Everyone's a winner

This comment just appeared on the Met Office thread, courtesy of Thinking Scientist. It's too good not to have a post of its own:

I looked at the documents Katabasis got from the FOI of the MET office. The predictions from the Met are even poorer quality than appears at first glance because their categories for mild average and cold overlap!

Mild -0.1 to +1.3 Probability 30%
Average -0.5 to +0.6 Probability 30%
Cold -1.5 to +0.4 Probability 40%

That also means their probabilities make no sense, and gives them a double dip, or even a triple dip! If the actual anomaly was, say, 0.0 then it would be in all three categories. Brilliant! Everyone's a winner...

Can anyone think of a rational explanation?

Monckton's injunction

Apparently Lord Monckton has tried and failed to have a right of reply appended to tonight's BBC4 documentary about him.

Interpreters of interpreters

I was thinking about all the brouhaha about James Delingpole's "interpreter of interpreters" comment, and I'm not sure I get all the fuss. I mean, James writes opinion pieces, not pop-science. I'm not sure I'm at all convinced by the idea that all columnists who write about science read the primary literature.  Is that really true? Does George Monbiot?

And anyway, hasn't the AGU just set up a rapid rebuttal unit, so that all the environmental journalists know the "line to take"? What are these green journalists if not "interpreters of interpreters"?

(And please can we maintain a bit of decorum in the comments to this one. Thanks)

Instalanche

I've just been Instalanched! Welcome Instapundit readers. Long time no see!

More Delingpole

David Allen Green is very upset that I suggested he was trying to pressure Delingpole into doing another interview. I'll check over my sources now. It's possible I got the wrong end of the stick.

Update on Jan 31, 2011 by Bishop Hill

No, I've definitely got that wrong. Apologies to David Allen Green.

The Monckton show

The BBC is running another show about sceptics, this time featuring Lord Monckton. Tonight BBC4.

Details here.

Skeptics from PTV Productions on Vimeo.

A dissentient

A lot of the action on the Delingpole-Singh spat has been taking place on Twitter. While I've had a Twitter account for a while, I can't say I've used it much, although this has changed rather in recent days. I expect my normal Twitter silence to resume soon.

That said, I'm @adissentient if anyone is interested. Tweets and a "follow" button are now in the sidebar.

The Lords discuss the Met

Excerpt from Hansard:

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, can my noble friend inform the House of the statistical and scientific evidence for the Met Office's estimate that there was only a one in 20 chance of a severe winter in 2010-11, an estimate on which the airports relied?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has asked Sir John Beddington to give him scientific advice on the likelihood of future severe winters. On 25 October 2010, the Met Office provided the Cabinet Office with an updated three-monthly forecast, which suggested a 40 per cent chance of cold conditions, a 30 per cent chance of near average conditions and a 30 per cent chance of mild conditions over northern Europe.

Looks like Earl Attlee didn't answer the question, but good to have confirmation that the message we saw was the real thing.

Teacher training

This is from CRU's local paper in Norwich.

Hat tip Dave B.

Booker wades in

Booker aims a few punches at the BBC and, in particular, Horizon (what else?). In a little addendum though, comes this:

Dr Benny Peiser and Dr David Whitehouse, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), have written to John Hirst, chief executive of the beleaguered Met Office, asking for an explanation of a press release issued by his organisation on January 20 and headed “2010 – a near record year”. This won headlines by claiming that last year was hotter than any other in the past decade.

When the two men examined the original data from which this claim was derived – compiled by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and the Met Office’s Hadley Centre – it clearly showed 2010 as having been cooler than 2005 (and 1998) and equal to 2003. It emerged that, for the purposes of the press release, the data had been significantly adjusted.

Comparing the actual data for each year, from 2001 to 2010, with that given in the press release shows that for four years the original figure has been adjusted downwards. Only for 2010 was the data revised upwards, by the largest adjustment of all, allowing the Met Office to claim that 2010 was the hottest year of the decade.

I asked the Met Office to comment on what seems like yet another embarrassing example of juggling with the figures. It denied the charge and I shall report on its lengthily evasive reply, once the GWPF has had a more considered response from Mr Hirst.

Question Time

Mrs Hill has pointed out to me that James Delingpole is going to be on the BBC's Any Questions show next week.

What a funny coincidence.

Paul Dennis on the trick

Someone called Paul Dennis is commenting on the Simon Singh thread. I assume this is the paleoclimatologist of that name who works at UEA.

He agrees with my take on the trick to hide the decline.

Update on Jan 29, 2011 by Bishop Hill

Paul Dennis responds in the comments and confirms he is who I thought. He says he dabbles in paleo rather than specialising.

Judy is climatologist of the year

Judith Curry has been acclaimed as climatologist of the year at the post-normal science conference in Lisbon. Her prize - a Josh t-shirt!

Met Office in big trouble

A blogger called Katabasis turns out to be the first person to get his hands on the Met Office's correspondence with the Cabinet Office - this was where the Met Office is alleged to have warned the government of a cold winter ahead.

As readers here learned the other day, this alleged warning was hard to construe as, well, a warning, but the correspondence that Katabasis has obtained shows that the situation is actually even worse. The line agreed between the Met Office and the Cabinet Office was that there was nothing clear in the forecast:

Someone at the Cabinet Office wrote to the Met Office to tell them what the official position would be: "The Met Office seasonal outlook for the period November to January is showing no clear signals for the winter". The Met Office writes back - "That is fine." - also note the first mail sent my the Met Office, these are their "initial thoughts" (!)

It seems clear that the public were lied to over this issue. But this is, of course, the public sector, so expect nobody to be responsible, especially not Mr Napier, the environmentalist who is in charge at the Met Office, nor Mr Hirst the chief executive, and glad receipient of a 25% pay rise last year.

More Horizon fallout

Updated on Jan 29, 2011 by Bishop Hill

Updated on Jan 31, 2011 by Bishop Hill

There is more fallout from the Horizon programme, some of which is more in the realm of tittle tattle than science and some of which isn't.

The tittle-tattle first. The famous pop-sci author, Simon Singh and the blogger/lawyer/libel reform guru, David Allen Green are trying to pressure James Delingpole into doing another interview, in which Singh gets to bring along a climate scientist to support him. This strikes me as a tad ungentlemanly of Mr Singh. What would be interesting is if Singh and Dellers both got to bring their chosen expert along - given that the Horizon programme majored on Climategate, we could have Phil Jones and Steve McIntyre to discuss the trick to hide the decline, for example.

Click to read more ...