Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« The unmentionables | Main | Cost of global warming wildly exaggerated »
Sunday
Aug232015

Leavers on the line - Josh 338

In the news today (The Sunday Times "BBC pulls plug on Met Office") we learn that the BBC is not going to renew the Met Office's contract to provide weather forecasts. Interesting. Maybe we will see a Corbyn giving us the weather in the future.

Cartoons by Josh

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (99)

Well that new supercomputer won't be bought now I guess.

Aug 23, 2015 at 5:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

@rotationalfinestructure: NOT Charles' Law. Lapse rate is defined as the temperature gradient in an atmosphere in a gravitational field for which a parcel of molecules at one altitude can be exchanged with a parcel of the same number and composition of molecules at another altitude with zero change in energy. You do the sums with a virtual work calculation, as the AMS does here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate

It's constant sum of internal plus potential energy. The fact that Climate Alchemists have slavishly followed Sagan's mistaken physics from the 1960s is an appalling failure of Academic Science. These people have allowed so many basic physics errors to be taught as to be a grave threat to the 230 year old Scientific Enlightenment; our Lysenkoism. 2/3rds need to be culled and the remaining 1/3rd retrained in standard physics. Just my opinion as an ancient scientist who does experiments first, theory later.

Aug 23, 2015 at 5:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

Aug 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM | Graeme No.3

Do the 2 Corbyns speak to each other? I am too remote to say, but if Piers has any influence then the BBC might have foreseen the end of political consensus about the value of the BBC, and jettisoned the rats.
Good question. My guess is that, from the BBC's viewpoint, they cannot know how the Corbyns discuss Piers's work.

So they should assume that the Labour party will be more tolerant of dissenting views. And as free speech is a key part of the agenda for wooing disgruntled LibDems - it should be expected that the Left will be more open to discussing climate scepticism. Reopening Welsh coal mines is not a Miliband or Brown idea, for example.

On the other side, the Tories demand open tendering for their free market ideals. So this is a winner, facing to the right.

Ditching the Met Office makes political sense for the BBC.

Aug 23, 2015 at 5:31 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

The Met Office today

As a world leader in providing weather and climate services, we employ more than 1,700 at 60 locations throughout the world. We are a Trading Fund within the Department for Business Innovation and Skills, operating on a commercial basis under set targets. We are recognised as one of the world's most accurate forecasters, using more than 10 million weather observations a day, an advanced atmospheric model and a high performance supercomputer to create 3,000 tailored forecasts and briefings a day. These are delivered to a huge range of customers from the Government, to businesses, the general public, armed forces, and other organisations.

10 million a day. Wow! I guess that includes just the one from Heathrow.

Aug 23, 2015 at 5:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartyn

Mick

"They have also been losing viewers.."

Really? I'm no fan of the MO, but I don't switch off when the weather dolly comes on. Can never remember what she says anyway!

Aug 23, 2015 at 6:04 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

If the Met Office ad BBC are no longer joined at the hip, does it free the BBC to report on the Met Office, and if so will the opportunity be taken to be critical, or "independently" even more supportive of MO alarmism?

Aug 23, 2015 at 6:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterIt doesn't add up...

When thieves fall out...

Aug 23, 2015 at 7:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

If I were the Government Minister even remotely in charge of the MO. I'd be asking some serious questions about how they have managed to lose (probably) their biggest commercial contract so carelessly.

After a successful relationship of 90 years you really have to work had to f..k things up so completely.

Aug 23, 2015 at 8:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

Athelstan:
"...stuffed turkeys down Exeter way, are a warbling or, whatever it is the sound that turkeys utter."

I thought they said, "gobble, gobble..." which was true of gullibility and taxpayers' money...

Aug 23, 2015 at 8:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhilip Foster

Will the next frontline presenter of the BBC's global warming propaganda unit, be any better at forecasting the weather?

Are the Met Office actually contracted to a Government Department to provide advice on global warming? As all their advice to date has been wrong and a waste of taxpayers money, it should be simple to prove that we would all have been better off without any expert professional advice at all.

