re: #439 Bagua

Thank you! But in what way am I “distorting the MET’s statements”? I am quoting from them verbatim.

You’re doing your best to insinuate that this review is happening because the data is suspect. You’re wrong. The data is not suspect, and the MET Office makes it very clear in the article you’re trying to distort:

The Met Office stresses that it does not foresee that the new analyses will reveal any “substantial changes” from the basic conclusion in the last IPCC report, published in 2007, that the recent warming of the earth’s climate is “unequivocal.” Rather, it explains in its proposal document: “This effort will ensure that the datasets are completely robust and that all methods are transparent.”