Global warming meltdown in the UK

by NW Spotlight

Are there “two sets of books” for UK meteorologists?

Because forecasts of a colder winter didn’t go very well with the government global warming story line, they were suppressed. Instead, the UK published information to the public which indicated there would be a warmer winter. When the actual weather was colder (December turned out to be the coldest in more than a century and the second coldest in 350 years), it caused untold problems because people and facilities, like Heathrow Airport, were unprepared.  Not amused, those affected are taking action.  For example, Luftansa and Virgin Atlantic are pressing Heathrow to compensate airlines hit by the chaos at the airport the week before Christmas.

A blog by one UK meteorologist, Paul Hudson, reveals that there may have been two sets of forecast maps – one available to internal meteorologists-showing a cold winter, and another made available to the public-showing a warm winter.

Roger Harrabin, of Canada Free Press, has written that the Met Office (UK’s National Weather Service) press office told him they’d given information to the UK government’s Cabinet Office that there would be an early cold winter. The BBC now has an Freedom of Information request to the Cabinet Office requesting verbatim info from the Met Office.

John O’Sullivan, also of Canada Free Press, provided more information on the meltdown:

“Last week the weather service caused a sensation by making the startling claim that it was gagged by government ministers from issuing a cold winter forecast. Instead, a milder than average prediction was made that has been resoundingly ridiculed in one of the worst winters in a century. In an almighty battle to salvage credibility, three British government institutions are embroiled in a new global warming scandal with the BBC mounting a legal challenge to force ministers to admit the truth. Sceptics ask: Is the UK government’s climate propaganda machine finally falling apart?


With the BBC appearing to take the side of the Met Office by seeking to force the government to give honest answers, untold harm will likely befall Prime Minister Cameron’s global warming policies on energy, taxation and the environment.”

Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in Global Warming | 75 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Coldincleveland

    These idiot liars are all alike. They lie, cheat, misrepresent and anything else they need to do to convince like idiots that there is global warming, which there is not.

  • Founding Fathers

    This story appears to quote only secondary sources, and there seems to be very little about this story from mainstream sources?

    Are there any primary sources that could be cited?

    • Up with meteorologist Chuck

      Perhaps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT7qepetr1Q might Weise’n FF up a little more.

      • Founding Fathers

        Uh, this is not a primary source.

        • Yahweh

          Chuck’s credentials certainly more credible A.G. Sex Poodle; HeWho” sayeth:
          “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”

    • Anonymous

      There are no primary sources because there is no story. This was purely a financial problem, the airport bet they could get away with not spending money on deicing fluid and lost the bet.

      Canada Free Press is a front for the Alberta Oil Sand industry, no more that another source of misinformation. The real story here is why a private company that runs the airport is able to decide how much deicing fluid they should have on hand, sounds like a need for government intervention.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    There is something truly idiotic about having to make FOI requests to find out if your government is involved in a “Weather Coverup”

    It makes pretty clear that AGW is rapidly moving into the absurd phase of public myth collapse. Soon it will go the way of the last hoax to end the world – Y2K.

  • Bob Clark

    Global Warming is a shackle we can not afford. Think China cares about Global Warming while they ready their war machine to eat our lunches sometime down the line. The laws of nature and the jungle have not been repealed. Someone like China is always wanting to be top dog. Your either grow’n, or your dy’n. Eye of the tiger, baby!

  • Steve Plunk

    What the AGW proponents don’t quite get is how much damage has been done to credibility of climate scientists (if there is such a thing) and scientists in general. Overblown predictions of catastrophes, attempts to hide research data, the email scandal of scientists playing the public, and even NASA playing the system to ensure funding. They have all sullied the respect we once had for scientists. Like a TV preacher shown to have no special healing powers these charlatans have been exposed yet they still seek our approval (and money).

