"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...
... this thread is about the Met Office and it's history and futu
something we all have a right to write about, as directly and
indirectly, we all pay for the thing! I don't think we are going to get
anywhere discussing personal belief / politics etc. Have a look at
sci.geo.meteorology if you want to see how that newsgroup has been
virtually neutered by such "discussion".

Does that sound like double speak to anyone else :-?

sci.geo.meteorology discuss a problem that 'the head of one of the world's
biggest oil companies has admitted makes him "really very worried for the
planet"'.

'His words follow those of the government's chief science adviser, David King,
who said in January that climate change posed a bigger threat to the world
than terrorism.'

'"You can't slip a piece of paper between David King and me on this position,"
said Lord Oxburgh, a respected geologist who replaced the disgraced Philip
Watts as chairman of the British arm of the oil giant in March.'

'He followed his long-standing academic career with spells as chief science
adviser to the Ministry of Defence and rector of Imperial College, London. A
crossbench life peer, he still chairs the Lords science and technology select
committee, although he must retire from Shell next year.'

See;
Oil chief: my fears for planet
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...240496,00.html

But we are not allowed to discuss the biggest problem facing meteorology
today because it is considered political. When senior British scientists are
speaking out about global warming, surely it is this newsgoup which is
"virtually neutered" by a charter which is too conservative!

Cheers, Alastair.