UK Met Office, increasingly full of shit. [modified]
-
Oakman wrote:
Is to deny that the evidence is inconclusive to be a denier or a skeptic?
A denier, obviously. If you're denying that the evidence is inconclusive, you're advocating that it's conclusive, saying that it proves one side or the other (Of course, if you claimed that it proves the AGW theory, then you're neither a denier nor a skeptic, but rather a supporter). Now if you're advocating that it's inconclusive (Or denying that it's conclusive), then you're truly a skeptic. On the other hand, if you claim that the evidence is inconclusive, but use that argument along with some logical fallacies to "prove" that the evidence is incorrect and that the converse is true, then you've ceased being a skeptic and are once more a denier. Aren't double negatives fun?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Aren't double negatives fun?
sometimes :doh:
“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.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
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"
If only it was that simple I might be able to follow his 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
-
fat_boy wrote:
Ypu make a lot of noise, but not much sense.
Comprehension difficulties? Four simply worded paragraphs?
fat_boy wrote:
... as the head of the Met Office had she already decided back in Feb 2010 to lie to the British public in Oct 2010 ...?
I hope you did not intend that to be serious.
fat_boy wrote:
... to lie to the British public in Oct 2010 about winter 2010/2011 ...
There was no lie. The 60% - 80% Met 'prediction' was concocted by the media.
fat_boy wrote:
... if indeed they did tell the government that this winter is to be cold ...
They did, the Cabinet Office spokesman did not deny receiving the October forecast, and 'could not say' whether it was passed on to the appropriate authorities. Reading between the lines, that means the Cabinet Office did receive it, and they did not pass it on. Finally, the Met Office site is the source of forecasts, and it featured the severe winter weather warnings. (BTW: A FoIA request has been made to the Cabinet Office in an attempt to determine what the Met Office told them in October.)
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
The Met Office issues weather warnings direct to the public. They didnt. In October they were still telling the public it was going to be a warmer than uual winter. Of course I ognored them completely and followed the advise of Corbyn. I thus equipped both our cars for winter, and because of that havent had any problems driving in all kinds of crappy conditions. And that is the point. Their failure to warn the PUBLILC has cost the UK economy 1.8 billion pounds at last estimate and almot ruined the travel pland of thousands of people. Thats good going for a public funded body isnt it?
"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
-
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:
So their seasonal forecast was wrong,
And has ben for many years.
ict558 wrote:
no one in the UK has ever expected anything else.
Makes you wonder why they bother, which is why they have stoped issuing them. But, lets be clear WHY they are wrong. Its because they have a £33 million computer running climate models based on the principle that a doubling of CO2 will cause a warming of 4`C. So, if the facts dont fit the theory, and the predictions dont fit the theory, how good is the theory?
"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:
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:
How much do0es Her Majesty's Government pay them???
£200 million PA Piers Corbyn is a more accurate forcaster. I dont know what he costs, but its all privately funded.
"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
-
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
ict558 wrote:
Too much, but a pittance compared to what is wasted by their daddy, the MOD.
How is that relevant?
"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
-
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?
Distind wrote:
The one where no one was found guilty
You know what happens when a lie gets too big?
Distind wrote:
Or maybe the one that found people will occasionally express discontent and exasperation with people who harass them through various legal means?
As in the New Zwaland BOM who finally, when forced to court, could provide no reason for the adjustments they had been applying to temperature data, thus leaving the NZ govt no choice but to drop their data set and use an unadjusted one which now shows no warming since 1960? GW generates stong views. Heck, it has generated stromng statements. If those statements are challenged, they must be argued out in court. Thats what a legal system does. Its why we have one. Its part of democracy and freedom.
"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:
A lot of deniers call themselves sceptics.
Is to deny that the evidence is inconclusive to be a denier or a skeptic?
ict558 wrote:
Hopefully I keep out of the fray.
The fray is quite dangerous after dark, or so I hear.
“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.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Oakman wrote:
Is to deny that the evidence is inconclusive to be a denier or a skeptic?
Does that mean that I, who 'believes' that the evidence is inconclusive, am not a sceptic after all? :confused:
Oakman wrote:
The fray is quite dangerous after dark
I always leave the brawl before midnight.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
ict558 wrote:
Too much, but a pittance compared to what is wasted by their daddy, the MOD.
