
Guest Post by Barry Woods
In The Telegraph (UK newspaper), it was reported that Roger Harrabin, an environment analyst at the BBC, told the Radio Times:
“The trouble is that we simply don’t know how much to trust the Met Office. How often does it get the weather right and wrong. And we don’t know how it compares with other, independent forecasters.” – The Telegraph
Boris Johnson – The Mayor of London, is arguably perhaps the most democratically personally elected politician in the UK. As over 1.1 million London voters voted for him directly for the elected office of Mayor. This is compared to a UK Member of Parliament, who might win their seat with as little as 20,000 votes. In many seats, if you wore the right party badge a ‘mascot’ might get elected. Whilst the public are voting for a person, it is the party they represent that is being voted for.
In my opinion, no other Conservative candidate could have won that election to become Mayor, at a time (May 2008) when the Labour Party were still very much in power in the UK. Boris Johnson won peoples votes despite him being a Conservative for many members of the public that voted for him.
Thus, for a high profile Conservative like Boris to write glowingly about (arch sceptic) Piers Corbyn and criticise the Met Office, is in my opinion very significant politically in the UK. Especially in light of the fact that Boris wrote this before the Met Office started denying they had predicted mild winters and before their ‘secret’ prediction statement.
Boris Johnson cares whether London (including Heathrow airport) and himself is made to look bad in the eyes of a world audience. I wonder what Boris thinks about the Met Office ‘secret’ prediction?
As Boris is in the position of power, knowing whether or not London and Heathrow received the ‘secret’ warning’.
As the UK government, Heathrow airport particularly, were woefully under-prepared AGAIN this winter, the big budget UK taxpayer-funded Met Office have finally moved from being a laughing-stock, into surely a public enquiry by that ‘secret’ statement. In the time of recession, big budget organisations like the Met Office have to be seen to be performing, not acting in the public’s eyes as a global warming campaigning lobby group.
This time politicians have been publicly embarrassed by the Met Office.
In the Sunday Telegraph today, Christopher Booker calls the Met Office to account:
” First it was a national joke. Then its professional failings became a national disaster. Now, the dishonesty of its attempts to fight off a barrage of criticism has become a real national scandal. I am talking yet again of that sad organisation the UK Met Office, as it now defends its bizarre record with claims as embarrassingly absurd as any which can ever have been made by highly-paid government officials.” – Christopher Booker
Anybody in the age of the internet can now check on anything a public body or advocate has said, the politicians and journalists are only slowly becoming aware of this in my opinion. The Global Warming Policy Foundation has also publicly written to the Transport Secretary calling for an enquiry. On the board of the GWPF there are respected senior UK politicians, on the GWPF Academic Advisory Panel there are very well respected scientists including:
Professor Robert Carter, Professor Freeman Dyson, Professor Richard Lindzen, Professor Philip Stott, Professor Ross Mckitrick, Professor Paul Reiter, Professor Ian Plimer & Professor Hal Lewis
This issue will be he heard and will be discussed privately in the corridors of power.
For one particular high profile politician like Boris Johnson to have moved publicly even as far as he goes in the following, demonstrates that the CAGW ‘political game has changed’ permanently in the UK.
Before the Copenhagen Conference (Cop 15) – Boris Johnson, the Conservative Mayor of London (formerly the Conservative Member of Parliament for Henley-on-Thames – my local town), wrote dismissively of the Climategate emails in the Telegraph;
“That is why the polls show such an amazingly obstinate public refusal to accept the reality of global warming. That is why there is still a market for thermoscepticism of all kinds. That is why people seize on a few stray emails from the University of East Anglia which seem – wrongly – to undermine the scientific case.” – Boris Johnson
At the time Boris was fully behind the Labour Prime Minister, who went off to Copenhagen, stating ’50 Days to Save the Planet’, and spoke about ‘Flat-earthers’, ‘anti-science climate sceptics’. The Minister of State for the Department of Energy And Climate Change, ED Milliband (now the Labour Party leader, in opposition) apparently thinking calling CAGW sceptics ‘saboteurs’ was appropriate at the time all UK political parties were convinced that environmental ‘climate change’ policies were a vote winner, a UK General Election was possibly weeks, at most a few weeks away.
