Quite a bit different from their November 24th statement, which you can read here. For those that still think Climategate has no significant impact on climate science, this revelation tells another story.
Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data
The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.
The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.
The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.
The Met Office works closely with the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which is being investigated after e-mails written by its director, Phil Jones, appeared to show an attempt to manipulate temperature data and block alternative scientific views.
The Met Office’s published data showing a warming trend draws heavily on CRU analysis. CRU supplied all the land temperature data to the Met Office, which added this to its own analysis of sea temperature data.
Since the stolen e-mails were published, the chief executive of the Met Office has written to national meteorological offices in 188 countries asking their permission to release the raw data that they collected from their weather stations.
The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct. However, it says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.
The development will add to fears that influential sceptics in other countries, including the US and Australia, are using the controversy to put pressure on leaders to resist making ambitious deals for cutting CO2.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change admitted yesterday that it needed to consider the full implications of the e-mails and whether they cast doubt on any of the evidence for man-made global warming.
========
“influential sceptics in other countries” I wonder who that could be?
I applaud the open process though.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Nothing ever changes, except the weather.
I found myself today, AGAIN, explaining what my position is…
Specifically, it’s not that I don’t “believe”, just that the record as presented to us is NOT CREDIBLE. There are too many questions about mysteriously dropping older temperatures, mysteriously rising recent temperatures, mysterious straight lines showing improbable rising trends when we can look around and see that the last decade has been cooling.
Also, SurfaceStations brought to light the deplorable state of the record, and after the fall of the the Soviet Union the loss of stations completely messed with the record.
If someone were to transparently go through the original records and show some sort of credible warming, and any sort of credible correlation to CO2, then I’d be FINE WITH THAT… heck, I’d be on-board with “solutions” and “tackling” the “problem”.
I have seen absolutely no reason to think that climate in my lifetime is even remotely unusual, and contrary to the warmmongers, I HAVE LOOKED.
Then there is the secondary insanity, where this NOT CREDIBLE temperature record is being used in all kinds of marginally possible scenarios, and presented to a credulous world as “our future”. Complete with “weasel words”, like should, or could, or might. Hundreds, thousands of “peer reviewed” papers are published, which ASSUME that the temperature record is accurate. Since I have genuine concerns about that, I can’t possibly take any of them seriously.
Give me a real, accurate, and CREDIBLE temperature record. Please. And stop dismantling my civilization in the meantime!
oops don’t know why that posted early
Anyone following the EPA CO2 process closely enough to know if they could be announcing new regulations on Monday instead of waiting for the Cap and Trade bill?
Re: D. King (21:56:52) :
Claude Harvey (21:32:17) :
Now, about that boy Hansen’s work over in the U.S.?
“We’ll take care of him, but how are we going to deprogram
all the kids?”
Programming or reprogramming kids is relatively easy. They are fundamentally wired to rebel. You simply give them something “to push against”. So long as AGW advocates could present themselves as “rebels doing good against evil corporations and their lackey governments” the AGW story had great appeal with the youngsters. Curiously, the “warmists” began to lose their natural leverage with the youngsters the instant they became “mainstream”. Once institutions and governments embraced AGW, the youngsters were primed for a new cause. Now, the heroes in the script are underdog “skeptics” doing good against long odds while battling with vested institutional interests.
Give it time and the youngsters will respond. They’re suckers for the rebel cause. Be forewarned, however, that sometime after skepticism goes mainstream the youngster will turn on its adherents like mad dogs. The percentage of the population who have the innate ability to dispassionately discern truth from fiction number no more than 15% according to my informal experiments. The percentage, young or old, who hold truth to be a sacred objective number no more than 5% by my estimation. In spite of that, truth has a tenacious ability to find its way through the human fog.
CH
At last!
And at last some small mentions in the Australian media, including ABC- the trend is “undeniable” (and probably “worse than they thought”).
Regarding the Met office re-assessment, I’m a bit worried- no doubt you’ve heard of the three Great Lies:
1) The cheque’s in the mail
2) I’ll still respect you in the morning
3) I’m from the Department and I’m here to help you.
And regarding Tony Abbott and his budgie smugglers- finally the Opposition has got some balls, in the best sense of the word.
publish the raw and publish the code to “adjust it” with the reasoning behind the code … open source it … we’ll smoke the bastards … we should challenge every station that is improperly located or in a heat island that they refuse to recognize …
It would seem that the Met Office intends to prove AGW by releasing raw data. There is no mention of carrying out any analysis:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8396696.stm
UK’s PM Brown calls sceptics “flat earthers”:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/04/flat-earth-climate-change-copenhagen
Obama is going to Copenhagen towards the end of the meeting to attend the conference:
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/12/he-ups-the-ante.html
And California’s governor pushes sea level rise in San Francisco: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1232884/Arnold-Schwarzenegger-unveils-dramatic-climate-change-map-shows-flooded-San-Francisco-future.html
This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics, global governance and taxes. No doubt the battle for truth will continue.
Does the Met office actually have all the raw data? Is Jones aware of this? Will the Met office also have access to the computer code/programs that CRU developed/used? We have either uncovered the tainted work by a bunch of corrupt scientists or the most twisted Machiavellian plot imaginable by the climate change alarmists.
The three years to do the re-analysis consists of one month to write a bit of code to analyse the data, followed by thirty five months to get all the fudge factors included to give the required result.
“The Met Office
worksworked closely with the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.”Oh dear, when true love goes wrong.
“The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading body for assessing climate change science.
