which runs through the Somerset Levels. Yet mysteriously, it had no problem finding the £31 million it cost to flood hundreds of acres of farmland on the nearby Somerset coast in order to create a habitat for birds.
3. Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson should resign.
No, he shouldn't. Paterson is one of the few politicians to have shown any integrity in this crisis. Unlike his Conservative colleagues David Cameron and Philip Hammond he has not sought to curry easy favour with the green lobby by blaming the floods on 'climate change'. He was the first senior politician to visit the Somerset Levels and grasp the truth about the problem: that the floods were a direct consequence of Environmental Agency and European Union policy.
This is the real reason for the current campaign - as petitioned for by Greenpeace, endorsed by the Green Party, and tacitly supported by Paterson's many enemies both within his own department and at the Department of Energy and Climate Change - demanding that Cameron sack Paterson. Paterson, one of the few "out" climate sceptics in the cabinet, has seen for himself the extent to which the British political system is being held to ransom by green ideologues. As a spy thriller might put it, Paterson has to go because he knows too much.
4. This is what climate change looks like.
Maybe, but only because environmental propagandists have set the bar so low that were night found to follow day, or water prove to be wet, or sheep discovered to go "baa", these too would no doubt be cited by the likes of the BBC, the Guardian and the Huffington Post as incontrovertible proof that "global warming" (or whatever they're calling it right now) is real.
For what it's worth, though, Mat Collins - a professor in climate systems at the University of Exeter and co-ordinating lead author to the IPCC - said at the weekend that the recent storms were not caused by climate change but by the jet stream being stuck further south than usual.
He said: "There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge."
5. It's not Brussels's fault.
Oh yes it is. Very much so - despite attempts to pooh-pooh the notion by the EU president himself, Jose Manuel Barroso.
In fact the EU - taking its cue from the UN's Agenda 21 policies on "sustainability" and "diversity" - bears more culpability for these floods than any other institution.
As Richard North and Christopher Booker were the first to note, these floods were the result of deliberate policy created by environmental activists within the EU who put wildlife before humans. These EU green diktats - such as the Water Framework Directive and the Habitats Directive - are the reason why, for example, the Environment Agency decided to abandon the longstanding practice of dredging the rivers in the Somerset Levels, thus allowing the area to flood.
At least as damaging as the EU's environmental directives are its policies regarding waste disposal, as introduced to UK law under the Waste Management Regulation of 1994. Where before, the silt dredged from our rivers could be freely dispersed on farmland as fertiliser, it must now be disposed of at great expense in licensed waste dumps. This is the primary reason why the costs of dredging our rivers have become so prohibitively high. And this applies not just to rivers like the ones in the Somerset Levels but also to our biggest river - the Thames - which is now only dredged occasionally to improve navigation, but not to improve water flow generally. Hence the current disastrous flooding in the Thames valley.
6. Lord (Chris) Smith shouldn't be forced to resign as Environment Agency chairman.
Yes he should. Why on earth should he be paid nearly £100,000 a year (of our money) for a three-day week if he isn't going to take responsibility when things go wrong on his watch?
Interviewed on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, he denied all knowledge of the infamous 2008 policy document - heavily influenced by the EU - which effectively endorsed the flooding of the Somerset Levels: "That is certainly not Environment Agency policy as of now", he claimed.
Oh yes it is. An Environment Agency report from 2012 - 'Managing Flood Risk' - shows that partial flooding of the Somerset Levels has remained official EA policy even on Chris Smith's watch.
7. Well at least it has been good for wildlife.
The only thing to be said for Lord Smith (see 6, above) is that he's not nearly as bad as his enviro-loon predecessor Baroness Young of Old Scone, a Labour peeress who apparently caught the green bug during her stint as president of the (fanatically Warmist) Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB).
So great was the Baroness's enthusiasm for creating wetland habitats for her beloved birds that she was once famously heard to say that she wished she could attach a limpet mine to every pumping station on the Somerset Levels.
"For instant wildlife, just add water," was one of Baroness Young's catchphrases.
Which is ironic, when you think about it, given how much of that wildlife - badgers, hedgehogs, ground-nesting voles - is now floating, belly-up in the floodlands of drowned Britain.
8. Dredging the rivers wouldn't have made much difference anyway.
Yes, of course, that's what environmental apologists would like you to believe. Which is why, for example, the BBC has been so assiduous in finding expert professors prepared to testify to this effect on every other news bulletin.
But of course they're talking rubbish. The only way floodwater can escape is out to sea: hence the need for keeping the conduits for such a process - our rivers - as free-flowing as possible i.e. with regular dredging.
For clear visual evidence of what has gone wrong over the years, have a look at the before and after pictures of the River Parrett unearthed by Richard North at his Eureferendum blog.
The old black and white one shows the river to be wide and free-flowing. The more recent colour one shows how badly the banks have been allowed to silt up.
9. Say what you like about David Cameron: he has shown real leadership in all this.
What, you mean by calling a press conference (safely removed from any of the poor (and very angry) buggers whose properties have been devastated by these floods), looking grave and promising that "money is no object" in dealing with the floods?
Yes, I could do that. I think we could all do that if these limitless resources we were promising to throw at the problem didn't have to come out of our own pockets.
So let's just have a reality check here, shall we? Yes the floods have been bad. Yes the government has a responsibility to respond to the disaster, especially given that the problem is at least partly of its own making. But no, the Prime Minister should not be in the business of promising wantonly to spend money our debt-ridden national coffers do not actually possess. A 'Conservative' prime minister, especially.
10. "Lessons will be learned."
No they won't. Which is the main reason I wanted to write this list: as a handy reminder of all the things that the government, the liberal-left MSM, the greenies and the rest are going to do their damnedest to make us forget as quickly as possible.
The fact - and this cannot be restated often enough - is that these floods are a man-made disaster. But the man-made element has nothing whatsoever to do with anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Rather it is the result of deliberate policy, initiated by the UN (Agenda 21), the European Union and its amen corner the Environment Agency, designed to create wildlife habitats at the expense of humans.
Under EU regulations Britain is powerless to prevent this problem occurring again and again. None of this can possibly change so long as Britain's regulations are subject to the policies created by the green ideologues who infest the European Union.
Just in case you missed it, the numbers on precipitation in the UK may be found here notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpr…
James Delingpole's article here www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lo…
Why do I keep posting material like this? BECAUSE THOSE WHO WISH TO MAKE YOU LIVE IN FEAR OF THE WEATHER, KNOW THAT YOU VERY LIKELY DON'T KNOW PAST WEATHER HISTORY. THEY BANK ON IT!
And I am sickened, and tired, of the propaganda put up by others on this site. Of course, one supposedly cannot blame them for posting propaganda: they've been raised in fear of the weather all their lives, they bow to 'authority' and they have not been taught critical thinking.
Some of them are downright Stupid. But, I would get in trouble for mentioning names. Eh, Bootsy?