Clever Empty Advocay by UK Science Community

A large group from the UK science community assembled by the Met Office, have signed the following statement in support of IPCC:

• We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. 
• The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. 
• That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.
• The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. 
• As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that ‘Warming of the climate system is unequivocal’ and that ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations’.
  

It is remarkable that Climategate is not mentioned and that the statement is not signed by the key persons involved: Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Bob Watson, Andrew Watson and Mike Hulme.

The impression is given that Climategate and these scientists have never existed. 

If we analyze the statement, we see how cleverly it is formulated in newspeak, by clever lawyers and not simple honest scientists: Superficially, it can be read as a clear support of IPCC alarmism, while in reality the support is almost empty: 

• What is the meaning of "warming",  "climate system", "is unequivocal"? 
  
• unequivocal = unambiguous: To just say that something is "unambiguous" does not make anything less ambiguous. A lawyer must understand this.
• What is in fact the "observational evidence for global warming"? Hockeystick?
• What is the conclusion of "most of the observed warming"? That the sealevel will rise 7 meters by melting polar caps in 10 years? 
• What is the meaning of "findings of IPCC". Is IPCC a scientific research institution? Not a political UN Panel?

Will the Met Office succeed in overpowering climate alarmism skeptics by the mere number of scientists who have signed the empty statement? Of course not: A thousand times zero is still zero!

The number of signees from the Met Office is impressive, while the number of professors is of the same order of about 150, as have signed the skeptics letter to the UN. The game is pretty close...

At the same time BBC reports that the Copenhagen climate summit negotiations have been "suspended". Evidently G77 is walking out in protest with the motivation that

• It has become clear that the Danish presidency - in the most undemocratic fashion - is advancing the interests of the developed countries at the expense of the balance of obligations between developed and developing countries.

No surprise of course.  It is now time for UK to send in their clever lawyers...waving the statement by the UK scientists...asking the developing World to listen and to be reasonable...and not use the fuel which could better be used in Europe...

The questions posed by Monckton in his interview with a charming Greenpeace activist, are relevant also for the signees of the Met Office statement. As well as Why Those Emails are Lethal.

It seems that the Met Office action comes too late: Media has already lost faith in global warming.