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
This sums it up for me ….
>>he’s proposing a “weather test” of the Met Office, and Piers Corbyn has agreed to be tested as well. –
Great!! Let’s start by looking at past long range forecast over the past X years, which can be done today, instead of waiting for the future, when the moneys will have changed hands and be very hard to get back. When was the last time the government gave you a refund because some taxpayer funded agency made a mistake and wasted your money on some foolishness?
That is the big difference between government and private enterprise. A privately run company, when they screw up, there is always a chance of getting your money back. When the government screws up, there is never a chance of getting your money back.
Welcome Roger.
Yesterday I saw a comment stating you had denied being influence by Jo Abbess into changing an article of yours. Can you explain if http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/08/bbc_blog_bully/ cover what went on accurately or not?
I haven’t had time to read everything in detail, but, wow!, 175 posts already. Glad Harrabin took the challenge (offered bya gentleman). I agree with Ralph (5:17 pm), among many others,
“When marketing people run out of ideas, they usually play their last card : offering a promotional competition – sort of throwing a bone to keep silly people (or what they believe to be “people”) happy.”
Does this mean that Harrabin is acutally one of the marketing people? I thought he was supposed to be an “environmental reporter”. ( Sorry, I can’t help myself. Maybe it’s the delicious red wine?) Why not just own up to the fact that you guys (MET and BBC) lied your a$$xx off. Stop the “Weather Test” and go back to accurate weather reporting, with the proviso that the weather always changes — but at least you get it right SOME of the time. (If this is snipped I will understand.)
Like Nolo Contendere, I totally agree with Alexej Buergin. He nailed it in a few short sentences:
“Anthony Watts’ first impression, that Harrabin would not respond, was absolutely correct: He did not respond.
He wrote about other things.“
The Beeb and the Met Office should be tossed under the bus. If Roger Harrabin chooses to go under with them, and he apparently does, well, that’s his choice. Pity.
Izen look at Autonomouse mind to see where this attack on Harrabin started and you will discover it very much was the central issue.
Also look at the comments re the Lisbon Conference and you will find time and again it is the break down of trust that makes it impossible for there to be any meaningful dialogue between the sceptics and the warmists.
The lack of transparancy Harrabin displays is dwarfed by the antics of Pachauri, Phil Jones and M Mann. How can a debate take place without open data and clear and honest brokers and reporters?
@izen:
I’m unconvinced that it is a ‘central issue’, unless you ascribe to groupthink/pension fund conspiracies
Conspiracies, eh?
The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) catalyzes greater investment in a low carbon economy by bringing European investors together to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors. The group currently has 56 members, representing assets of around €4trillion.
http://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/31109-Largest-ever-investor-group-representing-over-15-trillion-calls-for-determined-policy-action-on-climate-change
Small potatoes compared with Robert (Met Office) Napier’s Carbon Disclosure Project which currently boasts a rather astounding $64 trillion under management:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Disclosure_Project
So I’m wondering where the ‘theory’ part of your statement comes into it? I assume if your own pension was riding on the outcome of what, I’m afraid, is a ‘central issue’ this would have no effect on your ‘sense of perspective’?
Thousands of workers in a publicly funded institution are perfectly aware that the quality and very nature of their retirement has been staked on dangerous AGW being real. Who among these would then act entirely against their own self-interest? Certainly not Mr Harrabin. Certainly not Peter Sissons’ ex-colleagues.
That such a situation could even exist is appalling and unacceptable.
Roger: Ref my February 1, 2011 at 5:45 pm comment.
I know the question I asked is not original and that you have asked others to stop “stop repeating the old Jo Abbess smear”.
Now to be fair, Autonomous Mind, over at http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/yet-more-climate-change-bias-by-roger-harrabin-exposed/ said to you in the comments…. “Roger, you describe it as a smear and say the Abbess quote got altered. Please tell us which quote was altered.”
You failed to answer then as you have now failed to answer so many comments on this article.
