Met Office admits they botched snow warning

“Gordon Brown yesterday promised a full review of how the country had coped with the coldest winter for 30 years”

Heckuva a job there Brownie.

From the Telegraph:

Met Office to review forecasts after failing to warn public of fresh snow

A snow plough clears snow from the closed section of the M48 motorway close to the Severn Bridge: Met Office to review forecasts after failing to warn public of fresh snow

A snow plough clears snow from the closed section of the M48 motorway close to the Severn Bridge, Photo: PA

The Met Office has admitted that it failed to warn the public of the heavy snow that brought swaths of Britain to a standstill on Wednesday.

Forecasters conceded that they did not spot the widespread snow storms that caused transport disruption and a surge of weather-related accidents until it was too late. Up to six inches fell in parts of the South West, with drifts of 7ft in Wales.

Even when the full extent of the threat was realised, flaws in the Met Office’s bad weather warning system meant that the public were not adequately informed, officials said. The system will now be reviewed.

Thousands of Britons endured nightmare journeys to work after waking up to several inches of snow despite reassurances that their regions would escape the worst of the latest flurries.

Hundreds of flights were cancelled at Heathrow, Gatwick and regional airports, while schools that had only just reopened were again forced to shut their doors.

Accident and emergency departments reported “unprecedented” numbers of patients, many suffering suspected fractures after slipping on ice.

An 18-year-old college student who died after locking himself out was last night feared to be the latest casualty of the weather. Police believe Nathan Jobe froze to death after falling from a window while trying to gain access to his home in Mountnessing in Essex.

In the Peak District, pregnant 40-year-old gave birth to a healthy baby boy after a mountain rescue team transported a midwife to her snowbound home. Melanie Pollitt had sought advice on the Mumsnet website about her labour pains before calling for help.

Gordon Brown yesterday promised a full review of how the country had coped with the coldest winter for 30 years, after councils were forced to cut their gritting by a half to conserve dwindling stocks.

==============================

I like Richard North’s (EU Referendum) take on it:

They got it wrong and keep getting it wrong.

Now for the reality check, more than adequate testimony that the Met Office is a waste of space.

===============================

Heh.

Seems like the Met Office has a terminal case of botchulism.

About these ads

169 thoughts on “Met Office admits they botched snow warning

  1. Cant see a HUGE winter some a few days off, but can predict the climate 50 years from now. Yep im convinced.

  2. Hope I’m first :-)

    If the Met were just any average worker who kept making mistakes, they wouldn’t have a job to go to come Monday morning, and so they shouldn’t!

  3. anthony,
    what do u make of the following bloggers’ graphs which took raw giss data and the adjusted giss data for these two cities? have these individual bloggers done something wrong?

    Brisbane Australia – GISS data
    Just out of interest I decided to plot the raw temperature data for my home city of Brisbane, Australia from the GISS (ie the raw GHCN data) against the homogenized or adjusted GISS GHCN data. The temperature sensor is located at the Brisbane Eagle Farm Airport which is now our busy main international airport. The data used is the series available from 1950 to 2008. I have aniumated the result to highlight the difference.
    As you can see the raw data shows a downward trend of about -0.6 C per century. The unadjusted data however shows an opposite trend of +0.6 C per century. Intuitively as the airport grew from a quiet strip to a busy international jet airport one would think the more recent data would be adjusted downwards for the heat island effect. Instead we see that the data prior to 1978 is adjusted down and the data in recent times was adjusted up.

    http://thedogatemydata.blogspot.com/2009/12/raw-v-adjusted-ghcn-data.html

    Cincinnati Ohio – GISS data
    It took a little bit for me grasp what the homogenization process did in my hometown’s case. The raw data shows the late 1800s through the first decade of the 20th century were relatively cool compared to 1918 (or so) on. The 1940s and 1950s were definitely a warm period, but then the temperatures declined during the 1960s, and begin a warming trend thereafter that once again starts declining in the early 2000s.
    The bottom line? The raw temperature based data definitely shows that the 1940s and 1950s were warmer than the post 1980 period, which of course doesn’t fit with the AGW theory at all!

    http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:8ZaNhL-P3r0J:thevirtuousrepublic.com/2009/12/09/looking-for-global-warming-in-cincinnati/+dogatemydata+brisbane&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

  4. “Forecasters conceded that they did not spot the widespread snow storms …until it was too late.”

    Satellites, radar, new super computer. Were they using tea leaves and a crystal ball instead of modern technology? Do snow storms form that quickly? Being in central Texas I know a thunderstorm can form quickly but I’m not as familiar with snow. But that may be changing.

  5. After two enjoyable hours reading WUWT plus links, I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way to deal with the issue is by laughing!
    A high profile satirist/standup comedian needs to take the arguments on board. Most of the populist comedians are vrey well educated and clever and reach an audience that scientists can never match.
    Come on ,you guys, there’s an audience primed and ready.

  6. You have got to be kidding!!!

    After all the bad winter weather the Brits have had to endure to date, their ‘experts’ blow it again??!!! Come on, they can’t blame it on a long-range seasonal forecast gone bad.

    Maybe it would help if they quit worrying about the climate and used only meteorologists to study weather patterns so they could learn to see the forest for the trees.

    Leave the climate fantasies to CRU.

  7. “flaws in the Met Office’s bad weather warning system”
    =====
    meaning the weather warning system is bad ??
    meaning bad weather is flawed ??
    meaning weather bad warning ??
    meaning system warning bad weather??

    meaning every man for themselves?? that i understand, chicago after a 10″ snowfall :)

  8. I’ve had a weather rock for many years. It does a fantastic job. Much better, apparently, than the MET. I like the fact that it produces the rain shadow effect.

  9. Err they spent 30 million pounds on a machine that can only do 1000 billion calculations a second!???? [snip]

    You can get that kind of processing power for maybe 100k these days. Even if you don’t take advantages of some multiple dispatch calculations, you still can build that big of a machine under 1 million.

    One huge what a stupid waste of money moment. How do they spend that money!? Is there any thinking going on?

  10. It almost seems like these people are so invested in the AGW narrative that they are incapable of objectively predicting severe cold weather events.

    God help us.

  11. Climatology is the only profession where you get paid to be wrong all the time. What a disgrace.

  12. They need more funding. What’s the bet Brown will promise more money?

    Dr.T G Watkins(Wales) (18:32:24) : I agree whole heartedly. Been saying we need a comic look at all this. Late show hosts and stand up comics seem to hit a (subconscious) nerve with the general public. We need another George Carlin

  13. The elephant in the roadway is this: Now, somehow, the government has assumed responsibility for the weather; after all, they are demanding personal sacrifices to keep the planet cold, rather than warm.

    The people, obviously, prefer warm to cold. Thus weather has become political, even though control of it is beyond the power of politicians (but don’t let them hear that)

  14. They did forecast it,but just not in time.
    I told ‘em when they were sold that fancy computer by that spotty-faced salesman,they should have gone for quad-cores with serious graphics cards,but no,they had to spend most of the budget on the software package,”Fudgedata 3.5″ and “E-mail Vault”(beta!).

  15. pat (18:18:27) :

    Your second link flagged malicious in AVG & I chose not to override.

    Your first link however is not unusual for individual sites.

    DaveE.

  16. They need to look outside since their “models” seem to be broken. If they can’t forecast weather when it is reported on the way, how can we tolerate their 2050 forecasts? Hide the decline.

    Climate progress was taling up some man that had been prediocting snowless winters. The guy must really be off the mark. Pathetic.

  17. And the AGW espousing Brown wants to investigate. Cardinal Brown of the church of AGW. Maybe they can add windows to the MET cathedral, next to the super computer.


  18. Forecasters conceded that they did not spot the widespread snow storms that caused transport disruption and a surge of weather-related accidents until it was too late.

    Don’t you Brits have any sort of meteorological (weather) RADAR operational?

    Are your forecasters untrained as to recognizing the conditions (mid-level winds, low-level winds, temps and humidity etc) that can lead to significant snowfall?

    What ??
    .
    .

  19. TanGeng (19:06:30) :

    The will need another powerful computer to teach them how to use the one they got… or… where the hell is the user’s manual?

  20. Had they forecast it, exactly what would have been different? Those people would have stayed home instead of trudging to work in the snow? They didn’t notice the snow on the ground?

  21. I feel really bad about this, but not so bad I won’t post it! ;-)
    > … An 18-year-old college student who died
    > after locking himself out was last night …

    He must have been a climate-Scientology student at UEA. Anyone else could have figured out that (1) it was really really cold outside, (2) there are places like the police station that stay open all night and are warm (3) the Met Office forecast is not reliable (4) he could have broken a window to get inside…
    Perhaps the student needs to be nominated for a Darwin Award?

    I realize that it is a tragedy and his family are in mourning, but at least Gordon Brown has enough sense to come in out of the cold. Now, if he could just open his eyes and see the piles of snow… Nah, the PM has only 3 more brain cells than the student who stayed out in the cold. Even parade horses have more sense.

    Newt Love (my real name) newtlove.com
    Aerospace Technical Fellow, Mdeling, Simulation & Analysis

  22. _Jim (20:10:35) :

    Forecasters conceded that they did not spot the widespread snow storms that caused transport disruption and a surge of weather-related accidents until it was too late.

    Don’t you Brits have any sort of meteorological (weather) RADAR operational?

    Are your forecasters untrained as to recognizing the conditions (mid-level winds, low-level winds, temps and humidity etc) that can lead to significant snowfall?

