The long term weather

 

Coming quickly off the learning curve of their forecast of a drier than usual winter in the UK, the Met Office tell us to expect more hot summers over the next 25 years.

The Met Office Hadley Centre tells us  “by the 2040s we can expect events like 2003 ( a hot summer) to be normal….There is evidence that in the UK we are seeing more heavy rainfall events” (which they take as a sign of global warming though the weather often seems cold when it is raining).

If you look at their official longer term forecast for the world, it is more nuanced. They predict warmer times over the northern land mass, but a cooler southern ocean. They draw attention to ” Some indication of continued cool conditions in the southern ocean and of developing cooling in the North Atlantic sub polar gyre”. Their coloured charts of current conditions shows quite large areas of the globe as cooler than average.

So what should we make of all this? Is the forecast of hotter summers likely to be true? If at the same time the southern ocean is having cooler summers, does that matter? A German forecast group has put out a specific forecast that we will have a hot summer this year. As April nears with frost on the ground, I look forward to seeing how that prognostication works out.

Meanwhile, Mr Cameron is now saying we must move rapidly to locate and exploit the gas beneath our feet, and is urging the EU to commit itself to a new energy policy which fosters greater energy self sufficiency. As I have often argued here, that is essential economically and politically.

I have just bought a copy of Rupert Darwall’s excellent book The Age of Global Warming. It is a must read for anyone interested in global warming theory. It combines substantial research in to the build up of the academic work and political conferences, with a delicious wry sense of humour.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

49 Comments

  1. Mark B
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 7:14 am | Permalink

    My message to the Met Office is this:

    When in a hole, it is usually a good idea to stop digging.

    John Redwood MP wrote:
    “Meanwhile, Mr Cameron is now saying we must move rapidly to locate and exploit the gas beneath our feet . . . ”

    Basically, his masters in Brussels have given him the green light to talk about it and he is using the opportunity to try an make himself appear in control. Because, if we were a sovereign country, we would not need to make such fatuous pronouncements. We would just do it !

    Also, why just gas ? Why not coal as well ? To answer my own questions, its because our masters in Brussels tell us that we are not allowed to use it. How can we possibly be considered a self governing country (eg China), when we are prevented by a foreign power from doing what any other country can do.

    And before anyone tells me we can no longer use the mines because etc etc. Well I say this. If we have aspirations of being a modern 21st Century Nation, we need the engineering skills to go with it, and we have. All we lack, is people with vision and determination. If you lack any of these, whilst you are entitled to an opinion, unless you have a workable solution, you just become part of the problem and can be safely ignored. The progress of mankind was never, an never will be, built by people like you !

    • ian wragg
      Posted March 28, 2014 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

      Why can’t we use coal. Germany is I think commissioning 11 coal and lignite stations this year alone. Do they have their own laws or is it just us that is banned from using coal.
      Roon will talk the talk but I bet it is years before we see any fracked gas coming on stream. I hope Centrica is correct and the lights start to dim. Politicians will be strung from lamp posts if this happens.
      A degree in stupidity is a must to get into Parliament these days.

      • uanime5
        Posted March 28, 2014 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

        Germany can build coal power plants because they’ve exceeded their CO2 reduction targets, unlike the UK.

        As long as the UK can buy power from France the lights won’t dim because unlike the UK France didn’t privatise its entire energy industry (EDF is state owned).

        • Edward2
          Posted March 29, 2014 at 9:02 am | Permalink

          Good to see you firmly in favour of nuclear power as provided to us in the UK by France, Uni.
          I presume if you are not in favour you will turn off your use of electricity for the correct proportion of hours in the day when nuclear is providing power.

        • libertarian
          Posted March 29, 2014 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

          Uanime5

          EDF was privatised in 2005, It is now a limited liability private company with shares sold and listed on the Paris stock exchange. The French government do still own a majority stake in the business. It is a monopoly contrary to all EU regulations and the French govt has been ordered to open up competition.

          EDF generates its electricity almost entirely by nuclear and supplies 22% of all the EU energy needs.

