In response to Andrew Montford: When the Met Office gets in a hole, it keeps digging, Owen_Morgan wrote:
The Met Office relies on computer models for its predictions. Those may have their uses, in contexts where all of the relevant input consists of reasonably well understood variables, but that has never been the case in climate calculations. Climate models include a lot of guesswork and biased assumptions. They have to be biased, because the Met Office long ago sold its soul to the Global Warming God and exists now principally to produce dire, conveniently unprovable predictions.
To this end, it has acquired a string of so-called ‘supercomputers’: very large arrays of UNIX boxes, useful, if at all, only for running very long number-crunching jobs. We, the taxpayers, have paid for these toys and they don’t come cheap. The Met Office has to justify the expenditure and Alarmist projections are its attempt to do so. If its models predicted more or less unchanged temperatures in 2100, people might be tempted to ask why that last supercomputer was so essential. The results the Met Office gets are the ones it wants.
The fact is that models which predicted minimal change would be no more trustworthy than ones prophesying fiery doom. ‘Garbage-In-Garbage-Out’ is a computing cliché, but the thing about clichés is that they are rather often true and that one invariably is for computing. If the numbers which are entered at the start have no sound basis in fact, the output has no relation to reality, either.
From the start, Global Warming has been all about political control and nothing whatever to do with temperature, sea-level, melting ice, stranded polar bears, hurricanes, decreased snowfall, increased snowfall, or any of the other things for which it is blamed by corrupt scientists, power-hungry politicians and lazy, complicit journalists.