    What ??

    Yes, we have weather radar, they’re just so invested in the AGW idea that the radar must be wrong because the models are right!

    When data & models disagree, adjust the data!

    DaveE.

  23. To get to the bottom of this scandal, public officials who provided funds for the “research” need to be held accountable.

    Why did they give public funds to “scientists” who cheat and manipulate data?

    Follow the money up the ladder, and ask why.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA PI for Aollo

  24. http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/

    I assume some of you have seen the above graph.

    And at that, might have some input about that, as well as the comments section to the handy graph from the Information is Beautiful site, regarding the notion that if the Skepty position was correct in that outside sources like the Sun are causing the warming (as shown and no one here or in that forum denies this, just the antrhopogenic cause) the other layers of the Earth’s atmosphere would also be heating. Alas, they are not.

    Just….curious….

    I see most everything addressed here other than the fact that the consensus is strong for AGW, and the info backs this up, AND the AGW Skeptic community consists primarily of about 12% out of the total number of climate scientists, and the others are primarily ideological pundits and engineers funded by the AEI and oil barons.

  25. Once upon a time in the U.S. military meteorological services, a forecaster who had too many forecasts “busted” by actual weather observations had their certification suspended until they were re-trained. If that forecaster once more had too many busted forecasts, they were discharged from service.

    So, how many forecasts must a British meteorological forecaster or a climatalogical forecaster have “busted” by the observed weather to be discharged from service?

  26. The amazing thing to me is that the AGWers haven’t gotten even one thing right. They keep trying, apparently hoping that if they just get one prediction right everyone will conclude irrationally that AGW must be true. But I haven’t heard of anything they’ve predicted which then came about in the way they want, except for the “consistent with AGW” events which don’t prove anything.

  27. MET told BBC a few days ago that its short-term forecasts are world-best and its long-term forecasts are hot stuff but it’s the forecasts in between that need tweaking.

    Well, short-term forecasts are no big deal: anyone can do them with the right regional data. Even then, MET messes up.

    MET’s medium-term alarmist-based predictions are a dog’s breakfast as shown.

    So bollocks to MET’s long-term forecasts aimed at driving the anthropogenic global warming hoax.

  28. Vote Quimby (18:17:01) :

    Hope I’m first :-)

    If the Met were just any average worker who kept making mistakes, they wouldn’t have a job to go to come Monday morning, and so they shouldn’t!

    That’s pretty much any weather/climate forecasting. With all due respect to Mr. Watts, beyond a couple of days, the chance of getting even most of the weather right is practically nil.

  29. crosspatch (18:40:57) :
    > Word is there will be a thaw this weekend
    > followed by another cold blast.

    Piers Corbyn has been predicting this for over 6 months.
    The Met Office will predict it 3 days after it happens.

    Newt Love (my real name) newtlove.com
    Aerospace Technical Fellow, Modeling, Simulation & Analysis

  30. Probably had the global warming filter applied. Filters all weather indicators that do not show global warming. The map was blank so nothing news worthy was going on.

  31. They should review whether to continue to suffer abuse at the hands of a Forecasting method gone awry due to bad modeling. Put the MET on suspended leave pending investigation. They clearly are not presently competent to handle the current climate.
    In the meantime, get some outside help, unless you don’t mind citizens getting trapped, frostbit, maimed or even killed.

  32. What we have here is a stark demonstration that “truth” is not a valued commodity in our currently fashionable, politically correct, upside down, Alice in Wonderland world. How else to explain the Met director’s record bonus and the lavish funding rained down upon this incompetent institution. Fashion pays very well while “truth for its own sake” is a forlorn concept. Fortunately for that motley crew addicted to scientific truth, Mother Nature doesn’t give a rat’s fanny for fashion.

    CH

  33. “grzejnik (18:16:20) :

    Is it me or is that truck plowing snow into the other lane of the road? LOL”

    It may appear odd, but it actually is the best way to clear a multilane highway. The first pass clears/grits the “inside” lane ploughing snow onto the “outside” lane. A return trip down the “outside” lane to clear the snow onto the hard shoulder/road side.

    But it is a clear indication that UK authorities were playing into the AGW story and reducing snow clearing equipment and materials over the years. Heck, I even recall grit bins located near footpaths/road sides etc in the 70’s, you’d always find grit in them in winter. Try finding one in the UK now, you won’t. Like flies here in Australia, they’re all gone.

  34. Jeff Alberts (20:39:21) :

    “That’s pretty much any weather/climate forecasting. With all due respect to Mr. Watts, beyond a couple of days, the chance of getting even most of the weather right is practically nil.”

    As is getting it wrong most of the time, especially when it’s “50% chance”.

  35. Wakefield Tolbert (20:32:24) :

    if the Skepty position was correct in that outside sources like the Sun are causing the warming (as shown and no one here or in that forum denies this, just the antrhopogenic cause) the other layers of the Earth’s atmosphere would also be heating. Alas, they are not.

    Wakefield, without even looking at this alleged “proof” against natural causes, I can assure you that it is a strawman. The skeptics don’t have to prove anything about what is causing alleged “warming”, which has occurred multiple times already since the last ice age.

    No, the AGWers have to prove their hypotheses, and they haven’t, and they aren’t even doing real Science – the latter which is also what directly resulted in the CRU email and files release, although we already knew it. What critical predictions the AGWers have made have been shown empirically to not only not have occurred, but also that in fact the opposite has occurred.

    Thirdly, consensus has nothing to do with the Scientific Method, but using definitions for “consensus” which AGWers have used, I believe I could prove that the “consensus” is actually against AGW.

    Fourth, if you’ve been paying any attention here you should be getting the idea that the Giss and CRU surface station/ocean reconstruction of temperatures is not credible, and that whatever the surface stations are measuring as plotted from raw data might actually be showing cooling or no trend over many decades, and slight cooling over at least the past 10-15 years – while CO2 has been rising.

    Why do come here without knowing what the issues are, presuming that you are offering something new and challenging. Me, I’m getting fed up with people like you who apparently don’t know anything but presume you do – For No Reason!

  36. An alarmist told me today that the cold temperatures in the northern hemisphere are irrelevant because the temperatures in Australia are very hot. He didn’t realize it was summer there :)

  37. Wakefield Tolbert (20:32:24) :

    Nice art, but it’s a bit late the to buy tickets to the show after the fact.
    The supreme test was predicting this Winter before it hit, not afterwards.

  38. Would this be the same Met Office whose Head only recently claimed (see here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/08/all-of-england-covered-by-snow/#more-15032 ) that they were amongst the most accurate 0-5 day forecasts in the world? At this point, I wouldn’t trust them to report yesterday’s weather. Actually, I don’t trust them to report yesterday or any previous temperatures after all that pasteurising and homogenising.

    Thank goodness most people have short term memories!

    They could sack the lot, shut down the numerous CO2 generating super computers and get Joe Bastardi’s highlights for free. (That way they could also blame the Americans for stuffing it up).

  39. Dr.T G Watkins(Wales) (18:32:24) : After two enjoyable hours reading WUWT plus links, I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way to deal with the issue is by laughing!

    It has been recently confirmed that many Met Office staff received diplomas from the University of East Anglia. (see here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qcnzwQt9vI )

  40. J. Peden:

    Easy, brother.

    Why come here?

    Well, to pour over things, and hopefully find answers.

    And at that, while saying I’m not some climatologist might seem damning, that’s just dandy–because most of the Climate Deniers are not real climatologists either. 1% at most. And for some odd reason (and this should NEVER be) we’re getting more than a few articles showing up on corporate-sponsored and AEI sites written by…engineers.

    No call for concern yet? Not even the tinny, deadpan ring of an alarm bell going off yet?

    Which was exactly my point, or goad, if you please.

    Also: The charts clearly show some warming that correlates to increased Co2, regardless of the debate over Al Gore using his magic alpha rays under the influence of Soros, and the faux, hard Right Wing Blogosphere moral outrage of the alleged ClimateGate scandal (which merely showed some researchers are human and have attitudes, and that only 5% of the data was lost, and that even at that it is readily available elsewhere).

    And surely we know the heavy snowfall (global warming puts more vapor into the air) and the shifting weather patterns that bring them are no contraindicative of AGW.

  41. OK, I’m holding my breath for the truth from the PM… wait a minute… I’m feeling faint… why is everyone spinning?… Grandma, is that you?… [thud]

  42. Patrick Davis (20:53:27) : wrote

    quote [grit bins] located near footpaths/road sides etc in the 70’s, you’d always find grit in them in winter. Try finding one in the UK now, you won’t. [] they’re all gone. unquote

    Not in Coney Weston: there’s a bin on the biggest corner and the old couple who live next to it tend to scatter a bit around on really bad nights. I expect they got sick of the crunch of cars going into the ditch.

    People are being a bit harsh on the Met office, forgetting how complex is the situation. It’s not like a nice big continent with solid predictable fronts, the UK’s environment includes hills next to a shallow cold sea and a big deep warm one, continental dry cold air, moist maritime air and the polar front, all mixed up, all confused and frequently chaotic in the mathematical sense. The radars are fine — you can get the feeds from the Met Office site — but just last week I watched a big lump of snow trundle across the North Sea, turn from a line into a vortex and trundle off again. Until it stopped you would have been able to predict its arrival within ten minutes, wrongly, of course, but it would have been easy to do.