    There are others who regularly post here who have a much greater grasp on the actual science of AGW and have rebuke it quite well. Natural cycles of climate seem the more reasonable cause and humans will adjust as we always have. The attempt to wrestle away prosperity from us has failed. Those who seek a world of hippie values and unicorn rides have failed to fool us.

    The other disturbing realization that has come from this is how quickly government will use such a scare to grab for power and control. I understand it is it’s nature but the ease in which it assumed it could control us and the difficulty stopping the runaway train of falsehoods is revealing. We should be ever vigilant against such attacks on our liberties and rights regardless of what bitter scientists and lazy journalists might spew out for our consumption.

    • Anonymous

      “The other disturbing realization that has come from this is how quickly government will use such a scare to grab for power and control.”
      ===

      I am not disturbed. Me and my communist friends (Comrade Obama-ski in particular) like the power and control. Governments are like stale rotten fish-head if they don’t have power and control. Obama-ski will complete the assignment he was given by my homeland, CCCP, which was convert USA into USSR style planned economy communist country.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Actually a really hilarious exercise is to go back and look at some of the wackier predictions of AGW’ers from 20 years ago or so.

    Just an example.

    Queensland is now considering a name change to Atlantis – What did the warmers predict? Drought, at least thats what the IPCC predicted. How did they come up with that prediction? The dopey computer climate models. Ha Ha ha ha ha!

    https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=477

    • valley person

      How about this for a whacky prediction. Every decade going forward will be warmer than the one preceding it. And guess what the warmest decade on record now is? The one we just completed. 5 of the warmest years on record have all happened since 1998. The 2 warmest years on record were last year and 2005.

      These guys must be faking their instrument readings just to scare us into submission.

      • Steve Plunk

        It was warmer back in the medieval warming period. Mann was cute about this fact as well. He left that period out of his study since it blew up the theory. We have accurate records for only a couple of hundred years and even those are suspect. Watt and his people did a wonderful job of showing how US weather recording stations have violated standards to create heat islands over the years that have driven up temperature. We can’t even trust the most basic data.

        • valley person

          If we have accurate records for only a few hundred years (its less than that in fact, but never mind) then how can you say it was warmer globally during the so called Medieval warming period?

          The heat island nonsense was put to bed a long time ago Steve. Come up with something new.

          • Steve Plunk

            Isn’t that point? We don’t have enough good information. We have tree rings from the Medieval period but not detailed readings. We don’t have those for anything but the last few years.

            The urban heat island effect has been compensated for in many cases but the individual station errors have not. In foreign countries the errors may be even larger.

            I don’t need to come up with something new, the climate alarmist have the burden of proof. So far they have lied, cheated, and exaggerated enough to ruin any credibility.

          • valley person

            That may be your point. Mine is that we have detailed global temperature records dating back to the mid 19th century. We have detailed measurements of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And we know the physical relationship between CO2 and how much heat it traps. That is the science, and it is supported by observations from ecology (early onset spring & early migrations) and physical geography (glaciers melting, ice thinning). So repeating some nonsense about heat islands only demonstrates your gullibility.

            Let me ask you this. How many of the total weather stations are in urban areas?

            You can’t come up with anything new because there isn’t anything new. The scientific burden of proof was met a long time ago, which is why every major science body in the US and worldwide endorses AGW. You are looking for a political burden of proof, and science can’t help you there.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Oh you did not just say that did you?

            Glaciers melting? News Flash – The head of the IPCC was caught pulling this scam because he just happened to profit personally from playing up this scam in the Himalayas. I mean this was well over a year ago – I cant believe you still dont know!

          • valley person

            Yes Rupert, glaciers melting. Its been well documented worldwide. What the IPCC was “caught” doing was putting forward a poorly documented prediction of how quickly himalayan glaciers were melting. That wrong, or not well substantiated prediction doesn’t negate other evidence, which is overwhelming.

          • valley person

            Yes Rupert, glaciers melting. Its been well documented worldwide. What the IPCC was “caught” doing was putting forward a poorly documented prediction of how quickly himalayan glaciers were melting. That wrong, or not well substantiated prediction doesn’t negate other evidence, which is overwhelming.

