A Case for Climate Change Scepticism: Challenging the Met Office’s Alarmist Forecasts: Lessons for Australia, By Richard Miller (Londonistan)
The recent heatwave in the UK has sparked another round of dire climate predictions, with the Met Office forecasting apocalyptic conditions by 2070, summers up to six degrees warmer and 60% drier. These claims, however, rely on the discredited RCP8.5 scenario, a model so unrealistic that even its creators and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) caution against its use as a plausible forecast. Far from being a cause for despair, this misstep by the Met Office offers an opportunity to embrace a more rational, optimistic, and evidence-based approach to climate discussions. By focusing on realistic scenarios, human ingenuity, and the resilience of our environment, we can move beyond fear-driven narratives and toward a future grounded in practical solutions and hope.
The Met Office's reliance on RCP8.5, as highlighted by Matt Ridley in The Telegraph, is a glaring example of how alarmist narratives can distort climate discourse. RCP8.5 assumes an implausible world where coal consumption skyrockets to ten times its year 2000 levels by 2100, powering half of global energy needs, including fantastical applications like coal-derived fuel for cars and aircraft. It also projects a global population of 12 billion, far exceeding credible demographic estimates, and assumes technological stagnation, with no significant advancements in energy efficiency or emissions reduction. Even the climate advocacy outlet Carbon Brief acknowledges that RCP8.5 was never intended as a "business as usual" scenario, and its chief creator, Keywan Riahi, has expressed regret over its misuse. And the UN'sIPCC itself has warned against treating it as a forecast.
This reliance on an outdated and exaggerated model undermines the Met Office's credibility and distracts from constructive climate conversations. Instead of fearmongering, we should celebrate the progress that makes RCP8.5 obsolete: declining coal use, stabilising global population projections, and rapid advancements in energy-efficient technologies. These trends point to a future where humanity can address climate challenges without resorting to apocalyptic rhetoric.
A climate sceptic's perspective doesn't deny that human activities influence the environment but emphasises the power of innovation and adaptation to mitigate challenges. The Met Office's focus on extreme scenarios ignores the remarkable progress in energy technology.Nuclear energy offers a reliable, low-carbon alternative.Emerging technologies like small modular reactors are transforming how we produce and consume energy. These advancements, driven by market incentives and human creativity, are already reducing emissions without the need for draconian policies or exaggerated doomsday predictions.
Moreover, humanity has a long history of adapting to environmental changes. From the development of irrigation systems in ancient civilisations to modern urban planning that mitigates heat island effects, we've consistently found ways to thrive in diverse climates. The Met Office's claim that June's heatwave, reaching 34.7°C in St James's Park, was "virtually certain" to be human-driven, overlooks local factors like urban heat islands, which research by Arup estimates add up to 4.5°C of warmth in cities like London. Historical records also show that hot summers are not unprecedented; temperatures hit 36.7°C in Northamptonshire in 1911, long before modern emissions levels. By contextualising these events, we can focus on practical solutions like urban greening and better infrastructure rather than succumbing to panic.
The Met Office's use of RCP8.5 highlights a broader issue: the tendency to choose alarming headlines over balanced analysis. More realistic scenarios, like RCP4.5 or RCP2.6, project moderate warming that aligns with current trends in emissions reductions and technological progress. These models suggest a future where climate impacts are manageable through adaptation and innovation, not catastrophic collapse. For instance, global population is now projected to peak at around 10.4 billion by 2080, according to the United Nations, far below RCP8.5's 12 billion.
This shift also allows us to opt for practical measures. Improving energy efficiency, expanding nuclear and investing in resilient infrastructure can address climate challenges without the economic and social costs of extreme Net Zero policies.
A positive climate sceptic perspective also recognizes the resilience of both nature and human society. The Met Office's claim of drier summers ignores the complexity of regional climate patterns and the adaptability of ecosystems. Agricultural advancements, such as drought-resistant crops and precision farming, are already helping farmers cope with variable weather. Meanwhile, the greening of the planet, driven partly by increased CO2 levels, has boosted crop yields and forest growth, a fact often downplayed in alarmist narratives. As noted in The Daily Sceptic, CO2 is "an irreplaceable plant food," contributing to a more productive biosphere.
Society, too, is far from helpless. Economic growth and technological innovation have lifted billions out of poverty, improving access to education, healthcare, and clean energy. These gains equip communities to handle climate variability, whether through flood defenses, heat-resistant urban designs, or improved weather forecasting. By focusing on these strengths, we can approach climate challenges with confidence rather than fear.
