The BBC says that the Met Office says that there is much stronger proof that man is causing climate change.

The Met Office says that it will no longer be offering seasonal forecasts “because it’s very difficult to forecast that far in advance”. Despite them being proven wrong over the weekend (forecast on Friday for Saturday in the north-east was “sunny”, there were showers and the sun didn’t appear once) the Met Office says they’re “really good at predicting the weather in the short term”.

The BBC’s pension fund has heavily invested in funds which depend on global warming.

1
Katabasis March 8, 2010 at 18:24

For what its worth, here is my critique of the not-publicly-available “review” from the publicly-funded-at-massive-cost Met Office. Also, unlike the hacks writing in the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent and the Times, I actually read the damn thing:

http://i-squared.blogspot.com/2010/03/met-office-review-climate-change-human.html

One of the most interesting facts about the BBC pension funds is that they are so heavily invested in Oil/Gas and Tobacco companies. Something to bring up *every* time you are on the receiving end of the “oil/gas/tobacco shill” accusation for daring to doubt the almighty consensus.

2
Alan March 8, 2010 at 19:22

A dung heap fit for the Turner Prize!

In short, the Met Office aren’t all that great at short term predictions and have finally confessed what we already knew – they are rubbish at seasonal predictions too but, they still claim to be accurate with extremely long range predictions that even an walarmist scientist is prepared to admit have no predictive value.(Kevin Trenberth – he stated recently that the models are projections not predictions. I take this to mean they are an extrapolation of recent trends and nothing more.)

Katabasis,

The self-certification nature of the Met Office ‘review’ is an eye opener. Man paid to review own work says ‘Yes, I was right’ shock!

3
Blink March 8, 2010 at 20:12

loada shit

4
Chalcedon March 10, 2010 at 16:28

So how come the Met office can forecast 50 and 100 years into the fture regarding a warmer climate owing to AGW? That doesn’t make sense. After the revelations of climategate with UEA CU fiddling data to fit preconceived ideas or trends they had seen or thought they had seen from earlier work. Mind you I know one Oxford professor who reckons peer review is no arbiter of the accuracy or veracity of published papers and who thinks, based on his knowledge and experience, that a great many published scientific papers are, in his words, “bollocks”. This will apply to climatology as much as any ology. But I guess physics without an ology is OK.