re: #446 Charles

And somehow you just keep ignoring the obvious — that the review is happening because of the overblown scandal, for public relations reasons. Go ahead and keep trying to spin it — I think most people can see what you’re doing, despite the MET’s own statements.

Let’s suppose you are correct and they are only doing this “for public relations reasons”, and lord knows, hundreds of millions are spent putting forth the AGW ‘message’.

Ok fine, political then, the end result will be a verifiable, open source data-set that will end all the complaints over secrecy and data manipulation and sloppy record keeping. If the result is the same, or different, it will still greatly raise the standards of science at the MET Office and remove the questions and suspicions swirling around the CRU temperature sets.

Surely this will be a plus for the science. Call it political, whatever, the important thing is it will erase widespread doubts about the value and accuracy of this key data set. To me it looks like science, but even if it is political, the end result will improve the science.