The Met Office doesn't though. It makes its own mistakes, and frequently feeds and depends on alarmism. It is not politically independent, is politically driven, and is not dependable.
Betts can point to barely more than one instance of the Met Office -- i.e. himself -- 'calling out' a blatant case of alarmism in the last three years.
That's not enough, Richard.
That's not enough, Richard.
Moreover, as civil servants, you are NOT free to criticise the government.
If Betts and the MO were capable of correcting the misapprehensions of climate alarmism, he would have pointed out that climate science is not sufficient in any respect to the task of deciding who should or should not be free to speak on TV and Radio.
Here's another good reason for not taking the MO's word for it that it can provide the last word on climate 'science' in the media.
And here's another.
Here's the problem. Richard claims that results can be verified by independent efforts. But if they contradict the claims they investigate, they can't be given the publicity. And the authors may even find themselves on a media blacklist.
"People can ask us to explain", claims Richard.
But suddenly, he has to go and feed the cat.
But suddenly, he has to go and feed the cat.
The cat at least gets fed. But the alarmist BS the scientist put out went unchallenged, and so did the policy. Because nobody dared to challenge it.
Scientists are naive to the point of utter stupidity.
