The Met Office 'secret' prediction and the political implications

The UK Met Office

Guest Post by Barry Woods

In The Telegraph (UK newspaper), it was reported that Roger Harrabin, an environment analyst at the BBC, told the Radio Times:

“The trouble is that we simply don’t know how much to trust the Met Office. How often does it get the weather right and wrong. And we don’t know how it compares with other, independent forecasters.” – The Telegraph

Boris Johnson – The Mayor of London, is arguably perhaps the most democratically personally elected politician in the UK. As over 1.1 million London voters voted for him directly for the elected office of Mayor. This is compared to a UK Member of Parliament, who might win their seat with as little as 20,000 votes. In many seats, if you wore the right party badge a ‘mascot’ might get elected. Whilst the public are voting for a person, it is the party they represent that is being voted for.

In my opinion, no other Conservative candidate could have won that election to become Mayor, at a time (May 2008) when the Labour Party were still very much in power in the UK. Boris Johnson won peoples votes despite him being a Conservative for many members of the public that voted for him.

Thus, for a high profile Conservative like Boris to write glowingly about (arch sceptic) Piers Corbyn and criticise the Met Office, is in my opinion very significant politically in the UK. Especially in light of the fact that Boris wrote this before the Met Office started denying they had predicted mild winters and before their ‘secret’ prediction statement.

Boris Johnson cares whether London (including Heathrow airport) and himself is made to look bad in the eyes of a world audience. I wonder what Boris thinks about the Met Office ‘secret’ prediction?

As Boris is in the position of power, knowing whether or not London and Heathrow received the ‘secret’ warning’.

As the UK government, Heathrow airport particularly, were woefully under-prepared AGAIN this winter, the big budget UK taxpayer-funded Met Office have finally moved from being a laughing-stock, into surely a public enquiry by that ‘secret’ statement. In the time of recession, big budget organisations like the Met Office have to be seen to be performing, not acting in the public’s eyes as a global warming campaigning lobby group.

This time politicians have been publicly embarrassed by the Met Office.

In the Sunday Telegraph today, Christopher Booker calls the Met Office to account:

” First it was a national joke. Then its professional failings became a national disaster. Now, the dishonesty of its attempts to fight off a barrage of criticism has become a real national scandal. I am talking yet again of that sad organisation the UK Met Office, as it now defends its bizarre record with claims as embarrassingly absurd as any which can ever have been made by highly-paid government officials.” – Christopher Booker

Anybody in the age of the internet can now check on anything a public body or advocate has said, the politicians and journalists are only slowly becoming aware of this in my opinion. The Global Warming Policy Foundation has also publicly written to the Transport Secretary calling for an enquiry. On the board of the GWPF there are respected senior UK politicians, on the GWPF Academic Advisory Panel there are very well respected scientists including:

Professor Robert Carter, Professor Freeman Dyson, Professor Richard Lindzen, Professor Philip Stott, Professor Ross Mckitrick, Professor Paul Reiter, Professor Ian Plimer & Professor Hal Lewis

This issue will be he heard and will be discussed privately in the corridors of power.

For one particular high profile politician like Boris Johnson to have moved publicly even as far as he goes in the following,  demonstrates that the CAGW ‘political game has changed’ permanently in the UK.

Before the Copenhagen Conference (Cop 15) – Boris Johnson, the Conservative Mayor of London (formerly the  Conservative Member of Parliament for Henley-on-Thames – my local town), wrote dismissively of the Climategate emails in the Telegraph;

“That is why the polls show such an amazingly obstinate public refusal to accept the reality of global warming. That is why there is still a market for thermoscepticism of all kinds. That is why people seize on a few stray emails from the University of East Anglia which seem – wrongly – to undermine the scientific case.” – Boris Johnson

At the time Boris was fully behind the Labour Prime Minister, who went off to Copenhagen, stating ’50 Days to Save the Planet’, and spoke about ‘Flat-earthers’, ‘anti-science climate sceptics’. The Minister of State for the Department of Energy And Climate Change, ED Milliband (now the Labour Party leader, in opposition) apparently thinking calling CAGW sceptics  ‘saboteurs’ was appropriate at the time all UK political parties were convinced that environmental ‘climate change’ policies were a vote winner,  a UK General Election was possibly weeks, at most a few weeks away.

