From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
Meanwhile the Met Office’s right hand does not seem to know what the left is doing!
Is it dishonesty or just plain incompetence?
I think we deserve to be told!
Met Office Reputation Sinks To New Low, As Outright Lie Is Exposed
“Is it dishonesty or just plain incompetence?”
YES... and YES. !!
——–
Meanwhile.. Story tip !!
Green Energy’s High Price: Wind Farms Are Ravaging Nature, Biodiversity
Having read that, it raises questions of how much “climate impact” does the change in soil moisture, plant diversity and health, insect populations, etc. cause?
It looks like the cure is worse than the disease (as the old saying goes).
Where is their response?
You expect a response? lol.
Maybe something along the lines of “inaccurate and doesn’t require explanation”? 😉
Ridley says they gave a response containing “material inaccuracies”, which he then says is a lie. But where is that response? Are we allowed to see it?
You already saw it.
No that is from the MetO’s webpage.
Nick means where is the email they replied to him with.
Which is what I came here to ask myself.
What “e-mail”? They provided a response and that can take many forms.
Oh, You mean they replied “of course we use RCP 8.5, it is the most accurate scenario”?
Love it when Nick the master of sophistry and deflection with articles DEMANDS to see a response 🙂
Would you like me to do a Stokesy for you,
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/stokes_defense.jpg?resize=570%2C881&quality=83
The headline here blazes : “outright lie is exposed“. But to expose a lie, you have to show that someone actually said something that you can prove is wrong. The article is big on proof, but has no evidence that anyone (who?) actually uttered the supposed lie. Let alone anything to cover the huge gap between a mistake and a lie. There is no evidence even of a mistake.
Nick, I wondered whether you were developing Alzheimer’s, then I reminded myself that you listen to the abc and subscribe to extremist “science” policy.
Okay. It was only obfuscation. Why must you always dance around the truth?
You are playing sophistry again Nick we catch you in an “outright lie” or shall we say making “a stupid mistake” and you just ignore. Even if I took you seriously and believed you how many times do you write letters to editor because a newspaper article headline is misleading?
Now how about stick to the important part is How do they justify these wild forecasts?
We still have no clarity around that all you are doing is complaining about a possible click-bait headline as a smear tactic against the article. Contribute something useful to the discussion.
I think that Nick is asking about the response from the Met Office to Matt Ridley’s article in which they said he was wrong to say that they based their projections for 2070 on RCP 8.5. He’s not prepared to take Matt Ridley’s word for it. He actually wants to see the response for himself.
I think Nick is saying that the Met Office DO use RCP8.5 for their unrealistic projections.
Thing is, it doesn’t matter what RCP they use, their projections are nothing more than agenda driven crystal ball gazing.
Hence… totally meaningless.
Indeed. So, the Met ( and others) use the unrealistic and highest RCP.8.5 scenario which itself is highly dubious.
But you can of course claim that RCP 8.5 or any other scenario is Science, full stop and that those assertions and assumptions are Settled Science using trustworthy models.
Which is what they do.
The response from the same Met Office which has just wiped out from history a whole load of well-correlated data produced by the latest scientific methods ,documented in vast numbers of peer-reviewed studies?
Where is their response?
Have you tried the UK’s premier impartial news broadcaster – the BBC? The Guardian?
You could try the Daily Telegraph…
Why would they have the email from the MetO ?
He can’t even produce it on here.
So are you saying they didn’t lie, and do actually use RCP8.5 ???
That is pretty dumb to admit that all they are interested in is anti-science propaganda.
(Something we are already well aware of)
Why would they even need an e-mail when they routinely use press release and social media?
So you want them to explain why they lied in their first response?
Do you expect the second response to be any more accurate?
They might not be telling lies, according to their stats….actually truthing us…
1) there is the UHI effect…even though compensated for…there is more building every year.
2) official weather stations at airports now have much more asphalt and higher HP engines blowing air around than in the 1970’s
3) Weather has generally warmed since the end of the little ice age circa 1850. Before then European glaciers were advancing, forcing some Swiss villages to relocate. Thank goodness it got warmer.
4) Weather stations meant to inform pilots and greenhouses of the temperature to the nearest degree aren’t really suitable for research purposes.
5) new aspirated RTD weather stations are much more responsive to quick changes than old manual high/low mercury bird cages, so tend to read high side temperatures.
In the email they say that they do not use the discredited 8.5 scenario.
On their web page they declare that they do use the discredited 8.5 scenario.
Both claims cannot both be true, one of them is a lie.
“In the email they say”
Do they? Where is it? Who said it, and what did they say?
MarkW, the claim of an “e-mail” is that of Banton … he’s just making it up as he goes along, sort of a Nick Jr. The MO response can take any form from press release to social media to a reported comment. Even organising the information on their website.