If the Chancellor had met with Gypsy Rose Lee, on an annual basis, crossing both her palms with silver, for a tea leaves AND tarot card reading, for the last 20 years, we would have had as accurate a climate science forecast, for the cost of a TV Licence Fee.

If you have to pay for wrong advice, you might aswell get it cheap. Used tea leaves are cheaper than supercomputers,

Aug 23, 2015 at 9:54 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

If the BBC is not renewing the Contract with the Met Office for failing to provide 'value for money' to tax payers, who previously said they did?

Can the same criteria be applied to the BBC?

Aug 23, 2015 at 10:01 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf Charlie: "Are the Met Office actually contracted to a Government Department to provide advice on global warming?"

I think you will find (with very little digging), that the MO Hadley Centre is bankrolled by DECC.

Aug 23, 2015 at 10:03 PM | Registered CommenterSalopian

had a look at the MO site as i've always wondered how many forecasters they provide to all tv weather reports & how much MO change for them.

still can't find a number/cost (am i thick !!)

anyway, found this if you fancy a job/Career -

"Career options -
The breadth and depth of our work is incredibly varied, and this is reflected in the career opportunities we offer. From Science, Forecasting and Engineering, through to Business Development, Marketing, Communications and Finance. The possibilities are limitless. Explore them for yourself."

"Our locations
We're working closely with Rwandan governments, using our meteorological expertise to help protect lives out there.

We've recently moved our Aberdeen office to help optimise forecasting capabilities for our customers and the public.

Our scientists work collaboratively with the RAF across the UK, looking at how environmental factors could impact their operations.

We're currently providing marine and ocean information for Europe's most significant environmental programme in the last decade.

Our state-of-the-art Exeter headquarters has a gym and fitness suite, a shop, a library, a restaurant and much, much more."

"Working at the Met Office
As a world leader in providing weather and climate services, we employ around 2,000 at 60 locations throughout the world. We are recognised as one of the world's most accurate forecasters, using more than 10 million weather observations a day, an advanced atmospheric model and a high performance supercomputer to create 3,000 tailored forecasts and briefings a day. These are delivered to a huge range of customers from the Government, to businesses, the general public, armed forces, and other organisations."
sounds good, can they feed some of this revenue "to businesses, and other organisations" back to us tax payers, or even do without us tax payers ?

Our work in the Antarctic produces incredible scientific research on climate change and rising sea levels.

From Afghanistan to the Falklands, Met Office forecasters provide vital weather information for military operations.

prevnext

Working at the Met Office

As a world leader in providing weather and climate services, we employ around 2,000 at 60 locations throughout the world. We are recognised as one of the world's most accurate forecasters, using more than 10 million weather observations a day, an advanced atmospheric model and a high performance supercomputer to create 3,000 tailored forecasts and briefings a day. These are delivered to a huge range of customers from the Government, to businesses, the general public, armed forces, and other organisations.

Aug 23, 2015 at 10:22 PM | Unregistered Commenterdfhunter

Salopian, the Hadley Centre does not have anything to offer anyone but the DECC, and there is no reason for the UK to have a DECC either

Having got away with false science for so long, will they do better with honest science?

What is the value of a group of scientists, who have never got anything right? (apart from the size of their pay cheques)

Aug 23, 2015 at 10:55 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Doesn't take effect until late 2016, apparently.

I don't believe a word of it. I smell spin and shenanigans.

Not sure exactly what game they are playing here but expect something along the lines of an "overwhelming public outcry" (according to the beeb) leading to the MO being reinstated with "savings" which in practice will result in them getting even more public money. No MO jobs or bonuses will be jeopardized.

This is related to the current publicity over the beeb's profligacy which they are countering in the classic public sector way by loudly threatening to cut where the publicity is greatest - like when councils are told to save money they immediately announce the closure of the pensioners' lunch club. In this case it may backfire on them if people don't regard the weather forecast with the affection and respect the beeb bubble thinks they do.