    When a change in temperature of one degree means the difference between a snow storm (questions in the House) and a moderate amount of rain (ho hum), you can see that all the computing power in the world is not going to help. If they honestly said ‘today we can’t tell what the weather is going to do’ they might get some respect from intelligent listeners, but can you imagine what the Press would say?

    Maybe they should say ‘today the weather patterns are mathematically complex’ when it’s all gone unpredictable, just as a warning to those of us who have read about Lorentz.

    JF

  43. the AGW Skeptic community consists primarily of about 12% out of the total number of climate scientists, …

    AKA The Happy Few.

  44. Wakefield:

    You’ll need much better ammunition in this forum. But feel free to stick around and read more. You’ll receive a wonderful education.

  45. “Julian Flood (22:24:28) :

    Not in Coney Weston: there’s a bin on the biggest corner and the old couple who live next to it tend to scatter a bit around on really bad nights. I expect they got sick of the crunch of cars going into the ditch.”

    I’d say that’ll be an exception rather than the rule, but given how far further north Coney Weston is compared to say Portsmouth, this is not a big surprise. My folks live in Hampshire and they were snowed in. There used to be a grit bin at the end of the road. It was removed quite some years ago.

  46. Wakefield Tolbert (22:10:39) :

    Watch Al Gore’s movie again. The C02 rise comes after the warming.
    That’s what the ice cores tell us.
    How long has it been warming?
    Since the 1850’s.
    When did the C02 start to rise?
    Are you absolutley sure of this?

  47. Ahhh, they meant the the British version of the billion when counting computations. In which case they probably mean simply that the 30 million £ computer had petaflop capability. Still kind of disappointing… considering…

    A fully networked and highly scaleable 10 teraflop machine was available for about 400k over two years ago provided enough of them would be bought. I’d imagine that they could have cut off 25% of the cost over 2 years.

  48. TanGeng (19:06:30) : Err they spent 30 million pounds on a machine that can only do 1000 billion calculations a second!???? [snip]

    What do you want to bet that the Met supercomputer shows up for sale on eBay sometime soon? The Brits are broke due to their investments in frozen windmills and worthless Euro carbon offsets. They need to recoup some of their losses somehow, and the darn thing spits out embarrassing garbage. Two birds, one eBay stone. I mean, we’ve all been there, right?

  49. Wakefield Tolbert (22:10:39) :

    Wakefield, if you are truely here to mull things over, the first thing you need to see is that, from what you have said, you are not even at the Ballpark, much less on the field and playing.

    You are lost in irrelevant and illogical “reasoning”. You are probably simply projecting the notion that scientific thinking is like your thinking. It isn’t. Btw, how do you come by your knowledge as to what Science and the Scientific Method is? Do you practice hard science, did you take much science in your schooling?

    I’ll give you a hint: science is not politics or propaganda designed to move crowds. And the validity of any scientific result or study is not dependent upon who does it or funds it.

  50. Wakefield Tolbert (20:32:24) :

    Are you serious???????? or maybe just very very new to the AGW caper. Go do some reading, improve your knowledge and come back, that should take you about 2 months.

    re: Big oil
    I’m sick of this one. Firstly, the govt. grants received by warmist scientists outweigh funding to skeptics by about 1000 to 1

    Secondly, if big oil is putting-up money for skeptics, IT IS THEIR OWN money they are putting-up. Alarmists money comes from YOUR POCKET AND MINE. To clarify for you, alarmist money is someone elses money, easy to splash around and well over 100 billion has been splashed around already.

    Now when you go away to do your research, take the time to find out which “big oil” and how much they are paying to which skeptics and let us all know so we can get some.

  51. “the proportion of Denialists among all in Climatology”

    Wakefield, the real Denialists are the AGW Believers, who think that Natural causes simply can’t be causing any current significant warming, assuming for the sake of argument that there is a time period of “current warming”. They have gone to the extremely absurd length of trying to deny the existence of the MWP, and by extention, the Roman Warm Period and the Holocene Optimum. They also “deny” out of hand anything which challanges their simple Postulate that CO2 is causing any current warming, which they enter into their Models as the necessary cause of any current warming, thus presupposing that which they should be instead proving – a.k.a., “begging the question” – and instead start making adjustments in temperature records and as necessary in any other factors entered into their Model algorithms so as to preserve their Holy CO2 Postulate. And they also just make things up as needed. They call playing with their “play station” Models, “doing experiments”, and they are not joking.

    They also deny the correct use of the Scientific Method. So they are not doing real Science, and that’s a Denialism they have even come to personify and have succeeded in passing on to a great many people, especially given the money they have been able to command for doing their “work” and otherwise propagandizing populations.

  52. J. Peden:

    Easy, brother.

    Why come here?

    Well, to pour over things, and hopefully find answers.

    My friend, you’ve proven your argument about AGW to be little more than a vehicle to vent on your political philosophy.

    Since you have given us a few links here (and yes I’ve looked at them all) here is one from me to you.

    Please do me the same courtesy I did of you and watch the video all the way to the end.

    Now please take a minute to ponder the links you posted, search around for figures and info that actually have some basis in fact. Propaganda is everywhere my friend….always has been….I’ve grown up in an environment where I get to see information manipulated on a daily basis….I have articles from newspaper reports that I’ve been interviewed for on my wall. I keep them in view as a reminder not to fall for them…

    Good luck….the truth is pretty easy to find once your bullshit meter has been celebrated correctly:)

  53. Wakefield Tolbert (20:49:57) :

    You win, numbers do matter. I only have one comment.
    The Wright brothers wanted to publish their motorised flight theory. They were told to buzz off by all the recognised journals. In the end, just to be able to get a PEER REVIEWED paper out, they had theirs published in…………..BEE KEEPERS MONTHLY ffs

    The blog you refer to is for lemmings

  54. Mr. Blanchard.

    Better Ammo than the graph that shows the trending from the hard working men and women doing the actual climate research?

    OK…OK…

    I’ll play the game…fire at will.

  55. Mr. Peden.

    I somehow do NOT get a distinct impression that the work done by RealClimate and hundres of other institutions across the planet is made to move crowds or make some Orwellian nightmare propoganda.

    And if this arena is so highbrow for the efforts, then surely the results will be QUITE interesting to the workers over at RealClimate, no?

    If someone or some instistitution besides the AEI or Lord Monkton wishes to put for the real effort, then I can promise you that the majority of real climatologists will be more than happy to listen.

    And the validity of any scientific result or study is not dependent upon who does it or funds it.

    True, but then along the same vein I dare not ask my wife’s hairdresser Tina about climate change.

    Nor Lord Monckton and his street theatre. He’s a nice guy and bully for him on that count. Probably cool to have a beer with at the local pub. But alas, he’s not a climatologist.

    Shall I now ask him about small engine repair or titration as well?

  56. Baa Hummbug:

    Are YOU serious?

    (and do extra question marks make this more of a question?)

    Gasoline, or petrol, as the Brits have it, does indeed get the cost reimbursed from the end pocket of the consumer. And oil companies get or at least in the past have gotten vast sums from government entities.

    I don’t blame people for funding their pet projects, but sources DO need to be carefully considered.

    Outspent 1000-1?

    Where did you find that?

  57. Wakeboreder, give it up. There are no co-eds, poli-sci majors, or enviro studies types here. You’re out of your depth. Go back to the Huffington Post, RC or wherever you came from. Or maybe try that stuff at CA and see how you do?

  58. Actually Sean, I have to come clean here.

    I might just be pulling your collective legs to see what you’re made of.

    So far, OK. Not grand, mind you. But OK.

    Few people are more politically conservative and pro-business than I am.

    There’s your last hint.

  59. inversesquare (23:14:50)

    If you are addressing me, I can’t make any sense out of what you are saying: “Since you have given us a few links here (and yes I’ve looked at them all)…”

    I’m pretty sure I haven’t posted any links here in months.

    “My friend, you’ve proven your argument about AGW to be little more than a vehicle to vent on your political philosophy.”

    I can’t respond to that one either because I have no idea what “argument abouit AGW” you are talking about.

  60. Inversesquare:

    Well fair enough. Almost.

    Comparing Lord Monkton to graphs of actual warming might not be the best approach. Might be bad karma.

    Since you have given us a few links here (and yes I’ve looked at them all) here is one from me to you.

    And your opinion of said links as forged to graphic form based on more than a few days of numbers-crunching?

    Right. Street theater is not my thing, but I’ll now look at it again to see if I missed something. I’m thinking not.

  61. rbateman (22:45:58) :

    Rbateman:

    Watch Al Gore’s movie again. The C02 rise comes after the warming.
    That’s what the ice cores tell us.
    How long has it been warming?
    Since the 1850’s.
    When did the C02 start to rise?
    Are you absolutley sure of this?

    The climatologists who helped forge that graph (this is not really about me–I appraise real estate for a living, not climate graphs) have an answer for this.

    (Are some under the impression they don’t?)

    They claim that the recent upward trend in temps in several decades since the burning of fossil fuels really got into high gear correlates quite well. Association is not necessarily causation, no. They claim that natural fluctuations of C02 occur, as does warming, but adding the CO2 at such a sharp climb intensifies any background warming that might be occuring.

  62. Up here in Vermont we know a thing or two about snow but I have to say I have never seen a plow truck move snow from one lane of a highway onto another lane like the one in the image above.

    Nice work Mr Plow!

  63. Wakefield Tolbert (00:09:46)

    They claim that the recent upward trend in temps in several decades since the burning of fossil fuels really got into high gear correlates quite well.

