Subject: It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting evidence.
Agenda-driven Met Office's grudging concessions to reality
Monday, 19 November 2012 9:01 am · 10 comments
by Simon
Agenda-driven
It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries
to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting
evidence. I never would have believed that such a formerly respected
institution, scientific impartiality at its core, could be so
compromised by a political agenda.
Instead of simply reporting on new developments in climate, they must
instead be spun in order to bolster the case for political action.
Such is the case today, where Peter Stott grudgingly concedes that
temperatures have fallen in the past couple of years, but surrounds it
with caveats and "yes, buts" in order to make sure The Cause™ is not
diluted (see highlights below):
THE world's climate has cooled during last year and this year,
temperature data from Britain's Met Office reveals -- just before this
year's talks on cutting global greenhouse gas emissions.
The figures show that, although global temperatures are still well
above the long-term average, they have fallen since the record seen in
2010.
The findings could prove politically sensitive, coming ahead of
the UN's climate summit in Doha, Qatar, where the global system for
regulating greenhouse gas emissions faces collapse. The threat comes
because the Kyoto Treaty, under which developed nations pledged to cut
their carbon emissions, expires at the end of this year. Doha is seen
as the last hope of securing an extension.
In such a febrile situation, any data casting doubt on climate
scientists' predictions is potentially explosive.
The World Meteorological Organisation, which oversees the
publication of climate trend data from the four main global centres,
including the British Met Office, has been strongly criticised for its
policy of releasing such data just before the UN's key annual summits.
"In the past two years we have seen a slight decline in
temperature," said Peter Stott, the Met Office's head of climate
monitoring and attribution.
"However, it is such a short period that it is scientifically
meaningless. Climate change can only be measured over decades -- and
the records show that the world has warmed by 0.75C over the past
century."
The Met Office figures show that, for the first 10 months of this
year, global temperatures averaged 14.43C; 2010 was significantly
hotter at 14.54C.
Dr Stott says the heat of 2010 was caused by an El Nino event,
where warm water currents in the Pacific released unusual amounts of
heat into the atmosphere.
"It is a natural short-term fluctuation and nothing to do with
climate change," he said.
The longer-term record shows global temperatures have hardly risen
for about 15 years. But Dr Stott said the key point was that they had
remained consistently above the long-term average. (source)
In fact, the print edition of The Australian includes a further
sentence, which reveals the Met Office's bias even more clearly:
"This is why the Arctic icecap is melting and extreme weather
events are increasing."
That could have been written by Greenpeace or the WWF. No mention of
the increasing ice in the Antarctic or the fact that no link from
"extreme weather" to climate change has been established - even by the
IPCC. The claim has no factual basis and is pure environmental
ideology.
Bjørn Lomborg has an op-ed in The Oz as well today, on mitigation vs
adaptation.
Subject: Re: It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting evidence.
> Agenda-driven Met Office's grudging concessions to reality
> Monday, 19 November 2012 9:01 am · 10 comments
> by Simon
> Agenda-driven
> It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries
> to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting
> evidence. I never would have believed that such a formerly respected
> institution, scientific impartiality at its core, could be so
> compromised by a political agenda.
> Instead of simply reporting on new developments in climate, they must
> instead be spun in order to bolster the case for political action.
> Such is the case today, where Peter Stott grudgingly concedes that
> temperatures have fallen in the past couple of years, but surrounds it
> with caveats and "yes, buts" in order to make sure The Cause™ is not
> diluted (see highlights below):
> THE world's climate has cooled during last year and this year,
> temperature data from Britain's Met Office reveals -- just before this
> year's talks on cutting global greenhouse gas emissions.
> The figures show that, although global temperatures are still well
> above the long-term average, they have fallen since the record seen in
> 2010.
> The findings could prove politically sensitive, coming ahead of
> the UN's climate summit in Doha, Qatar, where the global system for
> regulating greenhouse gas emissions faces collapse. The threat comes
> because the Kyoto Treaty, under which developed nations pledged to cut
> their carbon emissions, expires at the end of this year. Doha is seen
> as the last hope of securing an extension.
> In such a febrile situation, any data casting doubt on climate
> scientists' predictions is potentially explosive.
> The World Meteorological Organisation, which oversees the
> publication of climate trend data from the four main global centres,
> including the British Met Office, has been strongly criticised for its
> policy of releasing such data just before the UN's key annual summits.
> "In the past two years we have seen a slight decline in
> temperature," said Peter Stott, the Met Office's head of climate
> monitoring and attribution.
> "However, it is such a short period that it is scientifically
> meaningless. Climate change can only be measured over decades -- and
> the records show that the world has warmed by 0.75C over the past
> century."
> The Met Office figures show that, for the first 10 months of this
> year, global temperatures averaged 14.43C; 2010 was significantly
> hotter at 14.54C.
> Dr Stott says the heat of 2010 was caused by an El Nino event,
> where warm water currents in the Pacific released unusual amounts of
> heat into the atmosphere.
> "It is a natural short-term fluctuation and nothing to do with
> climate change," he said.
> The longer-term record shows global temperatures have hardly risen
> for about 15 years. But Dr Stott said the key point was that they had
> remained consistently above the long-term average. (source)
> In fact, the print edition of The Australian includes a further
> sentence, which reveals the Met Office's bias even more clearly:
> "This is why the Arctic icecap is melting and extreme weather
> events are increasing."
> That could have been written by Greenpeace or the WWF. No mention of
> the increasing ice in the Antarctic or the fact that no link from
> "extreme weather" to climate change has been established - even by the
> IPCC. The claim has no factual basis and is pure environmental
> ideology.
> Bjørn Lomborg has an op-ed in The Oz as well today, on mitigation vs
> adaptation.
Now we have someone called simon who's an expert. He's an Australian with a blog, but no climate qualifications, who is commenting to a Canadian without a brain about the UK MetO. Neither of them know anything about the UK MetO and its work. The Canadian likes what the Australian has said. Neither like the UK MetO as it doesn't say what they want it to about climate change. The Canadian without a brain will now express hurt that I've not commented on the Australian with a blog's comments.
Is there any wonder?? Where's the science, stupid denier?
Subject: Re: It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting evidence.
> > Agenda-driven Met Office's grudging concessions to reality
> > Monday, 19 November 2012 9:01 am · 10 comments
> > by Simon
> > Agenda-driven
> > It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries
> > to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting
> > evidence. I never would have believed that such a formerly respected
> > institution, scientific impartiality at its core, could be so
> > compromised by a political agenda.
> > Instead of simply reporting on new developments in climate, they must
> > instead be spun in order to bolster the case for political action.
> > Such is the case today, where Peter Stott grudgingly concedes that
> > temperatures have fallen in the past couple of years, but surrounds it
> > with caveats and "yes, buts" in order to make sure The Cause™ is not
> > diluted (see highlights below):
> > THE world's climate has cooled during last year and this year,
> > temperature data from Britain's Met Office reveals -- just before this
> > year's talks on cutting global greenhouse gas emissions.
> > The figures show that, although global temperatures are still well
> > above the long-term average, they have fallen since the record seen in
> > 2010.
> > The findings could prove politically sensitive, coming ahead of
> > the UN's climate summit in Doha, Qatar, where the global system for
> > regulating greenhouse gas emissions faces collapse. The threat comes
> > because the Kyoto Treaty, under which developed nations pledged to cut
> > their carbon emissions, expires at the end of this year. Doha is seen
> > as the last hope of securing an extension.
> > In such a febrile situation, any data casting doubt on climate
> > scientists' predictions is potentially explosive.
> > The World Meteorological Organisation, which oversees the
> > publication of climate trend data from the four main global centres,
> > including the British Met Office, has been strongly criticised for its
> > policy of releasing such data just before the UN's key annual summits.
> > "In the past two years we have seen a slight decline in
> > temperature," said Peter Stott, the Met Office's head of climate
> > monitoring and attribution.
> > "However, it is such a short period that it is scientifically
> > meaningless. Climate change can only be measured over decades -- and
> > the records show that the world has warmed by 0.75C over the past
> > century."
> > The Met Office figures show that, for the first 10 months of this
> > year, global temperatures averaged 14.43C; 2010 was significantly
> > hotter at 14.54C.
> > Dr Stott says the heat of 2010 was caused by an El Nino event,
> > where warm water currents in the Pacific released unusual amounts of
> > heat into the atmosphere.
> > "It is a natural short-term fluctuation and nothing to do with
> > climate change," he said.
> > The longer-term record shows global temperatures have hardly risen
> > for about 15 years. But Dr Stott said the key point was that they had
> > remained consistently above the long-term average. (source)
> > In fact, the print edition of The Australian includes a further
> > sentence, which reveals the Met Office's bias even more clearly:
> > "This is why the Arctic icecap is melting and extreme weather
> > events are increasing."
> > That could have been written by Greenpeace or the WWF. No mention of
> > the increasing ice in the Antarctic or the fact that no link from
> > "extreme weather" to climate change has been established - even by the
> > IPCC. The claim has no factual basis and is pure environmental
> > ideology.
> > Bjørn Lomborg has an op-ed in The Oz as well today, on mitigation vs
> > adaptation.
