A tale of two tales, and the BBC and Met Office [modified]

[Lost User]

Take a look at these two BBC stories, both quoting what the MET office has stated: This winter will be milder than average and drier than last year in the UK, Met Office forecasters have predicted. [^] (Dont forget that within a month of this statement London had snow for the first time in 70 years) The Met Office has issued an extreme weather warning for England, Wales and parts of eastern Scotland. More snow is forecast later and on Tuesday. [^] Tell me. Just what is motivating the Met Office, and the BBC to produce the first story in contrast to the empiricle evidence which caused the second story? Of course we know the answer: A politicised agenda.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

modified on Monday, February 2, 2009 6:53 AM

[Ilion]

on Lawrence Auster's blog: Sticking it to the God-haters and climate tyrants[^]

THERE'S PROBABLY NO GLOBAL WARMING. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.

[Brady Kelly]

fat_boy wrote:

London had snow for the first time in 70 years

Crikey! It snows in Johannesburg more often.

[Lost User]

Brady Kelly wrote:

fat_boy wrote: London had snow for the first time in 70 years Crikey! It snows in Johannesburg more often.

Ah, should have written 'first october snow'

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[Lost User]

The BBC was motivated by need to publish news. If the Meteorological Office had predicted a colder winter, they would have published that. The Meteorological Office is motivated by the demands of various public bodies (and the general public) for such predictions. It is always just a best guess, and is often wrong. I see no political agenda, all is much as it has been for some 40 years. I agree with many of your comments on GW and CC, but I am concerned that you may be succumbing to paranoia. :)

Bob Emmett

[Lost User]

Bob Emmett wrote:

If the Meteorological Office had predicted a colder winter, they would have published that.

That, we shall never know. Did you see Climate Wars last year? It was blatently biassed. From the opening titles and graphics to the end, and they even had the stupidity to use the discredited Hockey Stick graph!

Bob Emmett wrote:

It is always just a best guess, and is often wrong.

96% correct is tjhe official line. Its not best guess anymore, its politicised lying.

Bob Emmett wrote:

I am concerned that you may be succumbing to paranoia.

If you had as many people out to get you, you would be paranoind too!:suss:

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[Lost User]

fat_boy wrote:

96% correct is tjhe official line

For the daily forecast, 96% I could accept - I might just allow the 5 day forecast by relaxing my credulity filter. But three months ahead?

fat_boy wrote:

its politicised lying

Well, if true, that should disappear when the Meteorological Office is privatized.

Bob Emmett

[Brady Kelly]

Why? Politics abounds in the private sector as well.

[Lost User]

Bob Emmett wrote:

96% correct is tjhe official line For the daily forecast, 96% I could accept - I might just allow the 5 day forecast by relaxing my credulity filter. But three months ahead?

You know the Met office is associated with the IPCC? So the IPCC states it is 96% certain that man made CO2 is causing warming and the Met office dutifully trots out the same forcast for warmer and wetter weather which is a politically based forecast that is in reality disproved by the severe cold we have all had.

Bob Emmett wrote:

Well, if true, that should disappear when the Meteorological Office is privatized.

Doesnt help the BBC.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[Lost User]

Nonsense. ( :) )

Bob Emmett

[Lost User]

fat_boy wrote:

Met office dutifully trots out the same forcast for warmer and wetter weather

Winter forecast 2005/6 Temperature: A two in three chance of a colder-than-average winter for much of Europe. If this holds true, parts of the UK – especially southern regions – are expected to have temperatures below normal. Rainfall: There is also an indication for a drier-than-average winter over much of the UK. Actual: Warmer and drier than average. Winter forecast 2006/7 Temperatures: Near-average. Rainfall: An approximately even chance of wetter or drier-than-average conditions. Actual: Much warmer and wetter than average, 5.6 °C and 437 mm. Winter forecast 2007/8 Temperature: Mean temperatures are more likely to be above normal than near normal or below normal. Although a winter milder than average is favoured, temperatures are likely to be noticeably colder than those experienced in the very warm winter last year. Rainfall: Forecast methods favour a drier winter than last year over the UK as a whole. However, this signal is not sufficient to indicate whether winter precipitation totals are more likely to be above or below the average. Actual: Much warmer and a little wetter than average, 4.9 °C and 386 mm. In 2005, 2006 and 2007 the Meteorological Office forecasts temperatures cooler than the actual, and rainfall less than or close to the actual. In September 2008 it forecasts weather that is milder and drier than that which we then experience, and suddenly it is 'trotting out' 'politically based' forecasts. Come on, admit it, you are paranoid! :) BTW the September forecast was not the last word, it was revised on 29 October, 25 November, 22 December and 22 January.

fat_boy wrote:

Doesnt help the BBC.

The BBC News is in the non-profit arm of the Beeb, and thus more subject to political pressure. (E.G., The 'sexed up' Iraq dossier.)

Bob Emmett

[Lost User]

Picking three years forecasts only? If you think the Metoffice is not associated with the IPCC then why this: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/[^] ? The BBC is sickeningly biassed. And its not just news. Watching kids programs with my daughter I am constantly surprised by the percentage of ethnic minority children used. It is very often over 70&. Of course the reality is that they only represent 4% of the UK population. And not only that, that 70+& feature in almost ALL the closeups! This gives the impresion that the UK is totally populazted by blacks and asians. BYW I am not racist, I am merely ovservant. The ONLY exception is Charlie and Lola, which, amazingly, depite being middles class and baesd in Hampstead or somewhere like that, and containing only ONE black kid, gets aired by the BBC.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[Lost User]

fat_boy wrote:

Picking three years forecasts only?

I looked at the 2007/8 Winter forecast and found that it did not predict warmer and wetter. So I looked at 2006/7, which also did not, then 2005/6, the same. That satisfied me that the Meteorological Office did not always predict warmer, wetter winters.

fat_boy wrote:

If you think the Metoffice is not associated with the IPCC

I understand that the Meteorological Office concurs with the IPCC on the cause and predicted effects of climate change. What I do not know is why that is - political pressure, similar / same climate models, governmental organizations employ conformists not mavericks, they are both right, ...?

fat_boy wrote:

he BBC is sickeningly biassed.

Compared with?

fat_boy wrote:

I am constantly surprised by the percentage of ethnic minority children used. It is very often over 70%.

As contestants, performers, or audience? Do ethnic minorities form the majority of those applying to be contestants / performers / audience?

fat_boy wrote:

BYW I am not racist

Your secret is safe with me. :)

fat_boy wrote:

... depite being middles class and baesd in Hampstead or somewhere like that, and containing only ONE black kid, gets aired by the BBC.

Try and get it banned as unrepresentative of multicultural Britain. If you succeed the bias is proven. (Be sure to sign your complaint ethnically.)

Bob Emmett

[Lost User]

If you want to know how in bed with the IPCC the MEt Office is then read: http://www.shareholderexecutive.gov.uk/performance/metoffice.asp[^][^] Thats a UK gov website by the way. Of course, the reason is because the UK actually set up the IPCC. The first chairman was British and the Met Office continue to supply the temp data used by the IPCC. This is of because Thatcher paid the Metoffice and the Royal Society money to find a reason to limit CO2 production as a way of reducing coal usage in order to weaken Scargil. If you think that is far fetched then watch 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' and the statements made be Lawson, the ex-chubby, ex-chancellor. This is why the Met office continuously makes long range poredictions that reinforce the message produced by the IPCC and the AGW community. They are utterly and findamentally biassed and every prediction made by them should be seen against thie background. And wonderfully, they are being caught out again and again by the real world not playing along to the International Socialist tune emanating from the UN.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription