It would appear that the Met Office have deliberately fabricated a new version of their Dec 2011 forecast, in order to avoid making the original version look too ridiculous. Is this really what “science” has come down to? --Paul Homewood, Not a Lot Of People Know That, 10 January 2013
I don’t think it really matters at this point as nobody is paying much attention to anything the Met Office says concerning events more than a week out. They have basically made themselves irrelevant by pretending to speak with authority and then badly missing the prediction. Now they are trying to pretend they were right on the money the whole time. Nobody believes that. It is pure desperation. Actually, whoever approved that graph for publication should be immediately sacked. It is just a flat out lie. --crosspatch, Not a Lot Of People Know That, 10 January 2013
To put it mildly, it is a matter of enormous public interest that the Met Office has revised its predictions of global warming, whispering that new data suggest there will be none for the next five years. Why, then, did the Met Office choose to sneak out this intriguing information on Christmas Eve, knowing there would be no newspapers the next day? Isn’t the inescapable suspicion that our national forecaster was anxious not to shake confidence in its Messianic belief that we are destroying our own planet? The Met Office’s clumsy attempt to hush up an inconvenient truth was a crime against science and the public. --Editorial, Daily Mail, 10 January 2013
We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert. –-J Robert Oppenheimer.
The new Met Office projection, if correct, would mean there will have been little additional warming for two decades despite rising greenhouse gases. It's bound to raise questions about the robustness and reliability of computer simulations that governments around the world are using in order to determine policies aimed at combating global warming. Climate sceptics, who have long argued that natural processes are either underestimated, or not properly understood, will not be surprised at this scaling back of expected warming. Paul Hudson, BBC Weather, 8 January 2013
Surely the temperature has to start going up. That’s what all the current fuss is about. A few years ago the Met Office said that most of the following five years would be record breakers. When it was obvious they were wrong a new model said there would be no change. It is not a “minor downward adjustment” as Hickman calls it. It’s the difference between record warming and no warming, the difference between our understanding and ignorance of the science. Say what you will about regional climate change, accumulating energy in the system, natural fluctuations, man-made aerosols etc, the temperature has to rise eventually. We are all, sceptic or otherwise, waiting for the global temperature to rise. We have been since 1997. --David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 10 January 2013
I am sure my study is not the last word on the subject and I remain open to any specific criticisms or corrections of fact. However, you have singularly failed to identify any substantive errors in my report whereas you have been unable to defend the Stern Review from the key charges I made against it. So I suggest it is Stern and his team who should be carrying out the “fundamental revision” you call for. Until they do so the Stern Review will remain discredited. –-Peter Lilley MP, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 10 January 2013