It’s called “advocacy research.” I read an article where the alarmist claims on half-a-dozen or so were compared to the actual facts (as well as they could be ascertained) a few years after the claims. the advocacy research overstated the situation by a factor of five.

(Unfortunately I remember only a couple of the cases in point: the number of homeless and the percentage of spousal abuse.)

The whole AGW/MMCC case rests on theoretical extrapolations based on unreliable data and computer simulations that have yet to match actual observed reality.
There is even a section on “climate myths” and the obvious question is, how does the met office decide what is a myth and what is a fact? I thought a fact was an observable and provable reality supported by firm uncontested evidence and a myth was an unproven and unverified story passed from person to person over time with no recorded evidence to support it.

This is heresy. If I see the Inspector of the Joint Unit Inspection (JUI) unit, I shall report you forthwith. Now where in the joint is that guy?

The issue is not that world water supply was not a problem, but that it would be nice to be working with real data.

By 1967 the process was automated. By the time I retired (Aug 71), the Automated Weather Network, centered at Carswell AFB, TX (AWN — ICAO call sign KAWN) with satellite sites in Fuchu, Japan and High Wycombe, UK.

Rod,
Thank you. As a young man I was up to the challange. I left the Wx Comm office in early 1967 for a “tough tour” at the Satellite Control Facility, Sunnyvale , CA so i missed the early stages of automation.
I remember very well the bastardized versions of synoptic code. Seems everyone had to do their own thing. WMO manuals were full of code exceptions and as I remember, was the only source to help interpret each country’s preferences.
Don’t know if you ever heard of the “Army Wx Loop.” It was one of those SSB 50wpm circuits that was never capable of filling the mission for which it was designated. 100% of the circuit time was accounted for so any outages (many) or interruptions (common) meant that scheduled traffic was lost… forever. Weather obs were given priority so forecast support data, AIREPS, RAWIN, etc. got preempted quite often.
By the time I got back into the “real” weather field in 1973 the automation had
given me a feeling of being spoiled. Progress – a great thing. Looks like we are trying to stop it in its tracks with the roadblocks to access timely climate summaries, etc. As Bugs Bunny might say: Watts up Doc?

If major organisations like the met office can misrepresent theory and opinion as proven scientific fact without challenge then what does that mean for the future of science?

Congratulations! Weather editing was a tough job.

By 1967 the process was automated. By the time I retired (Aug 71), the Automated Weather Network, centered at Carswell AFB, TX (AWN — ICAO call sign KAWN) with satellite sites in Fuchu, Japan and High Wycombe, UK.

Carswell had 77 circuits, several via satellite, with the fastest being (near) state-of-the-art for its day at 4800 baud. Most of Asia, and a lot of the Soviet Union, plus some others areas were still intercepted — some by CW.

One time we provided NWS (Suitland, MD) with Soviet data (when their line to Moscow was down) they got more Soviet data from us, and faster, than they normally got from Moscow. From what I understand, even Moscow was surprised at what NWS had.

When we first automated the AWN (at Tinker AFB), we found that about 30% of the data was so non-standard — or damaged –that it had to be fixed by manual weather editors. As we progressed and wrote (a lot) more software, that number came down to about 5%, but not one bit of that was attributable to WMO.

For my part, I could depend on info from ICAO publications, but WMO things were not very reliable, although when I talked to our WMO Rep in the late 80′s (while doing contract weather software!) I got good answers.

Others may have different views, but as you probably know, world wide weather exchange was not as well controlled, nor as reliable, or fast, as most folks might think.

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/satellite/?wfo=pdt

It’s because the coordinates for the Glasgow Airport were given where in DMS:

55-52N 004-26W means N55 52′ 00″ W04 26′ 00″

http://www.wmo.int/pages/about/mission_en.html

Also from the WMO web site:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/about/index_en.html

You can read how the WMO traces its roots back to the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), which was founded in 1873. In other words, it’s an international clearinghouse of weather data, as well as being charged with setting standards.

As an example of one of the things they do, see:

http://www.worldweather.org/

It presents OFFICIAL weather observations, weather forecasts and climatological information for selected cities supplied by National Meteorological & Hydrological Services (NMHSs) worldwide. In other words, each country gathers the data and forwards their data to the WMO.

I gets visions of scores of worker bees sitting at their desks, in endless rows of anonymous cubicles, moving stacks of very officious looking memos from the left side of their desk to the right.

We seem to be beset by governments wanting to help us! To do Good!

I wish they would help someone else.