Skip to content

Tim Osborn Prefers Spin To Facts

January 5, 2019
tags: ,

By Paul Homewood

h/t Paul Matthews




Tim Osborn, Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA has taken great exception at the GWPF for publishing my latest post on UK Climate Trends:



In particular, he seems to object to the public seeing the actual data. Apparently that is a “misleading interpretation” of the facts.

I’ve no doubt he would much prefer the blatant spin, which his chums at the Met Office like to use.

As I correctly predicted yesterday, we are now getting headlines prompted by the Met Office like these:


Britain enjoyed its seventh hottest and second sunniest year on record in 2018, new figures show.

The Met Office released its full round-up of weather statistics for the last 12 months on Friday, and the figures may come as a surprise considering much of the country was blanketed in snow and ice in the early part of the year.

February and March saw freezing average temperatures of 2.4C (36.3F) and 3.8C (38.8F) because of the arrival of the Beast from the East, but 2018 still ended up making the top ten hottest years ever.

The UK average across the whole year was 9.49C (49F) thanks to an extraordinarily hot summer and milder than usual temperatures during the autumn.

July was the hottest month, clocking in at an average of 17.3C (63.1F), and the amount of sunshine we enjoyed came within hours of topping what we were treated to in 2003.

That year recorded 1,587 hours of sunshine, compared to 1,581 in 2018.

Dr Mark McCarthy, head of the Met Office National Climate Information Centre, said the heat and sunshine statistics were consistent with a general trend of our climate warming up.


Last year was the seventh hottest and second sunniest on record in the UK, new figures show.

This means the ten hottest years all fall in the 21st Century, highlighting a general trend in the UK’s climate warming, the Met Office said.

Dr Mark McCarthy, head of the Met Office National Climate Information Centre, said: “2018 adds to our picture of the warming climate in the UK.

Nowhere do the Met Office admit that temperatures have plateaued since the turn of the century. And nowhere do they even offer a graph, so as to let people decide for themselves.

Instead, McCarthy continues to peddle the false impression that the UK’s climate is “still getting warmer”.

Indeed, in a Met Office News Release on 27th December, he goes even further:

“The overall story for the year fits into the general warming trend we have seen in the century so far.”

This is grossly misleading. It is obvious from the Met Office’s own data that there has been no warming this century.


Tim Osborn complains that we should not be looking at such short periods of time, as this is mere weather. But as I pointed out in my post:

Of course, 10 years is far too short a period to be meaningful in terms of long term trends and projections. But exactly the same argument applies to that short burst of warming, which effectively began in 1989 and ended in 2006.

For some reason, Osborn has no objection to the Met Office attributing the short spell of warming in the 1990s to a general trend in the UK’s climate warming.

He also thinks we should not be paying attention to UK temperatures, but to global ones instead. But the whole point of the post was to look at the UK scene. Don’t people have the right to see facts? Or must they only be allowed to read the Met Office’s highly biased interpretation?

  1. HotScot permalink
    January 5, 2019 11:50 am

    So if the continuing trend is for temperatures to rise, why wasn’t 2018 the hottest year evah!?

  2. Jules permalink
    January 5, 2019 11:52 am

    Disingenious bunch of sh*ts.

  3. CheshireRed permalink
    January 5, 2019 12:22 pm

    Met Office headlines were lying by omission. Deliberate and very carefully selected words and phrases to keep an implied public focus on ‘warming’…without there being any warming!

  4. January 5, 2019 12:52 pm

    Ipsos opinion survey agency recently published “Perils of Perception 2018” where they claim 17 of the last 18 years were the hottest on record, while the public in 37 countries guessed only 9. After checking the data, the correct answer is more likely 5. My excerpt and analysis is

  5. tom0mason permalink
    January 5, 2019 12:54 pm

    Hi Tim Osborn,

    As you have a hand in, and expound how good the climate models are, explain all the ‘settled science’ behind the use of ‘teleconnections’ in the models. While you’re at please explain why the clouds have been doing this using just known science linked to observational evidence.
    Also as you have expounded “Climate models project acceleration in Sea Level Rise starting before 2100 due to climate change”, tell us why is it not happening, and the scientist Judith Curry says “There are numerous reasons to think that projections of 21st-century sea level rise from human-caused global warming are too high, and some of the worst-case scenarios strain credulity,”

  6. mikewaite permalink
    January 5, 2019 1:09 pm

    “the second sunniest summer on record” – apparently that constitutes a climate crisis. Is there a single person in the UK, not employed by the BBC or Met office, who believes that a sunny summer is a calamity? And that to make sunny summers go away and never return we have to throw all our disposable and , for many, nondisposable income, in the form of carbon tax to the likes of John Gummer , the Grantham Institute and wealthy subsidy farmers from Caithness to Cornwall.

  7. Richard Woollaston permalink
    January 5, 2019 1:38 pm

    It would be rather nice to see Tim Osborn present a counter-argument rather than spin and innuendo. It would befit him better as a scientist. He could even ask the GWPF to publish it!

  8. Ben Vorlich permalink
    January 5, 2019 1:45 pm

    Just where are all these climatic calamities that are supposed to be happening as a result of a warming climate? Severe weather events were common in 20th century. The tornado with the longest ground track happened in 1950, severe winters 1947 & 1963, Thames flood 1928, North Sea flood 1953 & 1978, Lynmouth 1952, Scottish hurricane 1968, Michael Fish’s storm 1987, and regular ordinary floods. Previous centuries probably worse.

    So just what is wrong with a warmer world and why would anyone vwant a return to LIA?