    It didn’t correlate well at all, so they altered the raw data and manipulated the calculations to create the false appearance of a correlation where none actually exists. When qualified scientists and others exercised the right of free speech to dispute the improper and non-scientific methodologies and conclusions, the

    Alarmists resorted to defamation of their critics’ reputations in order to suppress the criticisms of the scientific misconduct. Looking back into the geological record, the changes in CO2 and temperature are much more often anti-correlated than correlated. Even recent changes have demonstrated greater rates of change than now, before cycling back to lower levels and lower rates of change once more. Such anti-correlatons in the geolical ages and in the past century would be quite impossible if CO2 were indeed anywhere near as closely linked as claimed by the IPCC, much less hysterics such as Gore.

    Sillier still are the Alarmist proponents demanding the adoption of hydrogen fueled automobiles and/or hydrogen=electric automobiles, while ignoring the fact that the hydrogen monoxide byproduct of the hydrogen fueled automobiles is a far more powerful so-called greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide can ever be.

  64. Wakefield Tolbert (23:41:27) :

    Ok, Wakefield, now you are making the [very common] argument or pronouncement that one should only listen to “real” Climatologists, or that only “real” Climatologists should speak on Climatology. Since you are not a Climatologist, why are you speaking on Climatology – even to state your own rule – and why should anyone listen to you?

    It’s my rule that you should follow your own rules. Is that also your rule? But another of my rules is that I don’t have to follow your rules.

  65. Baa Humbug:

    You’re correct about the Wright Brothers, and many others as I’m sure you’d like to name, but you have to be careful with that kind of thing. People who’re also likely to be very sympathetic to your cause will also be more than happy to remind you this falls close to the Columbus Argument

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-columbus-argument-7362

    Ya know, those valiant souls who risked torment and the rack while striving to free man from his fetters, while dark hooded members of the “establishment” tormented Galileo, Copernicus, good old Orville, and hosts of others.

    But as an historian named David Stowe points out, this is mostly malarky.
    The powers-that-be are there for a reason, and it’s not just style and speaking ability and panache with the ladies and being able to sparkle at parties. I’ts because more often than not, with some noted exceptions, they’ve seen quite a bit already. Nature seems to embed this in our very genes. All primate troops must operate on some kind of social consensus.

    Sorry, rules of the house.

    The sad fact is that the rare individual to buck the trends and the odds is rare for a reason. Most men cannot beat the rap on the consensus of their betters.

    And while this might seem unfair and might stall progress on occasion (the unnamed dog forbidden to bark, as it were) it also spares us from radicalism in many areas.

  66. Just because Brown says he’ll look at it doesn’t mean he’ll do anything.

    We just had the worst expenses/embezzlement scandal in 100 years in our Parliament and now, they’re trying to tell the naughty ones that as long as they pay back, their names will remain secret. The public’s baying for blood, but the Prime Minister wants a whitewash. We’re talking claiming mortgage interest relief for mortgages which don’t exist….we’re talking upgrading your entire property portfolio with new furniture by changing your ‘main home’ each year just for that reason……claiming food because you’re in London, as if you wouldn’t eat anywhere else….repairs to your TENNIS COURT…all that sort of stuff. And Brown wants it all pushed under the table……

    I wouldn’t read anything into what he says.

  67. “They [real Climatologists] claim that the recent upward trend in temps in several decades since the burning of fossil fuels really got into high gear correlates quite well.

    Right, Wakefield, and so I guess that’s why Kevin Trenberth calls the anti-correlation, divergence of temps. from CO2 levels a “travesty” – the fact that Climate Science can’t explain it given their Postulate that CO2 is the driver of temps?

  68. The UK Met Office is a department of the British government that is being funded with billions of pounds to prove carbon dioxide = global warming, and so help to prop up the worldwide carbon trading ponzi fraud and all the so-called “green” taxes inflicted on the public.

    That’s why the UK Met Office is so lousy at predicting the weather.

  69. Wakefield, what you very desperately need to understand is that I’m only using you for target practice. Many AGW Believers seem to have been descendent from Fearless Fosdick’s stock, but how on earth are you going to appraise real estate once you become only one big hole?

  70. Wakefield Tolbert (23:45:15) :

    The number of question marks is proportional to my surprise that people like you still exist.

    You are confused. Oil companies don’t put you in jail for not spending your money with them. Try that with your tax office.

    The genesis of AGW is UK Met Office and the UNEP. Both get their money from govt. thats you and me.

    You obviously haven’t looked into the leaked emails. There is plenty there showing IPCC people in bed with not just green groups like WWF and Greenpeace but also BIG OIL. Talk about everybody’s woman.
    Your attempt to undermine skeptics via big oil funding is pathetic.
    So you are just trying to see what we are made of? You Richard Cranium you.

  71. I could almost forgive the MetOff if it wasn’t for the fact that their ex-leader, I think it was 2008, annouced to all and sundry (BBC), that not only did they have a new computer but that they also have a new weather/climate model.

    This model was capable of forecasting accurately 10 years ahead as well as giving 12 hrs ahead indications of precipitation quatities. He braged that they would be able to tell a small town that they will get 1″ of rain etc the next day.

    There are massive cuts coming to the MOD UK this year, perhaps this latest incompetence will persuade the new minister to to make them at Exeter (MetOFF).

  72. Wakefield Tolbert (00:09:46) :

    as with all estate agents, I should really tell you to go away because you will never have the nunce to understand what’s going on but here goes.

    When you look at graphs of climate parameters remember these points.

    NASA, NOAA, CRU have been manipulating and adjusting data since the 1980’s and those adjustments have been shown to be mostly upward.

    Temps over the last 160 years, as best we can measure them, have been going up, down, up, and now down.

    The climate parameters that the climatologist graph are all moving to the cold side right now having been warm since 1975/6.

    Now, before posting again, go and read.

  73. anon:

    Had they forecast it, exactly what would have been different? Those people would have stayed home instead of trudging to work in the snow? They didn’t notice the snow on the ground?

    Very good, I guess we both agree that the met office doesn’t need to exist. Extrapolating our logic, neither does the CRU. Going further….goodby, ipcc.

  74. “While the Met Office had been warning for days of overnight snow in the South West, Wales and parts of the Midlands, its forecasters were taken by surprise by how much of the country was affected on Tuesday night.”

    They can’t forecast 48 hours ahead and they have the gaul to make seasonal forecasts of warm/hot/worse than we thought statements to the press.

    “Next year [2010] forecast to be hottest on record”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/next-year-forecast-to-be-hottest-on-record-1838184.html

    “Next year to be the world’s warmest on record, Met Office predicts”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6952470.ece

    It may turn out to be more promise than a forecast it seems to me.

  75. TonyB (01:24:27) : Your comment is awaiting moderation

    (sorry for repeated post but I originally placed it in wrong thread)

    Joe D’aleo gave a great forecast about the exceptionally cold conditions the UK would experience and I seem to remember he suggested a thaw about now, which is what is happening.

    Has anyone come across a forecast from him for the UK for the rest of the winter? Should I huint the shops for salt for our drive or merely get my raincoat out as the mild wet weather reasserts itself?

    tonyb

  76. “grzejnik (18:16:20) :
    Is it me or is that truck plowing snow into the other lane of the road? LOL”

    Yes, it is, but it makes sense.
    In Europe the median strip is usually narrow or not existant; so the snow has to be shoved to the outside.
    I would guess that a second lorry is following and shoving the snow off to the side.

  77. Wakefield Tolbert

    I am also not a climatologist but rely on the reported arguments for and against AGW. Maybe you could help me to determine the answer to a question I have.

    If the rapid and consistent increase in CO2 levels over the past decades is directly responsible for the increase in global temperature then what is the reason for temperatures levelling and starting to decline over the last decade when the CO2 level continues to rise at the same rate?

    I understand the argument that a small part of the CO2 is just our contributing factor to the rise in temperatures but fail to grasp the theory that it is a major contributer to the rate of change when temperatures rise, in proportion to natural cycles, but can be so easily overcome by natural cycles when temperatures stabalise and start to decline.

  78. ” grzejnik (18:16:20) :

    Is it me or is that truck plowing snow into the other lane of the road? LOL”

    No, it is towards the side of the road, the M48 is a dual carriage way motorway (two lanes each side) and we drive on the left in the UK. In the recent cold Arctic snap, the snow was so much worse than usual for winter in the UK that the best the “snowploughs” could do (actually just a gritter lorry with a small plough on the front) was clear one lane of the motorway.

  79. Robert Kral (19:07:56) :

    “It almost seems like these people are so invested in the AGW narrative that they are incapable of objectively predicting severe cold weather events.”

    Remember their
    2010 to be the hottest year on the record
    statement was made around the 10th December 2009 which coincided with the early days of the climate conference at Copenhagen.

    Furthermore, John Hirst, the organisation’s chief executive, was head of WWF-UK which has been screaming about global warming for ages. It is this and coupled with the 90%> certainty that increased CO2 will cause warming of the planet that is going to cause them and UK citizens difficulty in years to come.

  80. Our Wakefield Tolbert seems to have one trait in common with the english painter Walter Richard Sickert, who once wrote (by hand !) 5 letters to a newspaper in one day.

  81. All primate troops must operate on some kind of social consensus.

    ~”Take your dirty hands off me, you Ape.”

  82. theclimateconspiracy (21:10:30) :

    Here’s a thought:-

    The unknown process that drags cold anticyclonic polar air south in the northern hemisphere, will at the same time, also drag hot anticyclonic tropical air south in the southern hemisphere.