          I think you’ll find that your beloved Germany once again doesn’t in reality live up to the myths and propaganda put out by you lefties.
          Germany is failing to hit its Co2 emission targets and its getting worse

          http://www.rtcc.org/2014/03/10/germanys-carbon-targets-in-doubt-as-emissions-rise-in-2013/

          Have another at posting Uanime5 only this time check with reality first

    • uanime5
      Posted March 28, 2014 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

      If we have aspirations of being a modern 21st Century Nation, we need the engineering skills to go with it, and we have. All we lack, is people with vision and determination. If you lack any of these, whilst you are entitled to an opinion, unless you have a workable solution, you just become part of the problem and can be safely ignored.

      So according to your logic you plan to ignore anyone you feel doesn’t have vision or determination even though there’s no objective way to show whether or not a person has either. Thus you’re going to ignore anyone who doesn’t tell you what you want to hear, then justify this by claiming that they lack vision or determination.

      Perhaps what people are lacking is the ability to spot flawed logic.

      • Mark B
        Posted March 29, 2014 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

        No. I am doing to people like you, what people like you, are trying to do to me.

        Like; “The Science on Climate Change is settled.”

        No it is not. But if cannot see that a gas, that makes up 0.03% of the air that we breath cannot possibly killing the planet, then we have no grounds for discussion. ie You exclude yourself from the debate by trying do deny, by omission.

  2. APL
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 7:25 am | Permalink

    JR: “the Met Office tell us to expect more hot summers over the next 25 years.”

    On the basis of their recent forcasts, I advise everyone to ‘go long’ umbrella manufacturers. Oh and buy a canoe.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 28, 2014 at 11:52 am | Permalink

      Indeed the truth of the matter, as any sensible & real scientists knows perfectly well is:

      The weather next week affects the weather the week after (and so on) if you cannot predict the first, you cannot predict the other. Predicting the weather in 100 years times is a mugs game we do not even have most of the input data such as the suns output, volcanic activity, meteor impacts, future human activity, agriculture in 50 year time, when humans will switch to nuclear fusion power, what engineering interventions will be ………

      If the people at the met office do not know this they should resign as they are clearly in the wrong job. Perhaps they should try becoming a priest, conman or soothsayer.

      Oh and if you do get high winds at the same time as very high spring tides you do get coastal damage – always have done always will do.

      The green crap Agenda is highly immoral. It is killing people now by diverting vast sum from things we know save lives now (Clean water, basic medical care, inoculations, warm homes for the elderly, malaria, stronger houses in earth quake zone and hurricane areas …..) to an absurd anti Co2 religion a harms gas needed by all plants and trees.

      A little more C02 and a bit warmer anyway is a positive thing – for crop growth and life in general.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted March 28, 2014 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

        In fact even if you know the first weeks weather you still cannot predict the second week reliably.

        This as countless unknowable things could change it. Surely this is obvious to anyone who can think?

      • uanime5
        Posted March 28, 2014 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

        The weather next week affects the weather the week after (and so on) if you cannot predict the first, you cannot predict the other.

        Predicting the weather over several weeks based on the current movements of the winds and predicting the rise in average global temperature based on past trends don’t use the same prediction methods. So the failure to predict one does not mean you cannot predict the other.

        It is killing people now by diverting vast sum from things we know save lives now (Clean water, basic medical care, inoculations, warm homes for the elderly, malaria, stronger houses in earth quake zone and hurricane areas …..) to an absurd anti Co2 religion a harms gas needed by all plants and trees.

        Funny I can’t recall people in the UK dying because of a lack of “clean water, basic medical care, inoculations, warm homes for the elderly, malaria, stronger houses in earth quake zone and hurricane areas”. Perhaps you’ve confused the money spent on foreign aid (which has been increasing every year) with the money spent on green energy.

        A little more C02 and a bit warmer anyway is a positive thing – for crop growth and life in general.

        Unless you live somewhere where it’s already very hot; then the higher temperatures result in droughts, crop failure, and famine.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted March 29, 2014 at 8:06 am | Permalink

          Higher temperature usually give more precipitation not less. I am not just concerned for the UK and people do regularly die in the UK for want of basic comforts, heating and medical care.

          You say “Predicting the weather over several weeks based on the current movements of the winds and predicting the rise in average global temperature based on past trends don’t use the same prediction methods. So the failure to predict one does not mean you cannot predict the other.”

          Well whatever methods they use the weather does depend on the day before – so if their computers use a different method that is where they are going wrong – it just will not work. One bad Volcano can change the weather for years to come, as can countless other things. They are in a dreamworld not reality.

