In fact, the Met [UK meteorology office] still asserts we are in the midst of an unusually warm winter — as one of its staffers sniffily protested in an internet posting to a newspaper last week: “This will be the warmest winter in living memory, the data has already been recorded. For your information, we take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average. As November was a very seasonally warm month, then all the data will come from those readings.”
Look, I think some of these guys’ process is nuts, but this is too crazy to believe. Any other background on tis?
bauxman,
This blog does have structural limits on posting links, it seems.
Nefarious motives are not really needed to fabricate and spin things.
Distraction by offering up strawmen like attribution of motive, or misrepresentations of my beliefs, is not really very effective.
We know from Crutape that miselading people about temps and trends in fact is a tool of the AGW promotion community.
This thread quotes a post alleging that the Met, which no one can reasonably say is not shaping its work product to enhance public concern about AGW, may be also manipulating its work product to bolster that effort.
Our host, in his leading post of this thread, is openly skeptical of this specific allegation.
That you and other AGW true believers are so defensive as to need to attack even the discussion of the idea that the Met, which is led by an AGW activist, might be playing climategate-esque games with their work product, I submit is more informative of your beliefs, and those who agree with you.
And now we see that GISS has been playing with the data as well.
Hunter,
“We know from Crutape that miselading people about temps and trends in fact is a tool of the AGW promotion community.”
Yep, there is certainly some selective use of information. And the climate skeptics do much the same. The main difference I see is that members of the AGW community seems to be much more likely to include their error bars and mention competing explanations than the skeptics, which suggests to me a greater degree of scientific integrity in the AGW folks. Generally speaking of course. There are certainly exceptions. Anyway, we need to focus on the science, and not the rhetoric. Both sides have their mindless proponents. Existence of “true-believers” and propagandists on both sides has little to do with whose science is right.
“Distraction by offering up strawmen like attribution of motive, or misrepresentations of my beliefs, is not really very effective.”
Agreed. And these tactics can be seen in spades on both sides of the debate.
“That you and other AGW true believers are so defensive as to need to attack even the discussion of the idea that the Met, which is led by an AGW activist, might be playing climategate-esque games with their work product, I submit is more informative of your beliefs, and those who agree with you.”
Er, it may be informative about someone’s beliefs, but I haven’t made any comment on the original subject of this post. All my posts have been on the topic of UEA emails, which kuhnkat brought up.
I agree that the actual blogpost above these comments (by Warren Meyer?) is appropriately dubious about whether the MET would do such a thing.
Sorry, but I think I’m not the AGW true believer you’re looking for. For instance I’m interested in what comes out of this cosmic ray theory of Svensmark. So far evidence seems far from conclusive, but it looks like we should know soon if it’s a real effect or not thanks to efforts like CLOUD (http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html), and other ongoing efforts to verify the hypothesis. Also it seems to me that evidence for GW-caused catastrophic famine or species extinctions is slim. Ditto for massive GW-linked increases in storm severity. Large sea-level rise seems more likely than those, given that the Eemian temps were only a few degrees higher than now, yet sea levels were several meters higher. But I think it’s very hard to say when we could expect such a rise to occur.
baxman,
Thank you for a clear answer.
Anyone that is willing to step back from the apocalyptic clap trap filling so much of hte public square is worth speaking with.
*****”Oh, how naive. Of course they haven’t! You make the mistake of thinking that any of them might have an ounce of sense or intelligence. It would have taken them two seconds to find out what the actual situation is, if they wanted to. But their interest is in pretending it’s all a vast conspiracy – they have neither the will nor the ability to understand the truth.”
WTF?! hunter this makes no sense. This entire thread is predicated upon the notion that somehow the above statement reflects the position of the MET on GW.
Specifically: “the Met [UK meteorology office] still asserts we are in the midst of an unusually warm winter.”