          • Chuck Wiese

            How much heat does CO2 “trap”? Do you have any measurements?

          • valley person

            Do i? No. I’m not an atmospheric scientist nor a physicist. You are asking the wrong person.

          • Chuck Wiese

            Oh. I thought you said “we know” hom much heat CO2 traps. Do these other “physicists” you quote know? I can never get answer to that.

          • valley person

            Do i? No. I’m not an atmospheric scientist nor a physicist. You are asking the wrong person.

          • Chuck Wiese

            No, the majority in many of these scientific “bodies” don’t endorse AGW. What were finding out is that the leaderships of the various organizations decided for all the other members without any formed consensus. By default and no data, these groups leaders declared this false AGW endorsement on their own. See wattupwiththat.com, which has the searing letter of damnation and resignation of Harold Lewis, a carerr physicist at the University of California at Santa Barbara, who resigned from the American Physical Society over what he describes as “AGW fraud of the worst kind he has ever seen.” Money and grants seem to drive AGW frenzy.

            The American Meteorological Society is in a similar conundrum. The natioal leadership endorsed AGW but a survey done since indicates that over 75% of meteorologists who belong as professionals do not agree with the policy statement. I am one such member.

          • valley person

            Then you should change your leadership.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Actually we do not have accurate records for as you put it “a few hundred years”, all sides admit to that.

            Yeesh, do you know anything about this issue? I mean come on this is ridiculous.

          • Chuck Wiese

            We have temperature proxy data from oxygen isotopes in the ice core data. These show that the Roman, Minoan and Medeival warm periods were as warm or warmer than the modern day era.

      • Chuck Wiese

        2000-2010 was the warmest decade of the satellite temperature record, not the thermometer temperature record. The satellite record only goes back to 1979. And 2010 WAS NOT the warmest year of the thermometer record. It ranked 22 years under the warmest since 1895, or the 93rd warmest. No where close to 1998, which ranked number one. There has been no statistically significant warming from ANY of the last ten years compared to the 30 year mean inspite of the fact that 2010 nearly tied 1998 in the satellite record. The difference in the thermometer and satellite record acccounts primarily from the oceans, which warmed significantly during the 2010 El Ninio, which has now all but disapeared, as the global satellite temperature is now back to +.18degC of the 30 year mean.

        The ten year USA trend in thermometer measurements is now cooling. Unless the solar magnetic energy off of the sun reverses course to previous levels, I will bet you that global temperatures will soon follow suit of land based trends as the thermal inertia of the ocean system will become used up by 2014.

        • valley person

          According to NASA the global temp record, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2007, & 2009, all virtually tie as the 2nd warmest years on record since the 1880. The 2 warmest years were 2010 and 2005.

          https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-climate-records.html

          • Chuck Wiese

            Since NASA and James Hansen tried to get into the business of calculating global temperatures, we have discovered all of their “data” becomes suspiciously warmer than real records reflect.

            Hansen and NASA have gridded the globe to “assign temperatures” and without a reasonable scientific explanation have expanded urban temperatures into rural areas, thus skewing temperatures upward where there is really no data. He also “forgot” to switch temperature data sets for the Siberian arctic in October of 2009, using September’s data instead. It skewed temperatures significantly higher and would not have been caught if it weren’t fot the excellent work of other outside groups watching him.

            The real, untampered with temperature record does not support any of NASA’a claims, and, from the NCDC, a part of NOAA, which has been in the business of tracking earth climate for many more years than Hansen, and Hansen has demonstrated he is either an incompetent scientist or lying charlatan with respect to temperature records, and either description of him does not bode well for credibility.

            To see the NCDC temperature records, and discussion of them by meteorologist Anthony Watts, go here:

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/14/according-to-ncdcs-own-data-2010-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-usa-nor-even-a-tie/

          • valley person

            So, a “former television meteorologist” is more credible to you than NASA?