  3. James Winfield
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 7:28 am | Permalink

    The winter just gone was very difficult to predict – only one of dozens of long range forecasters that I read, predicted how wet it was.

    April looks likely to see above average rainfall, and yes there are indicators of high pressure near the UK during the summer months.

    • lojolondon
      Posted March 28, 2014 at 7:53 am | Permalink

      And yet, James, late last year, the Met office predicted a dry winter. Face it, they have almost no idea what the weather will be like tomorrow, so their chances of predicting the weather next week are zero, nevermind months and years in advance.
      If you dispute this, then I challenge you to check the forecast every day for a week, and record the actual weather you experience. Good luck if you hit 50%.

      • lifelogic
        Posted March 28, 2014 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

        Indeed let us set these soothsayer/meteorologists a far simpler problem for them & their expensive computers to play with. We will give them all the starting positions, material details, measurements, temperature, gas composition and velocities of say 40 lottery balls in a rotating lottery machine. Then ask them for all the positions and velocities of the balls say 1 minutes minutes later.

        When they can do that trivial problem, which is clearly trillions of times simpler than the World weather systems for 100 years, (and you even have all the relevant starting information unlike the weather) perhaps we can let them loose on the weather for say a couple of day time.

        Until then recognise them for what they are and stop paying them with tax payers money. If they are genuine & honest scientists they must know this, it is very basic logic & science.

        Even then they will need to predict the meteor impacts, the suns output for 100 years, when humans will crack fusion, the future populations, future agriculture, future wars, volcanoes, tsunamis, developments in agriculture, viral infections and genetic engineering …….. how will they do all this unless they are the omnipotent all seeing gods they seem to believe?

        • uanime5
          Posted March 28, 2014 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

          Indeed let us set these soothsayer/meteorologists a far simpler problem for them & their expensive computers to play with. We will give them all the starting positions, material details, measurements, temperature, gas composition and velocities of say 40 lottery balls in a rotating lottery machine. Then ask them for all the positions and velocities of the balls say 1 minutes minutes later.

          So you want them to solve a problem that has nothing to do with climate change to prove what exactly?

          When they can do that trivial problem, which is clearly trillions of times simpler than the World weather systems for 100 years, (and you even have all the relevant starting information unlike the weather) perhaps we can let them loose on the weather for say a couple of day time.

          Just one problem: predicting how the average global temperature will rise has nothing to do with predicting what the weather will be. So even if scientists can do this it will have no effect on the fact that the average global temperature has been continually rising for over a century.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted March 29, 2014 at 8:12 am | Permalink

            “Just one problem: predicting how the average global temperature will rise has nothing to do with predicting what the weather will be.”

            Pure nonsense and why do they keep predicting both the weather and the global temperature rise so erroneously.

            Climate is just average weather after all.

  4. Ex-expat Colin
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    Sir David King (ex GCSA) said at this weeks HoC Climate Change Committee meeting (T. Yeo et al) that CO2 was rising at 1.8% pa and at that rate the 2 deg C temp rise/limit would be exceeded by 2043 (IPCC). So thats that then…Jon Snow on C4 News last night rattled the Greenland ice reduction and showed some of it perhaps(?)…he’s a real panic monger to say the very least.

    Christopher Monckton (WUWT) logically shows that temp increase does not act linearly or as electronic models predict…not as observed. That would be averaging stupid models mainly.

    The overwhelming scream is from the UN and allied. Most politicians believe in the scream…hence the wasted effort and loss of money we witness on climate that cannot be influenced. Weather…Ne’er cast a clout till May be out!

    It was snowing in the W. Mids late April last year, I have the photo evidence. But who cares – sorry, thats just weather!

    • uanime5
      Posted March 28, 2014 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

      Christopher Monckton (WUWT) logically shows that temp increase does not act linearly or as electronic models predict…not as observed. That would be averaging stupid models mainly.

      What experiments did he do to demonstrate this and has he been able to accurately predict how much the average global temperature will rise over the coming decade? If not then he doesn’t have any evidence to back up this claims.

  5. Alan Wheatley
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 8:32 am | Permalink

    There does seem to be strong correlation between the vocal advocates of AGW and silence on world population growth. An example of group non-think.

