MET office are frauds

The MET lying to people
1. “… [F]or Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.”

2. “What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming …”.

3. “The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Niño) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Niña) is about 0.03 C°/decade …”.

4. “Each of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.”

5. “The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming … so … such a period [15 years without warming] is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.”

Each of the assertions enumerated above was calculated to deceive. Each assertion is a lie. It is a lie told for financial advantage. M’lud, let me take each assertion in turn and briefly outline the evidence.

The METS BS exposed
1. The assertion that Mr Rose was “entirely misleading” to say there had been no global warming for 15 years is not just entirely misleading: it is entirely false. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the global temperature data is statistically indistinguishable from zero for 18 years (HadCRUt4), or 19 years (HadCRUt3), or even 23 years (RSS).

2. What is absolutely clear is that the assertion that “it is absolutely clear that we have continued to see a trend of warming” is absolutely, clearly false. The assertion is timescale-dependent. The Met Office justified it by noting that each of the last n decades was warmer than the decade that preceded it. A simple heuristic will demonstrate the dishonesty of this argument. Take a two-decade period. In each of years 1-2, the world warms by 0.05 Cº. In each of years 3-20, the world does not warm at all. Sure, the second decade will be warmer than the first. But global warming will still have stopped for 18 years. By making comparisons on timescales longer than the 18 years without warming, what we are seeing is long-past warming, not a continuing “trend of warming”.

3. In August 1997 global temperatures were not “in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Niño”: they were in transition, about halfway between La Niña (cooler than normal) and El Niño (warmer than normal) conditions. Likewise, temperatures in August 2012 were not “at the tail-end of a double-dip La Niña”: they were plainly again in transition between the La Niña of 2011/12 and the El Niño due in a year or two.

4. The Met Office’s assertion that each of the past ten years has been in the top ten is dataset-dependent. On most datasets, 1998 was the warmest year on the global instrumental record (which only began 160-odd years ago). Therefore, on these datasets, it cannot have been possible for each of the last ten years to be among the warmest on record.

5. Finally, the Met Office shoots itself in the foot by implicitly admitting that there has been a 15-year period without warming, saying that such a period is “not unexpected”. Yet that period was not “expected” by any of the dozens of lavishly-funded computer models that have been enriching their operators – including the Met Office, whose new computer cost gazillions and has the carbon footprint of a small town every time it is switched on. The NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 said this: “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2013 at 6:50am:



Once again, you've made a fool of yourself.

I have always said that evidence exists.  Never denied it once.

However, what I have also said is "The AGW hypothesis has no credible convincing evidence"  And thank you for posting that quote. It has helped demonstrate what an absolute fool you are.

In case you're still having trouble figuring it out:

* Evidence exists (nobody, including me is saying otherwise), however, it is not credible convincing evidence.

Hence my statement: "The AGW hypothesis has no credible convincing evidence".

Now, if I had said "The AGW hypothesis has no evidence", that would be completely different.  However, I didn't say that, did I Bunny?  No.  You've been caught out telling lies once again.



Hitler + gravity + lies = a total loss of credibility for Bunny Boy

Sorry 

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2013 at 7:53pm:


Well yes,  but also, compared to you...definitely...

"A hypothesis consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena.      In science, a theory is a well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven hypotheses. As opposed to theory, a hypothesis needs to be testable and falsifiable."

I'm not the one confusing the THEORY of gravity with the HYPOTHESIS of anthropogenic climate change, am I?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2013 at 11:35am:

What is a "proven hypothesis"?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2013 at 12:34pm:


Simply a hypothesis that has been tested against falsifiability and passes...And before you say it, no, ACC hasn't passed that test yet...

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 15^th, 2013 at 7:54am:

27 consecutive years of global temperatures above the long term average - and you still desperately cling to your silly Daily Mail article!!!

If the earth is not warming:
Why is global glacial mass balance decreasing?
Why are sea levels rising?
Why is the arctic ice cap decreasing?
Why has there been an increase in the frequency of extreme weather events?

What is the cause of these observed phenomena if - as you and David Rose claim - the earth is not warming?

Swagman wrote on Jan 15^th, 2013 at 7:49am:

When you can show us some scientific papers that outline this " scientific dissent" - I will be happy to read them.