            If Hansen is lying, he has sure fooled a lot of the worlds actual climate scientists. Must be a lying genius.

          • Chuck Wiese

            Is NCDC lying? The agency that has been and IS the official depository and librarian of official temperature record? These are THEIR records, not mine. And YES, they are FAR MORE CREDIBLE than NASA with respect to this.

            What a stupid comparison and analogy! ME to NASA or NASA to NCDC! Get your facts straight!

          • valley person

            No, I don’t think anyone is “lying.” The National Academy of Sciences, among others has looked at this whole issue and has concluded that the warming trend is unmistakable in multiple temperature records, plus physical evidence of thinning ice, melting glaciers, melting permafrost, early migrations, and a lot else. Your argument is with a lot more than NASA unfortunately. You are essentially arguing against the entire scientific establishment of the planet. Good luck with that.

            And the emotional display of your post (all caps?) exposes the weakness of your position. You pretend to argue science but then you inject emotion into it. Could it be because your science is so weak?

          • Chuck Wiese

            Another silly response. If NCDC is “not lying” but you can prove NASA’a methods are statistically flawed, and many scientists already have, you are not “arguing” with the “entire scientific establishment”. Where do you come up with this nonsense? It is nothing more than a switch and bait on words, injecting political rhetoric into established facts in attempt to refute them.

            Since you’re so convinced that NASA has credibility on the issue of temperature, go read this article:

            https://public.me.com/ix/williseschenbach/Svalbard.pdf

            Gavin Schmidt works at NASA and Michael Mann at Penn State University. Mann’s “hockey stick” temperature graph was already shown to be a statistical fraud, and now we find he assisted Scmidt at NASA to fabricate yet another temperature record of the earth in the arctic to generate a 5 sigma event of significance in these temperature records to attempt to validate the already proven wrong climate modeling.

            That paper comes from the master discussion of this whole idea of how “climate scientists”, just like you, inject political rhetoric and physically meaningless dogma into discussions so as to attempt to falsely “establish” that science is on your side. Nothing could be further from the truth:

            https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/willis_trenberth_wuwt_essay.pdf

            And “emotional rhetoric”? Hardley! But it is difficult to argue with someone who is not engaged in a scientific discussion, but rather, a political one, which is demonstrated well here by your own statements which contradict the actual measurements or the positions of all the scientists that you claim are in agreement about this with YOUR PERSONAL BELIEF, and a general ignorance by you about this subject, which forces you to engage in discussing politics rather than facts.

          • valley person

            You are arguing with the entire scientific establishment. I’m not. 32 national science academies disagree with you. The american association for Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, Australian Institute of Physics, European Physical Society, American Geophysical Union, Geological Society of America, National Research Council, American Meteorological Society, World Meteorological Organization, American Institute of Biological Sciences, Society of American Foresters, American Medical Association, American Astronomical Society, and dozens of other sceince based associations all say you are wrong and NASA is right.

            Its not about “belief.” Its about accepting the preponderance of evidence. Scicne is not on my side. I’m on the side of science.

          • Chuck Wiese

            You’re repeating yourself. We have been over this upthread. You are not presenting any science or proof that these organizations members even agree with anything you have stated. And I have already demonstrated to you that this is not true with respect to the APS and AMS. And an opinion is not proof, either. Scientific FACTS are what constitute and embody science, not opinions entirely.

            But your claim that I am arguing against a “consensus” of scientific opinion is also wrong. Read this article from Lawrence Solomon, an independant journalist who looked into the “consensus claim that you keep touting:

            https://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/

            And here are at least 1000 scientists who disagree with your perceived “consensus” out of the 2500 that you claimed represented your views but now we know that has actually been reduced to 75 in the article above :

            https://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore

            The “science” of AGW is not real science. It is a religion that is followed by its believers who usually are a part of a special interest group that promotes larger government or subsidy of green energy. I would bet that you fit into one of these categories, and again, you are not presenting ANY scientific facts to back up ANYTHING you claim. Just drivel, which is easily refutable and that I just demonstrated.

