From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
When the BBC makes claims about record rainfall, I suggest you check your wallet!
Official statistics for January have been released by the Met Office and confirm what many will already suspect – it has been very wet for many areas.
Northern Ireland, south-west and southern England, and the east of Scotland all had one of their wettest Januarys on record.
With 70% more rain than average Northern Ireland experienced the wettest January for 149 years. Culdrose in Cornwall recorded two and a quarter times its average, while Aboyne in Aberdeenshire had nearly four times its January average of 68.9mm.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/cx2lz3k65w5o
So let’s check the claims.
It was not a record January in N Ireland – it was wetter in 1877:
In the small print, you will see “the wettest January for 149 years” – most people will assume that was the start of the record. Either way, the BBC’s headline is false – no records were broken in N Ireland.
Nor was it a record in East Scotland, it was only the ninth wettest:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Rainfall/ranked/Scotland_E.txt
And across southern England, it was only the sixth wettest.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Rainfall/ranked/England_S.txt
The BBC also fails to put any of these numbers in proper context. Instead they only want to spread “record rainfall” propaganda.
Rainfall in N Ireland totalled 195.6mm last month. Across all months, there have been a total of 24 months with more than 190mm there. The wettest month came in October 1870, when 247.9mm fell.
In simple terms, it was the wettest month in N Ireland for six years – but that does not make scary headlines!
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Rainfall/date/Northern_Ireland.txt
It was, of course, very wet in certain localities, as often happens when the jet stream gets stuck. It was the South West which came off worst last month, as people who live there have rightly commented.
The Somerset Levels have flooded, but it was not as wet in Yeovilton last month as it was in January 2014 – 147.2 v 166.4 mm.
Since the start of records there in 1964, there have been fifteen months with more than 140 mm of rain, with the wettest being 192.4mm in November 2002:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/stationdata/yeoviltondata.txt
The Met Office are, frankly, piss poor at providing meteorological data to the public. They offer no historical daily data at all and only monthly data at a handful of sites, such as Yeovilton.
I gather there was 271 mm in Torbay. But even that pales into insignificance in comparison with some of the totals registered in November 1929. October 1960 was also extremely wet in Devon, with 311 mm falling in Exeter.
The BBC lays claim to most things…mandatory pay-to-view…possibly including YouTube…outrageous..!
The UK folks just got stung with another CPI TV license rise of 3.15%. It costs more each year to push that lefty agenda.
And Netflix
I despair of the Met Office.
We get the same in Canada from the CBC, CTV and other government grifters, but then the Weather Network does its best to correct the ‘story’ sent out by the foregoing grifters.
The BBC doesn’t do facts, it does propaganda.
Bless, we have Mr Homewood with another desperate attempt to rubbish the MetO again.
And failing in basic logic.
“So let’s check the claims.
It was not a record January in N Ireland – it was wetter in 1877:”
Correct that’s why they said ….. “the wettest January for 149 years”
Duh!!
“most people will assume that was the start of the record.”
What? Why does saying that there was a wetter January 149 years ago, translate to that being the start of the record ?
They would have said in addition “when records began” if it were.
“Either way, the BBC’s headline is false – no records were broken in N Ireland.”
They didn’t say it was a record, they said it was the wettest January for 149 years.
Which is true!
You still haven’t explained the 103 non existent stations.
Here’s your opportunity…
Met Office probably “estimate” rainfall the same way the “estimate” temperatures. 🙂
How is a subject completely different to the one being addressed an “opportunity” to do anything?
Maybe it’s a possibility for you to misdirect from yet another ludicrous Homewood diatrabe?
So, you are his spokesman.
Shame you haven’t been briefed.
Jog on.
No, I was just wondering how your mind works, that in a thread about one subject you see an ‘opportunity’ for someone else to comment on something completely unrelated?
All the while avoiding the valid points the person you’re responding to has made….
Misdirection?
No, you were making an idiot of yourself in full public view.
Shame you haven’t been briefed. He definitely knows.
He is merely using your playbook from other threads.
I use nobody’s playbook other than mine own.
You assume a lot.
-1
Scorchio.
Read who he’s answering. Not a details man, are you?
He was replying to you
Comprehension isn’t your forte, is it!
He was replying to me, but you answered him. It’s right there above if you want to check the times. You’re not a good checker of things, though, are you?
The article headline is “January rainfall in parts of UK breaks more than century-long record.” Reading in that context, what Paul says is entirely the way I would read it too. It is intentionally misleading.
Bollocks:
The MetO say:
“January rainfall in parts of UK breaks more than century-long record.”
Which is true (“more than century long” [to a reasonable person] is less than 149 years).
“It was not a record January in N Ireland – it was wetter in 1877:”
Correct: Yes it was …. just as the MetO said.
As it is not a “record January” merely a record since 1877″
Comprede now?
Or do you want to try and drag me down a rabbit-hole to try and save face further?
So nothing has really changed. Weather is the same as it’s always been. Good! Now we can scrap all the green nonsense! That’s a wrap, everyone!
I copied nearly all your points without reading this first, lol!
Didn’t quite nail it, then.
Yes, Homewood is an absolute gift to debunk.
And yet we have the usual here desparately trying to argue black is white in defence.
Except that you haven’t. You actually agreed with everything he said.
The BBC has been hilarious over the weekend. From climate nonsense to the failings of the empty suit.
£180. Or else… we take you to court.
