I’m sure you may have noticed this but it is still worth pointing out,as this B-BBC does!
“It’s taken two weeks, but the BBC website has finally gotten around to reporting the Met Office’s press release of 24th December that the so-called Climate Model has been revised (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20947224). Why so long? Because the new model suggests that any temperature rise will be less than expected, based on new computer calculations. It couldn’t very well do anything else – pretty much all sources agree that there has been no warming for about 15 years now and that “natural variability” (no, really?) may be the cause. Climate forecasting may be about as scientific as astrology, but even the “scientists” have to face the Inconvenient Truth occasionally. But just imagine if the new model had forecast that warming was higher than expected? Can you imagine the BBC response then? It would have immediately been the lead article on their website; you know the sort of thing: “Global Warming out of control, more taxes and EU/UN involvement needed now!”
Ladies and gentlemen, we have here two items, Dr Who and BBC weather reporting.
On the one hand a science fiction based futuristic fantasy series….which although containing elements of gothic horror, is mainly aimed at a child audience….
On the other hand we have Dr Who.
I thank you.
Yes, but Dr Who is far more believable than it was when I was a child.
But something tells me that it is still as fictional as it was in my day.
Maybe that’s why the Met office wants more powerful computers? To make the fiction more believable.
The BBC were all out in the pub so missed a crucial trick – 24 December was a good day to hide bad news.
The intrepid Paul Hudson comments that the new info is bound to raise questions about all the energy policies crdulous governments have adopted in the face of the CAGW scam – or words to that effect ! –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2013/01/met-office-scale-back-global-w.shtml
In the one corner we have guys like Paul Hudson and David Rose who seem to know what they are talking about.
In the other corner – all the BBC alarmists milking CAGW or whatever its laterst disguise is for all it is worth
Hudson sat on the leaked CRU emails for over a month before news really got out. He mentioned it once, but I think he got away with it.
No David – that is an urban myth. I don;t recall all the details, but I believe he was sent a snippet that mentioned his name. He was NOT sent the whole ClimateGate release. And did not sit on any important stuff for weeks on end.
Hudson is one of the very few honest people at the BBC on climate change. Very very few.
It’s no myth. I remember it well. Hudson said so himself.
David
Paul Hudson was sent ONLY the handful of emails that commented on a sceptical piece he had published – with the Hockey Stick gang arguing that Richard Black or someone at the BBC should warn Hudson off. *His link to that small chain of emails in his 23 November blog post no longer works)
Hudson only received that specific chain of emails – which apparently he had been copied in on anyway. So he did NOT get more than a miniscule fraction of the ClimateGate I flood of emails that were uploaded in a zip file to overseas servers.
I think Paul Hudson’s blog post the following day, 24 November, explains this – and shows him in his usual sceptical mood about climate warming. He really is one of the few good guys ! Hudson’s job is to be a regional weather forecaster and climate correspondent for just one of the BBC’s regional services – a small one at that.
The people who really tried to squelch the full ClimateGate story at the BBC were Harrabin et al. The story was way above Hudson’s pay grade. All he could do was confirm that the stuff looked genuine – because he had seen a handful of the emails before. None of the emails he saw dealt with the real crime of fixing the climate data – “Hiding the Decline”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-what-next.shtml
I take Bishop Hill / Andrew Montford’s post at 8.23 pm on 11 December 2011 as gospel on this !
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/12/11/bbcs-secret-register-of-interests.html
Hudson did scramble to clarify, but there’s no way of knowing what he was actually sent. Neither News Sniffer nor the Wayback Machine have any evidence to support my recollection that the story changed immediately to Hudson getting only 10 emails from someone innocently letting him know that the world’s top experts had a few comments. The Guardian – generally hand-in-hand with the BBC on these things – said Hudson was sent “a sample” by the actual leaker. Hudson after the fact dismissed it by saying he saw it as just the usual “here are some complaints about your article”.