          • valley person

            I guess I am repeating myself. I mean, what else can one do? When every major scientific body in the US and world agrees that the earth’s warming is unmistakable, and that the main cause is release of greenhouse gasses from fossil fuel burning and land use changes over the past few hundred years, what else is there to say? Do you really think a place like Catalyst is an appropriate venue for a technical,scientific debate on the merits of all the data that lies behind these organizations positions?

            Maybe you are right about all this. But you have to make your case in the world of science. Clearly you have been unable to do that, so you find yourself here, helping people who want to maintain their skepticism find a fig leaf to hide behind.

            Sure, there are some legitimate scientists who have some doubts, primarily about the rate and magnitude of warming by the way, not about whether warming is occurring, which appears to be your own doubt. Questioning the accuracy of the predictive models seems fair game to me. Questioning the established fact of warming, and the relationship to greenhouse gas buildup sems like poppycock.

          • valley person

            I guess I am repeating myself. I mean, what else can one do? When every major scientific body in the US and world agrees that the earth’s warming is unmistakable, and that the main cause is release of greenhouse gasses from fossil fuel burning and land use changes over the past few hundred years, what else is there to say? Do you really think a place like Catalyst is an appropriate venue for a technical,scientific debate on the merits of all the data that lies behind these organizations positions?

            Maybe you are right about all this. But you have to make your case in the world of science. Clearly you have been unable to do that, so you find yourself here, helping people who want to maintain their skepticism find a fig leaf to hide behind.

            Sure, there are some legitimate scientists who have some doubts, primarily about the rate and magnitude of warming by the way, not about whether warming is occurring, which appears to be your own doubt. Questioning the accuracy of the predictive models seems fair game to me. Questioning the established fact of warming, and the relationship to greenhouse gas buildup sems like poppycock.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    More hilarity:
    All those penguins dying? Turns out they were killed by scientists, not AGW!
    Seriously folks – Its time to just start laughing at those who still are trying to maintain this hoax.

    https://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/science/story.html?id=4103379

  • Edwardhs222

    Valley Person has no learning curve and cannot comprehend the AGW movement for what it is.

    https://public.me.com/ix/williseschenbach/Svalbard.pdf

    I’m sure he either never read this, or couldn’t understand it or deliberately chose the Gavin Schmidt/Michale Mann dishonest path.

    There are many examples of these fatal flaws within the AGW Team’s work rendering any lunacy about scienctific consensus the stuff of fools and liars.

    Without any answers for these nails in the coffin valley idiot has to keep repeating the bromides and hide form the many realities such as Jane Lubchenco’s fabricated AGW link to Oregon’s seasonal Ocean Dead Zones.

    There is no level of egregious misbehavior that would trigger any honesty from the likes of valley person et al.

  • Rob

    it’s nice to see the idiots out in force, goose stepping arround in unison quacking the sky isnt falling the sky isnt falling. Global warming is a reality get used to it. Its twits like you with your financial interests that will get us all killed in the end and saying I told you so really wont have much satisfaction

  • Rob

    it’s nice to see the idiots out in force, goose stepping arround in unison quacking the sky isnt falling the sky isnt falling. Global warming is a reality get used to it. Its twits like you with your financial interests that will get us all killed in the end and saying I told you so really wont have much satisfaction

  • RobbieR

    This is BS propaganada stitched around a few facts.

