If our choice of making a decision was reduced to 1 good thing to choose it would be a no brainier .We have many good suggestions and so many choices
we can make . Finding the best one becomes the issue . Man has always been at the mercy of weather events .We can make good decisions to batten down
the hatches or move people and animals away from the area to safer ground but we cant stop the weather .
The mere fact that CO2 has been rising and may even rise further in the future tells us little about what the weather might be or could be . The
biggest response to CO2 we have been told is that the temps would rise ,and because of the rise the weather would become more severe . But Huston we
have a problem because the best computer models ,falsifies that assumption as we see a divergence of the relation of CO2 to temperatures .
We have had nasty weather in the past and we still do . It varies and that is the nature of weather .Like the many different snowflakes ,weather is
never the same . The BBC recently had a show called "What is the point of the Met Office "
This show cause such a crazy response that it has started going
One comment I thought was a good one said this " Charge:
“… audiences were not given sufficient information about prevailing scientific opinion to allow them to assess the position of the Met Office and
the Met Office position on these criticisms was not adequately included in the programme”.
1. Throughout the programme, Mr. Letts inserted such careful, AGW-appeasement remarks as: “not uncontroversial position on climate change” and
that natural events “may be caused in part by mankind” (or words to that effect).
2. His main expert testimony came from a lukewarmer who actually ended up HELPING the AGWers by stating conclusively that he was certain that
laboratory properties of CO2 meant that human CO2 necessarily has warmed the earth (just a little…. oh, brother, Thank you, Neville (the AGWers will
take ANY amount of warming from humans, no matter how small and run with it).
3. His only true skeptic witness was a man known for his over-confidence (not that his ideas are not plausible, just that he asserts them with far too
much certainty) in sunspots (and the like)-as-causation of climate; i.e., Piers C.’s testimony did more to damage the skeptics than to help.
4. The woman who with idiotic internal inconsistency blathered on at the end about “… the atmosphere is chaotic… we forecast weeks, months,
years, in advance” (or essentially those words) — GAVE A VERY ACCURATE AND COMPLETE synopsis of the Met position on the criticisms mentioned by
Conclusion (just a guess…):
Met Office, feeling a threat of funding cuts coming, is using Mr. Letts to create the VICTIM (Met) — PERSECUTOR (Mr. Letts) — RESCUER
(Taxpayers/public: “Support our Met! Support our Met! Great is the Met of the Ephesians, er, Englishians!!” (it’s in the book of Acts) triangle.
(and, lurking behind it all are Big Wind, Big “Sustainability,” Big Solar, and Big Disaster Insurance — whose puppet the Met has become, v. a v.
human caused climate change …).
Applause for the wrongfully accused Mr. Letts who is bright, articulate, intelligent and talented. He will do well no matter what the biased BBC does
to him. " wattsupwiththat.com...