It's Getting Warmer... and we're all Satan. Or Some Such Bollocks.

In this report, the BBC comment on a report by the Met Office about how the current climate is warmer than previous decades.

Now you know at some point, the AGW argument is going to be thrown in  to propagandise the "people are Satan" argument.

So, let's read on...

They compared data between 1961 and 1990 between data between 2008 and 2010. Now colour me suspicious, but why not just report on each decade in turn? What happened to the years between 1991 and 2007?

Could it be that by cherry picking for isnatnce the very cold winters of the 1960s (especially the very cold winter of 1962) against the later dataset that the maximum warming figure could be achieved? That comparing any other pair of 10 year periods between each other that the warming wouldn't be as pronounced?

Anyway, lets see what that maximum figure the Met Office massaged out of the datasets: 1 degree Centigrade. Yep, they cherry picked decades to get a maximum warming figure and the maximum they can manipulate is one whole degree. Actually I'm being generous: the actual figure is 0.8 of a degree.

Now that's 1 degree warmer between 1961 and 2010, five whole decades.

So days are 0.8 of a degree warmer in the summer, whoopee do. When the temperature can get up to 30 degress, less than a degree is a fraction of a percent. Certainly not something you'd notice.

The article goes on to show graphs which basically show London and Essex to be the areas that have warmed up the most over the decades. I may be a bit cynical, but those are the most highly populated areas in the country and the East cCoast Main line runs through the wrming area of Essex, which just happens to be one of the areas most highly conurbated by the spread of commuters over the decades.

The urbanisation of Essex farmland might have something to do with the warming phenomenon. Something entirely local and not related in any way to global wrming other than to skew any local figures for the global dataset.

Still surprisingly the artical doesn't push the AGW agenda just yet. Instead it heads into victimhood territory: indicating people will suffer more because they won't get any respite from the heat. Aparrently a big risk for elderly people. Well it is, if you don't fund them well enough to run air conditioning in summer and heat in winter.

Finally, at the end of the article, it can't help but blame humans. Which in essence are to blame, for building in what was once rural counties. Howver, the article and the Met Office report  leave it open and don't specifically mention it as a local and entirely predictable and identifiable phenomenon. Instead the article eventually links the local warming to AGW in the final paragraph.

See, it had to go there. It's all humanity's fault. Rather than explain how AGW data can be skewed by comparing apples and eggs and the temperature of what was once a rural area with a newly urbanised area, it just plonks the steaming AGW turd on the carpet. Proudly. And then smiles at you, proudly.