Internal Report Says U.N. Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices

Perhaps now the problems with disappearing weather stations and slow or non-existent updates of GHCN weather data can be explained. The U.N. appears to be ineffective at managing basic science data gathering. This reflects upon the quality of the data used in GISTEMP and HadCRUT – Anthony

http://www.globe.gov/fsl/eventsimages/WMO1.jpg

As more than 10,000 delegates and observers gather in Poznan, Poland, to discuss the next phase in the battle against “climate change,” a U.N. agency at the center of that hoopla badly needs to do some in-house weather-proofing.

The Poznan conference, seen as a major step toward a negotiated successor to the Kyoto Accord on greenhouse gases, is taking place until Dec. 12 under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a subsidiary of the World Meteorological Organization, a global association of scientific weather forecasters.

But the WMO, the $80 million U.N. front-line agency in the climate change struggle, and the source for much of the world’s information in the global atmosphere and water supply, has serious management problems of its own, despite its rapidly expanding global ambitions.

The international agency has been sharply criticized by a U.N. inspection unit in a confidential report obtained by FOX News, for, among other things, haphazard budget practices, deeply flawed organizational procedures, and no effective oversight by the 188 nations that formally make up its membership and dole out its funds.

Click here to see the Joint Inspection Unit report.

The inspection was carried out by a member of the United Nations Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), a small, independent branch of the U.N. that reports to the General Assembly and is mandated to improve the organization’s efficiency and coordination through its inspection process.

The investigations took place in late 2006 and extended through at least May 2007, and subsequently were presented to the WMO’s ruling bodies and its secretary general, Michel Jarraud, in December 2007. It was forwarded to the U.N. General Assembly only in November 2008.

The confidential document was a follow-up to an earlier examination in 2004, which also led to suggestions for greater internal controls of the WMO. (That inspection followed the discovery in 2003 of a multi-million-dollar embezzlement of WMO funds by an employee who subsequently disappeared.)

According to the more recent report, the WMO still has a lot of changing to do — starting with the agency’s far-flung regional offices, which the WMO touts as key units in the climate change struggle, especially in helping the world’s poorest people. But in the report, the regional offices are described as being of “questionable” value, and the organization’s plans to bolster its scientific programs in poor countries are said to be based on “ad hoc demands” rather than carefully examined needs.

Moreover, the report says, “there is no systematic, regular reporting by the offices in the regions to headquarters regarding their activities, achievements, performance or lessons learned.” The JIU inspector declared it “imperative” that the WMO get better reporting from its local offices.

Similar quality-control problems apparently infect the WMO’s Geneva head office, where, the report dryly notes, “a results-oriented culture is lacking among staff.” Among other things, the report notes that WMO “suffers from the lack of a set of internal procedures, guidelines and instructions regarding work processes, departmental responsibilities and workflow” — administrative lapses that were “particularly the case in the budget preparation process.”

Click here to see the Joint Inspection Unit report.

In a survey done by the JIU inspector, more than 58 percent of the WMO’s staff found the level of coordination and cooperation in their organization “inadequate.” (And elsewhere, the report notes, “it is a cause for concern that 30% of staff had seen conduct in recent months that they thought violated the WMO Code of Ethics.”)

While the WMO has unveiled a 2008-2011 strategic plan that envisages new levels of international coordination in “monitoring, assessing and forecasting weather, air quality, climate, oceanic conditions, the global water cycle, and hydro-meteorological hazards,” the inspection report declares that the U.N.’s own forecast on how to get to that level of achievement is disturbingly hazy. (Among other things, the WMO has declared its intention to “modernize” the meteorological infrastructure in at least 40 countries its four-year plan, “with a particular focus on developing countries.”)

As the document puts it, there is not “a sufficiently clear or measurable link” between the goals of the WMO plan and the way that the organization’s top bureaucrats propose to achieve them.