How is that relevant?
"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:
How is that relevant?
An illustration of how inept we can be when we roll up our sleeves, spit on our hands, and get down to it.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
The Met Office issues weather warnings direct to the public. They didnt. In October they were still telling the public it was going to be a warmer than uual winter. Of course I ognored them completely and followed the advise of Corbyn. I thus equipped both our cars for winter, and because of that havent had any problems driving in all kinds of crappy conditions. And that is the point. Their failure to warn the PUBLILC has cost the UK economy 1.8 billion pounds at last estimate and almot ruined the travel pland of thousands of people. Thats good going for a public funded body isnt it?
"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:
They didnt.
Are you saying that the Met Office did not issue this warning on their website? 28 October 2010 Following public research, the Met Office no longer issues long-range forecasts for the general public; instead we provide a monthly outlook on our website. Despite this, you may have seen some reports in the media on Thursday, suggesting the Met Office has produced a forecast for the coming winter. These media reports have based their interpretation for the coming winter on probability maps on our website. However, they have been selective about the information they have used and you should not take these interpretations as a guide to the coming winter. Instead we would recommend using our monthly outlook and short range forecasts. The 60% - 80% Met 'prediction' was concocted by the media.
fat_boy wrote:
Of course I ognored them completely and followed the advise of Corbyn.
As do I. :) But - those who used the Met Office Monthly Outlook and Short Range forecasts should also have been prepared for what happened.
fat_boy wrote:
Their failure to warn the PUBLILC has cost the UK economy 1.8 billion pounds at last estimate and almot ruined the travel pland of thousands of people.
Well, until a full investigation is held, we cannot say that. Were BAA, the Highways Agency, etc. given timely warning of the duration and quantity of snow? But, truly, any member of the public who was caught out had not been paying much attention.
fat_boy wrote:
Thats good going for a public funded body isnt it?
Yes. (Or, literally, no.)
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
ict558 wrote:
So their seasonal forecast was wrong,
And has ben for many years.
ict558 wrote:
no one in the UK has ever expected anything else.
Makes you wonder why they bother, which is why they have stoped issuing them. But, lets be clear WHY they are wrong. Its because they have a £33 million computer running climate models based on the principle that a doubling of CO2 will cause a warming of 4`C. So, if the facts dont fit the theory, and the predictions dont fit the theory, how good is the theory?
"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:
But, lets be clear WHY they are wrong. Its because they have a £33 million computer running climate models based on the principle that a doubling of CO2 will cause a warming of 4`C.
I thought that the best guess estimate was now 3°C? What you say may well be true for Long Range Forecasts, but the Met Office uses the basic atmospheric model for the bog standard forecasts. No AGW adjustments required for next month's temperature.
fat_boy wrote:
So, if the facts dont fit the theory, and the predictions dont fit the theory, how good is the theory?
How true, how very true. I am not here to defend the Met Office or AGW, merely to criticise your continually linking to articles by Polly Filler (B.A. Media Studies), rather than to the science itself.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
fat_boy wrote:
But, lets be clear WHY they are wrong. Its because they have a £33 million computer running climate models based on the principle that a doubling of CO2 will cause a warming of 4`C.
I thought that the best guess estimate was now 3°C? What you say may well be true for Long Range Forecasts, but the Met Office uses the basic atmospheric model for the bog standard forecasts. No AGW adjustments required for next month's temperature.
fat_boy wrote:
So, if the facts dont fit the theory, and the predictions dont fit the theory, how good is the theory?
How true, how very true. I am not here to defend the Met Office or AGW, merely to criticise your continually linking to articles by Polly Filler (B.A. Media Studies), rather than to the science itself.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
ict558 wrote:
Polly Filler
Sounds like something used in graphics programs - or to feed parrots. Is it a real name?
“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.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
ict558 wrote:
Polly Filler
Sounds like something used in graphics programs - or to feed parrots. Is it a real name?
“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.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Oakman wrote:
Sounds like something used in graphics programs - or to feed parrots.
Polyfilla[^] Polly Filler[^] – "a vapid and self-centred female 'lifestyle' columnist, whose irrelevant personal escapades and gossip serve solely to fill column inches".
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain