How cute. This is what Warmists call science nowadays
(BBC) Climate change is likely to be a factor in the extreme weather that has hit much of the UK in recent months, the Met Office’s chief scientist has said.
Dame Julia Slingo said the variable UK climate meant there was “no definitive answer” to what caused the storms.
“But all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change,” she added.
“There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly rain events.”
Got that? In one breathe there is “no definitive answer”, in the next she blames climate change, which, of course, means she is Blaming Mankind. Despite the Met Office data showing a meager 0.28F increase in the global temperature since 1990, and a statistically insignificant 0.14F since 1997. And, their data shows no warming at all since 2000.
“We have records going back to 1766 and we have nothing like this,” she said. “We have seen some exceptional weather. We can’t say it is unprecedented but it is exceptional.”
Since there are no records, apparently, going back to what happened during the last warm period, there is no comparison available.
Can changes in climate cause weather, some of which can be damaging? Well, yeah. 4.5 billion years of history show that weather happens. That’s why everyone talks about the weather, and always has. Warmists, though, like to make pronouncements without proof. They just deem it into existence. Then they jump in their fossil fueled vehicles. This is the real anti-science.
Not only did the Met Office suggest the link in the article, but so did Conservative Party head and PM, David Cameron:
David Cameron has said the UK must be prepared for more extreme weather.
At Prime Minister’s Questions last month, Mr. Cameron said he “suspected” that the recent storms to batter the UK and the extreme weather in North America were connected to global temperature changes – an argument challenged by some Conservative MPs and peers.
He subsequently clarified the remarks, saying that although “you can’t point to one weather event and say that is climate change”, many scientists were talking of a link between the two.
“The point I was really trying to make is, whatever you think – even if you think that (climate change) is mumbo-jumbo – because these things are happening more often, it makes sense to do all you can to… prevent these floods affecting so many people and that is exactly what we are doing.”
Ya gotta love the (lack of) logic of warmists.
First they claim that “consensus” is not science, and then they try to use consensus to say people with a differing view are wrong.
One does not think English is her 1st, 2nd, or 3rd language of choice. If there is no definitive answer, then one can’t point the finger at anything. But, if ALL!!!!! the evidence points someplace, then that is a definitive answer. right?
But, if the answer is… a changing climate, then did MET do nothing but stick their finger out the window? “yep, it’s warmer now that it was at midnight!” duh.
and lest you think I’m conflabberating weather with climate, the MET doesn’t know the difference so why should I make the distinction!
If it is one, then it is the other. But just because it is the latter, doesn’t not make it the former.
I’m still laughably amazed that our so-called climate scientists really believe that climate is static.
Teach for someone who didn’t know how many centimeters were in a meter you can be pretty judgemental of what most scientists do believe
“keep these floods from affecting so many people.” The fact that there’s more people to be “affected” due to population growth probably never crosses the minds of these morons. And how due they know they weren’t as severe in the past? They don’t.
People of the distant past: “What did you do:? ‘We built the pyramids!'”
People of the recent past: “What did you do:? ‘We built rockets and flew to the moon'”
People of today: “What did you do:? ‘We made science stupid.'”