When it comes to spending, the WMO’s murky situation is even worse. According to the inspection report, the organization’s supreme legislative Congress, which meets every four years, does not approve formal budgets, only four-year maximum spending caps.

Budgets are instead approved by a 36-member WMO Executive Council — but only for two out of every four years of the organization’s financial cycle. For the first two years after the quadrennial legislative meeting, the Executive Council approves only “a short list of appropriations.” The ostensible reason: the council session comes too soon after the legislative Congress meeting for such detailed work to be done.

With other U.N. organizations, the report notes, a four-year gap between legislative Congress sessions has been discovered to be “an impediment to effective decision-making,” but the WMO apparently saw no immediate need to change its ways. The inspection report delicately suggests that the WMO’s members “should consider the issue in the future.”

But that appears to be only the beginning of WMO’s budgetary strangeness. Thereafter, the report declares, many WMO budgetary spending decisions covering up to 3 percent of the four-year total are approved, if at all, by the organization’s president — the elected head of the Congress — only after the actions have been taken.

That procedure is described by the report as “useless.” Moreover, the delayed approval procedure “gives cause for concern that there can be significant deviations from the approved program and budget without the knowledge or consent of the Executive Council.”

But even the full knowledge and consent of that council about some WMO activities doesn’t remove all of the inspector’s disquiet. The report notes that as part of its 2008-2011 strategic plan, the WMO and its various regional and technical subsidiaries intend to hold no fewer than 366 meetings of various sizes and scopes around the globe, or more than 80 per year. The JIU inspector, says the report, “has concerns related to the number of meetings and their productivity.” He suggested “as a matter of priority” that the WMO cut back on meetings, “releasing resources for programming.”

It is precisely for its programming — in global and regional climate prediction, natural disaster risk reduction, water resource monitoring and ostensibly definitive statements about the health of the earth’s atmosphere — that WMO is now claiming a central role for itself in the U.N.’s anti-“climate change” crusade, which is emerging as the world body’s most far-reaching attempt at international regulation.

Through programs like its Global Atmosphere Watch, World Hydrological cycle Observing system, Climate Variability and Predictability Project, and its WMO Space Program (using European Union weather satellites), and a welter of new partnerships around the world, the organization has positioned itself as the central monitor of climate change, and the source of most hard climatic information about its hazards.

In its latest ambitious plans, the organization wants to push further into micro-climate observation and prediction, with more immediate implications for agriculture, disaster-warning services, and public health campaigns against scourges such as malaria — and for global public and private profit.

WMO did not respond to a series of questions from FOX News regarding its future programs, sent on the eve of the Poznan meeting.

Most of WMO’s scientific work is carried out by scientifically dominant national organizations, like the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which join together as WMO’s 188 members. (As the JIU report notes, however, the member associations sit in the legislative Congress as representatives of WMO, rather than of their home nations, a situation the report describes as “not in line with the practice of most United Nations specialized agencies,” and suggests “should be changed accordingly.”)

But WMO also sees its mission as “capacity building,” or adding expertise and technology to less developed nations, with the aim of developing full-scale WMO Regional Climate Centers that will offer highly specific predictions and push the broader U.N. agenda of greenhouse gas control and other “sustainability” measures, including more precise information for the world’s poorest farmers.

As the WMO opaquely puts it in one of its many public relations brochures, as nations in the wake of the Kyoto Accord “increasingly embrace the need to develop effective adaptation policies, the importance of high quality, long-term climate observations, at all scales, for adaptation needs has become obvious.”

Less obvious is the fact that WMO programming is also being used to create the elements of a number of potentially huge and lucrative climate-based financial service industries.

In one hefty promotional document, WMO extols the possibility of new weather insurance products, based on finely-tuned WMO data, that could ease financial credit for developing world farmers and also expand the world weather reinsurance market. Pilot projects for such schemes have been established, the brochure says, in Thailand, Nicaragua and Vietnam, among other locales.