  6. Old Albion
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    The global climate has fluctuated since time began. It will continue to fluctuate. I’m sure the ‘warmists’ thought they were onto something twenty years ago, but in reality it ain’t happening.
    As for the Met office, their forecasts cannot be trusted more than 24 hrs ahead.

  7. Roger Farmer
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    Neither the Met Office nor the global warming soothsayers are capable of forecasting with any accuracy the weather in the UK for more than four days ahead. Based on past data they can possibly discern trends, but these are subject to so many unpredictable elements such as volcanic and sunspot action, not to mention the odd asteroid collision that it is all a bit finger in the wind.
    That climate changes is a fact, just look at geological history. The total dishonesty of the climate change industry is that they try to pin the blame on man but cannot quantify it.
    For them it is sufficient to broadcast their religion in much the same way that the church offered hell and damnation to those like Gallileo who stepped out of line some hundreds of years ago. The climate change industry is little better than the inquisition that burnt imaginary witches. Around it has grown a community of beneficiaries in terms of landowners with windmills and those who manufacture windmills. By all means make and export windmills but don’t clutter our countryside with them at great and unnecessary expense to the users of electricity.
    Here we have yet another reason to divorce ourselves from the insane dictates of Brussels who managed to combine their intellect with those who run the environment agency to achieve the flooding of Somerset and the Thames Valley. When oh when will we be rid of this pestilence.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 28, 2014 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

      The total dishonesty of the climate change industry is that they try to pin the blame on man but cannot quantify it.

      Actually scientists have been able to quantify it. They’ve found that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere results in the average global temperature rising by 1 degree Celsius.

      For them it is sufficient to broadcast their religion in much the same way that the church offered hell and damnation to those like Gallileo who stepped out of line some hundreds of years ago.

      The only difference being that the scientists have evidence to support their claims and the deniers have no evidence.

  8. alan jutson
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    Amazing is it not.

    Difficult to predict the weather accurately for the next 14 days, but want us to believe that they can forecast correctly the next decade or more.

    Even more amazing, our Government and the EU fully accept that the decade type predictions are absolutely correct, and thus set a policy of high energy costs for us all, with Green taxes, subsidies for intermittent and inefficient power supplies, and the use of more expensive generation methods, whilst closing those older but proven generation plants which have worked for generations past.

    Will the lights go out sometime soon ?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 28, 2014 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

      “Difficult to predict the weather accurately for the next 14 days, but want us to believe that they can forecast correctly the next decade or more.”

      The alarmists would perhaps argue that they can predict “climate” (average weather over a longer timescale). Just as you can predict that in a long run a fair game die will tend to return an average shake of three and a half.

      It is however a totally bogus argument as unlike the dice, today’s weather clearly affects tomorrows and onward.

      Anyway – one single persons invention, a development in nuclear fusions & energy production, genetic engineering crop advances, a single volcano, a meteor impact or some unusual solar activity can change the whole future.

  9. Edward2
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    Hotter or colder, wetter or dryer they have all the bases covered.

    Moving the emphasis away from calling it “catastrophic warming” to the catch all phrase “climate change” we see how the change of wording can be used to carry on the aims of the movement.

    Al Gore’s name is now not to be mentioned ever again by those in the movement.
    And don’t mention those embarrassing e mails either.
    Nor the vanishing Polar bears now that scare story has been disproved and numbers are found not to be falling after all.

    Predictions of doom are one thing, but looking back we see less than one degree rise in global temperatures in over a hundred years and a remarkable unexpected pause in the rise just when they said the rise would be accelerating.

    If the actual data we now have does not agree with the dire predictions made back in the eighties, why should we believe the even more dire predictions that are now being made?

    • uanime5
      Posted March 28, 2014 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

      Nor the vanishing Polar bears now that scare story has been disproved and numbers are found not to be falling after all.

      Care to provide a source to back up that claim because according the WWF polar bear numbers are still decreasing due to their habitat being destroyed.

      If the actual data we now have does not agree with the dire predictions made back in the eighties, why should we believe the even more dire predictions that are now being made?

      Unless you believe that you can continually increase the temperature of the planet without causing any problems the dire predictions made in the 80′s will eventually occur.

