The Met Office has admitted what many of us already knew…that they don’t have Â clue about anything, least of all the weather.
If its implications were not so serious, it might have seemed hilarious that the Met Officeâs scentists last week staged a conference to discuss why, in recent years, Britainâs weather has apparently gone off the rails. What they meant, without admitting it, was: why have they got their forecasts so spectacularly wrong in 12 years out of the past 13? Why in 2009 did they predict a âbarbecue summerâ when the summer was a washout? Why, in 2010, did they predict a âmilder-than-average winterâ just before we had one of the coldest-ever Decembers? Why in 2012 did they forecast a âdrier-than-averageâ spring and early summer just before we enjoyed one of the wettest summers on record? Â
The explanation, of course, is that the Met Officeâs experts have been so obsessed with global warming that their computers were programmed to predict âhotter, drier summersâ and âwarmer, wetter wintersâ for decades to come. Tellingly, they last week went out of their way to discount man-made global warming as the cause of all this âclimate disruptionâ, ascribing it instead to various natural factors, from changes in solar radiation to shifts in ocean currents: in other words, precisely the arguments less blinkered scientists have been urging in vain for years. The significance of this retreat from their former mindset is that the influence of our Met Office in driving the man-made warming scare has been second to none, not least through the prestige it has enjoyed with the UNâs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ever since it was launched in 1988 under the Met Officeâs then-director, Dr John Houghton,
Only two clear messages emerged from last weekâs conference. The first was that the Met Office experts seem, at last, to be admitting that they really have no idea what is driving the changes in our weather. The other was their call for more research funding to help them to find out.
But as the Met Office and its much-vaunted âsuper-computerâ is already costing us ÂŁ200âmillion a year, I suppose that it is good to see them conceding that, so far, we havenât really had much value for our money.