The same document extols “tailored climate information” that can “help enhance exploitation of sustainable natural sources such as wind and solar energy, biomass and hydraulic energy.” It also hails the “development of new financial instruments for hedging weather risk, as well as advances in forecasting (so-called climate derivative products)” which will benefit energy producers and consumers. “It is most important to generate and sustain an effective partnership between the energy sector and the meteorological community,” the document asserts.

Such world-shaping plans are the essence of WMO’s soaring ambitions — and the subject of the vast and sprawling conference at Poznan, which is preparing the way for a new environmental accord that is expected to emerge from a meeting next year in Copenhagen.

The question raised by the JIU report on WMO’s inadequacies is whether, in reality, the WMO’s administrative expertise is really up to the job it seeks to do — or may itself be based on atmospherics.

George Russell is executive editor of FOX News.

Advertisements

42 thoughts on “Internal Report Says U.N. Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices

  1. Well, I would consider the “missing stations” and slow GHCN updates to be a US problem, not a UN problem. Aren’t those things done by NOAA, a US government agency?
    REPLY: Yes NOAA collates the data, but the WMO manages the stations, and if the stations aren’t reporting…then the data collation is incomplete. – Anthony

  2. News Navigator: Why all the skepticism over global warming?
    The Mainichi answers common questions readers may have on skepticism over global warming.
    http://mdn.mainichi.jp/perspectives/news/20081203p2a00m0na013000c.html
    The bottom-line is: Debates held in Poland from Monday are based on an IPCC report, which outlines several potential scenarios derived from the work of 4,000 or so scientists from around the world and all the available scientific data. Global warming skeptics are yet to carry out any research on this kind of scale.
    I’ll “see” their 4,000 “scientists (and politicians)” from around the world and “raise” them with 31,000 plus American scientists.
    The alarmists are becoming the deniers.

  3. Management problems in the U.N.?!? Blasphemy! It can’t happen.
    Considering how well they ran the Oil for Food program.
    The author of this report should stand trial.
    (sigh…)

  4. “WMO manages the stations, and if the stations aren’t reporting…then the data collation is incomplete. – Anthony”
    Maybe we are each thinking if separate problems. My understanding is that the stations ARE reporting data but for some reason NOAA has stopped including that data in the record for some unknown reason. That was addressed (again) in a recent thread on Steve McIntyre’s site, I believe, where he mentioned stations whose data have “disappeared” from GHCN even though the station data is still directly available.
    In other words, one can download the daily data reported from the “missing” stations but for some reason they are not included in the monthly runs by NOAA. Wellington, NZ was a recent example but not the most recent examples that SteveM came up with. The data for Wellington have continued without interruption but for some reason NOAA stopped including them at some point in the past.
    I don’t believe he has ever received an answer as to why that might be.

  5. The UN is corrupt to its core. It is part of an international cabal that created the IPCC to provide justification for AGW. In turn, AGW remediation is designed to gain control of global energy production and distribution. Their objective is for the UN to acquire sovereignty over all of its member nations on behalf of the cabal.
    With the WMO in charge of gathering weather data, it follows that this data will be manipulated to support the IPCC AGW hypothesis. That is how corrupt organizations operate. Anything goes that will advance their agenda. No surprises here.

  6. “…the WMO, the $80 million U.N. front-line agency…”
    Not to fault the volunteers, but the size of this budget would seem to be adequate to get the whole mess with Stevenson Boxes straightened out. Can’t they fund professional installers and monitors – people who could situate screens facing north and avoid site biases?

  7. Ed Scott (08:21:40) : Global warming skeptics are yet to carry out any research on this kind of scale.
    Maybe because the funding isn’t going to scientists that opose this ridiculous myth?

