The UK Meteorology Bureau is running a training course on climate change, but not just any course. According to the flyer you don’t need any prior scientific training and you will learn how to “dispel sceptism”.
Climate change — what you need to know
A seminar for professionals 2008
The scientific evidence is overwhelming — our climate is changing. These changes will affect all organisations – commercial and governmental, local and international.
To plan effectively for the future, influencers and decision-makers need to understand how the climate will change and how this may impact their organisation. This one-day seminar from the Met Office will equip you with the knowledge of climate change you need to:
Make the best decisions for your organisation, so that the plans you make today safeguard your future success in a changing climate.
Using the latest research from the world-leading Met Office Hadley Centre – the authoritative voice on climate change – this seminar builds an understanding of why and how our climate is changing and the likely impacts. Focusing on how we can plan for the future, this seminar also explores some of the options available for organisations to reduce (mitigate) and prepare for (adapt to) climate change.
What you’ll learn
By the end of the seminar, you will:
- understand why and how our climate is changing and the likely impacts;
- be equipped to dispel scepticism about climate change in your organisation and ensure your colleagues’ engagement;
- know the steps you need to take to factor climate change into the decisions you make for your organisation.
Who should attend
This seminar is designed for professionals in the public and private sectors. It’s particularly appropriate for those with responsibility for, or interest in, planning, projects and policies. No prior scientific training is required.
I find it extraordinary that an institution that purports to be about science, a bureau of meteorology, would seek to “dispel sceptism”.
Science is the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experimentation. Science is about inquiry and is best undertaken by those who are inquisitive, prepared to question, to doubt, to ruthlessly follow the evidence.
That the UK Meteorology Bureau, a place of science, is concerned with “dispelling sceptism” is a worrying sign. Indeed without scepticism, can education be more than propaganda?
Louis Hissink says
Indeed worrying – I’m in the middle of drafting another Henry Thornton article and part of the research is to detail the science faculties that deal with climate science. So far there is one specific department under Prof. Barry Brooks, a biologist, and the department is not under the supervision of the physical sciences per se. Macquarie Uni and Sydney seem not to have any either.
Unfortunately the political left control the public education system and propoganda to implement the social agenda is the name of the game. What the left have not factored in is the human ability to reason and to reject falsities.
Louis Hissink says
PS: Brooks is at Uni of Adelaide.
The wording was a little imprecise, but it is clear from the context of the flyer that the Bureau is trying to counter the usual myths offered up by climate change “skeptics”: That the earth isn’t warming, or, it’s warming but we can’t find the “signature” that implicates human activity, or, that human activity is inducing climate change, but its all good – you know “carbon is life”.
Of course, you may happen to believe one (or more!) of those myths, which is fine, but to get on your high horse and attack the Met for slightly clumsy wording is more than a little churlish given the goings on on this blog over the last little while.
Bob Tisdale says
The Met Office needs to revise the wording of the flyer from “the authoritative voice on climate change” to “the self-proclaimed authoritative voice on climate change.”
“Indeed without scepticism, can education be more than propaganda?”
Yes. That’s all it will be. Propaganda.
SJT… It is taxpayers money going into propping up taxpayer funded psuedo science…. You may claim big oil is a problem…. But I contend socialist inclined bureaucracies using public money on false pretences in order to give a seemingly scientific veracity to Ideological policies.
Here’s a Politician that has decided to call Greenies exaggerating catastrophists.
Chapter 9 of the IPCC’s 2007 Climate Assessment concluded that “human-induced warming of the climate system in the past half-century is widespread and detectable”.
The lead organisation with multiple contributors associated with Chapter 9 was The Hadley Centre, (part of the Met Office!), which supplied 2 lead authors and 8 contributing authors.
An independent bureau of meteorology?
Er, sorry, but no.
To all the fantasists, urgers, fanatics out there consider this REAL PROBLEM with your stupid argument endlessly promoting AGW.
The UK, Aust, NZ( for e.g.) combined only produce about 3% of the planet’s co2 easily reproduced by China, India etc in a little over 12 months.
Say if we are able to reduce our co2 by 10% in the next 20 years ( vertually impossible ) everyone knows that this won’t alter GHG levels whatsoever.
That’s if you fanatics really believe we can change the climate which is of course delusional nonsense.
The real science shows that extra co2 has a slight negative feedback ( cooling) so your arguments are ridiculous on all levels.
“Here’s a Politician that has decided to call Greenies exaggerating catastrophists.”
I didn’t know it was the “Greenies” who were doing the research.
Graeme Bird says
“The scientific evidence is overwhelming — our climate is changing.”
I don’t know how long its going to take before people get used to the idea that only mass-sackings can cure this. Just get used to it because there is simply no getting around it. The longer we put off the realisation of this the more damage will be done.
The above quote is afterall a flat out lie. Not only is the evidence not overwhelming….. Not only do they have no evidence whatsoever…… they refuse to give evidence when asked and in fact could come up with no evidence under torture.
We could find the writer of this quote. And force him to hand over this evidence and he could not do so. Nor could he name someone with the evidence. Nor could he name someone who could find the name of someone with the evidence.
SJT. Do you have evidence?
YES OR NO!!!!
“To all the fantasists, urgers, fanatics out there”
“that only mass-sackings …”
“Do you have evidence?”
Well so much for the new blog format.
Louis Hissink says
It might be better for you to start your own blog Luke, then you can determine its entertainment value yourself.
spangled drongo says
Barry Brooks’ blog propagandizes AGW on a daily basis.
You really wonder how these “scientists” can be so bereft of scepticism when they can’t prove their hypothesis.
