The first substantive issue raised by the autumn 2000 floods is whether the rainfall was caused by global burning or some other climate phenomena?

The political reactions to the autumn 2000 floods were predictable. Environmentalists believed the floods were the products of global burning triggered off by the excessive release of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels. Those on the left of the political spectrum, having rarely taken an interest in climate change, more or less blamed the floods on an ‘act of god’ and indulged in a bout of handwringing about the suffering endured by flood victims (the oomans that is) as a prelude to some oomano triumphalism in which it was expected that the marvels of the ooman spirit would overcome such adversities. For example, piers morgan, the editor of the mirror tabloid, "For once no one is to blame for what is happening. Britain is being crippled by what insurers like to call an act of god." Those on the right of the political spectrum simply denied the floods were caused by global burning and suggested people must have short memories because these were quite common events. The question is whether the greens’ explanation was any better than that of those on the right and left of the political spectrum. Is it possible that simply blaming global burning for the floods covers up an important environmental issue?

Right wing political commentators dismissed the idea that the autumn 2000 floods were caused by global burning. They suggested that britain was inundated by a succession of storms produced by the north atlantic oscillation (nao) which, they believed, had nothing to do with global burning. This view was outlined in the ‘daily telegraph’, a portal for ‘stratospheric ozone depletion’ denialism, ‘unemployment doesn’t boost crime’ denialism, deforestation denialism, bse denialism, ‘bse-on-the-bone’ denialism, ‘Cannabis is a dangerous drug but cigarettes, alcohol, and bseef, are good for ooman health’ denialism, global burning denialism, Animals do not suffer when hunted denialism, and euro denialism - attitudes which constitute the backbone of the current politically conventional outlook. After the october and november floods the ‘telegraph’ reported that, "Researchers from the universities of Newcastle and Exeter unveiled a record of British rainfall dating back to the Norman Conquest. It showed that the bizarre weather of the past few years is entirely consistent with the natural variations in the climate that have taken place over the past 1,000 years." At the end of november the cfc-deforestation-bse-global burning-euro sceptics elaborated on these views, "Claims by Government ministers and the media that Britain's recent spate of bad weather is caused by global warming will be dismissed as scientific nonsense this week by leading climate experts. An international conference of experts on the European climate will be told that the heavy rainfall and flooding of recent months is entirely consistent with a well-known weather system, and shows no signs of being linked to global warming. Yet climate experts will reveal this week that the most likely cause is the so-called North Atlantic Oscillation (nao), a pattern of atmospheric pressure which forms over the ocean. According to Dr David Stephenson, head of the Climate Analysis Group at the University of Reading, the recent weather has been in line with normal variation in this Atlantic pressure pattern (the nao). He told the telegraph: "The NAO was positive in October, but not by an unprecedented amount. The October storms were not extreme in terms of intensity or rainfall amounts, but caused floods due to their accumulated effects. By studying stalagmite growth, the team has built a record of rainfall dating back to the Norman Conquest - the biggest archive ever assembled. According to Dr Andy Baker of the University of Newcastle, this record confirms that the recent bad weather is far from exceptional, and shows no signs of getting worse. Dr Baker said: "We have shown that nature is able to repeat current events without the help of global warming. Politicians and other decision-makers should be aware of both natural and human-induced rainfall variability."" (Notice in this quotation that major nouns like ‘government’ and the ‘nao’ are given capital letters but not ‘global warming’).

Both scientists and greens believe the floods were the consequence of global burning, "The heavy rainfall causing chaos and flooding homes in the south-east may be linked to global climate change. As a result, the u.k. is likely to be lashed by similarly intense downpours more often in future, the meteorological office says. "The number of days of very heavy rain could increase substantially so the risk of flooding is likely to increase," said alan thorpe, director of the met office's hadley centre for climate change research."

Greens blamed the floods solely on global burning. They believe that global burning is caused primarily by the release of Carbon emissions from fossils fuels. They do not believe that damage to the Earth’s life sustaining processes contributes to global burning. As a consequence, they did not believe that country’s environment made any contribution to the floods. Indeed, they share with the politically conventional, the belief that britain’s environment is in a good shape. Neither suspected it of having any role in the floods. Greens blamed global burning for the floods because they assume there is nothing wrong with the Earth’s life sustaining processes in britain. This assumption is scientifically questionable and overtly political. The unanimity between the greens and the ‘telegraph’ is not surprising considering they both have vested interests in the pharming industry. The greens promote organic pharming and want to see a huge expansion in the area of land devoted to organic pharming. They thus dismiss non-technological solutions to global burning, such as Reforestation, that threaten this objective. But greens’ stance is not entirely unsurprising given that scientists have also been reluctant to talk about the role of the Earth’s life sustaining processes in contributing to global burning. Scientists’ fear that making demands for restoring the country’s life sustaining processes would frighten their paymasters into dismissing global burning even more than they do at present. At least the leader of the inter-governmental panel on climate change has been honest enough to admit that his disinterest in this issue is political.

This section explores the rainfall during autumn 2000 to see whether it provides any clues as whether the cause was global burning, the nao, or some other phenomena.

Britain’s normal weather consists of moderate amounts of rainfall which fall in moderate quantities - unlike the intense and lengthy rainstorms in the tropics. There is evidence that during the autumn 2000, rainfall was at times torrential.

