Emails Cast Further Light on the Plot to Re-educate Boris About Climate Change 

Posted: February 12, 2022 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, government, modelling, Natural Variation, net zero, opinion, predictions, propaganda, Uncertainty
Tags: , ,

met-o-update-22
Caution – alarmist brainwashers at work. Never mind the ‘unrealistic’ climate models.
– – –
Thirty-eight emails released under a recent FOI request provide an interesting insight into the way Government science advisers plotted to change Boris Johnson’s mind over the causes of climate change, ahead of a Cabinet Office presentation, says The Daily Sceptic.

The event on January 28th 2020 was led by the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer Sir Patrick Vallance and presented, using 11 slides, by the Chief Scientist of the Met Office, Professor Stephen Belcher.

According to Belcher, the stated goal of the presentation was to “stabilise climate which requires net zero emissions”.

On the day of the meeting, one of the attendees Richard Barker, the Head of Energy and Environment at the National Physical Laboratory, circulated an email noting that a picture was to be painted about the current climate situation and some of the challenges we see, adding: “However my assumption is that we want this meeting to establish the big opportunity for us to take a big step forward.”

The big step forward probably referred to removing any scepticism that the Prime Minister had shown in the past about the role humans played in causing the climate to change. Since then, Johnson has said that briefings around this time acted as a “road to Damascus”.

At COP26 last year, he told delegates that the clock was “one minute to midnight” on the doomsday clock. At the UN a month before, he told humanity to “grow up“.

Any doubts he might have had about what he was told by selected scientists during his premiership seem to have disappeared since he intriguingly added: “It is time for us to listen to the warnings of the scientists – and look at Covid, if you want an example of gloomy scientists being proved right.”

One set of gloomy scientists meanwhile was busy planning in January 2020 to get Johnson on board the Net Zero agenda. A day before the meeting, an email on behalf of Sir Patrick Vallance identified one of the issues that leads many to argue that the causes of climate change are far from being fully understood.

“Should we be worried that the range of climate sensitivities hasn’t changed,” he asked. This is a reference to the elephant-in-the-room problem at the heart of climate models surrounding what is called equilibrium climate sensitivity. This is the increase in the global mean surface temperature that follows a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

The problem is that nobody knows what this figure is – the science for this crucial piece of the jigsaw is missing – unsettled, you may say. Some scientists argue that CO2 loses much of its warming properties as more enters the atmosphere and the figure could be as low as 0.5°C. Some models, however, guess as high as 6°C.

Last year, Professor Nicola Scafetta from the University of Naples analysed 38 of the main models and found that most of them had overestimated global warming over the last 40 years. Many of them should be “dismissed and not used by policymakers”, he said.

In 2019, 48 Italian science professors led by nuclear antimatter discoverer Antonino Zichichi said in an open letter to their Government that catastrophic predictions of climate models were “not realistic”.

In their view, all the facts suggested that the models overestimated the human contribution to climate change and underestimated the natural climatic variability, especially that induced by the sun, the moon and by the oceanic oscillations.

In a further email, Vallance suggested to Belcher that No. 10 will want an answer to the question “why are the numbers so round, e.g. 2050 targets and 1.5°C etc.”. No doubt forewarned was forearmed and convincing answers were provided, despite neither targets having any basis in scientific fact.

Continued here.

Comments
  1. tallbloke says:

    Slide nine was a version of the graph shown at the top of the article, except the MET-O deleted the failed 2016-21 prediction off it before they showed it to Boris.

  2. […] Emails Cast Further Light on the Plot to Re-educate Boris About Climate Change  […]

  3. Phoenix44 says:

    Are we supposed to believe that Johnson was completely au fait with the sceptical arguments that he didn’t need anybody there from the sceptical side?

    This is a farce. Either Johnson is too dim to understand that an argument has two sides or this was just a game that allowed him to look serious.