They have been even more hilarious in a coordinated effort of the UK to sell Epstein as Russian spy by reviving the collusion nonsense
while 99.9% of revelant documents, billionaires and statements point to another specific direction.
High quality reporting on a climate level again.
Epstein (FYI the last syllable of his name is pronounced the same as that of Einstein) was just a smooth operator pedo, who had his hand in a lot of pockets. Whether he killed himself or was murdered is utterly irrelevant.
1) I didn’t wrote a thing about his end, therefore I don’t understand your comment – or the motivation of it.
2) I absolutely don’t think it is irrelevant as
a) I predicted his killing,incl cam failures and guards “asleep” on the day of his arrest(just like probably a million others who know the standard MO for.
Same with his victim Giuffre , the moment it was known she’s writing a book – they paid her millions to stay silent, Shetook the money, but broke the contract = got punished ).
But I got it wrong that the guards will die; instead his cellmate did.
3) It is relevant as only very few can pull such a killing in a high security prison.
4) The sheer level of anomalies in this case and throughout his life(college dropout > teacher > suddenly a prodigy > involved in the biggest US Ponzi > instead prison he went to the white house > got away with his first high level pedo court case > got hundreds of millions from a billionaire/Wexner > got a billionaires daughter whose father also died mysteriously to run all the dirty business > ABC refused the multibillion dollar jackpot of running a “billionaire pedo island for presidents story”(=1 million times bigger than Watergate ) and buried Amy Rohbachs story) would absolutely fit with killing by the same people who created and ran him.
“3) It is relevant as only very few can pull such a killing in a high security prison.”
Not really. Prison guards don’t get paid much. A little greasing of the palms is all it would take.
As for the rest, conspiracy crap.
Yiu will note that like the IPCC, the headline doesn’t quite reflect the text..
“one of their wettest Januarys on record.”
Somewhat different to the “breaks 149 year record”
It’s the headline that people memorize the most.- that’s why the most propaganda and lies are placed at the beginning and end of a text.
The truth is usually burried in a wall of text and/or placed in regions where the focus gets lost.
The phenomenon is called “Scan and Scroll.”
It’s usually sub-editors who fit up an article with a headline.
And if there’s a ‘narrative’ to be served, the sub-editors will “juice up” the headline for emphasis.
Often implying a different impression to what the actual content of the article offers.
It’s a sales device, just like the advertisements copy writers use.
(not what one should expect from a so-called “journal of record” though).
The BBC didn’t say it was a “record January in N Ireland“.
What the BBC article says is “…Northern Ireland experienced the wettest January for 149 years.” Count back 149 years before Jan 2026 and you get… January 1877.
Why will most people assume that? What evidence does Homewood have to suggest that this is what “most people will assume“? If they had said ‘Northern Ireland experienced the wettest January on record” then yes, most people would think that’s what they meant; but they didn’t say that.
The BBC’s headline doesn’t say ‘rainfall records were broken in N Ireland‘; the BBC headline says:
Which, in the case of N Ireland, is 100% accurate.
The BBC can’t be held responsible for the fevered, paranoid inferences people like Homewood mistakenly draw from its plain-English use of words.
So it is no wetter now, than it was 150 or so years ago.. ! OK. !
Correct: thats a phenomenon called “weather” just like the spikes and dips in temperature in this …..
Even you must be aware that there are ouliers (warm and cold) it’s the nature of the randomness (chaos) in the climate sytem that must be meaned over decades to see a trend.
NB: It is made up of many spikes and dips but they go to make up a mean trend which is the red line.
ANd not only is it rising (warming) it is also accelerating.
Nice demonstration of the Deadly Sin of Reification.
WTF has UAH got to do with UK rainfall !!!
You have truly lost it this time. !!
Love the continued use of El Nino events to show warming..
They are the only cause of warming this century in the Arctic
At least we know there is no human causation.
The BBC says the opposite of the truth. On any subject. And gets paid for it whether we like it or not.
One example:
BBC’s bias ‘pushed Hamas lies around the world’
Leaked dossier says corporation’s Arabic service boosted terror group’s claims and minimised Israeli suffering – Telegraph
’for 149 years’ is a deliberate ploy by the broadcaster, to be accurate whilst at the same time obfuscate. Most people will indeed interpret that ‘for 149 years’ as a variation on the tired BBC mantra ‘since records began’, Not many will conclude that more rain had been falling 149 years ago, a conclusion by the reader that the writers are striving to avoid.
Here are the facts: In January 2026 Northern Ireland had its second-wettest January since 1877 in a record that goes back to 1834.
What words would you use to accurately report that?
So, no change in rainfall since 1877… ok !
All within the range of natural variability.
It would be nice if BBC News would now report on how some of the English reservoirs are now filling up nicely after some of them were critically low.
Not holding my breath.
Just recently there was all that hype…
The world is in water bankruptcy, UN scientists report – here’s what that means
A lot of unexpected rain.
The link misses the point which is that more water is needed than is available because the population has increased without an increase in reservoir capacity.
Australia is a case in point. Here isa chart of water storage capacity added per decade.
Note how little has been added this century, despite a large rise in population.
It’s got electrolytes!
Along with the ‘Climate Change’ grifters you get BBC grifters, government grifters, BBC grifters, media grifters…it is grifters galore when weather is used to sell a political message.
All you have to see is that the Met and the BBC are involved and you can move on. You will be dumber for having listened to them than not.
Since Brexit, has England restarted its centuries old program of dredging rivers to reduce flooding?