Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h / t Dave Gadziala; Three months ago, WUWT reported on the MET, which issued a new end to the snow forecast. I thought it was funny at the time; But with the disastrous power outage in Texas and soaring heating bills in the UK, maybe it is time to think about how much damage the people making such predictions could do to people’s lives.
Climate change: The UK’s snowy winters could be a thing of the past
By Justin Rowlatt
Chief Environmental Correspondent
Published on December 6, 2020
Snowy winters could be a thing of the past as climate change affects the UK, according to Met Office analysis.
It’s part of a series of projections on how the UK’s climate might change that are shared with BBC Panorama.
It suggests that most of southern England could no longer see days below zero in the 2040s. Until the 2060s, only plateaus and northern Scotland are likely to experience such cold days.
The projections are based on an acceleration in global emissions.
It could mean the end of sledding, snowmen, and snowball fights, says Dr. Lizzie Kendon, a senior Met Office scientist who worked on the climate projections.
“We say that by the end of the century much of the lying snow will be completely gone, except on the highest ground,” she told Panorama.
Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55179603
If you’re asking why politicians are so poorly prepared for cold, snowy weather, why Texas never properly winterized their power grid, or why the British are suffering from soaring electricity bills in the bitter cold, you don’t have to look far for the answer.
“People underestimate the power of models. Evidence of observation is not very useful. “ – attributed to MET scientist John Mitchell.
So what would it take to introduce even a hint of doubt into the fortress mentality of those who value models over observation? We have an answer to that question.
In 2015, then British Climate Change Minister Amber Rudd organized a meeting between the GWPF and the Royal Society to see if they could resolve their differences in climate science.
The Royal Society rejected the idea that observational results that contradicted their predictions undermined the credibility of their climate models.
“We put them on this hiatus … they argued that there might have been a hiatus, but the warming could be going into the ocean or it could be due to volcanic activity. So we asked, at what point would you start to accept that there was no warming. What if there is no warming for five or ten years?
“After all, they admitted You would wait fifty years.
“We asked if that would be fifty years from now or fifty years from 1997 when the break started. They said they wouldn’t change their minds in fifty years.
Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/16/exclusive-well-all-be-dead-before-climate-change-orgs-admit-theyre-wrong-says-mp/
This is a group of people who openly admit that they are not touched by observational results that contradict their worldview.
How do you change the minds of people whose view of climate science seems to rely on blind reliance on computer models rather than observation?
The answer is you can’t. There is no penalty for alarming climatologists for clinging to scientific ideas that are not supported by observation. Any observation that contradicts their theories is immediately dismissed as a “natural variation” of the black box – volcanic eruptions shielding the earth or the ocean swallowing the missing heat. I suspect most of them will bear their conviction that the world is on the verge of runaway global warming.
We can hope to convince politicians and voters not to take the alarmist climate predictions so seriously anymore.
Fortunately, politicians in advanced societies face regular reality checks in a much shorter period of time than the 50 years proposed by the Royal Society. And voters can be quite unforgiving when they shiver alone in the cold and darkness, thanks to politicians who make bad decisions about power grids – regardless of whose advice politicians say they took it.