Aug 23, 2015 at 11:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterNW

With a reported price-tag of, that most beloved of numbers in climato-numerology, £97M and an anticipated processing power of 16 quadrillion calculations per second when it reaches its full capacity sometime in 2017, one can only anticipate the frenzy of eBay bidding for the ultimate gaming PC that may be a consequence of todays decision by the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29789208 ( a link to those heady, golden, halcyon days but 10 months syne)

It seems ironic that, despite all the promised PetaFlops, the fate of the Met was decided by a single management flop that badly forecast financial projection that inflicted more damage than any amount of 'barbecue summers' could have done.

I do feel for those many talented individuals in that once hallowed institution who may now face an uncertain future thanks to the hubristic, green certainty displayed by those who were employed to guide manage their activities.

Aug 23, 2015 at 11:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoyFOMR

I for one will not shed a tear for the demise of the met orifice. No severe weather warnings for Powys either yesterday or today. We had over half an inch of rain over several hours yesterday evening and over one inch of rain in less than 45 minutes this lunchtime. Totally useless and unfit for the purpose.

Aug 23, 2015 at 11:46 PM | Registered CommenterSalopian

Salopian, but think of all the barbecue conditions, so enjoyed by Met Office staff, recording jet exhaust temperatures at Heathrow. Their 'toasted' marsh mallows can be a bit over cooked, but jet-grilled burgers could become a local speciality dish.

If only the Met Office could learn how to use hot jet exhausts to clear runways, of snow they did not expect, they might have a marketable product.

Aug 24, 2015 at 12:40 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

So we just need DECC to go in the upcoming cuts and things will be looking up.

Aug 24, 2015 at 12:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterRB

RB, despite the worst claims of the Met Office and DECC, the future of the Arctic Ice Cap, does seem rather more secure than that of the Met Office and DECC.

This will be of some relief to Polar Bears, who have always preferred secluded isolation. No polar bear experts ever thought to ask why polar bears chose to live in such a hostile environment. Of course no polar bear expert has ever been shot in the backside by a polar bear armed with a tranquiliser gun.

Aug 24, 2015 at 1:17 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11819164/Met-Office-lost-BBC-contract-over-dumbing-down-rows-and-weather-app.html

The Met Office lost its BBC contract because of rows over dumbing down of broadcasts and fears that it could not produce a decent phone app, sources have claimed.

Aug 24, 2015 at 1:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

In light of this particular - and no doubt, disappointing - development, one has to wonder on what grounds the powers that be at the Met Office (some time prior to 01-Aug-15) determined that:

Met Office staff set to soak up £20.8m in bonuses – just for doing their job
[...]
The Met Office employed 1,965 permanent staff in 2014-15, meaning that they received an average of nearly £2,200 each from a £4.28m bonus pot last year. The bonuses were paid after staff met a series of benchmarks including accurately forecasting the weather and achieving revenue and profit targets.

At the very least, one has to wonder what the other benchmarks might be. Alternatively, perhaps someone, somewhere along the way has ... uh ... redefined "accurately" and/or "achieving";-)

Aug 24, 2015 at 5:43 AM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

Dfhunter (Aug 23, 2015 at 10:22 PM):

Our work in the Antarctic produces incredible scientific research…
Pity it doesn’t produce any credible scientific research.

Aug 24, 2015 at 5:57 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

For weather comment they use the MeteoGroup

Meteogroup were being used by a number of orgs but were never very reliable

Aug 24, 2015 at 6:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterStephen Richards

Presumably the BBC will still use the Climate Change branch for predictions of disaster in the coming decades having got rid of the part that actually acknowledges that UHI is several degrees.

Aug 24, 2015 at 7:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Has anybody seen the reason why the BBC is taking this action? Is there any reason why the Met Office could not submit a tender for the new contract?

Incidentally following Joe Public's comment, when Kelvin McKenzie was editor of The Sun he allegedly sacked the paper's astrologer with a letter beginning: "As you will have doubtless foreseen...."

Aug 24, 2015 at 8:20 AM | Unregistered Commentermike fowle

Dfhunter 10:22 and Radical Rodent 5:57.
Thank you, thank you.
I don't know if they do a lot of work in the Antarctic but perhaps they shouldn't do too much.

