Met Office Shoots Itself in the Foot

[IanC]

Science Gets The Stratosphere Wrong | The Resilient Earth

How did the Met Office get their data so wrong? Well there's the rub. You see, the methodology used to develop the Met Office SSU product was never published in the peer-reviewed literature, and certain aspects of the original processing “remain unknown.” Evidently the boffins at the Met didn't bother to write down exactly how they were massaging the raw data to get the results they reported. Indeed, those who did the data manipulation seem to have mostly retired.

“The methodology used to generate the original Met Office SSU data remains undocumented and so the climate community are unable to explain the large discrepancies between the original Met Office and NOAA SSU products highlighted here,” Thompson et al. summarize. And the damage doesn't stop there.

The data from the erroneous dataset has been used widely to help drive and define computer climate models, the same models used to prop-up alarmist claims of impending catastrophic climate change.

and trakar still keeps telling us that only real scientists should be listened to.

 

[RollingThunder]

Science Gets The Stratosphere Wrong | The Resilient Earth

and trakar still keeps telling us that only real scientists should be listened to.

Actually, listening to real scientists would be a lot better for you than listening to the phony science poseurs over at that fossil fuel industry sponsored denier cult propaganda outlet called "The Resilient Earth". Too bad you're too gullible and retarded to get that.

 

[IanC]

Science Gets The Stratosphere Wrong | The Resilient Earth

and trakar still keeps telling us that only real scientists should be listened to.

Actually, listening to real scientists would be a lot better for you than listening to the phony science poseurs over at that fossil fuel industry sponsored denier cult propaganda outlet called "The Resilient Earth". Too bad you're too gullible and retarded to get that.

are you saying that the Met didnt screw up? that they didnt 'lose' their methodology? it doesnt matter where the information is released to the public, it is the information that is important. will any of your AGW web sites inform their readers of this? why do skeptic web sites always seem to be the first to 'find' these stories?

 

[IanC]

does anyone else see similarities between this fiasco at the Met and the scandalous screw up at CRUTemp where all the raw data was 'lost' and the IT guy painted a KeystoneKops picture of incompetence in his Harry_read_me files?