Forecast failure: how the Met Office lost touch with reality

Ideology has corrupted a valuable British institution

13 July 2013

9:00 AM

13 July 2013

9:00 AM

It has been a glorious sunny week in Britain — it feels as if summer is finally here. As Andy Murray was winning Wimbledon, temperatures on Centre Court exceeded 40˚C in the sun. Northern Ireland has been hotter than Cancun. The papers have begun their annual drip-feed of stories about ‘tombstoning’ — young people throwing themselves from cliffs and bridges into water. It is hard to believe that it was just a few weeks ago that the Met Office braced us for a ‘colder-than-average’ July and a decade of soggy summers. Not so hard to believe that they held a crisis meeting recently, to discuss why they have got the weather so wrong for so long.

Only this week has Britain had a small taste of the kind of temperatures the Met Office has been promising for over a decade. In September 2008, it forecast a trend of mild winters: the following winter turned out to be the coldest for a decade. Then its notorious promise of a ‘barbecue summer’ was followed by unrelenting rain. Last year, it forecast a ‘drier than average’ spring — before another historic deluge that was accompanied by the coldest temperatures for 50 years. Never has the Met Office had more scientists and computing power at its disposal — yet never has it seemed so baffled by the British weather.

But there is no paradox. It is precisely the power of this technology in harnessing climate scientists’ assumptions about global warming that has scuppered the Met Office’s predictions — and made it a propagandist for global warming alarmism. It has become an accomplice to a climate change agenda that now affects where and how we travel, the way houses are built, the lights we read by. And its errors are no laughing matter to tourism industry chiefs in Cornwall and the north-west, who say the Met Office’s false warnings of dire summers cost hundreds of millions of pounds in cancelled bookings.

For some time, the Met Office’s longer range forecasts have served a political purpose. They tend to be issued just before the United Nations annual end-is-nigh summit in November, so they can have a powerful impact if they are sufficiently scary. But for 12 of the last 13 years, the Met’s temperature forecast has been too high. As Warren Buffett likes to say, forecasts tell you little about the future and a lot about the forecaster. Recently, the Met Office has decided that global warming means colder summers in Britain (due to North Atlantic sea temperatures pushing the jet stream south). But they may have to readjust their forecasts again.

With this record, if the Met Office were a secondary school, it would be subject to special measures and intensive monitoring. Instead its directors shower praise on themselves. ‘Our successes during the past year form a strong base from which we can go forward,’ they write in their annual report. Say it often enough, and people will believe you. In the recent spending announcement, the Treasury rewarded the Met Office with a new supercomputer so it can develop ‘its world-class research base’. Being so wrong so often is a costly business.

The Met Office doesn’t need a new computer. It needs a new computer model and updated assumptions to replace its HadCM3 model, which builds in an average warming of 0.2˚C a decade in response to rising greenhouse gases. Although emissions have been higher than expected, global temperatures have been flat for 15 years. The Met Office’s own temperature series even shows a small decline since 2006.

In an interview last month in Der Spiegel, the German climate scientist Hans von Storch — a rare exception to climate science’s cult of omertà — admitted that in model simulations, a 15-year pause occurred less than 2 per cent of the time and a 20-year pause not at all. If the current standstill continues for another five years, he said, ‘We will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models.’ Perhaps that is why, at a February conference on avoiding dangerous climate change, Dr Julia Slingo, the evangelical chief scientist of the Met Office, warned of the ‘urgent need’ to shift discussion away from the average global temperature and instead focus on changes in rainfall and weather patterns.

The Met Office has a lot to lose in terms of its reputation. Britain is something of a global leader, second only to America in providing the most authors and review editors to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose periodic reports are seen as the bible of global climate change. Of those from Britain, nearly a quarter work for the Met Office. ‘I have Julia Slingo on speed dial,’ Sir John Beddington quipped towards the end of his tenure as the government’s chief scientific adviser.

When making their case, climate experts indulge in the widely shared misapprehension that scientists are much more intelligent than non-scientists. So when in 2010 Dr Slingo appeared before the House of Commons Science and Technology committee to talk about the Met Office’s take on the Climategate emails, she treated MPs like patsies.

At issue was the discredited ‘Hockey Stick’, a temperature series that purportedly showed static temperatures for 900 years and a sharp increase in the 20th century. Dr Slingo told MPs that the relevant chapter in the IPCC report had been subject to the ‘most robust peer review process’ seen in any area of science.

Had the Met Office been worried that the peer review had failed? ‘Not at all, no,’ Dr Slingo replied. Anyone with the briefest acquaintance with the facts would know that this was a fairytale — yet the only MP to vote against the committee’s rubber stamping of the science was Labour’s Graham Stringer, an analytical chemist by training.

Thanks to the Climategate emails, we know that in private, climate scientists saw things very differently. At the very least, one of them wrote, the Hockey Stick was ‘a very sloppy piece of work’. In this respect, there is more integrity in the NHS than in British climate science. Bound and gagged though they may be, at least there are whistleblowers in the NHS.

Worse was to come. Last November, the Labour peer Lord Donoughue tabled a written question asking whether the government considered the 0.8˚C rise in the average global temperature since 1880 to be ‘statistically significant’. Yes, came the reply. Douglas J. Keenan, a mathematician and former quant trader for Morgan Stanley, knew the answer was false. With Keenan’s help, Donoughue tabled a follow-up question. The Met Office refused to answer it, not once, but five times. Its refusal to clarify its stance left the energy minister, Baroness Verma, in an awkward position. Only then did it confirm that it had no basis for the claim.

The Met Office’s record of obstruction and denial should give pause to even the firmest believer in global warming and illustrates the profound incompatibility of state science (which climate science has become) and the real thing. ‘We should listen to the scientists — and we should believe them,’ said Ed Davey, the Climate Secretary, earlier this year. Yet his department has officially sanctioned the anti-scientific practice of withholding data. The climate secretary has denounced sceptics and other non-believers as ‘crackpots’ — an attack conforming to a key feature of what the philosopher Karl Popper defined as pseudoscience. Genuine science invites refutation; pseudoscience tries to silence dissent.

Scepticism in science should always be welcomed. With climate science, it is necessary. As Davey remarked in his speech, ‘the science drives the policy’, but last month might well mark the moment when the government’s energy policy lost all contact with reason. It doesn’t take much to imagine how Mrs Thatcher would have galvanised her government if she had been told Britain was sitting on the richest shale gas deposits in the world. Yet the Cameron government pushes on with the Energy Bill to implement the 2008 Climate Change Act and its colossal £404 billion price tag.

Last month saw Ofgem warn of power rationing; the government agree a price guarantee for nuclear power; and in effect a £10 billion transfer from British to French taxpayers via state-owned EDF. In Brussels, Ed Davey told the EU to adopt unilateral emissions cuts, despite the fact that even Germany is having second thoughts about this strange form of economic suicide.

None of this would be happening without climate scientists — led by those at the top of the Met Office — raising the alarm and behaving like propagandists. ‘We seem to be losing the communications battle,’ Dr Slingo told the conference on dangerous climate change in February. Winning the battle meant personalising the narrative about what climate change might mean in the future, she said. This is not science. It is political spin from the same playbook that brought us Tony Blair’s ‘dodgy dossier’ on Iraq. It comes as no surprise that the Met Office retains PR consultants to help with its climate change message.

At the very least, the Met Office has a duty of care to the rest of us: to be balanced and objective, to admit when they’ve got it wrong, not to indulge in speculation and to tell us what they don’t know. The Met Office has not discharged that duty. Politicians, in the grip of a mania, have told us we must defer to scientists.

But Britain is in this mess because scientists became political cheerleaders. In doing so, they abandoned science as the disinterested pursuit of knowledge. Failure to predict the weather is, in the scale of things, the least of it. With the cost of climate change policies approaching half a trillion pounds, the Met Office is setting itself up for the largest case of public misfeasance in British history.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

Rupert Darwall is the author of The Age of Global Warming – A History. He appears on this week’s ‘View from 22’: go to spectator.co.uk/podcast

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • Peter Stroud

    This article states a great deal of truth about the Met Office, and Dr Slingo. It has become an arm of the evangelical environmentalists. It accepted the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) hypothesis from day one. And it refuses to change direction, even though many highly qualified climate scientists have become sceptical. Not a single circulation model predicted the 15-17 years hiatus in global mean surface temperature. Yet CO2 emissions have increased year on year.

