What did the Met really say?

Favorite Answer

An unskeptical dupe remains an unskeptical dupe even if he is brainwashed into thinking he (and his brainwashers) are "skeptics." The Greshem's Law of this site means that ever more feebleminded dupes tend to eventually drive out the more intelligent posters. It is a slow, uneven process, but the long term trend is towards lower IQs. "Bruce" is gone now, but so are Dawei, Dana, Linlyons and Pegminer. And Trevor has been silent for quite a while too. With deniers we used to have Dent and Richie, who were smart enough to know how ignorant they were of most climate science, and creative enough to lie their way around with some plausibility. The more recent crop of denier dumbbells here plumb new depths of imbecility. They are of the village idiot category that would never have dreamt of a having anything like a public forum in pre-internet days. You could spend years vainly trying to get the likes of Flossie, Maxx, Sagebrush, Pat, "Freedom" (sic), etc. to understand, for instance, the difference between stock and flow or between average and variation. They are stupid beyond repair, and for them the appeal of organized anti-science denial is mainly the gratification of seeing their ignorance ratified, from their fellow-dunces up here, all the way up to Mitt Romney. Ottawa is a cut above this. He copy-pastes from WattsUp just like the F students deniers do, but he much more often actually understands at least the deception used if the not real science being distorted. And he is at least capable of creatively lying, rather than idiotically repeating/garbling lies he has been fed. For example, his whopper here about "when a scientist or scientific body or scientific report gets distorted in an alarmist way by the MSM, nobody seems to mind" is a stinks-to-heaven lie, easily exposed by spending a little time watching the guys at realclimate, but it sounds plausible, unlike listening to Maax et all, which make one long for the good old days of pure insanity from Billy....Show more

A true skeptic is one who hasn't made a decision either way (even though he/she may be learning in a particular direction) A skeptic will read the info look at the graphs to determine if it is of value.

A denier whether here or elsewhere denies the truth of something (In this case global warming) Hundreds of years ago deniers refused to believe that the Earth was round). And, of course to maintain their own sense of credibility, they must convince others to believe the way they do by any means possible, including lies, misrepresentation, preying of fear, emotion or religious doctrine. Their tactics may change as time progresses, but they will continue to deny the truth and distort the truth to infinity, like the 5 year old who clings to the idea that your marbles are his.

We didn't invent the term denier here to describe them. It is simply what they do....Show more

First, here is the direct link to what I believe you are asking about: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

I did vet that article as shown by my answer here: http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=An813Dd3.6TlCUL2HZ7FCg3BFQx.;_ylv=3?qid=20121014090435AAhuZv0

I look forward to you vetting MSM alarmist articles (which by the way spread worldwide at orders of magnitude faster and on a larger scale than this one). You know what ones I'm talking about, Arctic sea ice disappearing in X years, positive link between AGW and extreme weather, stuff like that.

Actually what's interesting is that it seems when a scientist or scientific body or scientific report gets distorted in an alarmist way by the MSM, nobody seems to mind.

_____________________________________________________
Edit: Actually, Dave Britton from the Met Office says in the comments section: "We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century."

In re-reading that Met Office reply, here is a summary of their comments:

- "Misleading" appears to mean that one should not draw conclusions about warming based on a 16 year time period which is too short to account for natural variability. So the head line: "Global warming stopped 16 years ago" is not false but rather not a good way of interpreting global warming (i.e. cherry picking). Well that's an opinion.

- "Misleading" also appears to mean that the Met Office didn't issue any report or graph. What they did issue was the rest of the HadCRUT4 data set. So Rose may have used the wrong word. He should have said he constructed a graph using the newly released Met Office data.

- The Met Office also states: "Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them." That sure looks like a Red Herring. The third question asked about "multi-decadal oceanic cycles" so even if Rose didn't directly ask about decadal climate predictions, it sure seems like there was room to make a comment on them.

I would call this a tempest in a teapot, much ado about nothing, a mountain out of a molehill. Of course, unless you are dialed into a certain narrative and then perhaps that report from Rose looks more like heresy from a heathen.

___________________________________________________________
Edit2@Climate Denialist: Skepticalscience is right on par with the MSM. I'm not really sure how you can tell the difference? Oh, and my answer's better than your answer, especially the Edit above....Show more

there is a difference between denier and skeptic. Most deniers will not be skeptical of claims that re-enforce their world view.

It's interesting how a lie makes it around the internet before the facts do....Show more

They are not skeptics. That is why they are called "denialists."

Ottawa Maxx

I don't usually get my information from MSM.com, but when I post links to sites such as skepticalscience, I do vet the articles. And if I post an article from MSM.com, I will vet it too....Show more