Essay by Eric Worrall
The British people have finally had enough, after attempts by the MET to link the heatwave to climate change triggered an unprecedented social media backlash.
Weather forecasters faced accusations of LYING and scaremongering during this month’s extreme heatwave as leading meteorologists condemn unprecedented levels of trolling in hundreds of abusive tweets and emails
- The Met Office’s lead meteorologist asked for ‘a bit of respect’ for his colleagues
- It comes after reports linking the heatwave to climate change riled up viewers
- Climate change made the unprecedented temperatures ‘ten times more likely’
- Online abusers even accused TV meteorologists of lying and being blackmailed
PUBLISHED: 22:20 AEST, 29 July 2022 | UPDATED: 01:18 AEST, 30 July 2022
Weather forecasters have been the target of ‘unprecedented levels of trolling’ this month, as keyboard warriors took to social media to accuse TV meteorologists of spreading hysteria during the heatwave.
The BBC‘s weather team said they were inundated with comments on social media telling them to ‘get a grip’, while others questioned the accuracy of their reports as the nation sweltered in heat that got as high as 40C.
Social media trolls seemed whipped up by reports linking the heatwave with secular trends caused by climate change, according to the Royal Meteorological Society who said their forecasters were also targeted along with forecasters from the Met Office.
According to the Met Office, climate change made the heatwave ten times more likely – although it is not possible to conclude causation definitively.
BBC meteorologist Matt Taylor said he had found the amount of online abuse levelled at him this month ‘depressing’.
He said: ‘Ít’s a more abusive tone than I’ve ever received.
‘I switched off a bit from it all as it became too depressing to read some of the responses.’
The Royal Meteorological Society also weighed in on the pushback received by their members during the heatwave.
The society’s chief executive Professor Liz Bentley said members had faced ‘public ridicule, accusations of lying or suggestions of being blackmailed’.
WUWT does not condone physical threats or violence. But I understand the anger. Britain faces a horror winter of spiralling price rises and shortages, in my opinion largely a consequence of a long term MET office and BBC climate scare campaign which undermined mainstream political support for reliable energy.
My question, what are the people hurling abuse and threats expecting to achieve?
Before I read Climategate I thought alarmists were all scientific frauds, but after I read Climategate I realised there is a range of motivations. Many if not all of them actually believe. Even when they hide declines or try to have open minded science journal editors fired, or manipulate data from New Zealand which strongly suggests the MWP was global, they think they are being the good guys. So there is no point threatening or hurling abuse. People who believe they are the good guys put up with abuse, because they believe their mission to help others is more important than their personal comfort.
So how do we fix the unaffordable green energy mess the MET and BBC have helped create?
The best course in my opinion is to find and vote for politicians whose priority is fixing today’s problems, rather than politicians whose obsession is what the weather will be like after we are all dead. Even if this means voting for minority party candidates.
Please don’t fall for the political canvasser canard that a minority candidate vote in Britain’s first past the post system is a wasted vote. Politicians watch minority votes like hawks, minority candidate support is their weather vane for what their voters really want.
So long as mainstream political canvassers can cajole you into voting mainstream, they don’t care if you have a few gripes. But a large breakout in favour of climate skeptic candidates would be a real shock to the political system.
Just look at Brexit. Nigel Farage‘s UKIP never achieved sizeable representation in Westminster Parliament. But they came close to a breakthrough. The threat of a voter support breakthrough was enough to persuade then Prime Minister David Cameron to hold the Brexit referendum, which Cameron thought would put the issue to bed. Cameron misjudged and lost.
If nobody had voted for UKIP, even though they knew their candidate was unlikely to win, in my opinion there would have been no Brexit referendum.
The same political formula could work for fixing Britain’s broken, overpriced energy system. If enough British people vote for politicians whose focus is today’s problems, even if those candidates don’t win, politicians will be panicked into responding. It will no longer matter what MET and BBC climate scaremongers believe or say, if they lose their position of influence.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” – C.S. Lewis.