> Now we have someone called simon who's an expert. He's an Australian with a blog, but no climate qualifications, who is commenting to a Canadian without a brain about the UK MetO. Neither of them know anything about the UK MetO and its work. The Canadian likes what the Australian has said. Neither like the UK MetO as it doesn't say what they want it to about climate change. The Canadian without a brain will now express hurt that I've not commented on the Australian with a blog's comments.
> Is there any wonder?? Where's the science, stupid denier?
Whereas a UK ex Geography teacher with nothing to say about climate is
worth what?
Subject: Re: It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting evidence.
> > Agenda-driven Met Office's grudging concessions to reality
> > Monday, 19 November 2012 9:01 am · 10 comments
> > by Simon
> > Agenda-driven
> > It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries
> > to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting
> > evidence. I never would have believed that such a formerly respected
> > institution, scientific impartiality at its core, could be so
> > compromised by a political agenda.
> > Instead of simply reporting on new developments in climate, they must
> > instead be spun in order to bolster the case for political action.
> > Such is the case today, where Peter Stott grudgingly concedes that
> > temperatures have fallen in the past couple of years, but surrounds it
> > with caveats and "yes, buts" in order to make sure The Cause™ is not
> > diluted (see highlights below):
> > THE world's climate has cooled during last year and this year,
> > temperature data from Britain's Met Office reveals -- just before this
> > year's talks on cutting global greenhouse gas emissions.
> > The figures show that, although global temperatures are still well
> > above the long-term average, they have fallen since the record seen in
> > 2010.
> > The findings could prove politically sensitive, coming ahead of
> > the UN's climate summit in Doha, Qatar, where the global system for
> > regulating greenhouse gas emissions faces collapse. The threat comes
> > because the Kyoto Treaty, under which developed nations pledged to cut
> > their carbon emissions, expires at the end of this year. Doha is seen
> > as the last hope of securing an extension.
> > In such a febrile situation, any data casting doubt on climate
> > scientists' predictions is potentially explosive.
> > The World Meteorological Organisation, which oversees the
> > publication of climate trend data from the four main global centres,
> > including the British Met Office, has been strongly criticised for its
> > policy of releasing such data just before the UN's key annual summits.
> > "In the past two years we have seen a slight decline in
> > temperature," said Peter Stott, the Met Office's head of climate
> > monitoring and attribution.
> > "However, it is such a short period that it is scientifically
> > meaningless. Climate change can only be measured over decades -- and
> > the records show that the world has warmed by 0.75C over the past
> > century."
> > The Met Office figures show that, for the first 10 months of this
> > year, global temperatures averaged 14.43C; 2010 was significantly
> > hotter at 14.54C.
> > Dr Stott says the heat of 2010 was caused by an El Nino event,
> > where warm water currents in the Pacific released unusual amounts of
> > heat into the atmosphere.
> > "It is a natural short-term fluctuation and nothing to do with
> > climate change," he said.
> > The longer-term record shows global temperatures have hardly risen
> > for about 15 years. But Dr Stott said the key point was that they had
> > remained consistently above the long-term average. (source)
> > In fact, the print edition of The Australian includes a further
> > sentence, which reveals the Met Office's bias even more clearly:
> > "This is why the Arctic icecap is melting and extreme weather
> > events are increasing."
> > That could have been written by Greenpeace or the WWF. No mention of
> > the increasing ice in the Antarctic or the fact that no link from
> > "extreme weather" to climate change has been established - even by the
> > IPCC. The claim has no factual basis and is pure environmental
> > ideology.
> > Bjørn Lomborg has an op-ed in The Oz as well today, on mitigation vs
> > adaptation.
> Now we have someone called simon who's an expert. He's an Australian with a blog, but no climate qualifications, who is commenting to a Canadian without a brain about the UK MetO. Neither of them know anything about the UK MetO and its work. The Canadian likes what the Australian has said. Neither like the UK MetO as it doesn't say what they want it to about climate change. The Canadian without a brain will now express hurt that I've not commented on the Australian with a blog's comments.
> Is there any wonder?? Where's the science, stupid denier?
Attack the blogger while ignoring the point of the OP.
Subject: Re: It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting evidence.
> > > Agenda-driven Met Office's grudging concessions to reality
> > > Monday, 19 November 2012 9:01 am · 10 comments
> > > by Simon
> > > Agenda-driven
> > > It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries
> > > to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting
> > > evidence. I never would have believed that such a formerly respected
> > > institution, scientific impartiality at its core, could be so
> > > compromised by a political agenda.
> > > Instead of simply reporting on new developments in climate, they must
> > > instead be spun in order to bolster the case for political action.
> > > Such is the case today, where Peter Stott grudgingly concedes that
> > > temperatures have fallen in the past couple of years, but surrounds it
> > > with caveats and "yes, buts" in order to make sure The Cause™ is not
> > > diluted (see highlights below):
> > > THE world's climate has cooled during last year and this year,
> > > temperature data from Britain's Met Office reveals -- just before this
> > > year's talks on cutting global greenhouse gas emissions.
> > > The figures show that, although global temperatures are still well
> > > above the long-term average, they have fallen since the record seen in
> > > 2010.
> > > The findings could prove politically sensitive, coming ahead of
> > > the UN's climate summit in Doha, Qatar, where the global system for
> > > regulating greenhouse gas emissions faces collapse. The threat comes
> > > because the Kyoto Treaty, under which developed nations pledged to cut
> > > their carbon emissions, expires at the end of this year. Doha is seen
> > > as the last hope of securing an extension.
> > > In such a febrile situation, any data casting doubt on climate
> > > scientists' predictions is potentially explosive.
> > > The World Meteorological Organisation, which oversees the
> > > publication of climate trend data from the four main global centres,
> > > including the British Met Office, has been strongly criticised for its
> > > policy of releasing such data just before the UN's key annual summits.
> > > "In the past two years we have seen a slight decline in
> > > temperature," said Peter Stott, the Met Office's head of climate
> > > monitoring and attribution.
> > > "However, it is such a short period that it is scientifically
> > > meaningless. Climate change can only be measured over decades -- and
> > > the records show that the world has warmed by 0.75C over the past
> > > century."
> > > The Met Office figures show that, for the first 10 months of this
> > > year, global temperatures averaged 14.43C; 2010 was significantly
> > > hotter at 14.54C.
> > > Dr Stott says the heat of 2010 was caused by an El Nino event,
> > > where warm water currents in the Pacific released unusual amounts of
> > > heat into the atmosphere.
> > > "It is a natural short-term fluctuation and nothing to do with
> > > climate change," he said.
> > > The longer-term record shows global temperatures have hardly risen
> > > for about 15 years. But Dr Stott said the key point was that they had
> > > remained consistently above the long-term average. (source)
> > > In fact, the print edition of The Australian includes a further
> > > sentence, which reveals the Met Office's bias even more clearly:
> > > "This is why the Arctic icecap is melting and extreme weather
> > > events are increasing."
> > > That could have been written by Greenpeace or the WWF. No mention of
> > > the increasing ice in the Antarctic or the fact that no link from
> > > "extreme weather" to climate change has been established - even by the
> > > IPCC. The claim has no factual basis and is pure environmental
> > > ideology.
> > > Bjørn Lomborg has an op-ed in The Oz as well today, on mitigation vs
> > > adaptation.
> > Now we have someone called simon who's an expert. He's an Australian with a blog, but no climate qualifications, who is commenting to a Canadian without a brain about the UK MetO. Neither of them know anything about the UK MetO and its work. The Canadian likes what the Australian has said. Neither like the UK MetO as it doesn't say what they want it to about climate change. The Canadian without a brain will now express hurt that I've not commented on the Australian with a blog's comments.
> > Is there any wonder?? Where's the science, stupid denier?
> Attack the blogger while ignoring the point of the OP.
See? You've missed the point again, haven't you tundy? That's because you are stupid. Nobody cares what your blogger says, except another denier and no-one with a brain would ever take the trouble to refute anything a denier says, as none of you are worth it.
Where's the *science* tundy? It's just denier blog after denier blog after denier blog from you people. go on; try to tell us his opinion about the UKMO counts for *anything*.
Subject: Re: It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting evidence.
> > > > Agenda-driven Met Office's grudging concessions to reality
> > > > Monday, 19 November 2012 9:01 am · 10 comments
> > > > by Simon
> > > > Agenda-driven
> > > > It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries
> > > > to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting
> > > > evidence. I never would have believed that such a formerly respected
> > > > institution, scientific impartiality at its core, could be so
> > > > compromised by a political agenda.
> > > > Instead of simply reporting on new developments in climate, they must
> > > > instead be spun in order to bolster the case for political action.
> > > > Such is the case today, where Peter Stott grudgingly concedes that
> > > > temperatures have fallen in the past couple of years, but surrounds it
> > > > with caveats and "yes, buts" in order to make sure The Cause™ is not
> > > > diluted (see highlights below):
> > > > THE world's climate has cooled during last year and this year,
> > > > temperature data from Britain's Met Office reveals -- just before this
> > > > year's talks on cutting global greenhouse gas emissions.
