Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t James Delingpole / Breitbart; One of the most widely mocked alarmist predictions ever :- In the year 2000, Dr. David Viner beclowned himself by announcing that thanks to Global Warming, “children just aren’t going to know what snow is” (see the web archive – the original was deleted). Now Dr Lizzie Kendon of the UK MET office has followed Viner’s footsteps, by suggesting “much of the snow will have disappeared entirely” by the end of the century.

Snow may not settle in most of UK by end of century, study suggests

Climate crisis likely to cause warmer, wetter winters and hotter, drier summers, says Met Office

PA Media
Mon 7 Dec 2020 18.34 AEDT

…

If this trend continues only very high ground and parts of northern Scotland will experience freezing temperatures by 2080.

The Met Office stressed there is year-on-year variability with temperature and some years will be colder or warmer than the trend.

…

Senior Met Office scientist Dr Lizzie Kendon told BBC Panorama: “We’re saying by the end of the century much of the lying snow will have disappeared entirely except over the highest ground.

“The overarching picture is warmer, wetter winters; hotter, drier summers.

“But within that, we get this shift towards more extreme events, so more frequent and intense extremes, so heavier rainfall when it occurs.

“It’s a big change … in the course of our lifetime. It’s just a wake-up call really as to what we’re talking about here.”

…

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/07/snow-may-not-settle-in-most-of-uk-by-end-of-century-study-suggests

The Panorama Episode is available here, but is restricted to UK viewers.

The big question – why do alarmists keep doing this to themselves?

The reason as far as I can tell is they utterly, totally believe in the wild global warming predictions of their computer models.

In 2011, The Register claimed John Mitchell of the UK MET said “People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful. Our approach is not entirely empirical.“

In 2015, then UK climate change secretary Amber Rudd organised a party of Royal Society alarmists to meet with prominent skeptic members of parliament Peter Lilley and John Redwood, and then GWPF Chairman Lord Lawson, to see if the Royal Society could persuade the skeptics that Climate Change is a problem.

Breitbart reports the main stumbling block was the Royal Society scientists apparently refused to accept contradictory observations as evidence their models could be wrong. When challenged, they claimed they would need an additional 50 years of contradictory observational evidence, we would all need to wait until the year 2047, before they would consider admitting they had a problem.

There is not much you can do to persuade people who appear to openly admit they discount the value of observational evidence which contradicts their computer models. Though such people do have some entertainment value, when they solemnly share their latest predictions.

Related