Climate Change & Global Warming

[ArabiaTerra]

And from the comments underneath the RealClimate report on the himalayan glaciers (non) controversy:

As an exercise, be sure to study the ecology of this story. What I’ve noticed is, like other examples (TomskTwaddle)it’s analogous to some toxin released in an aquatic environment. First it’s picked up by bottom feeders processing sediment, then it moves up the food chain, ultimately poisoning organisms farther up the food chain, increasing in toxicity all the way. WUWT–>Register–>Mirror–>Telegraph–>Times–>? Few journalists are able to resist eating something with even a hint of incompetence or scandal no matter how trivial, so we end up with lots of mentally poisoned media consumers.

[ArabiaTerra]

Another Scientific Institute slams the deniers.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego[/url]"]Richard Somerville, a distinguished professor emeritus and research professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, issued the following statement in response to a recent request to address claims recently made by climate change denialists:

 

1. The essential findings of mainstream climate change science are firm. This is solid settled science. The world is warming. There are many kinds of evidence: air temperatures, ocean temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, and much more. Human activities are the main cause. The warming is not natural. It is not due to the sun, for example. We know this because we can measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide and it is much stronger than that of the sun, which we also measure.

 

2. The greenhouse effect is well understood. It is as real as gravity. The foundations of the science are more than 150 years old. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat. We know carbon dioxide is increasing because we measure it. We know the increase is due to human activities like burning fossil fuels because we can analyze the chemical evidence for that.

 

3. Our climate predictions are coming true. Many observed climate changes, like rising sea level, are occurring at the high end of the predicted changes. Some changes, like melting sea ice, are happening faster than the anticipated worst case. Unless mankind takes strong steps to halt and reverse the rapid global increase of fossil fuel use and the other activities that cause climate change, and does so in a very few years, severe climate change is inevitable. Urgent action is needed if global warming is to be limited to moderate levels.

 

4. The standard skeptical arguments have been refuted many times over. The refutations are on many web sites and in many books. For example, natural climate change like ice ages is irrelevant to the current warming. We know why ice ages come and go. That is due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun, changes that take thousands of years. The warming that is occurring now, over just a few decades, cannot possibly be caused by such slow-acting processes. But it can be caused by man-made changes in the greenhouse effect.

 

5. Science has its own high standards. It does not work by unqualified people making claims on television or the Internet. It works by scientists doing research and publishing it in carefully reviewed research journals. Other scientists examine the research and repeat it and extend it. Valid results are confirmed, and wrong ones are exposed and abandoned. Science is self-correcting. People who are not experts, who are not trained and experienced in this field, who do not do research and publish it following standard scientific practice, are not doing science. When they claim that they are the real experts, they are just plain wrong.

 

6. The leading scientific organizations of the world, like national academies of science and professional scientific societies, have carefully examined the results of climate science and endorsed these results. It is silly to imagine that thousands of climate scientists worldwide are engaged in a massive conspiracy to fool everybody. The first thing that the world needs to do if it is going to confront the challenge of climate change wisely is to learn about what science has discovered and accept it.

 

— Robert Monroe

 

Jan. 14, 2010

 

[Greenfingers]

Another Scientific Institute slams the deniers.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego[/url]"]Richard Somerville, a distinguished professor emeritus and research professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, issued the following statement in response to a recent request to address claims recently made by climate change denialists:

 

1. The essential findings of mainstream climate change science are firm. This is solid settled science. The world is warming. There are many kinds of evidence: air temperatures, ocean temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, and much more. Human activities are the main cause. The warming is not natural. It is not due to the sun, for example. We know this because we can measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide and it is much stronger than that of the sun, which we also measure.

 

2. The greenhouse effect is well understood. It is as real as gravity. The foundations of the science are more than 150 years old. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat. We know carbon dioxide is increasing because we measure it. We know the increase is due to human activities like burning fossil fuels because we can analyze the chemical evidence for that.

 

3. Our climate predictions are coming true. Many observed climate changes, like rising sea level, are occurring at the high end of the predicted changes. Some changes, like melting sea ice, are happening faster than the anticipated worst case. Unless mankind takes strong steps to halt and reverse the rapid global increase of fossil fuel use and the other activities that cause climate change, and does so in a very few years, severe climate change is inevitable. Urgent action is needed if global warming is to be limited to moderate levels.