"Portsmouth residents had first-hand experience of the new warning system last week. Torrential downpours and the breakdown of a local pumping station sent a tide of raw sewage pouring through 115 homes. The damage will take months, if not years, to repair fully."; "John and Jeanette Taylor have been flooded twice in the past two weeks. Although they live on the Ridge - which is high up, as its name suggests - in Hastings, they suffered from overflowing drains two Fridays running. 'The first time we were asleep in bed, and the dog woke us up by barking. My wife got out of bed and found she was walking in water,' says John. The second time, after it had rained heavily for 10 minutes, water started coming in under the door. 'There was very little warning,' John says. On both occasions, sudden thunderstorms sent water flooding through their roof and overwhelmed both their mains drainage - only 4in in diameter - and the sewerage system, which are just outside the couple's front door."

On 12th october, "East Sussex and north-west Kent had 180mm (six inches) of rain in three days, including 130mm in just 24 hours." The following day it was reported that, "Torrential rain brought flood chaos to southern england yesterday causing millions of pounds damage. Six rivers burst their banks after up to 5.5 inches of rain fell in 24 hours - the average for two months - wreaking havoc across kent, sussex, hampshire, the isle of wight and devon."; "The pupils of Uckfield community college were enjoying the applause for their performance of the musical Captain Noah and His Floating Zoo - which features the song "Let it rain, let it rain" - when the heavens opened. By yesterday morning five inches of rain had fallen in 12 hours and their picturesque town in East Sussex was waist deep in muddy floodwater and sewage."; "The government agency said that in the past 72 hours northwest Kent and East Sussex had seen 180mm (7ins) of rain. Some 130mm (5ins) had fallen in just 12 hours."

"An inch of rain in just an hour wreaked havoc across England and Wales yesterday in what is fast becoming the most widespread flood in British history."

The fact that the storms went on throughout the autumn months was also highly unusual. Autumnal storms are far from unusual but a succession of major storms throughout the period was unusual. This was a major weather event which burns itself into the national psyche like the endless hot days of the summer of 1976. The october storms were also unusual in producing tornadoes, "The Meteorological Office said the storm could be as severe as on Oct 30, when tornadoes hit the south coast." At the end of december 2000, devon was suffering .. "its 100th consecutive day of rain ..."

Most autumn storms affect only a proportion of the country. The oft-referred to october 1987 storm (which didn’t produce heavy rainfall or flooding) primarily affected the south-east of the country. Its affects in northern britain were much less noticeable. However, the autumn 2000 storms frequently affected the whole country. Some areas were particularly badly affected being flooded two or three times, but few areas of the country escaped the rainfall, "An inch of rain in just an hour wreaked havoc across England and Wales yesterday in what is fast becoming the most widespread flood in British history. The environment agency said rivers are rising rapidly as a band of torrential rain moves across the country from Pembrokeshire to Kent. The floods are now more extensive and in places more severe than those of the Great Flood of 1947."

.. "the wettest September since 1981 with 133 mm."

October was another wet month, "The October 2000 figure was 188 mm, the wettest October since 1903."

It has been estimated that in some areas of britain, the november storms dropped four months of rain in just a couple of days.

On december 9th it was reported, "Four people were killed yesterday as storms again ravaged southern britain." A few days later it was reported, "Four people were killed yesterday as torrential rain and 90mph gales wreaked yet more havoc across britain."

September was a wet month but october and november were even wetter, "The barrage of storms and downpours deluged the country with nearly double the normal amount of rainfall between september and november - 469.3mm compared to the 252mm average. That makes it the soggiest autumn since records began in 1766, beating the previous worst in 1852 by 13.5mm."; "We talk about the weather at the drop of a hat, but for once we are justified: it has been a remarkable autumn. More than that, an extreme one: the wettest ever, with heavier rainfall than any since records began in the 18th century."; "Britain had the wettest autumn since records began 230 years ago." The weather during the autumn 2000 contributed to the whole year being unusual, "This year is one of the wettest and warmest on record, the met office said yesterday. Rainfall was heaviest for 128 years and only four years have been hotter."

There seems to be common agreement that the autumn 2000 rainfall was historically unusual - perhaps even unique. There were also torrential downpours that could have added to the flooding. However, it was the sheer quantity and longevity of the rainfall that made flooding likely. But, the unusual quantity of rainfall does not, in itself, prove the cause was global burning.

Trying to detect the role played by global burning in a particular weather event is difficult. It is only when the event is seen in a long term perspective that it is possible to determine its climatic nature. As regards the climatic context of the autumn floods in britain: it was only a few years ago that the country was in the midst of a drought. In a few years’ time another drought may reappear. The floods could thus be seen as part of the swing from floods to droughts that is supposedly a feature of global burning.

Looked at in isolation there is a tendency to be cautious about suspecting whether the autumn 2000 floods were caused by global burning. Doubtlessly, exactly the same dilemma was faced a few years ago by the dutch, "In January of 1995, Europe was devastated by yet another "hundred year" flood - its second in 15 months. The floods caused the evacuation of 250,000 people in Holland, and cost billions of US dollars in damages. According to Dutch climate expert Pier Vellinga, though the floods were no proof of climate change, they were consistent with global circulation models (GCMs) and with current CO2 concentrations. He said, "I would be surprised if something like this did not happen."" It seems too much coincidence to believe these events are unconnected and that they have not all been caused by global burning.