Luke I really don’t think you would wake up if an old country outhouse fell on you.
I think perhaps the best way to put it would be to say that if you had another brain it’d be lonely.
Simple arithmetic tells anyone that if you only produce 1% of the co2 and you do the impossible over 20 years and reduce that by 10% you cannot make a scrap of difference because the really huge new emitters like China, India refuse to budge until they reach per capita emission levels that tally with the west.
Recently one of the statements attributed to the UK govt commenting on a possible slide into a recession implied that they will concentrate on the economy and climate change will have to wait.
But of course only silly fools believe in AGW in the first place, so the whole argument is spurious nonsense anyhow.
Alarmists are getting more alarmed! says
Hmm. the UK Met Office running a training course on climate change……pity their climate models just keep on getting it wrong…..
luke is sleeping off his disappointment from the failure of his great white hope, Philipona.
Tony G says
Can someone please import an Environment Minister like Northern Ireland’s Sammy Wilson;
Ian Mott says
“Here at Hadley/Met Climate Central you don’t need to think about the climate any more because we’ve done all the thinking for you. Heck, you don’t even have to go outside.
And never mind any silly fears about having a thought that might be unacceptable because every one of our thoughts has been prepared by Nicholas Stern and personally vetted by the great Gore.
Just relaaaax. Log-on to our web site and you can save the virtual planet every single night, and still have time for your favourite porn. Just another valuable service provided, especially for you, from your imaginary friends at Climate Central”.
Cohenite – “Failure?” – better than your method which stapling every new wacko paper together. Made your inquiries to Rolf yet or scared to. Wouldn’t want to ripple your confirmation bias.
“But of course only silly fools believe in AGW in the first place” – Neville – simply your alignment of politics and aversion to the consequences of action talking. i.e. if it sounds unpalatable to business as usual therefore ergo, the science is wrong.
Problem is probably intractable. So I wouldn’t be getting all lathered up. Nothing is going to happen carbon tax wise. Meanwhile at least society will get much better tuned to climate variability and processes so we’re all getting better educated climate wise. Well those of us who can discriminate at least..
Luke: “Nothing is going to happen carbon tax wise.”
I suppose the ~GBP300 I pay every month in fuel tax just for commuting to work doesn’t amount to a ‘carbon tax’ then?
“Problem is probably intractable.”
That’s the most sensible comment I’ve read from you, although I don’t find climate cycling/evolution a “problem”, just a fact of life.
Homo sapiens is hopelessly inept at prediction (some Physics professor at Harvard – sorry, I don’t have the link any more – did a careful 20 year study of predictions and follow-up results, concluding that tossing a coin gave a more reliable result) but spectacularly successful at adaptation.
An airborne variation of ebola is more scary than runaway greenhouse burnups because it’s more likely and homo sapiens adaptation to it is less likely to be successful than adaptation to climate cycling/evolution.
Graeme Bird says
Have you got that evidence Luke? Thats a pretty longstanding filbuster you got going there you moron.
They’re being too kind to loopy denialists by calling them sceptics.
This act of political correctness is offensive to real sceptics, but probably necessary to keep themselves out of court.
is that true? Climate change and mass extinctions expert professor Barry Brook is not under the Physical Sciences Umbrella? Theology perhaps?
I think they should rename the department of Economic Declinism.
I’ve never seen a more committed declinist in all my life.
Graeme Bird says
Graeme Bird says
WELL GOOD NEWS THEN!!!!
This implies by your attitude that you’ve at last found that evidence FDB.
What a scoop.
I’m glad I got here in the nick of time.
Welll go ahead then!!!!
Graeme Bird says
You are on FDB..
I think we all know that he is not coming up with a damn thing. So why is it that some of you are acting like this is not science fraud straight up????
Louis Hissink says
It’s quite interesting trawling the various university faculty directories to see where the various climate schools are – not many at all from what I found.
But biologists pontificating about species extinctions in the absence of any geoscience background is odd.
Not just ordinary sort of extinctions. Massive extinctions. Just massive. If there was a gold medal for extinctions these ” research” papers would win it.
What I find so hysterically amusing is that these snake oilers are talking about industrial sized extinctions when the temp has gone up by .56 degs in 100 years.
it really is religious isn’t it?
And remind me don’t we find more animal life in the warm zones rather than the tundra?
Bill Posters says
Maybe the Met is indulging in some Socratic irony.
So, ahem, FDB, ya mate Capt. Jimbo Hansen, wouldn’t be loopy by any chance?
Steve Schapel says
Graeme Bird wrote:
“The above quote is afterall a flat out lie.”
Whereas I often agree with you, Graeme, I think on this occasion you have not been careful enough.
The original statement was “The scientific evidence is overwhelming — our climate is changing.” I don’t think you intend to argue that the climate is not changing. Do you?
I mean, the climate is changing. It has always been changing, and always will. The evidence is overwhelming.
Of course, then there are other questions arising, such as in which direction is it changing, and what are the significant factors affecting the changes, and whether human societies can control the changes, and all that.
Graeme Bird says
Right. But when nutballs like SJT say this sort of thing thats not what they mean. They imply that the climate doesn’t usually change and that its now warming due to humans. Otherwise why would he belligerently state the obvious?
Yes I take you point. But he was still lying. He was lying-like-a-lawyer.
When these guys say “global warming” what they really mean is “industrial-CO2-release”. And when these guys say “Climate Change” they really mean “Global warming due to industrial-CO2-release.”
This mix-and-match bullshitting with definitions means they can lie all the time and that they are still lying even when they are telling the truth.