By the way, Peter Sissons in the Daily Mail was quoted thus,
“Later, Harrabin defended himself, saying they were only minor changes — but the sense of the changes, as specifically sought by Ms Abbess, was plainly to harden the piece against the sceptics”. No legal threats against Sisson or the D.M.?
I have to say Mr. Black that my impression is that you cannot hold a candle to Sisson with regard to journalistic integrity.
frank verismo says:
February 1, 2011 at 10:07 am
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
______________________________________________________
My my. If that is true, the Board of Directors and others could find themselves personally liable under English Law should the Green fund tank. The Board and Pension Trustees have a fiduciary duty to the pensioners. This could get really interesting in court.
@Pete Hayes:
I have to say Mr. Black that my impression is that you cannot hold a candle to Sissons with regard to journalistic integrity.
Black or Harrabin, perhaps Upton Sinclair said it best:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”
frank verismo says: [ … ]
Thank you, Frank. Izen simply doesn’t understand how the real world works.
The Left has been ridiculing ‘conspiracy theorists’ ever since Sen. McCarthy was caught with a laundry list. But conspiracies have always existed, especially concerning money and power, and they exist right now.
Adam Smith put it in its proper perspective in 1775:
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
Carbon credits, anyone?
There is a conspiracy in the media right now regarding events in Egypt, where the riots were in fact food riots over high prices caused by high energy prices and bad ethanol policies. But the media almost uniformly attributes the cause to the Muslim Brotherhood [who are certainly stirring the pot, but they were not the cause of the rioting].
Everyone conspires for advantage. A polite name for it is networking.
“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.”
Speaking plainly, Roger Harrabin is proposing a contest between the government et al of which he will be judge.
This is a stupid idea. It looks more like a set up. Piers Corbyn needs to be very careful before signing up to such an idea. The problem is Roger Harrabin also gets paid by the government. He is also immersed in the MET culture. For this to come off, he would have to exclude himself from such an exercise. Furthermore, it’s beyond his remit.
This would not be a useful exercise unless it was undertaken by an independent expert and vetted as such. Considering the whitewash by the British Parliament on the climategate affair it is not likely one could be found. Roger Harrabin is a reporter. His submission did not do him any favours as it shows him to be a PR agent for the MET instead.
It wouldn’t be surprising to see minutes for a meeting between the BBC and the MET setting out this correspondence as part of a greater strategy to increase their own standing at the expense of their critics. Considering past form from this cabal, it also would not be surprising to learn the minutes were destroyed.
You simply cannot trust these people anymore.
@Smokey:
But conspiracies have always existed, especially concerning money and power, and they exist right now.
Conspiracies are indeed the stuff that history is made of. Conspiracies to overthrow governments, conspiracies to foment wars, undermine political enemies etc. The history of the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ and its use for propaganda purposes could easily fill a book.
Those who accused Nixon of a ‘dirty tricks campaign’ were, of course, just ‘conspiracy theorists’ – until Watergate broke open. Never mind the fact that the democrats had been bugging Nixon’s campaign bus prior to this!
We have all been living happily in the Golden Age of No Conspiracies, thanks to the very term being used to denigrate those who dare to ask awkward questions of those they have been brought up to trust. It seems that Golden Age is over now as for many the aroma of backed-up sewerage is simply too powerful to ignore.
I’ll look in to your take on the Egypt situation. I’ve found the Asia Times is often a good place to start for a non-Western/non-globalist perspective. Israel’s Haaretz often has a good take, too.
@-frank verismo says:
“Small potatoes compared with Robert (Met Office) Napier’s Carbon Disclosure Project which currently boasts a rather astounding $64 trillion under management:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Disclosure_Project”
– Oooh big numbers under the ‘management’ of Robert(Met office!) Napier…
Actually the quote is that –
“We act on behalf of 534 institutional investors, holding $64 trillion in assets under management and some 60 purchasing organizations such as Cadbury, PepsiCo and Walmart.”
So it is the institutional investors (banks, insurance companies,) which manage the $64Tn, the CDP is an advisor which uses the level of disclosure by a company to rate and recommend them. –
“This data is made available for use by a wide audience including institutional investors, corporations, policymakers and their advisors, public sector organizations, government bodies, academics and the public.”