    A possible reason for model failure is that all models assume a positive feedback mechanism that leads to increased water vapour in the atmosphere. And water vapour is a more aggressive greenhouse gas than CO2. This feedback parameter is very difficult to measure. And the guess might be incorrect. In the view of most sensible scientists, the hiatus has lasted long enough to falsify the hypothesis.

    As to Dr Slingo, her attitude to politicians is disgraceful. But it is typical of climate scientists whose faith is in CAGW. She is behaving like a pseudo scientist. Her attitude is no different to that of the scientifically illiterate Ed Davey. Kill dissent, just shout down dissenters, no matter how well qualified they might be. Utterly pathetic.

    • meandthedog

      It’s not just the Met Office that are implicated. The BBC coverage of ‘climate change’ goes well beyond their normal bias. Their environment correspondents take any opportunity to push the climate alarmist agenda and hence the case for wind and solar farms. One hopes they’re just over-enthusiastic mavericks and it has nothing to do with BBC Pension Fund investments in the renewable energy industry.

    • Neal F. Heidler

      Please provide a list of the “many highly qualified climate scientists have become sceptical”.
      Names? (many of them)…………

      • Stephen Richards

        search ‘31000’ scientist sign document against AGW

        • waxliberty

          These aren’t climate scientists who ‘became skeptical’, these are mostly people who *started* politically opposed to AGW and who have some sort of degree in order to sign a petition, not experts who have devoted professional careers to climate.

          Arguing that scientific support for AGW isn’t strong is pretty futile. You must base your objections on other grounds.

          • The Petition Project shows there’s no consensus. The 64 agreeing with “some human impact”, out of 11944 papers is not 97,1% That’s only 0,5% = No consensus.

            Skeptical Science and Cook Et Al (2013) are both examples of John Cooks dishonesty. Anyone referring to anything from John Cook dishonest activist bs. clearly shows no knowledge of climate science. The same dishonest, “green” activists has also corrupted Wikipedia. Over 5400 articles related to climate has been proven altered (as of 2012) to show something else than what the real science say (ref.: Climate Gate ll).

            There’s no greenhouse effect, there’s no greenhouse gases, it’s all water vapor and latent heat.


            Man made global warming is swindle, from start to finish, fraud!

          • waxliberty

            Hey, blast from the past, Roald.

            “The Petition Project shows there’s no consensus”.

            Like most, when I refer to the consensus, I mean among experts in climate science. That there are lots of people (including Star Wars characters etc.) willing to sign a petition against it is not particularly relevant. As of course you know Roald.

            “The 64 agreeing with “some human impact”, out of 11944 papers is not 97,1% That’s only 0,5% = No consensus”

            Sounds like a typically mangled echo chamber claim about the Cook study. In that study, the authors of papers themselves were asked to assess whether papers supported the consensus or not. “After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors … Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus”. The 64 number is from some biased, unpublished analysis on one of the political blogs I would guess.

            I’ll pass on advice, though I know it is not welcome: you will learn more by reading papers directly, vs. reading the extremely slanted interpretations you are spoon fed in the echo chamber.

            An endless series of surveys have all found similar (high 90%) agreement among publishing experts. Here’s another recent one:

            “Results are presented from a survey held among 1868 scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including physical climate, climate impacts, and mitigation. The survey was unique in its size, broadness and level of detail. Consistent with other research, we found that, as the level of expertise in climate science grew, so too did the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation. 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming”


            “Respondents who characterized human influence on climate as insignificant, reported having had the most frequent media coverage regarding their views on climate change.”


            Arguing about surveys is tedious though. Easiest to just point out that every national academy of science and every physical science organization in every country of the world endorses the mainstream view, and also that it is taught in introductory textbooks.

            Usually, folks such as yourself who are entrenched in the echo chamber’s “alternative science” view of the world, spend half your time explaining the conspiracy theory of why funding is corrupting all the scientists or whatever, and the other half arguing that there isn’t a consensus. But internal consistency has not usually been a hallmark of any anti-science movement, whether creationism, anti-AGW movement or others.

            Hope you are enjoying the summer. How are 2015 temperatures trending anyway?


          • Experts in climate science, ok .. Names please?

            Dr. Roy Spencer? No ..
            Dr. Willie Soon? No ..
            Professor Richard Lindzen? No ..
            Dr. Tim Ball? No ..

            This is just 4, how many do you have to list in order to reach 97,1% now?

            Dr. Craig Idso was listed as someone who endorsed the notion that man was causing global warming, which he never did. This is just one example, there are many others

            Legates Et Al (2013, or 2014) A peer-reviewed paper showing Cook Et Al (2013) was, and is, a complete fraud.


            “Easiest to just point out that every national academy of science and every physical science organization in every country of the world endorses the mainstream view ..”
            Again, we need names! An overview of US organizations is just an overview of grant-money receivers, like it is also in most part of the western world. That doesn’t say anything about the science. The fact that it is also now found in textbooks shows how corrupt and politicized the science has become. But, please list the polish academies and organizations taking part in this fraud.

            Why and when has science been about headcounts? That is politics. The facts on the ground shows no warming for 18 – 27 years, dependent of datasets. And that despite the fact that the CO2 emissions from humans is up 53% last 2 decades.

            And here is why the dishonest, “green” activists are wrong: http://nov79.com/book/satur.html

            And here you see the confirmation in nature that proves the AGW-theory is dead wrong: https://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/

            Satellites started monitoring the world (and the Arctic) in 1964. Why did the graphs start in 1979? Because this is what they would see: https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/interesting-historic-icedata/
            That proves there’s nothing special going on in the Arctic, all cyclic and natural.

            This summer is the coldest in Norway in a 100 year. We had blizzard as late as July 10th. Last time that happen was in 1974, mid summer we had almost a meter of snow and snowstorm.

            Man made global warming is a massive fraud. The dishonest, “green” activists has to be prosecuted, sentenced and doing time.

            This year the global warming swindle will reach the same number of killed as jews killed by the hand of the nazis during WWII – 6 million children during the AGW-fraud has been killed, for no good reason. And this is just the numbers documented. I have collected some of this documentation on this page: https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/de-gronne-ma-stilles-til-ansvar/

            Some, in the beginning is in norwegian.

          • waxliberty

            “This is just 4, how many do you have to list in order to reach 97,1% now?”

            Just 4, and none particularly successful or influential in the climate field (or name a contribution they have made that has held up and been the basis of further important science?) Ball is better described as a politician and professional conspiracy theorist at this point I think, has he published anything in the past few decades?

            Meanwhile – are you kidding? There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists working on climate problems across disciplines around the world. You are clearly a hardcore conspiracy kook and beyond help, so I’m not going to waste much time here…

            “Again, we need names! An overview of US organizations is just an overview of grant-money receivers”

            I at least enjoyed the cognitive dissonance. We need names! Except, any names you give I will just say are part of the conspiracy, like all scientists. So, I guess you don’t really need names, do you?

            “But, please list the polish academies and organizations taking part in this fraud”

            Polish, as in Poland? Well, the Polish National Academy of Science.

            “Why and when has science been about headcounts?”

            Well, it was one on your side who started the discussion in this thread, so you can take it up with him. (Wishful comment about “many highly qualified climate scientists have become sceptical[sic].”)

            “That is politics.”

            Mostly because dealing with GHGs involves policy, which is, um, political. A clue is in the common word root “poli-“, in turn related to the Greek publis I think. The best way to assess a field of science if you are not an expert is to look to a consensus among experts. Especially if you lack the expertise to evaluate the evidence yourself, (which is obviously the case for you, in spades. Sorry, science isn’t easy, if it is any consolation.)

            “The facts on the ground shows no warming for 18 – 27 years”

            “On the ground”, lol. Unintentionally funny failed attempt to cite the popular internet urban legend. On the ground the surface temp trend looks like this:


            and in the water the ocean heat content trend looks like this:


            God, why am I wasting time.

            “This summer is the coldest in Norway in a 100 year.”

            Confusing local for global is like a kindergarten level error on this topic.

            “The dishonest, “green” activists has to be prosecuted, sentenced and doing time.”

            You are a complete nutter. I’m sure this isn’t the first time someone has tried to tell you this. Do you have any support system in your personal life?

          • Aha, sorry i misunderstood, i thought you meant real scientists, not dishonest, “green” activists. Ok, but then of course you are right. Al Gore and Obama, both well known scientists comes to mind.

            “.. are you kidding? There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists working on climate problems across disciplines around the world.”

            Too bad all are nameless .. But i got a few names for you. (PS! Nr. 3) And, what do you know, people (experts) that used to be part of IPCC. Greenpeace or WWF or where ever the people in IPCC now comes from is worthless, no moral.

            50 FORMER IPCC EXPERTS

            1. Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).

            2. Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”

            3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”

            4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”

            5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”

            6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”

            7. Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers.”

            8. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”

            9. Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”

            10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”

            11. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”

            12. Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”

            13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

            14. Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA’s James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980’s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”

            15. Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”

            16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”

            17. Dr Kenneth Green: “We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority.”

            18. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen.”

            19. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”

            20. Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”

            21. Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”

            22. Dr Georg Kaser: “This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,”

            23. Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”

            24. Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”

            25. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”

            26. Dr. Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”

            27. Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

            28. Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”

            29. Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”

            30. Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”

            31. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”

            32. Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a “consensus of thousands of scientists” are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”

            33. Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”

            34. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”

            35. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”

            36. Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”

            37. Dr Jan Pretel: “It’s nonsense to drastically reduce emissions … predicting about the distant future-100 years can’t be predicted due to uncertainties.”

            38. Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”

            39. Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the “science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”

            40. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”

            41. Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites–probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?”

            42. Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”

            43. Dr Roy Spencer: “The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal.”

            44. Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”

            45. Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”

            46. Dr Robert Watson: “The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”

            47. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”

            48. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

            49. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”

            50. Dr. Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines… a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication.”

          • waxliberty

            I only got as far as #2, which is not an actual quote from Dr. Bogataj (fortunately, since Dr. Bogataj would seem pretty dumb). It’s a mix of a denier quote with a benign comment of Dr. Bogataj remarking on the obvious, that in paleoclimate temperatures often rose before CO2, for obvious reasons (lack of humans around digging up carbon for a fuel source).

            Here’s a video of Dr. Bogataj expressing the urgency of the greenhouse problem.


            more on your list


            Roald, is there any level of dishonesty you wouldn’t stoop to on this topic? I ask in all seriousness. Is there a limit of some kind?

            I won’t respond to further replies, promote your blog and skydragon crankery elsewhere.

          • Yes, everything is denier – something. You’re full of BS.

            Ad hom, BS and diversions, everything in order to avoid talking about the fact of the issue.

            There’s no man made global warming as, for example the 50 experts told us long ago. I understand that you have a hard time understanding how that can be, given there hasn’t been any warming for 20 years, despite CO2 emissions from human has gone up 53%

            The reason for that, of course, is that CO2 doesn’t drive temperature, never have and never will, no matter how many straw men, ad hom, insult or other BS you push this way.

            And here’s why: https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2015/06/24/the-fraud-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-part-1-the-failure-of-ipcc-energy-budgets/




            In fact CO2 cools the planet: https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/the-four-known-scientific-ways-carbon-dioxide-cools-earths-climate/

            Most scientist doesn’t check each others work. The reason is there no way you can check fantasy and made up numbers, unless using a lot of time and resources.

            Those who actually did have the time to check the science, the logic and the math, found it inconsistent, wrong and fake. Too many unknown is disregarded, too many known has been calculated wrong (on purpose), too many data has been corrupted. When the science didn’t manage to create an alarm of its own, made up physics was adopted, example “back-radiation”, which is ridiculous and non influential. We’re Talking about the higher troposphere to heat up +24 C. and BS like that .. But i have to admit, you do entertain 🙂

          • waxliberty

            Literally the definition of gish gallop. No integrity – no attempt to explain why you are circulating fabricated quotes.

        • Neal F. Heidler

          I know that list.
          1. It isn’t a list of “highly qualified climate scientists” who have become sceptical
          2. It’s known to be a bogus list in general:

      • Watchman74

        Does climategate ring a bell? We can’t even predict the forecast correctly but we know 100% there’s global warming errr I mean climate change.

  • Colin

    If even half of what you claim is true, why don’t you make a complaint to the police ? Misconduct in a public office is a serious criminal offence. A proper police investigation would surface all the relevant data. The people that you claim are responsible for this scam could then be subject to proper scrutiny. Afterall, there’s a lot at stake, either way.

    The problem we civilians have is that we just don’t know who to believe on this.

    • Tom M

      I’m a civilian and I believe the article. If you want to educate yourself study some of the authorative literature, there’s plenty to choose from.
      Try “The age of global warming-a history” as mentioned above. An excellent description of all the scare stories in context since scare stories began.

      The machinations of the IPCC (headed up by an Indian railway engineer) and their very unscientific approach to everything. How they “cherry-picked” data to “prove” their point. How contributors peer-review their own or their bosses work. How their “scientists” are chosen on a country and gender equality basis not for anyone’s particular scientific excellence. How a notable number of recognised experts in their field have not been invited to contribute because their ideas oppose the global warming theme.
      Don’t read activist rubbish, read books whose claims have attributes (very few if at all from the green lobby). Ignore websites that start with the conclusion. Find those that give figures not opinions.
      Read how the climate science establishment has a lot of green activists on its payroll. Read of the lies and manipulation of dodgy statistics (the hockey stick graph for example).
      Note how many of these “scientific bodies” rely on proving global warming and its human causes to keep their jobs.
      When you’ve done that let me know what you think.

      • Colin

        I’m with you on all of the above, I just don’t know how we get to the truth. I have an engineering background and I’m struggling to see any verifiable evidence of the claims advanced by the likes of slingo. As a result, I’m of the opinion that all this scaremongering is about sinister control, rather than the common good. It’s the perfect lefty wet dream. The idea of blasting trillions of pounds trying to hold back nature and the universe is perverse. What better way to exercise almost total control over populations ?

        Like all good ideas, the left will find a way to totally kick the ar5e out of it, this is no exception. When this happens, in order to sustain the ideology and dogma, criminality is usually involved. Look at the NHS.

      • AlienatedLefty

        I too am a civilian. And when it comes to issues of science, I tend to believe scientists – or at least I do when it’s an issue of science, and a choice between them and someone with a degree in Economics and no scientific background.

        But hey. I base my affiliations on logic – not the person who’s going to back up my own preconceptions and ideologies.

        • Dukesy

          anyone who makes a substantial living from the issue of so called climate change cannot by definition be trusted. The scientific (and non scientific community) is stuffed full of previously unemployable people with useless degrees making a substantial living from this scandal. How on earth are we ever likely to get them to confess that the data is indeed flawed and their careers lie in ruins, because it turns out there really is no need for 1,000’s of them to be earning huge amounts of money any longer. if that fails we can always try and get turkey’s to vote for Christmas.

          • dalai guevara

            Just like all the surplus lawyers and accountants then, if tax and other laws were finally streamlined. We are talking about charging £250+/hr here, and I have never come across a single tree hugger commanding that.

          • Dukesy

            what that has to do with the debate I’m really not sure. But if you think the economy can stand people working for pressure groups earning 34k a year that produces nothing of value, then we’ll all be fine.

          • dalai guevara

            Society cannot afford to pay billions in bonuses to banksters, funded by the taxpayer. RBS alone took £600m+ this year I believe.
            Society cannot afford a bloated beyond belief judicial and tax system.

            Yet you complain about some fiscally totally irrelevant tree huggers.
            The law surrounding tree hugging, yes –
            the big finance/industry involved in cashing in on ecobranding, yes –
            tree hugging itself, no.

          • Dukesy

            I think bonuses are paid from profits so the taxpayer isn’t paying bonuses to any “banksters” (sic)

          • dalai guevara

            Ha! If only RBS had generated any “profits” (sic)

          • Jeremy Stow

            Then you clearly have not heard of Mickey Mann the hokey stick man, he has been given grants of several million to produce his pseudo science.

          • balakris

            There are one hell of a lot of scientists having nothing to do with climate change pros who have endorsed global warming- in fact abt 99% of the scientific profession, plenty of them nobels.
            Who do I believe? Historians, economists, far from nobels?

          • jackgym

            Sheer deception. The oft-quoted “97 per cent” turns out to be just 76 scientists out of only 79. I see you’ve bumped that to 99%. but no problem. Just makes it sound more ridiculous than normal.

          • Neal F. Heidler

            Sorry bub, wrong study.
            (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
            (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

          • waxliberty

            Weak ad hominem. This argument could be attempted against any field of science, and frequently has. Not any stronger here than anywhere else.

            Evolution is still a dominant theory as well, by the way, despite the merits (or lack thereof) of your argument, frequently used by its critics.

          • Neal F. Heidler

            Let’s see some evidence of this:
            Scientific community stuffed full of “unemployable people with useless degrees making a substantial living from this scandal.”