This year, we have a new government in the UK after 13 years of AGW consensus, a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition, Boris is still mayor of London, and this week, he writes glowingly about Piers Corbyn (Weather Action) out predicting the Met Office. Piers is a total CAGW sceptic, behind the recent Climate Fools day – House of Commons meeting. For Boris Johnson to write publicly positively about Piers and criticizing the government-funded, Met Office, demonstrates how much things have changed. Boris Johnson, despite his slightly buffoonish comical genial image is nobody’s fool, serving prominently as a conservative politician for so long is evidence of that alone.
Telegraph: The man who repeatedly beats the Met Office at its own game, by Boris Johnson
“Piers Corbyn not only predicted the current weather, but he believes things are going to get much worse, says Boris Johnson.
“….It is no use my saying that London Underground and bus networks are performing relatively well – touch wood – when Heathrow, our major international airport, is still effectively closed two days after the last heavy snowfall; when substantial parts of our national rail network are still struggling; when there are abandoned cars to be seen on hard shoulders all over the country; and when yet more snow is expected today, especially in the north.”
“….So let me seize this brief gap in the aerial bombardment to pose a question that is bugging me. Why did the Met Office forecast a “mild winter”?
“…Piers Corbyn works in an undistinguished office in Borough High Street. He has no telescope or supercomputer. Armed only with a laptop, huge quantities of publicly available data and a first-class degree in astrophysics, he gets it right again and again.Back in November, when the Met Office was still doing its “mild winter” schtick, Corbyn said it would be the coldest for 100 years. Indeed, it was back in May that he first predicted a snowy December, and he put his own money on a white Christmas about a month before the Met Office made any such forecast. He said that the Met Office would be wrong about last year’s mythical “barbecue summer”, and he was vindicated. He was closer to the truth about last winter, too.”
Boris Johnson went on to say that man-made co2 is still a cause of global warming, according to an overwhelming majority of scientists, James Delingpole of the Telegraph summaries Boris’ current dilemma more eloquently than I in his blog.
“So what sounds like a fervent declaration of faith in the Warmist creed may on closer examination be a perfectly innocuous statement of the bleeding obvious cunningly calculated to appease all Boris’s rent-seeking chums in the City who stand to make a fortune from the Great Carbon Scam and would be most displeased if the Mayor of London were to show signs of wobbling.
Yet wobbling is, of course, exactly what Boris is doing. Or rather – remember, this is the man so ambitious he makes Alexander The Great look like Olive from On The Buses – he is slyly repositioning himself to take advantage of the inevitable collapse of public faith in the Great Anthropogenic Global Warming Ponzi Scheme.” – James Delingpole
If the politicians think trouble is ahead, they back the winners, not only has the Met Office predictions of mild winter been wrong three winters in the row, they have been SEEN to be wrong, there was plenty of mainstream press coverage before the harsh winters that other forecaster were predicting a severe winter. Following the last years mild winter prediction by the Met Office, there was even BBC coverage debating whether their very expensive super computer had a ‘warm bias’ which was wildly reported in the mainstream media in the UK.
BBC – A frozen Britain turns the heat up on the Met office – Paul Hudson
Could the model, seemingly with an inability to predict colder seasons, have developed a warm bias, after such a long period of milder than average years? Experts I have spoken to tell me that this certainly is possible with such computer models. And if this is the case, what are the implications for the Hadley centre’s predictions for future global temperatures? Could they be affected by such a warm bias? If global temperatures were to fall in years to come would the computer model be capable of forecasting this?
The Met Office (Hadley Centre) is an interconnected part of the UK Climate Science establishment. In the UK we have not just had a cold winter but the second coldest December on record, and the coldest winter on record. The UK CET record actually means something (not just a 30 year satellite record) the Central England Temperature (CET) dataset, goes back to the 1660′s. Again all this information, is now in the mainstream media with headlines including ‘mini ice age’ and ‘coldest winter in 300 years’ read by millions of members of the general public.
BBC – December 2010 Update – Second Coldest since 1659 – Paul Hudson
[For the uninitiated: (Mean cet data) = Central England Temperature dataset, more here]
There are two possibilities now.