  • John Savage Crowne-Foster

    so now maybe everyone will dropp the cosy global warming name and call it what it is, global atmosheric energization. Global warmiong makes everyone think their weather is going to get comfortably warm when what is actually happening is that the atmoshere is retaining more heat energy that will cause the swings of weather to be more extreme as in we will have heat waves folllowed by freezes, droughts followed by floods (or vice versa). So, stop listening to the empty talking heads on the boob tube and learn some damn’d science, math, and logic on your own and figure it out… while you still have some tiome to prepare…. an ever increasing population (about 4 billion when I was born in ’61, now about to hit 7 billion!) of which more and more are daily pumping more and more combustion products into the atmoshere every day kinda’ adds up… the only people who don’t think this can affect the worl’d atmoshere are the ones who can’t read, count, and think past an elementary school level (now about 90% of the US, gods’ knows what the rest of the world manages…) don’t be a bunch of morons!

  • John Savage Crowne-Foster

    so now maybe everyone will dropp the cosy global warming name and call it what it is, global atmosheric energization. Global warmiong makes everyone think their weather is going to get comfortably warm when what is actually happening is that the atmoshere is retaining more heat energy that will cause the swings of weather to be more extreme as in we will have heat waves folllowed by freezes, droughts followed by floods (or vice versa). So, stop listening to the empty talking heads on the boob tube and learn some damn’d science, math, and logic on your own and figure it out… while you still have some tiome to prepare…. an ever increasing population (about 4 billion when I was born in ’61, now about to hit 7 billion!) of which more and more are daily pumping more and more combustion products into the atmoshere every day kinda’ adds up… the only people who don’t think this can affect the worl’d atmoshere are the ones who can’t read, count, and think past an elementary school level (now about 90% of the US, gods’ knows what the rest of the world manages…) don’t be a bunch of morons!

  • John Savage Crowne-Foster

    Sorry for the typo’s and poor grammer in my last post, I was writting in a hurry. Oh, and, btw, the natural forces of this planet (and the general universe) don’t give a crap about whichever of our political affiliations or even if we live or die. And praying to whatever silly superstition of choice isn’t gonna’ help any either… If I was your god I’d be kinda’ pissed at how we’ve crapped all over such a beautiful planet and wipe us all out to clean the slate! You cannot destroy the environment, you can only change it’s ecology!

  • John Savage Crowne-Foster

    Ok, I had ust read the atricle at first and went straight to comment, now I see this is some kind of reactionary right-wingnut teabagger-like site so you’re all going to flame me now, lol! Any of you ever take a real science class in school? college? Can any of you really comprhend how many people 7×10 to the 9th power is? How mny know the size of the planet? or how thin the atmosheric blanket really is? umm, how about homeostasis (no, has nothing to do with sexual orientation, dumbass! lol), rates of reaction? limiting reagents? heat of formation? How about history, anyone ever study any more than the whitewashed fairytale crap you were required to remember by rote and regurgitate back in high school? Why do you all worship and vote for the people who look down on you and live in gated communities to keep you away from them? boogles the mind… if you have one, that is… ok, now write your stupid personal attacks on me, I need a good laugh, lol!

  • Liameekafym

    How come you never restate stories where the temperature has been the warmest in 350 years?

  • i don’t know how could they lie about such a thing!how could they talk about warming when we are freezing our asses..liars!

  • Bigbronze

    STOP THIS
    There is $$Billions of CO2 tax revenue at stake here. Trust me if you pay them this tax they will make it all go away.

  • Pingback: Blue Coaster33()

  • Pingback: water ionizer()

  • Pingback: kangen water()

  • Pingback: lan penge online nu()

  • Pingback: stop parking()

  • Pingback: hurtigt laan penge nu()

  • Pingback: 3gp mobile porn()

  • Pingback: parking()

  • Pingback: pay per day loan plans()

  • Pingback: paypal loans()

  • Pingback: electrician gloves klein()

  • Pingback: click()

  • Pingback: planners without borders()

  • Pingback: house blue()

  • Pingback: HD Coloring Pages()

  • Pingback: water ionizer pay plan loans()

  • Pingback: bottled alkaline water()

  • Pingback: alkaline water()

  • Pingback: water ionizer loans()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)