  4. oldbrew says:

    equilibrium climate sensitivity : ‘The problem is that nobody knows what this figure is’
    * * *
    Multiple regression analysis of anthropogenic and heliogenic climate drivers, and some cautious forecasts (2021)
    Frank Stefani
    Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Fluid Dynamics

    Based on recent ideas about a quasi-deterministic planetary synchronization of the solar dynamo, we make a first attempt to predict the aa-index and the resulting temperature anomaly for various typical CO2 scenarios. Even for the highest climate sensitivities, and an unabated linear CO2 increase, we predict only a mild additional temperature rise of around 1 K until the end of the century, while for the lower values an imminent temperature drop in the near future, followed by a rather flat temperature curve, is prognosticated. [bold added]

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.05183.pdf

  5. ivan says:

    Why do I get the impression all this was to impress princess Nut Nut who in turn would convince BoJo of the direction he should take even if the direction is completely stupid and, if fully implemented, turn the country back to the 1600’s.

  6. Gamecock says:

    Agreed, Phoenix. When I read this article, I got the feeling that Boris is of very low intellect.

    Perhaps as Vallance and Belcher, as they left the meeting, said, “Why do we have to deal with such nonentities?”

  7. […] Emails Cast Further Light on the Plot to Re-educate Boris About Climate Change  […]

  8. oldbrew says:

    Sun-Climate Linkage Now Confirmed [2009]
    Adriano Mazzarella
    Department of Earth Science, University of Naples

    Abstract
    We are experiencing a period of intense anthropocentrism: humans flatter themselves they can govern the thermal machine of the ocean-atmosphere system and build models of atmospheric circulation (that solve hundreds of non-linear equations for each box of a three-dimensional grid covering the globe) to demonstrate that Earth’s recent warming is attributable to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. However, the results of such a reductionist approach are questionable, since the atmosphere and oceans form a complex interactive system that cannot be recreated in a laboratory experiment, and where the many physical and chemical processes are regulated by dynamic and thermodynamic parameters, interconnected in a non-linear way, and there are various positive and negative feedback processes.

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/095830509787689150
    – – –
    But with a fixed climate narrative to sell, none of that matters 🙄

  9. mark4asp says:

    The problem isn’t computer or climate modelling. It is modelling itself driven by a need to predict the future. In the case of the basic greenhouse gas climate model, there was never any kind of good validation or falsification criteria set for the model. Q: Why? A: Over the years, scientists and experts picked modelling to avoid discussion of evidence; a choice inherent in the need to answer hypothetical questions set them by politicos.

    1. ‘Experts‘ were driven in the direction they set (modelling) by the need to answer ‘what if‘ questions set them by politicians and other ‘experts‘.
    2. Modellers tell us “when we need to predict the future, even a bad model is better than no model“. They arrived at this conclusion through evidence. Studies, do indeed, show that modellers with systematic, predictive, quantitative models get better results – when forced to predict the future – than modellers with ad hoc, ill-defined, or non-mathematical models.
    3. But modelling is outside the scientific process – because it does not rely on empirical validation – as scientific theories, hypotheses and laws – do. This results in models giving a false sense of certainty, and being over-hyped. Models are a core component of expert’s CV.

    All sorts of agendas force people to over-predict with climate models:
    – Think tank wonks over-hype to give their policy statements gravitas and relevance.
    – Academics need to publish to get, and keep, tenure.
    – Media need to capture eyeballs and hears to sell adverts by publishing the most doom-laden predictions and ignoring good news.
    – Greens, are intrinsically Malthusian, hence doom-laden. Greens will always believe the worse.
    – Politicos, driven by mission, want to ‘send a message’ to get something done, and to ‘solve climate change’.
    – Business people, hooked to subsidy, must believe ‘renewables solve climate change’. Otherwise they’re out of business.
    – Philanthropists fund people who are ‘solving problems’.
    – IPCC modellers created a pseudo problem or pseudo question: “What is responsible for man-made climate change“. This happened back in 1988 when alarmists created the IPCC with it’s remit to explain ‘climate change‘. The IPCC remit specifically defines climate change as man-made. They call natural climate change ‘natural variability’. All the IPCC scientific reports are dedicated to the man-made part. There’s no serious discussion of natural variability in the IPCC reports. BTW: IPCC summary for policymakers is written by the policy-makers themselves. Western IPCC climate policymakers are all doomers; otherwise they can’t get appointed.

    So it’s in many people’s interests to believe and magnify the climate scam. They made a giant group-think echo chamber where only believers are allowed in, so they can only hear each other.

    Experts answered their own question with models. Because – when forced to predict the future – systematic models generally give better results than unsystematic models! So the ultimate error is the desire to predict the future. Soothsayers, tea-leaf readers and modellers will always be available to answer what-if questions set them by politicos and policy-makers.

