Bishop Hill The point of the Met Office
Aug 5, 2015 BBC Climate: MetOffice The BBC has a programme on at the moment entitled "What's the point of the Met Office", a light-hearted, but critical look at this august institution. Apparently Peter Lilley and Piers Corbyn are featured at one point.
Bishop Hill
Interestingly, the Met Office's Helen Chivers agrees with host Quentin Letts that some of the Met Office's utterances on climate are "biblical" in their alarmism.
Bishop Hill
The vested interests are unamused:
Lord Deben: "UK Meteorological Office universally respected used by USA on its most sensitive missions. BBC broadcasts unfounded attacks. Right of reply?"
Tom Burke: "#BBC at it again giving wholly unjustified airtime to climate deniers on Radio4 right now. Egregious attack on the Met Office. Complain now"
Bishop Hill
Roger Harrabin has this to say: #Climate sceptics have demanded "their" programme. They just got it. Radio 4. 10.00. @QuentinLetts_ on @metoffice. @ECIU_UK @CarbonBrief
I think he's pulling our legs.
Bishop Hill
For overseas readers who want to listen to the show, it can be heard here.
Reader Comments (93)
trefjon, the Corbynista view on global warming will be to oppose anything the tories do. By the next election, they should be quite good at it, and well able to do it for a further 4-5 years.
Breitbart: warmist BBC slams alarmist Met Office.
With some good quotes from Peter Lilley:
"they need ever more money for ever bigger computers so they can be even more precisely wrong in the future.”
"sad thing is they’ve become committed to a pseudo-scientific doctrine"
“The deep oceans swallowed my homework".
Paul Matthews, are the Met Office making predictions about their future, and if so, how have they calculated their confidence level?
There must be an opportunity for disgruntled Met Office employees to return to science, and stick to weather forecasting.
Political rubbish does not drive the climate, contrary to the view of rubbish politicians.
Well I've just listened to it on iplayer with my wife. Even she, who is hugely critical of the bias on the BBC, thought it was a very fair programme.
Take out the Met Office ,take out the second biggest Cheerleader for Climate Change after the BBC.
Uber and Sat Navs have made the Knowledge and Black Cabs redundant the Internet and Social Media will make the BBC and the Met Office redundant.
Other than its Military Inteligence Application the Met Office could be Privatized and go full online subscription .Say the same also about the BBC.
@Mike Haseler
Did you pursue the complaints which you made all the way to the BBC Trust? Did you take up your complaints and the BBC's failure properly to deal with them with the Secretary of State or the Select Committee? Did you seek any help from other commentators in making those complaints? This is my point, individuals will get nowhere, what is needed is organisation.
@Golf Charlie
Yes the Guardian suffers from groupthink but with whom is it supposed to be conspiring? Again, have you asked either the Editor or the Readers' Editor to assess the Guardian's coverage for groupthink, bias (conscious or otherwise) or factual accuracy?
Time to re-program the kids
Today’s launch follows a successful pilot which ran in Birmingham this year that 50 young people took part in, with many going on to an apprenticeship or to gain employment. Eight weeks after the traineeships completed 50 percent had received job offers or offers of a further work placement.
Andais, Guardian lifeforms, like the BBC and Met Office are barely 'conscious' about the big wide world. Their protective bubbles are reinforced by other peoples money. Other people are tired of paying for political fantasies about ruining the world, to save the world.
Christ, if the Met Office is really relied upon by the US for its most sensitive missions as Gum Gum claims, no wonder they're in trouble. OT but I watched The Hunt for the Arctic Ghost Ship, the search for Franklin's expedition. I don't think they can have got the memo - the search ran into difficulties because of the thickness of the ice, and the commentary said something like the conditions were identical to those that Franklin experienced 160 years ago.
Alex
Thanks to your original Feedback suggestion, I emailed them and almost immediately got a call back inviting me to record it for the programme! Is something happening at the Beeb?
Thanks also to Uncle Badger, whose toast-dropping image I shamelessly borrowed. I managed to stick it to the Guardian, too, so I may not get invited to any more dinner-parties.. :-(
The MO method is quite simple:
Make forecast as vague as possible.
Apply generous error bands.
Make observations.
Apply generous error bands.
If the two overlap at some point within the forecast period, mark as "accurate forecast".
Collect huge bonus.