The organisation’s chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri told BBC Radio 4’s The Report programme the claims were serious and he wants them investigated.
“We will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it,” he said.
“We certainly don’t want to brush anything under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we will look into it in detail.” ”
The chill winds of a scientific climate change blowing through the corridors of the CRU. How will Phil Jones “hide the decline” this time?
Claude Harvey (23:19:08) :
“The percentage of the population who have the innate ability to dispassionately discern truth from fiction number no more than 15% according to my informal experiments. The percentage, young or old, who hold truth to be a sacred objective number no more than 5% by my estimation. In spite of that, truth has a tenacious ability to find its way through the human fog. ”
It only took 12% of the colonists support to start this country we call the USA.
@skeptic
Its not all the raw data – just 1,000 specially selected weather stations going back up to 160 years from 188 countries which WILL (MO already tells us) finally “prove” global warming. No models, then, no corrections, no check of prediction vs actual.
Gordon Brown, who thinks that anyone who disagrees with his “The Science is Settled” attitude is a “Flat Earther” is merely showing how shallow a thinker he is.
Post “ClimateGate”, the UK government is desperately trying to bludgeon the average Brit into agreeing to be taxed even more to offset their imagined planet killer – CO2. NoHopenhagen will be yet another scam in the Green hysteric shambles that is the smoke and mirrors Man made Global Warming.
Waving my magic wand I would like to be back in the Medieval Warm Period and sample some of those grapes from Cumbria. Warmer is so much netter than colder. Cheaper too.
BTW No UK enquiry held recently has ever reached the truth it sought. What came out was always how the government spinners wanted it to appear.
Reply: I prefer living in an age where my date bathes and brushes her teeth and I can eat sushi and pizza in the same country. ~ ctm
Here’s how this will go, just like in that past.
The TEAM: AGW is a FACT. The science is settled.
US: Uh, can we look at the data?
The TEAM: DENIERS!!! OUR data is rock solid
US: No, we just would like to see the data, it doesn’t seem to match up.
The TEAM: DENIERS!!! OUR data is purer than the Virgin Mary.
US: Well, actually, if you look, you might have made a mistake here…
The TEAM: Uh, yea, there might be a small clerical error, but it does nothing to disprove the science, WHICH IS SETTLED.
US: No, actually it seems that a LOT of your premises were wrong, and it sort of messes up your whole theory.
The TEAM: Deniers!!! Everything in that report is 110% accurate
US: Actually, we’ve shown this data to tons of scientists, and almost all of them agree that the data has been manipulated.
The TEAM: You mean THAT data? Ha, where have you been? We don’t use that data anymore, stupid – you just don’t understand the science, which is settled.
Rinse, lather, repeat.
So it will take them 3 years to reanalyse the data – perhaps the could get Steve McIntyre to help and cut it down to a few months.
John Simpson (22:47:21) :
I don’t think people understand. The Met Office has rescinded the 3 year study now and instead they will release the RAW Data for just 1,000 specially selected Weather stations Next Week to finally prove Global Warming beyond any doubt.
It’s a start. We will of course compare the data with old plots we have lying around to check they aren’t fudging.
This is an Admission of Guilt… They admit that the temperature record is corrupt and/or fraudulent.So begins the first step on the long road back to Scientific integrity.
As this is proof that the previous effort was political and secret and may indeed be again…. Great effort must be made to include all Prominent sceptics and for the data and methodology to be accessible to all, including the non scientific general public, the British taxpayer who has spent so much money so far in this sad situation.
What happened to the HadCRUT Temperature series must never ever happen again.
Judge Napolitano and Steve Milloy On Climategate
3 years to reassess the data is about the time for Harry to have lost all his hair trying to create CRUTEM3.
Maybe we could get Steve McIntyre to oversee the reconstruction. Might get done right and in only six months
and if three years from now, after a true open forum, the temp record looks quite the same, then can we move on to the real issue? i.e. the forcings….
I live close to the Met Office in Exeter. On Monday I will be personally delivering a letter addresed to Vicky Pope which contains details of my web site (updated yesterday)
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
It includes temperature data pre 1850 plus numerous articles and links so they can back before the 160 years they mention.
I will be asking the met office to re-examine their patently absurd position here;
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policymakers/policy/slowdown.html
Extract “Before the twentieth century, when man-made greenhouse gas emissions really took off, there was an underlying stability to global climate. The temperature varied from year to year, or decade to decade, but stayed within a certain range and averaged out to an approximately steady level.”
I will point out that the statement is against ALL the evidence demonstrated in temperature data and observations made for three thousand years.
I will also invite Vicky Pope and her colleagues to travel a bare 15 miles North to Dartmoor, where some of the most famous examples in the world exist of previous climate chgange. Ruins from the Bronze age and medieval strip systems and farmsteads from the MWP were all abandoned when the inhabitants were forced to leave the moors when the climate cooled.
I suspect that they will steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the myriad strands of evidence out there that demonstrates that their scientists need to get outside more and stop relying on their computers and statistical manipulation of dubious statistics.
Anyone else like to put a (metaphorical) signature to the letter?
Tonyb
at least they say the data would be availabe for all who wish to study it.. do i get this right?
but then again, Obama promised before the elections, that his administration is going to be a very transparent one…;[
“fears that influential sceptics in other countries, including the US and Australia, are using the controversy to put pressure on leaders to resist making ambitious deals for cutting CO2.”
Put pressure on politicians to act in a sane manner! I’ll drink to that.
Well I wish them good luck in their endeavor to recover any semblance of credibility.
They WILL need it.