> > > > The figures show that, although global temperatures are still well
> > > > above the long-term average, they have fallen since the record seen in
> > > > 2010.
> > > > The findings could prove politically sensitive, coming ahead of
> > > > the UN's climate summit in Doha, Qatar, where the global system for
> > > > regulating greenhouse gas emissions faces collapse. The threat comes
> > > > because the Kyoto Treaty, under which developed nations pledged to cut
> > > > their carbon emissions, expires at the end of this year. Doha is seen
> > > > as the last hope of securing an extension.
> > > > In such a febrile situation, any data casting doubt on climate
> > > > scientists' predictions is potentially explosive.
> > > > The World Meteorological Organisation, which oversees the
> > > > publication of climate trend data from the four main global centres,
> > > > including the British Met Office, has been strongly criticised for its
> > > > policy of releasing such data just before the UN's key annual summits.
> > > > "In the past two years we have seen a slight decline in
> > > > temperature," said Peter Stott, the Met Office's head of climate
> > > > monitoring and attribution.
> > > > "However, it is such a short period that it is scientifically
> > > > meaningless. Climate change can only be measured over decades -- and
> > > > the records show that the world has warmed by 0.75C over the past
> > > > century."
> > > > The Met Office figures show that, for the first 10 months of this
> > > > year, global temperatures averaged 14.43C; 2010 was significantly
> > > > hotter at 14.54C.
> > > > Dr Stott says the heat of 2010 was caused by an El Nino event,
> > > > where warm water currents in the Pacific released unusual amounts of
> > > > heat into the atmosphere.
> > > > "It is a natural short-term fluctuation and nothing to do with
> > > > climate change," he said.
> > > > The longer-term record shows global temperatures have hardly risen
> > > > for about 15 years. But Dr Stott said the key point was that they had
> > > > remained consistently above the long-term average. (source)
> > > > In fact, the print edition of The Australian includes a further
> > > > sentence, which reveals the Met Office's bias even more clearly:
> > > > "This is why the Arctic icecap is melting and extreme weather
> > > > events are increasing."
> > > > That could have been written by Greenpeace or the WWF. No mention of
> > > > the increasing ice in the Antarctic or the fact that no link from
> > > > "extreme weather" to climate change has been established - even by the
> > > > IPCC. The claim has no factual basis and is pure environmental
> > > > ideology.
> > > > Bjørn Lomborg has an op-ed in The Oz as well today, on mitigation vs
> > > > adaptation.
> > > Now we have someone called simon who's an expert. He's an Australian with a blog, but no climate qualifications, who is commenting to a Canadian without a brain about the UK MetO. Neither of them know anything about the UK MetO and its work. The Canadian likes what the Australian has said. Neither like the UK MetO as it doesn't say what they want it to about climate change. The Canadian without a brain will now express hurt that I've not commented on the Australian with a blog's comments.
> > > Is there any wonder?? Where's the science, stupid denier?
> > Attack the blogger while ignoring the point of the OP.
> See? You've missed the point again, haven't you tundy? That's because you are stupid. Nobody cares what your blogger says, except another denier and no-one with a brain would ever take the trouble to refute anything a denier says, as none of you are worth it.
> Where's the *science* tundy? It's just denier blog after denier blog after denier blog from you people. go on; try to tell us his opinion about the UKMO counts for *anything*.
The point is that there was a post posted. You choose to ignore the
post and attack the writer of the blog that was mentioned in the OP.
You don't get the point, you do not address the point and you expect
us to go along with your evasion and comment on you irrelevant
comment.
Subject: Re: It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting evidence.
>> > Agenda-driven Met Office's grudging concessions to reality
>> > Monday, 19 November 2012 9:01 am 10 comments
>> > by Simon
>> > Agenda-driven
>> > It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries
>> > to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting
>> > evidence. I never would have believed that such a formerly respected
>> > institution, scientific impartiality at its core, could be so
>> > compromised by a political agenda.
>> > Instead of simply reporting on new developments in climate, they must
>> > instead be spun in order to bolster the case for political action.
>> > Such is the case today, where Peter Stott grudgingly concedes that
>> > temperatures have fallen in the past couple of years, but surrounds it
>> > with caveats and "yes, buts" in order to make sure The Cause is not
>> > diluted (see highlights below):
>> > THE world's climate has cooled during last year and this year,
>> > temperature data from Britain's Met Office reveals -- just before this
>> > year's talks on cutting global greenhouse gas emissions.
>> > The figures show that, although global temperatures are still well
>> > above the long-term average, they have fallen since the record seen in
>> > 2010.
>> > The findings could prove politically sensitive, coming ahead of
>> > the UN's climate summit in Doha, Qatar, where the global system for
>> > regulating greenhouse gas emissions faces collapse. The threat comes
>> > because the Kyoto Treaty, under which developed nations pledged to cut
>> > their carbon emissions, expires at the end of this year. Doha is seen
>> > as the last hope of securing an extension.
>> > In such a febrile situation, any data casting doubt on climate
>> > scientists' predictions is potentially explosive.
>> > The World Meteorological Organisation, which oversees the
>> > publication of climate trend data from the four main global centres,
>> > including the British Met Office, has been strongly criticised for its
>> > policy of releasing such data just before the UN's key annual summits.
>> > "In the past two years we have seen a slight decline in
>> > temperature," said Peter Stott, the Met Office's head of climate
>> > monitoring and attribution.
>> > "However, it is such a short period that it is scientifically
>> > meaningless. Climate change can only be measured over decades -- and
>> > the records show that the world has warmed by 0.75C over the past
>> > century."
>> > The Met Office figures show that, for the first 10 months of this
>> > year, global temperatures averaged 14.43C; 2010 was significantly
>> > hotter at 14.54C.
>> > Dr Stott says the heat of 2010 was caused by an El Nino event,
>> > where warm water currents in the Pacific released unusual amounts of
>> > heat into the atmosphere.
>> > "It is a natural short-term fluctuation and nothing to do with
>> > climate change," he said.
>> > The longer-term record shows global temperatures have hardly risen
>> > for about 15 years. But Dr Stott said the key point was that they had
>> > remained consistently above the long-term average. (source)
>> > In fact, the print edition of The Australian includes a further
>> > sentence, which reveals the Met Office's bias even more clearly:
>> > "This is why the Arctic icecap is melting and extreme weather
>> > events are increasing."
>> > That could have been written by Greenpeace or the WWF. No mention of
>> > the increasing ice in the Antarctic or the fact that no link from
>> > "extreme weather" to climate change has been established - even by the
>> > IPCC. The claim has no factual basis and is pure environmental
>> > ideology.
>> > Bj rn Lomborg has an op-ed in The Oz as well today, on mitigation vs
>> > adaptation.
>> Now we have someone called simon who's an expert. He's an Australian with a blog, but no climate qualifications, who is commenting to a Canadian without a brain about the UK MetO. Neither of them know anything about the UK MetO and its work. The Canadian likes what the Australian has said. Neither like the UK MetO as it doesn't say what they want it to about climate change. The Canadian without a brain will now express hurt that I've not commented on the Australian with a blog's comments.
>> Is there any wonder?? Where's the science, stupid denier?
>Attack the blogger while ignoring the point of the OP.
THAT is what happens when one hasn't got a PhD in climateology and is
out of ones depth expertise wise. Poor old Dawshit!
Subject: Re: It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting evidence.
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:47:10 -0800 (PST), Tunderbar
<tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries
> to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting
> evidence.
If they ever do that, be sure to tell someone, m'kay?
-- "Whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded
or revised." -- Dr. Carl Sagan
Subject: Re: It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting evidence.
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:54:57 -0800 (PST), Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Now we have someone called simon who's an expert. He's an Australian
> with a blog, but no climate qualifications, who is commenting to a
> Canadian without a brain about the UK MetO. Neither of them know
> anything about the UK MetO and its work. The Canadian likes what
> the Australian has said. Neither like the UK MetO as it doesn't
> say what they want it to about climate change. The Canadian without
> a brain will now express hurt that I've not commented on the
> Australian with a blog's comments.
Yes, but it was entertaining, yes?
> Is there any wonder?? Where's the science, stupid denier?
Heh. Good luck with that.
-- "Whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded
or revised." -- Dr. Carl Sagan
Subject: Re: It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting evidence.
> > > > > Agenda-driven Met Office's grudging concessions to reality
> > > > > Monday, 19 November 2012 9:01 am · 10 comments
> > > > > by Simon
> > > > > Agenda-driven
> > > > > It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries
> > > > > to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting
> > > > > evidence. I never would have believed that such a formerly respected
> > > > > institution, scientific impartiality at its core, could be so
> > > > > compromised by a political agenda.
> > > > > Instead of simply reporting on new developments in climate, they must
> > > > > instead be spun in order to bolster the case for political action.
> > > > > Such is the case today, where Peter Stott grudgingly concedes that
> > > > > temperatures have fallen in the past couple of years, but surrounds it
> > > > > with caveats and "yes, buts" in order to make sure The Cause™ is not
> > > > > diluted (see highlights below):
> > > > > THE world's climate has cooled during last year and this year,
> > > > > temperature data from Britain's Met Office reveals -- just before this
> > > > > year's talks on cutting global greenhouse gas emissions.