But the statement did not come from the MET. It came from a neocon blog and was cross-posted here and, rather than simply admitting that CS posted incorrectly, you are coming up with some nonsensical gibberish in an attempt at rationalization.
That was your single most ridiculous post, my man.
I think that was Mr. Meyer’s point in asking for ‘background’. He said it was, and I quote, “too crazy to believe.”
REeeeeeeeeaallyy?
So why post it at all?
Because it is an interesting issue. People are interested in how the UK Met has gone so far down the credibility and effectiveness scale.
Is it corruption, as is the case in other areas of climate science?
Time will tell.
Also, is it any less interesting than the standard AGW believer position that skeptics are funded by or dupes, of a conspiracy of Exxon Mobil and ‘big oil’?
Sorry- keep hitting ‘submit’ too soon.
“Interesting”? No hunter. It is a lie. It is a falsehood. A little fibber. A made-up something that you are apparently still buying into. And that in itself is actually quite interesting. I have an interesting picture in my head about what you look like…
I suspect that if the MET has “gone so far down the credibility and effectiveness scale” – which is not apparent that it has – is because bloggers (such as Mr. Meyer) post deceptive, inaccurate and outright false statements on their blogs. Who is corrupt in this case, my funny hunter man?
Yeah, I am somewhat fascinated by your attempts to justify this post.
And no, it is far less interesting than the number of anti-AGW scientists who accept money from Exxon. But it is very telling about the mentality of the deniosphere.
Waldo, you’re not stupid, I assume. The point here is about media irresponsibility. The Times Online writer is the one who credulously reiterated a quote ‘too crazy to believe’…
“I have an interesting picture in my head about what you look like…”
Obvious trolling, not to mention abuse of the guests. If this were my house, you’d be out. Not stupid, but definitely a troll.
Well Brian, I can only say that I really disagree with you here. I don’t believe Mr. Meyer posted this as a polemical statement or a call to journalistic responsibility. I believe it is exactly the opposite.
Look around at CS. Look at Mr. Meyer’s statements, the sources he posts, the news articles (none of which are responsible journalism), and the people responding to these posts. No, Mr. Meyer happily posts anyone or anything that might denigrate AGW scientists, no matter how verifiable or true. As he did above.
It would have been fairly simple to check up on the quote. Then Mr. Meyer could have simply said, ‘This quote reflects irresponsible journalism and clouds the issue of AGW.’ Or could have simply ignored it as journalistic dishonesty. Instead he turned it into propaganda. You, like hunter, are attempting to rationalize his character and his posting. Stupid is as stupid does – forgot who said that…can you remember?
As for being a troll, I’ve never denied that – and I find it curious that this site is so insistent about calling me one. It makes no difference if I am “a troll” or not; Mr. Meyers and the people who defend him are far more pernicious and offensive internet creatures.
Perhaps, Brain, I will find your house one day and then you can very bravely show me the door.
To answer our host’s question, “Is this what they really do?”, apparently the answer is yes.
The IPCC, which is run by, and whose work is reviewed by, people of the same political persuasion as the Met, is proving to suffer from a huge disconnect from its stated procedures and what it actually does:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUoPiTkG
– The IPCC shapes its claims to influence policy makers and and the AGW true believers, not to report accurately on the state of the science:
“Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”
– The IPCC editors knew their glacier claims was phony:
“Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]”
-This was in direct contradiciotn of IPCC stated procedures:
“Having been forced to apologise over the 2035 claim, Dr Pachauri blamed Dr Lal, saying his team had failed to apply IPCC procedures.”
So yet another major player in the AGW promotion community is found to be playing fast abd loose with the facts and with the ethics.
Is it unreasonable to also be suspicious and skeptical of the Met?
No.
The fun part of this is how true believers are saying that the IPCC, which was touted for years as the definitive source of AGW theory and science, is now being down played, even while the theory of AGW is cliamed to be solid and untarnished.
This is really no different from listening to UFO believers talk about how UFO’s are real, in the face of the fraud and and failures of each claim of UFO promoters.
