Tuesday, October 16th 2012, 6:19 AM EDT
The UK Met Office display the above graph prominently on their website. It is the temperature plot, based on the long running CET (Central England Temperature series).
The message is clear. Temperatures suddenly started climbing rapidly around 1980, a classic hockey stick.
If you look closely, you will notice that the graph begins just before 1780. Yet the CET series actually began in 1659, so why did not the Met show the full graph?
I have used exactly the same data, which is available on the Met Office website here, to produce the graph below for the full period.
I have used the same temperature scale , with a six degree range. Even with this scale, there is very little sign of any hockey stick. Certainly there was a bunch of warm years around the turn of the century, but they were only slightly warmer than earlier periods, notably the 1730’s. And in recent years there has been a decline in temperature, which the running five year averages illustrate on the graph below. Indeed the average temperature over the last five years is no higher than several years during the 1730’s.
By the way, so far this year, the CET anomaly is running at 0.28, which would give an annual temperature of 9.76C. This would certainly not be unusually high by 20thC standards, and would bring the five year average down another notch. (You may just be able to make out the green line at the end of the Met graph, which represents this year).
Which brings us back to the question I posed at the start. Why did the Met not show the graph in full?
It seems to me that to produce a partial graph, which begins at an abnormally cold period, can only have been done in order to mislead.
They have already been accused this week of “misleading the public”, following their release, with no publicity, of data showing that there has been no global warming for 15 years.
It seems the Met are making a habit of such behaviour. As publically funded scientists, surely they have a duty to provide the public with the full, unadulterated facts, and not a highly distorted version that happens to support their agenda?