After the revelation: The Met office and the BBC- caught cold that the Met office had issued a forecast to the UK Cabinet office, and that forecast didn’t contain much of anything useful, the least of which was any solid prediction of a harsh winter, I offered BBC’s environmental reporter Roger Harrabin a chance to respond, to tell his side of the story. At first I didn’t think he would, because his initial response was kind and courteous, but not encouraging. I was surprised today to find this essay in my Inbox, which is repeated verbatim below, with the only editing being to fix some HTML formatting in the links he provides at the end. In his essay, he’s proposing a “weather test” of the Met Office, and Piers Corbyn has agreed to be tested as well. – Anthony
===============================================================
From Roger Harrabin BBC Environment Analyst
The latest who-said-what-when saga over the Met Office winter forecast has created a stir of interest and understandable concern.
I offer some thoughts of my own on the matter in my BBC Online column. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12325695
But the row only serves to emphasize the need for better information on the performance of weather forecasters over the long term.
That’s why I am attempting with the help of the Royal Met Soc, the Royal Stats Soc and the Royal Astro Soc to devise a Weather Test in which forecasters enter their forecasts to a central data point, so they can be judged against each other over a period of time.
We’d like to compile records of daily, weekly, monthly and seasonal forecasts. The UK independent Piers Corbyn is the only person to have volunteered so far to be tested in all these categories, though we will be in discussions with others to persuade them to take part.
We, the public, need to know which forecasters and which forecasting methods we should trust for different types of forecasting.
We are progressing with a protocol which will ensure that all participants submit data in the same form. Hopefully we’ll be able to launch the project fairly soon, although it is proving time-consuming.
Before we settle the final protocol we’ll publish it on the web to gather comments from citizen scientists. When it is finally agreed by the steering group it’ll be handed to Leeds University to run the project, with no further involvement in the data from the steering committee members.
In the meantime I’m hoping to avoid further controversies like the Met Office winter forecasts. I have been accused in the blogosphere of having so many different motives that I can’t keep track of them all.
My real motive is to try to do a decent job telling people about things that are important and they probably didn’t already know. For instance I first led media coverage about the value of the Met Office seasonal forecast a number of years ago. (My other motive – for those of you who keep emailing me at weekends – is to have a life with my wife, kids and friends.)
I do need to scotch one particularly bizarre bit of blogbabble, though. Some bloggers depict me as a puppet for the BBC’s pension fund trustees trying to boost their investments in green technology.
This is definitely going in my book – it is the most entertaining and baroque allegation I’ve ever faced. The truth is that BBC bosses issue very few diktats and most programme editors are stubbornly independent. I offered the recent Met Office stories from my own contacts and knowledge. No-one else asked me to do them. I don’t even know the pension fund trustees.
There are some very clever and inventive people out there in the blogosphere. Some are laudably engaged in a pursuit of facts about climate change and weather. Others might serve more use by trying to locate Elvis.
If you want to measure my journalism, you could take a look or listen to some of the articles or radio docs below. And make up your own mind.
Uncertain Climate docs 1 & 2:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tj525
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tmcz3
Copenhagen doc http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00w6pp4
Articles on Royal Society, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10178454
Met Office, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8462890.stm
Lord Oxburgh, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10507144
And Al Gore, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7040370.stm
Izen your remarks about oil are, like Mr Harrabin’s post, a complete red herring, as everyone now knows that, in spite of the misinformation spread around by the warmist bloggers, most of the oil companies’ disbursements in the climate area are on their side of the debate. Apart from some small sums to the Heartland Institute several years ago, everything else goes to the CRU, Carbon Trading lobbying bodies etc.
However I like your test for AGW, and the way you have expressed it. Of course none of us will know for sure what man’s impact on global temperatures has been, but your 8/10 cut off seems eminently reasonable as a rule of thumb for deciding which way one’s sentiments lean. It will be a tough hurdle, as with the current La Nina conditions 2011 is likely to be quite a cool year globally.
Let’s see.
In case you missed it above, (Hat Tip to “Sceptical Me” above) Mr Harrabin wrote, on the BBC “news” website, almost exactly one year ago (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8462890.stm):
“I have been discussing with the Royal Statistical Society, the Royal Meteorological Society and the Public Weather Service whether an index can be created comparing the records of all reputable forecasters making weather projections in the UK.
A weather index could allow the public to see over the years who is really getting it right over long-term weather”.