However, two of the emails were key to the whole scandal:
Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”
There is also this statement by Mike Mann which dates to 12 Oct and fits in with the statement by Paul Hudson that he was forwarded the emails on the 12th Oct.
“extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?”
It’s a bit more than “complaints” about the article. I wouldn’t expect him to call out a colleague, but he didn’t say anything about Trenberth’s confession. That was prompted by his blogpost, but it wasn’t a complaint about it. Hudson knew about the hack/leak. Hudson knew it revealed trouble at the CRU and among climate change scientists. Hudson knew Black was in league with Mann and a propagandist rather than trustworthy journalist.
Hudson may be one of the good guys when it comes to honesty about Warmism and climate, but there’s no way he and the BBC didn’t know about this leak and what it meant before the mainstream media reported it. It’s too bad he didn’t make a fuss like Meirion Jones and Liz MacKean did at Newsnight. Maybe somebody put the squeeze on him.
Sorry David, I still think you are ascribing bad motives to Hudson. As well as Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) Hudson has been defended in the past by Steve McIntyre, a pre-eminent sceptic.
There is really no evidence at all that Hudson knew about the massive leak of hundreds and hundreds of emails and the whole Harry_Read_Me file until the leaked material was posted on blogsites such as Tallbloke. At that point it was for Harrabin and Black to deal with the matter as the senior BBC environmental corespondents. The whole blogosphere was aflame with comments about the Hockey Stick team including the East Anglia Uni CRU, the affair was blown wide open.
What could Hudson have added to the brouhaha ? He told Harrabin that he belivevd the material that had been leaked was likely to be genuine – based on the tiny set of emails that he had received. And remember – Hudson had already just published a brave blogpost that questioned the whole warming hypothesis. What Trenberth said had already been clearly stated by Hudson – there was nil evidence of recent warming.
Yes, it would not be surprising if people have leaned on young Paul Hudson. He was and still is the only BBC person who has broken ranks.
The Newsnight leakers raised a fuss because their own work had been spiked. Hudson had managed to get his own work out in his blog article “What Global Warming?”.
The main fact is – there is no evidence whatsoever that Hudson received the entire leak. The leaker’s interest was to get the entire mass of emails and files posted on the Web, that is something Hudson would not nhave had the resources or the skill to do.
I was just saying on the open thread that the BBC wasn’t likely to deal with this honestly. Lo and behold, this article is full of “yeah but” and suddenly add qualifiers to forecasts (“if accurate”), and spend more time reassuring us that we’re still going to burn in Gaia Fire anyway than it does examining how it’s all been wrong.
They make sure to tell us that critics will use this to continue claiming that it’s all BS. Forewarned is forearmed, you know. Don’t let the deniers blow this out of proportion, eh, BBC?
I’d love to read the foaming-at-the-mouth emails they’re going to get from the Jo Abesses of the world on this one. I’d also be interested to know if Richard Black was brought in to consult on how to handle it.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/01/08/leading-german-daily-announces-global-warming-has-stopped-questions-ipcc-models/
‘German online daily Hamburger Abendblatt here has a story titled: Global Warming Takes A Break, citing the leaked copy of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, which is due to be released in September, 2013.’……….
The Abendblatt also writes that Marotzke is also annoyed that the IPCC AR5 draft was released prematurely, claiming that “it didn’t belong in public”.
The warmists don’t like leaks of the draft IPCC report because….
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/12/20/this-is-called-cheating-part-1/
sorry – I had written my bit below on the IPCC leak before seeing your piece !
No prob.
Today’s blockbuster is the release by Donna Laframboise of huge chunks of the draft IPCC report. Amazing gal that – blowing another raspberry at Patchouri, Mann et al
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/08/more-ipcc-ar5-the-secret-santa-leak/
(La Framboise – Fr raspberry – Geddit ?!!)
She ran a crowd=-ource exercise last year which analysed all the “scientific journal references” in the previous IPCC report. – showing that a high proprtion of the so-called references were puff pieces by climate alarmists like WWF and Greenpeace. Her book last year “The Delinquent Teenager” was a thorough demolition job on the corrupt practices the IPCC uses to produce its reports.