 

4. The standard skeptical arguments have been refuted many times over. The refutations are on many web sites and in many books. For example, natural climate change like ice ages is irrelevant to the current warming. We know why ice ages come and go. That is due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun, changes that take thousands of years. The warming that is occurring now, over just a few decades, cannot possibly be caused by such slow-acting processes. But it can be caused by man-made changes in the greenhouse effect.

 

5. Science has its own high standards. It does not work by unqualified people making claims on television or the Internet. It works by scientists doing research and publishing it in carefully reviewed research journals. Other scientists examine the research and repeat it and extend it. Valid results are confirmed, and wrong ones are exposed and abandoned. Science is self-correcting. People who are not experts, who are not trained and experienced in this field, who do not do research and publish it following standard scientific practice, are not doing science. When they claim that they are the real experts, they are just plain wrong.

 

6. The leading scientific organizations of the world, like national academies of science and professional scientific societies, have carefully examined the results of climate science and endorsed these results. It is silly to imagine that thousands of climate scientists worldwide are engaged in a massive conspiracy to fool everybody. The first thing that the world needs to do if it is going to confront the challenge of climate change wisely is to learn about what science has discovered and accept it.

 

— Robert Monroe

 

Jan. 14, 2010

 

 

In the interest of maintaining a balance see below.

 

http://lnxwalt.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/stifling-debate/

[Pleepsie]

UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report

 

The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers

 

The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated†in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.

 

But Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist erroneously quoted as making the 2035 prediction, said that responsibility had to lie with them. “It is the lead authors — blame goes to them,†he told The Times. “There are many mistakes in it. It is a very poorly made report.â€

 

He and other leading glaciologists pointed out at least five glaring errors in the relevant section.

 

It says the total area of Himalyan glaciers “will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035â€. There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.

 

A table below says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840m — a rate of 135.2m a year. The actual rate is only 23.5m a year.

 

The section says Himalayan glaciers are “receding faster than in any other part of the world†when many glaciologists say they are melting at about the same rate.

 

An entire paragraph is also attributed to the World Wildlife Fund, when only one sentence came from it, and the IPCC is not supposed to use such advocacy groups as sources.

 

Professor Hasnain, who was not involved in drafting the IPCC report, said that he noticed some of the mistakes when he first read the relevant section in 2008.

 

That was also the year he joined The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in Delhi, which is headed by Dr Pachauri.

 

He said he realised that the 2035 prediction was based on an interview he gave to the New Scientist magazine in 1999, although he blamed the journalist for assigning the actual date.

 

He said that he did not tell Dr Pachauri because he was not working for the IPCC and was busy with his own programmes at the time.

 

“I was keeping quiet as I was working here,†he said. “My job is not to point out mistakes. And you know the might of the IPCC. What about all the other glaciologists around the world who did not speak out?â€

 

Dr Pachauri also said he did not learn about the mistakes until they were reported in the media about 10 days ago, at which time he contacted other IPCC members. He denied keeping quiet about the errors to avoid disrupting the UN summit on climate change in Copenhagen, or discouraging funding for TERI’s own glacier programme.

 

But he too admitted that it was “really odd†that none of the world’s leading glaciologists had pointed out the mistakes to him earlier. “Frankly, it was a stupid error,†he said. “But no one brought it to my attention.â€

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

 

Not just one mistake....but 5, and its not as if they had to rush the report out to meet a deadline, they had years to compile it - and still managed to get something as basic as the area of the Himalayan glaciers wrong.

[Skunnered]

It would appear that the IPCC is losing credibility, and this is what happens when a science topic becomes a political issue. Problem is, when you mix scientists and politicians, it's the real scientists that ultimately lose out, because they lose credibility and the respect of the public which is so vitally important. It's no big deal to politicians, however, as they are well used to losing respect and credibility, if they ever had any in the first place!

[KOYAANISQATSI]

learn about what science has discovered and accept it.

 

arrogance:

 

"an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions"

 

The words "Science" and "scientist" are not at all the same thing. Data is Data but the Interpretation and manipulation of it on this as (for whatever reason) they try to squeeze it into the only paradigm they care to work from, will produce many a slip, twixt the cup and the lip.

 

I respect your position on this AT and it's good to have somewhere, where we can fire stuff back at those who feel secure in the main(media)stream position (even if it is ignored or written off as deniers lies). Climate change science does not equate to AGW scientist and telling everyone else, to just put up and shut up, is not an answer worth listening to.

Just as in cosmology science, where words from the scientists like "baffled" and "surprised" appear almost daily now, as new things are seen that do not conform to what has been taught, repeated and extended on; don't be so sure that your own world view may be prone to the same problems.