Only people who are trying to use the forecast to make decisions are aware that the information they provide is not really useful.
Piers Corbyn relies on people paying for weather reports , therefore if he fails they stop paying and he goes out of business.
People rely on the MET office to make accentuate weather forecasts , if they fail to do so the people lose out and the MET office gets tens of millions more to buy more computing power so they can get it right next time and bonuses all around.
That difference creates two mind sets , one where failure is a problem , and another where failure can actual have benefits. .
jamesp:
Thank you for the tip on the rain radar site.
I woke up to this program today(I live in the US), and could not figure out what was going on. I kept waiting for (1) someone to say that it was all just a prank, or (2) the sound of stormtroopers entering the studio and opening fire to make them all stop uttering such blasphemy.
I will go to the BBC site and see if I can make some comments about how the BBC finally started to show some balance on the issue of global warming. It will probably be filled already withw whiners about deniers, but it should be worth a go.
@ jamesp, excellent and am looking forward to the next edition of Feedback to find out if your response is aired. Will be emailing them myself. We shall see what happens...
Thanks, Alex. I was told it would be! Funnily enough, adding my phone number (which isn't on my normal email signature) was a last-minute thought, so make sure you do...
Economic reality? Whodda thunked it would ever happen......................Islington lotus eaters and Wet Office apparatchiks thought the Labour bombing raid on the Treasury [taxpayer and international lenders] had inaugurated the 1000 year Socialist Utopia.....during the Champagne years of the Blair/Macruin regnal.
Yeah but.......................
Britain is strapped, properly strapped and lets face it who needs a taxpayer funded weather forecasting service when the private sphere can do a far more accurate not to say an effective and professional job? Yep, those glacial icy fingers of death by a thousand cuts reach out to the taxpayer-jolly boys living it up in the Wet Office - no more freebies to all areas of the world to pontificate on global whatisface - oh dear how sad. Get rid of the Wet Office, soon please. Who would miss it?
Eventually reality nags away and begins to unpick the foundations of the lefty fortress and undying loyalty to the cult of PC and the green psychosis. A tin ear maybe, the mood music can be heard blaring one only needs to keep an ear on the rhetoric emanating out of the Chancellor's lips; hard times coming for most government departments and for some, it's the high jump! Read the notes - by extension, charidees, quangoshire and those dependent on the taxpayer's £ beyond the pale and here I include al-beeb and the Wet Office.
Harrabin's incessant yapping, griping at any and all realists belies a far greater uncertainty and visceral anxiety, the same goes for Black and the rest of the w*%kers who promulgate the myth of man made CO² causes global warming. Further, much as I dislike and don't rate Osborne - thankfully George the pruning specialist spies low hanging fruit, thus has got al beeb and the Wet Office firmly targeted and in his sights.
It, is a very small wonder that, the cold wind of reality is now commencing to blow through the corridors of Hadley Exeter, heavens above they even admitted the world might be entering a cooling phase and stone the crows...... "it might be something to do with that big yellow thingy in the sky" - albeit a tad too late in the day.
bye, bye Julia, bye, bye the Wet Office............... no one but no one will miss yer.
First the cracks are minor; someone happens to notice that the facts do not match reality.
Just a little sniff of reality, criticism of false attitudes and statements starts out in halting fashion. Pressure to know more and hear more of reality gets stronger, the voices get louder hammering back at falsehoods with obvious facts.
Pick an easy soft target and there are few targets softer than Met Office warministas when a questioner is honest.
Now is the time for prosecutors and inspectors to get curious and ask official questions. NOAA temperature tortures would be worth some discussion time here in the states.
Removed as O/T. BH
New to this site, and dismayed by some of the comments.
E.g. earlier in this thread
"The MO's real scientists are replacing incorrect CO2 based warming with solar effects. It's being done because it's obvious to any professional that a key assumption made in the heat generation coding, apparently by the late husband of their Chief Scientist, is diametrically wrong. This is to assume the absorptivity of the upper atmosphere for OLR is unity"
With apologies to the sender, how come no one challenges this kind of comment ?
When there is the occasional pro-AGW post it gets taken apart.
But anything anti-AGW is accepted without criticism, even when it's so far out-of-field.
(If you believe that any climate model could assume OLR is fully absorbed by the upper atmosphere, search google images for climate model OLR maps and see the effect of lower-atmosphere cloud and surface. OLR is a key field used in validating these models. Scientifically this claim makes no sense.)