This year, we have a new government in the UK after 13 years of AGW consensus, a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition, Boris is still mayor of London, and this week, he writes glowingly about Piers Corbyn (Weather Action) out predicting the Met Office.  Piers is a total CAGW sceptic, behind the recent Climate Fools day – House of Commons meeting.  For Boris Johnson to write publicly positively about Piers and criticizing the government-funded, Met Office, demonstrates how much things have changed.  Boris Johnson, despite his slightly buffoonish comical genial image is nobody’s fool, serving prominently as a conservative politician for so long is evidence of that alone.

Telegraph: The man who repeatedly beats the Met Office at its own game, by Boris Johnson

“Piers Corbyn not only predicted the current weather, but he believes things are going to get much worse, says Boris Johnson.

“….It is no use my saying that London Underground and bus networks are performing relatively well – touch wood – when Heathrow, our major international airport, is still effectively closed two days after the last heavy snowfall; when substantial parts of our national rail network are still struggling; when there are abandoned cars to be seen on hard shoulders all over the country; and when yet more snow is expected today, especially in the north.”

“….So let me seize this brief gap in the aerial bombardment to pose a question that is bugging me. Why did the Met Office forecast a “mild winter”?

“…Piers Corbyn works in an undistinguished office in Borough High Street. He has no telescope or supercomputer. Armed only with a laptop, huge quantities of publicly available data and a first-class degree in astrophysics, he gets it right again and again.Back in November, when the Met Office was still doing its “mild winter” schtick, Corbyn said it would be the coldest for 100 years. Indeed, it was back in May that he first predicted a snowy December, and he put his own money on a white Christmas about a month before the Met Office made any such forecast. He said that the Met Office would be wrong about last year’s mythical “barbecue summer”, and he was vindicated. He was closer to the truth about last winter, too.”

Boris Johnson went on to say that man-made co2 is still a cause of global warming, according to an overwhelming majority of scientists,  James Delingpole of the Telegraph summaries Boris’ current dilemma more eloquently than I in his blog.

“So what sounds like a fervent declaration of faith in the Warmist creed may on closer examination be a perfectly innocuous statement of the bleeding obvious cunningly calculated to appease all Boris’s rent-seeking chums in the City who stand to make a fortune from the Great Carbon Scam and would be most displeased if the Mayor of London were to show signs of wobbling.

Yet wobbling is, of course, exactly what Boris is doing. Or rather – remember, this is the man so ambitious he makes Alexander The Great look like Olive from On The Buses – he is slyly repositioning himself to take advantage of the inevitable collapse of public faith in the Great Anthropogenic Global Warming Ponzi Scheme.” – James Delingpole

If the politicians think trouble is ahead, they back the winners, not only has the Met Office predictions of mild winter been wrong three winters in the row, they have been SEEN to be wrong, there was plenty of mainstream press coverage before the harsh winters that other forecaster were predicting a severe winter.  Following the last years mild winter prediction by the Met Office, there was even BBC coverage debating whether their very expensive super computer had a ‘warm bias’ which was wildly reported in the mainstream media in the UK.

BBC – A frozen Britain turns the heat up on the Met office – Paul Hudson

Could the model, seemingly with an inability to predict colder seasons, have developed a warm bias, after such a long period of milder than average years? Experts I have spoken to tell me that this certainly is possible with such computer models. And if this is the case, what are the implications for the Hadley centre’s predictions for future global temperatures? Could they be affected by such a warm bias? If global temperatures were to fall in years to come would the computer model be capable of forecasting this?

The Met Office (Hadley Centre) is an interconnected part of the UK Climate Science establishment. In the UK we have not just had a cold winter but the second coldest December on record, and the coldest winter on record. The UK CET record actually means something (not just a 30 year satellite record) the Central England Temperature (CET) dataset, goes back to the 1660′s. Again all this information, is now in the mainstream media with headlines including ‘mini ice age’ and ‘coldest winter in 300 years’  read by millions of members of the general public.

BBC – December 2010 Update – Second Coldest since 1659 – Paul Hudson

[For the uninitiated: (Mean cet data) = Central England Temperature dataset, more here]

There are two possibilities now.

1.) If the Met office are telling the truth.

Then the  government failed to prepare or warn public bodies about what is now the SECOND coldest December in the UK since records began.  London Heathrow was publicly embarrassed and closed for days as it could not handle a few inches of snow, it had only invested an additional £500,000 in de-icing equipment and the government apparently stepped into help ensure fresh supplies reached the airport.  The lack of readiness for the snow will have had an effect on the UK economy. No doubt all this negative publicity shown by the media around the world, billions of pound in the economy and possibly risking future billions of foreign inwards investment, as London appears to be as organised as an undeveloped nation.  I imagine some corporations, passengers, or airlines might want to sue.