    The IPCC obsession over man-made climate change, is ultimately tied into society’s obsessions over fossil fuels. From the early 1970s, modellers warned of the dangers of fossil fuel emissions. Back in the ’70s, the worry was over particulates (from coal plants and vehicle emissions) reflecting sunlight away from earth to cool the climate: causing global cooling, or a ‘New Ice Age‘. This fitted in with the new 1970s Zeitgeist set by Malthusians such as the Club of Rome, who published their Limits to Growth in 1972. The next year saw the Yom Kippur War triggering oil embargos and rationing against the West, leading to such things as the Three Day Week (in UK), and total change in electricity generation policy in France. [In the following decades the French entirely replaced their electricity generation with nuclear power.] Global cooling, due to aerosols was replaced with global warming, due to greenhouse gas emissions.

    Of course, people with a Malthusian mindset, are inclined to see a doom-laden, scarcity-driven future. Such people gravitate to positions as modellers, prophetic policy-makers, media gurus, … Hence our current dilemma – where all the man-made climate modellers are doomers, and policy-makers only hear from doomers. Because optimists do something better with our lives than model, and doomers only let doomers into their climate scam club.

  10. oldbrew says:

    Sounds about right, Mark.

  11. oldbrew says:

    Biomass bother…

    Drax Power Station accused of 10 plus years of health and safety breaches
    10 February 2022

    The Health And Safety Executive is prosecuting the company that manages the massive power generating complex south of Selby.

    The case at Leeds Crown Court centres around wood dust and face masks.

    Drax Power Ltd is alleged to have failed to ensure the health, safety and welfare of its employees between September 2006 and April 2017.
    . . .
    Judge Geoffrey Marson QC ordered that the trial starts on June 5, 2023, at Leeds Crown Court. It is expected to last four weeks.

    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/drax-power-station-accused-10-110353823.html

  12. Mack says:

    This whole ‘re-educating Boris about climate change’ story is utter bollocks. As Ben Pile has authoritatively detailed elsewhere previously, Boris was away with the climate fairies long before this episode. It’s just a ‘non story’ embellished by the usual suspects to, make themselves feel good about themselves.

  13. stpaulchuck says:

    I’ll repost this bit of hard core, armor plated truth about our climate straight from the horse’s mouth (or perhaps the other end):

    “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – IPCC TAR WG1, Working Group I: The Scientific Basis

    If it were, then all the math mavens would be stock market billionaires by now

  14. oldbrew says:

    Chuck – yes and no, the IPCC over-simplified. For example, we know about glaciations and inter-glacials.

  15. Coeur de Lion says:

    Interesting that Net Zero is unravelling all over the place. It’s getting into the MSM would you believe. The next things that will happen are (1) it will become better known that UK emits one per cent of global CO2 and people will question why we should wreck ourselves (2). It will become better known that climate is not driven by CO2 and people will question why we should wreck ourselves.

  16. cognog2 says:

    It is not surprising that the question of global sensitivity is in such a mess as the logic is suspect.

    The IPCC defines a radiative Force (Lb. Force) which it then converts to a flux (Ft.Lbs/sec). This can only be done if the sensitivity value is known or assumed. Thus this flux at circa 1.6 Watts/sq.m therefore carries with it this sensitivity value.
    If then this flux is used in a subsequent program where another value of sensitivity is assumed then there is a problem on which value should be used in any calculations.; as it would be an error to use both, which I suspect is happening.

    Additionally: as the sensitivity coefficient in the Planck Equation is circa zero during the evaporation of water this needs to be included in any calculation of the the global sensitivity, which again I suspect is not done.

  17. Sorry Mark, The major reason so-called scientists get it wrong is that they have no understanding or experience with thermodynamics. The cause of that is they are not qualified and experienced professional chemical or mechanical engineers. Valance and one who started all is rubbish Sir John Houghton (director of met office) have no idea. Houghton is one who claimed there was a greenhouse effect on Venus but had no idea of the effect of pressures and lapse rates or for that matter of heat transfer. When incompetents get to important positions they do everything including lying to keep themselves in the limelight. Johnson has proved himself a fool and a liar. One hopes he will be chucked out soon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s