Very dodgy those BBC types…still trying to tell us everywhere is going to cook even when it’s pouring with rain!
BBC apologises for forecasting sunshine after downpours dampen barbecue weekend
BBC weathermen have been forced to apologise after ignoring computer forecasts predicting showers across South East England on Sunday.
Still at least they can accurately forecast the climate in 100 years time and make us pay up front for it!
…now you’ll get warmists shrieking ‘weather is not climate’. Strange how they are the most enthusiastic at pointing to freak weather conditions as evidence of the coming global climate armageddon.
Your point is a sound one, however. If it remains difficult to predict local weather conditions days in advance, we should be suspicious of the predictions of computer models that claim to foretell the much more complex issue of global climate conditions for decades to come. I think the wisest position to take in regard to the whole climate change issue is one of agnosticism, rather than being a so-called ‘denier’, especially as the debate is certainly NOT over.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-why-doom-has-not-materialized/2012/08/17/fcf89ed6-e7fb-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_story.html
I don’t think most people are actually deniers. Everyone surely knows the Earth’s climate continually changes. The disagreement is the cause of it, and how much man’s activities are involved.
Plus whether we need to do anything about it and if so, what and how much will it actually cost. Personally, I favour the do what gives us the cheapest energy option.
I read somewhere that the models used for forecasting and those used to confirm – sorry – predict, climate change are basically the same, but I’d need to do some research to find where I read it.
As Richard Lindzen, professor of climatology at Massachussetts Institute of Technology famously said ‘I’d be more worried if the climate didn’t change’.
With respect, Reed, we shouldnt treat models with suspicion. We should acknowledge that they are crap and have been repeatedly proven to be so.
Quite – the models are not only worthless, but they are consistently massaged to produce the answers their operators desire, for their paymasters to parade about masquerading as ‘fact’ in countless taxpayer-funded CAGW propaganda sheets. A total disgrace.
Hilarious to even consider one should take remotely seriously straight-faced predictions of weather 50 or 100 years hence. One would have as much luck divining future climate by examining animal entrails or gazing into crystal balls, for all such nonsense is worth.
It’s politics and propaganda, pure and simple.
The exact same supercomputers and models are used by the Met Office for daily weather forecasts and 100-years-hence global warming nonsense. They can’t even reliably predict what will happen a few days hence, yet they expect me to believe their century-long prediction is accurate? stroll on…In the last 50 years, there has been a massive increase in computing power, and they have probably only added a day to their forecasting…
Science or environmentalism? You decide:
http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/12113/
And another. Deeper into the eco-fascist mindset we go……
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/07/27/green-death-threats-change-or-die/
The thing that first made me suspicious of the AGW nonsense was the claim that their models were correct whilst they were producing predictions that were over 400% wrong.
What sort of science can be 400% out yet still make such claims? Astrology?
Campaigners need a long-term catastrophic prediction or they are out of a job. Worse, it means owning up to misleading everyone. I’d like to be a fly on the wall at the Greenpeace management board. “Sorry guys, it’s all been a terrible mistake. It appears the planet does not need saving after all. Do you suppose we can get a refund on those airplane tickets to the next Climate Summit?”
There is a word: “apocaholics”
For those of us convinced that the “science is settled” (in my case that means that predictions of sudden catastrophe are bunk) the comments after the Telegraph article are most heartening. The political task of re-educating the public about this scam is progressing nicely…but do all keep up the good work! There is a long way to go yet.
Everybody complains about the hot weather. It’s only the weather presenter who endlessly bleats on about the ‘wonderful’ sun and the ‘miserable’ rain. Why can’t the BBC simply offer an objective forecast rather than the presenter’s cliched opinions?
To be fair, they seem to have realised that conflating what happens in London with the entire country, a rather frequent event for the media Eloi, can result in rather poor reputation management..
‘A BBC spokesman said: “The weather team always endeavour to be open about forecasting and it was right to explain why today’s forecast didn’t capture weather events in some regions. This was done following discussions with Met Office colleagues.”
What is confusing me still is the relationship between the BBC and the Met, which appears at best blurred…
http://biasedbbc.tv/2012/08/16/light-relief/#comment-60216
When they say ‘Met colleagues’ don’t they just mean ‘colleagues’. Or is this another BBC degree of separation split that can be called upon to point at each other when required in deciding no one was responsible so all has, on average, worked out in the end, if not ‘right’.
“conflating what happens in London with the entire country”
The latest load of rubbish is the revised system of Met amber-red “warnings”. Last night (or was it the night before?) in the general forecast the nation was informed that the Met had issued an “amber” warning only to be told that this warning only applied to the West or South-West.
This really is dumbing down of the worst and most patronising sort. Just tell the viewer/listener what the forecast is and if it’s 16 inches of rain in 1 hour in Herefordshire s/he’ll make up his own mind up about how serious it is. I don’t – and the inhabitants of Hereford don’t – need to be told that a particular forecast is so dire that it constitutes an amber or red warning or whatever.
That sort of nonsense adds nothing to the information except a spurious dramatic gloss. As it happens, adding that gloss is the sole reason for the nonsense. Everything has become showbiz. The only information not infected with this “glamour” is the late night shipping forecast on the basis, I suppose, that the assumed audience is intelligent enough – and impatient enough – to be told just the facts without any superficial gloss.
…and if only we had weather reporters that just stood there and gave us the weather rather than seeing each bulletin as an opportunity to audition for the Richard Hammond spot on Top Gear.
…still, if they fall short, there’s always the Richard Hammond spot on Total Wipeout.
Why the complaints? This is all part of the best bBC traditions. bBC news ‘Labour is doing a wonderful job’; reality Labour is destroying the country. etc……………….
I’ve given up on the TV weather forecasts. In our house it is known as the approximation forecast such is it’s (lack of accuracy). Instead we just look out of the window.