UK Met Office, increasingly full of shit. [modified]
-
You do know that he's going to be a local councillor don't you? It's the classic eunuch position - he gets to watch, without being able to do anything for real himself.
I'm not a stalker, I just know things. Oh by the way, you're out of milk.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
-
This is weather forecasting for pete's sake, its not like its something life-threatening like running out of flu vaccine during a flu epidemic... ... oh wait. sh!t.
J4amieC wrote:
its not like its something life-threatening
Are you saying that weather isnt life threatening?
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
J4amieC wrote:
its not like its something life-threatening
Are you saying that weather isnt life threatening?
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
ict558 wrote:
No, I doubt that she did know, in February 2010[^], that in October 2010 The Met Office would warn the Government that Britain was likely to face an extremely cold winter.
OK, thanks for pointing out the misleading date in the Telegraphs article. But even still, as the head of the Met Office had she already decided back in Feb 2010 to lie to the British public in Oct 2010 about winter 2010/2011 if indeed they did tell the government that this winter is to be cold? If not when, and who decided to lie to the British public? And if THIS is a lie, that in fact they DIDNT tell the govt any such thing and they actually thought we would have a warm winter then they got it so completely wrong, and have done for a number of years now, that their competence as weather forecasters had to be questioned. Like I said, take your pick from lies or incompetence. Its one of the two. And for a public funded body whose purpose is to provide a service to that public its a farce bordering on fraudulent.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
OK, thanks for pointing out the misleading date in the Telegraphs article.
But your link was to an 'Autonomous Mind' blog, which was dated 06-Feb-2010. "But even still" - read the byline.
fat_boy wrote:
But even still, as the head of the Met Office had she already decided back in Feb 2010 to lie to the British public in Oct 2010 about winter 2010/2011 if indeed they did tell the government that this winter is to be cold?
Clutching at straws. What lie? The Met Office hushed it up[^] lie? Instead of a seasonal forecast, it [the Met Office] offered only monthly snapshots. Had anyone read those monthly snapshots, they would have checked their lagging and bought grit. And guess what the Met Office daily medium range forecasts predicted, prior to the cold spell, through November and up to Christmas? Severe weather. Some hush up. "We did brief the Cabinet Office in October on what we believed would be an exceptionally cold and long winter. Despite media claims to the contrary, the decision not to publish any more seasonal forecasts came after we undertook public research about the way in which we deliver the weather. It was the public who decided that a monthly outlook would be more useful than a seasonal forecast to give a general indication of what the weather will be like for the following month." "The Cabinet Office said that Met Office forecasts are shared 'as appropriate' but could not say if roads authorities, airports and water companies had been passed the explicit deep freeze alert." Officialese for 'we did not pass on the information'. So, government incompetence, or the Met Office? And who is lying here? The Met Office or the Media?[
-
Oh, sorry. Didnt realise! :)
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
fat_boy wrote:
OK, thanks for pointing out the misleading date in the Telegraphs article.
But your link was to an 'Autonomous Mind' blog, which was dated 06-Feb-2010. "But even still" - read the byline.
fat_boy wrote:
But even still, as the head of the Met Office had she already decided back in Feb 2010 to lie to the British public in Oct 2010 about winter 2010/2011 if indeed they did tell the government that this winter is to be cold?
Clutching at straws. What lie? The Met Office hushed it up[^] lie? Instead of a seasonal forecast, it [the Met Office] offered only monthly snapshots. Had anyone read those monthly snapshots, they would have checked their lagging and bought grit. And guess what the Met Office daily medium range forecasts predicted, prior to the cold spell, through November and up to Christmas? Severe weather. Some hush up. "We did brief the Cabinet Office in October on what we believed would be an exceptionally cold and long winter. Despite media claims to the contrary, the decision not to publish any more seasonal forecasts came after we undertook public research about the way in which we deliver the weather. It was the public who decided that a monthly outlook would be more useful than a seasonal forecast to give a general indication of what the weather will be like for the following month." "The Cabinet Office said that Met Office forecasts are shared 'as appropriate' but could not say if roads authorities, airports and water companies had been passed the explicit deep freeze alert." Officialese for 'we did not pass on the information'. So, government incompetence, or the Met Office? And who is lying here? The Met Office or the Media?[
Ypu make a lot of noise, but not much sense. Can you in one simple paragraph sum up your argument?
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
ict558 wrote:
Fisking Professor Julia Slingo of the Met Office; 06 Feb 2010 (Where did you get Jan 2011?).
Probably by following the link back to the original article[^] about Ms. Fisk. It does show the wrong date at the top of the page, but that's the fault of the Telegraph's webmaster, isn't it?
ict558 wrote:
fat_boy wrote: The Met Office is either lting now, or did lie to us bac in October. Not on this evidence.
I don't see how you can say that. Even the wrongly dated article hangs the Met Office out to dry for misleading the government and the BBC.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
Oakman wrote:
It does show the wrong date at the top of the page, but that's the fault of the Telegraph's webmaster, isn't it?
The byline is where you look for the author and date of an article. The date in the banner is today's date.
Oakman wrote:
Even the wrongly dated article hangs the Met Office out to dry for misleading the government and the BBC.
So their seasonal forecast was wrong, but then, no one in the UK has ever expected anything else. But now we have, or have not, AGW, and suddenly the weather is politicised. So the poor old Met Office, instead of being ridiculed as in the past, gets 'hung out to dry' for 'misleading' the government and the BBC. The Met Office has the added disadvantage that its communications reach the majority of the public via the mainstream media.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
Oakman wrote:
It does show the wrong date at the top of the page, but that's the fault of the Telegraph's webmaster, isn't it?