        • Nigel Deacon

          so – what happens when the research of scientists is summarized by politicians – as happens in IPCC reports?

          scientists have resigned from the IPCC over this issue. their names are easily found on the internet.

          • Neal F. Heidler

            Names please?
            I can’t find them.

          • Nigel Deacon

            The only one I can remember offhand (who publicly disagreed with IPCC) is Chris Landsea but it was a while back. Don’t want to post other names in case I get them wrong. For example – what about scientists who disagree with how the organization operates and quietly withdraw without stating the reason publicly?

            It doesn’t help one’s career to have a public disagreement with the IPCC.

          • Tom M

            Nigel Deacon is correct the IPCC is undoubtedly a political pressure group.

            The authors of these reports are selected according to UN rules of country and gender equality. They are government nominees. They are not chosen for their expertise in science. If the government of a country has pro global warming position (the last UK government’s environmental minister Ed Milliband for example) then who do you think he would choose to send? Someone with a balanced outlook or someone with his outlook?
            When the draft of the report is internally published the various countries representatives go into closed session (to the press and other outsiders that is, not to organisations like Greenpeace and WWF who have “observer status”) and work through the documents word for word till they achieve a political consensus ( note, at this point this is a politically acceptable document, not a scientific report).

      • Neal F. Heidler

        Writing dopey things like the phrase “very unscientific approach to everything” (everything??? really?) does great damage to your credibility. You have no idea about the workings of peer review. You are puposefully misleading re: Pacchauri’s profession.
        Gives one pause that so many like what you have to say. No shortage of sheep here.

        • Tom M

          Peer review? The last published IPCC report contained18531 references to peer reviewed material. The IPCC vociferously claims that it always uses peer reviewed material (even if they peer review it themselves).

          A recent audit was carried out to verify these claims. Of the 18531 references in their last report 5587 were not peer reviewed. Of the 44 chapters 21 contained very few if any at all peer reviewed material.
          The IPCC regularly excludes articles “because they are not on message” or only prints articles which suit their theme. There are numerous examples of this and staff being pressured to comply.

          If you wish me to list those I know then I will gladly do so. But the moderator might object to the length.
          The InterAcademy Council did an audit on the IPCC some time ago (its on line you can read it). The IPCC were critised for using non peer reviewed material (whilst strenuously claiming it always did), “significant shortcomings at each major step of the IPCC’s assessment process” and amongst many other things “no procedure for recolving conflicts of interest”. (This last point applies to employing known activists, Green Peace, WWF for example to compile their reports)
          The IPCC is not a scientific research body. It does none. It is a political pressure group that has an agenda.

          • Neal F. Heidler

            Here’s a list of over 800 scientists and other academics (who are overwhelmingly absolutelyl not politicians) who are lead authors of the IPCC reports.
            Here is a sample from IPCC AR4 (can you name a politician who could produce this?):
            It’s science. You don’t like it but it’s science.

          • Tom M

            You didn’t answer any of my points. Read my post again. I responded to the comment about peer reviewed material in your previous post . I submitted supporting evidence. I explained how governments choose candidates for the IPCC. I explained that following the first draft of a report the countries representatives go into closed session to produce an agreed word by word docment acceptable to all participating governments (surely that cannot now be called a scientific document).
            I pointed out that quite a few (too many) authors are environmental activists (28 out of 44 chapters have an affiliated WWF author. All of Working Group 2’s chapters had a WWF author). That is not scientific impariality.
            I explained the results of the InterAcademy Council’s audit and their comments and told you where to find it.
            Now you are off again this time from the other end of the argument. Instead of moving the goal posts around respond to my answers to your original post.

            I suggest that you read the IAC report and digest their findings, you will find they are quite critical of the IPCC’s methods “at every step of the assessment process” it said (as well as the House of Lords and Ofcom).
            The IAC by the way are all accredited professionals who operate in the best traditions of science and engineering for the benefit of all who request their services. They have no political agenda.
            Clearly the IPCC and it’s reports cannot be taken as impartial science they are not operating as a professional scientific body.

      • Nigel Deacon

        Scientists who appear to have resigned from the IPCC over the misrespresentation of their work by the IPCC:

        Christopher Landsea, Paul Reiter, Richard Lintzen, John Everett, Tom Segalstad, Hans von Storch, Roger Pielke sr.

        More details here: https://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ar4resign

    • hydrogenman

      A complaint of misconduct in public office was made to the police a few years ago on this very matter. The IO’s report was given a PMEO crime report number beginning NFK/10100024[redacted]. Its SFO status is “currently being addressed” but not NFA. However, I suspect it was last used in Larry’s litter tray. FOIA is your friend! The 2008 CCA isn’t. Hope this clears things up!

  • Jebediah

    Great article.

  • SP_UK

    A shameful, sloppy and libellous article.

    You claim that “the Met Office braced us for a ‘colder-than-average’ July”, when in fact it forecast the current spell of hot weather very accurately, as you can from this article posted on the Met Office’s own blog on 1st July: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/jet-stream-shift-to-bring-summer-weather

    You then state that the Met Office has predicted “a decade of soggy summers”. This is a complete misrepresentation made by many newspapers recently which the Met Office was forced to debunk, again on its blog, here http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/media-coverage-on-wet-summers-for-a-decade here http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/met-office-in-the-media-23-june-2013 and, in particular, here http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/no-prediction-for-a-decade-of-washouts

    The Met Office has not held “a crisis meeting recently, to discuss why they have got the weather so wrong for so long”. I assume you are referring to the recent meeting regarding the wet weather that the UK has tended to experience during recent summers. This was not a crisis meeting, it was a perfectly normal workshop, of the kind that scientists have all the time, to discuss the latest scientific ideas about this phenomenon. It was certainly nothing to do with the Met Office “[getting] the weather wrong”.

    It is equally incorrect to suggest that “never has [the Met Office] seemed so baffled by the British weather”. Forecasting skill has improved, and continues to do so, by approximately one day per decade. That is, a three-day forecast is as accurate now as a two-day forecast was 10 years ago or a one-day forecast 20 years ago. For example: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/7/2/capIndPlot-600.jpg

    The article goes on to claim that the Met Office’s stance on global warming and climate change is responsible for the allegedly inaccurate weather forecast. Even if it were true that the Met Office’s weather forecasts were inaccurate or that their stance on climate change were incorrect, to suggest that the two are linked is just ignorant. It is a grave scientific error to conflate weather with climate; they are different. Your diagnosis is rather like trying to fix a puncture on a bicycle by replacing the brakes. Certainly the tyre and the brakes are part of the same wheel, but by no means are they the same thing.

    Then there are the token references, compulsory in any climate “sceptic” rant, to myths about Climategate and the so-called hockey stick graph. These have been debunked by so many people and so often that I can’t bothered to repeat it here, but I refer you to http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm and http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

    I think I know who has really “lost touch with reality”.

    • Seems to *know* a lot, we’re obviously paying for their trolls to try desperately to justify the complete waste of money that the met office are, as well as paying for their new computer to fail us yet again. Hey MO troll, remember who pays your salary and have humility when you’re outed!

      • SP_UK

        Nice try Carrie but I do not work for the Met Office 🙂 I am, however, capable of highlighting errors in articles such as this by simply checking the basic facts. I clearly explained, in detail, why this article is incorrect and then _you_, without even attempting to respond to any of the points I made, accuse _me_ of trolling. Hmmm…

        By the way, you might like to know that the Met Office, as a government trading fund, makes a profit every year; it is not a “complete waste of money”.

        • Matt

          SP_UK – so the start of July is hot and the Met Office say ‘yeah, well, we reckon it’s gonna bit a bit hot for a week or two’. That’s not exactly rocket science is it? They simply looked at one of the many websites that forecast the jet stream and based it on that, thinking that coming from the Met Office it will carry some credibility.

          The Met Office ARE baffled by the climate we’re experiencing now. Your post above talks about how forecast accuracy over 3 days has improved – fine, but we’re talking here about the CLIMATE not the weather. The Met Office are good at WEATHER forecasting but have been summarily useless at climate forecasting, so why are they held out to be experts at climate forecasting? You, and the Met Office, repeatedly tell us that weather is not the same as climate – fine, then stop trying to be experts in climate if you don’t know how to forecast it.

          I’m not a climate change sceptic, but you have to admit that something is wrong. Global warming is happening at a slower rate than the models suggest and you can only blame El Nino so many times.