The organisations quoted have been so impressed with Mr Harrabin’s proposal a year ago that, one year on, we are in exactly the same place!
Of course we appreciate Mr Harrabin writing to WUWT – and he deserves our general respect and courtesy. However, Mr Harrabin has, in my humble opinion, on the subject of AGW and The Met Office, stopped being a journalist and has become part of the propaganda machine.
We cannot know whether this is because he truly belives the AGW theory or whether his bias is “manufactured” to confirm his credentials as a suitable person to hold his position within the BBC.
If it is the former, nothing we are going to say to him will lead him to question his position on the matter. If it is the latter, nothing we are going to say will lead him to change his position.
Evidentially and demonstrably, Mr Harrabin’s chose a stance of “defending” the Met Office using his position of trust as a BBC reporter. He reported to BBC licence payers in manner that suggested that the Met Office were being unfairly criticised, that they had warned (secretly) of the likelihood of a colder than average winter to come.
Evidentially and demonstrably, the Met office did no such thing! A forecast with odds of 4 in 10 – is worse odds than I can get on red or black in a casino. Subsequently defending the forecast on the basis that it was “less wrong” than the other two forecast scenarios of 3 in 10 is just plain silly!
I happen to believe that Mr Harrabin is a believer – and his actions and motives are based upon his true beliefs.
There is nothing wrong with this – unless you are a reporter for the BBC! If you are a reporter for the BBC, I would expect you to report on stories and facts – not for you to become part of the news story – and certainly not take sides.
However, as we know, the internal BBC policy is that the science is settled, that AGW is real and that anyone that disagrees with this view is a “denier” and should be dealt with as such.
As an aside, the recent BBC Horizon programme was absolutely shocking. The constant portrayal of sceptics in the context of hicksville rednecks, Nazis and loony Lords was, quite frankly a disgrace – and Mr Harrabin’s approach, should be seen in this context.
The organisation that commissioned and aired that programme is the same one that employs Mr Harrabin. Any discussion with Mr Harrabin concerning BBC bias with respect to AGW, The Met Office, etc. should take place after you have seen the Horizon programme – and YOU WILL REALISE YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME!
In summary, as Sceptic Me wrote above, NOTHING NEW HERE! MOVE ON!
With respect to Izen, Feb 1st 2010, 11.03
You say “I have posted before a possible criteria I would use to test AGW theory. I would be CONSIDERABLY more sceptical of AGW if there are less than 8 years in the next decade which are warmer than 1998/2010. Otherwise the present dominant human understanding of the nature of the climate stands. Can you provide any criteria that would cause you to be more sceptical of YOUR position?”
I say: Given a background of long term, gradual, natural, global warming wouldn’t one expect the most recent years to always be the “warmist”? Subject of course to annual, natural variations?
To demonstrate the silliness of your stance, take a look at the CET graph on the Met Office site (a record that I am happy to rely upon in that it represents where I live). The last decade was either the warmest, or second warmest, on the record. Of course this sounds “scary” – but a quick look at the graph will quickly show you, that at the time, the same could be said in around 1947, 1870 and 1835!
Are you suggesting that AGW was a contributary factor in each of these peaks?
With respect to your final question – I will become more sceptical of my current stance if the CET graph turns up again in the next year or two and increases at a similar rate to the period that started in around 1986 – for 20 years or so.
Pretty much anything other than that would be what one would expect within natural variation on a background of long term, gradual, global warming.
BTW, Do you see any disparity between the constant reporting of how AGW has affected the UK climate and, based upon the ten year trend line on the CET graph produced by the Met Office, the fact that our average annual temperatures are actually roughly the same now as they were in about 1945?
Yes I know the UK is not Europe and not the northern hemishere and not the globe. The point is, that the reporting of our climate in the UK evidences every weird weather event as evidence of AGW. We are told that spring arrives sooner every year. We are told it’s warmer, drier, wetter, etc than ever before – and yet its actually the same temperature now in the UK – as it was 65 years.
Its the difference between facts – and propoganda!
Mr Green Genes says:
February 2, 2011 at 3:08 am
“Er, no, it wasn’t. According to its own website (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/who) it is “a Trading Fund within the Ministry of Defence, operating on a commercial basis under set targets”. ”
Mea Culpa; yes I was completely wrong about that, it was John Major who finally got the profit motive into the previously ‘civic duty’ model of the Met office. Pretty sure that it was Mrs T who first broached the idea, and I see the present lot are flirting with the idea of selling it off completely.
