Closing Thoughts For 2023: Honours For Services To Politically Motivated Pseudoscience & An Upcoming General Election Farce

Peter Stott of the Met Office and the CEO of the Met Office are to be awarded an MBE and CBE.

Penny for services to woke because she’s the first female chief executive of the Met Office and a STEM enthusiast and Stott for services to climate pseudoscience, including the smiting of deniers.

Professor Penny Endersby, Met Office Chief Executive, who has been awarded a CBE for her services to Meteorology, Defence Science and Technology, has been recognised for her contribution to the advancement of science and technology both while at the Met Office and previously in her career at Defence Science and Technology Lab (Dstl) leading the organisation’s cyber and information division.

As the first female Chief Executive at the Met Office, she has led the organisation to expand the horizons, reach and development of its science, technology and life-saving services, driving forward positive change and direction in the organisation, while maintaining a keen focus on business delivery to customers. Penny is a strong advocate for innovation and academic collaboration in science both across the UK and globally, with a real passion for STEM education and outreach, and diversity in science.

Rob Woodward, Met Office Chair said: “Penny is a wonderful role model for female STEM orientated specialists.  She has devoted her career to the delivery of high impact science in her public service roles and is deservedly recognised by this honour.”

Professor Peter Stott, Met Office Climate Science Fellow, has been awarded an MBE for services to Climate Science and International Climate Action, for his work at the Met Office and Exeter University.

Peter has been a significant contributor to the progression of Climate Science nationally and globally, being the first to link an individual weather event to climate change (the 2003 European heatwave). He is seen as a pioneer in establishing the scientific case for action on climate change, with his crucial attribution work providing evidence and advice to Governments and the public, supporting policy making and decisions.

Peter has played a major role in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a leading public role in rebutting climate denial and defending the integrity of climate science. Peter’s book countering the narrative of climate denial, was recently shortlisted for the Royal Society of Literature’s Christopher Bland Prize and for the 2022 Royal Society Science Book Prize. He is passionate and creative about climate science communications, working extensively in the media as well as being a mentor to encourage young scientists in their climate communications.

Stephen Belcher, Met Office Chief Scientist, said: “I can't think of anyone more deserving of an honour than Peter. By developing event attribution, he has made a substantial contribution to the scientific case that human activities are causing climate change. Many congratulations!”

Stott of the Met. Such a pioneering figure in the pseudoscience of extreme weather attribution and a veritable warrior fighting climate change deniers. Oh yes, that ‘ground-breaking’ 2003 European heatwave attribution; here’s what I had to say about it a while ago:

So 2003, according to Stott of the Met et al, was the hottest European summer since at least 1500 and by 2100, 2003 will look like a cool summer relative to the scorchers expected to be occurring regularly by then.

Well I can tell you now, 2003 was hot but summer 1947 was probably very nearly as hot and, in terms of duration, probably even more severe than 2003. I can also tell you that the summer of 1540 in Europe blew both away in terms of temperature, duration and drought. Here’s what I wrote about summer 1947 in Europe:

The heat period of 1947 can be compared with the year 2003 in terms of maximum temperatures and duration of the heatwaves. For instance, the maximum temperature anomaly, computed as departures from the 1961-1990 average, of the year 1947 amounted to 5 °C. This is only 1 °C less than for the year 2003. Another aspect is that in Basel, the threshold of 30 °C was exceeded 49 times in 1947, more often than in 2003 (41 times). 

The period of consecutive days during which the maximum temperature exceeded the 90% quantile of the summer temperature was also longer in 1947 than in 2003. During the year 1947 the longest heatwave lasted 14 days from 22 July to 4 August, whereas in 2003 only twelve consecutive heat days were recorded at the beginning of August (Z’Graggen, 2006; Beniston, 2004).

The meteorological situation during the heatwave event in 1947 analysed with the 20CR dataset shows typical features of a heatwave. The stationary high pressure system over the study region – the Central-European High – during the episode from the 22 July to 4 August 1947 is conductive for a heatwave according to Kysely and Huth (2008).

The analysis of the heatwaves in 1947 indicates that the event is comparable to 21stcentury heat periods such as the summer 2003 and that 1947 was extraordinary.

Even if the heatwave 2003 exceeded the maximum temperatures measured in 1947, in terms of the length of a heatwave and the exceedance of the 30 °C temperature threshold, the heat period 1947 was more intense.

So it’s fairly clear that:

• 1947 was comparable to 2003 and both heatwaves were caused by very similar meteorological patterns.

• 1947 maximum average temperatures were just 1C less than 2003

• In terms of duration and number of days above 30C, 1947 was more intense

Given that summers in Europe have warmed significantly since 1950, it is perhaps not surprising that the daily average maximum temperature in 2003 exceeded that in 1947, but that’s the only real difference and by all other metrics, 1947 was more intense. Not forgetting also that urbanisation has increased since 1947 and land use has changed considerably, either of which may have contributed to generally higher temperatures. So, if you’re looking for the climate change signal in the heatwave of 2003, the increase in mean maximum temperature anomaly of 1C is it. Scary (not). Climate crisis (not). But Peter Stott et al say different.

Professor John Edmunds, a member of Sage, who advocated for lockdowns according to his dodgy modelling, is also to be awarded a gong for services to epidemiological pseudoscience.

Lastly, Rabid Jabid, the man who took over from Midazolam Matt when he was caught snogging a female employee on camera, is to become a Knight of the Realm for his part in demonising those who refused forced or coerced ‘vaccination’:

Sunak looks certain to call an election in 2024 and it looks almost certain that Sir Keith Starmer and his bunch of Labour-lite eco-fascist, neo-Marxist, metropolitan luvvie elites will form a majority government - God help us. It’s difficult to believe, but they will probably be even worse than the fake Cons.

But guess what? Up pops Farage right on cue, ready to lead Reform to victory. Like he did with the Brexit Party at the last general election? Pete North sums it up on Twitter:

I keep arguing that the only way the minor opposition parties are going to present a credible opposition to the two cheeks on the arse of the Parliamentary Uniparty is to form a coalition with a clear opposition manifesto. They need to put aside their petty squabbles, their prejudices and their precious egos and decide on one calm, unflappable leader to represent them at the next election - not Farage. My personal choice would be David Kurten, but it’s not going to happen anyway - tribalism comes before country apparently, even with the smaller parties who don’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of dislodging the main parties because of the ridiculous first past the post system.

Recent polling suggests that the majority of the British public do not consider either Labour or the Tories fit to govern the country, which is good news, but who are they going to vote for instead? I have argued for years that there should be an official ‘None Of The Above’ (NOTA) option on the ballot paper, so at least voters can formally register their disillusionment with the current motley crew of politicians.