> > > > > The figures show that, although global temperatures are still well
> > > > > above the long-term average, they have fallen since the record seen in
> > > > > 2010.
> > > > > The findings could prove politically sensitive, coming ahead of
> > > > > the UN's climate summit in Doha, Qatar, where the global system for
> > > > > regulating greenhouse gas emissions faces collapse. The threat comes
> > > > > because the Kyoto Treaty, under which developed nations pledged to cut
> > > > > their carbon emissions, expires at the end of this year. Doha is seen
> > > > > as the last hope of securing an extension.
> > > > > In such a febrile situation, any data casting doubt on climate
> > > > > scientists' predictions is potentially explosive.
> > > > > The World Meteorological Organisation, which oversees the
> > > > > publication of climate trend data from the four main global centres,
> > > > > including the British Met Office, has been strongly criticised for its
> > > > > policy of releasing such data just before the UN's key annual summits.
> > > > > "In the past two years we have seen a slight decline in
> > > > > temperature," said Peter Stott, the Met Office's head of climate
> > > > > monitoring and attribution.
> > > > > "However, it is such a short period that it is scientifically
> > > > > meaningless. Climate change can only be measured over decades -- and
> > > > > the records show that the world has warmed by 0.75C over the past
> > > > > century."
> > > > > The Met Office figures show that, for the first 10 months of this
> > > > > year, global temperatures averaged 14.43C; 2010 was significantly
> > > > > hotter at 14.54C.
> > > > > Dr Stott says the heat of 2010 was caused by an El Nino event,
> > > > > where warm water currents in the Pacific released unusual amounts of
> > > > > heat into the atmosphere.
> > > > > "It is a natural short-term fluctuation and nothing to do with
> > > > > climate change," he said.
> > > > > The longer-term record shows global temperatures have hardly risen
> > > > > for about 15 years. But Dr Stott said the key point was that they had
> > > > > remained consistently above the long-term average. (source)
> > > > > In fact, the print edition of The Australian includes a further
> > > > > sentence, which reveals the Met Office's bias even more clearly:
> > > > > "This is why the Arctic icecap is melting and extreme weather
> > > > > events are increasing."
> > > > > That could have been written by Greenpeace or the WWF. No mention of
> > > > > the increasing ice in the Antarctic or the fact that no link from
> > > > > "extreme weather" to climate change has been established - even by the
> > > > > IPCC. The claim has no factual basis and is pure environmental
> > > > > ideology.
> > > > > Bjørn Lomborg has an op-ed in The Oz as well today, on mitigation vs
> > > > > adaptation.
> > > > Now we have someone called simon who's an expert. He's an Australian with a blog, but no climate qualifications, who is commenting to a Canadian without a brain about the UK MetO. Neither of them know anything about the UK MetO and its work. The Canadian likes what the Australian has said. Neither like the UK MetO as it doesn't say what they want it to about climate change. The Canadian without a brain will now express hurt that I've not commented on the Australian with a blog's comments.
> > > > Is there any wonder?? Where's the science, stupid denier?
> > > Attack the blogger while ignoring the point of the OP.
> > See? You've missed the point again, haven't you tundy? That's because you are stupid. Nobody cares what your blogger says, except another denier and no-one with a brain would ever take the trouble to refute anything a denier says, as none of you are worth it.
> > Where's the *science* tundy? It's just denier blog after denier blog after denier blog from you people. go on; try to tell us his opinion about the UKMO counts for *anything*.
> The point is that there was a post posted. You choose to ignore the
> post and attack the writer of the blog that was mentioned in the OP.
> You don't get the point, you do not address the point and you expect
> us to go along with your evasion and comment on you irrelevant
> comment.
> Address the OP or STFU.
What I did tundy is that criticised you and yours for constantly going to blogs and then bleating that no-one is listening to you, or willing to discuss the crap that you copy to here.
Find some *science* and someone might talk to you. Quote blog opinion from unpublished and ignorant posters who know sod-all about the UKMO and no-one will and nor should they.
Subject: Re: It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting evidence.
> Agenda-driven Met Office's grudging concessions to reality
> Monday, 19 November 2012 9:01 am 10 comments
> by Simon
> Agenda-driven
> It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries
> to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting
> evidence. I never would have believed that such a formerly respected
> institution, scientific impartiality at its core, could be so
> compromised by a political agenda.
> Instead of simply reporting on new developments in climate, they must
> instead be spun in order to bolster the case for political action.
> Such is the case today, where Peter Stott grudgingly concedes that
> temperatures have fallen in the past couple of years, but surrounds it
> with caveats and "yes, buts" in order to make sure The Cause is not
> diluted (see highlights below):
> THE world's climate has cooled during last year and this year,
> temperature data from Britain's Met Office reveals -- just before this
> year's talks on cutting global greenhouse gas emissions.
> The figures show that, although global temperatures are still well
> above the long-term average, they have fallen since the record seen in
> 2010.
> The findings could prove politically sensitive, coming ahead of
> the UN's climate summit in Doha, Qatar, where the global system for
> regulating greenhouse gas emissions faces collapse. The threat comes
> because the Kyoto Treaty, under which developed nations pledged to cut
> their carbon emissions, expires at the end of this year. Doha is seen
> as the last hope of securing an extension.
> In such a febrile situation, any data casting doubt on climate
> scientists' predictions is potentially explosive.
> The World Meteorological Organisation, which oversees the
> publication of climate trend data from the four main global centres,
> including the British Met Office, has been strongly criticised for its
> policy of releasing such data just before the UN's key annual summits.
> "In the past two years we have seen a slight decline in
> temperature," said Peter Stott, the Met Office's head of climate
> monitoring and attribution.
> "However, it is such a short period that it is scientifically
> meaningless. Climate change can only be measured over decades -- and
> the records show that the world has warmed by 0.75C over the past
> century."
> The Met Office figures show that, for the first 10 months of this
> year, global temperatures averaged 14.43C; 2010 was significantly
> hotter at 14.54C.
> Dr Stott says the heat of 2010 was caused by an El Nino event,
> where warm water currents in the Pacific released unusual amounts of
> heat into the atmosphere.
> "It is a natural short-term fluctuation and nothing to do with
> climate change," he said.
> The longer-term record shows global temperatures have hardly risen
> for about 15 years. But Dr Stott said the key point was that they had
> remained consistently above the long-term average. (source)
> In fact, the print edition of The Australian includes a further
> sentence, which reveals the Met Office's bias even more clearly:
> "This is why the Arctic icecap is melting and extreme weather
> events are increasing."
> That could have been written by Greenpeace or the WWF. No mention of
> the increasing ice in the Antarctic or the fact that no link from
> "extreme weather" to climate change has been established - even by the
> IPCC. The claim has no factual basis and is pure environmental
> ideology.
> Bj rn Lomborg has an op-ed in The Oz as well today, on mitigation vs
> adaptation.
Forget the drivel from the blogger and look at the quotes he attributes
to the Met-Office; assuming they are correct.
"In the past two years we have seen a slight decline in
temperature," said Peter Stott, the Met Office's head of climate
monitoring and attribution."
That seems fine to me. What's your problem?
"However, it is such a short period that it is scientifically
meaningless. Climate change can only be measured over decades -- and
the records show that the world has warmed by 0.75C over the past
century."
OK by me. What's your problem?
"It is a natural short-term fluctuation and nothing to do with
climate change."
What's wrong with that. Have you seen the temperature graph for the last
100 years. Is it monotonic-increasing? If not why not?
"This is why the Arctic icecap is melting and extreme weather
events are increasing."
That is the accepted understanding of climate scientists. What's your
problem?
Subject: Re: It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting evidence.
> > > > > > The World Meteorological Organisation, which oversees the
> > > > > > publication of climate trend data from the four main global centres,
> > > > > > including the British Met Office, has been strongly criticised for its
> > > > > > policy of releasing such data just before the UN's key annual summits.
> > > > > > "In the past two years we have seen a slight decline in
> > > > > > temperature," said Peter Stott, the Met Office's head of climate
> > > > > > monitoring and attribution.
> > > > > > "However, it is such a short period that it is scientifically
> > > > > > meaningless. Climate change can only be measured over decades -- and
> > > > > > the records show that the world has warmed by 0.75C over the past
> > > > > > century."
> > > > > > The Met Office figures show that, for the first 10 months of this
> > > > > > year, global temperatures averaged 14.43C; 2010 was significantly
> > > > > > hotter at 14.54C.
> > > > > > Dr Stott says the heat of 2010 was caused by an El Nino event,
> > > > > > where warm water currents in the Pacific released unusual amounts of
> > > > > > heat into the atmosphere.
> > > > > > "It is a natural short-term fluctuation and nothing to do with
> > > > > > climate change," he said.
> > > > > > The longer-term record shows global temperatures have hardly risen
> > > > > > for about 15 years. But Dr Stott said the key point was that they had
> > > > > > remained consistently above the long-term average. (source)
> > > > > > In fact, the print edition of The Australian includes a further
> > > > > > sentence, which reveals the Met Office's bias even more clearly:
> > > > > > "This is why the Arctic icecap is melting and extreme weather
> > > > > > events are increasing."