  8. Less obvious is the fact that WMO programming is also being used to create the elements of a number of potentially huge and lucrative climate-based financial service industries… (for) tailored climate information” that can “help enhance exploitation of sustainable natural sources such as wind and solar energy, biomass and hydraulic energy.”
    It also hails the “development of new financial instruments for hedging weather risk, as well as advances in forecasting (so-called climate derivative products)” which will benefit energy producers and consumers

    Oh, boy! So, how do we get in on the ground floor of this?
    Does this mean for a fee we can get private, “tailored” weather reports telling us when to plant? whether to insure our grain crop this year? whether to carry an umbrella?
    This business of derivatives sounds distinctly like the kind of stuff that led to the present financial crisis. With a recession nearly every decade, I suppose planners need to start seeding the ground for the next.
    During hurricane season, CA readership discussed the efficacy of “specially-tooled” private – sector storm reports. If I were an investor in grain commodities, the cumbersome bureaucracy portrayed above would be the last agency I’d trust for predictive data.
    Is there competition in the field?

  9. Well well well!!!
    Not surprised.
    Recently I started looking for UK met stations.
    I came across NOAA Internet Weather Station web site.
    http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/GB_cc.html
    You cannot get better than that. NOAA!!!! DOT GOV!!!!
    Select a location ….. say Glasgow Airport.
    Put the lat/long into Google Earth — (EGPF) 55-52N 004-26W
    i.e. 55.52, -4.26
    Can you see an airport?
    No Glasgow Airport is miles away. Look north in Google Earth.
    Glasgow airport is at 55.868696°, -4.435588°!!
    The lazy sods at NOAA could not be bothered even to use Google Earth to get a location.
    Same with ….. well everywhere.
    NOAA have published total codswallop.
    They must know it is completely wrong.
    Why go to the bother to enter “(EGPF) 55-52N 004-26W” into a web page knowing it is nowhere near the location.
    Does NOAA have know interest in accuracy?
    I cannot trust there published data.

  10. Well, well, well. I see evidence of climate cooling right in the midst of WMO. They have done a “snow job” in response to critical reviews. Anyone who has taken a Business 101 class as a freshman understand the supreme importance of advertising. You can sell pet rocks with dollars spent on advertising. To hell with the product. Make it cheap. Spend your dollars on brochures. And don’t forget to use the advertisers’ Handbook of Snow Job Jargon Terminology.

  11. Apart from the JIU sounds like virtually no one at the WMO/UN knows how to actually do a job. This does not bode well for the JIU.

  12. Retired Engineer, the Oil For Food program was run VERY effectively!
    Under its guidance, almost a dozen palaces were constructed throughout Iraq, leading to the relocation of hundreds of peasants. I don’t know why they continued to remain peasants, in a country as wealthy as Iraq they should have been able to afford their own wood-chippers.
    Thousands of people around the world were enriched by the OfF program, which was extremely effective at causing people of influence to turn a blind eye to what was going on inside Saddam’s Iraq. Hey, some of those people even VOTED AGAINST the liberation of Iraq. How can anyone argue that was not effective?
    The WMO has already demonstrated similar levels of effectiveness. Just ask 8 out of 10 people on the street (my personal estimate, not a scientific number) if we are destroying our planet with harmful CO2. Their “yes” answer affirms the WMO’s effectiveness.

  13. I’m not sure what has changed over the intervening years(40+) since I was a weather communications editor at 2nd Weather Wing in Wiesbaden, Germany. Back then we had some weather circuits limited to 50 words per minute (wpm) that had to circulate as much info as physically possible to a multitude of users. So-called high speed lines (100wpm), were only available for use between weather centers and distribution hubs. Weather from Russia and some other countries was gathered through intercept sites like Croughton, England where operators would copy down code to be retransmitted to the High Wycombe Weather Center and then distributed world wide. With these limitations we were still able to get the product to the users in a timely manner. Additionally, all this information was archived and available for use by researchers/scientists.
    At that time the U.N. (WMO) routinely published multi-language manuals with communications routing details and international agreements to weather codes and usage. Most of the weather observations were in some form of synoptic code although METAR and AIRWAYS were also in use. All these weather bulletins, in various forms, managed to get circulated around the world through radio transmissions and land-lines and worked fairly well in the era before computers.
    I can’t believed with the ultra high speed communications we now have, that the system has not improved greatly and that information for obscure and distant stations can’t be easily accessed or recovered. There are alpha-numeric identifiers for every weather station in the world. What’s (or Watts) the problem? What’s gone wrong?

