Fasten your seat-belt before you read this one. It’s a corker. It is a quote from Susan Watts, BBC Science Editor, on Newsnight, as she attempted to explain why the abysmal failure of climate “scientists” to predict current weather conditions does not in any way reduce their credibility in predicting global warming. Watts said: “In fact that seasonal forecast predicting a mild winter wasn’t actually wrong, but it left people with the wrong impression.”
If you think I am making this up, I cannot honestly blame you. I can only invite you to go to BBC iPlayer and view Newsnight for 7 January, in order to hear this garbage for yourself. So, the prediction of a mild winter “wasn’t actually wrong”. Does the term “in denial” have any more graphic illustration than that? If you look out the window you might get the impression of Arctic conditions. But please remember, that is only an impression – a wrong impression. In scientific terms, it is baking hot.
In Evelyn Waugh’s Brideshead Revisited there is an entertaining passage in which Rex Mottram, an adventurer, is taking instruction in the Catholic faith, in order to marry an heiress. Devoid of belief, he is anxious to conform. Asked by the priest, if the Pope predicted rain would it be bound to happen, he says yes. And if it didn’t rain, persists the priest? “I suppose it would be sort of raining spiritually, only we were too sinful to see it.”
That is the territory we are now in with climate change. Global warming is all around us, only we are too sinful/sceptical/denying to see it. The total, insupportable falsity of the whole AGW scam is so blatant that its apologists’ excuses are now not so much infantile as cretinous. A week ago we had the Gulf Stream Guff, but that could hardly account for conditions in Beijing, so that has faded from the radar. Now we are urged, imperiously and superciliously, to distinguish between “weather” and “climate”.
Aha! Another ploy calculated to appeal to the “sophisticates”. “If you knew the first thing about it, you would not make the basic mistake of confusing weather with climate…” Zzzz… Coming from a bunch of clowns who have confused heat with cold, drought with snow, and fact with fiction – that is rich. If you need some light relief in these grim conditions, turn to the Met Office website.
There, under the heading “How our forecasts have improved”, you will read: “Through continual investment in research, supercomputing and observations, Met Office scientists have steadily improved the accuracy of our forecasts. All of the forecasts we produce are stored and their accuracy assessed, so that we can learn from what went wrong with inaccurate forecasts and make sure that they keep getting better.”
Not since Soviet reports, circa 1952, of record tractor production figures for the Ukraine have the claims of any government agency, anywhere on earth, displayed such detachment from reality. The same applies to the BBC, which must be broken up and sold off by the government that replaces Dave in 2015. It is now churning out lies on a scale that would have made the commissar in charge of Radio Moscow under Stalin blench. The breathtaking words of Watts were followed by a studio debate involving two supporters of climate change orthodoxy. (What did you expect – Monckton, Delingpole, some revisionist deviationist from the party line?)
When confronted with the fact that the map published by the Met Office early last month still shows Britain in orange (the warmest category), Keith Groves, Met Office director of operations, responded: “I think you have to be very careful about how you use this information.” I’d go along with that. The Met Office predicted a “mild winter”. The definition of a mild winter is temperatures above 4.3C. While Newsnight was broadcasting this twaddle, temperatures were plunging to as low as – 22.3C.
The line being taken among climate alchemists now is: “We admit we cannot predict whether a season will be hot or cold; we are lousy at forecasting the weather over a week, a month, a quarter or a year. But when it comes to forecasting conditions in 2030, we are infallible.”
The references above to the Soviet Union are deliberate. I employ them because of the very real parallel with the present situation. The global warming frauds always had Plan A and Plan B in preparation. Plan A was to brainwash the population of Britain, America and the rest of the developed world into believing in man-made global warming. That was the preferred option; but it has failed.
Plan B, which will now come into operation, is to replicate what happened in the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Nobody believed in the economic illiteracy that was Marxism-Leninism any more; but jobs, promotion, status, even retaining one’s liberty depended on paying lip service to it. Those are the terms on which the ideology of Global Warming will now be imposed on a sceptical population: by bribery, coercion, brainwashing of children, employment and promotion blackmail.
That is the agenda. Unless, of course, we do something firm, decisive and possibly very nasty about it.