> > > > > > That could have been written by Greenpeace or the WWF. No mention of
> > > > > > the increasing ice in the Antarctic or the fact that no link from
> > > > > > "extreme weather" to climate change has been established - even by the
> > > > > > IPCC. The claim has no factual basis and is pure environmental
> > > > > > ideology.
> > > > > > Bjørn Lomborg has an op-ed in The Oz as well today, on mitigation vs
> > > > > > adaptation.
> > > > > Now we have someone called simon who's an expert. He's an Australian with a blog, but no climate qualifications, who is commenting to a Canadian without a brain about the UK MetO. Neither of them know anything about the UK MetO and its work. The Canadian likes what the Australian has said. Neither like the UK MetO as it doesn't say what they want it to about climate change. The Canadian without a brain will now express hurt that I've not commented on the Australian with a blog's comments.
> > > > > Is there any wonder?? Where's the science, stupid denier?
> > > > Attack the blogger while ignoring the point of the OP.
> > > See? You've missed the point again, haven't you tundy? That's because you are stupid. Nobody cares what your blogger says, except another denier and no-one with a brain would ever take the trouble to refute anything a denier says, as none of you are worth it.
> > > Where's the *science* tundy? It's just denier blog after denier blog after denier blog from you people. go on; try to tell us his opinion about the UKMO counts for *anything*.
> > The point is that there was a post posted. You choose to ignore the
> > post and attack the writer of the blog that was mentioned in the OP.
> > You don't get the point, you do not address the point and you expect
> > us to go along with your evasion and comment on you irrelevant
> > comment.
> > Address the OP or STFU.
> What I did tundy is that criticised you and yours for constantly going to blogs and then bleating that no-one is listening to you, or willing to discuss the crap that you copy to here.
> Find some *science* and someone might talk to you. Quote blog opinion from unpublished and ignorant posters who know sod-all about the UKMO and no-one will and nor should they.
> Geddit now? Now go find some science.
i get it. You have no science so you try to get away with ad hominem
and red herrings.
Subject: Re: It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting evidence.
> > > > > > > The World Meteorological Organisation, which oversees the
> > > > > > > publication of climate trend data from the four main global centres,
> > > > > > > including the British Met Office, has been strongly criticised for its
> > > > > > > policy of releasing such data just before the UN's key annual summits.
> > > > > > > "In the past two years we have seen a slight decline in
> > > > > > > temperature," said Peter Stott, the Met Office's head of climate
> > > > > > > monitoring and attribution.
> > > > > > > "However, it is such a short period that it is scientifically
> > > > > > > meaningless. Climate change can only be measured over decades -- and
> > > > > > > the records show that the world has warmed by 0.75C over the past
> > > > > > > century."
> > > > > > > The Met Office figures show that, for the first 10 months of this
> > > > > > > year, global temperatures averaged 14.43C; 2010 was significantly
> > > > > > > hotter at 14.54C.
> > > > > > > Dr Stott says the heat of 2010 was caused by an El Nino event,
> > > > > > > where warm water currents in the Pacific released unusual amounts of
> > > > > > > heat into the atmosphere.
> > > > > > > "It is a natural short-term fluctuation and nothing to do with
> > > > > > > climate change," he said.
> > > > > > > The longer-term record shows global temperatures have hardly risen
> > > > > > > for about 15 years. But Dr Stott said the key point was that they had
> > > > > > > remained consistently above the long-term average. (source)
> > > > > > > In fact, the print edition of The Australian includes a further
> > > > > > > sentence, which reveals the Met Office's bias even more clearly:
> > > > > > > "This is why the Arctic icecap is melting and extreme weather
> > > > > > > events are increasing."
> > > > > > > That could have been written by Greenpeace or the WWF. No mention of
> > > > > > > the increasing ice in the Antarctic or the fact that no link from
> > > > > > > "extreme weather" to climate change has been established - even by the
> > > > > > > IPCC. The claim has no factual basis and is pure environmental
> > > > > > > ideology.
> > > > > > > Bjørn Lomborg has an op-ed in The Oz as well today, on mitigation vs
> > > > > > > adaptation.
> > > > > > Now we have someone called simon who's an expert. He's an Australian with a blog, but no climate qualifications, who is commenting to a Canadian without a brain about the UK MetO. Neither of them know anything about the UK MetO and its work. The Canadian likes what the Australian has said. Neither like the UK MetO as it doesn't say what they want it to about climate change. The Canadian without a brain will now express hurt that I've not commented on the Australian with a blog's comments.
> > > > > > Is there any wonder?? Where's the science, stupid denier?
> > > > > Attack the blogger while ignoring the point of the OP.
> > > > See? You've missed the point again, haven't you tundy? That's because you are stupid. Nobody cares what your blogger says, except another denier and no-one with a brain would ever take the trouble to refute anything a denier says, as none of you are worth it.
> > > > Where's the *science* tundy? It's just denier blog after denier blog after denier blog from you people. go on; try to tell us his opinion about the UKMO counts for *anything*.
> > > The point is that there was a post posted. You choose to ignore the
> > > post and attack the writer of the blog that was mentioned in the OP.
> > > You don't get the point, you do not address the point and you expect
> > > us to go along with your evasion and comment on you irrelevant
> > > comment.
> > > Address the OP or STFU.
> > What I did tundy is that criticised you and yours for constantly going to blogs and then bleating that no-one is listening to you, or willing to discuss the crap that you copy to here.
> > Find some *science* and someone might talk to you. Quote blog opinion from unpublished and ignorant posters who know sod-all about the UKMO and no-one will and nor should they.
> > Geddit now? Now go find some science.
> i get it. You have no science so you try to get away with ad hominem
> and red herrings.
Your response to producing no science and instead sending us to an Australian denialist nobody with a opinion is to say that there is no science on the side of mainstream science?
No-one is commenting upon his blog because he is a denialist nobody. Why don't you understand that?
You do realise why everyone thinks you are a nutbar, don't you, tundy? <laughing>
Subject: Re: It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting evidence.
> > > > > > > > The World Meteorological Organisation, which oversees the
> > > > > > > > publication of climate trend data from the four main global centres,
> > > > > > > > including the British Met Office, has been strongly criticised for its
> > > > > > > > policy of releasing such data just before the UN's key annual summits.
> > > > > > > > "In the past two years we have seen a slight decline in
> > > > > > > > temperature," said Peter Stott, the Met Office's head of climate
> > > > > > > > monitoring and attribution.
> > > > > > > > "However, it is such a short period that it is scientifically
> > > > > > > > meaningless. Climate change can only be measured over decades -- and
> > > > > > > > the records show that the world has warmed by 0.75C over the past
> > > > > > > > century."
> > > > > > > > The Met Office figures show that, for the first 10 months of this
> > > > > > > > year, global temperatures averaged 14.43C; 2010 was significantly
> > > > > > > > hotter at 14.54C.
> > > > > > > > Dr Stott says the heat of 2010 was caused by an El Nino event,
> > > > > > > > where warm water currents in the Pacific released unusual amounts of
> > > > > > > > heat into the atmosphere.
> > > > > > > > "It is a natural short-term fluctuation and nothing to do with
> > > > > > > > climate change," he said.
> > > > > > > > The longer-term record shows global temperatures have hardly risen
> > > > > > > > for about 15 years. But Dr Stott said the key point was that they had
> > > > > > > > remained consistently above the long-term average. (source)
> > > > > > > > In fact, the print edition of The Australian includes a further
> > > > > > > > sentence, which reveals the Met Office's bias even more clearly:
> > > > > > > > "This is why the Arctic icecap is melting and extreme weather
> > > > > > > > events are increasing."
> > > > > > > > That could have been written by Greenpeace or the WWF. No mention of
> > > > > > > > the increasing ice in the Antarctic or the fact that no link from
> > > > > > > > "extreme weather" to climate change has been established - even by the
> > > > > > > > IPCC. The claim has no factual basis and is pure environmental
> > > > > > > > ideology.
> > > > > > > > Bjørn Lomborg has an op-ed in The Oz as well today, on mitigation vs
> > > > > > > > adaptation.
> > > > > > > Now we have someone called simon who's an expert. He's an Australian with a blog, but no climate qualifications, who is commenting to a Canadian without a brain about the UK MetO. Neither of them know anything about the UK MetO and its work. The Canadian likes what the Australian has said. Neither like the UK MetO as it doesn't say what they want it to about climate change. The Canadian without a brain will now express hurt that I've not commented on the Australian with a blog's comments.
> > > > > > > Is there any wonder?? Where's the science, stupid denier?
> > > > > > Attack the blogger while ignoring the point of the OP.
> > > > > See? You've missed the point again, haven't you tundy? That's because you are stupid. Nobody cares what your blogger says, except another denier and no-one with a brain would ever take the trouble to refute anything a denier says, as none of you are worth it.
> > > > > Where's the *science* tundy? It's just denier blog after denier blog after denier blog from you people. go on; try to tell us his opinion about the UKMO counts for *anything*.