“The MO response can take any form”
OK, but where is it, and what did it say? It is the basis of the alleged lie, but no-one knows.
Amusing how you find that so important yet the actual topic of how the Met comes up with the bullshit they print doesn’t concern you? It’s either true or it’s a click-bait headline like any newspaper does but you demand an answer 🙂
In theory the Met are using something for there predictions or perhaps they go for the ouija board but whatever they are doing they should be able to convey it.
“ it’s a click-bait headline”
So what is the difference between a click-bait headline and a lie in big print?
In what is quoted here, the Met say they are using RCP 8.5 for that analysis. You may not like it, but what they are using is perfectly clear.
No, he wants Ridley to show us the alleged email response from them.
( As I said to you above and to which you have not replied ).
Otherwise his case is only here-say with no proof (except for most denizens of course).
And so, obviously, as there is no “first response” presented – the email, there can be no 2nd on here.
So you are saying they use RCP8.5..
Which just compounds the Met Office stupidity !!
Well done.
Demand away can we do the same for climate scientists … oh wait I am too busy or the dog ate my homework 🙂
Why don’t you read the Met page it’s interesting
https://weather.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/climate-change-in-the-uk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We have probabilistic projections available for:
RCP2.6RCP4.5RCP6.0RCP8.5>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What they never do is when they give a projection tell us what model they are using 🙂
It has to be pure dishonesty as they’ve had this issue flagged up for ages. It seems only that now the pretence (dishonesty) has become to blatant and unexplainable, even with bu****it, they had to finally act. They will continue to try and cover their a***s though. The MO needs a wholesale clearout of their senior management. I can imagine there are many lower down the chain who are good, honest scientists aching to tell the truth, but are afraid, so perhaps a forum can be set up to allow MO employees and associates to anonymously express their ‘concerns’, i.e. spill the beans.
“It has to be pure dishonesty as they’ve had this issue flagged up for ages.”
I agree. They know what they are doing. They just don’t want us to know what they are doing.
If Climate Alarmists didn’t have lies, they wouldn’t have anything.
“they’ve had this issue flagged up for ages”
Yes. That’s another factor that makes the date of the original article to which MET responded to the author important. Author shows something from the MET website with an 8.5 disclaimer. A recent WUWT article showed MET using 8.5. When specifically, and on what projects specifically, does MET go to the most fiction-based model? The why should be obvious, It’s the when and where that make their words true or false.
They are just feeding the lie for the politicians
It’s a government run organisation, fully signed up to the man made warming scam.
Why anyone would take any notice of an outfit that measures temperatures at airport runways is beyond me.
As it’s a government organisation, telling lies is second nature.
There is no problem measuring temperatures at airport runways… essential for aircraft take off etc,…
The problem is then pretending that they can be used for any “climate” purpose except propaganda.
That is where real dishonesty and/or incompetence comes in.
Run-Away temps, no doubt…
Rim shot
If they’re British, they might look because they’re paying for it.
‘As it’s a government organisation, telling lies is second nature.’
Don’t forget to include them politicians wit dem organizations. :<)
Well it’s probably not on their website now! Did you screenshot it?
I went looking for a link and got an old MET pdf reporting what the scenarios meant, apparently written before 8.5 was admitted to be garbage. No date on the document. The decision not to put author names and publication dates anywhere on a document is common in larger organizations, for some good reasons, but it is an increasingly common decision. This case hits a big minus – having no date makes it impossible to see -when- MET thought or pretended 8.5 was legit.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/blog/2023/making-sense-of-climate-change-projections
Making NONSENSE, garbage predictions…
… based on unproven and baseless conjectures.
The whole link is just one heap of meaningless computer games nonsense.
The screenshot in Matt Ridley’s
TweetX-post is from the following webpage :https://weather.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/climate-change-in-the-uk
As I post this the “How much could the UK climate change?” section, around one-third of the way down that page, is still as shown by Matt.
Well as I keep pointing out their east Sussex Hastings sea front weather station is devoid of hockey sticks
The only trend upwards is sunshine hours . 1870-2024
Because of the Clean Air Acts of 1956 and 1968 ??
Could be but a coastal town facing a predominantly SW wind ?
Hockey sticks? For those you need to look further along the coast at Roedean!
Are there copies of the data that the Met Office just deleted ???
If so, where can we download them ??
It’s our data, we paid for it !!!!!
As the data was invented by them, it belongs to them…
The -1 suggests somebody does not know creative rights in the UK… Shame.
-2. Oh dear
Copyright gives authors of works rights to control the use or commercial exploitation of the works that they have created.
https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/copyright-law-the-basics
I like a good laugh.
IN general, copyright belongs to the employer.
What’s the difference in this case?
If it’s a government agency, then the taxpayers, are the employer.