Even if every scientist was settled on an answer, of what is going on here; it is still not the same as the science being settled and on baloney like AGW, it is not...

Not by a long shot.

[Pleepsie]

THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

 

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak.

 

The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month's Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.

 

Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change minister, has suggested British and overseas floods — such as those in Bangladesh in 2007 — could be linked to global warming. Barack Obama, the US president, said last autumn: "More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent."

 

The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.

 

When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."

 

"All the literature published before and since the IPCC report shows that rising disaster losses can be explained entirely by social change. People have looked hard for evidence that global warming plays a part but can't find it. Muir-Wood's study actually confirmed that."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

 

Yet another blunder from the IPCC.

 

 

 

The chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), based in New Delhi, was awarded up to £310,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the lion's share of a £2.5m EU grant funded by European taxpayers.

 

The Carnegie money was specifically given to aid research into "the potential security and humanitarian impact on the region" as the glaciers began to disappear. Pachauri has since acknowledged that this threat, if it exists, will take centuries to have any serious effect.

 

The money was initially given to the Global Centre, an Icelandic Foundation which then channelled it, with Carnegie's involvement, to TERI.

The second grant, from the EU, totalled £2.5m and was designed to "to assess the impact of Himalayan glaciers retreat".

 

It was part of the EU's HighNoon project, launched last May to fund research into how India might adapt to loss of glaciers.

 

In one presentation at last May's launch, Anastasios Kentarchos, of the European Commission's Climate Change and Environmental Risks Unit, specifically cited the bogus IPCC claims about glacier melt as a reason for pouring EU taxpayers' money into the project. Pachauri spoke at the same presentation and Hasnain is understood to have been present in the audience.

 

The EU grant was split between leading European research institutions including Britain's Met Office, with TERI getting a major but unspecified share because it represented the host country.

 

The "Glaciergate" affair has seen Pachauri come under increasing pressure in India, prompting him to call a press conference yesterday (Saturday) where he dismissed calls for his resignation and said no action would be taken against the authors of the erroneous section of the IPCC report.

 

He said: "I have no intention of resigning from my position," adding the errors were unintentional and not significant in comparison to the entire report.

 

However, other questions remain. One of the most important is in connection with Pachauri's earnings.

 

In an interview with The Sunday Times he said his only income came from his salary at TERI. However TERI does not publish his salary and he refused to divulge it.

 

In India questions are also being asked about Pachauri's links with GloriOil, a Houston, Texas-based oil technology company that specialises in recovering extra oil from declining oil fields . Pachauri is listed as a founder and scientific advisor.

 

Critics say it is odd for a man committed to decarbonising energy supplies to be linked to an oil company.

 

The problems come at a bad time for the IPCC which is recruiting scientists for its fifth report into the science and impacts underlying global warming.

 

Yesterday, Pachauri said he intended to remain as director of the IPCC to oversee the fifth IPCC assessment report dealing with sea level rise and ice sheets, oceans, clouds and carbon accounting. The report is expected by 2014.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece

 

Do you think they will return the money now that the glaciers are not melting like a lolly left out in the sun?

[Skunnered]

^^This is not about "deniers". It is not about believing, or not believing, in AGW. It is about the credibility of the IPCC, about how it is managed, and about how genuine and trustworthy the lead authors and top management is. And it doesn't help the layman to establish the truth, whatever that might be.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

This is not about "deniers". It is not about believing, or not believing, in AGW.

 

hmm; I may have been misled there. That'll teach me for reading the titles of the threads.

 

When it comes to how genuine and trustworthy the IPCC and the top brass are; well... they're not.

[Skunnered]

^^Perhaps my statement was a bit vague! What I meant was that here we have articles written by people who surely cannot be termed "deniers", as they are not making statements about whether AGW is right or wrong, they are criticising the way that the IPCC does it's verification (or not) and how the whole organisation is managed, and the validity of some of their most alarmist claims. And surely this must raise serious questions about the credibility of the IPCC; and surely by raising such questions the pro-AGW people can't shrug off the accusations by simply calling the authors "deniers" which is the usual sort of response to any form of criticism.

[ArabiaTerra]

In the interest of maintaining a balance see below.

 

http://lnxwalt.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/stifling-debate/

Hmmm, interesting rant. He seem to be saying "Scientists are not politicians, so they aren't qualified to comment on the political aspects of the climate change debate."