    Just my speculation, nothing more ;-)

  83. I have a prediction for the world. The IPCC and every one else is welcome to it for free.

    In the future: some regional climates will warm up; some regional climates will cool down; some will become wetter; some will become drier; some will become windier; some will become calmer.

    I propose we restore climate to its original, regional significance, and we allow each country to figure out for itself what its own region is going to do.

    Farmers in Kenya can work out how to make productive use of their land given their changing climate. Farmers in England can do likewise. And they can each asses their regional climate in conjunction with their regional economy, and technological means. They can consider their region’s demographics, culture, aspirations, etc. They can think for themselves. They can figure out for themselves what Kenyans need, in the context of what Kenyans are themselves able to achieve. And the Brits can do likewise.

    Of course, I’m only repeating in my own way what real climate scientists have been saying (OK, maybe not all of them) but beyond the regional scale of climate there is just the inter-glacial “age”. Not climate, “age”.

    We may be one global community, but that doesn’t mean we are all the same. We are all equally valuable humans who have intrinsic worth as human beings, and we are also all different, living in different cultures, different situations, different resources and opportunities, and in different climates.

    What does anybody care about long term hardly discernible statistical “global” trends when the local climate is what runs our lives? Even if the temperatures go up globally on average, some regions could cool, a fact that AGW alarmists keep insisting on. OK, so maybe this region where I’m living cools… what do we here in this region do about it? How do we handle it? How do we adapt?

    This is why methinks, adaption is the only realistic strategy. Let’s prepare to adapt today rather that wait for the “world” to “come together” to “fight climate change”—let’s prepare our adaption strategies now rather than wait for the tooth fairy.

  84. Smokey (19:21:39) pointed to a good article at American Thinker, another piece of mending that can now be done as a result of Climategate: the good work of Soon and Baliunas, showing the importance of the sun in understanding climate changes – and the corrupt process whereby they were “professionally” discredited while known to be producing important work.

    It would be good to give them all a hearing here.

  85. Wakefield Tolbert: Check out Lucy Skywalker’s account of her conversion from believer to skeptic here: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/MyStory.htm

    And here: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm

    It contains the following:

    Note: 2006 Poll on “Consensus among scientists”
    Despite claims of a “consensus” in favor of alarmist predictions, surveys of scientists, as well as petitions, show an extensive opposition to alarmism. A 2003 international survey of climate scientists (with 530 responding) found only 9.6 percent “strongly agreed” and 25.3 percent “agreed” with the statement “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.”

    A 2006 survey of scientists in the U.S. found 41 percent disagreed that the planet’s recent warmth “can be, in large part, attributed to human activity,” and 71 percent disagreed that recent hurricane activity is significantly attributable to human activity.

    A recent review of 1,117 abstracts of scientific journal articles on “global climate change” found only 13 (1 percent) explicitly endorse the “consensus view” while 34 reject or cast doubt on the view that human activity has been the main driver of warming over the past 50 years.

  86. Yes, but don’t forget that the Met Office can routinely predict out to 1000 years ahead – their Dr Vicky Pope said so in 2007:

    “Much longer predictions are run, typically…predicting the next 100 to 1,000 years.”

    If you want to know what’s wrong with the Met Office, first start at the top: it’s headed up by the eco-imperialist, former WWF-UK chief executive, Robert Napier.

    http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/eco-imperialism-every-environmentalists-dream/

    Then take a look at what happens to Meteorologists who join the Met Office, for example their Chief Scientist, Julia Slingo:

    http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/met-office-fraudcast/

    They start parrotting lies, which (as that post shows) they know are untrue.

    And for a sanity check on their projections out to the end of the century:

    http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/climate-robustness/

  87. 1 June 1944, SHAPE HQ England
    Eisenhower: What’s the forecast?
    Met Office: Sir, this terrible storm will go on for another 70 years.

    1 June 2014, SHAPE HQ Kansas
    Eisenhower IV: What’s the forecast?
    Met Office: Sir, We don’t see any inprovement.
    ______________

    The Metoffice is a political joke, a very costly one. Anyone in a supervisory role without a degree in meteorology should be locked in The Tower or the Buck House Lu.

  88. Wakefield, Wakefield, tsk tsk.

    “Most men cannot beat the rap on the consensus of their betters”. At the risk of being yelled at as a Godwinist, Germany in the 1930s was a good example of consensus of the “betters”. Doesn’t mean the majority were right, though, does it?

    There are many occasions where the one original insight overturned the common view of the day. William Harvey, Louis Pasteur, those two Australian guys who discovered the Helicobacter pylori was the cause of stomach ulcers… Charles Darwin, Galileo, Copernicus, yada yada.

    Science does not operate by consensus. It operates by evidence. And it operates gradually, as the evidence builds up one way or the other. The science on climate change is not settled, even if the politics is. If things seem confusing right now it is because we are in a state of change on the way we look at a climate. an old dictum is probably being overturned in front of our very eyes.

  89. The BBC’s hardly even-handed ‘environment analyst’, Roger Harrabin, has a piece today:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8462890.stm

    It is now entitled “Met Office’s debate over longer-term forecasts”, as if it’s an internal debate, and leads in about a ‘debate’ in the Met office about what to do. But earlier today it had the title “Met Office’s longer-term forecasts criticised” and the criticism aspect was the lead in to the article. Harrabin has toned it all down, as he always does – just an email or a phone call from above and he is happy to comply. He is putty in the hands of the establishment. And since the Met Office is part of the state (under Ministry of Defence), this doesn’t look too good on the BBC either for independent journalism.

  90. Newt Love (20:20:53)

    To be fair to the poor boy the report did state that he fell while trying to get in through a window and froze to death, presumably because he wasn’t able to move after the fall. I think most of us of mature years could have met an early death in the wrong circumstances; not necessarily while quailifying for a Darwin award.

  91. I have often said, jokingly, that some climate modellers believe that if the real world data does not correspond to their model it must be the real world data that is at fault. Ir seems the UK Met Office, as reported by Roger Harrabin of the BBC, actually believes this….

    “All models have biases and these are very small. It may be, as the Met Office suggests, that the observations are wrong, not the model.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8462890.stm

  92. If you take the trouble to research Wakefield Tolbert you will find that despite indications to the contrary he is a real person with his own peculiar blog, where, it may be seen, that the misjudged overweening self valuation manifested on these pages is mirrored in his forays upon other subjects.
    The flotsam from the AGW wreckage is so tiresome…. especially when it washes up here.

  93. AGW modeling reminds me of Deep Thought who knew the answer (42) but suggested that a bigger computer should be built to understand the question.

  94. How about we pay all Met Ofice staff based on the accuracy of the 1 and 5 day forecasts, plus the seasonal (ie BBQ summer/mild winter) forecast?

    Let’s take each forecast when it’s published and file it for comparison with the actual weather that ocurred. Give them a (small) error window but score each one for accuracy.

    Wonder how long it would take for the Met Office to get REALLY good at predicting what’s actually going to happen rather than what they would like it to be according to some wacky theory or other.

  95. Wakefield Tolbert (22:10:39) :

    “Also: The charts clearly show some warming that correlates to increased Co2…”

    Show the chart, please.

    And…

    “Outspent 1000-1? Where did you find that?”

    See here.

  96. Instead of a new super computer, the Met should have invested in some new super radar. I would even put it out on the ocean so I could see what’s coming my way.

  97. “The observations are wrong, not the model”. That’s the path to Lysenkoism, which is quite possibly where we’re headed.

    Remember the comment from the Newsweek reporter about the Duke lacrosse team rape case, after it was clear that the charges were false: “the narrative was correct, but the facts were wrong”. Very few, if any, of the faculty members who signed the big letter/full page newspaper ad condemning the lacrosse team and players have ever apologized or even admitted that they were wrong. We’re facing the same phenomenon when it comes to AGW. Probably nothing less than a new Ice Age could cause these people to admit error, and even in that event they most likely would try to claim that it was caused by CO2.

  98. Here are my recollections and a few links related to their failures.

    25 September 2008
    The Met Office forecast for the coming winter suggests it is, once again, likely to be milder than average. It is also likely that the coming winter will be drier than last year.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080925.html

    25 Feb 2009
    Coldest winter for a decade – Met Office

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090225.html

    —–

    30 April 2009
    The coming summer is ‘odds on for a barbecue summer‘, according to long-range forecasts

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090430.html

    Met Office cools summer forecast

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8173533.stm

    —-

    2009
    Met office forecast a mild to average winter

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/creating/monthsahead/seasonal/2009/winter.html

    Met Office – 5 January 2010
    “The current cold weather started in mid December and it has been the most prolonged spell of freezing conditions across the UK since December 1981.”

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20100105.html

    “Britain’s freezing weather: worst snow for 50 years

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/6939124/Britains-freezing-weather-worst-snow-for-50-years-paralyses-transport-networks.html

    ——

    10 December 2009
    Climate could warm to record levels in 2010

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091210b.html

  99. Wakefield Tolbert

    I see most everything addressed here other than the fact that the consensus is strong for AGW, and the info backs this up, AND the AGW Skeptic community consists primarily of about 12% out of the total number of climate scientists, and the others are primarily ideological pundits and engineers funded by the AEI and oil barons.

    “To defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”
    Einstein

  100. Wakefield Tolbert

    “…and the others are primarily ideological pundits and engineers funded by the AEI and oil barons.”

