It's precisely because the Met Office is a scientific organisation that they are big producers of research on climate change. It's all just a massive conspiracy apparently despite the fact that people who work to substantiate climate change are from all political persuasions. As for Booker, I simply will not give any attention to someone who hasn't even bothered to understand the difference in definition between weather and climate.
Thank God for men like Sir Michael. It does give a glimmer of hope.
How long do you think it will take will it take for the Govt to start undermining Sir Michaels' reputation, just like they did with Elizabeth Firkin?
Sorry, that should be Filkin, not Firkin!
Yep, Scholar's for the chop at the earliest opportunity. We really can't have these people issuing complete, accurate figures, and unbiased research surely? Whatever next? Truth and integrity? Good Grief!
If you vote Communists into power even when led by "that nice Mr Blair" you cannot expect to emerge with trust intact
"the difference between weather & climate" - hah. This crappy meme has been floating around real climate & other assorted warmist websites lately. Climate is what the computer models expect, weather is what we actually get.
At the moment the earth is cooling... it has been since 1998. None of that is predicted in the computer models (unsurprisingly).
Doug, when you can define "climate" (the IPCC still hasn't) please do tell us all what it is.
Strange how these low temperatures & miserable winters are coinciding with a solar minimum.
They've already started undermining him - see Tom Harris' blog I think.
Yeah, cool, the lad's obviously got integrity but he's one guy in an army of stooges. Labour have bureaucratized targets to such a micro level that each copper, each local government bod, each ward sister, each probation officer and benefits advisor own their own 'performance' and are therefore incentivized to bullshit/massage.
I did crime stats for ages and the ways of getting round criminal damage, burglary, attempted burglary or vandilism are myriad and dependant on what targets are. Knife crime's the same, I dare say that if the knife wasn't actually used and required A&E attention then.....take your pick.
TomTom- as someone who knows some marxists and communists and suchlike, not to mention being somewhat sympathetic myself, I can assure you that a centralising power mad economic illiterate who throws cash at illegal wars and his pals in private corporations, and his government cronies, can in no way be considered communist.
If they were, the workers would be running the means of production, instead of getting laid off at every opportunity.
Sebastian Weetabix- no, the Earth has not been cooling since 1998, anyone who claims that knows nothing about statistics. Secondly, climate not weather has been floating around for at least 3 or 4 years, after people kept complaining that since they had a cold winter or a cold summer, that it meant global warming wasn't happening. Oddly enough one swallow doesn't make a summer.
As for a definition of climate, the IPCC fourth report, in the appendix section of the glossary says:
"Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or
more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and
variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months
to thousands or millions of years. The classical period for averaging these
variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization.
The relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature,
precipitation and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state,
including a statistical description, of the climate system. In various parts
of this report different averaging periods, such as a period of 20 years, are
also used."
So unfortunately that is three wrong comments. Would you care to try again?
Guthrie, hate to break it to you but the global temp anomaly on all main measures peaked in 1998. That's 10 years ago.
Since satellite data is more reliable, let's use UAH Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures. That measures from the planet's surface to roughly 8 miles up. In 1998 the departure from the 1979-1998 average was just a touch under +0.8C. At present it is +0.18C. But I forgot - when it gets hotter, that's climate change. When it cools, that's just weather - nothing to see here, move along.
The public is beginning to catch on you know.
Non-scientific employees of the Met Office are left in no doubt that it is unacceptable to question the merits or otherwise of 'manmadeglobalwarming'. Any suspicision of doubt would jeopordise their career be that in security, project management, secretarial or IT.
Doug and Guthrie
As I've blogged before, I count myself as an agnostic on climate change, although I am actually prepared to pay a small insurance premium against the possibility the pessimists are right.
But what I object to very strongly is the closing down of debate by tax-funded institutions like the BBC and the Met Office.
I haven't made up my mind, and I want to see the issues discussed properly, with serious input from serious people on both sides.
I don't want to be told by the BBC that they have decided the warmist case is made, and therefore they only need to promote one side of the story.
Everything I know tells me that 100 year forecasts of anything are almost certainly useless, and there isno certainty here.
So it angers me when people I'm paying to deliver professional analysis treat me like a 3 year old.
Gah!
Actually Sebastian, satellite measurements are not necessarily any mroe reliable than ground ones. Moreover, they show a distinct increase in temperature...
Lets see, 1982 to 2004-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Fil...emperatures.png
Note also this ummm, error with UAH:
http://www.uah.edu/news/newsread...d.php?
newsID=60
Now, the reason the satellites diverge so much in 1998 is the El Nino, which released vast amounts of energy from the Pacific, as well as greater amounts of water vapour, all of which severely warmed large areas of the atmosphere. Then, the El Nino ended, and temperatures dropped. It is now well established that ocean current fluctuations play a part in yearly variables, but it will take a while yet to nail them down the way the actual greenhouse effect of CO2 is nailed.
You'll note also that they all show a warming trend.
Indeed, I see that you ignore my previous comment regarding the known definition of climate, and make the same mistake again.
Wat, a serious discussion would be nice. If we leave aside the air headed newspaper reports and press releases from those with agendas, we are left with the science.
Now, at this point, there are several options.
1) if you have time and effort, you can learn it yourself. It will take a while. Even with a science degree it took me a year or two to learn enough to be happy telling people about it all.
2) You can say "I don't know enough and don't have time to educate myself, so won't comment"
3) You could accept the lack of time or effort, and instead delegate agreement or not to the multitude of scientists who have looked at it. The Royal Society doesn't lightly endorse something after all.
The third option does not of course mean you shouldn't accept politicians or companies using environmental issues to push some agenda or other.
Commenting by HaloScan
