More 'underlying warming trend' tomfoolery

From today's Times:

“The number of people claiming climate change isn’t happening is minuscule, and they have no authority among the scientific community,” [Chris Smith, head of quango The Environment Agency] says. “They are mavericks, not backed up by the evidence.” It is irrelevant, he says, that the world has recently been getting cooler. “You have to look at the trend over 20 years, and that clearly shows global warming. There are alarming new phenomena — the floods here two years ago, the glaciers melting. The evidence is all around us.”

That's on page 44 of the print edition. From a different article on page 47:

Alpine ski resorts have welcomed a first blanket of snow, allowing some to open early and raising hopes of a bumper season despite the economic downturn. In Verbier, Switzerland, where one in five tourists is British, more than a mile of ski runs opens today for weekend skiing. It is the earliest start to the winter season for 11 years thanks to the 50cm (19in) of snow that has fallen this week...*
----------------------------------
While we're on the topic of the underlying warming trend, I'm still number 1 and 2 out of 1,980,000 Google results. Sit on that and swivel, ye warmenists!
----------------------------------
Moving on, Chris Smith doesn't understand basic economics either. It is indisputably true that there are some cliffs on our East Coast that have been crumbling into the sea for centuries, and that in time, houses that were originally built half a mile from the cliff edge will have to be demolished when the cliff finally crumbles underneath them. What's his solution?

Lord Smith is urging the Government to provide money for local authorities to buy cliff-top properties at risk of tumbling into the sea over the next 20 years. “We estimate there are 200 to 250 properties. The local authority would purchase property from the current owner, then lease it back to them. Then, if it gets to a stage where they can’t live in it any more because of the erosion, they would have the funds to move somewhere else. You are talking not just about a temporary flood: it’s the permanent loss of someone’s property through no fault of their own.”

If we expect that a property will fall into the sea in twenty years' time, the value of that house is the NPV of twenty years' rent (say) £10,000 per year, discounted at (say) 5% means the house is worth £125,000. If the owner sells the house for £125,000 and then pays rent of £10,000 a year for twenty years, he will have spent all the original money again and he won't have any "funds" left to move somewhere else - unless the government overpays and/or undercharges, and I don't see why they should be using taxpayers' money to buy 200 to 250 votes.

And it is, to some extent, their fault - them there cliffs have been crumbling for centuries,and  whoever built or bought such a property made a trade-off between having a lovely view and a short walk to the beach with the fact that the house won't be there forever (and the the view gets nicer and the walk gets shorter every year, of course). You pays your money and you takes your choice.

* OK, to be fair, the article continues with "The drop in temperature across the Alps comes after a week of jitters in some resorts as people made the most of the unseasonably warm weather of up to 65F (18C) dressed in shorts and T-shirts."