          • waxliberty

            There is not actually a statistically significant flattening of temperatures, small intervals of years are not that interesting relative to what is being discussed. So no, you don’t have to admit something is wrong. You can hope though (and I do), but unfortunately the physics is pretty basic. Where do you think the theory fails? There is less CO2 than it seems from measurements? CO2 doesn’t absorb IR the way we can test it doing in labs and the way orbital and surface comparisons of radiation absorption demonstrate?

    • Pete1216

      The first link is valid. Our dumping CO2 into the atmosphere will cause the laws of physics to take us where we will. Whistling past the graveyard will not help.

      • jackgym

        You should do some research on how much CO2 humans actually put into the atmosphere. It’s a tiny percentage of nature’s input and is no way associated with any climate change. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good story.

        • waxliberty

          This is not even entry-level AGW criticism. The carbon cycle is quite well studied. This is your FAQ entry:

          If you don’t trust the natural sciences (and why would you – *scientists*, am I right?), just focus on the readings. CO2 is up from 280ppm pre-industrial to 400ppm today. That’s significantly higher than it’s been throughout the history of humanity. And we happen to be digging up tons of carbon and pumping it into the atmosphere.

          Are you familiar with the basics of the physics? Another common not-quite-entry-level objection is that CO2 is “plant food” or “found in too trace of quantities” to have an effect. I can explain those as well, free of charge, sort of a 2-for-1 clarification. And no, to save you the accusation, my salary doesn’t depend on AGW, I’m just a highly paid, scientifically trained engineer with an interest in the natural world. Be careful with conspiracy theories (hint: they are a form of groupthink, referencing your earlier comment…)

          The more interesting and scientifically credible skeptics of global warming (“lukewarmists”) don’t bother challenging the basic notion that CO2 is one factor contributing to warming. Because… that’s fairly silly.

        • Neal F. Heidler

          Serious question jack:
          Do you know anything about this topic?
          This is one of the most uniformed, a-scientific comments I think I’ve ever read.
          realclimate.org is a good place to start if you want to know about climate.

    • jackgym

      That’s rich calling this a libellous article. The climate charlatans at the Met Office and the IPCC should have the arse sued off them.

      • Neal F. Heidler

        Sue the Met Office and IPCC for what?
        Try it and see how far you get.

  • ohforheavensake
  • ohforheavensake

    Actually, Rupert- just looked you up. Apparently you have a degree in Economics and History from Cambridge, and no background in science (far less climate science) whatsoever.

    Now, I’m not saying you can’t comment; but shouldn’t you begin your articles with something like- ‘By the way, I’m a member of the right-wing thinktank the Centre for Policy Studies, and I don’t have any scientific training. So, if I were you, I wouldn’t trust me.’

    • JabbaTheCat

      “Apparently [Rupert Darwall] have a degree in Economics and History from Cambridge”

      And Rupert Darwall is the author of The Age of Global Warming – A History, witten by a qualified historian? Makes sense to me.

      • ohforheavensake

        However, given that his post is full of errors (see the response by the Met Office above), he’s also not a very good historian. He seems to have a problem with basic facts.

      • Neal F. Heidler

        And you are Bozo the Clown’s favorite child.

        Rajendra Pachauri (from wikipedia):
        He served as Assistant Professor (August 1974 – May 1975) and Visiting Faculty Member (Summer 1976 and 1977) in the Department of Economics and Business at NC State. He was a Visiting Professor of Resource Economics at the College of Mineral and Energy Resources, West Virginia University. On his return to India, he joined the Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad, as Member Senior Faculty (June 1975 – June 1979) and went on to become Director, Consulting and Applied Research Division (July 1979-March 1981). He joined The Energy and Resources Institute(TERI) as Director in April 1981.[9] and presently heads the organisation. He was also a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Resource Systems Institute (1982), and Visiting Research Fellow at the World Bank, Washington DC (1990). On 20 April 2002, Pachauri was elected Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations panel established by the World Meteorological Organization(WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP) to assess information relevant for understanding climate change.[10] Pachauri was on the Board of Governors, Shriram Scientific and Industrial Research Foundation (September 1987); the Executive Committee of the India International Centre, New Delhi (1985 onwards); the Governing Council of the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi (October 1987 onwards); and the Court of Governors, Administrative Staff College of India (1979–81) and advises such companies as Pegasus Capital Advisors, GloriOil, the Chicago Climate Exchange, Toyota, Deutsche Bank and NTPC.[11] He has served as member of many societies and commissions. He has been the Member of Board of the International Solar Energy Society (1991–1997), World Resources Institute Council (1992), while Chairman of the World Energy Council (1993–1995), President and then Chairman of the International Association for Energy Economics (1988–1990), and the President of the Asian Energy Institute (Since 1992).[12] He was a part-time advisor to the United Nations Development Programme (1994—1999) in the fields of Energy and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources.[13] In July 2001, Dr R K Pachauri was appointed Member, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India.[13]

        • JabbaTheCat

          ..and Pachauri’s academic qualifications as a ‘climate scientist’ are?

          • Neal F. Heidler

            So far what I know of you is that you have purposefully misled (really you’ve lied) re: Pachauri’s employment and profession.
            Should I think you are credible?
            So I don’t.

          • JabbaTheCat

            I haven’t lied about anybody. You should dig somewhat deeper, and you will find your ‘hero’ started out his career, back in the day, with the Indian Railways at the Diesel Locomotive Works in Varanasi…


    • jackgym

      One would think this was written for the warmists — Charles Mackay wrote in his book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds – “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”

      • waxliberty

        Thank goodness you are not in a herd, right jack. Eye roll.

        Science is actually the cure to groupthink and other fundamental failings of logic, not the cause.

  • ohforheavensake

    And the Met Office have replied to you, Rupert.


    Apropos this, Tom Chivers of the Telegraph has just Tweeted his sympathies to the Met Office: as he says, it must be wearing having to repeat that they do the science better than people like you.

  • Nic

    As Boris would put it, what a lot of piffle! the planet is warming due to the pollution resulting from 200 years of human industrial activity. You may disagree and write articulated articles like the above but it won’t change the fact that the majority of us will take the issue seriously and adapt.

    if you need to read one thing, I would simply refer to the PwC stance, in relations to insurance companies: The insurance sector is going to be one of the hardest hit by climate change, from rising claims to losses on investments. The winners in this sector will be those companies that understand the risks and opportunities facing their businesses, and embed it into their strategies and operations.

    • edwardbancroft

      Or the winners will be the insurance companies that manage to convince their clients to increase the premiums to cover a non-existent threat.

      • Jeremy Stow

        And you can be sure Munich Re will be at the head of the line. Their reports on any number of climate ‘threats’ are works of fiction worthy of the best literary prizes going.

  • edwardbancroft

    If self-professed experts on a subject tell you that they have all the accurate and detailed data, and they say that they have a program containing all factors which can process the data into confident predictions, why would you not initially believe them as the ‘experts’? However, if at the end of the prediction period none of their predictions have come to pass and are markedly different from the observed reality, can they still be said to be the experts?

    You do not have to be an expert yourself to know when an expert has failed, if the key prediction, in this case global temperature rise over the last fifteen years, has not occurred as stated. The Met Office climate experts have thus been confounded by their very own touchstone – global warming, or the lack of it. Nevertheless, despite this glaring failure, they could have still been considered experts if they had openly admitted to a fundamental problem with their climate science, but they did not. Instead we got a string of obfuscations, the biggest being the shift to ‘climate change’ which can mean anything, in place of ‘global warming’ which is specific and testable.

    Thus, the debate should not only be restricted to just the select few ordained experts. It is open to anyone to point out contradictions or errors wherever their expertise or common knowledge allows them, across all contributing domains of climate science. True science openly welcomes challenges and progresses on them.

  • TheEponymousBob

    This article is lazy, uninformed and frequently dishonest. Darwall should be ashamed.

    • Colin

      Your response to this article is Tuesday and a snooker table in Steven.

      In other words, senseless.

      • TheEponymousBob

        And your reply worthless.

        • Jeremy Stow

          Darwall’s article certainly makes more sense than the Met Office response.

          • TheEponymousBob

            Makes more sense? Perhaps to some. Is more correct? Not even close.

            I’ll take correct over making sense to Spectator readers any day.

    • cowichan

      “Darwall should be ashamed” And what about the publisher of this garbage?

  • Colonel Shotover

    The warmists are quite right to say that the Met office didn’t forecast wet summers for ten years. What they said was ‘We may have poor wet summers for ten years, but that’s not a forecast’. What the MO in fact meant, if not overtly said, was “We’re sorry, we haven’t a clue”.

