Met Office accused of implausible worst-case climate prediction
By Paul Homewood
London, 9 March: A new study by the UK Met Office claims that accelerating global warming will make extreme rainfall events in the UK four times more frequent by 2080 compared to the 1980s.
This story has been widely covered in the news media.
The Met Office claims are derived from computer modelling based on the so-called RCP8.5 emissions scenario, the most extreme pathway for global greenhouse gas emissions, which the Met Office misleadingly describes as “plausible”.
In reality, most credible scientists regard RCP8.5 as implausible given that global emissions data and technological advances essentially rule it out. As a result, the Biden Administration has abandoned using this discredited worst-case scenario.
Moreover, the Met Office offers no empirical data in evidence that an increased trend in extreme rainfall events has actually been observed in line with their modelling. In fact some studies suggest the opposite may have occurred in recent decades.
Dr Benny Peiser, the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, called on the Met Office to withdraw its fatally flawed study:
“The Met Office should withdraw this grossly misleading and baseless study which is undermining its scientific credibility and integrity and makes it look incompetent.”
Additional information about RCP8.5
* Roger Pilke Jr.: The Biden Administration Abandons RCP8.5
* Anders Bolling: This is how the UN’s worst scenario was normalized and distorted our view of global warming
* Tim Worstall: A Saviour Spurned: How fracking saved us from global warming (pdf)
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I can’t imagine the Met Office ever issuing an honest report about climate change, so no chance of a withdrawal (imho).
This has been raised before, but a ‘confident’ prediction made by the ‘climate modellers’ was that winter nights would be warmer due to the increased levels of CO2. As the weather before Christmas showed and the current flurry of snow shows, once all the water vapour has frozen out of the atmoshere and is deposited on the ground, the rate of cooling does not seem to have changed from that of previous epochs. There seems to be something wrong with their grasp of the fundamental physics involved……
A further interesting report in the Daily Telegraph today 9 March stating “Drought risk to hydrogen boiler plan” This is from the Climate Change Committee. Pity they had not consulted the Met Office.
I genuinely thought you were taking the piss claiming the DT had actually published an article “Drought risk to hydrogen boiler plan” So I looked it up…..talk about these people having total shit for brains or what!
A skim through: the word “could” appears six times in the Met Office “study” = guesswork.
The Met Office study states: ” Extreme rainfall events could be four times as frequent by 2080 compared to 1980s. ”
The Times article states: ” Extreme rain and flooding will rise due to climate change, study says
Heavy rainfall events will be four times more likely in 50 years’ time, putting homes and business at risk”
Guesswork spun by the misleading medjia.
The Met Office should publish facts. Any weasel word e.g. “could” needs a probability % attached and the phrase : “Our guess is that ….. ” .
Will someone, please, tell the climate alarmists there is no such thing as man-made global warming–it’s called weather. Every “prediction” the failed presidential candidate, Al Gore made, mas failed to materialize. You are being lied to, youngsters–wake up.
This is not surprising. It simply confirms that the Met Office has no scientific integrity. It deliberately seeks to frighten the public by using unrealistic, alarmist projections. It is unfit to be a publicly funded organisation.
credibility….integrity….MetOffice No, not words you would ever expect to be seen connected. A lot like BBC and impartiality.
RCP8.5 is so bad even some of the climate ‘scientists’ are too embarrassed to use it any longer.