Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
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.
64 views
Skip to first unread message
Tunderbar
Nov 19, 2012, 11:47:10 AM11/19/12
to
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/11/agenda-driven-met-offices-grudging-concessions-to-reality/
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.
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.
Dawlish
Nov 19, 2012, 11:54:57 AM11/19/12
to
Is there any wonder?? Where's the science, stupid denier?
matt_sykes
Nov 19, 2012, 12:11:25 PM11/19/12
to
On 19 Nov, 17:54, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 19, 2012 4:47:10 PM UTC, Tunderbar wrote:
> >http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/11/agenda-driven-met-off...
> On Monday, November 19, 2012 4:47:10 PM UTC, Tunderbar wrote:
worth what?
Tunderbar
Nov 19, 2012, 12:30:57 PM11/19/12
to
On Nov 19, 10:54 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 19, 2012 4:47:10 PM UTC, Tunderbar wrote:
> >http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/11/agenda-driven-met-off...
> On Monday, November 19, 2012 4:47:10 PM UTC, Tunderbar wrote:
Dawlish
Nov 19, 2012, 12:41:29 PM11/19/12
to
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*.
Tunderbar
Nov 19, 2012, 1:08:37 PM11/19/12
to
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.
Harry Merrick
Nov 19, 2012, 1:09:50 PM11/19/12
to
>>
>> > 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
>> > 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.
out of ones depth expertise wise. Poor old Dawshit!
Harry Merrick.
Desertphile
Nov 19, 2012, 1:18:30 PM11/19/12
to
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:47:10 -0800 (PST), Tunderbar
<tdco...@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?
<tdco...@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.
--
"Whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded
or revised." -- Dr. Carl Sagan
Desertphile
Nov 19, 2012, 1:20:34 PM11/19/12
to
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.
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.
> Is there any wonder?? Where's the science, stupid denier?
Dawlish
Nov 19, 2012, 1:34:39 PM11/19/12
to
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.
RedAcer
Nov 19, 2012, 1:53:56 PM11/19/12
to
On 19/11/12 16:47, Tunderbar wrote:
> http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/11/agenda-driven-met-offices-grudging-concessions-to-reality/
>
>
> Agenda-driven Met Office's grudging concessions to reality
>
> Monday, 19 November 2012 9:01 am � 10 comments
> http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/11/agenda-driven-met-offices-grudging-concessions-to-reality/
>
>
> Agenda-driven Met Office's grudging concessions to reality
>
>
> 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
> 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
> 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."
"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."
"It is a natural short-term fluctuation and nothing to do with
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."
problem?
Tunderbar
Nov 19, 2012, 2:16:48 PM11/19/12
to
and red herrings.
Dawlish
Nov 19, 2012, 2:22:51 PM11/19/12
to
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>
Tunderbar
Nov 19, 2012, 2:40:11 PM11/19/12
to
Dawlish
Nov 19, 2012, 3:16:32 PM11/19/12
to
Tunderbar
Nov 19, 2012, 3:42:20 PM11/19/12
to
politics. Grab yourself a brain.
Dawlish
Nov 19, 2012, 3:57:16 PM11/19/12
to
You really are stupid, aren't you and no-one wants to discuss your bloggers' opinions - have you noticed?
Tunderbar
Nov 19, 2012, 4:51:15 PM11/19/12
to
Dawlish
Nov 20, 2012, 1:41:27 AM11/20/12
to
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.
RedAcer
Nov 20, 2012, 3:52:46 AM11/20/12
to
On 20/11/12 06:41, Dawlish wrote:
> On Monday, November 19, 2012 9:51:16 PM UTC, Tunderbar wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 12:34 pm, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, November 19, 2012 6:08:37 PM UTC, Tunderbar wrote:
>>
>>>> On Nov 19, 11:41 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> On Monday, November 19, 2012 5:30:58 PM UTC, Tunderbar wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> On Nov 19, 10:54 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, November 19, 2012 4:47:10 PM UTC, Tunderbar wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/11/agenda-driven-met-off...
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Agenda-driven Met Office's grudging concessions to reality
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Monday, 19 November 2012 9:01 am � 10 comments
> On Monday, November 19, 2012 9:51:16 PM UTC, Tunderbar wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 12:34 pm, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, November 19, 2012 6:08:37 PM UTC, Tunderbar wrote:
>>
>>>> On Nov 19, 11:41 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> On Monday, November 19, 2012 5:30:58 PM UTC, Tunderbar wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> On Nov 19, 10:54 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, November 19, 2012 4:47:10 PM UTC, Tunderbar wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/11/agenda-driven-met-off...
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Agenda-driven Met Office's grudging concessions to reality
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>
actually said(as quoted by the blogger), but he's not even willing to
talk about that.
0 new messages