I admit to finding this a tad weird even for WUWT. Anthony posts an excerpt from a complaint by Stephen McIntyre.
Jeff Tollefson wrote a feature article in Nature about an experimental approach to modelling of near term climate projections (decadal forecasts). McIntyre is complaining that he didn't write about something else instead. I think, but I'm not entirely sure, that he wanted him to write about the difference in actual Met Office near term forecasts. That is, to compare the current one to previous ones. Even had Tollefson been able to read McIntyre's crazy mind in advance of McIntyre himself, I'm not sure that he would have obeyed his command.
I don't know why McIntyre wanted Tollefson to write about the Met Office near term predictions instead of the these experiments. The Met Office itself has a number of articles on the topic, which McIntyre could read if he felt inclined to learn about it. McIntyre's articles are so full of smear and innuendo that it is often difficult to understand what his actual gripe is so I'm guessing. This is what McIntyre wrote:
In yesterday’s post, I observed that Nature’s recent news article on Met Office decadal forecasts failed to show the most recent Met Office decadal forecast ...Well, Steve. For starters, the article wasn't about Met Office decadal forecasts per se. It was about an experimental approach to making near term climate forecasts, including the differing opinions held by various modelling experts on the usefulness of the approach. I'd say there was quite a lot the article failed to show. I noticed it didn't show any flying elephants, or sharknadoes or star-spangled ballet shoes. But unlike you, I'm not complaining.
The article was about recent experiments with a different approach to modelling near term forecasts. Here is how they describe it:
To make its climate prediction, Smith's team used its standard climate model, but broke the mould by borrowing ideas from the way meteorologists forecast the weekly weather.
Typical climate projections start some way back in the past, often well before the industrial era, in a bid to capture the average climate well enough to forecast broad patterns over the long term. Weekly weather forecasts, however, begin with the present. They make multiple simulations with slightly different initial meteorological conditions to give an array of outcomes that has some statistical validity despite the weather's inherent chaos.Steve wasn't happy with the scope of the article. He wanted to talk about something different.
So somehow both McIntyre and Anthony Watts have managed to morph a complaint that the journal Nature chose to publish a topic different to what McIntyre wanted into: "the UK Met Office is hypocritical" and "the Met Office hides the decline".
Talk about denier weirdness!
Somewhere in all the kerfuffle, Richard Betts responded to a question from Anthony. Neither Anthony nor Steve liked his answer and said so. Which gave a person for the deniers to target. The name of an individual. Deniers find it much more satisfying to attack a named person than a faceless agency like the UK Met Office.
Here are some comments from WUWT - bear in mind, the original complaint seems to be that McIntyre didn't like the topic chosen by Nature. It's got nothing to do with the Met Office or with Nature - it's all about Steve McIntyre.
Goodness only knows what Fred thought he was was commenting on when he says:
July 17, 2013 at 7:40 pm This just astounding. The temp records around the world are being manipulated, and climate science says nothing. Don’t they realize the risk? If the temp is dropping and they are hiding the decline the world is unprepared for the right change!