      • Edward2
        Posted March 29, 2014 at 8:17 am | Permalink

        Point one
        Look it up yourself, its been in the newspapers recently, and it will give you something useful to do.
        Point two
        The problem for you is the temperatures are currently not rising as predicted in the eighties to be happening, right now.

  10. Barry Sheridan
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    Dear Mr Redwood, I am surprised you even bother to look at what the Met service says. Supporting this monolith is a waste of valuable public money.

  11. Pieter Knoops
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    A worthwhile read is Professor Fritz Vahrenholt’s book “The Neglected Sun”. To quote from Amazon…..A devastating scientific exposition of mainstream global warming arguments; · Written by a distinguished German scientist and former Environmental Senator; · Highlights the sun’s often overlooked affects on climate change. The affect of the suns activity on climate change has been either scarcely known or overlooked. In this momentous book, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, distinguished German scientist and former Environmental Senator, demonstrates that the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the suns activity. Vahrenholt reveals that four concurrent solar cycles master the earths temperature a climatic reality upon which man s carbon emissions bear little significance. The suns present cooling phase, precisely monitored in this work, renders the catastrophic prospects put about by the Inter- Governmental Panel on Climate Change and the green agenda dominant in contemporary Western politics as nothing less than impossible.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 28, 2014 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

      Did Professor Fritz Vahrenholt’s book also mention why the sun’s current cooling phase hasn’t resulted in the average global temperature being reduced? If he can’t explain this then this means his entire claim is wrong.

  12. Atlas
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    I think the Oracle at Delphi could be relied upon for as accurate prediction as that of the Met Office.

  13. oldtimer
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    These long term predictions/projections/forecasts/musings are not worth the paper they are written on or the bits and bytes they need. Unfortunately, because of the Met Office and others running the IPCC we are saddled with phoney energy policies (wind farms, biomass etc result in more CO2 not less), based on a false promise (reducing man made CO2 will not control the climate), which in turn is based on a failed hypothesis (CAGW).

    Yet this, judging by the billions of subsidies paid out on useless endeavours, remains a cornerstone of government policy.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 28, 2014 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

      wind farms, biomass etc result in more CO2 not less

      Care to provide some figures to show how a wind farm will produce more CO2 than a coal or gas power plant despite their being no combustion involved.

      based on a false promise (reducing man made CO2 will not control the climate)

      Good thing we’re reducing man made CO2 to reduce the average global temperature and not to control the climate.

      • oldtimer
        Posted March 29, 2014 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

        Obviously you are quite clueless about what actually happens. Fossil fuelled generators are kept on standby, ticking over inefficiently burning gas, to provide cover when the wind does nor blow (or blows too hard) or the sun does not shine. The result is that more CO2 is produced – as evidenced by the German experience. As for biofuels, even the UN is beginning to understand that these are not a smart idea.

        Well your distinction between temperature and climate is a remarkable change of direction. For years climate change and temperature have been interchangeable terms in the green vocabulary. Pleae advise when this change was made. I should be interested to read about it.

      • Mark
        Posted March 30, 2014 at 9:39 am | Permalink
  14. Antisthenes
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    To me reading the climate alarmists predictions it can be seen that they are cleverly crafted so that whatever the future weather pattens are they can point at them as being proof that they are right and sceptics are wrong. We all know that generally speaking weather has a history of being quite different year on year, decade on decade, century on century and so on and trends change constantly. So they are now using naturally occurring weather events as the new proof which will be very difficult to argue against as sceptics know no more than climate alarmists and like them cannot prove or disprove anything. Climate alarmists have made another step towards turning their beliefs into a religion as frankly their appears to be no more evidence that the climate is changing in a way they say it is than there is for the belief in a god(s).

    • uanime5
      Posted March 28, 2014 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

      To me reading the climate alarmists predictions it can be seen that they are cleverly crafted so that whatever the future weather pattens are they can point at them as being proof that they are right and sceptics are wrong.

      What about all the evidence showing that over the past hundred years the average temperature and CO2 levels in the atmosphere have both increased? That evidence isn’t based on future predictions.

  15. ian wragg
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    I enjoy listening to the BBC weather reports which I get at home in the morning and in the car during the day. The evening report is usually completely different to the earlier one.
    I also enjoy watching Countryfile to see how long before Climate Change is woven into the article. A couple of weeks ago they surpassed themselves taking less than 5 minutes.