  • Dukesy

    No matter how much sense people like Robert make and how much evidence he and others might produce, the well heeled gravy train where campaign officers working for friends of the earth can earn 34k pa, will roll on and on and on until none of us can afford to work, travel or communicate with each other. Then the lunatic green movement can get their warped sick way and send us all back to the fields and small communities, while they no doubt continue to fly around the world telling the rest of us that it’s bad for the environment to do so. This train is well truly out of control

    • waxliberty

      “No matter how much sense”… you can make a lot of things sound sensible. I’ve heard some very convincing conspiracy theorists (and the anti-warming crowd has some great ones.) The reason people put faith in peer review and scientific method is that the focus on reproducible, verifiable findings provides a method to cut through all the he said / she said that you find in articles like this.

    • Neal F. Heidler

      You need to lay off the cynicism and paranoia and try some actual science:
      It will cleanse you.

  • Piers Corbyn

    Well done for this refreshing article on the diabolical failings of CO2 warmism – which has become a religion – which has driven the flight from evidence-based science and policies we now witness and for which the public will pay for dearly.

    Key facts are (i) All the ‘Cimate’ predictions of the CO2 warmists from over the last 13 years have failed and the opposties of their “end of snow (UK)” etc warnings have prevailed (ii) The Met Office attempts at Long range forecasting since 2007 similarly have zero skill with the opposite to their forecasts being very good bets!

    With this in mind and our, WeatherAction, proven skill in long range forecasting – esepcially for extreme events – for (eg) UK+Eire, Europe and USA I wrote to the Met Office offering to join their ‘Weather Summit’ (as described in media) and give our take on what has been going on for past months and years (and which in the main we got right) and where weather and climate are going and why. They did not even reply. See my letter: http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews13No23.pdf

    A few weeks later at The Science & Technology Select Committee (26 June, Science Museum) Prof Tim Palmer and other bishops of CO2 warmism said to MPs, concerning these weather and climate matters: “Debate is not useful”. This is the problem we are in. The age of Enlightenment – of evidence based science and policies – has either never arrived or has sadly departed. I point out in a recent blog bit.ly/18a0BG6 that the vast handouts for Met Office computing are not money well spent – and just enable them to get wrong answers quicker. Harold Wilson pointed out that 13 years of failure was enough to require change of Govt and Party and I say now the time is up for the delusional CO2 Climate Change / ‘Global Warming’ fraud story and whichever major political party in the UK which is the first to ditch it will win the General Election. Thank you

  • ClimateLearner

    The awful truths that this article reports upon are liable to be too much for many people to stomach. How can it be that scientists have been so gullible in the face of political pressures? How can it be that they joined in and added to the confusion rather than helped resolve it by being, as we often expect them to be, calmer and more considered? It has been an astonishing, depressing, and hugely expensive period. The losses to society can be expected to continue while the lunatic Climate Change Act remains in place. The neutering, or preferably the complete removal, of that Act will be a sign that the madness has been spotted by most of the political class. We may still have years to wait for that to happen, but when it does Rupert Darwall can hold his head high for his work in helping it happen.

    • waxliberty

      Sounds like you’re drinking too much of this side’s kool-aid, “Learner”, and not enough from the experts in the field. Your question “How can it be that scientists have been so gullible in the face of political pressures?” is the right clue. When something doesn’t seem likely, sometimes it’s because it isn’t.

      • ClimateLearner

        I was being a little faux-naif there, waxliberty, and thereby very generous to some scientists. The reality is that most of them have never been consulted on the matter, and most of them are not well-qualified to comment on climate system physics. That has not stopped the leadership of many scientific societies charging ahead with grandiose, portentous, fatuous, and question-begging statements about ‘climate change’. Their motivations are of interest here, and I hope they are being carefully studied by sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and others capable of gaining insight into this particularly damaging excursion away from good science.

        • waxliberty

          So, you mention physics… where is it exactly you think the physics breaks down? i.e. relative to the basic story accepted in science (presumably though an excursion away from “good science” in your understanding):

          CO2 too sparse? Not man-made? IR absorption properties overhyped? Greenhouse effect nonsense start to finish?

          • ClimateLearner

            Physics tends to break down in the face of complexity. For example, compare the 2-body problem with the 3-body problem and you will get a sense of how quickly this can arise. The basic physics of IR absorption and emission by the CO2 molecule is solid, and there is decent knowledge of radiation budgets at various places in the climate system. The ‘breakdown’ as you put it, or ‘weakness’ as I would, lies in the impact of this on climate dynamics. The system is complex, and cause and effect are easily confused, and are hard to disentangle. A fairly widely used guestimate for the impact on global mean temperature of a doubling of CO2, all else being equal, is of the order of 1C. This is not a particularly alarming increase, and may not be realised this century. But other factors are at work in the system, and are, as recent temperature records show, more important than CO2. Look in there for the ‘breakdown’ you seek.

          • waxliberty

            This is great actually, and differentiates you from the run-of-the-mill anti-science kooks, in that you’re not arguing there is no CO2 effect whatsoever, or Carbon atoms are too small, or *that* ilk of argument. Kudos.

            It sounds like you are arguing climate is too complex to know much (and it is certainly exceedingly complex as you state), but you nevertheless feel confident there is something in recent temperature records that will make it clear that “other factors at work” are “more important”. Well – what? And what is your explanation for why these “other factors” have evaded successful identification in well supported science? There is no real competitor to AGW and associated models in climate science, e.g. that can back-predict data the model has never seen before as well. Just back to your conspiracy theory here?

            There’s little evidence El Nino is more important *in the long run*. For one thing there is no strong evidence of a sustained new level of energy associated with El Nino that would explain the warming trend we continue to track. As a random example of how these armchair theories fare, read through this full exchange to see how skeptical author and wattsupwiththat contributor Tisdale fared when he discussed his ENSO-heavy theory with the climate folks who frequent the realclimate blog (worth reading through to the finish, it’s not pretty if you’re familiar with scientific and mathematical debate):

            The main *statistically signficant* variance in the recent year records is that polar ice melt is more rapid than predicted. (Any deviance from predictions is obviously an inaccuracy and so that is a fair point to raise.) I’m certainly with you in *hoping* that warming has stopped given temps have hung around their current (record) level but not resumed an aggressive march (yet), but “hoping” is a long way from proving anything remotely close to the raging language you use here (“lunatic”, “madness”, “depressing”) about our main theory for explaining the spike in warming to date.

  • Repeal the Act!

    Darwall has written a noble book and article – but we are dealing with a corrupt system of government – truth and reality mean nothing to these self-serving MPs.

    Just watch the Lords and Commons debates – they all declare a financial interest in green energy. So there is no motivations for MPs or Lords to repeal the climate laws or through out the Energy Bill. What is to be done?

    And yes, Germany is going for COAL in a big way. German coal-fired power rises above 50% in first-half 2013 generation mix. So where does this leave us? Bankrupted by the Climate Change Act. We need help fast.

  • captainkephart

    It’s the models stupid! The climate models are only just beginning to include basic aspects such as moisture and energy exchange between oceans and the air masses. They are so unrealistic. Plus: the scientists don’t acknowledge or take account of the consequences of Gödel’s Incompleteness Thereom … models cannot, by definition predict everything. Gödel’s Theorem indicates absolutely that there are valid outcomes that models can’t generate; and valid hypotheses they can’t test. Yes, ‘All models are wrong but some are useful’! The issue is using models appropriately and with wise judgement. What a waste of money …

  • Nigel Deacon

    Excellent article. Should be required reading for science teachers.

    Davey says ‘we should listen to the scientists’.

    He seems to be listening only to those who have similar views to him.

    I have worked in science for 35 years (chemistry, infrared spectroscopy, etc), largely in education. I and am very concerned about the way in which the views of ordinary scientists like me have been sidelined, misrepresented and ignored by people in charge of policy.

    • Neal F. Heidler

      Science teachers need to read this for the same reason that they need to know about Creationism and Intelligent Design….so they can clearly explain to their students why it is utter nonsense.

      • Watchman74

        No more nonsense then evolving from goo, to the zoo, to you.

  • I see the SS and MO trolls are out in force, what’s the matter guys things getting a bit too hot to handle? I’d be looking at the job vacancies sites if I were you, won’t be long now!

  • scott_east_anglia

    Greenie maths and physics dodging arts degrees with heads full of bonnet bees have successfully subverted the population at large through relentless and irresponsible propaganda, forcing the politicians to follow.