1.) If the Met office are telling the truth.
Then the government failed to prepare or warn public bodies about what is now the SECOND coldest December in the UK since records began. London Heathrow was publicly embarrassed and closed for days as it could not handle a few inches of snow, it had only invested an additional £500,000 in de-icing equipment and the government apparently stepped into help ensure fresh supplies reached the airport. The lack of readiness for the snow will have had an effect on the UK economy. No doubt all this negative publicity shown by the media around the world, billions of pound in the economy and possibly risking future billions of foreign inwards investment, as London appears to be as organised as an undeveloped nation. I imagine some corporations, passengers, or airlines might want to sue.
There is even, also some suspicion that if this was the case, it was kept quiet because predictions of the coldest winter in the UK for decades would be a bit awkward for the Energy and Climate Change Secretary of State flying off to the man-made global warming, climate change, global climate disruption, future climate breakdown Cop 15 Cancun conference.
2.) If the Met Office are NOT telling the truth
If the Met Office are shall we say, spinning a line, to make out they are not useless at predicting the weather, then I imagine even the dimmest politician and non-questioning ‘investigative’ journalists might start asking what exactly is the Met Office for.
Bishop Hill and other blogs report that Freedom of Information request are being sent off for these ‘ so called ‘secret’ Met Office predictions made to the government.
After all it must be true, the BBC’s Roger Harrabin reported it?
I wonder if the BBC have thought to send any FOI requests in themselves, just to check the facts of this story. The BBC just renewed a 5 year contract with the Met Office to provide all the weather forecasting for the BBC. The BBC surely does not want to look as if it is being lax in its investigative journalism? If only to check that the service provided to the BBC by the Met Office is competent and can be trusted, as it is taxpayers money paying for this service.
“The trouble is that we simply don’t know how much to trust the Met Office.” – BBC Roger Harrabin, from the Telegraph
I’d like to wish a belated Happy New Year from RealClimategate.org to all readers of Watts Up With That.
Thanks again to Anthony Watts for indulging my thoughts from the UK
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yes, the Brits have been using the Queen’s English since 1953.
And for those of you who insist on being the grammar police – This is a blog for crying out loud!
Blogs are not written by Grammarians, with degrees in English Lit – they are written by ordinary folk on laptops and home computers, who only some times use use their spell checkers before posting.
Spleen vented, now’s the time for the on-topic portion of this reply.
It seems very odd indeed that at about the same time the Met Office was posting its warm three month “forecast” posting that it would give a “secret” briefing to the PM’s Office telling them the opposite.
If true, then they have a lot of explaining to do. And no matter what explanation is provided, nobody will believe.
I can’t see this situation being resolved with anything less than the resignation of the head of the Met Office and likely will go higher.
It never pays to embarrass your boss.
Missing the dead-hand of Harrabin again. Please wake up, here’s the latest ruse …
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12138243
Not all the spelling mistakes are fixed — it’s ‘saboteurs’. And yes, it does make a difference to the overall professionalism of the blog. We have to overcome the media’s attempt to display us as cranks and crackpots, and one way to help that is to make our presentations — and our comments — as impressive and accessible as we can.
REPLY: I noted that, but thought it was colloquial, such as the UK spelling of “organisations”. I’ve made the edit to ‘saboteurs’ to keep the pedantic whining down to a minimum. Thanks everybody for the suggestions, but we are moving on. – Anthony
Mr. Watts, as a celebrity scientist, surely you understand the difference between weather and climate. The distinction is so basic that even a layman like me can understand it. If so, why do you host guest contributors who clearly cannot tell the difference? I have to say, it undermines your credibility, but perhaps you have so much credibility you can afford to squander some. Thanks for taking the time from your extensive research to read this.
> Annabelle says:
> January 9, 2011 at 9:29 pm
> Thanks Boris Johnson for a new word: “thermoscepticism”.
> Can we now call warmists “thermists”?