  9. Jules permalink
    January 5, 2019 2:01 pm

    Slightly of topic but all part of the same misanthropic haters club, Gordon Bennett…

    ‘ the only hope for avoiding catastrophic global warming is for a nuclear war to reduce human population and consumption.’

  10. sean2829 permalink
    January 5, 2019 2:43 pm

    Seem like the trade off is warm sunny English summers or high electricity bills. Perhaps a poll could be taken to see what people prefer.

  11. January 5, 2019 3:07 pm

    The Met Office is not fit for purpose. I would be greatly embarrassed if I worked for such an organisation, which misleads the taxpayers who are forced to fund it (just like the BBC).

    I do not know how the likes of Osborn and Stott can look at themselves in the mirror.

  12. January 5, 2019 3:25 pm

    It is now eighteen years since my wife died from hypothermia, in a flat in the UK. I don’t really blame anyone for it but the thought that there are people around who are trying to make this place even cooler makes me angry. Cold kills, warming not so much.

  13. Harry Passfield permalink
    January 5, 2019 3:44 pm

    Osborn and McCarthy would have greater credence if they stopped trying to make the public believe that a: all warming is bad, and b: it’s all caused by man.
    If McCarthy wants to make a claim for MM Warming perhaps he would like to tell us what proportion is natural and which is man-made in the numbers he’s putting out. Basically, is he a scientist of an activist?

  14. Deseaux permalink
    January 5, 2019 4:56 pm

    While I fully Support your crusade to highlight the apparent bias shown by the Met Office and BBC in emphasising statistics that agree with global warming predictions, the apparent levelling off of warming shown on the graphs could simply be explained by natural background climatic variations…and they should own up to this!!

    • January 5, 2019 8:17 pm

      Yes, the data are consistent with gradual warming on top of natural variability, but are also consistent with the net warming coming entirely from natural variability. Thus, the claimed settled status of climate science is bogus propaganda from those with nefarious agendas.

  15. Bloke down the pub permalink
    January 5, 2019 5:30 pm

    The UK average across the whole year was 9.49C (49F) thanks to an extraordinarily hot summer’
    Really? My memory must be failing! I certainly remember that it was drier and sunnier than many in the past and was pleasantly warm for much of the time but hot?

  16. Coeur de Lion permalink
    January 5, 2019 6:12 pm

    What drives these people? Are they on the pay of somebody ? Or are they anti capitalist socialists? Weird.

  17. Jon Scott permalink
    January 5, 2019 7:06 pm

    A man with his snout in the troff and a man who wants to keep it there! The corruption of science for money!

    • BLACK PEARL permalink
      January 5, 2019 8:32 pm

      They’ve all got mortgages / rent PCP payments on their BMW’s , Mercs & Range Rovers to find, not to mention pensions, most paid from Joe Public’s pocket
      Hell why would they put that in jeopardy. Its backed by most of the politicians anyway, for the same reason, who will not allow any MSM to debate alternate facts in the open.
      If it did it would be fixed like Brexit debates at a 5:1 ratio in favour of their religion.
      So they’ll keep it rolling for ever & ever.
      If ice sheets were rolling past the river Tyne it would be due to global warming
      I can see the BBC & SLY News headlines as I type.
      The public has been institutionalised for decades by this politicised Science and is paying for it with the £billions of tax revenue.

  18. January 5, 2019 8:37 pm

    Congrats Paul, this post appears as 5th item in a Google search of “Tim Osborn”, a taste of their own medicine, in which desmogblog or similar typically appears near the top of any Google search for sceptics. This may reflect partly on his 2nd rate nature, he has never had a job outside of UEA, and appears to rely on Twitter to put himself about.

  19. John Cooknell permalink
    January 5, 2019 9:15 pm

    Well that’s a surprise, a sunny summer in UK was a warm summer. It’s almost as if amount of sunshine correlates to temperature, who would have thought that!

  20. Richard Cowley permalink
    January 5, 2019 10:39 pm

    tim osborn is a lying bastard

  21. Dave Cowdell permalink
    January 5, 2019 11:10 pm

    Some years ago I was in Bracknell, site of the Met Office, and made the acquaintance of a meteorologist from Belfast who had come over to do the UK wide forecast for 6 weeks. He had returned to the hotel one day in high dudgeon and when I enquired to his distress he replied ” if I had known how nice the weather was, I would have had the day off”
    Forecast and projections, not a chance even with 2 Cray’s.

  22. igsy permalink
    January 6, 2019 9:59 am

    Well, Tim Osborn knows all about embarrassment when promoting garbage. Back in the day, Michael Mann (who else) was getting nervous over invalid criticisms he had made to Andrew Revkin of Steve McIntyre concerning the Yamal dataset fiasco; this led him to seek assurances from Tim Osborn that his 2006 paper co-authored with Keith Briffa was, in Mann’s words, “immune” to the “Yamal issue”.

    Here was Tim Osborn’s response:

    “I wouldn’t say we were immune to the issue – results are similar for these leave 1, 2 or 3 out cases, but they certainly are not as strong as the case with all 14 proxies. Certainly in figure S6, there are some cases with 3 omitted (i.e. some sets of 11) where modern results are comparable with intermittent periods between 800 and 1100. Plus there is the additional uncertainty, discussed on the final page of the supplementary information, associated with linking the proxy records to real temperatures (remember we have no formal calibration, we’re just counting proxies-I’m still amazed that Science agreed to publish something where the main analysis only involves counting from 1 to 14!)”

  23. January 6, 2019 3:58 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: