The House of Commons Transport Select Committee has heeded the call by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) for an inquiry into the UK’s winter transport fiasco.
Dr Benny Peiser, the GWPF Director, welcomed the decision by the Transport Committee.
He said: “We anticipate that the most important questions we raised in our letter to the Transport Select Committee on 6 January, in particular those regarding contradictory provision of weather forecasts by the Met Office, will be thoroughly scrutinised so that similar events can be avoided in the future.”
Impact on transport of recent adverse weather conditions
18 January 2011
The impact of the recent cold weather on the road and rail networks in England and Wales and on the UK’s airports, including the extent to which lessons were learnt from winter 2009-10, the provision of accurate weather forecasts to transport providers in advance of the bad weather, and the recommendations of the Quarmby reviews of the resilience of England’s transport systems in 2010.
The Committee expects to hear oral evidence on this issue in February and would welcome written evidence from those affected by the adverse weather conditions by Wednesday 2 February 2011.
About Parliament: Select Committees
Notes on the submission of written evidence
It assists the Committee if those submitting written evidence adhere to the following guidelines:
Written submissions should be as short as is consistent with conveying the relevant information. As a rough guide, it is usually helpful if they can be confined to six pages or less. Paragraphs should be numbered for ease of reference. A single-page summary of the main points is sometimes helpful. The submission should be in a form suitable for monochrome photocopying.
Evidence should be submitted in Word or Rich Text format, by e-mail to transev@parliament.uk. The body of the e-mail should include a contact name, telephone number and postal address. It should be absolutely clear who the submission is from, particularly whether it is on behalf of an organisation or in the name of an individual.
Once accepted by the Committee, written evidence becomes the Committee’s property and it may decide to publish it or make other public use of it. If the Committee decides to accept your contribution as evidence we will email you formally accepting it as such. An acknowledgement of formal acceptance will be sent once all formalities have been completed. You may publicise or publish your submission yourself, once you receive the formal acceptance of your evidence to the Committee. When doing so, please indicate that it has been submitted to the Committee.
Though the Committee is happy to receive copies of published material, formal submissions of evidence should be original work and not published elsewhere.
Committee staff are happy to give more detailed guidance on giving evidence to a select committee, or further advice on any aspect of the Committee’s work, by phone or e-mail.
House of Commons Transport Select Committee
=============================================================
The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 24 January 2011
For further information, see also:
- GWPF Letter to Louise Ellman, MP, Chair of the Transport Select Committee, 6 January 2011
- Labour MP Louise Ellman Considering Probe Into Winter Transport “Fiasco”
- Louise Ellman Asked To Probe Met Office’s ‘Conflicting’ Winter Weather Advice
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Shevva wrote:
“Althought it’s been around since 2008 and pushed by several diffrent goverment quangos and think tanks.”
DRIVER FURY AT PETROL RATION PLAN, Daily Express, January 24, 2011
http://www.express.co.uk/search/petrol%20ration/
When I first read that article yesterday I thought that there is absolutely no chance of the government adopting the idea because they would realise that they could kiss goodbye to their chances of being elected. On second thoughts I probably overestimated the intelligence of our political leaders and underestimated how out-of-touch most of them are.
They would probably think that if petrol rationing were introduced then fewer people would want to venture onto the roads in bad weather and therefore there would be fewer complaints about the lack of grit and salt. At the same time they would get the Green vote.
Is it really so hard to say “We do not know what will come, so we prepare for the 50 year event.”? (or 20 if cheap or 100 if cautious).
The “root cause” here is a fantasy belief that they can tune their preparedness and expenditures to the weather in particular years. It is GREED in drag as economy. A false economy.
So just say “thank you very much, you may go, your services will not be needed” to the weather non-predicting Met Office and issue a directive to prepare based on a 50 year risk threshold.
RichieP wrote:
Brian Johnson uk says:
January 24, 2011 at 7:05 am
‘ Our MP – one Jeremy Hunt, is a total waste of space.’
“Huh, you think yours is rubbish, try mine:”
http://www.carolinelucas.com/cl/media/the-new-home-front-uk-needs-a-war-footing-on-energy-and-climate-crisis.html
Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton, seems to think the rationing system of World War II is something to be admired. It is – as something that helped Britain to get through the War and its aftermath.
Churchill may have offered the British people “blood, toil, tears and sweat” in his first speech as Prime Minister, but he also promised victory. The full context of that phrase is worth quoting.
“I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this government: I have nothing to offer but toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war by sea, land and air with all our might and with all the strength God can give us … That is our policy. You ask, what is our goal? I can answer in one word. It is victory — victory, at all costs, victory in spite of all terror — victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.”
Are the Greens promising us victory in our “war” on the climate or are they the appeasers?
The one guaranteed outcome of this investigation, which I predict with 95% certainty, is that the Met Office will be found to have failed to provide unequivocal forecasts of a cold winter (slap wrist with a wet lettuce as punishment). The recommendation, to prevent further occurrences, will be to fund the £30M for the even bigger supercomputer they have been asking for.
Roy says:
January 25, 2011 at 2:14 am
‘Are the Greens promising us victory in our “war” on the climate or are they the appeasers?’
No, they require only our unconditional surrender. Let’s all remember General McAuliffe.