The byline is where you look for the author and date of an article. The date in the banner is today's date.
Oakman wrote:
Even the wrongly dated article hangs the Met Office out to dry for misleading the government and the BBC.
So their seasonal forecast was wrong, but then, no one in the UK has ever expected anything else. But now we have, or have not, AGW, and suddenly the weather is politicised. So the poor old Met Office, instead of being ridiculed as in the past, gets 'hung out to dry' for 'misleading' the government and the BBC. The Met Office has the added disadvantage that its communications reach the majority of the public via the mainstream media.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
ict558 wrote:
The date in the banner is today's date.
Then why did you ask where he got the date from?
ict558 wrote:
but then, no one in the UK has ever expected anything else.
How much do0es Her Majesty's Government pay them??? They have a contract with the BBC to provide forecasts for the nxt 90 years??? And no-one thinks they can do the job??? What they heck are you guys running over there, a home for ineptness?
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
You're a {shudder} politician???
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
Ypu make a lot of noise, but not much sense. Can you in one simple paragraph sum up your argument?
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
You're a {shudder} politician???
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
Well I was once an elected member of town meeting so I suppose I can't look down on you for that. . .but then I can think of so many other reasons. . . ;)
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
fat_boy wrote:
Can you in one simple paragraph sum up your argument?
I think it was "Your research was poor, there isnt some great big conspiracy"
J4amieC wrote:
think it was "Your research was poor, there isnt some great big conspiracy"
Even if the first were true (And it seems to me that the global alarmists should be the last to criticize a single mistake on someone else's part) how would it prove the latter? Seems to me that the revelations of Climategate established the conspiracy once and for all. (Note that I am asking this question generally and not suggesting you hold or do not hold any view, since you were simply summarizing someone else's posts.)
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
ict558 wrote:
The date in the banner is today's date.
Then why did you ask where he got the date from?
ict558 wrote:
but then, no one in the UK has ever expected anything else.
How much do0es Her Majesty's Government pay them??? They have a contract with the BBC to provide forecasts for the nxt 90 years??? And no-one thinks they can do the job??? What they heck are you guys running over there, a home for ineptness?
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
Well I was once an elected member of town meeting so I suppose I can't look down on you for that. . .but then I can think of so many other reasons. . . ;)
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
This is a bit more than that. It is a tier of government. I will be responsible for £Millions and have power on several bodies (Planning and Oversight mainly).
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
-
This is a bit more than that. It is a tier of government. I will be responsible for £Millions and have power on several bodies (Planning and Oversight mainly).
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
It is a tier of government.
One of my transatlantic friends and fellow gamer, Nicky Palmer, was just voted out of parliament in the last elections.
Dalek Dave wrote:
I will be responsible
contradiction in terms, isn't it? ;)
Dalek Dave wrote:
power on several bodies
Blondes, brunettes, or redheads?
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
I note that they consider their software to be an intangible asset - if the track record reported so far is any indication, it may be that the word asset is being misapplied.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
J4amieC wrote:
think it was "Your research was poor, there isnt some great big conspiracy"
Even if the first were true (And it seems to me that the global alarmists should be the last to criticize a single mistake on someone else's part) how would it prove the latter? Seems to me that the revelations of Climategate established the conspiracy once and for all. (Note that I am asking this question generally and not suggesting you hold or do not hold any view, since you were simply summarizing someone else's posts.)
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
Oakman wrote:
Seems to me that the revelations of Climategate established the conspiracy once and for all.
The one where no one was found guilty of anything beyond being a bit of a prick? That Climategate? Or was it the one where people were found to be frustrated by endless requests about their research by people who claim it is completely false? Or maybe the one that found people will occasionally express discontent and exasperation with people who harass them through various legal means?
-
Oakman wrote:
Seems to me that the revelations of Climategate established the conspiracy once and for all.
The one where no one was found guilty of anything beyond being a bit of a prick? That Climategate? Or was it the one where people were found to be frustrated by endless requests about their research by people who claim it is completely false? Or maybe the one that found people will occasionally express discontent and exasperation with people who harass them through various legal means?
ROFL Nope, I mean the one where so-called scientists conspired to conceal some of their findings and destroy their original data.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
ict558 wrote:
The date in the banner is today's date.
Then why did you ask where he got the date from?
ict558 wrote:
but then, no one in the UK has ever expected anything else.
How much do0es Her Majesty's Government pay them??? They have a contract with the BBC to provide forecasts for the nxt 90 years??? And no-one thinks they can do the job??? What they heck are you guys running over there, a home for ineptness?
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
Oakman wrote:
Then why did you ask where he got the date from?
To draw his attention to where he got it from.
Oakman wrote:
How much do0es Her Majesty's Government pay them???
Too much, but a pittance compared to what is wasted by their daddy, the MOD.
Oakman wrote:
They have a contract with the BBC to provide forecasts for the nxt 90 years???
No, they have provided the service for to the Beeb for 80-something years, and were going to be dropped, but the Beeb 'decided' to renew the contract for another 5 years. But the Beeb is now monitoring forecasts vs actuality, for comparison with the competition. That way they will be able to present a cast-iron case for a change of provider, should it prove necessary.
Oakman wrote:
And no-one thinks they can do the job???
Of course. We moan about everyone and everything. Always have, always will.
Oakman wrote:
What they heck are you guys running over there, a home for ineptness?
No, the Homes are full of those with aptitude, they need treatment.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain