Seen elsewhere



Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace


My wife and I visited Whistler, Canada in early August for a wedding. Whilst checking the weather forecasts before departure it became apparent that the BBC/Met Office forecasts provided for my iPad were wildly in error – the friends who live in Whistler were reporting locally forecast temperatures in the 30s Celsius whilst the BBC/Met Office were forecasting temperatures below 20 Celsius. Needless to say the BBC/Met Office were wrong. The temperatures were in the 30s.

I wrote to the Met Office on our return home. Here is an extract from the reply: “In the case of our World Forecast for Whistler, the forecast is the same whether taken from the Met Office or the BBC website. Symbol forecasts are auto-generated directly from our models of the atmosphere, and given the thousands of site specific forecasts we produce, there is no manual intervention to edit them.

The Whistler forecast is a “known issue” which will be addressed on or just after the 9th September when we will be delivering a web update to the BBC which will improve these forecasts…...”

The thought occurs to me that since the failure of the world to warm for 17 years whilst CO₂ continues to rise is also a “known issue”, perhaps the Met Office is going to change its position on or around 9th September!

It is interesting that the Met Office’s atmospheric models used to forecast temperatures a few days ahead apparently require manual editing for accuracy – is that the equivalent of homeganisation?!

Sep 2, 2014 at 11:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Post

Jack - as you say, 126km3 of ice-loss is insignificant. It is roughly equivalent to an iceberg 3 miles wide, 3 miles long and 3 miles high. Okay there are not many icebergs 3 miles high but even so this is a tiny fraction compared with the total volume of ice covering Antarctica. This is just more alarmist scare-mongering for the Guardian faithful, and the scientists should be ashamed of themselves.

Sep 2, 2014 at 10:08 AM | Registered Commenterlapogus
Sep 2, 2014 at 9:31 AM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

Am I reading this right? In this article

is the shocking news that Antarctica is losing 126 cubic kilometres of ice a year. Nowhere in the article is this expressed as a percentage of the the estimated 26 MILLION cubic km of ice which constitutes Antarctic ice and I would argue that that percentage, no matter the new “accurate” measurements, is within the margin of error.
Comments turned off on this one. Have I really got these figures right? Maths is not my strong suit and the spin is so shameless ( if I have got it right ) that It causes me to doubt my eyes.

Sep 2, 2014 at 9:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterJack Savage

Robin: That's interesting. I wonder why this sudden rush of new climate change propaganda sites? With people like Brendon Montague, Bob Ward and Richard Black, we'll soon be convinced about the scientific consensus.

They fit in well with this reported at WUWT.

Sep 2, 2014 at 9:01 AM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Watch out - DeSmog UK has just been launched "dedicated to clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate science and exposing the individuals and organizations attacking solutions to global warming." Note:

DeSmog UK has appointed as Editor the intrepid British journalist Brendan Montague, who has spent the past three years examining climate denial and the origins of the think tanks and front groups that have waged war on climate science and policy solutions to global warming.

A small number of individuals and organizations have crafted a polluter-friendly echo chamber to confuse the public about the scientific consensus on global warming.

I wonder who they have in mind?

PS: find out more about Brendan Montague (and his activities over the past three years) here (note the comments).

Sep 2, 2014 at 7:50 AM | Registered CommenterRobin Guenier

I agree, jamsp.

I just noticed I gave the wrong link at the end of my previous comment. It should have been:

Sep 1, 2014 at 1:53 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

Mad Ed strikes again!
Sep 1, 2014 at 8:55 AM | Unregistered Commenter michel

Thanks for this, quite unbelievable that this idiot is in charge of the UK energy policy. I have left a comment, with a link to the generation demand capacity graph on page 24 of

Sep 1, 2014 at 1:27 PM | Registered Commenterlapogus


A very perceptive man, HLM. This is often quoted here, but is as true now as when it was written, nearly 100 years ago:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Sep 1, 2014 at 1:25 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

Noting that James Hansen was trained in both astronomy and physics, I could not but smile when I stumbled upon this quotation by the journalist H L Mencken:

Astronomers and physicists, dealing habitually with objects and quantities far beyond the reach of the senses, even with the aid of the most powerful aids that ingenuity has been able to devise, tend almost inevitably to fall into the ways of thinking of men dealing with objects and quantities that do not exist at all, e.g., theologians and metaphysicians. Thus their speculations tend almost inevitably to depart from the field of true science, which is that of precise observation, and to become mere soaring in the empyrean. The process works backward, too. That is to say, their reports of what they pretend actually to see are often very unreliable. It is thus no wonder that, of all men of science, they are the most given to flirting with theology. Nor is it remarkable that, in the popular belief, most astronomers end by losing their minds.

Found here:

Like to have some more easy chuckles? There are many more quotes from this chap to be found here:

Sep 1, 2014 at 12:26 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>