Dave Walker says:
February 2, 2011 at 4:47 am
“I say: Given a background of long term, gradual, natural, global warming wouldn’t one expect the most recent years to always be the “warmist”? Subject of course to annual, natural variations?”
No.
This makes the ‘Natural variation’ error again. calling climate change ‘natural variation’ is purely descriptive, unlike AGW it provides no explanitory information and gives no causal narrative for the data or observations that are made of climate change.
The pattern over the last few million years is a slow COOLING until a very deep glacial trough is reached, this is followed (when the insolation at ~65N is greatest) by rapid warming. We are at present around ten thousand years after the last rapid warming and ‘should’ be in the slow cooling phase of about 0.1deg C per century.
But any such ‘Natural variation’ requires a physical cause, it doesn’t just happen on a chaotic whim.
@- David S says:
“Izen your remarks about oil are, like Mr Harrabin’s post, a complete red herring, as everyone now knows that, in spite of the misinformation spread around by the warmist bloggers, most of the oil companies’ disbursements in the climate area are on their side of the debate.”
Where, and in what the oil companies and other fossil fuel businesses invest their petty cash was not the issue. A poster was suggesting that the investment in ‘Green’ markets by pension funds may distort the actions of those workers who depend on those pension funds.
But the proportion of money invested by pension funds in the fossil fuel industry is FAR greater, almost 20% of all investments.
If a small investment in ‘Green’ causes might distort the actions of pension fund benificiaries, then the massively larger investment in CO2 producing industries must have a much larger influence.
THE RAMPLING VERSION: [October 2010]
http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?action=other;type=winter-forecast;sess=
Izen,
how many ice ages and inter-glacials have we had over your period of the last few million years of slow cooling? What useful information could a cooling trend measured over millions of years tell us about how the climate might evolve over the next 50 or 100 years? How do you know that we “should” be in a cooling phase of 0.1C per century? Why on earth do you think that natural and chaotic variation cannot produce warming over time-spans of a a few decades or even a couple of hundred years? Are you confident that all “natural variations” are included in current models? Which of those modelled natural variations was it that cancelled the CO2 warming that we should have seen in the last 10 – 15 years? Can you spell “hubris”?
izen says:
But any such ‘Natural variation’ requires a physical cause, it doesn’t just happen on a chaotic whim.
You’re misunderstanding the chaos theory. We should be able to understand all aspects of our physical universe and predict all outcomes.
Chaos is not a reality, it ‘s our perception of things we may not fully understand.
All systems observed tend toward chaos given the length of time observed and the complexity of it’s components.
.
He does not even know the trustees… How cute.
izen February 2, 2011 at 7:19 am
I am not following you Izen. Are you saying that there is no evidence, in the last 300 years or so, of gradual, natural, global warming? If so, I think you are on your own!
To help you out, I think, simply put, that the AGW case is that in an accepted background of long term warming, they cannot account for all of the warming, in more recent times, to natural causes and that therefore they argue a percentage is Man Made – i.e. AGW.
The natural variations that I referred to are the natural annual variations that do not evidence any trend – they are just the result of natural variation! For instance, its the reason why the UK temperatures were over 1 degree lower in 2010 – than 2009 (see CET Met Office graph)!
Its either natural variation – or evidence of catastrophic UK cooling that will see us freezing to death in 30 years! (for the avoidance of doubt – I am being sarcastic in that last sentence).
With thanks to S. Goddard:
US-NOOA seems even more incompetent than UK-MET:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/archives/long_lead/gifs/2010/201002temp.gif
Look at the figures for Dec-Jan-Feb-Mar
Izen’s cognitive dissonance blinds him to the facts. Natural variability fully explains the current warming cycle. Prof Richard Lindzen explains:
The curent climate and temperatures are well within the extremes of the Holocene. In fact, today’s temperatures are close to the Holocene average. Nothing unusual is occurring. It’s all just natural variability in action.
I’m an American and I don’t watch BBC America, so I’m coming into this relatively fresh and unbiased. In his letter above, Mr Harrabin says:
“If you want to measure my journalism, you could take a look or listen to some of the articles or radio docs below. And make up your own mind.”
Lord Oxburgh, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10507144 ”
I went this link and read the article by Mr Harrabin. It’s basically a report that the august body found no wrongdoing using the emails as evidence. I have personally read a hundred of the emails and I recommend everyone read them, instead of reading a reporter’s report on the official findings. A commented compendium of the emails is here:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
There is also a linked set of the entire pack of emails. First, I refuse to use the word “hacked” emails because the hacking is an allegation that has not been substantiated nor proven. It is more likely, in my opinion, that an insider leaked them.
My conclusion from reading Mr Harrabin’s article is that he has at best reported on the official inquiry findings, but has not actually read the emails themselves. Furthermore, anyone who believes that the criticism of the emails is taken out of context, has also not read them. There are many threads that flow through enough posts to get a clear context. It is obvious to anyone who read them that the writers are clearly subverting the peer review process, keeping dissenting opinions from getting published, and even colluding to get a magazine editor fired for not sufficiently toeing their insiders’ party line.
At best, Mr Harrabin is doing his job as a reporter of what other people claim. He is clearly not an investigative reporter who would question both the makeup of the official investigating bodies, nor does he read the original source material.
Working for an organization (BBC) that has financial investment in “green” technologies, should make it a conflict of interest to report on “green” issues. Because, as is amply discussed in this blog thread, the reporter’s motives come into question.
Please note that Harriban has not actually engaged in any “debate”.
Rather, he posted a (non) reply here (which is a good start) that changed the subject and didn’t answer the charges of bias and (deliberate) erros in his presentation and summary of CAGW, then refused to answer any of his critics’ comments or corrections.
Isn’t his position still: “I have won the debate because I declare that I have won the debate because I claim that I am stating facts and you are wrong because I claim you are wrong” ?
Izen,
“No.
This makes the ‘Natural variation’ error again. calling climate change ‘natural variation’ is purely descriptive, unlike AGW it provides no explanitory information and gives no causal narrative for the data or observations that are made of climate change.”
Have your arrived at this conclusion after hearing Trenberth’s plea to reverse the null hypothesis?
Peter Miller says:
February 1, 2011 at 2:10 pm
This just gave me an idea, because the BBC pension fund is weighted in green investments, maybe they are liable for manipulating the market with all their propaganda.
Maybe someone should investigate…
I like the acknowledgement to Piers Corbyn, that was very tasteful.
Not so sure about how this informs readers in the sense of the relevant questions raised over the last weeks. We get some description of ideas for testing predictions, but that’s not an insight on the questions about the state of reporting and information sharing between TMO, the Beeb and the Cabinet.
Following this Harrabin seems to slip dangerously…. I am open to correction, but the overall feel is that by invoking the ‘nuttiest’ accusation against him in the blogosphere (never heard that one before, myself) and dragging it in as some kind of example to do with the matters at hand, and concluding (the final third of his rather empty comment) with it….
Well, I can’t help but think a reporter and one who interprets nuances and job-speak just compared the relevant questions being raised on this blog, to just more nuttiness. Not that the language is certain, but really – he’s an expert in being concise and not leaving these things open to question. Reporters would call this ‘casting aspersions’ – and between public figures, it would be consider ‘a jab’.
It seems that either he’s not much of a reporter (unlikely) or he’s using his a strawman to be ‘cute’. I could only imagine a lack of clarity of communication from an expert in communication to be deliberate.
So, my prediction:
Likelyhood Harrabin meant to compare the real issues and questioners to nutcakes (a jab): 90%
Likelyhood Harrabin gaffed in his comparison honestly (a gaffe): 10%
Elvis, indeed!
While Mr. Harrabin almost ccertainly believes in AGW – otherwise the Biased Broadcasting Service would have sacked him long ago, I had a brief email correspondence with him last year and believe that he is an honest reporter.
AngusPangus says
“You will be well aware, I am sure, that a few years ago, the BBC was rightly criticised for making serious, unsubstantiated allegations against the Government of the day. The reporter in question was Andrew Gilligan, and he alleged, without any foundation, in a live one-to-one, that the Government inserted information that it knew was likely not true into the notorious “dodgy dossier” prior to the invasion of Iraq. ”
Actually it has now emerged that the Blair government was well aware that the “dodgy dossier” was dodgy. Those who followed the Hutton inquiry, as opposed to just reading the Hutton report, would have been well aware that Gilligan’s surmise was based on truth and that perhaps his only mistake was not realising that he could never expect his source(s) to confirm his allegations. Blair’s liar-in-chief was able to pick him off and also to force the resignation of the BBC Chairman and Chief Executive, both of whom were hitherto staunch Labour supporters and appointees.