There is even, also some suspicion that if this was the case, it was kept quiet because predictions of the coldest winter in the UK for decades would be a bit awkward for the Energy and Climate Change Secretary of State flying off to the man-made global warming, climate change, global climate disruption, future climate breakdown Cop 15 Cancun conference.

2.) If the Met Office are NOT telling the truth

If the Met Office are shall we say, spinning a line, to make out they are not useless at predicting the weather, then I imagine even the dimmest politician and non-questioning ‘investigative’ journalists might start asking what exactly is the Met Office for.

Bishop Hill and other blogs report that Freedom of Information request are being sent off for these ‘ so called ‘secret’ Met Office predictions made to the government.

After all it must be true, the BBC’s Roger Harrabin reported it?

I wonder if the BBC have thought to send any FOI requests in themselves, just to check the facts of this story. The BBC just renewed a 5 year contract with the Met Office to provide all the weather forecasting for the BBC.  The BBC surely does not want to look as if it is being lax in its investigative journalism? If only to check that the service provided to the BBC by the Met Office is competent and can be trusted, as it is taxpayers money paying for this service.

“The trouble is that we simply don’t know how much to trust the Met Office.”  – BBC Roger Harrabin, from the Telegraph

I’d like to wish a  belated Happy New Year from RealClimategate.org to all readers of Watts Up With That.

Thanks again to Anthony Watts for indulging my thoughts from the UK

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

106 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike Haseler
January 10, 2011 1:11 am

Alexander says: January 10, 2011 at 12:31 am
Because of a basic mistake** in the optical physics which came into climate science from Sagan via ex-students Lacis and Hansen at NASA/GISS in 1974, the main part of the ‘global dimming’ correction in AR4, … So, it seems highly likely that AR4 was known to be seriously wrong when published and there needs to be a judicial enquiry to find out who was responsible for this.
When I was a kid, we were all being told that atmospheric particulates led to global cooling (the nuclear winter). In the decades after the 1970s there was a rapid drop in air particulates due to the clean air acts. It is almost certain this led to a measurable rise in global temperature, yet somehow these warmists turn their own logic on its head and tell us this increased solar warming from reducing particulates was cooling.
Sooner or later there will be an inquiry – rather like the truth and reconciliation inquiry in South Africa – that really gets to the bottom of this fraud. How is it possible that so many people were gullible enough to believe this blatant fraud? How was it possible that so many apparently well-intentioned people got into a mind-set where they were willing to commit this scientific fraud? And why wasn’t the scientific process resilient enough to detect and out this fraud?

Roy
January 10, 2011 1:15 am

Without wishing to diminish the ineptitude with which Heathrow cleared the snow and ice, it is wrong to say that they invested only £500,000 in snow clearing equipment.
That is the amount they spent on additional equipment this year; they already had what they considered adequate equipment. A pedantic point maybe, but if you don’t properly state the problem you will get eaten alive when you start trying to ask the hard questions that need to be asked about that fiasco.

Mike Haseler
January 10, 2011 1:25 am

jorgekafkazar says: January 9, 2011 at 11:42 pm
Here’s a public-funded organization that admits it is selling information that gives private customers (not the public) a “clear advantage.” If they told the general population the same information they’re giving private financial institutions, the info would be of no value in a trading market, would it? So the UK sheep get fleeced once to keep Madame Metoffsky’s sideshow in business, then get fleeced again when private companies speculate in climate-sensitive markets using insider information, and yet again when they freeze in their homes and cars and airports. How is this not an extraordinary conflict of interest?
jorgekafkazar, whilst I’ve been a long term critic of the Met Office and their bizarre climate predictions, I’d never occurred to me that the way they are set up means that it is in their interest to provide less than accurate forecasts to the public to increase the value of the commercial forecasts. That probably explains why their forecasts have become less and less useful over the last five years. E.g. it used to be possible to take one look at the forecast and plan when to travel on a long journey down the UK because you could see how the fronts were coming in and work out the best window to avoid them.
Now they give spot forecasts for individual places – which means they keep their “we got our forecast (almost) right” statistics, but you don’t get an overview picture and I’ve literally spent hours trying to work out what the weather is doing and the timing of fronts coming over.
And what the bl****y hell is a weather warning of “severe weather” which doesn’t tell you when, where and the progression of the severe weather when you have to travel?
They can claim they got the forecast right … but the poor motorist who has to take their crap cannot make a meaningful change to their travel plans because there is no actionable information … except sometime, somewhere, someone is going to get severe weather. So it’s win-win for the Met, because unless everyone in the affected area just stays at home on the off-chance it is them, the Met Office will always claim it gave a perfectly good warning to those who are affected because of their literally useless forecasts.

