Free Markets, Free People

UK’s Met Office To Re-Examine Climate Data

In a staggering blow to the credibility of the CRU at the University of East Anglia, the UK’s Met Office will re-examine 160 years worth of climate data in light of the scandal there.  You can read about the Met Office here. They have been a very important and influential part of the man-made climate change cabal and are a government agency.  They along with the Royal Society and the Natural Environmental Research Council issued a statement as recently as November 24th saying AGW was real and the scientific evidence for that hypothesis has actually “strengthened significantly”.

Now, apparently, it is concerned enough by what has been revealed through the released emails from the CRU to decide to review the entire 160 years of data upon which the hypothesis rests.  The Times tells us:

The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

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’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.

Why is this important?

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.

Said another way, those in Copenhagen next week, will be making policy based on an assessment in which one of the providers of the data has no confidence.

Make sense?

And you’ll love this:

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.

Facts? We don’t need no stinkin’ facts – our minds are made up.  It’s much more important that we don’t give the skeptics ammo than actually settle the science. Talk about vested interests.

And, of course, there’s a bit of whistling past the graveyard:

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.

Couldn’t agree more on the “open method of analysing temperature data” – long, long overdue. And NASA needs to release their data as well and the sooner the better.

Meanwhile, even the IPCC has had to finally admit somethings actually going on which may have an effect on their findings:

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.

Here’s an idea – cancel Copenhagen until there’s some level of confidence that the “science” that undergirds the hypothesis claiming human activity is a main source for ongoing climate change is actually based in real, factual data before rushing into economy killing emissions controls.

Fat chance, I know – we’ll soon learn what the term “bureaucratic impetus” means, I’m afraid.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

27 Responses to UK’s Met Office To Re-Examine Climate Data

  • 160 years, huh?
    So the timeline starts at the bottom of the Little Ice Age?
    Does it restore the MWP?

  • These signals are  to quiet critics so that Copenhagen can take place with less controversy.
     
    Circling the wagons looks bad but promising to be open, later, will buy time.
     
    The responses and reaction is now being ‘managed’ from the AGW side.  Wouldn’t be surprised if Clinton/Obama spinmasters are right in there too.

  • Do you feel the Met office will actually conduct a real review or a show review designed to say “see, it’s all real aferall!” and cover up for their bretheren?

    • I expect them to come back and say “its worse than we thought”.

      • That’s the problem. The current crew of global warming researchers has lost all credibility. As I said in a comment over at Daily Pundit, if they claimed four quarts were in a gallon, I would recheck to make sure.
        I have no confidence at this point in any data they put forth, because there are myriad ways to influence it. Only a new crew of researchers will restore trust, and even then they’ll have to work at it. Getting the same old crew to recheck their own stuff and go “Oh, it’s fine.” or even “We found a few small flaws, but trust us, we’ve verified that global warming is real.” is not going to make much of an impact on public credibility.

        • Their idea of “peer review” is akin to having your grandmother evaluate you elementary school essay.
          In doing peer review correctly, you’d load up with opponents, not allies. So which method have they done in the past and which will they use in the future? Uh, huh!

          • Yeah, they’re effectively pretending they are not part of the Gravy Train that’s gone on for over a decade or more, but instead impartial.

          • My grandmother was an old grade school teacher and one nasty woman.  I would rather face a panel of PhDs than her but I get your point ;)

        • Yeah, if they remove tempature points in urban heat sinks and remove CO2 monitoring stations located by active volcanoes then I might be a little more trusting.

  • I think this fraud is cooked.

  • They need two units – one specifically  contrarian – to do the review. Let’s not “rush to war” over “WMD’s” that the “consenus” agreed existed.

  • 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.

    Keep in mind here that not just the UK government has a Noak’s Arc full of cash on AGW.  There are dozens, if not hundreds, of businesses that have bet the farm on AGW being part of their future.  The University of East Anglia, the CRU, and the UK’s Met Office have their reputations on the line .. their futures on the line.  While a few scientists passing through the doors of the CRU at the University of East Anglia may not think about the reputation of the university and the government will probably change in a few years, the University of East Anglia has been there for 46 years and hopes to be there for centuries like so many other colleges and universities.  At this point in time the University of East Anglia and the Met Office probably really don’t give a hoot about AGW.  Their only hope to restore what is left of their reputations is to determine what the truth is ,, and fade quietly into history.

