re: #66 Obdicut

Why do you say that? I’ve seen about ten articles cited here by deniers from the Times Online and the Telegraph.

Because I’ve been reading both papers daily for the last couple of decades. You are judging them based upon ten recent articles. They are simply not sceptic on AGW just because they are reporting ClimateGate.

They’re getting more accurate. They’re zeroing in on the trend more precisely. It is entirely wrong to say that the The IPPC AR4 will be in limbo.

Disagree. Major chapters of the AR4 where based upon the Hockey Team at CRU and their data. Those chapters will be in limbo until the MET finishes its re-evaluation

This is being done in the name of openness:

No, this is being done because the “openness” was forced upon them by the CRU hackers.

The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct. However, it says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.

I too am confident of that. I am not saying the data will be falsified, my point is that it is suspect at this point, as the MET clearly agrees.

And of course, they’re immediately being attacked for doing it, as though it shows that they’re weak and uncertain.

Nope, that is your spin. I applaud the MET response. They are showing that they get the message.