JohnH
January 10, 2011 1:27 am

Christopher Hanley says:
January 10, 2011 at 12:49 am
“…could the model, seemingly with an inability to predict colder seasons, have developed a warm bias, after such a long period of milder than average years? ……if global temperatures were to fall in years to come would the computer model be capable of forecasting this…?”
As far as I know, computers (even super ones) are jumbles of metals, ‘metaloids’, rare earths, plastics etc.
They have no a priori understanding, no sense organs, no instincts, independent knowledge or experience of the world outside what humans have built into their architecture or have programmed.
You can’t sue a computer.
But you can sue the Programmers who put the warm slant in the Model.

Bob Ryan
January 10, 2011 1:28 am

As far as I understand it the AGW thesis is that the net increase in atmospheric CO2 brought about by human activity will increase global temperatures over and above what they would have been by an amount that is disputed. There are uncertainties about the level of attenuation or amplification of this underlying increase in the trend through feedback and it is the magnitude and the sign of this feedback mechanism where the real scientific debate is being held. The fact that we are in the midst of one of the coldest winters on record in the UK, or indeed across the Northern hemisphere, may or may not have surprised the UKMO, but what it does not do is touch the AGW debate. All AGW says about this winter’s weather is that cold as it is, without the impact of human emissions it would be colder still.

JohnOfEnfield
January 10, 2011 1:36 am

Isn’t it about time we went on the offensive (we being ANTI-AGW people?).
A web-site entitled

David L
January 10, 2011 1:45 am

What’s with all the complaints about spelling? It’s rare that any post or comment that I read here lacks grammatical mistakes. But who cares? This is science, not english literature. And many folks here are not native speakers. Shouldn’t it be substance over style?
Sew their, eye maid my point.

Mike Vince
January 10, 2011 1:49 am

I haven’t seen anyone mention the Chairman of the Met Office who received a CBE in the New Years Honours:
http://www.ecobuild.co.uk/arena/speakers/robert-napier.html
“Robert is also Chairman of the Board of the Met Office. He was Chief Executive of WWF-UK, the UK arm of the World Wide Fund for Nature, from 1999 to April 2007. ”
“He is also Chairman of the trustees of the Carbon Disclosure Project, WCMC 2000 and is Chairman of the Green Fiscal Commission.”
Anyone surprised that the Met Office is biased?

Jeremy Crick
January 10, 2011 1:59 am

Thanks, Barry, for a very interesting post – highlighting the political implications of the Met Office’s recent troubles is very timely indeed. I have suggested in another place that concerned constituents (yes, I’m a UK taxpayer) should lobby their MPs with a request to table/support an Early Day Motion in Parliament to hold a public enquiry into the management at the Met Office.
Sorry to be a bore, but could I point out a couple places where your article could do with some clarification?
Third para: “…that ‘secret’ statement.” Unfortunately, you omitted to explain what this secret statement is (it’s also mentioned in the headline).
Fourth para: “Therefore New Scientists optimism is misplaced …”. You need to provide the quote from the New Scientist article, particularly as you wrap up your article with a further reference to this. Also should be “New Scientist’s”.
Further down: “Following the last years mild winter prediction by the Met Office, there was even BBC coverage debating whether their very expensive super computer had a ‘warm bias’ …” should read: “”Following last year’s mild winter..”

January 10, 2011 2:04 am

Michael Mann writes to Jim Salinger of New Zealand, in Climategate email 1060002347.txt dated 4 August 2003
“It is true that the skeptics twist the truth clockwise rather than counterclockwise in the Southern Hemisphere?”
There is some sweetness for this Antipodean seeing higher up in this tread –
Jack says: January 9, 2011 at 9:36 pm
“Is that the distant sound of a gurgler and the Met Office and other exploiters are caught on the edge of the funnel, spiralling down”.
Counterclockwise?
Come on Micheal, how about a few examples of twisting the truth now that your mate Jim has been sacked?

Dizzy Ringo
January 10, 2011 2:10 am

Roger Harrabin usually pushes the AGW dogma so his words must be taken with care.
The Met Office as I understand it has 2 sections: one works on genuine forecasting – and they are pretty good – and the other works on climate change and works closely with CRU.
The head honcho, Robert Napier, is also a confirmed AGW subscriber and has been closely associated with various environmental organisations including, I understand, WWF.