Campbell himself was forced to retire when his lies were exposed by the Hutton Inquiry but has now been reinsated as one of the BBC’s favourite gurus.
Gilligan has gone on to make a successful career in investigative journalism.
I assume Roger Harrabin’s lack of reply is in some way tied to the likelyhood that any response he gives could lose him his job.
I refuse to believe he has not read the comments here, any reasonable person would invest the time to read the reaction to such an important and probably career changing discussion.
If he lied, his only options are to immediately acknowledge the fact and give some explanation, or try to hide it and hope it is not uncovered untill things cool off completely.
I believe he is opting for the latter. Even Bill Clinton when caught in a lie just spun out some psychobabble and tried to redefine the word “is”. Roger Harrabin, you aren’t even trying and the delay tactic won’t work. You have been caught red handed, what say you?
izen says:
February 2, 2011 at 7:19 am
No.
This makes the ‘Natural variation’ error again. calling climate change ‘natural variation’ is purely descriptive, unlike AGW it provides no explanitory information and gives no causal narrative for the data or observations that are made of climate change.
izen, I think you are the only one around here who is claiming that “natural variations” are not due to causes.
The real problem for the use of the AGW concept is that, to know if some condition is abnormal, it is absolutely critical that one must first know what is normal. Such that, if there’s no change in the climate-weather “variations” from pre-AGW to the alleged post-AGW onset conditions, then “AGW” itself itself provides no extra explanatory information, and none compared to any other word assemblege someone might want to superimpose as an equally non-refuteable, therefore meaningless and only apparent, “statement” claiming something alleged to relate to reality.
In other words, izen, you are the one who is trying to describe reality using a new and needless bunch of words, “AGW”, as a narrative for “climate”/”climate change” which, so far, has not been shown to have a different meaning compared to the same old “natural variation” climate.
Dave Walker says: February 2, 2011 at 9:12 am
The natural variations that I referred to are the natural annual variations that do not evidence any trend .
That is only true for normal/Guassian noise which is not the type of noise we are dealing with in climate science.
Unlike Guassian noise, 1/f will always have some kind of trend, because the sample you look at will always contain larger noise of a longer periodicity than the period of analysis.
Dear Anthony Watts,
Would it be appropriate at this point to draw the attention of Mr Harrabin to the copious comments below his posting that suggest he has misused your site to divert attention from the very serious allegations made by the sceptic community against him?
And tell him frankly but politely that your commenters are very upset that he has not even tried to explain how it came about that he (and by extension the BBC) was used (maybe without his/their consent) as a mouthpiece/messenger for the met office to dupe British public into falsely believing that the met office had correctly forecast a harsh winter and warned the British government to get prepared for the very cold weather that hit the UK between mid-November and until January?
Could you formally and openly request, that having put up a post on your blog that did nothing to answer the questions your readers had expected to be answered, that now he corrrect his post with another post that gives an account about the circumstances behind his misreporting of what the met office told the British Government?
I think AngusPangus has correctly identified the questions he really needs to address if he is to be regarded by your readers as being reputable.
If they hadn’t erected an ivory tower, there would be no need for a parapet to stick one’s head over. This is all of their own making. You see it as sniping, I see it as pragmatism.
Re:- MY complaint that ‘Natural variation’ is an explanation free, scientifically useless statement.
Vince Causey says:
February 2, 2011 at 10:15 am
“Have your arrived at this conclusion after hearing Trenberth’s plea to reverse the null hypothesis?”
Smokey says:
February 2, 2011 at 9:40 am
“The curent climate and temperatures are well within the extremes of the Holocene. In fact, today’s temperatures are close to the Holocene average. Nothing unusual is occurring. It’s all just natural variability in action.”
My position has nothing to do with what null hypothesis is chosen. Its based on the fundamentals of science.
Unless the phrase – ‘natural variation’ – is followed by ’caused by….’ then it is descriptive hand-waving with no explanatory power.
The variations in the Holocene, ESPECIALLY the changes in the energy balance that increases or decreases the heat content, have causes. If they are only described as variations then there is no falsifiable or testable scientific statement.
In politics its ‘follow the money’, in science it is usually follow the energy. Certainly in climate science how you get the accumulation or loss of petaJoules over a century requires an explanation, not just a two word description.