The Met Office's reliance on RCP8.5 is not just a scientific misstep; it's a disservice to the public. As Ridley notes, using such an extreme scenario seems designed to "scare people and get media attention" rather than inform. This approach erodes trust in institutions meant to provide objective data. A more honest approach would involve using realistic scenarios, acknowledging uncertainties, and highlighting the progress already made in reducing emissions and adapting to change.
By rejecting exaggerated scenarios like RCP8.5, we can focus on realistic projections, technological innovation, and adaptive strategies that empower humanity to thrive. The future need not be a doomsday tale but a story of ingenuity, resilience, and progress, if we reject climate change alarmism.
"Revved up by the orgy of climate alarmism opportunities supplied by the recent heatwave, the Met Office has taken to making apocalyptic forecasts for the year 2070. In the Telegraph, Matt Ridley takes the national forecaster to task for basing these doomy predictions on modelling even the IPCC rejects. Here's an excerpt.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/03/met-office-language-climate-alarmism/
"I gather it's been hot down south. My sympathies. As Londoners were sweltering, we had a chilly breeze off the North Sea in Northumberland. The UK Met Office says it is "virtually certain" that June (the hottest in England since 1884, second hottest in the UK) was made hotter by human activity.
Duh! Even if temperatures were not affected by greenhouse gases, which they are, the 34.7C (94.5F) recorded in St James's Park on Tuesday might have something to do with that weather station being a low-reliability "class 5" site with an error rating of "up to 5C". It's next to a very busy tarmac path. Plus, it is in the middle of a city and therefore subject to a more general "urban heat island" effect. Research by Arup reckons London's heat island is worth 4.5C extra warmth on average. So yes, the heat is indeed partly man-made – but not necessarily in the way the Met Office means.
Besides, it's not exactly unusual to have hot days in summer: it reached 36.7C (98.1F) in Northamptonshire in 1911. As the world gets slowly warmer, we will see more hot summer days, though not as much as we will see more mild winter nights: winter nighttime temperatures have risen faster than summer daytime ones, as predicted by the greenhouse effect, just as Arctic temperatures have risen faster than tropical ones.
The Met Office exists to forecast the weather. But increasingly it seems bored by the day job so it likes to lecture us about climate change. And here it seems to have been embarrassingly duped by activists. Go on its climate pages and you find a forecast for the year 2070, that summers will be between one and six degrees warmer and "up to" 60 per cent drier, depending on the region. A lot of wriggle room in those caveats, note.
Then it admits: "We base these changes on the RCP8.5 high emissions scenario." Aha! Unbelievably, shockingly, this national forecasting body has chosen as its base case for the future of weather a debunked, highly implausible set of assumptions about the world economy that was never intended to be used this way.
RCP8.5 is one of five projected futures for the world economy this century, dreamt up by economists. Here is what it assumes. First, the world becomes addicted to coal, burning 10 times – yes, 10 times! – as much coal in 2100 as we did in 2000 and even using coal to make fuel for aircraft and cars. Yes: that is really what it says. It projects that fully half of all the world's energy will be supplied by coal in 2100.
Second, it assumes that the world population will have swelled to 12 billion people by 2100, way more than any demographer thinks is likely. Third, it assumes that innovation will somehow dry up so there's hardly any new technology to make our lives more fuel-efficient – and we won't even try to cut emissions. In short, this scenario is barking mad.
Don't take my word for it. Here's what Carbon Brief, an activist website, has to say: "The creators of RCP8.5 had not intended it to represent the most likely 'business as usual' outcome… Its subsequent use as such represents something of a breakdown in communication between energy systems modellers and the climate modelling community."
Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that RCP8.5 should not be used as a forecast. And here's its chief creator, Keywan Riahi: "I wished I would have been clearer with what I meant by 'business as usual'."
In 2020, even the ultra-alarmist BBC said RCP8.5 was "exceedingly unlikely". Yet here, five years later, we have the Met Office itself still basing its forecasts for 2070 on ludicrous assumptions. And no, this is no "breakdown in communications": this is deliberately seeking extreme predictions to scare people and so get media attention. If they used more realistic assumptions, they fear, the future would sound less terrifying.
Come on, Met Office, do the decent thing and ditch the climate apocalypticism. If you must try to forecast the weather in 2070 – and for all your supercomputers, you generally admit you cannot reliably forecast the weather more than a week or two ahead – then use realistic assumptions. Even if it makes the future sound less scary."
Comments