  14. Anthony, I don’t believe that WMO “manages” weather reporting sites. Sites are instead “managed” by their parent country and (essentially) “encouraged” to adhere to WMO policies. Has WMO suddenly gained policing powers? How are their edicts enforced?
    The years I spent gathering weather reports from around the world, although admittedly several decades ago, highlighted the fact that WMO was “toothless” to enforce anything.
    As an example example, all reports from the USSR carried the time of observation as “Moscow Standard Time,” when all the other reports worldwide were reported in Zulu time as mandated by WMO.
    Many undocumented regional variations of Synoptic Code were tolerated.
    Dew points were reported strangely from at least one country I remember.
    And so on…

  15. “” Paul Shanahan (09:44:27) :
    Ed Scott (08:21:40) : Global warming skeptics are yet to carry out any research on this kind of scale.
    Maybe because the funding isn’t going to scientists that opose this ridiculous myth? “”
    Well why would we need to carry out any research; the data is already there for the asking, gathered at great US taxpayer expense (mostly).
    All that is required is for someone to interpret the data correctly.
    For example; if you do some experiments on jumping frogs; successively cutting off some legs, and then telling them to jump; you can record the data for the progressively shortening jumps. Now when you finally cut all four legs off the frogs, and tell them to jump; and they just sit there; why on earth would you immediately conclude that cutting all four legs off a frog, makes them stone deaf ?

  16. At a slight tangent maybe but another article that also draws attention to the largesse of AGW claims and by a professional statistician warning that the over use of models and the risks therein. Caution, he is a “warmer” but is concerned about how the Model outputs are used and misused.
    Lenny Smith, professor of statistics at the London School of Economics, said that scientists risk “blatantly overselling what we know. That could bring everything down and cost the world valuable time”.
    As the world gathers to decide a new way forward on climate change, he said the data produced by models used to project weather changes risks being over-interpreted by governments, organisations and individuals keen to make plans for a changing climate – with dangerous results.
    “They are certainly right on the basic story of global warming. Man-made climate change is real.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/3545673/Scientist-warns-against-overselling-climate-change.html

  17. What I find most stunning is that NASA GISS apparently assigns only a single employee 1/4 time committed to the quality of their ‘global temp’ output. On the other hand 10,000 people spend a weekend in Poland to show their faith. At even $500/head to show up for a few days thats $5M spent, vs maybe 25K spent by nasa! That’s the imbalance of resources I see. The whole crew feels much better to have the PR and self gratification to feel good than obtain quality data

  18. There was a story recently where the UN had substantially mis-reported the number of people in Africa with AIDS.
    If the UN can’t perform simple head counts and estimations, how accurate could their climate forecasts be given the extreme complexity of climate prediction?

  19. Matt,
    I reckon you have seriously underestimated the costs. Say $1000/head transport, $1000/head food and hotel, $4000+/head employment cost. Total = $6000 x 10,000 = $600M. Wow, that’s an awesome waste of resource.

  20. Mark,
    It saddens me, as a supporter of much that the UN is trying to achieve, that they and their agencies seem to regularly exaggerate the severity of any situation. It is no doubt done with the best of intentions so as to raise more money for the particular problem but must ultimately be counter productive. For example, they have consistently over stated the problems relating to numbers of landmines and regularly overstate humanitarian crises
    I believe this approach of exaggeration is probably endemic throughout the UN and there is no reason to thimk that that bias is also not present in the IPCC