These questions are part of the political debate, and are not supposed to be advocated by public employees on the taxpayers’ dollar.

 

Professor Somerville, Mr. Monroe, and the Scripps Institution administration, as public employees, are not supposed to be advocating in either direction.

Wouldn't you agree? But this works both ways. Politicians aren't scientists, so they aren't qualified to speculate on the scientific aspects of the debate. So they should just STFU about the science, accept what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying and get on with the political aspect of fixing the problem. Does that sound fair to you?

 

Works for me.

 

Edit: Unnecessary quoting removed. Alright now, paulb?

[paulb]

AT could you cut the quotes down a bit they are getting a bit long.

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8478643.stm

[justlookin]

ONCE global warming was the "great moral challenge of our generation". Or so claimed the Prime Minister.

 

But suddenly it's the great con that's falling to bits around Kevin Rudd's ears.

 

In fact, so fast is global warming theory collapsing that in his flurry of recent speeches to outline his policies for the new decade, Rudd has barely mentioned his "moral challenge" at all.

 

Take his long Australia Day reception speech on Sunday. Rudd talked of our ageing population and of building stuff, of taxes, hospitals and schools - but dared not say one word about the booga booga he used to claim could destroy our economy, Kakadu, the Great Barrier Reef and 750,000 coastal homes.

 

What's happened?

 

Answer: in just the past few months has come a cascade of evidence that the global warming scare is based on often dodgy science and even outright fraud.

 

Here are just the top 10 new signs that catastrophic man-made warming may be just another beat-up, like swine flu, SARS, and the Y2K bug.

 

1. Climategate

 

THE rot for Rudd started last November with the leaking of emails from the Climatic Research Unit of Britain's University of East Anglia.

 

Those emails from many of the world's top climate scientists showed them conspiring to sack sceptical scientists from magazines, hide data from sceptics, and cover up errors.

 

One of the scientists, CRU boss Phil Jones, even boasted of having found a "trick" to "hide the decline" in recent temperature records.

 

Jones was also on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so influential in convincing us our gasses are heating the planet that it won the Nobel Prize.

 

But he showed how political the IPCC actually is by promising in yet another email that he and another colleague would do almost anything to keep sceptical studies out of IPCC reports.

 

Just as damning was the admission by IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth that the world isn't warming as the IPCC said it must: "We cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

 

2. The Copenhagen farce

 

MORE than 40,000 politicians, scientists and activists flew to Copenhagen last month - in clouds of greenhouse gasses - to get all nations to agree to make the rest of us cut our own emissions to "stop" global warming.

 

This circus ended in total failure. China, the world's biggest emitter, refused to choke its growth. So did India. Now the United States is unlikely to make cuts, either, with Barack Obama's presidency badly wounded and the economy so sick.

 

Not only did this show that Rudd's planned tax on our emissions will now be even more suicidally useless. It also suggested world leaders can't really think global warming is so bad.

 

3. The Himalayan scare

 

RUDD has quoted the IPCC as his authority on global warming, claiming it's a group of "guys in white coats" who "just measure things". But the IPCC also just makes things up.

 

Take this claim from its 2007 report: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

 

In fact, we now know this bizarre claim was first made by a little-known Indian scientist in an interview for an online magazine, and then copied into a report by the green group WWF.

 

From there, the IPCC lifted it almost word for word for its own 2007 report, without checking if it was true.

 

It wasn't, of course, as the IPCC last week conceded. The glaciers will be around for at least centuries more.

 

But why did the IPCC run this mad claim in the first place?

 

The IPCC's Dr Murari Lal, the co-ordinating lead author responsible, says he knew all along there was no peer-reviewed research to back it up.

 

"(But) we thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians ... "

 

Note: you are told not the truth, but what will scare you best.

 

4. Pachauri's response

 

BUT what smells just as much is how IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri, a former railway engineer, first tried to defend this "mistake" by accusing sceptical scientists of practising "voodoo science".

 

Deny and abuse. That's the IPCC way.

 

Even more suspiciously, Syed Hasnain, the scientist who first made the false claim, then turned out to be now employed by The Energy Research Institute, headed by ... er, Pachauri.

 

More astonishing still, only two weeks ago TERI won up to $500,000 from the Carnegie Corporation to study exactly Hasnain's bogus claim. See how cash follows a good scare?

 

5. Pachauri's conflicts

 

IN fact, Pachauri and TERI do amazingly well from his IPCC job.

