Unthreaded
In her previous roles, Vicky Pope could, behind closed doors, have helped derail the Climate Change Act. She could have helped the public put the febrile agitations of 'environmentalists' about climate into perspective. She could have helped distance the Met Office from the excesses of the IPCC. As far as I know, she attempted none of these things. Appearing on the credits for this shoddy site - https://realitydrop.org/#about -is but one indication of the Met Office's standing in the world of climate alarmists
It would not nearly make up for these lost opportunities, but at least now she has the chance of removing the new Met Office from the list of things I resent paying taxes for.
John Shade
Richard Betts:
"I wonder what "Integration and Growth" means.
It means helping to grow additional sources of revenue for the Met Office. As a government Trading Fund, we are required to increase the value for money to the UK taxpayer by becoming less reliant on government funding."
Yes Richard, but what is she integrating? Does that mean that when you have a problem integrating she provides the resources to solve it. And is there a Director of Differentiation and Growth I wonder?
geronimo
Mar 5, 2013 at 11:28 PM | Martin A
I wonder what "Integration and Growth" means.
It means helping to grow additional sources of revenue for the Met Office. As a government Trading Fund, we are required to increase the value for money to the UK taxpayer by becoming less reliant on government funding. That's why we have a commercial area, which works directly for the private sector, providing advice on weather and climate so business and industry can increase their own efficiencies and profits. (eg: by increasing their resilience).
Richard Betts
Anyone seen this old BBC page "compiled with advice from Fred Singer and Gavin Schmit")?
Climate scepticism: The top 10
It is badly in need of an update, but nether-the-less is still linked to by Education Scotland as an educational resource for pupils. http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/weatherandclimatechange/climatechange/index.asp. I suppose any old propaganda and misinformation will do: e.g.
1. warming since 1979 is unequivocal, andUHI is negligible (and adjusted for!),
2. lack of warming since 1997 is due to El Nino & cherry-picking
3. evidence for the MWP is patchy at best
4. models are tested and validated against all sorts of data
5. Lower levels of the troposphere are warming; but measuring the exact rate has been an uncertain process
and so on. Got to go, school run.
lapogus
In 1988, the year global warming made its entrance into politics, Margaret Thatcher declared that mankind had unwittingly been carrying out a massive experiment with the planet, in which the burning of fossil fuels would produce greenhouse gases, leading to higher global temperatures. The results of this experiment remain an open question. As Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, acknowledged last month, there has been a 17-year pause in the rise of average global temperatures.
Of more immediate consequence to British families is that the UK has embarked on perhaps the most aggressive political experiment attempted in peacetime – gradually outlawing the use of fossil fuels, which we have relied on since the Industrial Revolution, as our principal source of energy. The results are already evident. Two weeks ago, Alistair Buchanan, chief executive of Ofgem, warned of rising energy bills, and questioned whether Britain would be able to keep the lights on. When there is a glut of natural gas in the US and coal prices are plunging in Europe, this country faces a green energy crunch as it attempts to decarbonise its economy.
[ more ]
matthu
A.Scott at WUWT on dubious publication status of TWO Lewandowsky papers
...To review – the original Lewandowsky 2012 “Moon Landing” paper, which Lewandowsky, Cook et al, have claimed since July 2012, to be; peer reviewed accepted for publication by, and “in press” with, Psychological Science has not seen a one of those claims acknowledged or confirmed. The paper has not been published and no acknowledgement has been made by the journal of its acceptance.And the same type questionable conduct and issues are arising on the follow on “Recursive” paper as well.
And all the while the authors of “Moon Landing still have failed/refused to provide the Supplemental Online documentation they claim contains the information necessary to verify and validate their work.
These are simple, honest, fair questions. Each and every one ignored.
Skiphil
I do trust somebody is wrong! Not really bothered who, but natural warmth is IMHO always better!
Just at the same time as "our" Mr Paul Hudson announces:-
"Don't pack away the snow boots just yet"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Dont-pack-away-the-snow-boots-just-yet
Bloomberg produce:-
"U.K. Natural Gas Stores May Empty in Two Weeks: Chart of the Day"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-05/u-k-natural-gas-stores-may-empty-in-two-weeks-chart-of-the-day.html
H/T to "Real Science" for the latter.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/civilisation-is-a-thing-of-the-past-in-the-uk/
Green Sand
Mar 5, 2013 at 9:52 PM Roger Longstaff
Yes, always good for a smile. Interesting to see Vicky's career progression too. I wonder what "Integration and Growth" means.
Apr 5, 2012 –
Vicky is Head of Integration and Growth.
11 December 2012
Dr Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Science Advice .
February 2009
Dr Vicky Pope is the head of climate change advice .
The Guardian, Wednesday 1 October 2008:
Vicky Pope is head of climate change for government.
Martin A
This one is good for a laugh - Vicky Pope of the Met Office explaining how we're all going to fry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WyDmdcPw7Uw
Roger Longstaff
Mar 5, 2013 at 9:52 PM | Roger Longstaff
Interesting link Roger, there she is without a blush telling everyone that the warming would increase by 0.3C between 2004 and 2014. Now I'm not one to tempt fate by scoffing at her, but it seems pretty unlikely that we'll get an increase in global temperatures of 0.3C in the nest ten months or so.
Do they take a "lack of embarrassment" pill every morning after breakfast? If anything is going to bring Climate Scientists into disrepute it's this sort of tosh. 1C will cause ocean acidification destroying corals so let's move our wealth to managing disasters based on information from people who clearly have no clue what they're talking about?