    ———–
    Oh, you mean like the Climate Research Unit. :o)

    Some of the funders for CRU
    British Petroleum (Oil, LNG)
    Central Electricity Generating Board
    Eastern Electricity
    KFA Germany (Nuclear)
    Irish Electricity Supply Board (LNG, Nuclear)
    National Power
    Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (Nuclear)
    Shell (Oil, LNG)
    Sultanate of Oman (LNG)
    UK Nirex Ltd. (Nuclear)
    Source: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    CRU Seeks Big Oil And Big Business Cash

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=171&filename=962818260.txt

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=156&filename=947541692.txt

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=332&filename=1056478635.txt

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270&filename=1019513684.txt

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1041&filename=1254832684.txt

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=204&filename=973374325.txt

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=185&filename=968691929.txt

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=159&filename=951431850.txt

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=362&filename=1065125462.txt

    Now what were you saying. :O(

  101. UK readers will be specially amused by that item. Gordon Brown’s ‘reviews’ are famous. At one point I think he had around 100 going on, which is especially hilarious as he finds taking fresh decisions really hard.

    From his point of view a ‘review’ has the advantage of kicking a topic into the long grass – in this case probably until after our next election.

    Incidentally, we have been “promised a full review of how the country … coped”. “The country” got on with it – it was government, local authorities and the Met Office where the shambles was.

    Will this “full review” study what resources were directed to global warming which should have been focused on local cooling?

    Don’t hold your breath.

  102. @Wakefield Tolbert

    As majority expert opinion is of interest, please note that the majority of the seven or so billion people on the planet are not interested in reducing consumption, for any reason. You have to ask yourself, are you smarter than the species? Or is there something about the very nature of life itself—and we are life, you and me, we are born into this and are carried along by forces far outside our control and understanding—is there something about how nature made us that is a mechanism that strives to move forward and explore possibilities? See, we as individuals are not smarter than the life manifestation of the species. We just don’t know how that works. So yeah, we discover a few bits of knowledge here and there, how to make CPUs out of sand, how to make antibiotics, how to measure temperature from history, and so on. But the vast movement of the species, a natural force of nature, seven billion organisms, moving, changing, adapting, and occasionally leaping to new emergent potentials. We do not understand that. We never have. We are riding blind at great speed.

  103. Everyone is missing the point on climate models. They can only replicate PAST climate. They have been calibrated on the solid records available from the most impeccable sources, CRU, GISS and CDRC. Their accuracy is impeccable in predicting known results. But as Yogi Berra said, “predicting is hard, especially about the future.”

    I just went through a review of the 9 pages of references, a total of 537 papers, on Chapter 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report AR4. I did not read all of the papers. From the titles, I selected those that appeared to address attribution. By searching the web by the title, I was able to find the abstract on nearly all of the papers and the complete PDF on most of the papers. I COULD NOT FIND ANY PAPERS DESCRIBING ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (AGW). To put it in context, it reminded me of a debate among theologians about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The evidence behind AGW amounts the Argument from Ignorance, the models using (their definition of) natural causes alone cannot replicate the observed global warming; therefore, it must be caused by humans. Now all of a sudden the AGW alarmists have discovered NATURAL VARIABILITY and that is the cause of the cooling.

    http://www.socratesparadox.com

  104. The Met office’s answer to the weather vs climate issue is that climate models are completely different to weather models. Just because they make a poor weather forecast does not mean they cannot predict the future climate. Modelling the climate is far simpler than modelling the weather and they are completely separate operations.

    What’s more, climate models ARE validated. They can model climates in the past correctly, and the only way they are correct is if the CO2 contribution is included in the model.

    Personally I’m still skeptical :)

  105. John Page (09:41:25) : Gordon Brown’s ‘reviews’ are famous.

    John, that is another Taxpayer paid for Quango then.
    The one that was formed to advise Councils about Salt and Gravel levels after last year’s debacle was a great success wasn’t it?

  106. Two years ago I emailed “theweathernetwork.com” the major Canadian weather forecasters to remark that their two week forecasts nearly always showed temperatures turning up near the end of the period. I ventured the explanation that the weather was much colder starting in the fall of 2007 and that their acceptance of AGW gave them a bias toward abandoning forecasting from a scientific basis and going on faith that temperatures “had to” lift up out of the cold spell. Time and again, the upturn didn’t happen. I decided to make my own two week forecasts by modifying theirs a few degrees downward and I wound up more often than not with much more accurate forecast over the winter, spring and the following cool summer than they did. I emailed them informing them of this but neither of my emails were replied to. I wish I had kept a record of this. I’m certain that the UK Met Office had the same faith-based bias. I am willing to bet (a token!) that the UK Met will have much better forecasts from now on as they jetison the climate models from their wall-to-wall mega computer. It is magical the timing of Climategate and the cold winter have virtually dropped the AGW movement in its tracks, although there is still a lot of whimpering. Oh yes they will rationalize and quietly swing out from under it by discovering that we are going to have a perfectly natural hiatus in AGW for 30 years or so. They will go over 30 years of their past stuff and show that they didn’t …exactly say this and they actually meant that… and probably some of them will even be trumpeting in a new Ice Age.

  107. “Wakefield Tolbert (20:32:24) :

    http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/

    I assume some of you have seen the above graph. ”

    Hi WT. Say, what are you doing on this thread? Are you here to defend the warm-biased MET forecasts because the beautiful image you linked to has convinced you that they must be right and reality must be wrong? You’re trying to talk other people here into your own delusional way of thinking. Are you sure you have the slightest chance of success?


  108. A.Syme (08:40:18) :

    Instead of a new super computer, the Met should have invested in some new super radar. I would even put it out on the ocean so I could see what’s coming my way.

    I would settle for balloon launches (literally: radiosonde, a balloon-hoisted unit that measures various atmospheric parameters and transmits them back to a fixed receiver on the ground) every two or three hours (at critical meteorological times, eg. tornado season here in the states) instead of every twelve hours.

    This is with an eye toward fine-grained observation of mid and low-level winds and moisture levels for input to the usual RUC and GFS weather prediction models the NWS/NOAA uses here in the states for wx prediction.
    .
    .

  109. bruce:

    I just went through a review of the 9 pages of references, a total of 537 papers, on Chapter 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report AR4. …… I COULD NOT FIND ANY PAPERS DESCRIBING ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (AGW).

    Yeah, when I was looking at the TAR I was really surprised and put off to find tons of references at the end of a chapter which gave no indication of what they actually related to. I immediately viewed this as very unprofessional, unscientific, and almost certainly a tactic to imply that the references supported the chapter but at the same time didn’t say why they did and even made it hard to read further. So I didn’t, betting that their references were irrelevant to what the ipcc was saying except in not supporting it.

    This kind of tactic was already known and described by Christina Hoff Summers in her book “Who Stole Feminism”. She found that the references the “gender feminist”, Feminazis gave for their many claims very often either didn’t exist, didn’t say what the Feminazis said they said, were incorrect anyway, or actually said the opposite. It was pitiful, and very irritating. Such people don’t know what they are playing with here in the real world.


  110. JohnRS (08:32:33) :
    How about we pay all Met Ofice staff based on the accuracy of the 1 and 5 day forecasts, plus the seasonal (ie BBQ summer/mild winter) forecast?

    Incentive pay; a good idea. Forces one to really scramble to ‘get it right’ regardless of philosophy, current group-think et al.

    Can we go one step further?

    Put the weather-forecasting service ‘out for bid'; base the payment of performance bonuses (above the agreed-upon base rate) on accuracy and actual ‘hit rates’ on a monthly accuracy scorecard.

    I’ll bet we wind up with a LOT more ‘balloon’ launches (upper air meteorological observations, measurements) as a result too … simple surface msmts (wind, temp, humidity, pressure) can only indicate so much in the way of ‘atmospheric happenings’.

    Time to let private enterprise innovate in this stodgy ‘old’ field?
    .
    .

  111. Roger (08:03:03) :

    If you take the trouble to research Wakefield Tolbert….

    Somebody had to do it, thanks. He also made a pretty good case right here at WUWT for this very same uselessness, so I guess he’s pretty trustworthy in that respect. Maybe he works for the Met Office.

  112. ” J.Peden (03:20:44) :
    ~”Take your dirty hands off me, you Ape.”

    The correct quote is:
    George Taylor: Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!


  113. J.Peden (03:20:44) :
    All primate troops must operate on some kind of social consensus.

    ~”Take your dirty hands off me, you Ape.”

    It just struck me where this quote (probably) originated –

    Famous scene from “Planet of the Apes” with Charlton Heston.
    .
    .

  114. @Bruce said on January 15, 2010 at 6:06 pm
    > Everyone is missing the point on climate models.
    > They can only replicate PAST climate. They have
    > been calibrated on the solid records available from
    > the most impeccable sources, CRU, GISS and CDRC.
    > Their accuracy is impeccable in predicting known results…

    You are giving them too much credit. The UEA HCRU Penn State climate models are accurate only when the Midaevil Warming Period and the Little Ice Age are removed from the data. So, how accurate is that?

    Newt Love (my real name) newtlove.com
    Aerospace Technical Fellow, Modeling, Simulation & Analysis

  115. ScientistForTruth (04:37:07) :

    Yes, but don’t forget that the Met Office can routinely predict out to 1000 years ahead – their Dr Vicky Pope said so in 2007:

    “Much longer predictions are run, typically…predicting the next 100 to 1,000 years.”

