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.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
February 12, 2022, by oldbrew
You must be logged in to post a comment.