UKMO is part of the ministry of defence. It was fonded by Darwin’s Captain pf the Beagle Fitszroy who was later made admiral. The UK’s civil service is essentially controlled by Davos. Do people really thing the upper echelons of the state and UKMO would really let ideologicasl brainwashed kids like Thunberg tell them what to do. The sooner people realise the motives and who’s behind it the better
Israel has done the world a great disservice by releasing the stunted midget for a second time.
Humour can be difficult for some to get
Deleted
Never even written
“It’s our data, we paid for it !!!!!”
Nah, we live in USA. We pay for our own Independant, unreliable data controlled by Ivy League educated nameless careerists who can make it disappear at any moment. I suppose I can understand them saying “They b—— about it for years, now they’re mad we took it down!”
Its dishonesty ukmo and the civil service are enthralled to davas and the globalist plan. Therefore they will prove global warming no matter what. Note their presenters average age is about 25. A uni brainwashed cohort if there ever was one
In only 20 years they might be 45. Will they enjoy fusion power and flying cars? or will they regret the absence of handy inventions they could have helped make but they were tilting windmills instead?
Lord Turner FRS chairs the Energy Transitions Commission, a global coalition of major power and industrial companies, investors, environmental NGOs and experts working out achievable pathways to limit global warming to below 2˚C by 2040
This morning the noble lord told us on BBC radio4: I’m looking forward to the time when dumping Carbon dioxide is as unacceptable as dumping sewage
The Met Office gives the whole enterprise its scientific(sic) rationale and… authority. The science is settled.
“We exploit cutting-edge and emerging technologies, pushing new boundaries to deliver our renowned weather and climate science and services in a changing world.” – Met Office
By pushing new boundaries they, of course, mean model-driven clairvoyance and digital tea leaf reading.
The corruption is total. How long can the narrative compliant media keep a lid on it?
“How long can the narrative compliant media keep a lid on it?”
The wall street USA question usually runs toward “How long until I can retire outside the city?”
(AKA More bad news for the 25 y/o’s)
That is an example of the logical fallacy known as a “false dichotomy”.
Alternative 1) It is possible to be both dishonest and incompetent.
Alternative 2) The level of incompetence need not be “plain”, it could be “military- / weapons-grade”.
NB : At these levels people do not realise that they are incompetent, or the level of their dishonesty.
Alternative 3) It could (also / alternatively) be due to “self-preservation”, AKA “career and salary protection”.
Alternative 4) An option that I haven’t thought of … yet …
Met Office training video….
You’re a smeeee-heeee!
Cheers, man!
“An option that I haven’t thought of”
Another very obvious one – no-one said anything that was even incorrect. I think it is absurd that people here go on about “lies” when no-one has actually seen the supposed lie, or knows who uttered it.
These are not the droids you are looking for.
That is indeed also an option, complementary to my “Alternative 1”.
The inverse of “both dishonest and incompetent” is “neither dishonest nor incompetent”.
.
Here you (plural, including at least “Anthony Banton”) have a valid point.
Matt Ridley simply typing “Their response contained material inaccuracies … ” constitutes his opinion of that (supposed / alleged / implied) communication.
I am genuinely curious to see the precise phrasing actually used in the “response” which is supposed to have come from “The Met Office”.
Excellent post!
“Always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning. Anything else gives them too much credit.”
— Charles Krauthammer
Dishonesty and incompetence are not mutually exclusive. They could be cooking the data for ideological reasons, and are very bad at hiding their malfeasance.
Corruption defines this “Science” from top to bottom. These videos details the Hockeystick and other flaws in the “Science.”
https://app.screencast.com/nXfZcUyGR4QlR
https://app.screencast.com/xgTItkw2KwSuk
https://app.screencast.com/ZMpNTvkLD7DDJ
Timestamped Video. Teenagers caught the fraud years ago. They did the same trick used in the Hockeystick.
https://youtu.be/ZUVqZKBMF7o?si=lF2RWb_ErDMUooHw&t=1039
Matt, they the Met Office have recently had to concede the ghost weather stations they rely on for their calculations of global warming are none existent. The ongoing requests for details of which surrounding stations provide the averages used for known retired and none existing stations, though still listed as data sources, revealed there were no sites within 40 miles of the fictitious sites such as Lowestoft.
When the Met can’t even keep the charade of their own false data out of the public space, then maybe we are close to a turning point in this climate alarmist nonsense.
“Matt, they the Met Office have recently had to concede the ghost weather stations they rely on for their calculations of global warming are none existent. “
They state that on the website where that very data is accessed.
And it cannot cause extra warming as the calculation is made as though an infill.
IOW it by design exactly fits the average for the local area.
