re: #247 Walter L. Newton

No, I’m shocked that the MET office has been one of the many go to sources for pro-AGW information, and suddenly, they decide to examine 169 years of surface temperature data and reading, now suddenly, I’m hearing that it’s political, a waste of money and not needed.

You’re hearing that from me because you didn’t bother to read it in the article. The MET Office explicitly says they don’t expect to find any problems in the data, and that they’re doing the review for what amounts to PR reasons.

It’s right there. Someone even quoted that section right above.