7
Jan
Jan
BBC interviewer absolutely grills UK Met Office’s John Hirst over weather forecasts and salary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8BCnX8LIIY
Oh this is good, really good. We did a story two days ago, UK Met Office’s enormously wrong weather predictions earn department big pay increases, and it turns out now even the BBC is questioning The Met Office’s weather forecasting record, and record salaries. And questioning surprisingly hard.
In this clip, Andrew Neal grills Met Office chief John Hirst.
The best line (4:08) of the video and perhaps of the year: “Since you can’t the summer or the winter right in your forecasts, why should we give any credence to your forecast to what the temperature will be in the 2050 or 2020, which is what you do.”
This is the BBC? Sound more like Fox News, and we love it!
Hi Guys
That was one of the best YouTubes I have seen, many thanks for finding this gem.
Wait – they predicted a levelling of temperatures from 1999? I don’t think they did. I really, really, don’t think they did…
.
.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day scientific honour shall be exalted, every selfish alarmist shall be made low, the weather complexities and realities will be admitted, and the climate-crooks will confess and repent, and the glory of the truth in science shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to my keyboard with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the alarmist mountain of despair a nugget of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the mimetic contagion of useless effort into a symphony of senses and reason among us. With this faith we will be able to work together, even pray together for understanding what we can from the purest observational data we can muster and protect, and against unreasoned opposition, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
Let freedom for truth in science ring far and wide!
With apologies to MLK
.
.
man..you should be apoligizing to the entire planet for that tripe
Thursday, 7 January 2010
And you think this is cold… the great chills of history left the Thames frozen and snow piled to the rooftops
(Daily Mail)
“We are supposed to be heading for the coldest winter in 30 years — but how does it measure up against the great chills of history?There was no central heating to keep Britons warm between the 1500s and mid-1800s, a period known as ‘The Little Ice Age’.This name was coined to tie together all the different global cooling events which took place, which produced the very coldest series of British winters for millennia.The years 1684, 1740 and 1863 were particularly grim.During this period, deep frosts were the norm, and the most bizarre sign of the times was London’s legendary Frost Fair – a carnival of bear-baiting, gambling and ice skating which took place on the Thames whenever it froze.The longest Frost Fair was in the bleak winter of 1684 when the river froze for two solid months.The ground froze, too, so no ploughing or planting of crops could take place.Although no official Frost Fair is recorded before 1608, people have long played on the icy Thames.King Henry VIII visited the river when it froze in 1536, travelling in a sleigh down from Westminster to Greenwich.”
PS.
Andrew Neal is one of the best interviewers, he takes no prisoners and really does his homework. Al Gore next ??
John Hirst is as bright as a bag of rocks.
“People rely on them for life and limb”
Yeah, and many are missing one or the other or both, but lets not be too picky, shall we.
Oh, I see, his bonus was for “business related” matters, but never mind that those have NOTHING to do with the weather, which is, I thought, the primary mission of the MET.
Crooks, and con-men, all!
I just thought of how to say that “business related” comment as if it were in a Monty Python routine.
“”We may get the weather wrong, but we do make a lot of money at it.”
I’m not sure I got all this. Help me. The Met Office does three kinds of predictions: short-term, seasonal, and long-term.
The Met is best in the world at short-term, helping emergency personnel respond to weather extremes, but, as of the 28th of December, they had nothing on their site predicting the present upcoming “cold snap.” Today, England is suffering from a shortage of fuel, snowplows and, even, road salt. Vehicles are stranded and, last count, 22 people dead. This was good, the best in the world…? Met Office CEO John Hirst defends this record…?
Number two: The Met Office’s seasonal predictions aren’t as “developed,” as its long term predictions — the very best at what they do. So, from the people who hadn’t anticipated the present “cold snap” until sometime after the 28th of December…. Early January…? From the people who admit that their seasonal forecasting is the “trickiest” of their jobs…. That they have trouble telling if the winter will be colder or warmer than last…. We are to believe that their long term forecasts of weather in 2020, or 2050, are their Very Most Accurate predictions?
Is this bizarre? Met Office CEO John Hirst will be, if not dead, in 2020 long retired. And, as he explained about the mistaken predictions of 2007, they didn’t happen on his watch, so the new Met Office CEO will blame John Hirst. Somehow, I have a feeling their long term predictions will be at least as accurate measuring caterpiller rings or chanting over dead animal bones. And it would cost less.