 

Britain's Sunday Telegraph this month revealed TERI had created a global business network since Pachauri became IPCC chairman in 2002.

 

Its recent donors include Deutsche Bank, Toyota, Yale University - and, sadly, Rudd, who last year handed over $1 million, hoping to win influence with such a big UN honcho.

 

Pachauri himself is now a director or adviser to a score of banks, investment institutions and carbon traders, many involved in areas directly affected by IPCC policies.

 

He denies any wrongdoing, and is not paid by the IPCC. But see again how cash follows a scare, and ask if the IPCC chief has a conflict of interest.

 

6. The green hand revealed

 

WE'VE seen how the IPCC just copied its false claims about the Himalayas from a report by WWF, a green activist group which earn donations by preaching such doom.

 

In fact, the IPCC's 2007 report cites WWF documents as "evidence" at least another 15 times.

 

Elsewhere it cites a non-scientific, non-peer-reviewed paper from another activist body, the International Institute for Sustainable Development, as its sole proof that global warming could devastate African agriculture.

 

Whose agenda is the IPCC pushing?

 

7. More fake IPCC claims

 

THIS week came more evidence that the IPCC sexed up its 2007 report, this time when it claimed the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s", thanks to global warming.

 

In fact, the claim was picked out of an unpublished report by a London risk consultant, who later changed his mind and said "the idea that catastrophes are rising in cost because of climate change is completely misleading".

 

8. New research on our gasses

 

AT least four new papers by top scientists cast doubt on the IPCC claim that our carbon dioxide emissions are strongly linked to global warming.

 

One, published in Nature, shows the world had ice age activity even when atmospheric CO2 was four times the level of our pre-industrial times.

 

Another, by NASA medallist John Christy and David Douglass, shows global temperatures did not go up as much as expected from man-made emissions over the past three decades.

 

9. New Australian research

 

JAMES Cook University researcher Peter Ridd says Australian scientists have cried wolf over the threat to the Great Barrier Reef from global warming, and the reef was actually in "bloody brilliant shape". The alarmist CSIRO this month also backed away from blaming global warming for a drought in Tasmania and in the Murray-Darling basin, saying "the jury is still out". A new paper by another Australian academic, Assoc Prof Stewart Franks, says the Murray-Darling drought is natural, and has nothing to do with man-made warming.

 

10. The world still won't warm

 

AND still the world hasn't warmed since 2001, even though we pump out more emissions than ever.

 

Even professional alarmist Tim Flannery, author of The Weather Makers, admits "we haven't seen a continuation of that (warming) trend" and "the computer modelling and the real world data disagree".

 

And with Europe, the United States and China hit with record cold and snow this winter, no wonder Kevin Rudd has suddenly gone cold on global warming, the mad faith that has cost us so many futile billions already.

[Pleepsie]

Chief scientist - we have to be honest about climate change

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece

 

The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the Government’s chief scientific adviser.

 

Professor Beddington said that climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming. He condemned scientists who refused to publish the data underpinning their reports.

 

He said: “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.â€

 

Professor Beddington said that particular caution was needed when communicating predictions about climate change made with the help of computer models.

 

 

 

Blowing hot and cold

 

Glaciers

The IPCC says its statement on melting glaciers was based on a report it misquoted by WWF, a lobby group, which took its information from a report in New Scientist based on an interview with a glaciologist who claims he was misquoted. Most glaciologists say that the Himalayan glaciers are so thick that they would take hundreds of years to melt

 

Sea levels

 

The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research says sea levels could rise by 6ft by 2100, a prediction based on the 7in rise in sea levels from 1881-2001, which it attributed to a 0.7C rise in temperatures. It assumed a rise of 6.4C by 2100 would melt the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.

 

UK Climate Projections, published last year by the Government, predicted a rise of one to two feet by 2095

 

Arctic sea ice

 

Cambridge University’s Polar Ocean Physics Group has claimed that sea ice will have disappeared from the North Pole in summer by 2020. However, in the past two summers the total area of sea ice in the Arctic has grown substantially

 

Global temperatures

 

The Met Office predicts that this year is “more likely than not†to be the world’s warmest year on record. It claims the El Niño effect will join forces with the warming effect of manmade greenhouse gases.

 

Some scientists say that there is a warming bias in Met Office long-range forecasts which has resulted in it regularly overstating the warming trend

 

Its the first line that I find most revealing "Chief scientist - we have to be honest about climate change" this would seem to imply that they have been less than honest up till now