It is difficult to decide what the UK Meteorological Office hopes to achieve in predicting future climate. What seems certain is that they have politicised their science.
Christopher Booker writes in the Daily Telegraph about the refusal of the Met Office to release the data on which its climate predictions are based. I have talked before about the conspiracy to withhold those data. However the Met Office appears to have given an even more bizarre and telling excuse than Professor Jones’s.
To release that information might
"damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector"
As Mr Booker explains that trust is already damaged. However I think there is far more to this statement than that. If releasing the data might damage trust in the scientists then there is something in that data set that runs against the conclusions the scientists are reaching.
Trust will not, as they suggest, be damaged because the scientists “…happen to be employed in the public sector” but because of their conclusions and the unstated problem in the data. This statement implies that other scientists would disagree with the conclusions reached by the public-sector scientists. This is in effect an admission that those scientists in the public sector are reaching a conclusion because they are in the public sector.
It is widely known that even though scientists are not, senior politicians are all but unanimous in believing in man-made climate catastrophe (with a glorious exception). Therefore employment in the public sector depends on reaching conclusions in line with this view.
To sum up, that one statement suggests both that the conclusions reached by the UK Met Office, one of the major contributors to the IPCC, are not in line with the data and that those conclusions are influenced by politics.