“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
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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
“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.
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!’
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
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.)
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.
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 …
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…
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.
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.
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….
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?
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.
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?
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.
“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.
What about the UAH, chief?
http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/15/paging-neil-cavuto-uah-global-satellite-data-has-record-warmest-day-for-january/
Yeah–obliterated. Or on the other hand….
But not so “simple.”
More like, only simple if twisted.
Hey, that’d make the name of a really cool rock group to be a denialist message!
TWISTED SIMPLE!
@ur momisugly 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.
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