I sincerely hope we don’t get a “Thermidorian Reaction”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermidorian_Reaction
Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive — Sir Walter Scott
The question that GB citizens need to ask of the Met and the Cabinet is, “What did you know, and when did you know it.” Hammer that question home every day. Make it clear that all trust is gone, and the proper thing to do now is unravel the lies. Stock up on popcorn and watch the bureaucrats squirm.
[snip we are done with comments about spelling errors, now fixed – move on to something else – Anthony]
It is data from the Central England Temperature record.
*sigh*
It’s one thing to complain about assorted typos, and he who is without syn may pour fourteen pounds and fill the first mold.
But when people complain that a certain post “sullies the reputation of the site…” If they got rid of all the posts that someone thinks does that, there wouldn’t be much left!
The BBC says Virgin Air has announced it will not pay its bill to BAA for use of airports over the last winter until an enquiry concerning the inability of the airports to cope with the snow is published probably in March.
Richard
Don’t forget the Metoff’s night job:
“We offer a variety of products and services to customers within the financial industry, to help you plan, prepare and function more efficiently. From making sound investment decisions to setting the right premiums for insurance products, an in-depth knowledge of the past, present and future weather can be essential across a range of financial services. As world leaders in weather and climate services, we provide cutting-edge solutions that give our customers a clear advantage. To find out more about our financial services contact our Customer Centre or email consulting@metoffice.gov.uk”
Here’s a public-funded organization that admits it is selling information that gives private customers (not the public) a “clear advantage.” If they told the general population the same information they’re giving private financial institutions, the info would be of no value in a trading market, would it? So the UK sheep get fleeced once to keep Madame Metoffsky’s sideshow in business, then get fleeced again when private companies speculate in climate-sensitive markets using insider information, and yet again when they freeze in their homes and cars and airports. How is this not an extraordinary conflict of interest?
“Richard S Courtney says:
January 9, 2011 at 11:35 pm”
But will it be a another whitewash?
The company running Heathrow Airport must surely have good legal grounds to sue.
As the author, I have to apologise, I was working on 2 articles and this article was not quite ready to be published, just an un-spellchecked, and needing some polishing, draft.
I had written and finished an article called – New Scientist – Those Cursed Climate emails -( a quote from there 1st edition of 2011 in the UK).
It is entirely probable that I marked the wrong article as pending review in WordPress by mistake, and Anthony assumed it was up to my finished standard (ie spell checked/grammar).
As I pointed out on another thread, with a delicious irony the mean average of the first year in the Central England temperature series-from 1659- and the last year in the record- 2010-both came in at a distinctly chilly 8.83C.
“When icicles hang by the wall
And Dick the shepherd blows his nail
And Tom bears logs into the hall,
And milk comes frozen home in pail,
When Blood is nipped and ways be foul,
Then nightly sings the staring owl,
Tu-who;
Tu-whit, tu-who: a merry note,
While greasy Joan doth keel the pot.
When all aloud the wind doth blow,
And coughing drowns the parson’s saw,
And birds sit brooding in the snow,
And Marian’s nose looks red and raw
When roasted crabs hiss in the bowl,
Then nightly sings the staring owl,
Tu-who;
Tu-whit, tu-who: a merry note,
While greasy Joan doth keel the pot.
William Shakespeare
REPLY: There were a few genuine typos, now fixed. but some of it is simply the Kings English. Mr. Woods is from Britain – Anthony
Therefore the spelling is correct and not a colonial aberration or
[How did you intend on finishing this thought? Robt]
Hi Barry
Good summary, I hadn’t really picked up on Boris’s transformation to a sceptic. And I hope that the mad Metoffice woman who appeared on Breakfast Time TV to tell us that the lowest temperatures in living memory and a very heavy (by London standards) snowfall were all further inevitable consequences of Global Warming will receive appropriate medical therapy.
But please get an experienced editor (i.e 100% mark 1 human eyeballs not just a spell checker) to look over your stuff beforehand. It will crisp it up and help the casual reader.
Because of a basic mistake** in the optical physics which came into climate science from Sagan via ex-students Lacis and Hansen at NASA/GISS in 1974, the main part of the ‘global dimming’ correction in AR4, ‘cloud albedo effect’ cooling is imaginary. Therefore, the IPCC’s prediction of high future CO2-AGW is baseless.