Aug 24, 2015 at 8:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Reed

The reality-distortion zone that is the Met office PR department is now passing around the factoid that they are ranked no 1 for forecast accuracy. This smelt fishy - because whoever did such a league table? So I looked and it seems someone has done a comparison here:
http://www.omninerd.com/articles/Internet_Weather_Forecast_Accuracy

And the results?
"In seeking high temperature forecasts, it looked best to use IntelliCast or The Weather Channel in the long term, but there wasn’t a clear leader in the short to mid term. BBC seemed unreliable in all cases, as well as MSN in the long term. The Weather Network, CNN and Unisys all had blemishes (3, 4 and 0 days in advance, respectively), but were generally in with the pack. In seeking low temperature forecasts, IntelliCast and The Weather Channel were again the choice in the long term, joined by Unisys in the short term. BBC was still a dud in anything but the very short term, and MSN performed horribly in nearly all cases, as well as Accuweather in the long term"

Not exactly chiming with the Met office message! So will they ever provide the ranking that they are using or is it just one of these self-promotion that Brits are famous for; like the continuous repetition that the premier league is the best in the world without anyone seemingly having asked anyone outside the UK.

Perhaps the BBC finally noticed they were paying more and more for less and less.

Aug 24, 2015 at 8:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this odd decision gets reversed after some re-negotiation.

It was discussed again on the Today programme this morning, shortly before 8. The dubious claim of being the most accurate in the world was made.

[I think there must have been a hint of climate scepticism, though I missed it, since Bob Ward is fuming on twitter]

Aug 24, 2015 at 8:49 AM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

mike fowle.

They've already bid for the contract and have been eliminated from further rounds of submission. The reasons seem to be a mixture. The cost will be number one. The MET will say it’s because they’re the best but the BBC might not think they’re worth the extra or even see a substantial difference.

Another issue is the BBC wants a better phone app from the winning bidder. The current MET app isn't very good apparently. A side note - whenever I've checked, the BBC has had different predictions on the TV from their web site. Possibly the app didn't match. They've not matched the METs own site either, which seems odd they can't be consistent across platforms. The BBC is very determined to stay at the top of the technology pile so no having a world class app would be a big thing.

Thirdly the MET wanted to use probabilities in forecasts eg 20% chance of rain. The BBC think the public are too dumb for that. I disagree but I’m aware that it’s a cop out in terms of predicting the future. The BBC know that the public want clear cut, accurate forecasts, the MET know it’s not 100% possible.

The BBC apparently don’t put that much value on weather reporting. They see it as an adjunct to the news. I’m with the MET Office on thinking the public see the news as an adjunct to the weather. The weekly forecasts are very popular, even though everyone takes them with a pinch of salt. Anything seasonal is just bunk.

Aug 24, 2015 at 9:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Someone asked on the MO website
"Could you provide a source for 'Ranked No 1 in the world for forecast accuracy' please?"

Reply 23082015
Met Office Press Office (14:20:20) :
"It is verified according to standards set by the World Meteorological Organisation http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/who/accuracy/forecasts"

So they produce their own accuracy charts. Well that's a handy advantage.

Aug 24, 2015 at 9:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

About fifteen years ago there was a group called "Forum of Private Weather Companies". As the name implies the group included companies involved in meteorology functions such as long/short term forecasters, TV/Radio presenters, insurance/legal consultants and other aspects.

We were all affiliated with fellowships of the RMetS to maintain quality standards throughout the industry.

We also agreed to monitor performance using a simple method and was voted through with a large majority. The Met Office didn't want this simple method and suggested we go with a more academic route via Reading University. A year later a 42 page paper by someone called Jolliffe (AFAIR). Needless to say nothing ever did happen.

The Met Office do not want simple method, independent performance monitoring because they would not fair well. The proof of this is the size of their commercial business. Nearly every major retailer does not use the Met Office for their forecasts. The reason most retailers moved to private companies was the Met Office inability to forecast accurately enough for their needs.