> > > > The point is that there was a post posted. You choose to ignore the
> > > > post and attack the writer of the blog that was mentioned in the OP.
> > > > You don't get the point, you do not address the point and you expect
> > > > us to go along with your evasion and comment on you irrelevant
> > > > comment.
> > > > Address the OP or STFU.
> > > What I did tundy is that criticised you and yours for constantly going to blogs and then bleating that no-one is listening to you, or willing to discuss the crap that you copy to here.
> > > Find some *science* and someone might talk to you. Quote blog opinion from unpublished and ignorant posters who know sod-all about the UKMO and no-one will and nor should they.
> > > Geddit now? Now go find some science.
> > i get it. You have no science so you try to get away with ad hominem
> > and red herrings.
> Your response to producing no science and instead sending us to an Australian denialist nobody with a opinion is to say that there is no science on the side of mainstream science?
> No-one is commenting upon his blog because he is a denialist nobody. Why don't you understand that?
> You do realise why everyone thinks you are a nutbar, don't you, tundy? <laughing>
> > > > > > > > > The World Meteorological Organisation, which oversees the
> > > > > > > > > publication of climate trend data from the four main global centres,
> > > > > > > > > including the British Met Office, has been strongly criticised for its
> > > > > > > > > policy of releasing such data just before the UN's key annual summits.
> > > > > > > > > "In the past two years we have seen a slight decline in
> > > > > > > > > temperature," said Peter Stott, the Met Office's head of climate
> > > > > > > > > monitoring and attribution.
> > > > > > > > > "However, it is such a short period that it is scientifically
> > > > > > > > > meaningless. Climate change can only be measured over decades -- and
> > > > > > > > > the records show that the world has warmed by 0.75C over the past
> > > > > > > > > century."
> > > > > > > > > The Met Office figures show that, for the first 10 months of this
> > > > > > > > > year, global temperatures averaged 14.43C; 2010 was significantly
> > > > > > > > > hotter at 14.54C.
> > > > > > > > > Dr Stott says the heat of 2010 was caused by an El Nino event,
> > > > > > > > > where warm water currents in the Pacific released unusual amounts of
> > > > > > > > > heat into the atmosphere.
> > > > > > > > > "It is a natural short-term fluctuation and nothing to do with
> > > > > > > > > climate change," he said.
> > > > > > > > > The longer-term record shows global temperatures have hardly risen
> > > > > > > > > for about 15 years. But Dr Stott said the key point was that they had
> > > > > > > > > remained consistently above the long-term average. (source)
> > > > > > > > > In fact, the print edition of The Australian includes a further
> > > > > > > > > sentence, which reveals the Met Office's bias even more clearly:
> > > > > > > > > "This is why the Arctic icecap is melting and extreme weather
> > > > > > > > > events are increasing."
> > > > > > > > > That could have been written by Greenpeace or the WWF. No mention of
> > > > > > > > > the increasing ice in the Antarctic or the fact that no link from
> > > > > > > > > "extreme weather" to climate change has been established - even by the
> > > > > > > > > IPCC. The claim has no factual basis and is pure environmental
> > > > > > > > > ideology.
> > > > > > > > > Bjørn Lomborg has an op-ed in The Oz as well today, on mitigation vs
> > > > > > > > > adaptation.
> > > > > > > > Now we have someone called simon who's an expert. He's an Australian with a blog, but no climate qualifications, who is commenting to a Canadian without a brain about the UK MetO. Neither of them know anything about the UK MetO and its work. The Canadian likes what the Australian has said. Neither like the UK MetO as it doesn't say what they want it to about climate change. The Canadian without a brain will now express hurt that I've not commented on the Australian with a blog's comments.
> > > > > > > > Is there any wonder?? Where's the science, stupid denier?
> > > > > > > Attack the blogger while ignoring the point of the OP.
> > > > > > See? You've missed the point again, haven't you tundy? That's because you are stupid. Nobody cares what your blogger says, except another denier and no-one with a brain would ever take the trouble to refute anything a denier says, as none of you are worth it.
> > > > > > Where's the *science* tundy? It's just denier blog after denier blog after denier blog from you people. go on; try to tell us his opinion about the UKMO counts for *anything*.
> > > > > The point is that there was a post posted. You choose to ignore the
> > > > > post and attack the writer of the blog that was mentioned in the OP.
> > > > > You don't get the point, you do not address the point and you expect
> > > > > us to go along with your evasion and comment on you irrelevant
> > > > > comment.
> > > > > Address the OP or STFU.
> > > > What I did tundy is that criticised you and yours for constantly going to blogs and then bleating that no-one is listening to you, or willing to discuss the crap that you copy to here.
> > > > Find some *science* and someone might talk to you. Quote blog opinion from unpublished and ignorant posters who know sod-all about the UKMO and no-one will and nor should they.
> > > > Geddit now? Now go find some science.
> > > i get it. You have no science so you try to get away with ad hominem
> > > and red herrings.
> > Your response to producing no science and instead sending us to an Australian denialist nobody with a opinion is to say that there is no science on the side of mainstream science?
> > No-one is commenting upon his blog because he is a denialist nobody. Why don't you understand that?
> > You do realise why everyone thinks you are a nutbar, don't you, tundy? <laughing>
> just more noise....... no substance.
I know; that's exactly what you have done tundy. It's a shame you can't recognise this, but I promise you that the blog you went to denier opinion and is a long, long way from science.
Discussion subject changed to "It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting evidence." by Tunderbar
Subject: Re: It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting evidence.
> > > > > > > > The World Meteorological Organisation, which oversees the
> > > > > > > > publication of climate trend data from the four main global centres,
> > > > > > > > including the British Met Office, has been strongly criticised for its
> > > > > > > > policy of releasing such data just before the UN's key annual summits.
> > > > > > > > "In the past two years we have seen a slight decline in
> > > > > > > > temperature," said Peter Stott, the Met Office's head of climate
> > > > > > > > monitoring and attribution.
> > > > > > > > "However, it is such a short period that it is scientifically
> > > > > > > > meaningless. Climate change can only be measured over decades -- and
> > > > > > > > the records show that the world has warmed by 0.75C over the past
> > > > > > > > century."
> > > > > > > > The Met Office figures show that, for the first 10 months of this
> > > > > > > > year, global temperatures averaged 14.43C; 2010 was significantly
> > > > > > > > hotter at 14.54C.
> > > > > > > > Dr Stott says the heat of 2010 was caused by an El Nino event,
> > > > > > > > where warm water currents in the Pacific released unusual amounts of
> > > > > > > > heat into the atmosphere.
> > > > > > > > "It is a natural short-term fluctuation and nothing to do with
> > > > > > > > climate change," he said.
> > > > > > > > The longer-term record shows global temperatures have hardly risen
> > > > > > > > for about 15 years. But Dr Stott said the key point was that they had
> > > > > > > > remained consistently above the long-term average. (source)
> > > > > > > > In fact, the print edition of The Australian includes a further
> > > > > > > > sentence, which reveals the Met Office's bias even more clearly:
> > > > > > > > "This is why the Arctic icecap is melting and extreme weather
> > > > > > > > events are increasing."
> > > > > > > > That could have been written by Greenpeace or the WWF. No mention of
> > > > > > > > the increasing ice in the Antarctic or the fact that no link from
> > > > > > > > "extreme weather" to climate change has been established - even by the
> > > > > > > > IPCC. The claim has no factual basis and is pure environmental
> > > > > > > > ideology.
> > > > > > > > Bjørn Lomborg has an op-ed in The Oz as well today, on mitigation vs
> > > > > > > > adaptation.
> > > > > > > Now we have someone called simon who's an expert. He's an Australian with a blog, but no climate qualifications, who is commenting to a Canadian without a brain about the UK MetO. Neither of them know anything about the UK MetO and its work. The Canadian likes what the Australian has said. Neither like the UK MetO as it doesn't say what they want it to about climate change. The Canadian without a brain will now express hurt that I've not commented on the Australian with a blog's comments.
> > > > > > > Is there any wonder?? Where's the science, stupid denier?
> > > > > > Attack the blogger while ignoring the point of the OP.
> > > > > See? You've missed the point again, haven't you tundy? That's because you are stupid. Nobody cares what your blogger says, except another denier and no-one with a brain would ever take the trouble to refute anything a denier says, as none of you are worth it.
> > > > > Where's the *science* tundy? It's just denier blog after denier blog after denier blog from you people. go on; try to tell us his opinion about the UKMO counts for *anything*.
> > > > The point is that there was a post posted. You choose to ignore the
> > > > post and attack the writer of the blog that was mentioned in the OP.
> > > > You don't get the point, you do not address the point and you expect
> > > > us to go along with your evasion and comment on you irrelevant
> > > > comment.
> > > > Address the OP or STFU.
> > > What I did tundy is that criticised you and yours for constantly going to blogs and then bleating that no-one is listening to you, or willing to discuss the crap that you copy to here.
> > > Find some *science* and someone might talk to you. Quote blog opinion from unpublished and ignorant posters who know sod-all about the UKMO and no-one will and nor should they.
> > > Geddit now? Now go find some science.
> > i get it. You have no science so you try to get away with ad hominem
> > and red herrings.