From the MetO’s website on that very same data page that the erstwhile Blogger somehow missed …..:
“This webpage provides long-term climate averages for specific locations across the UK. It is designed to display locations that provide even geographical coverage of the UK, but is not reflective of every weather station that has existed or the current Met Office observation network.”
and
“The averages table shows 30-year averages for the nearest / most similar climate station to your chosen location.”
A reply by the MetO:
“To suggest we’re fabricating data is not true. Everything we do at the Met Office is based on peer reviewed science and subject to external scrutiny. To ensure we [the Met Office] maintain continuity of long-term datasets we use peer reviewed science methods that, where stations have closed, use well-correlated observations from other nearby stations to help inform long-term average figures […] This method is peer reviewed and similar processes are used across the world to ensure datasets are consistent across historic averaging periods. The paper explaining the methodology can be found here [link]”
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1160
But why bother doing this “make-work” stuff at all?
Just use what’s been actually recorded, where it was recorded?
And no tampering with the numbers thereafter.
See, this is why the PROBITY and the PROVENANCE of the whole temps data is woefully compromised.
Auditors would reject such handling of financial statements if public corporations submitted tosh such as the Met does.
Try as you want..
All you are doing is defending the totally indefensible load of junk-data, fabrication, and manipulation from a load of surface sites that are woefully compromised and totally unfit for the purpose of measuring temperature changes over time.
Think I have a new rule: The more the term “peer reviewed” is used, the more the “product” being discussed resembles male bovine feces.
If they are infilling from stations that are UHI contaminated, then that’s one more UHI contaminated data point, which causes the average of all data points to become more UHI contaminated.
“And it cannot cause extra warming as the calculation is made as though an infill.”
Of course, it cannot cause real extra warming because the calculation is being done in the computerised virtual world, not the real world. But I think infilling does cause extra uncertainty in the calculation and in the minds of real people existing in the real world by misrepresenting unmeasured temperatures as measured ones.
Nevertheless, besides creating extra uncertainty, I think infilling generally does also cause extra fictional warming as an unavoidable consequence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, although whether this effect would be significant in the case of the Met Office’s calculations I cannot say as I haven’t been able to see them.
Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?
It would be better if you showed the original lie in the article.
If the Met Office is so good at predicting the future, they should start predicting financial markets.
Using those forecasts they could invest and fund the UK government and eliminate its huge debt. No need for taxation then. I am sure it would work out. /s
Story tip https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2rz08en2po “Renewables overtake coal as world’s biggest source of electricity“
Yep, that’s certainly just a story.
And (as usual), buried in the body of the story is this –
HIghly unlikely, given how fast China and India are building coal plants.
It’s what the Ember report shows, but beyond the headlines…..
In reality: solar+wind has been close to coal for a while.
In reality: fossil fuel electricity production dropped a tiny 0.3%!
In reality: solar and wind just about covered the increased global electricity demand.
“In reality: [Installed] solar+wind has been close to coal for a while.”
Reality of amount produced is shown below.. and is nowhere near close to coal.
That’s faceplate, not actual production.
wind and solar.. not even close to coal.
Need to reproduce the exact words of the response where MET said it did not use 8.5. It is possible that in that case, or at that time, they did not.
Ridleys words were
“in an article I wrote”
not
“in a RECENT article I wrote”
meaning use of 8.5 could be a recent error instead of an old one.
Title should read “As Another Outright Lie”
“Compared to our climate in 1990, by 2070 we project:”
At least this time the MET had the good sense to project far enough into the future that when this set of their projections too are also wrong, no one will remember it, many will be dead, and my argument here shows how utterly useless projections 50 years into the future are (of course their usefulness to the MET are in the fear-mongering, their one and only play.
I project that Our Lord Jesus Christ will have returned before 2070, and that His glorious kingdom on earth will have been established. Prove me wrong.
MET Office – “Compared to our climate in 1990, by 2070 we project:”
At least this time the MET had the good sense to project far enough into the future that when this set of their projections too are also wrong, no one will remember it, many will be dead, and my argument here shows how utterly useless projections 50 years into the future are (of course their usefulness to the MET are in the fear-mongering, their one and only play.
I project that Our Lord Jesus Christ will have returned before 2070, and that His glorious kingdom on earth will have been established. Prove me wrong.
What the Met is doing is criminal, lying and cheating is not okay. If you don’t believe me lie and cheat on your taxes and see how that works out for you. Or lie and hide things from OSHA or the EPA or any government agency.
Anyone who believes that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter is plainly ignorant and gullible at best.
The misleading of the public by the Met Office was possibly responsible for the repeal of the old Fraudulent Mediums Act. The Met Office can now be paid by the Government for predicting the future, even if they know that they are talking rubbish, without fear of going to prison for fraud.
People are free to believe anyone they choose – Nostradamus, Baba Vanga, Michael Mann, or the Met Office.