    However, nothing unusual actually occurred concerning climate last century, except during the last two and a half decades, when the IPCC erroneously attributed increasing heat from the PDO and AMO rising half cycles to ‘increased greenhouse warming triggered by man-made CO2’ in their computer models, and irresponsibly created the biggest scare the world has ever seen.

    The warming stopped increasing when the PDO and AMO oscillations moved back onto their downward half cycles at around the turn of the century, just as expected – except by the IPCC, which has since spent the last decade or so failing to explain away the now hilarious failure of their CAGW due to CO2 conjecture.

    The scam has now been running long enough for all of the predictions made by the warming industry alarmists to not happen. They are completely discredited. The IPCC has successfully demonstrated that writing funny computer programs has no effect on the climate.

    So why on earth does our government still remain in the grip of the ‘MMGW due to CO2’ psychosis when the underlying pseudo-science raison d’etre has evaporated? They now threaten needlessly to destroy Britain while onlookers around the world look on in disbelief.

    They take false comfort in a renewable energy policy inherited from Labour that, like everything else from that benighted movement, essentially wastes hard-earned wealth to achieve nothing except needlessly upsetting a lot of tax-payers, in this case by scattering concrete, wind turbines, and power pylons all over the countryside to no gain.

    When the wind does not blow there would be power blackouts if the thermal power stations were not already there and ready to pick up the load. Windmills and all their associated infrastructure, subsidies, and expense, therefore only duplicate power stations that already need to be there, so they are redundant and an unnecessary waste of money.

    But now the government is culpably committing national suicide by needlessly shutting down coal-fired thermal power stations to ‘reduce emissions’ for no reason except last century’s mad false AGW doctrine.

    They are therefore guaranteeing inadequate power supplies at times of high demand when the wind is outside the operating parameters of wind turbines, especially on freezing windless winter nights.

    Mid-winter is a fine time to be without services that require electricity to run, such as central heating, immersion heaters, TV, Internet, and, of course, electric light. And then there also is the pleasure of frozen taps – and burst pipes when temperatures rise above freezing again.

    So what does the government do? Pay owners of diesel generators to make up the shortfall! I’m serious. There is now a new industry feeding off tax-payers money to provide vast polluting standby diesel power at less efficiency and higher cost (on our bills, again) than the old thermal power stations that were wilfully shut down.

    Is there some madness-inducing drug in the water in Westminster?

    This descends into utter insanity when we consider that not only is Britain’s overall contribution to emissions on a global scale too small to matter, but also such ‘savings’ as we make by shutting down power stations will be overturned by China’s power station building programme in a matter of weeks.

    We are therefore committing national suicide for nothing, whether or not the CAGW due to CO2 game was a hoax. Now that is culpability cubed.

    And this is the asinine policy they are carrying forward to the next election with heads held high as though they are heroes and not traitors who should be in gaol.

    • waxliberty

      So, for the reader at home, blaming warming on the PDO (pacific decadal oscillation) and AMO (Atlantic multidecadal oscillation) is an en vogue anti-AGW theory. If the long and sorry history of en vogue debunkings of AGW buried behind us gives you pause that would be a rational response. Needless to say, it of course is not a theory with any kind of traction in actual published science, climate scientists consider it a bit funny (they note the term “oscillation” should be a clue that it is more about variation and pushing water around then new sources of energy and temperature that would explain our record warming trend and polar ice melts). Even citizen skeptics like Bob Tisdale, frequently cited and active in anti-“warmist” sites, have little patience for the PDO theory (though his theories about ENSO aren’t any more successful in published science). You can read about PDO and AMO on wikipedia, and here is the official FAQ entry:

      Given that, the rest of this rant should be easier to parse in political context…

      • scott_east_anglia
        • waxliberty

          And we both know there are a million web pages where they came from, each making some different claim about how the science is wrong, not necessarily being remotely consistent with each other, but consistent in not being grounded in published or peer review work but more likely quote mining (twisting what some scientist says, with the scientist later demanding a correction but the web site already having registered all the clicks it gets from hyping up another “grand admission”) or some non-published critic doing hokey statistical games on their own without any underlying understanding of climate systems or physics. It’s a whack-a-mole game. Your first link has the typical conspiracy theory framing – a scientist “slips up” and admits they’ve been hiding things from us. Conspiracy theories are weak for the reasons they are always weak. If you follow any extended discussion of ENSO, PDO and AMO *among scientists* it is clear that the most knowledgable people about such systems/phenomena are in fact climate scientists themselves. Who are also the most knowledgable about water vapor feedbacks, solar radiation, IR absorption in atmospheric layers etc. Yet the story is that they’ve always neglected one of these things and that’s why the science falls apart. This game has been going on for several decades now – remember when all the links were about how there actually isn’t any warming at all? Those were the days. (Oh wait, those days are back again!) The average observer *still* has no reason to put their faith in the blogosphere rather than scientists, contrary to the endless and stupefying volume of commentary otherwise.

          • scott_east_anglia

            A classic denier. You blew away your credibility when you produced a link to a propaganda web site.

            “it is clear that the most knowledgable people about such systems/phenomena are in fact climate scientists themselves. [sic]

            That could well be true – well done you got something right among all your argumentum ad auctoritatem fallacy.

            Real climate scientist (as opposed to the post grads employed by the IPCC) are very few and far between. In addition climatology is the probably the most complex subject ever undertaken by mankind, and it is still early days for the field, far too early to use it for making predictions. It was therefore ludicrous to base predictions on it, as the IPCC has conclusively demonstrated.

            Actually, graduate engineers are probably good people to look into the climatology field, because they have a sound knowledge of physics, chemistry and applied mathematics, a good grasp of how systems work, and an excellent nose for bulls1t.

            What is clear that it the IPCC has been consistently wrong about the climate ever since it was formed, as evinced by the failure of all of its predictions – Armageddon has refused to happen – along with their comical attempts to explain away why the climate had not followed their predictions since the late 1990s, and especially the failure of the predicted tropospheric hot spots to materialise, which essentially blew the whole hypothesis away years ago.

            However, perhaps you really are wiser than us all, and, unlike anyone else, are aware of some real (empirical) evidence that changes to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has an effect on the climate. Hitherto no-one has actually done the science.

            Could you enlighten us, please? Just a teensy weensy bit of real evidence and your Nobel prize awaits you.

            Remember that correlation is not the same as causation, data on their own say nothing about their causes (not even data fiddled while the Earth does not burn), and computer models only produce what they are configure to produce, so to cite their output as evidence is a dishonest circular argument.

            All yours. You will be the first. We are agog.

          • waxliberty

            “Propaganda web site”, yes of course… the info presented comes with citations into real work at least, can’t say that for the bulk of the internet links you’ll find debunking the “warmists”. Truly this political movement is one giant ad hominem attack on science. (I appreciate you being up front about that though. And I also appreciate that it must be exhausting effort to constantly be expanding the blacklist of “scientists you can’t listen to”. Btw, I think any so-called “scientist” you can catch walking out of a theater playing Pacific Rim, which advances some very questionable science in my opinion, is fair game for adding to your blacklist – free tip.)

            “Armageddon has refused to happen” – this is how you launch your case for your own credibility as a scientific thinker, is it.

            “Real evidence” – well a straightforward prediction of greenhouse effect is that you can get into orbit and look down at earth’s thermal radiation and see the bites being taken out by greenhouse gases. I’ll link to the propaganda site just to make you happy:
            (The page includes references to suggested introductory text covering climate physics for anyone actually interested in the science and not the political sideshow.)

            From there you start tracking this heat energy absorbed in the climate system. I’m sure you’re looking for something more like ‘proof’ (some fingerprint on a warm air molecule that shows it’s heat came from IR absorption originally?) which is a standard technique for attacking these theories describing behaviors in extremely complex natural systems. (Still raised to this day against evolution). There’s a reason proponents use terms like “global warming theory”, it is normal for science to proceed in this way. Why don’t you describe what direct “real evidence” *should* exist, and we can discuss why it does or does not.

            Generally you are also just working the old chestnut “we don’t know everything about climate therefore we don’t know anything”. Turns out that’s not true. AGW may be overhyped in politics, the scientific work may yet be wrong on degree of forcings or something, but denial of (a) planetary warming observed and (b) a CO2 greenhouse effect contributing signfiicant heat energy to the climate system on its own is honestly scientific illiteracy at this point.

          • Neal F. Heidler

            You can’t argue rationally with crazy.
            I appreciate your effort just the same.

          • scott_east_anglia

            Hi Neal,

            I’m guessing that you are a sock puppet, waxy baby.

          • scott_east_anglia

            So no real evidence that changes to the atmospheric concentration of CO2 have any effect on the climate.