> Your response to producing no science and instead sending us to an Australian denialist nobody with a opinion is to say that there is no science on the side of mainstream science?
> No-one is commenting upon his blog because he is a denialist nobody. Why don't you understand that?
> You do realise why everyone thinks you are a nutbar, don't you, tundy? <laughing>
Idiot, it's about the politics. Just like the IPCC was all about
politics. Grab yourself a brain.
Subject: Re: It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting evidence.
> > > > > > > > > The World Meteorological Organisation, which oversees the
> > > > > > > > > publication of climate trend data from the four main global centres,
> > > > > > > > > including the British Met Office, has been strongly criticised for its
> > > > > > > > > policy of releasing such data just before the UN's key annual summits.
> > > > > > > > > "In the past two years we have seen a slight decline in
> > > > > > > > > temperature," said Peter Stott, the Met Office's head of climate
> > > > > > > > > monitoring and attribution.
> > > > > > > > > "However, it is such a short period that it is scientifically
> > > > > > > > > meaningless. Climate change can only be measured over decades -- and
> > > > > > > > > the records show that the world has warmed by 0.75C over the past
> > > > > > > > > century."
> > > > > > > > > The Met Office figures show that, for the first 10 months of this
> > > > > > > > > year, global temperatures averaged 14.43C; 2010 was significantly
> > > > > > > > > hotter at 14.54C.
> > > > > > > > > Dr Stott says the heat of 2010 was caused by an El Nino event,
> > > > > > > > > where warm water currents in the Pacific released unusual amounts of
> > > > > > > > > heat into the atmosphere.
> > > > > > > > > "It is a natural short-term fluctuation and nothing to do with
> > > > > > > > > climate change," he said.
> > > > > > > > > The longer-term record shows global temperatures have hardly risen
> > > > > > > > > for about 15 years. But Dr Stott said the key point was that they had
> > > > > > > > > remained consistently above the long-term average. (source)
> > > > > > > > > In fact, the print edition of The Australian includes a further
> > > > > > > > > sentence, which reveals the Met Office's bias even more clearly:
> > > > > > > > > "This is why the Arctic icecap is melting and extreme weather
> > > > > > > > > events are increasing."
> > > > > > > > > That could have been written by Greenpeace or the WWF. No mention of
> > > > > > > > > the increasing ice in the Antarctic or the fact that no link from
> > > > > > > > > "extreme weather" to climate change has been established - even by the
> > > > > > > > > IPCC. The claim has no factual basis and is pure environmental
> > > > > > > > > ideology.
> > > > > > > > > Bjørn Lomborg has an op-ed in The Oz as well today, on mitigation vs
> > > > > > > > > adaptation.
> > > > > > > > Now we have someone called simon who's an expert. He's an Australian with a blog, but no climate qualifications, who is commenting to a Canadian without a brain about the UK MetO. Neither of them know anything about the UK MetO and its work. The Canadian likes what the Australian has said. Neither like the UK MetO as it doesn't say what they want it to about climate change. The Canadian without a brain will now express hurt that I've not commented on the Australian with a blog's comments.
> > > > > > > > Is there any wonder?? Where's the science, stupid denier?
> > > > > > > Attack the blogger while ignoring the point of the OP.
> > > > > > See? You've missed the point again, haven't you tundy? That's because you are stupid. Nobody cares what your blogger says, except another denier and no-one with a brain would ever take the trouble to refute anything a denier says, as none of you are worth it.
> > > > > > Where's the *science* tundy? It's just denier blog after denier blog after denier blog from you people. go on; try to tell us his opinion about the UKMO counts for *anything*.
> > > > > The point is that there was a post posted. You choose to ignore the
> > > > > post and attack the writer of the blog that was mentioned in the OP.
> > > > > You don't get the point, you do not address the point and you expect
> > > > > us to go along with your evasion and comment on you irrelevant
> > > > > comment.
> > > > > Address the OP or STFU.
> > > > What I did tundy is that criticised you and yours for constantly going to blogs and then bleating that no-one is listening to you, or willing to discuss the crap that you copy to here.
> > > > Find some *science* and someone might talk to you. Quote blog opinion from unpublished and ignorant posters who know sod-all about the UKMO and no-one will and nor should they.
> > > > Geddit now? Now go find some science.
> > > i get it. You have no science so you try to get away with ad hominem
> > > and red herrings.
> > Your response to producing no science and instead sending us to an Australian denialist nobody with a opinion is to say that there is no science on the side of mainstream science?
> > No-one is commenting upon his blog because he is a denialist nobody. Why don't you understand that?
> > You do realise why everyone thinks you are a nutbar, don't you, tundy? <laughing>
> Idiot, it's about the politics. Just like the IPCC was all about
> politics. Grab yourself a brain.
"It's about politics". It's a great big conspiracy, all the scientific institutions on earth are obviously wrong, the real scientists will all hatch one day and show everyone the true way and tundyworld stays resolutely stupid and safe from science.
You really are stupid, aren't you and no-one wants to discuss your bloggers' opinions - have you noticed?
Subject: Re: It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting evidence.
> > > > > > The World Meteorological Organisation, which oversees the
> > > > > > publication of climate trend data from the four main global centres,
> > > > > > including the British Met Office, has been strongly criticised for its
> > > > > > policy of releasing such data just before the UN's key annual summits.
> > > > > > "In the past two years we have seen a slight decline in
> > > > > > temperature," said Peter Stott, the Met Office's head of climate
> > > > > > monitoring and attribution.
> > > > > > "However, it is such a short period that it is scientifically
> > > > > > meaningless. Climate change can only be measured over decades -- and
> > > > > > the records show that the world has warmed by 0.75C over the past
> > > > > > century."
> > > > > > The Met Office figures show that, for the first 10 months of this
> > > > > > year, global temperatures averaged 14.43C; 2010 was significantly
> > > > > > hotter at 14.54C.
> > > > > > Dr Stott says the heat of 2010 was caused by an El Nino event,
> > > > > > where warm water currents in the Pacific released unusual amounts of
> > > > > > heat into the atmosphere.
> > > > > > "It is a natural short-term fluctuation and nothing to do with
> > > > > > climate change," he said.
> > > > > > The longer-term record shows global temperatures have hardly risen
> > > > > > for about 15 years. But Dr Stott said the key point was that they had
> > > > > > remained consistently above the long-term average. (source)
> > > > > > In fact, the print edition of The Australian includes a further
> > > > > > sentence, which reveals the Met Office's bias even more clearly:
> > > > > > "This is why the Arctic icecap is melting and extreme weather
> > > > > > events are increasing."
> > > > > > That could have been written by Greenpeace or the WWF. No mention of
> > > > > > the increasing ice in the Antarctic or the fact that no link from
> > > > > > "extreme weather" to climate change has been established - even by the
> > > > > > IPCC. The claim has no factual basis and is pure environmental
> > > > > > ideology.
> > > > > > Bjørn Lomborg has an op-ed in The Oz as well today, on mitigation vs
> > > > > > adaptation.
> > > > > Now we have someone called simon who's an expert. He's an Australian with a blog, but no climate qualifications, who is commenting to a Canadian without a brain about the UK MetO. Neither of them know anything about the UK MetO and its work. The Canadian likes what the Australian has said. Neither like the UK MetO as it doesn't say what they want it to about climate change. The Canadian without a brain will now express hurt that I've not commented on the Australian with a blog's comments.
> > > > > Is there any wonder?? Where's the science, stupid denier?
> > > > Attack the blogger while ignoring the point of the OP.
> > > See? You've missed the point again, haven't you tundy? That's because you are stupid. Nobody cares what your blogger says, except another denier and no-one with a brain would ever take the trouble to refute anything a denier says, as none of you are worth it.
> > > Where's the *science* tundy? It's just denier blog after denier blog after denier blog from you people. go on; try to tell us his opinion about the UKMO counts for *anything*.
> > The point is that there was a post posted. You choose to ignore the
> > post and attack the writer of the blog that was mentioned in the OP.
> > You don't get the point, you do not address the point and you expect
> > us to go along with your evasion and comment on you irrelevant
> > comment.
> > Address the OP or STFU.
> What I did tundy is that criticised you and yours for constantly going to blogs and then bleating that no-one is listening to you, or willing to discuss the crap that you copy to here.
> Find some *science* and someone might talk to you. Quote blog opinion from unpublished and ignorant posters who know sod-all about the UKMO and no-one will and nor should they.
> Geddit now? Now go find some science.
You forgot to be a troll and change the subject line.
Subject: Re: It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting evidence.
> > > > > > > The World Meteorological Organisation, which oversees the
> > > > > > > publication of climate trend data from the four main global centres,
> > > > > > > including the British Met Office, has been strongly criticised for its
> > > > > > > policy of releasing such data just before the UN's key annual summits.
> > > > > > > "In the past two years we have seen a slight decline in
> > > > > > > temperature," said Peter Stott, the Met Office's head of climate
> > > > > > > monitoring and attribution.
> > > > > > > "However, it is such a short period that it is scientifically
> > > > > > > meaningless. Climate change can only be measured over decades -- and
> > > > > > > the records show that the world has warmed by 0.75C over the past
> > > > > > > century."
