UK Met Office falsifies Global Warming hypothesis

by Dr. Ed Berry

The UK Met Office developed a new version of its climate model, since the old one did not make accurate predictions. Their new climate model predicts no further global warming out to 2017, the 5-year limit of its forecast. Based upon this new forecast, there will be no global warming since 1997, or for 20 years, even though atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising and will continue to rise.

UKMetNewThis new climate forecast falsifies the global warming hypothesis that more carbon dioxide will cause global warming. Therefore, according to the UK Met Office, global warming is dead. For political reasons, the UK Met Office may not wish to say it this way, but you can be sure the scientists in the Office realize full well the significance of their new forecast.

The new climate forecast differs significantly from this old 2007 forecast by the UK Met Office, which forecast continuing global warming.

UKMetOldThe above charts are from Tallbroke’s Talkshop.  The UK Met Office report is here. A full report by Dr. David Whitehouse is in The Observatory here.

Since every claim by climate alarmists is based upon climate model forecasts and not on real data, this new forecast pulls the rug out from under climate alarmists. There is no reason to support wind energy with our tax dollars. There is no reason to tax carbon dioxide emissions, except as an excuse to increase taxes to feed out-of-control big government.

Since the United Nations ICLEI is based upon the global warming myth, all cities not in it should reject it and all cities in it should get out of it.

There is no reason for Obama to stop the Keystone Pipeline. There is no reason for Democrats to stop gas, oil, and coal energy production on public lands.

Let’s return to sanity in our energy politics. (2156)


  1. 1

    I have almost always been skeptical about global warming being man made, but how can you say “There is no reason for Democrats to stop gas, oil, and coal energy production on public lands”.

    Do you know that these sources of energy cause huge amounts of human and envirmonmental damage? The healths costs asscoiated with pollution alone is astronomical. There is plenty reason to stop it, or at least slow it down and further incentivise clean energy.

    I don’t however believe in a carbon tax however.

  2. 2

    I am not a democrat, or republican, but I can only conclude that you are a mouth-piece for big oil.

  3. 3

    Hi Chris,

    All methods of energy production have an environmental cost but we can minimize this cost with good engineering. Wind and solar energy are very detrimental to the environment. There is no free lunch.

    And if we choose to have no energy sources at all, we humans will do even more damage to the environment. Abundant, low-cost energy leads to a cleaner environment, so our government should not be locking up good energy resources.

    We should use the energy resources that give us the most advantage with the least cost, and these are not going to be wind or solar except in special situations which are insignificant to large-scale energy production.

    Much of the so-called human damage from gas, oil, and coal energy production is not based upon valid science. For example, many California pollution laws are based upon fraudulent science.

    Please tell the big oil companies I am their mouthpiece so they will send money. So far, I haven’t seen any oil money.

Speak Your Mind


Please enter the CAPTCHA text