UPDATE: August 2, 2013
I returned to the MyClimateAndMe site today to see what the latest version of this page might be. Much to my surprise, when I followed the link, I discovered that the site has had a facelift – and they’ve “disappeared” the evidence:
And do check out their new “Our Buddies” page which includes a link to “Mummy Met Office”
UPDATE June 11, 2013
During a discussion on Bishop Hill, today, Richard Betts advised me that:
The [MyClimateAndMe] article on Marcott was updated on 12th May on my request. The wording of the revised post came from me.
For the record, the title of this March 12, 2013 post at MyClimateAndMe now reads “Article Removed”. The revised wording concludes:
In the light of this statement from the authors, we no longer consider our headline to be appropriate.
In my previous post, I had noted (inter alia) that this “jewel in the crown, of British science and global science” was participating in the passive perpetuation of alarmist propaganda.
One notorious example was found in a March 12, 2013 post on the My Climate and Me blog, which (if you read the very fine print on the logo) is produced “in association with” the Met Office.
As of yesterday, the site still showed:
Although I did observe that there was a comment containing a link to my previous post, in which I had written:
I have yet to see a reasonable explanation from this “jewel in the crown, of British science and global science” as to why:
- they chose to post without examining the so-called “science” on which the press release was based
- they have chosen to leave this clearly alarmist “headline” intact, some six weeks after it was firmly established that it is not supported by the underlying paper
And while Betts did respond:
I don’t know why the headline on the Marcott paper is still there on My Climate and Me. The original post about it was removed at my request. It was a mistake to post about an area of science that the Met Office does not work on – we have asked My Climate and Me to stick to areas of Met Office expertise in future, and they will do this.
this is not exactly what I would call a “reasonable explanation” for either of the points I had noted above.
I didn’t actually check, yesterday, but my recollection is that their Team page (at least on the 23rd) appeared to give top billing to Richard Betts. They’ve changed it (without noting the date):
The Climate Science Advisors assist the My Climate & Me team by helping us answer the questions we receive, but the articles and content of the site does (sic) not necessarily represent their views.
Our Advisors include:
Richard Betts […]
Top billing now goes to “Rob Hutt – Director & Presenter”. According to his bio:
Areas of expertise:
Innovation process and creative behaviours
Rob joined the Met Office in 2007 as an Aviation Account Manager selling forecast services to the aviation industry. […] One area in particular that interested Rob was the massive amount of climate science expertise in the Met Office and the difficulties faced when attempting to communicate this complex subject to the public. It was this challenge that prompted Rob to develop My Climate & Me as a new communications channel that aims to bridge the gap between climate scientists and the public.
Well, I have some bad news, folks. The latest and greatest attempt to “bridge the gap” on this passive promotion of alarmist propaganda is an epic fail, IMHO.
Here’s what the post looks like now (well, at least as of 10:56 p.m. PST when I took this screen capture):
Gee, I wonder where one might find this “extensive media coverage” which highlights the problems with this report – not to mention the over-selling contained in the still intact headline.
Put yourself in front of the monitor of a newbie who happened to stumble across this post at My Climate and Me. Would you have any idea at all from the above that the headline was inaccurate (I’m trying to be diplomatic!) or that one Met Office scientist’s:
(non-palaeo expert) view on Marcott is that it is an interesting attempt to reconstruct temperatures over the last 11000 years or so, but its significance has been over-sold. It does not appear to support claims of “unprecedented rates of warming” because the time resolution is too low. [emphasis added -hro]
And this is the way that the U.K. Met Office – “a jewel in the crown, of British and global science” – chooses to engage and “bridge the gap between climate scientists and the public.”? I’m not sure what “gap” they think they might be “bridging”, but it certainly couldn’t be an ever-widening credibility gap.
Amazing. Simply amazing.