I don't know what it is about the MO they seem to be devoid of reality. I suggest this is the last stand for the MO, either they become realistic about their ability and start using multiple models, such as GFS, and ECMWF which have reasonable skill in forecasting out to 14 and 10 days ahead respectively.

Aug 24, 2015 at 9:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterNeilC

Many thanks, Tiny. I know there was a lot of talk a little while back about the BBC not renewing the contract which came to nothing so it is very interesting to hear the current position.

Aug 24, 2015 at 9:56 AM | Unregistered Commentermike fowle

@NeilC: the problem with the MO models, and it spread throughout he modelling fraternity, appears to be that the heat generation and transfer part, and with that incorrect IR and cloud physics, was apparently programmed with the aid of the late husband of the Chief Scientist. The latter appears to be a cloud specialist so may also have been involved.

At the heart of that physics is Sagan's aerosol optical theory. This is profoundly wrong; the sign of the AIE should be reversed. Hence there is considerable organisational inertia to trying any other approach because that would not only be to lose face, but it might be considered as threatening a living memorial.

Aug 24, 2015 at 10:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

If the Met Office had spent zero money trying to prove global warming, and concentrated on weather forecasts, they might have remembered what they were actually supposed to do.

If someone is employed to pick up litter in Hyde Park, you do not expect them to appoint themselves "Big Game Hunter", and spend other peoples money patrolling The Serpentine lake protecting the public from Great White Sharks, especially if they get so engrossed, they forget to pick up any litter.

Aug 24, 2015 at 10:34 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Connection with the Ministry of Defence

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 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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Met_Office#Connection_with_the_Ministry_of_Defence

Aug 24, 2015 at 10:44 AM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

I like the idea of comparing and even scoring forecasts.
Last week I foolishly asked CIF (Guardian) readers to compare Leona Libby's climate forecast of 1979, based on fourier analysis of her proxy data (warming to the end of the century, followed by cooling) with that of James Hansen's Senate Testimony of 1988 (warming to the end of the century, followed by a circle of hell determined by an atmospheric CO2 concentration scenario). In response Hansen's woeful predictions were ignored and of course Libby: was not a climate scientist, guilty of curve fitting(?), and completely wrong as world temperatures have not fallen, not paused, only increased at a slower rate etc.
Since Denis Dutton's death in 2010 his climatedebatedaily.com has limped along without his sceptical wit. His art-culture site (www.aldaily.com) seems to have missed him less. Last week this was mentioned in dispatches http://edge.org/conversation/philip_tetlock-edge-master-class-2015-a-short-course-in-superforecasting-class-i .
If you have the time it's worth a watch as the process described seems to be the antithesis of how the IPPC operates.
(I note that Judith Curry must be a reader of "Arts & Letters" as in her weekly summary she often refers to articles mention there, as she did with this one.)

Aug 24, 2015 at 10:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterPMT

@NCC: As far as AGW and the Met Office is concerned, when I read IPCC AR3 summary for policy makers when it was first published showing their knowledge levels of different forcings and it showed; low level knowledge of solar, low level knowledge of different clouds, no mention of water vapour, I knew their overall understanding was a load of rubbish.

And the above doesn't even take into account the UHI adjustments which have been grossly underestimated for land temperature analysis.

As I metioned in the previous post the Met Office have a major problem in admitting they are wrong about certain aspects of physics, meteorology and climate.

The biggest disappointment I have is, any person just graduating from a UK university has been indoctrinated into the belief of climate change and in reality hasn't experienced temperature trend rise during their lifetime. Sad.

Aug 24, 2015 at 10:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterNeilC

If it's true that the Met Office wanted to introduce probability and the BBC didn't, then I'm with the Met. The lack of expression of uncertainty about an uncertain future is a core issue that we sceptics harp about.

I predict that govt will step in, in some fashion and on some level, and compel the BBC to sign up with the Met Office. Thus, with the blessing of the gov, things will continue as they were. Since it was the gov wot dun it, neither the Met nor the BBC will suffer criticism or funding penalties. 60% probability.

