WE ARE obliged to the Met Office for informing us last week that the climate in five years may be either hotter or colder than it is now. One might have thought that the Met Office would be more gainfully employed spending its vast taxpayer-funded budget doing something useful like trying to spot hurricanes off the south coast. But the recent publicity stunt was all about punting the suggestion that global warming could exceed 1.5 degrees C within five years – a figure set in stone by the Paris climate agreement.

The highest Met Office forecast for the next five years – the one they unashamedly promoted – was 1.57C, using a base date of 1850 when the gentle and beneficial period of warming started. There was also a lowball forecast of 1.03C. But deep within the figures is the suggestion that 2019 will show a rise of 1.1C. Thus the lowball forecast for the five years at 1.03C was actually lower than the figure for 2019 at 1.1C; in other words, global temperatures could fall. The mainstream media, needless to say, missed this crucial point but faithfully reported the higher figure with the usual scaremongering quotes from the ever-increasing ranks of green grant-hungry academics. 

Meanwhile the constant refrain seems to be that each year is hotter than the last despite the fact that accurate global ground temperature records are not available and changes year on year are so tiny as to be well within any reasonable margin of error. Great for a headline, though.

But why even bother looking at junk climate forecasts when they have a lousy track record? Organisations produce their forecasts using computer-driven climate models. There are more than 100 of these models and none has accurately predicted the rate of global warming over the last 30 years. All failed to predict the temperature pause between around 1998 and 2014 – a period that saw CO2, often known as plant food, continue to enrich the atmosphere and produce significant increases in world vegetation. And hovering above us since 1979 are satellites which constantly monitor temperature and have on occasion shown global warming around half that suggested by flawed ground-based measurements.

Indeed, as some have asked, without the satellites providing at least some accuracy, who knows what mischief the climate scientists/activists would get up to in the interests of their ‘settled’ science?

Many of the Met Office figures, along with those of the United Nations IPCC, are taken from its HadCRUT4 global temperature database. Last year James McLean from Australia’s James Cook University wrote a doctoral thesis on HadCRUT4. It didn’t get a lot of publicity at the time but its findings were devastating. McLean found freakishly improbable data and systematic adjustment errors, large gaps where there was no data, location errors and Fahrenheit temperatures reported as Celsius. The Caribbean island of St Kitts is said to have recorded 0C for a whole month in both 1981 and 1984 while global warming came early to a town in Colombia that spent three months in 1978 with an average temperature over 80C. Meanwhile a number of sea surface temperatures are logged on ships in harbours, unrepresentative of the open ocean, while others came from vessels located 100km inland!

The Met Office ‘welcomed’ the McLean audit and promised the issues it raised would be dealt with in the next major update. ‘The HadCRUT dataset includes comprehensive uncertainty estimates in its estimates of global temperature,’ a Met Office spokesman is reported to have admitted. At the Met Office it seems even the estimates are estimates. But then in the new religion surrounding computerised climate modelling: Garbage in, gospel out.

On the basis of the climate models and the concocted claim that 97 per cent of scientists believe that human-made CO2 is largely or solely to blame for recent gentle warming, the political activists are seeking to grab control of the commanding heights of the economy. As the late Canadian minister of the environment, Christine Stewart, said: ‘No matter if the science of global warming is all phony . . . climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.’ http://green-agenda.com As a result of the hijacking of science for political purposes, any sensible discussion of atmospheric science or care of the environment is impossible. Climate science sceptics – the only stance available for a genuine scientist – are routinely called ‘deniers’ as if denying a mere warming forecast is the same as denying the historical fact of the Jewish Holocaust.

The shutdown of debate is ubiquitous. Few toys were thrown out of the pram to such dramatic effect as that displayed in a letter to the Guardian last August signed by 60 green activists. ‘We are no longer willing to lend our credibility to debates over whether or not climate change is real,’ stated Jonathon Porritt, George Monbiot, Peter Tatchell, Caroline Lucas MP and Clive Lewis MP. ‘Therefore we will no longer debate those who deny that human-caused climate change is real . . . We urge broadcasters to move on, as we are doing.’

The new priesthood has spoken – the dogma is officially declared infallible.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Our contributors and editors are unpaid but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We receive no independent funding and depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.