Alexander K
January 10, 2011 2:13 am

In the recent past, I met and talked with a chap who happened to be an equipment maintenance engineer at Heathrow. He told me, in a tone of cynical amusement, that Heathrow has more managers than qualified technical staff, does not hold spare parts for any equipment (on the basis that unused inventory was too expensive and their suppliers will supply parts within hours). I am, consequent to this illuminating converstaion, unsurprised that Heathrow could not cope with a small amount of snow.
With each passing winter I spend in the UK, factors that irritate and amuse me are the inability of the UK rail system to cope with Autumn leaves on railway lines, acquaintances native to London who believe that they live in the worst climate in the world and the most serious, the well-documented ‘Blitz Mentality’ which is the Brits’ ability to tolerate really bad stuff providing a cup of tea and a scone is on offer. This latter makes my Brit cousins their own worst enemies as they will cheerfully tolerate petty rules, stupidity, unethical practices and arrogant nonsense from Sir and Madam Beaureau Crat in all his or her guises that us Antipodeans and other former colonials will not tolerate.

1DandyTroll
January 10, 2011 2:16 am

If 1 then it seems to me that Met qualifies for being guilty of neglect in pretty much all the vehicular accidents due to snow and ice and all the suffering from very cold people who budgeted for heating for a warmer ‘an normal winter.
So how many of the elderly will have to suffer before Met is held accountable for its neglect?

January 10, 2011 2:28 am

In my last post, I purposely wrote “tread” for “thread” and “Micheal” for “Michael”. In compensation, I also corrected Jack’s word “doewn” to “down”.
Come on guys and gals, it’s one thing to make a typo in an equation, rendering it useless, but another to do it in speed text where the real meaning is obvious.
It is more important to spend the time doing research, then on to the next topic, than to correct self-evident typos. Indeed, the typo can be an attention grabbing device, even a minor art form in semi-formal company. An eror can be self-referential.
“Dear teacher, please excuse young Johnny for wearing sneakers to school today because his shoes are at the bookmakers.”

January 10, 2011 2:29 am

The Callendar Effect, Fleming, AMS, 2007, fig. 2.12
plus ca change plus c’est la meme chose
Mais non! Seuls les Anglais des Etats-Unis est autorise uniquement sur ce blog.

David L
January 10, 2011 2:39 am

Bob Ryan says:
January 10, 2011 at 1:28 am
“… All AGW says about this winter’s weather is that cold as it is, without the impact of human emissions it would be colder still.”
Not cold enough for you? You’d like it colder still? If this winter was warmer than usual, and tens of thousands of people died in the UK as a result, had we not had global warming then it would have been even colder and even more people would have died. And that’s a better scenario than a warming planet? Most humans are warm blooded mammals.; they benefit from warmth, not cold.

richard verney
January 10, 2011 2:58 am

ANTHONY,
[]
I have read the article and was impressed with the thrust and points made. Personally, I think that it is a sad day when readers on this site are more concerned at style over substance, are more concerned about the manner in which the message is presented rather than the message itself.
Most of us could put together an interesting article but either we have not got the time to do so, or we are not prepared to put in the required effort that such undertaking requires. I therefore have the utmost respect and admiration for anyone who submits articles to your site, even if I do not always agree with what they may have to say, the arguments raised, or the manner in which they express themselves.
I therefore consider that commentators should be a little more respectful when pointing out errors and spelling mistakes. I have sometimes been aghast when I have read the tone of some comments criticising the language used by authors whose first language is obviously not English. I would urge commentators to be a little more understanding and respectful in their criticisms.
Of course, the language used dictates the meaning of what is said. In view of that (spelling corrections aside), I would urge you not to be too hasty in accepting so called suggestions/improvements, at least, not without first reviewing the comment with the author. For example,
Brian of Moorabbin, AUS says:
January 9, 2011 at 10:00 pm
I’m still trying to come to grips with this one:
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has also publicly written to the Transport Secretary calling for an enquiry, on the board of the GWPF there are respected politicians and scientists, this issue will be he heard and discussed privately in the corridors of power.
Do you mean:
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has also publicly written to the Transport Secretary calling for an enquiry. Unfortunately on the board of the GWPF there are respected politicians and scientists, so this issue will only be heard and discussed privately in the corridors of power.
Or was it something else you meant to say?
For pity’s sake, could people please spell check, grammar check, and then re-read their own articles for coherency before submitting them?
It’s honestly not that hard people…
REPLY: You make an excellent point with your addition of the word “Unfortunately”.
Brian’s interpretation of that paragraph is fundamentally different to my own interpretation of the paragraph and I consider the addition of the word “unfortunately” and in particular the word “only” to impart a radically different meaning to that which was set out. I accept that I may be mistaken in my interpretation, but in my view, the author was making the point that the GWPF is not any old organisation because its board consists of respected politicians and scientists such that what the GWPF has to say carries weight which in turn means that the points raised by the GWPF will be listened to and actually discussed in the corridors of power, I consider that the author was making the point that if the issues raised by the GWPF had been made by some unknown body or not respected body, the issued raised would have gone unheard and simply ignored; materially, they would not be discussed in the corridors of power.
If my interpretation is correct, if you were to amend this paragraph in line with Brian’s interpretation, you would not be construing or interpreting what the author was saying, but rather you would be rewriting his work and imparting a very different thrust to that which is set out.
I raise this illustration only because it has parallels with the temperature record. One should be extremely slow to make adjustments failing which one often builds in bias such that later readers of the record end up interpreting the effects of the adjustment made rather than the underlying raw data. This is so with language. It is best not to adulterate it (at least not without consultation with the author) and leave it to each and every reader to interpret what has been said.
[Edited as requested. Robt]

