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
I spent years searching for sightings of an honest journalist, but then it turns out trying to locate Elvis is easier and a lot more fun.
What a strange contribution …
Besides the missing courtesy (a welcome address or maybe saying thanks to Antony for offering the opportunity) …
… there is absolutely no need for weather tests with the MET. I’s all done. No interest. Piers Corbyn took the prize and went off with it.
It’s all about winning time and “keeping the ball flat” when Mr. Harrabin says “I’m hoping to avoid further controversies like the Met Office winter forecasts”, trying to make forget about his own role in the story.
He still has a lot of questions to answer instead of giving here a list of articles or radio docs to read or to listen to … as if WUWT-readers would need some basic input first (most of them know Mr. Harrabins posts well).
Here’s where the music plays …
http://i-squared.blogspot.com/2011/02/mystic-met-office-forecasts-that-are.html
http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/met-office-document-shows-it-only-renamed-its-seasonal-forecasts
Dave says:
February 1, 2011 at 10:24 am
He’d have to be a very, very bad person to be purposefully deceiving people
===============================================
So Dave, someone that researches and writes articles about what is reported involving climate change, has never seen all of the controversy surrounding it.
….The only other choice is that they are just plain stupid….
“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.”
I wonder into which category Mr Harrabin places Jo Abbess?
“with the help of the Royal Met Soc, the Royal Stats Soc and the Royal Astro Soc to devise a Weather Test”
I smell smoke, of the screen, type.
What the hell do we want a “competition” for and what has it got to do with the BBC? Just get the Met Office to get back to basics, instead of “saving the world”
Mr Harrabin, whilst I truly appreciate your involvement here I am afraid that you find me with my view of the BBC at a new all time low. Something which I did not think was possible.
Mr. Harrabins response here at WUWT and his piece over at BBC which he links to is an obvious deflection attempt. Firstly, he seeks to distract with the ”peace offering gift” – the possible future weather prognosis comparison thingy, then he tries to create the impression that he deals with the criticims raised over his misleading article.
Unfortunately, his above post here at WUWT as well as the BBC article he links to do not deal with the many and detailed criticisms. He also resorts to downplaying vital and damming information with his comments such as:
“I note a blog report (which I cannot yet verify) saying that a civil servant commented: “The Met Office seasonal outlook for the period November to January is showing no clear signals for the winter.”
He no doubt knows full well that the above statement is directly from the email exchange between the Met Office and the Cabinet Office, a result of FOI requests, even though he purports to not know. That is a trick (as in “a clever thing to do”, even though it is misleading).
In his original article he makes the claim that the Met Office had forecast the extreme cold in October and warned the Cabinet Office in advance. These claims are now shown to be false.
The only real alternatives we are left with to explain this mess are these:
1. Mr Harrabin conspired to mislead the public
2. Mr. Harrabin was himself mislead and as a result mislead the public
3. A combination of option 1 and 2
Either really, really bad journalistic work or intent to mislead – that is it. No other options exist. So, which is it Mr. Harrabin?
Either way, I believe that Mr. Harrabin, being a journalist, and especially considering a BBC public broadcasting journalist, financed with our tax money, should:
1. Explain in detail how he came to write and publish your misleading article
2. Immediately and clearly issue a correction and seek to correct the erroneous public perception created by his misleading and false statements; and
3. Offer his unconditional and sincere apology for his actions (se alternative 1, 2 and 3 above).
So far Mr. Harrabin has done none of the above. We are waiting Mr. Harrabin…
This comment deals with Mr. Harrabin only. Don’t even get me started on the obvious contradictions, untruths (yes, lies) and shenanigans of the Met Office in this matter…
Kudos to Harrabin for coming here.
However, as others have said, where is the evidence he has (had?) that the MET “warned the Government of a exceptionally cold start to the winter?”
For that matter, where is the Met’s evidence that it also so warned the government?
Roger,
Firstly – well done on responding.
Secondly – you didn’t address the issue.
Thirdly – as a resident of the UK I am subjected to BBC bias every waking day, which permeates and dominates other media, government and every persons view point in the country. The BBC is institutionally biased about many subjects – and in the case of climate – the BBC is warmist / alarmist.
Conclusion: You are going to have to do a lot better than that.
Well done to Roger Harrabin for posting here. I don’t for a second think he is a ‘bad’ person but I do think he is seriously misguided in his views.
I would not pay for the BBC if there were a choice, the sad decline of a once admired UK institution. The biased shown in so many areas is distressing.
I note that Roger Harrabin is at least prepared to talk to those on the “other side” of the climate debate, it seems to be AGW policy not to debate with “deniers”.
From Harrabin’s notes:
“The Met Office are correct: it is not a forecast. It does not even indicate above average temperatures – rather, it suggests an above-average probability of above average temperatures.”
Another joke:
I’ll be on medical leave the next four weeks.
After that you may call me Laura instead of Roger.
Yes Roger but… What about the MO Winter forecast story and your part in it?
Having read the article from Roger Harrabin and the comments which follow it, I have decided that there is nothing he or the BBC could do to satisfy the readers of this website. He’s probably referring to the majority of people here when he refers to those who would be better off looking for Elvis.
There isn’t always a conspiracy. Sometimes you might think you’re right, but you may well be wrong.
Anthony,
You are a class act. Keep it up.
Colin in Mission BC says:
February 1, 2011 at 10:40 am
Good. Now Anthony needs to get on board and say “WUWT?” 🙂
Mark
DO NOT trust one word harriban says. Not one. If he is planning some sort of weather prediction test it will be rigged to embarrass his enemies — which is anyone who does not bow down to the Hockey Team and the AGW fanatics.
I’m surprised at the pettiness of some of the comments. Sniping in such a way at one of the few prepared to put his head above the parapet and address the criticisms says stuff about the poster that I’d rather not know about or want to share space with.
He’s offered a good set of responses, made a fair offer, matched that of Piers Corbyn and left it to an independent body to run. I applaud him for that and for his willingness to participate in benchmarking the different approaches.
This, in my opinion is a step in the right direction.
Roger,
Firstly i commend you in the highest way for taking the time to engage and respond to the points raised. Though, i have to agree that you didn’t QUITE respond to the actual points- perhaps lost in the eagerness to put forward your weather forecast testing idea.
ON this specific point i have to say that it is an excellent idea. In-process validation, or testing (in your context) is already a staple process in the models used for ‘hard’ sciences and engineering. To see this process being attempted on weather (and hopefully climate too) models is not only long over due, but heartening. You are also absolutely right to include other forecasters such as Piers Corybn.
I fully intend to check the site- should you provide the link, once you are looking for input into the testing methodology, i have a particular skill and expertise in experiment design/validation so if i can be of any use, just let me know.
Finally on the Bias of the BBC. WHile you maintain that you are fully independant of BBC ‘control’ as it were, the same cannot be said about your colleagues- the number of factually incorrect pieces on climate change that appear on the BBC almost daily, is astonishing. If you could do something to address this, it would certainly help the BBC’s credibility no end.
Again, thank you for taking the time to write to anthony and to detail your idea- i wish it the very best success.
Roger, I don’t think the issue here is whether the Met Office or Piers Corbyn is the better forecaster, and raising the issue seems a bit of a distraction under the circumstances. People can already place bets on weather outcomes, or hire whichever forecaster they prefer.
To the extent I have followed this issue, the charge against you pertains to an article in the Telegraph quoting you as saying
In context, this amounted to a defence of the quality of the Met Office’s forecast, by deflecting blame onto the government for not disseminating it. But further inquiries (in particular, Katabasis showed that the information provided to the government did not warn of exceptionally cold conditions, merely a slightly elevated probability of a cold start to winter, with “cold” defined as pretty much overlapping with “normal”. A Cabinet Office staffer wrote to the Met Office suggesting the summary line “The Met Office seasonal outlook for the period November to January is showing no clear signals for the winter” to which the Met Office replied “That is fine.”
So we are left wondering what was the basis for your claim that the Met Office had briefed the government about an exceptionally cold early winter. Do you have other documentary sources besides the ones now posted online? Not having followed the controversy closely I realise that you may already have answered this question and I missed it, but it looks like other blogs and writers have also missed it.
Once again, the issue is not that forecasts are difficult or that people might think the BBC is conflicted in its motivations. The issue is that you were quoted saying the Met Office provided what was essentially accurate guidance to the Cabinet, yet the correspondence between the Met Office and the cabinet office do not appear to support that. Can you clarify the basis for the statement attributed to you in the Telegraph piece?
Anyone in the UK who regularly uses the BBC/Met Office 5 day forecast knows that a lot of the time they can’t even get the 24hr forecast correct for small areas, like where you live and the 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th days change the closer you get to them.
On top of that their long range forecasts have been abysmal, so bad they had to rename them.
We do not need any tests, just a half decent service.
As others have said, kudos to you Roger for writing here.
However, I have to agree with Richard lawson’s comments about the biased nature of your reporting. You may believe that you are impartial, but, stand back and look again. May be you will see your work as people in the detached middle ground see you.
He just didn’t answer to the question. Why he said something that was false?
Caught, he just tries to divert the question.
Richard Lawson says:
February 1, 2011 at 10:09 am
“Roger, are you capable of putting your preconceptions to one side and writing in a neutral tone? No, thought not!”
I read one of the articles his essay links to. It is full of consensus = correctness, therefore AGW is real and frightening and our children’s children will all hate us. Here’s a typical excerpt:
[Gore] then spent impotent frustrating years in the White House, and later outside it, watching climate sceptics – some well-meaning scientists, but many in the pay of the oil industry – discredit the global warming theory.
The sceptics knew that they did not need to win the battle of climate facts, they just needed to keep doubt alive.
And this is not biased? “Many in the pay of the oil industry”? And your source for such a sweeping besmirching? How many is many? What exactly are these many being paid by the oil industry, and for what services exactly? There’s some journalistic research for you.
For balance, also mention the billions of research funds from governments which are driving the AGW agenda. If a university scientist wants to attract research funds it is so easy to ascribe some aspect of his research to ‘global warming’ and thus be assured of a grant.
And by the way, as so many posts here underscore, you have yet to answer the central questions.
I will echo all those who are pointing out that this essay is mere deflection.
Back to the issue please: who lied?
Is this how the missing stratospheric hot spot is called now?
We’d like to compile….
we will be in discussions…
We, the public,…
we should trust…
We are progressing…
we’ll be able to…
we settle the final…
we’ll publish it…
In 1926 John Reith told BBC announcers they had to wear evening dress… and by 2011 the tables have turned… are we now meant to bow and curtsy in the presence of the BBC and humbly accept every word… I think not.
Others might serve more use by trying to locate Elvis.
David Willis covered that story for the BBC in 2007 – see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6952315.stm
If only the BBC environmental reporters could do such a good job…. just saying that CAGW has arrived in the building is not enough… ridiculing and shouting at Johnny Foreigner deniers (in that good old fashioned British way) is not enough either.