Aug 24, 2015 at 10:55 AM | Registered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

esmiff, runways were not covered in black asphalt during WW2, and jet engines relying on the thrust of hot engine exhaust gases, were not in widespread usage. If the Met Office had evolved and continued gathering temperature data from Naval bases, things might have been different.

Aug 24, 2015 at 10:58 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golf charlie

I suspect the Met office's connection to the MOD (the heart of the British state) is behind their love of global warming. This split from the BBC may signal another step away.

Aug 24, 2015 at 11:05 AM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

Fascinating (though it is Wiki) given the origin of the MO that today:-

" ......Royal Navy weather forecasts are generally provided by naval officers, not Met Office personnel."

"In 1936 the Met Office split with services to the Royal Navy being provided by its own forecasting services......"

They need to split the 'weather' (MO) from the 'climate research' (Hadley Center). Tail is wagging the dog!

Aug 24, 2015 at 11:16 AM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

Good for Letts and (possibly) bad for Betts?!

Interesting article in the Aug. 24 edition of the Daily Mail by Quentin Letts, which he concludes by noting:

Could it be that economic realities are hitting home, and that the Met Office has become tainted by just the sort of political correctness the BBC at present needs to avoid if it is to persuade the Cameron Government to renew its Royal Charter without further infringements on its financial well-being?

In the meantime, we must wait to see what the West wind will blow us in terms of forecasts from next year. Just don’t expect breathless predictions of a barbecue summer.

[h/t the GWPF]

Aug 24, 2015 at 12:05 PM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

I suspect that Slingo's decision to try to connect weather with climate change, something denied vehemently by the Met Office for decades, was the last straw for it opened the door to constant references to carbon emissions, melting glaciers and polar bears and a lot of computer-generated tripe disguised as empirical science. Well done BEEB!

Aug 24, 2015 at 1:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterF F Robb

...self-promotion that Brits are famous for; like the continuous repetition that the premier league is the best in the world without anyone seemingly having asked anyone outside the UK.

Aug 24, 2015 at 8:41 AM | JamesG

Or (admittedly heard less often than some years ago) "The NHS is the envy of the world".

Aug 24, 2015 at 1:56 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

GC: "Used tea leaves are cheaper than supercomputers," But the MO have been using Early Cray....

Aug 24, 2015 at 4:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Surprised the MO don't realise if they start openly quoting the percentages (which are available), it will just become obvious that they aren't wrong, they don't even know!

Aug 24, 2015 at 5:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterNW

Harry Passfield, and I saw the sooper Cray being installed in the MO Bracknell in the summer of 1987. It was going to herald a new era of weather forecasting. It did look very impressive.

15/16th October 1987 the 'hurricane' that was not a hurricane happened. The Met Office and their Sooper Cray computer missed it. It didn't miss SE England though. It was quite big.

Obviously if it happened again it would all be due to Global Warming. As home video recording equipment was not widely available then, the Met Office think they can forget about that storm. Just like the drought of 1976.

Aug 24, 2015 at 5:24 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Let's see, expires October 2016.

Starting now, last week in August 2015:
3 months writing contract requirements - last week November, 2015,
2 months review, correction and fast track approval - February, 2016,
1 month to publish - March, 2016,
6 3 fast track months for responses - June 2016,
2 fast track months for review - August 2016
1 month interviewing top candidates - September 2016,
3 months dickering over candidates and submissions - December 2016...

They'll never make it. Unless someone has already cut some deals, (Yeo?). Under normal bureaucratic processes, the BBC will not have a new contract in place by October 2016.

A) This is all a ruse so that the BBC, after contract parading and grandstanding, issues a completely 'new' contract to the MetO; most likely at higher fees.

B) In order to give the BBC extra contract processing time, the BBC invokes a 'contract extension' clause with the MetO. Contract extensions that can be renewed yearly until the BBC gets the contract it demands.

C) Some sneak has already cut inside deals with the BBC. Meaning there is already a 'sole source' contract in play with the inner BBC that will be announced September 2016.

Watch the pea?!

Aug 25, 2015 at 4:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterATheoK

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>