    Even I, on an aged desktop, can “make predictions.” This is a long, long way from “predicting.”

    In October 2008, I printed out the 5 day forecasts for the month. I checked the number of overlapping days changed each forecast, which was ~2½ average. That means they have about 3 different attempts at each day. If they count the number of days correctly forecast, that will be about 3× the number of correct forecasts. I wonder which they quote?

  116. J.Peden (11:35:15) :
    bruce:

    I just went through a review of the 9 pages of references, a total of 537 papers, on Chapter 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report AR4. …… I COULD NOT FIND ANY PAPERS DESCRIBING ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (AGW).

    Yeah, when I was looking at the TAR I was really surprised and put off to find tons of references at the end of a chapter which gave no indication of what they actually related to. I immediately viewed this as very unprofessional, unscientific, and almost certainly a tactic to imply that the references supported the chapter but at the same time didn’t say why they did and even made it hard to read further. So I didn’t, betting that their references were irrelevant to what the ipcc was saying except in not supporting it.

    This kind of tactic was already known and described by Christina Hoff Summers in her book “Who Stole Feminism”. She found that the references the “gender feminist”, Feminazis gave for their many claims very often either didn’t exist, didn’t say what the Feminazis said they said, were incorrect anyway, or actually said the opposite. It was pitiful, and very irritating. Such people don’t know what they are playing with here in the real world.

    It sounds like a sort of “brittle chain” where once something unfounded gets into he literature, it is very hard to spot the errors and very hard to correct.

    Errors can’t be helped, but there seems to be a lack of concurrent alternatives being spawned that follow their own paths. That’s how evolution is supposed to work, no?

    Many tout “the consensus” as a matter of great confidence, but I feel the opposite about it. If there were three prominent theories then I’d feel like alternatives were being pursued and so we’re likely to get the best answer sooner. But when it is a monopoly theory, I feel it is actually more likely to be wrong.

    Activists would then claim that I would question the Earth being round, but it is telling that they have to resort to such an extreme simple thing to make that point.

    So, dear activists, “consensus” means it’s more likely to be wrong. Care to disagree?

  117. The MET Office is a national institution which has become infected with the governments political plan to dress everything up in spin.
    It no longer is it sufficient for the MET Office to try to predict the chaotic airflow around the British Isles they are also required to sex up all their output as the political lap dogs they have become.
    The MET Office’s wholehearted support for human caused Global warming derives from the political realisation that climate change can be used to control the population much as a fear of hell allowed the church to control the population until the very recent past.
    That the MET Office has prostrated itself at every opportunity is the reason for the MET Office talking down the snow risk.No repeat heavy snow risk means there can be no challenge to global warming.
    It has been sad to witness the MET Office slide into the abyss of deceit and spin.

  118. Not Amused (11:58:45) :

    Perhaps it’s time for the Met office to consult with Piers Corbyn…?

    Furlough the responsible elements of the Met office and outsource to a commercial forecaster for a trial period to compare performances….

  119. It must be that new computer Deep Something that they got. I suspect the software has a few sign errors left in it, you know, a – sign where there should be a + and vice versa. Does wonders to your results.

    Prepare yourselves for announcements about debugging being going on …

  120. Cat amongst pigeons article in The Times (Jan 17th, 2010) …

    BBC forecast for Met Office: changeable

    BUFFETED by complaints about its inaccurate weather forecasts, the Met Office now faces being dumped by the BBC after almost 90 years.

    The Met Office contract with the BBC expires in April and the broadcaster has begun talks with Metra, the national forecaster for New Zealand, as a possible alternative.

    Oh I get it, UK tax payers get to pay twice for nowcasts before turning to Corbyn and Bastardi to get forecasts. Don’t you just love it.

  121. _Jim (12:43:55) :

    It just struck me where this quote (probably) originated – Planet of the Apes

    Yes, I didn’t pay any attention to the movie way back when it first appeared, but more recently it’s been brought back on cable. One outlet had a “Channel of the Apes” fest two Thanksgivings ago, for example. I’m seeing a lot of movies that were made even before I was born that make much more sense and communicate much more info than occurs now.

  122. The correct quote is:
    George Taylor: Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!

    Thanks, Kate, I knew I didn’t have it right. That’s much better. But Wakefield no doubt had no idea what I was talking about anyway, except maybe that he was acting like an Ape in trying to tout some kind of primate “consensus” = ape-ing.

  123. “Couldn’t They Just Look Out The Window?” , Doubting Thomas

    I’m ‘justa’ Housewife in Tennessee that became a fan of WUWT when it seemed our current leaders, climate experts, algores & weather criminals thought to give our country away to third world despots – seemed an ideal time to educate myself on what’s true in AGW –

    Thanks to the generous, intelligent writers and posters of WUWT I am apparently more educated and knowledgeable then the current professionals staffing the UK’s Met office –

    With that said, I must agree with Doubting Thomas’ simple deduction ….. couldn’t they look out the window??????

    Sometimes ….. common sense just has to trump all the supercomputers ever made –

    One last observation ….. Supercomputers with Super-Price Tags for the enjoyment of Super-Ego’ed ‘Brain-I-Acts’ is still subject to the seemingly absolute law of computer science “GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT”

    To the Entire WUWT Community –
    Thank You …..

    Repunzel

  124. “how can they possible forecast snow and cold 70 years in advance?”

    There’s no need to forecast snow and cold 70 years from now, there won’t be any according the Jim Hansen.

  125. Wakefield Tolbert

    ‘Consensus’ is meaningless in science. In 1899 the consensus was that all science was known, and there were just a few details to fill in, then Einstein proved them wrong! In fact in science in general there is often a consensus in any subject, but this can be upset at any time.

    Public consensus is even more meaningless : whether any scientific theory is true or not is not a matter of opinion.

    The number of climate scientists who agree with AGW is also meaningless if expressing any other opinion could mean the loss of funds or your job. It is a bit like joining the communist party in the old Russia and devoutly toeing the party line – it helps your career.

    Also science needs falsifiable predictions. In 2000 AGW predicted global warming would continue, the ice caps would melt, and snow in the UK would become a thing of the past. Unfortunately global temperatures peaked in 1998, went sideways and are now falling, and the consensus suggests they will keep falling for the next 20 years. The antarctic ice shelves reached record size in 2007, ice is accumulating in Antarctica and Greenland, and the sea ice in the Arctic is increasing [since 2007], and snow in the UK has not disappeared! [Also, if you check with the people who have studied polar bear populations over decades they will tell you they are fine, even thriving.]

    Propaganda is not truth, but may be accepted as truth if the public has no way to find out anything different, or simply can’t be bothered. With the web it means that sites like this can try and educate people, if their mind is open.

    If ‘Wakefield’ is your location and you live in the UK then you should already know ‘It’s the Sun wot did it!’

  126. Perhaps the advice, “don’t try to reason with trolls” is sound. Folks like (not his real name) Wakefield Tolbert may be stone-brained to the point of no returning to reason.

    One of the core beliefs of the AGW crowd is that effects precede causes. How can this be? Let’s take it in simple steps so the trolls can follow along.

    (1) The ice core data shows that when temperatures rise, a little while later, CO2 levels rise. Even most stalwart of the AGWs admit that the data–the sets they can’t get their hands on to manipulate–says what the data says. The Greenland ice core records go back pretty far, and the Antarctic data goes back even further.

    (2) The high-priests of AGW state as fact that rising CO2 causes warming.

    (3) But wait, that means that the ice core data shows the AGW claimed effect of increasing CO2–rising temperatures–occurs before the CO2 levels increase. The historically accepted sequence of first a cause and then the effect is now obsolete. Climate Scientology asserts–without proof–that their claimed effect precedes their claimed cause, and none are allowed to dispute it.

    Pardon me, but despite a complete lack of funding of my inquiry by any source–including big oil–I’m skeptical as to the veracity of the AGW claims. Further, the negative-correlation of CO2 and temperature change in the ice core sample data leads me to question both the competence and sanity of the AGW celebrities that keep claiming these absurdities.

    While I’m stating why I’m skeptical, let me point out a few more items. Leaving the sun’s energy cycles out of climate models is absurd. Early Climate Scientology models didn’t include oceans, which are most of the surface of the earth. Yes, there are greenhouse gases, but CO2 is only a trace gas when compared to the GHG water vapor, which is a giant contributor to atmospheric phenomena. Why are clouds and their formation so heavily discounted by Climate Scientologists? Also, greenhouses work as a sealed container, which the earth is not. Our atmosphere is open to space, and half of the surface is dark while the other half is in sunlight. Given the earth’s rotation and the jet-stream, it is hardly a simple greenhouse sitting in the sun. I’ve never seen a greenhouse with a deep ocean in it. If we are going to model climate, then we had better include all the important pieces and not over simplify like claiming the earth functions the same as Farmer McGregor’s greenhouse, when there is a whole lot more involved.

    I’m not a Climate Scientologist, but I am an expert practitioner of Modeling and Simulation, having performed that role in several industries, including bio-sciences, but most recently in aerospace. I’ve chaired M&S sessions at international conferences of the IEEE.org, and referee papers for peer-reviewed publication.

