Global warming just isn't happening: Official
We ought to start expecting our governments to abandon doomsday scenarios in the guise of popular science in favour of old-fashioned, ‘under-the-microscope’, empirical science
It was left to GWPF’s Director, Dr Benny Peiser, to put his finger on the real cost of this latest miscalculation: “This suggests that the Government’s climate change policies, including wind farms, are a waste of money and based on dodgy advice.” Peiser added, “Why should we trust Met Office forecasts about the climate for 2050 or 2100 if they get it wrong for the next decade?”
But other parts of the UK media have clearly had enough. The Daily Mail pulled no punches citing the Met Office’s clumsy attempt to cover up the scale of its gross error as “a crime against science and the public.” The Sunday Telegraph editorial described it as a “betrayal of proper science”. And David Rose of the Mail on Sunday, in the wake of various attempts to exonerate this latest screw up, wanted to know “Who are the deniers now?”
Labour MP Graham Stringer further noted how the field of UK energy and environmental policy was “dominated by individuals with commercial interests in renewables”, singling out Tim Yeo, chairman of the relevant Select Committee as “a director of several renewable firms.”
But why is the Met Office revision such an important story? After all, it’s just one national weather service and a small downgrading of its predictions, is it not? Far from it.
The UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Research is one of a select group of four global centres upon which the UN IPCC depends, having been set up by former Hadley Centre Director John Houghton. And the downgrade calls into question the credibility of the entire ‘human-carbon-emissions-are-to-blame’ house of cards. And here’s how it adds to the growing crisis for the UN IPCC’s AGW theory.
In December, a draft of the IPCC’s fifth assessment, due for final publication in September 2013, was leaked to the press by climate sceptic Alec Rawls. Rawls had been accepted by the UN IPCC as one of its expert reviewers. The IPCC confirmed the draft was genuine while lamenting the leak. The media furor that followed, however, focused on a section of the report that suggests what some key climate scientists, including Dr Henrik Svensmark in the excellent The Chilling Stars, have said all along: that the influence of cosmic rays (the Sun) could have a greater warming influence than mankind’s emissions.
Rawls describes the relevant section as “an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and main conclusion of the full report, revealing the dishonesty of the whole”. Given what we know of how UN IPCC administrators have, shall we say, ‘boosted’ the alarmist language of previous reports after the actual scientists went home, there’s no change there then.
So long experience warns us that the UK Met Office’s predictive ability is up there with the anti-Elijah faction on Mount Carmel. Equally, increasing numbers are now questioning the man-made emissions drives temperatures theory, based, as they are, on highly fallible computer modelling games. Nor should we expect a highly politicized organization like the UN to admit how apocalyptic pseudo-scientific prophecies offer it an unprecedented shot at achieving its primary ambition: global governance.
But perhaps we ought to start expecting our national democratic governments to abandon doomsday scenarios in the guise of popular science speculation in favour of old-fashioned, ‘under-the-microscope’, empirical science.
If that’s too much to ask in a month where the high priest of global warming alarmism has abdicated his plant-saving responsibilities, perhaps we should all focus on immediate action to reduce the carbon footprint of the world’s single worst carbon emitter. Anyone know Al Gore’s address?
We are wholly dependent on the kindness of our readers for our continued work. We thank you in advance for any support you can offer.