January 10, 2011 3:19 am

Here you can see CET for December since 1660
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET2.htm

Bob Ryan
January 10, 2011 3:23 am

David L: I do not normally bother to engage with discussion about my preferences when trying to discuss what I understand to be the facts. However, you do raise an implicit but important point: what is the optimum global climate required to support an expanding human population? It may be that the prospect of a general warming by 1C-3C would be worthwhile in terms of increased biodiversity, crop yields and habitable land mass, and would, on balance, be worth the disruption that might follow. It seems to me that is the key issue: it may or may not be the case that the current climate is the optimum required to support 7bn but I doubt whether it is the optimum to support 2bn more by 2050. The current cold is disruptive and has undoubtedly claimed lives. But that has nothing to do with whether the AGW thesis is correct and if it is whether that is necessarily a bad thing.

Roger Longstaff
January 10, 2011 3:28 am

Poor old Met Office – they always screw it up. GIGO.
But, if you exactly reverse all long term forecasts over the last few years, you get results that “beat the odds”. WUWT? Does the supercomputer’s program have a wrong sign in it? The freezing January that they predicted in panic (after the fiasco in December) has been mild so far…..
Off to the betting shop.

Tony
January 10, 2011 3:36 am

Apparently, so the rumour goes, some bright spark realised that if you simply stated that tomorrow’s weather will be the same as today’s, the accuracy of the forecast better than the Met Office’s efforts.

steveta_uk
January 10, 2011 3:51 am


REPLY: There were a few genuine typos, now fixed. but some of it is simply the Kings English. Mr. Woods is from Britain – Anthony

Anthony, this is nothing to do with Mr Woods being British. I’m afraid his very poor use of English is well known on various web sites in the UK, in particular on the BBC, and isn’t something a spell-checker could resolve.
I would strongly suggest to Mr Woods that he should work with a collaborator who has a better grasp of grammar and syntax, since much of his message is lost in the vain attempt to decode his meaning.
I am not simply being pedantic, by the way – I genuinely have difficulty extracting the message from many of his posts.

Informer
January 10, 2011 4:03 am

I posted this in the tips section and it answers the question, yes the Met Office did give the ”secret’ advice to the cabinet office
Informer says:
January 9, 2011 at 2:40 am
From “The Register”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/07/met_office_forecast_not_forecast/
The Met vigorously denies the map, reproduced below, is a “forecast”. However it has confirmed that it “provided a long-range forecast to the Cabinet Office at the end of October highlighting the risk of a cold start to the winter”.
According to separate internal documents released under the FOI Act, saying two things to two audiences is advisable. The BBC News website published excerpts from several internal executive reports that bemoan the ability of the public to understand probabilistic forecasts. This resulted in “less ‘intelligent’ (and potentially hostile) sections of the press, competitors and politicos” conspiring to damage the Met Office “brand”.
By contrast, people who the Met deems “interested customers” should be told the three-month outlook will be available on the research pages of the website. “‘Intelligent’ customers (such as the Cabinet Office) find probabilistic forecasts helpful in planning their resource deployment.”