No I don't have to prove anything.
If people want to suggest that this cycle of climate change is anything other than natural, it is incumbent upon them to prove it, and no amount of agenda-driven models will do that.
Here's another glaring hole in the argument for you:
AGWers state that the anthropogenic-CO2 emissions will allow the atmosphere to carry more water vapour, which will both heat the planet and fall as rain.
If the atmosphere holds the water vapour, it won't be falling as rain; if it releases the water vapour as rain, it won't be in the atmosphere any more, and will, in fact, have a cooling effect.
MET Office is indeed no longer part of the MoD and has not been for 18 months, not the "long time ago" you suggest:
Following the First World War, the Met Office became part of the Air Ministry in 1919, the weather observed from the top of Adastral House (where the Air Ministry was based) giving rise to the phrase "The weather on the Air Ministry roof". As a result of the need for accurate weather information for aviation, the Met Office located many of its observation and data collection points on RAF airfields, and this accounts for the large number of military airfields mentioned in weather reports even today. In 1936 the Met Office split with services to the Royal Navy being provided by its own forecasting services.
It became an executive agency of the Ministry of Defence in April 1990, a quasi-governmental role, being required to act commercially. Following a machinery of government change, the Met Office became part of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on 18 July 2011.
A branch of the Met Office known as the Mobile Met Unit (MMU) accompany forward units in times of conflict advising the armed forces of the prevailing conditions for battle, particularly the RAF.
Are you claiming that missing this "Machinery of Government" alteration has any bearing on the fundamental argument, or are you desperately nit-picking in order to find any irrelevant error?
When you state that the Met Office "gets a good proportion of its money from commercial operations" the implication is that this is funding.
THAT IS NOT THE CASE, THE MONEY COMES FROM SALES, as was the case during its attachment to the MoD.
The point was that the Met Office is a govt body, and that hasn't changed.
Further, how can anyone just accept the predictions we are being fed by AGWers, when their models cannot accurately explain the past?
The Met Office's most "highly regarded model", called HadCM3 (from 1999) is still embroiled in this experiment to try to find the causes of the PREVIOUS 1200 years' climate!!!
It begins, and I quote:
"We'd like to understand the climate changes since 800 AD (i.e., for just over a millennium). In addition to the post-industrial era, this period includes so-called Medieval Warm Period (~900-1300 AD) and Little Ice Age (~1300-1900AD) (see e.g. Medieval Warm Period on wikipedia). The anomalously warm and cold periods are probably caused by the variation of volcanic & solar activities, land use changes and perhaps the change of oceanic circulation pattern, but the contribution of each component is not well understood.
In addition to satisfy the scientific and historical curiosity, this experiment is driven by the urgent need to refine the climate predictions. The climate models have so far been evolved to simulate the recent climate. The last "millennium" can provide an extra constraint to refine the models further.
However, both the driving force and the climate reconstructions over the pre-industrial era are based on the analysis of the natural archives of climate sensitive quantities, such as the growth of trees and seashells, and the changes of chemical, biological, and isotopic compositions in lake sediments and ice core samples. These "proxy" data are truly useful only when we fully explore the enormous range of the combined uncertainty.
To claim certainty about the future without even being able to accurately explain all the driving forces of the past, is charlatanism writ large."
They can't get their models to fit the past, yet they're so certain that they predict the future