Skip to content

UK Met Office Caught Lying

October 28, 2012

By Paul Homewood


Following the Mail on Sunday article, which pointed out the inconvenient fact that global warming had stopped fifteen years ago, the Met Office issued a response in an attempt to protect its honour. As I pointed out at the time, the reply was so full of misrepresentations and half truths that whoever wrote it could have got a job writing up dodgy dossiers for Alastair Campbell.

One of the statements I complained about was :-

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade,

The reference is here.


As I mentioned at the time,” It is also not true that August 2012 is “at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina”. The La Nina, in reality, fizzled out in January 2012, and since April there has been a mild El Nino.”

This is not difficult to check. NOAA show this quite clearly on their graph below of the ENSO index. (Red = El Nino, Blue = La Nina).




And the actual index confirms that the La Nina finished in February, whilst the subsequent El Nino peaked in July, with a positive value of 1.139.


Was it a case of the Met just bluffing their way along without really understanding what they were saying? There have after all been many recent examples of stunning incompetence there.

Well it seems no. They knew all along they were telling porkies.

As is my wont, I took a look today at their 3-month outlook for Nov-Jan. It says :-

In recent weeks El Niño conditions in the tropical Pacific have weakened further and predictions are now equally balanced between neutral and El Niño over the next three months.

What? I should point out that, for the last year or so, they have been wittering on about  El Ninos and La Ninas, even though they or nobody else knows what, if any, effect they have on UK climate. It is simply inserted to make then seem “scientific”. But read it again.

In recent weeks El Niño conditions in the tropical Pacific have weakened further

So they have known all along that there have been El Nino conditions in recent months and that the La Nina that preceded it fizzled months before.

The link to their 3-month outlook is below. Please do not take my word for it, but read it for yourself.


It appears now that there are only two possibilities :


1) The Met Office deliberately lied in order to protect their global warming agenda.

2) They are so incompetent that one hand does not know what the other is doing.


Over to you, Met Office. Which is it to be? Either way, they owe us a full and unconditional apology and retraction.

  1. October 28, 2012 8:28 pm


    We now know that world leaders have used public funds to promote misinformation on the energy (E) stored as mass (m) in cores of heavy atoms and stars since the United Nations was established on 24 Oct 1945.

    The evolution of Communism under Stalin before WWII, that George Orwell described in Animal Farm [1], continued uninterrupted under the UN after WWII, exactly as George Orwell had predicted it would in a futuristic novel he wrote in 1948, Nineteen Eighty-Four [2]:

    Here’s the rest of the story:

    – Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

    [1] George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair), Animal Farm: A Fairy Story (Original title when published in England on 17 Aug 1945; This title was shortened to Animal Farm when published in the United States in 1946)

    [2] George Owrell (Eric Arthur Blair), Ninteen Eighty-Four (“1984″) (Secker and Warburg, London, 8 June 1949):

  2. October 29, 2012 2:25 pm

    Having met a number of climate modellers from the Met Office, they appeared to be reasonable people. However, I’ve heard reports that John Hirst is not listening to his own guys on climate. The reason is obvious – and not just because he’s an accountant – but because the Met Office get a lot of money on the back of the global scare, and no one has thought to tell him that there is a real need for climate modelling (monthly) but that his spin on CO2 is being counter productive and undermining the Met Office credibility.

    Someone should tell him that “goodwill” is what it says – and he is loosing any goodwill the organisation had.

  3. R Power permalink
    October 30, 2012 8:12 pm

    “The linear trend from August 1997….. to August 2012….. is about 0.03°C/decade,”

    This statement appears to be based upon the Met Office’s own latest (well-massaged) temperature data-set called HadCRUT4. However, the author of it neglected to mention that the trend is not statistically significant. (p > 0.11) This means that no-one can be sure that the cited warming trend is real and it is quite possible that the real trend over this period was static or even cooling.

    “Oh, what a tangled web we weave….”

  4. February 11, 2013 10:42 pm

    This is exactly the third blog post, of your
    blog I read. Yet I personally like this specific 1, “UK Met Office Caught
    Lying NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT” the most.
    Thanks ,Raymon

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: