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
Here in the united states, we already have such a system, an independent accuracy auditor of our weather forcasters
Do not re-invent the wheel. England has Bookmakers on every street. Use them.
Enlist them to catalog predictions specific enough to be the subject of a bet. Then let see which way the money lines up see which forecasters are the ones to side with.
“I do need to scotch one particularly bizarre bit of blog babble, though. Some bloggers depict me as a puppet for the BBC’s pension fund trustees trying to boost their investments in green technology.”
This of course would be handled at a level above Mr. Harrabin’s pay grade. If they have invested in “green” technologies, there would be a financial incentive to only hire and promote true AGW believers. Even this is too much to believe without strong evidence. What is does show is that the BBC managers are true believers. To actually risk the pension funds on such risky, uneconomical ventures can only be done by true believers. The hiring and promotion policies remain biased even if there is no direct manipulation for financial gain or even awareness of the financial benefits. I wonder what would happen to employees that dared to complain about risky pension investments. Imagine the horror at discovering there was a “denier” in the midst.
Ah! A prognosticator duel! Truly we live in the dark ages still if humans still think this is a worthwhile endeavor. Piers is showing a lot of cajones in trying this, but it is ultimately no different than…
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
Scientists should not be in the business of predicting the future.
John in NZ says:
February 1, 2011 at 9:48 am
Yes, as I also noted above. Very few that have posted in here have noticed the deflection. Deflection is used to avoid discussing a subject that is either embarrassing, or damaging in some way. The fact that there were lies is both embarrassing and damaging. The fact that Harribin was either used or complicit in said lies is also embarrassing and damaging.
Yet, as we can see from comments, the deflection has worked. “Yeah, a test! That’ll teach ’em!” Teach ’em what? How about a test to see whether they can continue to operate without lying to anybody, ever? I’d rather have an honest opinion, even if it is wrong, then what they are producing (you can insert any country’s equivalent office for “they.”)
Mark
Roger is an OK guy for showing up here. Bravo.
And, yes, this contest would be very interesting.
However, Roger does not address the original question: what information did he obtain that the Met had issued a winter warning back in October? There has been no evidence that the Met had issued such a report and some evidence (FOI) that it didn’t. What’s up with that?
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
Page last updated at 14:15 GMT, Saturday, 16 January 2010
Quote ‘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. ‘
Move along now, nothing new to see…………
Some bloggers depict me as a puppet for the BBC’s pension fund trustees trying to boost their investments in green technology.
Just so we’re quite clear about this, here’s the IIGCC’s web page listing the BBC pension trust as one of its members:
http://www.iigcc.org/about-us/members
The question that needs to be asked – and the question Mr Harrabin seems keen to try to smother with the rather tired blanket of ‘Elvis’ conspiracies – is:
Given that the BBC have placed their pension fund in the hands of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, what will happen to that fund – and the pensions of thousands – should AGW prove to be a gigantic mistake?
From a report this week on the BBC website you can see the constant bias that courses through Harrabins veins:
“Surveys show that many people don’t believe the truths of scientific orthodoxy anymore and prefer to seek their “facts” in the blogosphere where it’s easier to get insouciant endorsement of high-consumption western lifestyles.”
This is how he views anybody that does not agree with his mantra. And this we have to pay for in the UK by through tax to support a supposedly unbiased, impartial broadcaster – the BBC!
Roger, are you capable of putting your preconceptions to one side and writing in a neutral tone? No, thought not!
I’m surprised Roger didn’t put any effort into explaining why he wrote;
Did he merely get burned by someone at the Met Office that used him?
Has he learned to be careful about trusting employees of the Met Office?
Does he think this incident will cause other reporters to be less trusting of the Met Office lest they get egg on their face, too?
“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.” … as opposed to all the other jokers who do an indecent job telling people minutiae they already knew. Seriously?!
This prim-and-proper verbiage makes me suspicious (of all Albions who use it). I would like to see external verifiability of the submissions and predictions for specific places that are externally verifiable, such as London, with immediate reporting of raw data for that place & no ad-hoc adjustments to thermometers allowed. “Regional” is another word for lack of verifiability.