It's this asymmetry that gives rise to the name "denier". Please can we be proper sceptics and challenge bad science wherever it is ?
Sadly the UKMO is being destroyed from within. It's perpetual need to blurt out the AGW même in order to keep Betts' job going is dragging down the meteo part which does a good job. The stupidity involved in perpetually upgrading computer when the models will never be able to predict beyond 5 days also does them no service.
Joe Bastardi has shown the way forward for climate modelling. Understand the key features of climate, understand the biggest influences.
whoople2 - welcome to Planet Earth. Thanks for not asking to be taken to our leader.
Seriously, the term "denier" has been applied to skeptics from the get-go. It has nothing to do with the apparent "failure" to challenge each other's arguments.
Besides, the only common concern here I guess is the misallocation of funds into pernicious projects that will do a lot wrong to the people and the planet, all in the name of the Global Warming Scare. Beside that, climate change skeptics do not need to have anything in common, and if anyone wants to state what they believe is the truth, and others don't reply, it doesn't mean they agree or disagree.
whoople2, the main reason is that it's an off-topic comment that's been discussed ad nauseam in the past. Responding would de-rail the thread from it's subject, which is the BBC program about the Met Office.
Responses from the Met Office and climate scientists on twitter have been rather lame:
"Yikes! It's not even a very well made programme..."
"overall, pretty shabby I thought."
"I'd expect this from Fox News. Mind boggles. "
"Not sure how @BBCRadio4 could add 'balance' to Quentin Letts prog. Are there opposite opinions that are equally unscientific out there?"
"I'd expect this from Fox News. Mind boggles. "
Oh dear, are the twatterati now given to watching Fox News -Rejoice! The quest for the truth can be found everywhere, you just need to know where to seek it and Fox News can be a start. Even.......................... R4 has some decent stuff occasionally, though by a good long chalk not enough of the good stuff.
Paul Matthews, their propensity to take offence, to drive by and "just look at that" feeds their [whoople2] own prejudices, determined not to hear, see the truth, even when.it stares them in the face.
@whooplw2: some time ago, climate modellers, possibly from the MO, attempted to justify on this blog the use of Kirchhoff's Law of Radiation to purport a negative 'Down |OLR| stream' (in the 'two-stream approximation'), energy neutrality coming from numerically equal positive OLR to Space. This replaced the unphysical 360 degree, 5-6 km OLR emitter claimed in 1981_Hansen_etal.pdf (NASA repository of publications).
Its purpose was to offset most of the 333 W/m^2 excess energy from assuming 'back radiation', a potential energy flux, miraculously bounces back from the surface so modelled temperature gradient equals real lapse rate. Of the excess 94.5 W/m^2, 40% increase of energy over reality, 94% purportedly enters oceans, 5.7 W/m^2 the atmosphere. If you are prepared to accept that in mathematical modelling you can (i) misuse KLoR, (iii) mix data types and (iii) create energy, from the aether, you are an ideal candidate for the IPCC modelling programme.
I have lived in a number of different countries and their weather forecasting has been more successful than that of the Met Office. But in fairness to the Met Office, the UK is particularly difficult to forecast being a small land mass surrounded by oceans and on the convergence of a number of different weather fronts/patterns. There is much variability in the weather in and around the UK.
I agree with others that the Met Office should stick to weather forecasting, not climate forecasting, nor political lobbying. It should concentrate on trying to forecast the weather accurately over say a 5 day period, but also give some seasonal guidance (with caveats) that might be of assistance to farmers planning crops/harvesting, and winter preparation for local councils, the rail network and airports.
The problem is that it signed up to the mantra that snow would be a thing of the past and as a consequence local governments got rid of their gridding fleets, and they (and airport authorities) have thereby been ill prepared for the snowy/harsh winters seen this millennium. CET winter temperatures have fallen by more than about 1degC since the start of the millennium! This fact is not getting through to those who need to know the information because the Met Office is signed up to the cult of global warming where such a thing is not meant to happen.
The BBC is receiving a deluge from the warmist community. So I will write congratulating the BBC on a balance programme for once and I think it is important for as many sceptics as possible to follow my example.
