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
@ferd berple:
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.
Would that be those same Rockefellers who installed the young Maurice Strong at the UN in 1948? The Maurice Strong who went on to be the founder and first (uncontested) president of the UNEP? The same organisation that spawned the IPCC?
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” David Rockefeller, Memoirs, pg 405 (Random House 2002)
Are we having fun yet?
Yeah, and people think Soros and Murdoch are dangerous.
Mark
Steven McIntyre has stated at his site he believes that Harrabin acted with integrity in this case ie that he (Harrabin) did not knowingly lie. If this is the case it implies that Harrabin was hung out to dry by his superiors in this network of deception. It is inconceivable that Harrabin is other than a small fish, a pawn in the conflict.
Going along with this hypothesis, what possible reason could there be to place Mr. Harrabin at risk or potentially expend a useful asset?
Mr. Harrabin, now that you raise the point, could protecting the BBC’s pension assets or covering up fiduciary malfeasance have anything to do with it? Climaterealists has some interesting thoughts about the notion.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7126&linkbox=true&position=1
@-frank verismo says:
February 1, 2011 at 8:06 pm
“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?”
I guess I’ll have to accept your opinion that correcting your misquotation of the role of CDP.
Do you think pensions tied to oil production (mainly from the Middle East) or the property loan market (sub-primes?) are LESS uncertain and political ?!
As to the suggestion that the Met should be privatized or that Napier should be independent made by others;
The Met office was sold off and privatized by Maggie Thatcher in the 80’s. It was intended to be a profitable commercial enterprise rather than a neutral scientific body.
On that basis the head of the Met should be involved in the climate business rather than just the science. The propriety of that change is open to debate.
I seem to be getting dragged into the personal and political froth that surrounds this issue which I find largely irrelevent and merely a matter of taste rather than determinable fact. What NATURE does, and how well we understand that is the main determinate of all this.
The suggestion of comparing predictions is the only element of thsi i found of interest, especially as one possible participant is Piers Corbyn who has a rather equivical record to say the least.
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?
Stephen Rasey says:
February 1, 2011 at 9:56 am
Do not re-invent the wheel. England has Bookmakers on every street. Use them.
Piers Corbyn has already done that, and they banned him because he was making too much money.
Do you think this is a subtle hint that Elvis was his contact at the Met Office?
Roger Harrabin BBC Environment Analyst
“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.”
I’m a Licence-fee payer, and I think you’re a disgrace.
ge0050 says: February 1, 2011 at 9:53 pm
“Would you say Robert Napier, head of the meteorological office is an impartial person on climate change?”
I was going to start saying: “what a stupid question, a bit Himler on race” … and then I remembered, that when you are in the middle of the Groupthink culture you can really believe that some of the most outrageously biased people are actually impartial.
There is absolutely no doubt that Robert Napier is largely responsible for the decline in the standards of the Met Office. Forecasts have become less intelligible more defensible and so less meaningful and less predictive. The staff have been brainwashed into believing the world temperature is going to go up, which has infested all their forecasting models and is very obvious in the long range global forecast.
Worse! Far worse! Robert Napier has presided over a culture of deceit. When they get forecasts wrong (as all forecasters will) they don’t admit it – and acknowledge the problems of forecasting – they actively run Alaistair Campbell style PR media campaigns to squash comment against the campaign and use their friends in the BBC to run positive news stories.
The result is that I no longer look at the weather forecast and think: “it will probably rain tomorrow”, I think: “what is the likelihood that we are going to get some severe weather which the Met Office isn’t telling us about”?
IT IS FORECAST TO SNOW TONIGHT
Because the Met Office haven’t explained why they got the last forecasts wrong, I don’t know the limits of their forecasting ability. Not knowing how reliable the Met Office is (because of their stupid denial of the many problems they have with forecasts), now means I have to take a more pessimistic view of the weather than need be to compensate for the Met Office’s lies and smear campaigns.
Bring back honest weather forecasting … bring back weather forecasters who whilst they might make mistakes “someone rang … and said there was a hurricane on the way … don’t worry” … the next day (huge storm) they apologise and whilst we have our fun at their expense, the net result is we believe them
“We, the public”
No Roger – we’re the public, you’re a BBC employee.
AAAAAAAND NOW, YOUR HOST OF “NAME THAT WEATHER”……….Rooooooger Harrabin……….(sound of crickets).
Your condescension is as odious as the suggestion that this “game” should become a diversion from bad journalism. The watch dogs of society have become lap dogs of politics.
Please do answer the original critisism.
