The severe weather events hitting Britain at the moment were always going to be grabbed by the warming alarmists as conclusive proof that man made climate change was the root cause.
As usual the warmists quote the UN IPCC report when it suits their argument, and then completely ignore their “science” when it does not match the current and ever changing political narrative.
A group of leading warming alarmists has admitted that the Climate Change policies that the UN and environmentalists are trying so hard to impose on the world, would take decades, if not longer to show any benefits.
A group of researchers from the usual suspects including, The Tyndall Centre, the University of East Anglia, The Potsdam Institute and the Walker Institute have concluded that tough measures swiftly imposed on global emissions could reduce the impacts of climate change by between 20% – 60%, though there would be no obvious impact until at least 2030 or even much later, like in 90 years from now.
Another great piece of attempted future proofing for the Green boondoggle, if the climate changes one way then the Greens were correct all along, if it goes the other way then the Green measures were not enacted swiftly enough to have prevented disastrous climate change.
Then of course, it would help if they actually knew what constitutes dangerous climate change: Read the rest of this entry
With the planet being the coldest it has been for a decade it is comforting to know that the decrease in solar activity will not stop the run away global warming caused by obscene levels of atmospheric CO2 that the Earth is experiencing.
Well that’s the story from the UK Met Office famed for its useless weather forecasting, it has conjoined with Reading University to produce a new fear scenario all based on a single computer model’s predictions.
In November 2010 the Met Office found that the world was warming faster than they thought, so no big surprises that nothing can stop the inexorable rise of global temperatures and the Guardian are ecstatic that Armageddon is still scheduled for a vague date in the future: Read the rest of this entry
A major row is brewing over the decision to ground flights based on the evidence of a single source of data from a computer model where “certain assumptions” are made when there is no data.
The UK Met Office infamous for it’s deep involvement in the Climategate scandal, wildly erroneous predictions about “barbecue summers” and “mild winters” has struck again by getting most flights grounded for the last 4 days.
The Met Office’s Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre issued the warning last week which triggered the European ban on flying.
Earlier a senior European Commission official said Europe should reduce its volcanic ash flight ban to “several dozen kilometres” around Iceland and rethink the Met Office science behind the current no fly restrictions, said a senior today.
Matthias Ruete, the Commission’s director general of transport, criticised national air traffic authorities for relying on a single source of scientific evidence for the four day ban, which has created a major aviation crisis.
“The science behind the model we are running at the moment is based on certain assumptions where we do not have clear scientific evidence,” he said. Read the rest of this entry
It has not been a good year for the Met Office, apart from the Climategate fallout there was the inconvenient truth of the barbecue summer of 2009 and the mild winter of 2009/10.
Last week the Met Office announed that it was stopping publishing seasonal forecasts, the mild winter forecast sounded the death knell for seasonal forecasts, it is doubtful that the Met Office could have borne the ridicule of another wildly wrong forecast.
A spokesman for the Met Office admitted that with the current state of climate science it is too difficult to predict the seasons in advance:
Although we can identify general patterns of weather, the science does not exist to allow an exact forecast beyond five days, or to absolutely promise a certain type of weather.
“As a result, ‘seasonal forecasts’ cannot be as precise as our short-term forecast,”