From The Daily Sceptic

By Chris Morrison

The world of geography teaching in the UK is in crisis following guidance from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that a collection of assumptions used in climate computer modelling known as RCP8.5 is “implausible”. The ruling has effectively trashed the Met Office’s 2018 climate projections report (UKCP18) which only used this scenario to produce a variety of always ridiculous forecasts. To widespread mainstream media acclaim at the time, it was said that summer temperatures could rise by over 5°C in 50 years. Since 2018, UKCP18 has been embedded in UK school geography teaching as a core forecasting source. Its predictions are assessed, used for impact studies and underpin public examinations. The “implausible” ruling means that geography teaching materials particularly at A-level now require a major rewrite of core textbooks involving the removal of all the junk predictions.

Preferably by the start of the Autumn term in September.

It’s not as if teachers can argue that only the ‘high emissions’ pathway of RCP8.5 can be ignored. At the time, the Met Office only ran RCP8.5 assumptions through its super-computer, the results of which it then described as “plausible” as it promoted them in bold type. Using only RCP8.5 was justified on cost grounds since it enabled the available computer time to produce results – guesses might be a more accurate description – down to 2 kms. School resources do note that lower emissions results are available, but these were statistically derived by the Met Office from the RCP8.5 results. This means that all the Met Office projections are compromised and a thorough cleansing needs to be undertaken of all the flawed information wherever it occurs in the teaching environment.

Of course, as the Daily Sceptic has previously reported, the cleansing of UKCP18 is a major job since it has become a foundational source for much UK government and private company climate change regulation and spending. Similar cleansing also needs to take place in mainstream media, but this is a relatively easy job. Since almost every reported scare story over the last 15 years is based on RCP8.5, the climate catastrophising codswallop just needs to be taken down en masse. This will leave chastened, if wiser, journalists free to start again with a clean sheet.

Given the ubiquitous nature of UKCP18, it is curious that the Met Office has yet to comment on recent events, let alone apologise and withdraw the flawed report before it can do any more damage.

In a trawl of A-level physical geography textbook climate chapters, AI notes that statements are often made that draw on UKCP18. These include the 5°C warmer summer claim, wetter winters with 30% more rainfall and sea level rises of up to one metre by 2100 (current rise, three thousandths of a metre a year). Students are encouraged to evaluate future risks using UKCP18 projections. In many ways, UKCP18 is considered ideal because it is an official Government dataset, gives high resolution down to as little as 2 kms, and is ideal as core material for high impact and planning studies. To be fair, lower emissions scenarios are considered, but it’s unlikely that students will be informed that these are also based on RCP8.5. Even less likely will students be given the vital information that computer models assume that any future warming will be caused by humans using hydrocarbons. Guidance on trace gas influences and the distinctly unsettled science surrounding the matter is also unlikely to be available in the chemistry and physics departments.

These are not made available, of course, owing to the obvious brainwashing of children and young adults up to 18 years of age by Left-wing teachers desperate to invoke an invented climate ‘crisis’ in the interests of promoting a collectivist Net Zero fantasy.

It would be nice to think that the scenarios based on UKCP18 and RCP8.5 might be taught in UK schools as examples of what will not happen in the near future. Implausible occurrences, to coin a phrase. Fat chance probably sums up that wish. Indeed, it would appear to be very unwise for students to cast any doubt on the projections, their methodology or the science behind them in the exam room. In late 2024, the OCR (Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations) published a major curriculum and assessment review chaired by the former Labour education secretary Charles Clarke. It argued that climate change and sustainability topics must be made more explicit throughout the curriculum and within individual subjects and qualifications.

“Climate change is the biggest existential threat to the planet we face and, as such, we would expect to see a curriculum that supports young people in understanding the science behind it, the political dilemmas involved and the role they can play as citizens and as the employees and academics of the future,” it was said.

With young people facing an existential threat and the need to support – try indoctrinate – them in the political dilemmas involved (full steam ahead, Net Zero), it seems, alas, more than likely that students will continue be taught with implausible Met Office data come the new term.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.