            No surprises then, as always with the deniers that CAGW was a hoax..

            All mouth and no trousers.

          • waxliberty

            “Hoax”… right. You are somewhat disappointing in just turning out to be a merely run-of-the-mill anti-science eccentric with a keyboard.

  • jpt4w

    And ‘Climate Change’ has just been added to the school curriculum.
    The brain washing continues…

    • Neal F. Heidler

      It’s been added to what is commonly known as reality. Sorry….you’ll have to find a way to adapt.

      • jpt4w
        • Neal F. Heidler

          Real what?
          Vague projectons about future weather from 2000?
          It’s warming bub. Sorry. Time to pul your head out and get with the program.

          • jpt4w

            ‘Vague projectons about future weather’

            Sound familiar?

          • Neal F. Heidler

            Empirical data:
            2005 was hotter than 1998. The hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010. 2012 was the warmest year in the US. 13 of the warmest years (world) have occurred in the past 15 years. ( http://www.politifact.com/trut… )
            This while most of the warming is occuring in the oceans:

        • Neal F. Heidler

          Vague predictions from the year 2000?

  • John Spencer
  • Matt

    btw, I think long-range weather forecaster and climate-change skeptic Piers Corbyn should be taken seriously by the Met Office and the government (he already has the ear of Boris Johnson). A 6-month analysis of his work shows that he forecasts the weather with around 70% accuracy. The Met Office’s long-range forecasts are a joke. They currently reckon the July hot spell will continue – wow, what a forecast! (not). Any Tom Dick or Harry could say that simply by looking at Jet Stream forecasts for the next month which are available on numerous websites. Their long-range forecasting is not based on any sound understanding, just statistical guesswork, which is no better than chance.
    Check this site for a detailed analysis of Piers Corbyn’s forecasts:

  • Mnestheus

    Hot enough for you?

    What need for more hirelings and crackpots when the Speccie has impeached itself so absurdly in this matter?

  • Trofim

    Glorious weather? The bloody sun’s been beating down all bloody week where I live.

  • Dialogvennlig

    “Seasonal” weather forecasts are close to mere guesswork. Perhaps best for The Met Office to stop publishing them. Forecasts of continued global warming this century based on radiation physics is another matter altogether, as anyone who has a clue about climate science will know.

    The Earth is currently not in radiative balance, but receives more Energy than it emits. This is a fact that can be – and is – measured. Most of the heat is accumulated in the Oceans, only a small part in the Atmosphere. The portion heating the Atmosphere changes on a decadal scale (mostly due to the ENSO variatons in the Pacific), and therefore we have the so called, misnamed “pause” in global warming (which did not prevent the 2000s being about 0,16 degrees warmer than the 1990s, and will not prevent the 2010s being warmer than the 2000s).

    Will this global warming bring winters dominated by High pressure (cold and dry) or/and summers dominated by Lows (cold an wet)? Maybe, and maybe not. The Jury is still out on that. Different researchers have different hypotheses. This is about how the heat is distributed in the Atmosphere. What we (i.e. the Scientists) do know, is that there will be more heat, and consequently more moisture, in the Atmosphere globally. What they don`t know, is how this heat is going to be distributed geographically, through the seasons.

  • Neal F. Heidler

    Two (of the many) out and out falsehoods in Darwall’s piece:
    “Thanks to the Climategate emails, we know that in private, climate scientists saw things very differently.”
    “climate scientistS” Huh??? Baloney.
    This is simply not the case at all. Such a claim is a flat out lie. Of course I realize that it’s (sadly) close enough for the most of the commenters here. Has any scientific journal asked any of the climate scientist in question to correct any of their research? No, because they’re top-notch scientists whose work has weathered informed, expert review and critcism. Have any of these scientists been censured by their universities or any scientific body? No, for the same reason.
    “No warming since 1998”? Baloney.
    2005 was hotter than 1998. The hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010. 2012 was the warmest year in the US. 13 of the warmest years (world) have occurred in the past 15 years. ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/15/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-12-hottest-years-record-have-com/ )
    This while most of the warming is occuring in the oceans:

  • We have long noted the shared agenda of the BBC and the Met Office in their promotion of Man Made Climate Change.

    The only difference between them in the repercussions involved in adhering to this faulty science, is that the BBC can ignore the evidence that shows how tainted is this agenda to pursuit it further, while the Met Office has to make predictions based on this ‘science’.

    With all of their predictions predictably wrong, as is always the case if one fails to properly observe reality, they can then be judged, and hopefully punished.

    It will happen too to the BBC one day, it will just take a little longer – that’s my prediction.

  • BoiledCabbage

    The Met office should be privatised. There should be zero taxpayer funding. Let it attract clients who need its valuable predictions.

  • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

    Even if GW is occuring it is probably NOT anthropogenic and is certainly NOT caused by the contribution of the UK to total CO2 emissions.

    Since not enough is known about the factors controlling climate on a global scale it seems to me that the computer models cannot possibly be accurate.

    Another case of the over educated becoming a vested interest and blinding themselves with their own belief sytems.

    A bit like the BBC in fact
    We need a bash the BBC forum.
    I mean its coverage of controversial matters political.

  • global city

    The whole AGW mania has always been exclusively political. Right back to Hansen and his bogus furmulae….everything else has been built on corrupt evidence and skewered political ideology.

  • Gareth

    The computer models work on the assumption that there is no convection above 12km – for some reason, the upper atmosphere is expected to behave more like a solid than a gas. See http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-%E2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-five/

    Meanwhile, since the 1980s there have been satellites measuring the outgoing radiation and the measurements show that the Earth is now losing 2W/sq m MORE than in the 1980s. The atmosphere is not capturing more IR energy after all.

  • Jack Gray

    Dame Julia Slingo is in habit of making false statements, especially with those who disagree with her, and are conveniently sacked to cover up for her mistakes.

    Yesterday, she was caught out again by predicting that this Summer was a complete washout for Scotland which clearly it wasn’t by stating that Scotland had 15 inches of rain, and that the temperatures were only an average 12 degrees, but unfortunately for Ms. Slingo, Met Office Forecaster, Laura Young, gave the actual temperature for Scotland to be around 15-16 degrees, and the rainfall for the period which was around 8-9.5 inches which are average for the time of year, and that thunderstorms were not unusual for the period.

    The whole UK rainfall for Summer, and we’re talking about the whole rainfall totals for June 1st-August 26th was around 15-16 inches, and the average temperature for the UK as a whole was around 25-38 degrees which can lead to thunderstorms, but the Met Office stated this has nothing to do with Global Warming or Climate Change.

    Leading climate change scientists cite Julia Slingo as a lying, scheming opportunist who will use any weather scenario to scheme, and put it down to either global warming, which has now been exposed as a scam in the US, and others are now waking up to the fact that it is a $22bn fraud (£39bn sterling), and climate change, which saw her exposed as a liar when there was no scientific evidence supporting that the 2014 storms were down to climate change which it wasn’t, and was later found to have been caused by the remnants of Typhoon Haiyan hampering the jetstreams, and Slingo was severely roasted by climate change scientists who asked her repeatedly to provide any evidence five times, and five times she couldn’t.

    She even scuppered a study between the Met Office, And Newcastle University into rainfall, but was marred by intimidation, and bullying claims by Slingo, and her staff if they didn’t accept her version of events which were to support Global Warming, and that the majority of the University’s researchers disagreed with her, and the study was dropped, and will never be published.

    Dame Julia Slingo likes to brag about climate change, especially as she has jobs with the said oil companies, and has shares with said polluters who she claims are responsible for Global Warming, and was threatened with several lawsuits which were conveniently dropped for various reasons. She has made, and embezzled millions, given her previous for fraud including her own employers, and including financial arrangements with several newspapers including The Daily Express, and The Star including journalists Steve Connor, and Nathan Rao (who uses the pen name of Dean Herbert).

    Her attempt to use the weather in 2014 to cash in on the storms was thwarted by the actions of a Met Office employee. Both Slingo, and Rao planned to use the plight of the people of South West England to further expolit the issue of climate change to use at the expense of these people, but this employee passed this information to a leading climate change scientist, and this is the first time the Global Warmers felt as if they’re cash cow was about to be taken away from them, and Julia Slingo took drastic action to remove her, and discrediting her in the process.

    Peter Stroud, this is the true fucking face of Dame Julia Slingo, who doesn’t care about anyone let alone the planet. She is in it up to her fucking neck in the Global Warming Scam, and this article is completely untrue.