Given growing constrains on resources, the way a company manages its resource use may be just as good a rating method as how well it meets consumer self-interest.
Whether to buy is the decision of those banks and traders. Of course given recent market events trusting their judgment may not be too wise….
But $64 trillion is small potatoes in the financial world. less than a month of the turnover of the foreign exchange markets.
TinyCO2 says:
February 1, 2011 at 12:01 pm
“The Met Office specialises in predictions that are so vague that they are almost impossible to get wrong… and yet, they manage it.”
————–
You have my vote for quote of the week!
@izen:
I see that you have adopted Mr Harrabin’s approach, largely avoiding the substance of my post and instead posting something tangential.
Peas in a pod, eh?
So I’ll ask again: do you not see a problem with the employees of a publicly funded institution having their pensions tied into a highly politicised issue with a hugely uncertain outcome?
Well if nobody has said it before on this thread I repeat what I have said previously in a slightly different form from previous comments on other threads.
Two years ago the High and Mighty of Climate science and the Meeja would not have given us the time of day. We were the outcasts, barbarians beyond the pale. To be cursed as heretics, deniers or whatever.
My how the world has changed.
Many scientists perhaps at first fearful for their livelihoods have gradually migrated here to express their opinions.
The general ridicule in which climatology is held both by many scientists and members of the Meeja is also becoming apparent.
And they are expressing their views in the blogosphere.
And now Mr. Harrabin a high priest of the BBC and the cult of AGW and initiate of its most arcane secrets now feels it necessary to explain himself upon here.
WHY?
A good question to which I have no answer except to speculate that a sandcastle falls as the tide washes it away. And that whilst there have been those charlatans who have cynically used AGW to enrich themselves many of their followers, who believed, as I imagine they did, are starting to question those beliefs.
But most important of all it demonstrates the power the blogosphere and the WWW to spread information and bring people together in a completely new way.
A way which is toppling dictators now.
Just as literacy and printing did in its time.
And it is gradually undermining the hegemony of politicians, the MSM and the financial interests and their lobbyists.
So all power to Anthony’s elbow, WUWT is changing the world, and we shall see what we shall see.
Kindest Regards
a jones,
As always, I find it hard to disagree with anything in your comments.
Roger Harrabin,
A question of journalistic competency and/or integrity now exists regarding your involvement in reporting “In October the forecaster privately warned the Government – with whom it has a contract – that Britain was likely to face an extremely cold winter”. As a journalist I think you owe the public an explanation within a very expedited timeframe. Please provide an accurate explanation somewhere in the blog community.
You chose not to address here at WUWT the issue of your competency and/or integrity in reporting that matter. Instead you discussed some rather cumbersome bureaucratic/academic mechanism to assess weather forecasting. That was inappropriate given the current serious circumstances surrounding your aforementioned reporting.
I look forward to the courtesy of your reply.
John
>>Small potatoes compared with Robert (Met Office) Napier’s Carbon Disclosure Project which currently boasts a rather astounding $64 trillion under management:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Disclosure_Project
CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project) has 501(c)3 (tax free) charitable status through Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors in New York and is a registered charity in the United Kingdom.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100321032431AA5mQWY
However, the head of The Met Office is Robert Napier, and there are questions regarding his impartiality on climate change –
Not only is he the chairman of the Met office, but Napier is Chairman of the Green Fiscal Commission, seeking to impose massive green taxation; he is Director of the Carbon Disclosure Project, which has built the largest database on corporate ‘carbon footprints’ as a basis for discrimination against those who don’t go along with the eco agenda; he is Chairman of the trustees of the World Centre of Monitoring of Conservation, which is bankrolled by the UN Environment Programme to push and ensure compliance with the Green agenda; and he is Chairman of the Homes and Communities Agency, which is seeking to grab land for ecotowns and determining compliance of housing to stringent Green standards. Other recent positions he has held include Chief Executive of WWF-UK, a vast malthusian political pressure group seeking to grab land and stop development around the world; a Director of The Climate Group, a huge international pressure group for the climate change agenda, which also manages the IIGCC, of which the BBC Pension Trust is a member; and a Director of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation, a secular body seeking to infuse ‘Green’ values into all the major religions, and to designate land as ‘sacred’ to prohibit development, and galvanize religions as a powerful advocacy group for the eco agenda.
