Christopher Booker: Brits KNMI in de greep van groen fundamentalisme

Geen categorie28 dec 2010, 16:30
Sir John Houghton met de gediscrediteerde hockeystick-grafiek op de achtergrond
De volgende citaten zijn van de Britse klimaatpaus, voormalig co-voorzitter van Werkgroep I van het VN-klimaatpanel (IPCC), Sir John Houghton:

As a climate scientist who has worked on this issue for several decades, first as head of the Met Office, and then as co-chair of scientific assessment for the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change, the impacts of global warming are such that I have no hesitation in describing it as a "weapon of mass destruction".

When thinking of the sin and evil which results from a broken relationship with God, Christians generally think of sin against people not against the environment. But if we take seriously the clear responsibility of care for the Earth given to humans by God, we are bound also to recognise that to fail in that task is not only a sin against nature but a sin against God. It has been suggested that this new category of sin should include activities that lead to ‘species extinction, reduction in genetic diversity, pollution of the water, land and air, habitat destruction and disruption of sustainable life styles’. This new sense of sin could also include the sin of too much talk and too little action!

Lees verder hier en bekijk deze video.
Dit groene fundamentalisme heeft zijn stempel gedrukt op het IPCC, de activiteiten van de Climatic Research Unit (CRU) van de Universiteit van East Anglia, die een centrale rol speelde in het Climategate-schandaal, en het Britse KNMI (de Met Office). Zij hebben zich als ijverige verkondigers van het broeikasevangelie geprofileerd en zich stelselmatig afgesloten voor alternatieve denkbeelden. Mede in het licht van de kouderecords die aan de lopende band worden gebroken, hebben zij zich daarmee onsterfelijk belachelijk gemaakt.
In een recent artikel in de Britse 'Telegraph', 'The green hijack of the Met Office is crippling Britain', wrijft Chrstopher Booker weer eens een flinke schep strooizout in hun wonden.
Booker:

The Met Office's commitment to warmist orthodoxy means it drastically underestimates the chances of a big freeze.

By far the biggest story of recent days, of course, has been the astonishing chaos inflicted, to a greater or lesser extent, on all of our lives by the fact that we are not only enjoying what is predicted to be the coldest December since records began in 1659, but also the harshest of three freezing winters in a row. We all know the disaster stories – thousands of motorists trapped for hours on paralysed motorways, days of misery at Heathrow, rail passengers marooned in unheated carriages for up to 17 hours. But central to all this – as the cry goes up: “Why wasn’t Britain better prepared?” – has been the bizarre role of the Met Office.

[...] the fact [is] that in these past three years the Met Office’s forecasting record has become a national joke. Ever since it predicted a summer warmer and drier than average in 2007 – followed by some of the worst floods in living memory – its forecasts have been unerringly wrong ...

The Met Office’s forecasts of warmer-than-average summers and winters have been so consistently at 180 degrees to the truth that, earlier this year, it conceded that it was dropping seasonal forecasting. Hence, last week, the Met Office issued a categorical denial to the Global Warming Policy Foundation that it had made any forecast for this winter. Immediately, however, several blogs, led by Autonomous Mind, produced evidence from the Met Office website that in October it did indeed publish a forecast for December, January and February. This indicated that they would be significantly warmer than last year, and that there was only “a very much smaller chance of average or below-average temperatures”. So the Met Office has not only been caught out yet again getting it horribly wrong (always in the same direction), it was even prepared to deny it had said such a thing at all.

The answer is that in the past 20 years, as can be seen from its website, the Met Office has been hijacked from its proper role to become wholly subservient to its obsession with global warming. (At one time it even changed its name to the Met Office “for Weather and Climate Change”.) This all began when its then-director John Houghton became one of the world’s most influential promoters of the warmist gospel. He, more than anyone else, was responsible for setting up the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and remained at the top of it for 13 years. It was he who, in 1990, launched the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Change, closely linked to the Climatic Research Unit in East Anglia (CRU), at the centre of last year’s Climategate row, which showed how the little group of scientists at the heart of the IPCC had been prepared to bend their data and to suppress any dissent from warming orthodoxy. ...

The consequences of all this are profound. Those who rule over our lives have been carried off into a cloud-cuckoo-land for which no one was more responsible than the zealots at the Met Office, subordinating all it does to their dotty belief system. Significantly, its chairman, Robert Napier, is not a weatherman but a “climate activist”, previously head of WWF-UK, one of our leading warmist campaigning groups.

En Booker concludeert:

At the heart of all this greenie make-believe that has our political class in its thrall has been the hijacking of the Met Office from its proper role. It’s no longer just a national joke: it is turning into a national catastrophe.

Lees verder hier.
Er wordt wel eens beweerd dat er geen groter vermaak is dan leedvermaak. Die domme Britten toch! Maar als een belangrijke EU-partner en Nederlandse exportmarkt bezig is economisch zelfmoord te plegen door zijn energievoorziening in gevaar te brengen door geloof te hechten aan groene sprookjes, schaadt dat ook Nederlandse en Europese belangen. Los daarvan lijkt niet alleen Groot-Brittannië met molentjes te lopen, maar ook Nederland. Het wordt dan ook hoog tijd dat al die economen op EZ eens gaan doen waarvoor ze zijn opgeleid: kosten/baten-analyse van windenergie!
Ga verder met lezen
Dit vind je misschien ook leuk
Laat mensen jouw mening weten