Even the term UFO believers use to describe skeptics is similar to AGW true believers:
‘debunkers’ for UFO skeptics, and ‘deniers’ for AGW skeptics.
The only real deniers in this conversation are those who deny that substantial grounds for skepticism of AGW exist and who also deny that the major promoters of AGW have been wrong in detail and in general in many areas of their work, their claims, and their ethics.
Waldo,
Sorry to have once again hit the submit so soon.
Please do tell us all what I look like, according to your great insights.
So the influence of the evil wicked deniosphere is strong enough to make the BBC review its contract with the Met?
http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/big-question/the-big-question-should-the-bbc-drop-the-met-office-as-its-official-weather-forecaster-1872008.html
You have arrived at a conversation of ideas not only unarmed, but wearing tinfoil on your noggin.
Here is a nice link about what science is, and is not:
http://www.haystack.mit.edu/hay/staff/jball/SerScience.pdf
I like this quote in particular.
“The history of science contains, one after another, a series of blows to
mankinds anthropocentric ego”
What is a bigger expression of a modern anthropocentric ego than the idea that we can manage the climate by regulating CO2, and that by doing so, we can avert a human caused climate apocalypse?
Hmmmmm…
hunter, did you check out either of your stories?
To keep this brief – can you actually find Lal’s statement, published by the Dailymail, on the WWF website? Have you checked? Do you know if it is a legitimate story? Or is another bogus piece of journalism? It has made the rounds of the blogosphere, for sure, but is it real? I think I already know the answer, but I was wondering if you could find out for yourself.
Is there anything on the BBC website about dropping the MET? They might be looking for a new weather service – and this would be the first instance in which CS posted real journalism – but can you confirm that anywhere?
Let’s get back to your essay later, it looks interesting.
And by the way, I never said my image of you was particularly bad. In my mind, you are rather outdoorsy and energetic, a rather trim, handsome chap with a perennially bunched mono-brow. That’s all.
By the way, hunter, for some reason I am having trouble posting on the other thread, so you might try looking here for code and data:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
http://www.ipcc-data.org/
Waldo,
Many other in a losing situation do as you are doing, moving the goal posts. So now the standard of proof for you is that the players have to confess their activities in official form, or else it is all just fabricated stuff?
Yet for you any defamation or slander of a skeptic is just fine.
Do you actually think that the WWF is going to publish on their website a confession of corrupting the IPCC?
Keep moving those goal posts.
You are reminding me of Baghdad Bob, giving that famous interview about how Baghdad was secure from the Americans, very convincingly, until the building in the background was blown up by Americans.
Mono-brow?lol.
The AGW social movement is turning out to be a combination of sleazy business and politics, and UFO mythology.
Huh?
It is very simple, hunter, did Lal publish the statements attributed to him by the Dailymail on the WWF website? The Dailymail claims that Lal admitted to falsifying data on the WWF website – is that statement there on the WWF website? Or did you just get willingly duped?
By the way, here are your codes and datasets:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
http://www.ipcc-data.org/
Just won’t post on the other thread.
“You, like hunter, are attempting to rationalize his character and his posting.”
I was not aware that you were a mind reader. I’ve read enough of Meyer’s work to conclude as I have, perhaps erroneously.
“Perhaps, Brain, I will find your house one day and then you can very bravely show me the door.”
Where I come from a statement like this is usually construed as a threat.
Chill, dude. Relax. You will be okay. I simply meant that some day you can ban me from your blog. Geeze, you CS-types are wired. I should not be surprised on such a paranoid site.
And yes, I am a mind reader. And this thread has also outlived its usefulness.
Waldo,
Perhaps you have a reading dysfunction?
What Lal confessed is that evidence on the WWF website is false.
It would take a deliberate effort to misread his statement as an assertion that he confessed on the WWF website to his fraud.
But deliberate ignorance is your specialty.