So, would you say he is a proper and impartial person to lead the Met Office and restore public confidence?
WTF – Is this true??? !!!!
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100321032431AA5mQWY
Would you say Robert Napier, head of the meteorological office is an impartial person on climate change?
The Meteorological Office (“The Met Office”) in the UK is the body that has overall responsibility and charge of temperature records, as well as weather forecasting, and studies the facts about climate change and its likely consequences. Not only does it report to the UK government, it is one of the main organizations consulted by the IPCC.
Given the paramount importance of the climate change debate, it is obviously vital that an impartial person heads this very important body which plays such an integral role, not least to give a sceptical public reassurance that the person in a position to steer the science is genuinely open to all possibilities.
However, the head of The Met Office is Robert Napier, and there questions regarding his impartiality on climate change –
Not only is he the chairman of the Met office, but Napier is Chairman of the Green Fiscal Commission, seeking to impose massive green taxation; he is Director of the Carbon Disclosure Project, which has built the largest database on corporate ‘carbon footprints’ as a basis for discrimination against those who don’t go along with the eco agenda; he is Chairman of the trustees of the World Centre of Monitoring of Conservation, which is bankrolled by the UN Environment Programme to push and ensure compliance with the Green agenda; and he is Chairman of the Homes and Communities Agency, which is seeking to grab land for ecotowns and determining compliance of housing to stringent Green standards. Other recent positions he has held include Chief Executive of WWF-UK, a vast malthusian political pressure group seeking to grab land and stop development around the world; a Director of The Climate Group, a huge international pressure group for the climate change agenda, which also manages the IIGCC, of which the BBC Pension Trust is a member; and a Director of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation, a secular body seeking to infuse ‘Green’ values into all the major religions, and to designate land as ‘sacred’ to prohibit development, and galvanize religions as a powerful advocacy group for the eco agenda.
So, would you say he is a proper and impartial person to lead the Met Office and restore public confidence?
Smokey says:
February 1, 2011 at 9:12 pm:
“a jones,
As always, I find it hard to disagree with anything in your comments.”
And that goes for me too.
I suppose while we’re on the subject of the largely out-of-sight organisations that drive the agendas of high-profile AGW mouthpieces, we may as well pop in to whois-search.com and take a look at that bastion of ‘reliable’ AGW science, RealClimate. Here’s what we get:
Domain Name:REALCLIMATE.ORG
Created On:19-Nov-2004 16:39:03 UTC
Last Updated On:13-Jan-2011 00:25:24 UTC
Expiration Date:19-Nov-2015 16:39:03 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Active Registrar, Inc. (R1709-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:ACTR1011142017
Registrant Name:Betsy Ensley
Registrant Organization:Environmental Media Services
Registrant Street1:1320 18th St, NW
Registrant Street2:5th Floor
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Washington
Registrant State/Province:DC
http://www.whois-search.com/whois/realclimate.org
Any remaining doubts that this is first and foremost a political agenda should evaporate upon seeing those magical words: Washington, DC. But it doesn’t end there. Should you investigate Environmental Media Services you’ll discover that it’s founder is one Arlie Schardt. Not particularly thrilling until we discover that Mr Schardt was none other than Al Gore’s press officer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Media_Services
By complete contrast, if we do a search on WUWT the only name that comes up is one Anthony Watts. This is not the only reason why I find myself in the sceptic camp, but it’s certainly one of the big ones: no fear of full disclosure and no false prospectuses.
Bypass the mouthpieces and pull back the curtain. Throw light on the actual architecture for all the people to see. It’s how we’ll win.
Piers Corbyn makes a living by selling his predictions. He cannot be expected to give them away to a public repository. Perhaps there should be an iron-clad guarantee that they are kept unavailable to the public until an agreed-upon time frame.