Harrabin's lot had another ClimateScare story by 10.18pm on Radio 4 News 18min to 24 min
"The effects of Climate Change are having a devastating effect on the lives of young women in Bangladesh"
- The report began with Big Climate Change build up "30 millions Climate refugess by 2050" etc then ..flooding.."ALREADY In Bangladesh the lives of millions of teenage girls are being affected"
The report actually then talked about growth in cities being biggest problem ..Difficult life ..So girls married off young
..The report just ended without any climate specifics being mentioned at all.
Ross
Write to Feedback@bbc.co.uk and make it brief and amusing. This will be in stark contrast to the foam-flecked warmist rants and may get their attention. Include your phone number and they might even call back!
And Roy Spencer is on TV, what's going on?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/08/spencer-on-stossels-science-wars/
Quentin Upsets BBC's Greens.
Guido says that
"As a result of Harrabin and friends causing a stink, there will now be an internal BBC “Feedback” inquest into Quentin’s programme."
Not sure what his source for this is.
Listened to the program it was not controversial at all, unless you wish to stop folks having a bit of fun at satirising the "status quo". On the subject of privatisation Peter Lilley said "who would wish to buy it?" or words to that effect, well there might be a few provided the meteorological NWPs, sub seasonal/seasonal functions were hived off from the archive/climatology functions which(the latter) would be best "divvied up" between our most appropriate universities, Reading springs to mind.
Thing is the UKMO NWPs are highly regarded in forecast skill evaluation by the private sector forecasters including Joe Bastardi!, these guys use ALL best info to earn a crust.
IMHO the MetOffice needs to be decoupled, rapidly, from the contamination of political agendas that do a disservice to its hard working scientists.
Yep just a normal style BBC programme if the topic had not touched green religion which is normally protected as sacred.
Yes this prog did touch on Climate Change but it wasn't even the main point, maybe 12 mins out of 45 ?
The Harra-bitches are going to complain. Well,on what grounds ?
- What facts/stats did it get wrong ? I haven't heard them give any examples.
Also no balance problem - yes news programmes are supposed to tackle both sides, but magazine progs don't play by this rule. In a prog called "What's the point of" it is entirely normal for the reporter to highlight peoples opinions of what is WRONG with the MO and not mention what people think the MO gets RIGHT
- There are only 4 people tweeting @BBCR4Feedback, and on the R4 Listeners Facebook no outrage rather 2 positive comments. The election showed what a tiny minority eco-warriors are.
People mentioned the coverage by Guido, and Breitbart and there's a good summary at isthebbcbiased.blogspot.com
Yesterday Biased BBC had some comments but TODAY they have a new post Tag Team Trauma (Richard Black and Roger Harrabin) It has a quote from Harra
....... Their previous post on Harra also quoted BH Harass, Harrumph, Harrabin
just in from Paul Homewood BBC Forced To Retract False Claims About Cyclone Pam
..and the ptog didn't even mention Paul;s other recent story about MO workers getting a mega-Bonus for doing their job
I've only just got round to reading Black's rant in the Guardian and I really can't make up my mind whether to laugh or cry.
It's alarming just how precious some people can get when a short programme on radio pokes fun at their cherished beliefs but it also demonstrates, if I remember my basic psychology, just how insecure Black and his cohorts are and just how much they must be unsure of their ground.
I presume his reference to BBC "guidelines" means the infamous seminar at which a couple of dozen activists masquerading as scientists provided the BBC with the fig leaf it needed to avoid giving serious consideration to alternative views on climate. The only relevant "guidelines" I am aware of are the ones that demands the BBC take a balanced approach and I'm pretty sure they don't include banning satire.
whoople2
Welcome.
The post you complain about is from one of our pet "usual suspects". One of these days he is going to publish a paper demonstrating why he believes what he does. Meanwhile if you can provide any evidence (ie not simply repeating what SkS or RealClimate tell you) that there is a fundamental flaw in what he wrote we'd be delighted to read it. On the Discussion page I would guess.
As an aside, can you tell us which of the climate models have actually been validated? Since none of them appear to come close to reality I'm struggling a bit on this.
Feedback did a review a while back when Prof Bob Carter was asked for his views. A load of ecotypes complained.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/01/bbc-betrayed-values-carter-scorn-ipcc
Same old BBC crap.