In 2003, after there had been no experimental verification of the ‘effect’, NASA published plausible but entirely false physics to explain how it is supposed to operate in thicker clouds. There’s an outside possibility this was appallingly bad science but it looks more likely to have been a scam to keep the correction in AR4.
So, it seems highly likely that AR4 was known to be seriously wrong when published and there needs to be a judicial enquiry to find out who was responsible for this.
** The ‘two-stream’ approximations wrongly assume constant ‘Mie asymmetry factor’ and just diffuse scattering when there is also significant direct backscattering at the upper cloud surface. The latter process is turned off by pollution so instead of pollution making thicker clouds cool the Earth, the reverse happens, another AGW: CO2-AGW loses its monopoly and could be net zero.
Annabelle says:
> January 9, 2011 at 9:29 pm
> Thanks Boris Johnson for a new word: “thermoscepticism”.
> Can we now call warmists “thermists”?
Perhaps “hyperthermists”? As in “hype”!
Piers Corbyn predicted a bitter January for the UK, one of the coldest on record. It’s not looking like that so far.
“…could the model, seemingly with an inability to predict colder seasons, have developed a warm bias, after such a long period of milder than average years? ……if global temperatures were to fall in years to come would the computer model be capable of forecasting this…?”
As far as I know, computers (even super ones) are jumbles of metals, ‘metaloids’, rare earths, plastics etc.
They have no a priori understanding, no sense organs, no instincts, independent knowledge or experience of the world outside what humans have built into their architecture or have programmed.
You can’t sue a computer.
Hi Barry
Nice article.
Far more worrying than a new word from Boris Johnson of ‘thermoscepticism’ is the notion of ‘thermo crimes’ (indicating they will be legislated for and punished). I noted it here in relation to another thread;
“This is a short extract from my article on the politics of climate change;
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/crossing-the-rubicon-an-advert-to-change-hearts-and-minds/#comments
It reads as follows;
“(Note: The terms used ‘significant behavioural change’ is similar to that used in the extract at link 2.)
Item 28. It can be seen that the highly alarmist viewpoint detailed here echoes the recent comments about ‘thermo dynamic crimes’*.
(Note: *The increasingly frenetic tone of the climate debate in the UK can be seen in this comment from David Mackay that was made public just before the first airing of the advert.)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6860181.ece
“Setting fire to chemicals like gas should be made a thermodynamic crime,” he said. “If people want heat they should be forced to get it from heat pumps. That would be a sensible piece of legislation.”
Who is David Mackay?
(from the same link above) “Speaking last week on his first day as chief scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, MacKay set out a vision of how Britain could generate the threefold increase in electricity it needs, with nuclear power at its heart. DECC is the govt dept that is the successor to Defra in climate change.”
Mackay has also been an expert witness in front of this EAC committee.
Those individuals and organisations who presented information for the report that we are examining in detail here are listed in this document:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmenvaud/105/10502.htm
All the minutes on the fourth report of the EAC are here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmenvaud.htm
ENDS
The British establishment-of which the Met Office and The Dept for Energy and Climate change are symptomatic-have been the world leaders in ‘fighting’ climate change for two decades. The UK unfortunately remains at the forefront of this dubious notion and many of the things we have done-such as legislating to bring down carbon emissions and imposing swingeing taxes on energy consumption- are but harbingers for the rest of the Western World.
Tonyb
Niklas Marshall-Blank says:
A publicly funded organisation that repeatedly fails in one of it’s main objectives, keeps information from the public who have funded it and still pays bonuses to it’s staff is a clear indication of something that’s gone horribly wrong and rotten.
Who will hold them accountable?
WUWT contributors, commenters and readers are doing a pretty good job.
Annabelle says:
January 9, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Are we now at a modern day thermopylae? Who are the Spartans and who are the Persians?
It is a damn poor mind indeed which can’t
think of at least two ways to spell any word.
-Andrew Jackson
It is a narrow minded person who thinks there is only one way to spell a word.
-Harry Oliver
Yarmy says:
January 10, 2011 at 12:35 am
And I for one hope he’s very wrong with that prediction!