By Ian Bell-In 2007 the UK Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Research confidently predicted the average global temperature will rise by around 0.2oC decade by decade driven by CO2 rises.
The Centre is one of a select group of four global centres upon which the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) depends.
Not withstanding the 'alarming' figures, we all know the UK Met Office’s predictive credibility beyond assessing the next few days’ weather prospects, has long been a national laughing stock.
Remember the farce of its warning over a “barbecue summer” prior to one of the UK’s coolest summers for decades, and more than one warning about Global warming-induced perennial drought conditions just before the UK experienced extended periods of rainy weather causing major flooding?
So it was interesting to note on Christmas Eve, something curious happened.
The UK Met Office posted a note on its website announcing it was downgrading its previous assessments, calling into question the credibility of the entire ‘human-carbon-emissions-are-to-blame’ scam.
In December, a draft of the UN IPCC’s fifth assessment, due for final publication in September 2013, was leaked to the press by climate sceptic Alec Rawls, one of the UN IPCC's expert reviewers.
The IPCC confirmed the draft was genuine while lamenting the leak.
The media furore that followed, however, focused on a section of the report that suggests what some key climate scientists, including Dr Henrik Svensmark, have said all along - that the influence of cosmic rays (the Sun) could have a greater warming influence than mankind’s emissions.
Rawls describes the relevant section as “an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and main conclusion of the full report, revealing the dishonesty of the whole”.
We should remember that the Met Office white coats had long derided sceptics who questioned their assessment and their call for immediate government action.
All of which helps explain why they tried to bury the news of their ‘revised’ downgrade by publishing it on Christmas Eve.
The pro-alarmist media, including the BBC's David Shukman who immediately went into over-drive to explain The UK Met Office revision as “natural variability” (so it may well be much less?), and the New Scientist saw it as just an unforeseen “standstill”.
It became clear that any theory would do – just so long as it didn’t torpedo entirely the central theory: that anthropogenic emissions are primarily to blame and thus global warming must resume at some future stage.
Spin it as “stalled”. Spin it any way you want. The cold reality is that global warming just isn’t happening. In truth, it hasn’t been happening for 16 years. And, according to one of the world’s leading contributors to the UN IPCC’s theory on climate, the UK Met Office, it isn’t going to happen over the next five years either. Beyond that, who knows?
The Met Office certainly doesn’t – so neither does the UN IPCC.
But other parts of the UK media have clearly had enough.
The Daily Mail pulled no punches citing the Met Office’s clumsy attempt to cover up the scale of its gross error as “a crime against science and the public.”
The Sunday Telegraph editorial described it as a “betrayal of proper science”. And David Rose of the Mail on Sunday, in the wake of various attempts to exonerate this latest screw up, wanted to know “Who are the deniers now?”
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) Director, Dr Benny Peiser, put his finger on the real cost of this latest miscalculation: “This suggests that the Government’s climate change policies, including wind farms, are a waste of money and based on dodgy advice.”
Peiser added, “Why should we trust UK Met Office forecasts about the climate for 2050 or 2100 if they get it wrong for the next decade?”
Equally, increasing numbers are now questioning the man-made emissions drives temperatures theory, based, as they are, on highly fallible computer modelling games. Nor should we expect a highly politicized organization like the UN to admit how apocalyptic pseudo-scientific prophecies offer it an unprecedented shot at achieving its primary ambition - global governance.
So why is the Met Office revision such an important story? After all, it’s just one national weather service and a small downgrading of its predictions, is it not? Far from it.
In response to the UK Met Office's predictions on 16 October 2008 Ed Miliband, the then Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change for the ruling Labour Party, announced that the Climate Act, the first of its kind in the world and the “most expensive legislation in history”, would mandate an 80% cut overall in six greenhouse gases by 2050.
The Act effectively committed the UK to foot an annual extra ‘de-carbonising’ spending bill of over £18 billion every year for the next 40 years.
So now armed with revised evidence will today’s Con/LibDem coalition government have a rethink?
Can we honestly expect our national 'democratic' government to abandon doomsday scenarios in the guise of popular science speculation?
I wouldn't hold my breath.