Pip pip, cheerio and all that….stiff upper lip, you can do it.
I think that if the Met Office have to make a weather forecast beyond 2 days, they will need Piers’ forecasts anyway.
CORRECTION: “Please do answer the original critisism.”
Please do answer the original criticism
See, Roger Harrabin, how easy it is to issue a correction?
Roger, I was a senior journalist for many years and I have to tell you – you cannot kid a kidder. Your protestations at never being guided by an editor on the content and tone of your reports is as hilarious as it is disingenuous.
Here’s a simple fact – I know, Roger…facts are hard things aren’t they? But you have to deal with them, I’m afraid.
In Newswatch on November 29th. David Jordan, the lead author of the new BBC editorial guidelines, admitted that when it comes to climate change, the word ‘impartiality’ has a different meaning to the dictionary definition.
You can see it here, Roger, at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vjxv3/Newswatch_29_10_2010 –
…but, of course, you will know David Jordan already and be well aware of the BBC diktat. Jordan actually says: “If both sides of the debate were to be reflected it would give the impression that both sets of views were equal and we don’t have to approach impartiality in climate change in that way”.
The concept and practice of investigation, accuracy and balance in reporting are central tenets of journalism. If you do not practise them, you are not a journalist but a PR man – an apologist for a particular point-of-view.
In the same way that the BBC embeds reporters with the military during conflicts, its editors and journalists are now ’embedded’ with the CAGW lobby.
Roger, you are embedded with the warmists. Sadly, I don’t think you can see it as your indoctrination is complete – and even if you could see it you would be gently but firmly steered back on to the ‘correct path’.
If you want a more complete picture of the state of BBC journalism, just read the coverage of the Peter Sissons’ book or, better still, read the book itself. Is is all there so don’t try to kid yourself – or the good folk over here at WUWT – that it isn’t. The awful truth is staring you in the face.
BBC journalism is finished. Ordinary people up and down the UK (I can’t speak for the rest of the world) joke openly about the BBC “news” and the Today programme on Radio 4 is held in absolute contempt.
The choice is simple, Roger. You can return to the basics of journalism – investigation of the facts and the unbiased presentation of them, facing down the political pressure from the powers-that-be within the BBC. Or carry on in PR and just pick up your pay cheque at the end of each month.
Which is it to be?
“Can you provide any criteria that would cause you to be more sceptical of YOUR position?”
Surely that is easy: Clarity and honesty combined with evidence that is testable
Met Office knew big freeze was coming but hushed it up
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343863/Met-Office-knew-Decembers-big-freeze-coming-hushed-up.html
So according to Harrabin he was told in November that “December would be bitter”.
But what does Roger say on his blog?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12325695
It’ll be spring before Harrabin and The Met Office gets the winter forecast right.
TWE says: Re betting on the Corbyn predictions.
February 1, 2011 at 11:48 pm
“Piers Corbyn has already done that, and they banned him because he was making too much money.”
According to Piers Corbyn.
The bookmakers wont confirm or deny it.
But his forcasts are not very expensive, if they really are that good then buy them and bet yourself to make money, so far I have heard of nobody claiming to be rich from doing this.
And his recent complete miss for January, and the notorious predictions he made of 2008 do not give much confidence this is a sure-fire moneymaking method.
izen says:
“The Met office was sold off and privatized by Maggie Thatcher in the 80′s. ”
I don’t think that’s quite right.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/who/management
Excellent – but I think if Kipling is looking down on this thread, he may have some more immediate advice for Roger:-
When yer wounded and left on the Climate Wars’s plains
And the sceptics come out to cut up yer remains
Just reach for yer mike and beat out yer brains
And go to yer Gore like a soldier
I’m amazed – how on earth can we have got this far, with billions spent on climate research, and not have any idea of the accuracy of this type of forecasting? Whoever is in charge of handing out the money is completely derelict in their duties.
I must admit, I feel this is bait and switch from Mr Harribin.
The main blog based claims made regarding him are that he reported that the MEt had provided an extreme weather warning to the Cabinet.
Now we know that they hadn’t.
We really need to know who lied in this affair. Did the Met Office flatly lie to Mr Harribin? Did Mr Harribin use some “journalistic license” to make his claim?
Surely that is the point at issue. No wonder journalists and BBC journalists in particular are so poorly regarded.
I think Mr. Harrabin could show up right here and give straight answers to questions addressed to him by commenters. After all that’s the way it is supposed to be done on blogs, isn’t it?