    As a Subject Matter Expert (SME) of Modeling, Simulation and Analysis (MS&A), I’m appalled at the failure of Phil Jones, Michael Mann, et cetera, to follow the scientific method and the tenets of MS&A that are used in all sciences–Cosmology, Astrophysics, Electromagnetics, Genetics, Chemistry, Meteorology, et cetera–everyone except Hadley CRU, Penn State and the other Climate Scientologists that they lead. Given the low quality of these professor’s products, I’m surprised that UEA is accredited in science. Even Economists, Sociologists, and Psychologists have better quality standards for their modeling efforts than Climate Scientologists. They publish their models, source code and data as a requirement for publication. We can’t get UEA or Penn State to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests. The UEA graduates who work at the UKMO creating the weather forecasts are almost as competent at predicting the weather as beauty school drop-outs.

    Science and religion differ in many ways, but a key difference is that religion requires accepting things on faith, without tangible proof, called “data” by us scientists. Proving that CO2 causes global warming will require disproving the results of NASA’s Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) program. Without proof that rising CO2 raises global temperatures, AGW must be treated as a religion.

    It seems to me that trolls will believe in their troll religion, regardless on the facts and science that may confront them. When their belief system is challenged by inconvenient truths, they will either try to change the subject or begin to shout their beloved beliefs in even louder voices. If that fails, they will attack the character of the challenger and try to ruin her/his life.

    We independent scientists–lacking funding and sponsors in our defense of science and the scientific method against the AGW crowd–must persevere. We are joined by our funded colleagues at universities and government agencies that have not become trollish. We must insist on the Separation of Church and State, in this case, the religion of AGW. We are in a battle for the integrity of science and our independence from the superstitious ways that were common to humans for most of our existence.

    I remain in the fight,
    Newt Love (my real name) newtlove.com
    Aerospace Technical Fellow: Modeling, Simulation & Analysis

  127. Ref – Newt Love (02:24:15) :
    “We are in a battle for the integrity of science..”
    ________________
    Not sure you’ll get very far if you take on and attempt to change human nature, but it you keep your own guild clean you’ll be the envy of Science professionals everywhere (and hated forever by the “scientists” –the lice of Science.)

  128. Ref – Pascvaks (09:16:51) :
    Not sure you’ll get very far if you take on and attempt to change human nature, but it you keep your own guild clean you’ll be the envy of Science professionals everywhere (and hated forever by the “scientists” –the lice of Science.)
    ________________
    I should explain. I’ve taken on the use of lower case “s” and placed the word in quotes to refer to the politician-scientist; the lice of Science. I really should come up with something different to describe the Mann-kind of “scientist”. Upper case, no quotes Scientists are the old-fashioned kind.

  129. Wakefield Tolbert (20:32:24) :

    …primarily ideological pundits and engineers funded by the AEI and oil barons.

    Ah Wakefield, I assume you refer to these people – certainly seem to be from the list of their funders:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080627194858/http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    “Acknowledgements
    This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):

    British Council, British Petroleum, Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF). ”

    This is of course the list of funders of CRU at East Anglia. Now there’s a surprise …

  130. In related news: The Met Office has announce a new grant for the latest advance in weathercasting. All their computer centers will now be upgraded with windows. These will not be sash hung, but rather the newer “super picture windows”. There will be daily security checks to assure that no blinds have been installed and that the daily cleaning has been performed.

    It is expected that this multi million pound upgrade will result in a dramatic improvement in weather forecasting. Especially the short term forcasts.

    That is all…

  131. DirkH (10:24:37) :

    Yes Dirk, it’s all about the pretty colors.

    That’s all they do over at RealClimate when wasting time filing down their fingernails when not feeling the sting of the whip from their UN/Marxian/Copenhagian/New World Order/Sorosian overlords.

  132. Wakefield, it would be one thing if the theorists on global warming were working out the details of the curious cyclical ice ages the planet has experienced sixteen times over the past two million years. It would be an interesting discussion, and they could argue amongst themselves to their hearts content, just as Stephen Hawking and his fellow theroists argue about unifying theories, string theory and multiple dimensions.

    But these fellows have brought their idea into the political sphere which impacts you and me, and the idea they brought in was a whopper: “The activities we have undertaken to improve our lives will result in the end of the world”

    The onus is on the alarmists to make the case, and make it fairly and without deception. In science, a part of that is to allow your work to be examined, and others must be allowed opportunity to reproduce it. Even if you were to reject the outright dismissal of CO2 as a primary force agent for climate change, what we have in the Hadley CRU files is enough to seriously doubt the assertion that the science is settled and the discussion over.

    Politicians say things like that.
    Scientists do not.

  133. Like the Orcs sang:

    “Where there’s whip, there’s a way!”
    Where there’s a whip, there’s a way!

    We don’t wanna go to war to-day, but the Lord of the Lash says NAY NAY NAY!”

    The Eye of Soros is ever moving, and his spirit pierces earth, stone, sky, fire, water, air….and….flesh….

  134. To put it in context, it reminded me of a debate among theologians about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    It DID, Bruce?

    Funny that. Because that’s a myth. Never happened. No such debate ever took place so far as we can track down actual records of such. Unless perhaps this is how it appears to athiest onlookers regarding the Council of Nicea?

  135. Nick, I certainly agree that the politicized dimension here is risky for us.

    No one should see anywhere in my comments an advocacy of using the stern hand of government in “remaking” things to suit some group’s ideological goals. There IS such a thing as an “ecosophy”, but even the sympathetic voices of the writers of say Rational Readings On Environmental Concerns (ed. Jay Lehr) know that carbon dioxide is making for at least a slightly warmer world, and that we can’t be Pollyannish about the consequences. We have merely (at this point) to find ways to head this train off at the pass, if need be.

    The issue at this point is not warming, but whether it will be a better world for it, and if not, how we can beat the radical Left to the punch and find non-carboniferous sources of energy and leave the windmills and chicken manure and biofuel flops aside.

    Say hello to April for me. She IS a goddess in flesh, Nick.

  136. If a boy is bouncing in the surf, it is true he will be generating waves. But has he disturbed the ocean and caused the surf to rise, or did the rise of the itself intice him to come down to play in the ocean?

    Suppose I allow that CO2 is a weak forcing agent whose presence in our atmosphere will tend to raise the global temperature. It is quite possible that the actual force a given CO2 level applies will be inconsequesntial. If tht is so, why would you dismantle the Western economies and begin a wealth transfer program? To justify the political actions that the alarmists have prescribed, you would have to make the case (not just theorize) that the slight increase in temp would make the planet less habitable, that the wealth transfer effort would actually reduce the effect and that the resulting change would be significant enough to make a difference in the outcome.

    Thus even if I grant you your contention (which I do not), you are still left with nothing useful that could be done. Put another way, suppose I told you you had to increase the global climate by 1.0 degrees centigrade. How many cars would you have to run to get the job done?

  137. I’ll relax about the name-caper that Newt (bless his soul) could not figure out. Hippydom names like Newt and Junestar and Dweezel do rarely mesh well with Old English.

    THAT IS an OK language to reference, no?

    In any case:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34944026/ns/us_news-environment/

    Heavier snowfalls, as the above article details in addition to hot summers, indicates that more vapor is in the air. You don’t have to have record cold for it to snow. IN fact, it snows already more in Altanta than Antarctica.

    As to this utter myth of cooler temps or a flatlined decades, that is now utterly destroyed.

    You’re busted.

  138. “Wakefield Tolbert (Yeah–Real Name) (12:04:39) :
    […]
    As to this utter myth of cooler temps or a flatlined decades, that is now utterly destroyed.

    You’re busted.”

    Hi WT. What about the UAH satellite data?

    I destroyed your argument. That feels good, and it was so simple.

  139. @ Wakefield Tolbert (Yeah–Real Name) :: January 15, 2010 at 6:06 pm
    > I’ll relax about the name-caper that Newt (bless his soul)
    > could not figure out. Hippydom names like Newt and
    > Junestar and Dweezel do rarely mesh well with Old English.

    Dude, you crack me up!
    My name is not “hippy.” I’m named Newton Love after my father, and my great-grandfather, and his grand-uncle, Newton Jasper Love. The Love name is Scottish, which was changed after Culloden, from McKinnon, which were the personal fighting force for The Bonny Prince Charles of Stuart, who almost sacked London in the Maccabean rebellion. If it wouldn’t have been for the british king bribing the lowland Campbells to let the hired mercenaries run an end-around to break the Highlander ranks from the rear–what is it about brits and their affection for spanking rears–you would be speaking Gaelic today.
    Besides my Scottish roots, I’m Lakota–you would call us sioux indians–like Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse. I’m also a former active duty US Marine. Are you sure you want to call me “hippy,” even in the comments of a blog?

    I assumed your name wasn’t real because of
    > Anticlimactic (22:28:28) :
    >> Wakefield Tolbert
    >(snip)
    > If ‘Wakefield’ is your location and you live in the UK …

    I apologize for missing the post:
    > Roger (08:03:03) :
    > If you take the trouble to research Wakefield Tolbert
    > you will find that despite indications to the contrary
    > he is a real person with his own peculiar blog …

    If you will forgive my faux passe, I will be happy to forget the matter and re-tune to the Global Warming / Climate Change / Glimategate channel about the continuing saga of “Climate Scientologists Change The World!”

    Newt Love, (Newton Jasper Love: newtlove.com)
    Aerospace Technical Fellow: Modeling Simulation & Analysis
    From my web site:
    Newton Jasper Love: Artist, Author, Scientist, Composer, The most famous person nobody has heard of.

  140. Maybe we did get off to the wrong and too presumptive of a foot.

    And Newton certainly is not the same as what I’d have thought.

    –W

Comments are closed.