Met Office Refuses To Retract False Claim Of ‘More Intense’ Storms
The Met Office is refusing to retract a claim made by a senior meteorologist on BBC Radio 5 Live that storms in the U.K. are becoming “more intense” due to ‘climate change’
This is despite admitting in Freedom of Information (FOI) documents that it had no evidence to back up the claim.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) noted the “false” claim seriously misled the public and demanded a retraction.
The Daily Sceptic covered the story last Thursday and has since contacted the Met Office on three occasions seeking a response.
“False information of this kind does much to induce climate anxiety in the population and I am sure you would agree such errors should be corrected by any reputable organization,” it was noted.
No reply was received – no retraction forthcoming.
The storm claim was made by Met Office spokesman Clare Nasir on January 22 and led to a FOI request for an explanation by investigative journalist Paul Homewood. The Met Office replied that it was unable to answer the request because the information “is not held”.
The Met Office’s own 2022 climate report noted that the last two decades have seen fewer occurrences of maximum wind speeds in the 40-, 50-, and 60-knot bands than in previous decades.
The Daily Sceptic report went viral on social media with almost 3,000 retweets on X, while GWPF’s demand for retraction was covered by the Scottish Daily Express.
The lack of action by the state-funded Met Office is very interesting. Extreme weather is now the major go-to explanation for the opinion that humans largely control the climate, despite a general lack of scientific evidence.
Backing away from this ‘settled’ narrative risks damaging a potent tool nudging populations across the world toward the collectivist ‘Net Zero’ political project.
Mainstream media usually take care to fudge their reporting of any direct link, using phrases such as ‘scientists say’ and sprinkling words ‘could’ and ‘might’ in the copy.
The mistake Nasir made was to forget this basic requirement of broadcast fearmongering.
There appears to be an arrogance around the Met Office, an arrogance it shares with many other organizations and scientists promoting ‘Net Zero’.
At the heart of this assumed superiority is the ludicrous claim that the science around human-caused climate change is ‘settled’. As a result of this, it seems many have lost the ability to debate their work with anyone taking an inquiring position.
The scientific process has largely broken down in the climate science world. Secure in the knowledge that it will not be challenged, almost anything can be said on legacy media from a ‘consensus’ narrative point of view to promote the supra-national aims of ‘Net Zero’.
On the legal front, this arrogance was in evidence in the summing up of the recent Mann v Steyn defamation trial in Washington D.C.
The jury should award punitive damages to Michael Mann, inventor of the temperature ‘hockey stick’ graph, “so that in future no one will dare engage in climate denialism”, said Mann’s defending lawyer.
It is possible that if the Met Office is obliged to explain or retract what was after all just a routine scare broadcast on a tame state-reliant media outlet, it might be forced into more substantial scientific debate.
How it abolished the global temperature pause from 2000-2014 by adding 30 percent extra warming on a retrospective basis to its HadCRUT5 record, and why it insists on promoting temperature records from busy U.K. airbases are two subjects that spring immediately to mind.
Ineffable superiority was certainly on display when the Daily Sceptic recently reported that the Met Office was considering ditching the measurement of changes in temperature using data from the past 30 years in favor of a measurement compiled with 10 years’ past data and 10 years’ future modeled estimates.
This was designed to promote a possible earlier breach of the political 1.5°C threshold. Lead author Professor Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts at the Met Office, tweeted a ‘rebuttal’ on X, noting we had taken three weeks to review the paper.
“Or are they just very slow readers? I suppose our paper does use big words like ‘temperature’ so maybe they had to get grown-ups to help,” he added.
Why is the Met Office struggling to come up with any evidence to back up its claim that bad weather is caused by ‘climate change’?
Because there is precious little of it.
See more here climatechangedispatch
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
James
| #
So what if they do or don’t? Climate has never been constant and never will be. Where I live there was a 2km thick layer of ice; probably 3km over Canada, America, Scandinavia and Russia. And this just ten thousand years ago, when humanity survived only in a tiny area in Africa. Since then, seas have risen by at least a hundred meters; has anyone estimated how much higher, when Himalaya and Antarctic will add their contribution? Or will we get another iceage first? These political climate antics serve only to hide their limited interest in schools, health, pensions and agriculture, which don’t offer much in the way of kickbacks.
Reply
Wisenox
| #
“Live that storms in the U.K. are becoming “more intense” due to ‘climate change’”
No need to retract a true statement; people, as usual, fail to remember that words have more than one definition.
Storm – A violent agitation of human society; a domestic, civil, or political commotion.
This is true. Climate change is a scam agenda used to manipulate the people into a totalitarian system. The plan is a rinse and repeat script from history, so they already know that they will be doing more purposeful things against the people.
Reply