Monday, 17 February 2014

There is NO disagreement. . . . it only APPEARS that way.

Another day, another debacle at the UK Met Office. This one started last week with Dame Julia Slingo hopping onto the bandwagon created by the UK floods to claim that "all the evidence supported the theory that climate change had played a role" in the floods. That's a fairly definitive statement. Of course it was hedged by the usual ifs and buts common to a politician (oh no, sorry, scientist), but the statement stands.

Then yesterday, David Rose reported an interview in the Mail on Sunday with Mat Collins, a senior climate scientist at the Met Office and Exeter University in which Collins is quoted as saying:

‘. . . . . the storms have been driven by the jet stream – the high-speed current of air that girdles the globe – which has been ‘stuck’ further south than usual. There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge.'


That too is a fairly definitive statement and difficult to misinterpret. It is also obviously difficult to square with Slingo's statement above. This is why Rose's article says:

"
Appears to contradict Met Office chief scientist Dame Julia Slingo"

Rose also says:

"Prof Collins declined to comment on his difference of opinion with Dame Julia."

Mat Collins tweeted last night that a joint statement by him and the Met Office would be issued today, and so it has been, here.

The statement starts off:


"In it he [Rose] says that Mat Collins, Professor in Climate Systems at Exeter University, ‘appears to contradict’ the report released by the Met Office last weekend and that he ‘declined to comment on his difference in opinion’ with one of the report’s authors, Dame Julia Slingo.
This is not the case and there is no disagreement."

So, did Mat Collins not decline to comment on his difference in opinion? If so, what did he say about it to Rose? They say also that it is not the case that Collins' statements to Rose 'appear to contradict' Slingo. Well, patently, they do appear to contradict what Slingo said a few days earlier, and for very good reason. So saying that this is not the case is simply a provable falsehood and stupid, quite frankly. Going on to say that there is 'no disagreement' invites doubt in the reader considering the glaring inconsistencies in Slingo's and Collins' statements to the media.

It appears (that nasty word again) that Slingo has had 'words' with Collins for his audacity in speaking to the Mail and giving us all the impression that there is a genuine scientist at the Met Office who is unhappy with attributing our extreme winter to climate change to any degree. The Dame in charge of our Met Office has likely donned her proverbial thigh-high leather boots and cracked the proverbial bull-whip very close to the cringing features of one of her sub-servients; an employee who has shown a spark of independent thought at odds with the 'man-made climate change' ideological group-think which has held sway at the Met Office for so many years now.

This can't go on. Presumably there are good scientists still working at the Met office and presumably Mat Collins is one of them. They can't forever be gagged and pulled into line every time they dare to waver from the 'common purpose' of convincing the UK populace that 'climate change' is happening, that it's getting worse and it's all our fault.

The rest of the statement in response to the Mail on Sunday is mere waffle which attempts to back-pedal slightly on Slingo's earlier comments re. extreme weather attribution and fails - miserably. Give us a UK Met Office 'fit for purpose' for heaven's sake!