> > > > > > > The Met Office figures show that, for the first 10 months of this
> > > > > > > year, global temperatures averaged 14.43C; 2010 was significantly
> > > > > > > hotter at 14.54C.
> > > > > > > Dr Stott says the heat of 2010 was caused by an El Nino event,
> > > > > > > where warm water currents in the Pacific released unusual amounts of
> > > > > > > heat into the atmosphere.
> > > > > > > "It is a natural short-term fluctuation and nothing to do with
> > > > > > > climate change," he said.
> > > > > > > The longer-term record shows global temperatures have hardly risen
> > > > > > > for about 15 years. But Dr Stott said the key point was that they had
> > > > > > > remained consistently above the long-term average. (source)
> > > > > > > In fact, the print edition of The Australian includes a further
> > > > > > > sentence, which reveals the Met Office's bias even more clearly:
> > > > > > > "This is why the Arctic icecap is melting and extreme weather
> > > > > > > events are increasing."
> > > > > > > That could have been written by Greenpeace or the WWF. No mention of
> > > > > > > the increasing ice in the Antarctic or the fact that no link from
> > > > > > > "extreme weather" to climate change has been established - even by the
> > > > > > > IPCC. The claim has no factual basis and is pure environmental
> > > > > > > ideology.
> > > > > > > Bjørn Lomborg has an op-ed in The Oz as well today, on mitigation vs
> > > > > > > adaptation.
> > > > > > Now we have someone called simon who's an expert. He's an Australian with a blog, but no climate qualifications, who is commenting to a Canadian without a brain about the UK MetO. Neither of them know anything about the UK MetO and its work. The Canadian likes what the Australian has said. Neither like the UK MetO as it doesn't say what they want it to about climate change. The Canadian without a brain will now express hurt that I've not commented on the Australian with a blog's comments.
> > > > > > Is there any wonder?? Where's the science, stupid denier?
> > > > > Attack the blogger while ignoring the point of the OP.
> > > > See? You've missed the point again, haven't you tundy? That's because you are stupid. Nobody cares what your blogger says, except another denier and no-one with a brain would ever take the trouble to refute anything a denier says, as none of you are worth it.
> > > > Where's the *science* tundy? It's just denier blog after denier blog after denier blog from you people. go on; try to tell us his opinion about the UKMO counts for *anything*.
> > > The point is that there was a post posted. You choose to ignore the
> > > post and attack the writer of the blog that was mentioned in the OP.
> > > You don't get the point, you do not address the point and you expect
> > > us to go along with your evasion and comment on you irrelevant
> > > comment.
> > > Address the OP or STFU.
> > What I did tundy is that criticised you and yours for constantly going to blogs and then bleating that no-one is listening to you, or willing to discuss the crap that you copy to here.
> > Find some *science* and someone might talk to you. Quote blog opinion from unpublished and ignorant posters who know sod-all about the UKMO and no-one will and nor should they.
> > Geddit now? Now go find some science.
> You forgot to be a troll and change the subject line.
Good that you saw it to realise what you do.
Now run along and find some science. You appear to be struggling and this thread has died a death, hasnt it? No-one wants to discuss your stupid denier blogger's allegations.
Subject: Re: It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting evidence.
>>>>>>>> Agenda-driven Met Office's grudging concessions to reality
>>>>>>>> Monday, 19 November 2012 9:01 am 10 comments
>>>>>>>> by Simon
>>>>>>>> Agenda-driven
>>>>>>>> It's bizarre to watch the UK Met Office squirm as it desperately tries
>>>>>>>> to maintain an ideological position in the face of conflicting
>>>>>>>> evidence. I never would have believed that such a formerly respected
>>>>>>>> institution, scientific impartiality at its core, could be so
>>>>>>>> compromised by a political agenda.
>>>>>>>> Instead of simply reporting on new developments in climate, they must
>>>>>>>> instead be spun in order to bolster the case for political action.
>>>>>>>> Such is the case today, where Peter Stott grudgingly concedes that
>>>>>>>> temperatures have fallen in the past couple of years, but surrounds it
>>>>>>>> with caveats and "yes, buts" in order to make sure The Cause is not
>>>>>>>> diluted (see highlights below):
>>>>>>>> THE world's climate has cooled during last year and this year,
>>>>>>>> temperature data from Britain's Met Office reveals -- just before this
>>>>>>>> year's talks on cutting global greenhouse gas emissions.
>>>>>>>> The figures show that, although global temperatures are still well
>>>>>>>> above the long-term average, they have fallen since the record seen in
>>>>>>>> 2010.
>>>>>>>> The findings could prove politically sensitive, coming ahead of
>>>>>>>> the UN's climate summit in Doha, Qatar, where the global system for
>>>>>>>> regulating greenhouse gas emissions faces collapse. The threat comes
>>>>>>>> because the Kyoto Treaty, under which developed nations pledged to cut
>>>>>>>> their carbon emissions, expires at the end of this year. Doha is seen
>>>>>>>> as the last hope of securing an extension.
>>>>>>>> In such a febrile situation, any data casting doubt on climate
>>>>>>>> scientists' predictions is potentially explosive.
>>>>>>>> The World Meteorological Organisation, which oversees the
>>>>>>>> publication of climate trend data from the four main global centres,
>>>>>>>> including the British Met Office, has been strongly criticised for its
>>>>>>>> policy of releasing such data just before the UN's key annual summits.
>>>>>>>> "In the past two years we have seen a slight decline in
>>>>>>>> temperature," said Peter Stott, the Met Office's head of climate
>>>>>>>> monitoring and attribution.
>>>>>>>> "However, it is such a short period that it is scientifically
>>>>>>>> meaningless. Climate change can only be measured over decades -- and
>>>>>>>> the records show that the world has warmed by 0.75C over the past
>>>>>>>> century."
>>>>>>>> The Met Office figures show that, for the first 10 months of this
>>>>>>>> year, global temperatures averaged 14.43C; 2010 was significantly
>>>>>>>> hotter at 14.54C.
>>>>>>>> Dr Stott says the heat of 2010 was caused by an El Nino event,
>>>>>>>> where warm water currents in the Pacific released unusual amounts of
>>>>>>>> heat into the atmosphere.
>>>>>>>> "It is a natural short-term fluctuation and nothing to do with
>>>>>>>> climate change," he said.
>>>>>>>> The longer-term record shows global temperatures have hardly risen
>>>>>>>> for about 15 years. But Dr Stott said the key point was that they had
>>>>>>>> remained consistently above the long-term average. (source)
>>>>>>>> In fact, the print edition of The Australian includes a further
>>>>>>>> sentence, which reveals the Met Office's bias even more clearly:
>>>>>>>> "This is why the Arctic icecap is melting and extreme weather
>>>>>>>> events are increasing."
>>>>>>>> That could have been written by Greenpeace or the WWF. No mention of
>>>>>>>> the increasing ice in the Antarctic or the fact that no link from
>>>>>>>> "extreme weather" to climate change has been established - even by the
>>>>>>>> IPCC. The claim has no factual basis and is pure environmental
>>>>>>>> ideology.
>>>>>>>> Bj rn Lomborg has an op-ed in The Oz as well today, on mitigation vs
>>>>>>>> adaptation.
>>>>>>> Now we have someone called simon who's an expert. He's an Australian with a blog, but no climate qualifications, who is commenting to a Canadian without a brain about the UK MetO. Neither of them know anything about the UK MetO and its work. The Canadian likes what the Australian has said. Neither like the UK MetO as it doesn't say what they want it to about climate change. The Canadian without a brain will now express hurt that I've not commented on the Australian with a blog's comments.
>>>>>>> Is there any wonder?? Where's the science, stupid denier?
>>>>>> Attack the blogger while ignoring the point of the OP.
>>>>> See? You've missed the point again, haven't you tundy? That's because you are stupid. Nobody cares what your blogger says, except another denier and no-one with a brain would ever take the trouble to refute anything a denier says, as none of you are worth it.
>>>>> Where's the *science* tundy? It's just denier blog after denier blog after denier blog from you people. go on; try to tell us his opinion about the UKMO counts for *anything*.
>>>> The point is that there was a post posted. You choose to ignore the
>>>> post and attack the writer of the blog that was mentioned in the OP.
>>>> You don't get the point, you do not address the point and you expect
>>>> us to go along with your evasion and comment on you irrelevant
>>>> comment.
>>>> Address the OP or STFU.
>>> What I did tundy is that criticised you and yours for constantly going to blogs and then bleating that no-one is listening to you, or willing to discuss the crap that you copy to here.
>>> Find some *science* and someone might talk to you. Quote blog opinion from unpublished and ignorant posters who know sod-all about the UKMO and no-one will and nor should they.
>>> Geddit now? Now go find some science.
>> You forgot to be a troll and change the subject line.
> Good that you saw it to realise what you do.
> Now run along and find some science. You appear to be struggling and this thread has died a death, hasnt it? No-one wants to discuss your stupid denier blogger's allegations.
I did attempt to 'discuss' with him what Peter Stott of the Met Office
actually said(as quoted by the blogger), but he's not even willing to
talk about that.