The BBC is a joke. It’s not balanced and fair; it’s pro Green, pro Global Warming, a mouthpiece for Greenpeace and the rest of the global warming alarmists. Excuse me for not believing anything this man said in his article, I’ve seen so much green propaganda from the BBC I no longer consider it a legitimate news broadcaster. Read Peter Sissons just released book if you want the real truth on how the BBC operates. It confirms ALL the suspicions I’ve had about the organisation for many years.
I won’t hold my breath waiting for the BBC to cover the legitimate concerns so-called deniers have about global warming. It’s filled with too many leftists/eco scaremongers who don’t want the other side to interfere with the broadcast of their lies.
I think Roger’s idea is a very good one. I hope the Met realises that not responding to this will make just as clear a statement as responding.
This to Roger Harrabin, is the BBC Smoke and Mirrors gambit.
‘Tis all a Chequer-board of Nights and Days
Where Destiny with Men for Pieces plays:
Hither and thither moves, and mates, and slays,
And one by one back in the Closet lays.
Kudos to Mr Harrabin for tiptoeing into the lion’s den. Well, the hamster’s den, maybe. The testing of weather predictions sounds like a good idea.
I agree about the whole pension fund thing – it’s a loony-tunes idea.
If you’re reading this Mr Harrabin, I’d love your comments on whether you believe that the piece you wrote on Nov 26th 2010 was an attempt by the Met Office to influence policy makers at Cancun. Or was the timing just an incredible coincidence?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11841368
I bet the actual climate beats all the contenders by miles.
People, please, play nice. In my book, anyone who fronts up on WUWT like Harrabin has done here deserves our politeness and respect – and even, to an extent, some trust. You don’t have to believe he’s right, but you have to provide some pretty good evidence if you want to allege that he’s deliberately lying or covering up.
Our main problem with so many of the climate scientists is their failure to demonstrate integrity. Well, Harrabin’s given us a small amount of his time to demonstrate his to a small extent: he hasn’t ignored us, or thrown insults at our motives, so lets extend him the same privilege.
Here’s something for some people here to think about: assume that you have Harrabin’s job, and you do happen to make the link between your pension and advocating certain views you knew to be false, at great cost to society – would you? What kind of person would do that? Harrabin may be wrong, but if so we should assume that without strong evidence to the contrary, he is honestly wrong. He’d have to be a very, very bad person to be purposefully deceiving people.
I want to give Roger kudo’s for posting here and making his case. I may not agree with him on many things, but I salute him for engaging openly in this way.
Frank Verismo>
Please, if you’re going to go down the conspiracy theory route, at least go the whole way. Why did the BBC pension fund invest in green shares in the first place? Some kind of world government conspiracy involving Jews, Buddhists, and the polar bears?
You need to remember, most of the time coincidences are just coincidences.
Nice idea Roger but just a deflection isnt it? I’m with Katabasis who commented above. Would you please post a response as currently it looks like you told a lie. And that won’t be doing your reputation any good.
Thanks.
Isn’t this like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted?
The Met has been pathetic at its predictions, and should be axed! The UK should not be throwing good money after bad.
It sounds more like you are trying to ensure that public money keep flowing to those who continue to fail.
P.S. Mr Harrabin, are you planning on writing anything about the way that the Royal Society misled people about the role they played in selecting papers for the Oxburgh review? Or did I miss something that you already wrote about that?
Anthony Watts’ first impression, that Harrabin would not respond, was absolutely correct: He did not respond.
He wrote about other things, though. Nice.
Excellent!
Roger and Piers in Mortal Kombat!
Mark T says:
February 1, 2011 at 10:04 am
John in NZ says:
February 1, 2011 at 9:48 am
Isn’t the real problem that somebody lied about what they had said?
Yes, as I also noted above. Very few that have posted in here have noticed the deflection.
===========
This.
I noticed the deflection almost immediately upon reading the article. The initial issue that prompted Anthony to invite a response from Mr. Harrabin was that Harrabin had written an article defending the Met which was based on an utter falsehood.
Yet, Mr. Harrabin launches straight into his proposal for a central “clearing house” for seasonal forecasts and builds from there, neatly avoiding the original problem. Now, there’s nothing wrong with the idea that is proposed, but people here should justifiably be demanding an explanation from Mr. Harriban regarding his recent, egregiously misleading article.
Keep your eye on the pea, people.