  • It’s sort of like Charlie “Taz” Rangle expressing “shock” that his taxes might not have been reported quite completely, but then expressing complete confidence that he will be vindicated after a lengthy review of his tax records by a team of experts led by Timothy Geithner, Tom Daschle, William Jefferson, and Bernie Maddof.

    I agree with jpm100:

    These signals are  to quiet critics so that Copenhagen can take place with less controversy.

    I expect them to come back and say “its worse than we thought”.

    Meanwhile, MiniTru, which is as much a partner in this fraud as AlGore, James Hansen, and Phil Jones et al, will continue to report about the devastating effects of global warming, about how there are more jellyfish or how there are actually hurricanes in the Atlantic during the late summer / early fall, and otherwise give full coverage to any politician who cares to make doomsday predictions if we dont’ act IMMEDIATELY by handing over more trillions of dollars to the government.

    But I hope that the cat’s really out of the bag.  Yes, we can expect the Met Office, with the very willing assistance of MiniTru, NASA, and other government agencies who stand to lose big time if this fraud is completely uncovered, to whitewash this issue.  But I think (hope!) that enough people will be watching very closely that word will get out, and the number of Americans who believe that global warming is horsesh*t, already a slim majority, will continue to rise.

  • “UK’s Met Office to Re-Examine Climate Data.”
     
    And find out just what, exactly? That the Chicken Little crowd has been MANUFACTURING climate data to make the whole world think that “climate change” is anything but a massive, massive fraud? One peek at those e-mails will tell you right off that the Al Gore Wing of the Lunatics International (LUNI) is in full-on collapse, and we can only cheer it on and pray for it and the nuts who are part of it to fall off the cliff and take their whole rotten charade with them.
     

  • Do we know who hacked the emails? Was it a Russian guy?  Whoever it was, God Bless him, A true world hero of ledgendary proportions.

  • Notice these 2 words: “public confidence” used early on in McQ’s post. To the herd they are meant to be interchangeable with the word: truth. They are not the same thing, at all. What they are doing here is kicking the can down the street and giving themselves the opportunity to bolt together a story. You see there is an agenda behind all this global warming stuff and whether the thing is real or not the agenda must go on. There is BIG money at stake here, global coin and the people behind all of this didn’t invest what they have to be brought down by some petty silliness about potential lying.

  • <blockquote><em>Yesterday <a href=”http://nlt.ashbrook.org/2009/12/climate-scientist-to-revkin-we-can-lo-longer-trust-you-to-carry-water-for-us.php”>we got copied on this message</a> Schlesinger sent to New York Times science reporter Andy Revkin:</em>

    Andy [Revkin of the New York Times]:
    Copenhagen prostitutes?
    Climate prostitutes?
    Shame on you for this gutter reportage.  [Emphasis added.]
    This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.
    The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists.
    Of course, your blog is your blog.
    But, I sense that you are about to experience the ‘Big Cutoff’ from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.  [Emphasis added.]
    Copenhagen prostitutes?
    Unbelievable and unacceptable.
    What are you doing and why?
    Michael [Schlesinger of the University of Illinois]</blockquote>Any questions why the MSM has been so quiet ?

  • Yesterday we got copied on this message Schlesinger sent to New York Times science reporter Andy Revkin:
    Andy:
    Copenhagen prostitutes?
    Climate prostitutes?
    Shame on you for this gutter reportage. [Emphasis added.]
    This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.
    The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists.
    Of course, your blog is your blog.
    But, I sense that you are about to experience the ‘Big Cutoff’ from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included. [Emphasis added.]
    Copenhagen prostitutes?
    Unbelievable and unacceptable.
    What are you doing and why?
    Michael

    Any questions why the MSM has been so quiet ?