  21. “Internal Report Says U.N. Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices”
    Oh c’MON folks!…
    Certainly you can see the problem here?…it’s obvious just from the headline, if you’ve been paying any attention at all to how this works.
    They need MONEY.
    Plain and simple.
    I know you folks are all wicked smaht and all…but once in awhile you miss the really EASY stuff.
    JimB (from Maine)

  22. Hmmmm…
    “development of new financial instruments for hedging weather risk, as well as advances in forecasting (so-called climate derivative products)”
    New climate derivative products.
    So climate is a product to be packaged, brought and sold in a global market – unfortunately not a real market if funded by taxation (ETS, Cap and Trade, Energy Levy, ect) – i.e there is no voluntary purchaser at the end of the line.
    In Australia we have actual experience of government staffers attempting to make money from financial deriviatives and the like. The state of Victoria used to have a state bank…
    Children should be separated from matches.

  23. i would like to suggest that Governments take the same position as doctors – “First do no harm”.
    We seem to be beset by governments wanting to help us! To do Good!
    I wish they would help someone else.

  24. Wow! I think I need to get a job with these folks. I can drink coffee and go to meetings all over the world with the best of them, no problem!! I can even establish one of their offices, say in my spare bedroom, and will only charge market rates… In fact, I’ll establish is now and bill them, they can approve it after the fact like the other stuff…

  25. What a load of mind numbing bureaucratesse, both the FOX story and the JIU report itself. Reading the mission statement of the WMO is revealing. It’s to facilitate and promote meteorological and related services, etc, etc, etc. Nothing about operating anything.
    http://www.wmo.int/pages/about/mission_en.html
    Also from the WMO web site:
    http://www.wmo.int/pages/about/index_en.html
    You can read how the WMO traces its roots back to the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), which was founded in 1873. In other words, it’s an international clearinghouse of weather data, as well as being charged with setting standards.
    As an example of one of the things they do, see:
    http://www.worldweather.org/
    It presents OFFICIAL weather observations, weather forecasts and climatological information for selected cities supplied by National Meteorological & Hydrological Services (NMHSs) worldwide. In other words, each country gathers the data and forwards their data to the WMO.
    I gets visions of scores of worker bees sitting at their desks, in endless rows of anonymous cubicles, moving stacks of very officious looking memos from the left side of their desk to the right.

  26. B Kerr,
    It’s because the coordinates for the Glasgow Airport were given where in DMS:
    55-52N 004-26W means N55 52′ 00″ W04 26′ 00″

  27. Novoburgo (10:53:22) :
    “I’m not sure what has changed over the intervening years(40+) since I was a weather communications editor at 2nd Weather Wing in Wiesbaden, Germany.”
    Congratulations! Weather editing was a tough job.
    By 1967 the process was automated. By the time I retired (Aug 71), the Automated Weather Network, centered at Carswell AFB, TX (AWN — ICAO call sign KAWN) with satellite sites in Fuchu, Japan and High Wycombe, UK.
    Carswell had 77 circuits, several via satellite, with the fastest being (near) state-of-the-art for its day at 4800 baud. Most of Asia, and a lot of the Soviet Union, plus some others areas were still intercepted — some by CW.
    One time we provided NWS (Suitland, MD) with Soviet data (when their line to Moscow was down) they got more Soviet data from us, and faster, than they normally got from Moscow. From what I understand, even Moscow was surprised at what NWS had.
    When we first automated the AWN (at Tinker AFB), we found that about 30% of the data was so non-standard — or damaged –that it had to be fixed by manual weather editors. As we progressed and wrote (a lot) more software, that number came down to about 5%, but not one bit of that was attributable to WMO.
    For my part, I could depend on info from ICAO publications, but WMO things were not very reliable, although when I talked to our WMO Rep in the late 80’s (while doing contract weather software!) I got good answers.
    Others may have different views, but as you probably know, world wide weather exchange was not as well controlled, nor as reliable, or fast, as most folks might think.