Of course Greens are angry
In 2003 the BBC sold Greenpeace Radio4 to operate as a 24hour/day Green/Left propaganda station
..and that is how it how it largely operated : banging on and on about the Labour leadership debate, only mentioning non-left parties in order to smear them, then promoting the "Holy Green Message" and banning apostates from the airwaves etc.
And now those heretics Piers Corbyn, Peter Lilley and Graham Stringer suddenly appear for a few minutes ..and only a few weeks after Lord Lawson was allowed to mention climate for about 4 minutes in his programme. And Delingpole was on QT to speak for about 6 mins but there was nothing on climate/energy.
The continuous daily torrent of Greenreligion propaganda on BBC Radio means I've given up complaining to Feedback. If skeptics were to complain to Feedback just about his week, then this is what I am aware of :
- Sunday 9th & 16th 6:35am : On Your Farm will have 2 special episodes of HRH Prince Charles simple farm ideas from Transylvania
- Today Friday : Book of The Week "Molluscs continue to surprise as bellwethers of our impact on the seas."
- Thursday : Inside Science : for a book prize with 6 entrants they chose to feature "Gaia Vince for her book, Adventures in the Anthropocene: A Journey to the Heart of the Planet we Made."
- Wednesday : The Today Thought For the Day segment was a Hindu speaker praising the Obama Climate speech.
- Tuesday Radio Scotland spurned our Bish and put on 2 different green biz people as contrary voices on renewables
- Tuesday : 8.34am on R4Today "Obama challenged America and the world to step up efforts to fight global warming ... Heather Zichal is former deputy assistant to President Obama for Energy and Climate Change." ie a Warmist is aired but no skeptics
- Monday on TodayProg 8.36-8.42am Roger Harrabin with another activist Dr Pippa Malmgren DRPM Group founder and Obama Climate Advisor
- Last Thursday - 8 min advertorial for 3 Green Energy corps TrillionFund, Vandebron, OpenUtility
- And they did all the hyping of Obama's plan, a new trick BBC producers tried was to air a 1min interview from a coal industry group and pretend that is the only opposition.
Oh sorry there is news
from July 31st Direct link Harrabin on Iplayer 1h17m35s to 1h21m45s@MichaelHart mentioned how Harrabin was on air saying how the AA had come over to the Green cause
"BLACK PEARL just posted
This story is now really 'kicking off''.
RTCC claim that the program said climate change was a hoax and that Corbyn said the MetO was part of a conspiracy.
http://www.rtcc.org/2015/08/06/bbc-lost-at-sea-as-radio-4-mocks-climate-change-science/
Neither of these claims are true. I've put a comment and asked who they are accountable to.
There's also this from James Painter in the Conversation
https://theconversation.com/whats-the-point-of-the-met-office-easy-to-miss-when-you-ignore-the-facts-45794
"concerned about the amount of unchallenged air time the BBC gives to climate change sceptics."
On the other side, Damian Thomson lays into Harrabin
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/08/bbc-environment-analyst-explodes-on-twitter-as-bbc-presenter-mocks-met-offices-climate-prophecies/
"What’s the Point of a supposedly impartial ‘environment analyst’ who – apparently – takes offence at his bosses allowing another journalist to offer views different to his own?"
And there's this in the Mail from CHristopher Booker
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3187587/What-shower-money-Met-Office-gets-ludicrously-inaccurate-doom-mongering-climate-change.html
@Paul Matthews What #DramaGreensMakeStuffUp ? yes they do to defend their holy green faith
I'm impressed your RTCC comment was allowed. Mine supporting yours is stuck in moderation. Indeed no new comments have appeared after yours. So commenters should save a copy of their comments to their own email box.
The last time the Met Office got it wrong was on the morning of the Wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton .They forecast rain in the afternoon.So the Crowd numbers (lot less than Charles and Diana,s big day) were well down.Those that were prepared to brave it found instead a bright sunny day and didn't need their Umbrellas and Plastic Macs.
Hopefully next time the Met Office get their forecast wrong they won't leave thousands of Motorist trapped in their cars in 10 foot snow drifts on the M25 for 15 hours with potentially catastrophic results.
jamspid, unfortunately that was NOT the last time the Met Office got it wrong.
The Met Office needs to stick to the weather forecast, not the political climate, and how to change it.
golf c
save dicking about why cant the Skeptic Movement get some big money and buy some Super Compting Time and run our own Rival Climate Models
Or even run the Met Office own Models and check them for accuracy.