[...] Climategate) Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Talk tough, act tough at the BBCObama on [...]
Lady in Red – Here’s “short term” for you:I saw one BBC programme where a suit from the Met Office was invited to congratulate his employers on predicting the, then, latest severe snowfalls. He duly did, smugness personified, declare that the Met Office had made the severe warning prediction as far back as the day before!
As I’ve said elsewhere, with nerve like that a glittering career as a fake psychic beckons many at the Met Office when they are finally booted out.
Here’s a thought experiment for you, Lady in Red..
Look at your front lawn..if you don’t have one then imagine having one and look at it. Supposing it’s healthy, it’ green right?
Okay now get a little closer..maybe actually stand on the lawn and look directly down at it..now you can see little bits of dead grass and maybe some sticks and leaf remains etc. The green is now flecked with bits of other colours right?
So get down on your knees and look even closer. It’s beginning to look not so all-over green anymore isn’t it? And if you you were to get even closer..say using a magnifying glass..or closer yet and use a microscope and the concept of ‘green’ begins to disappear altogether and if we went to an electron microscope the concept of organic might even disappear and we have only atoms and molecules to look at.
Or..maybe this is better..mix salt and pepper together and you have a mixture that looks grey..but if you looked at that mixture with a microscope you would only see black and white bits and pieces.
This works for me to get a handle on the difference between weather and climate. The CLIMATE would be your lawn..and it looks ‘predictably’ green..the WEATHER would be the individual bits that actually make up what you refer to as your lawn and they are not uniformly or predictably green. They are pretty much chaotic and randomly coloured.
So while it may be very difficult to make any dependable predictions about the colour of the individual bits, it is possible to make out larger and more dependable predictions about the larger ‘pattern’ – your lawn.
Just face it they ain’t got a clue what they are predicting and your sarcasm doesn’t add anything to their bullshit
“He duly did, smugness personified, declare that the Met Office had made the severe warning prediction as far back as the day before!“
…the day after he read it on WeatherUnderground?
…because the Brits depend on these Bozos for life and limb.
Andrew Neill did a very good job, but he missed one thing. John Hirst said that long term climate models were reliable – how does he know that? We haven’t had a long enough period to test them, unless he has regenerated from being Dr. Who and has travelled into the future.
TaxanBan..
As I understand it, they run models that have been fed known instrumentation based information..(past records) and if the models give them answers that correspond with the known data – data that is not model generated but based on known instrumentation – then the models are considered reliable. This is a layman’s view, but I think I have the general concept right.
Thanks for your well researched reply. It doesn’t actually answer my question, but thanks for taking the time to send it. I suggest that you save it and keep posting it as it may eventually be relevant ot something nin the real world.
Models. Huh! Even the “Climate Scientists” don’t have great faith in them – they know they are overly simplistic, and too “mathematical”. The system is way too chaotic to model, and they know it. Yet the models are all they have, in the face of observation which is showing them up, constantly. Why can’t we spend money where we know it will help? $US70 billion would feed a lot of starving kids, and treat a lot of Aids sufferers. But that’s not what AGW is about, is it? How dare people say “Let them die so we can save more later.” Has anyone asked those dying Kids how they feel about their sacrifice?
Andrew Neil (or is it Neal) has jus become my favourite interviewer.
The (unspeakable) BBC should appoint him as ‘AGW sceptic interviewer’ and let him loose on a few other AGW zealots…….but they won’t!
Neal is great! Slapping the Met with detailed facts.
But it’s not starting to resemble Fox News. Fox has some rightish commentators who are on the side of science, but the “news” parts of Fox are still firm believers in the Carbon Cult. Shep Smith, for instance, openly refers to the “deniers” as Nazis and says they should be institutionalized.
The BBC is potentially one of Britain’s best exports. However, even though it is publicly funded, it is riddled with vested interests and is far less objective than we generally credit it. For example, the sudden tanking of David Bellamy’s career because he wouldn’t tow the party line (http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623).
The “we love to hate it” Fox network seems to be taking the risks and delivering a far more insightful version of the news with irritating but good characters like Glenn Beck:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fsAGJwQhoY