As we all know, public dialogue is a great way to build true community among participants.. What is more, it will empower community members to constructively address issues that affect them in their daily lives. And the best thing about it public dialogue tools can foster a wide variety of societal processes in both the short and the long run including democratization, and peace-building and reconciliation processes, leading to social and political transformation. Is there anything else one could wish for?
izen says:
February 1, 2011 at 11:03 pm
As to the suggestion that the Met should be privatized or that Napier should be independent made by others;
The Met office was sold off and privatized by Maggie Thatcher in the 80′s. It was intended to be a profitable commercial enterprise rather than a neutral scientific body.
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”.
Dear Mr. Harrabin,
you start well by noting that “the latest who-said-what-when saga over the Met Office winter forecast has created a stir of interest and understandable concern”. Sadly, you then choose to talk about something else.
There is a stir and understandable concern because you made an extremely serious allegation that “the truth” was that the Met Office had warned the Government that there could be an “exceptionally” cold early winter. You went on to allege that we weren’t let in on “the secret”. Your sensationalist story was that the Met Office had correctly predicted the horrendous December weather AND that the Government had failed to act. Had, in fact, kept this information secret. You reinforced the impression of Government wrongdoing by saying that you had submitted an FOI request to the Government, as if it were the Government that were withholding secret, damaging information.
Now, quite apart from the serious disruption caused by the snow, people actually died. Elderly people slipped and fell, freezing to death where they lay. You attributed, explicitly or by implication, lack of preparedness to the Government. It was their fault.
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. Gilligan’s notes of his interview with his source were inadequate and such notes as he had did not back up what he had said on air. As a result of this scandal, the Neil report recommended that the BBC make changes to their procedures. These changes were especially important where serious allegations were made based on an anonymous source.
The questions that you must answer, Mr. Harrabin, are these:
1. Did the Met Office source say to you exactly that “the truth” was that the Met Office had warned the Cabinet Office of the risk of an “exceptionally” cold start to winter? What does your contemporaneous note of the conversation/meeting with your source record?
2. If the answer to 1 is no, did you embellish or exaggerate what you were actually told? If not, how could that be?
3. If the answer to 1 is yes, what steps did you take to satisfy yourself of the veracity of that serious allegation?
4. Why did you conclude that the source was capable of belief?
5. What documentary support for the allegation did you see? Do you have a copy of any documentary evidence?
6. Why did you comment in your report that you had submitted an FOI request to the Cabinet office, of correspondence passing between the CO and Met Office, rather than simply asking your source for sight of the same correspondence? If the source did not have access to the correspondence, why did you nevertheless conclude the source was reliable?
7. What steps did you take to check out the serious allegation with the organisation that was the subject of the serious allegation (the Cabinet Office) before publication?
8. Did you clear the matter with your line manager before making what was a very serious allegation in your Radio Times column? What steps did your line manager take to satisfy himself/herself of the veracity of the allegation.
These questions and other need to be answered because you, Mr. Harrabin, made a very serious allegation against the Government which was untrue, and which was easily established through a simple FOI request made by a concerned citizen as being untrue. It is difficult to see how, given the tightening of procedures after the Neil report, this situation could have come about without, at best, recklessness.
I should just add that, assuming that you did not embellish or exaggerate the story yourself (which is a fair starting point), the only possible conclusion is that you were misled by your Met Office source. This in itself is a story worthy of any proper journalist. Why were you fed misleading information? Was the source a maverick acting alone, or was she or he acting with the authority, knowledge or acquiescence of others at the Met Office? Is the Met Office trustworthy? I would have thought that a source who turns out to be a liar forfeits their protection of confidentiality and should rightly become the story.
Your only response so far has been to downplay what you originally reported as “the truth” to now portray it as something that you merely “gleaned” from your source. Interesting back-track. But please, answer the questions.
If Mr Harrabin has any sense at all he will try and acquaint himself with the pension scheme governors and exalt them to move their investments out of green schemes to something safer (perhaps Shale oil?) as he can surely see (if he has any sense at all) that this whole house of cards is going to come crashing down some day soon and, with it, his hopes of a happy and long retirement.
Lucy Skywalker, Feb 1st 3:17pm –
“Some commenters here are stupid, ………………………………
I have appreciated greatly reading through remarks here. The further I read, the deeper the insights became. I realize that this is how we are all growing in wisdom and polemics.”
I am probably one of the stupid ones, having absolutely no appropriate qualifications. I do, however, agree wholeheartedly with the second part of your post that I’ve quoted above; it sums up my feelings precisely. Thanks.