  16. forthurst
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

    As the ‘extreme’ weather fails to alarm us, declining to obey warmists’ computer models, there appears to be a switch to claiming that anthropogenic CO2 will turn the oceans to soda water, killing almost all life:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26746039

    This BBC article is extremely disingenuous; it is trying to imply that because most life forms do not prosper near volcanic vents emitting CO2, there is, per se, a danger from increasing CO2 content of the oceans from absorption from anthropogenic CO2. The oceans are alkaline despite fifty times more CO2 than the atmosphere; if all the CO2 in the atmosphere were dissolved in the oceans, then the CO2 content would be increased by 2% and the ph decrease would be negligible. There is a nice chart on Pier Corbyn’s website illustrating this with the CO2 cycle, see page 47:

    http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews13No43.pdf

    • uanime5
      Posted March 28, 2014 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

      The oceans are alkaline despite fifty times more CO2 than the atmosphere; if all the CO2 in the atmosphere were dissolved in the oceans, then the CO2 content would be increased by 2% and the ph decrease would be negligible.

      Firstly Pier forgot to mention that the current rate of change is 100 times faster than any changes in ocean acidity in the last 20 million years, so ocean life won’t be able to adapt to it.

      Secondly have a small effect isn’t the same as having no effect. The more acidic the oceans become the more problems this will cause for animals with calcium carbonate shells. This means less food for animals that eat shellfish (such as humans).

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 29, 2014 at 8:19 am | Permalink

      Indeed the BBC is dreadful on this silly religion, are they paid to endlessly push this line or are the reporters just all deluded, art graduate, Guardian readers?

  17. behindthefrogs
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    The weather predictions lead us to expect wetter periods. The one thing that we can conclude is that our major rivers will have an almost continuous flow. Why then aren’t we investing in more Reverse Archimedes Screws on the weirs? They produce electricity 24/7 and are much more cost effective than solar panels. Only two of the 28 weirs on the river Thames are so far being enhanced when can we expect ation on the other 26 and the comparable weirs on our other rivers?

    • Mark
      Posted March 28, 2014 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

      By all means install the generators. Just don’t expect much power from them – the total potential is about the same output as one Rolls Royce Trent engine. Be careful not to cause floods, either.

  18. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

    Did you listen to Jon Snow reporting from Greenland?

  19. Peter Stroud
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    These forecasts are by people whose AGW computer codes have failed miserably. They failed to forecast the global temperature hiatus, and consistently got quarterly forecasts completely wrong. Ignore them, they are not to be trusted.

  20. Richard1
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    I can recommend Rupert Darwell’s book, it is a scholarly work. It is interesting to be reminded and informed about previous scares such as the coming shortage of coal (mid C19th), peak oil (70s and on) and the population bomb (continuous over 200 years).

  21. uanime5
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

    The Met Office Hadley Centre tells us “by the 2040s we can expect events like 2003 ( a hot summer) to be normal

    Well as every decade has been warmer than the previous decade this isn’t surprising.

    Their coloured charts of current conditions shows quite large areas of the globe as cooler than average.

    Which areas are you referring to? Are all of these areas over the oceans, specifically in areas of increased evaporation?

    Meanwhile, Mr Cameron is now saying we must move rapidly to locate and exploit the gas beneath our feet, and is urging the EU to commit itself to a new energy policy which fosters greater energy self sufficiency.

    Surely renewable energy is the best way to foster greater energy self sufficiency because these renewable aren’t going to run out by the end of the century.

    It combines substantial research in to the build up of the academic work and political conferences, with a delicious wry sense of humour.

    So in other words it’s not interested in scientific accuracy but is instead promoting the author’s agenda. Hardly a substitute for scientific evidence.

    It’s no wonder that fewer and fewer young people are interested in science when MPs believe that they can ignore any scientific evidence that conflicts with their ideology (which is why our narcotics laws are such a mess).

    • Edward2
      Posted March 29, 2014 at 8:52 am | Permalink

      You still cling to a belief in peak oil theory Uni despite several doomsday dates having already passed.
      Whilst repeadly criticising others for ignoring scientific data and opinions that don’t fit in with their beliefs.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College, and has a DPhil from All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.
  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page