  28. The UK met office is a prime example of a scientific institution that has been perverted by the political narrative of AGW/MMCC, I urge readers to look at their website, they offer a whole section on ‘climate change’ and offer so called climate change FACTS such as “planetary teperatures continue to rise” and “man made CO2 causes global warming” to name but two examples.
    Is it the task of a international weather service to act as a one sided partisan propagandist for an unproven theory? The FACT is there are no proven facts about AGW/MMCC as yet are there? The whole AGW/MMCC case rests on theoretical extrapolations based on unreliable data and computer simulations that have yet to match actual observed reality.
    There is even a section on “climate myths” and the obvious question is, how does the met office decide what is a myth and what is a fact? I thought a fact was an observable and provable reality supported by firm uncontested evidence and a myth was an unproven and unverified story passed from person to person over time with no recorded evidence to support it.
    The met office has become confused about its role I think, it used to be a premier weather reporting service trusted worldwide and it looks as though it has been infiltrated by green extremists who are abusing its position of hard won trust to propagate its partisan and unscientific views and further its own political aims.
    If major organisations like the met office can misrepresent theory and opinion as proven scientific fact without challenge then what does that mean for the future of science?

  29. Congratulations! Weather editing was a tough job.
    By 1967 the process was automated. By the time I retired (Aug 71), the Automated Weather Network, centered at Carswell AFB, TX (AWN — ICAO call sign KAWN) with satellite sites in Fuchu, Japan and High Wycombe, UK.
    Rod,
    Thank you. As a young man I was up to the challange. I left the Wx Comm office in early 1967 for a “tough tour” at the Satellite Control Facility, Sunnyvale , CA so i missed the early stages of automation.
    I remember very well the bastardized versions of synoptic code. Seems everyone had to do their own thing. WMO manuals were full of code exceptions and as I remember, was the only source to help interpret each country’s preferences.
    Don’t know if you ever heard of the “Army Wx Loop.” It was one of those SSB 50wpm circuits that was never capable of filling the mission for which it was designated. 100% of the circuit time was accounted for so any outages (many) or interruptions (common) meant that scheduled traffic was lost… forever. Weather obs were given priority so forecast support data, AIREPS, RAWIN, etc. got preempted quite often.
    By the time I got back into the “real” weather field in 1973 the automation had
    given me a feeling of being spoiled. Progress – a great thing. Looks like we are trying to stop it in its tracks with the roadblocks to access timely climate summaries, etc. As Bugs Bunny might say: Watts up Doc?

  30. I once attended an American Society of Civil Engineers symposium on Water Resources. The keynote speaker was a gentleman from the UN. He quoted several alarming numbers concerning world water supply conditions. Being a bunch of dumb engineers one of us had the audacity to ask where the numbers came from. The straight faced answer was “we made them up.” The justification was that the numbers were picked so as to be high enough to attract attention.
    The issue is not that world water supply was not a problem, but that it would be nice to be working with real data.

  31. This must be the True Church of Global Warming. At last I know which direction to bow down to worship.

    The whole AGW/MMCC case rests on theoretical extrapolations based on unreliable data and computer simulations that have yet to match actual observed reality.
    There is even a section on “climate myths” and the obvious question is, how does the met office decide what is a myth and what is a fact? I thought a fact was an observable and provable reality supported by firm uncontested evidence and a myth was an unproven and unverified story passed from person to person over time with no recorded evidence to support it.

    This is heresy. If I see the Inspector of the Joint Unit Inspection (JUI) unit, I shall report you forthwith. Now where in the joint is that guy?

  32. Dave andrews wrote: “It saddens me, as a supporter of much that the UN is trying to achieve, that they and their agencies seem to regularly exaggerate the severity of any situation.”
    It’s called “advocacy research.” I read an article where the alarmist claims on half-a-dozen or so were compared to the actual facts (as well as they could be ascertained) a few years after the claims. the advocacy research overstated the situation by a factor of five.
    (Unfortunately I remember only a couple of the cases in point: the number of homeless and the percentage of spousal abuse.)

Comments are closed.