Donna appears to be a REAL journalist at heart, albeit freelance. Digging for the dirt, doing proper research. Unlike the highly-paid BBC clowns.
This release of IPCC material mirrors ClimateGate I and II, maybe. So the BBC will not cover it. No, all those BBC staff in North America will be too busy to interview Donna in Canada.
One of the debates within Climate Science is about scientist doing their own Journalism, that is what they are already doing in Mensa.
The problem is not really the scientist or even Labour Mps, it comes from the left-wing green activists influence on Journalists especially at the BBC. Both these groups are almost exclusively qualified in the Arts and Humanities and seem to worship science as a religion, but are not intelligent enough to be interested in science as an intellectual subject to read about or understand.
A description of Harrabin, Black and almost everyone at the BBC’s Climate Seminar.
La Framboise’s book should be compulsory reading for every politician on the planet. There is enough damning material in her book to warrant a Parliamentary enquiry into government policy on ‘climate change’ and the blithe acceptance by all the political parties of every utterance from the small clique of scientists who dominate the IPCC.
‘Unlike the highly-paid BBC clowns.’
That’s what a compelled £4Bpa get you.
‘the BBC website has finally gotten around to reporting’
Watertight oversight ((c) Black. R, once of this Parish) was such a spiffy notion, but for the fact that it got solely applied to things the BBC really, really, didn’t fancy getting out in the public domain.
Propaganda backed by censorship has poor historical precedent.
They are struggling with the lies and stealth edits, but they are immune on matters of delay, and know it. Try pointing out a rush to cover one ‘story’ (say, on the ME) with sitting on such as this, and they will laugh at you.
Sadly, such ‘professional’ media practices from a supposedly trustworthy source are as prevalent as they are corrupt.
The Met Office report (stepping back a bit from CAGW alarmism and conceding there has been no recent warming) was published on 24 December. Not a bad day to bury the Inconvenient Truth ?
And typical of the BBC – past masters at Cut-and-Paste Churnalism – to fail to mention it for 2 whole weeks !
Graham Stringer has said exactly that:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9787662/Global-warming-at-a-standstill-new-Met-Office-figures-show.html
And he was critical of the parliamentary enquiry into Climategate.
The Met Office really is a public scandal.
It takes just one individual with real skill in statistics to pull apart all the nonsense the Met Ofice has been spouting on UK rainfall records :
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/1/7/climate-correspondents.html
Isn’t it time Panorama did an expose of how the hugely-expensive Met Office has been run for years by climate-change fanatics ? While failing in its primary purpose to deliver decent weather forecasts ? Pigs might fly, I suppose.
2012: “It is with great thanks that I mark the retirement of Robert Napier” (WWF-UK’s Chief Executive for eight years) “as Chairman of the Met Office Board after serving two full terms. Robert has offered the Met Office leadership and counsel over six years of challenging and successful times…..” Really?
New Chairman Greg Clarke is “highly experienced, with a number of high profile roles, for example as chairman of the Football League, and formerly as CEO of Cable and Wireless Communication PLC”
Wiki: Cable & Wireless Communications’ operatations are organised into four regional businesses – Panama, Macau, the Caribbean and Monaco & Islands.
Just the background … the MO needed… (harumph).
I suppose we can be grateful we don’t have another Green activist like Napier.
Take a look at this: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/science/earth/2012-was-hottest-year-ever-in-us.html?hp
So just where is the truth? Perhaps a bit more research.
Your point? NYT has an agenda and it isn’t honest reporting, much like our “national treasure” the bBC. However I don’t have to pay for the New York Times.
‘So just where is the truth? Perhaps a bit more research.’
Here’s some for you…
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/2012-didnt-crack-the-top-ten-for-record-maximums/
Posted this in the Telegraph, yesterday:
“…A message from the Met office.
There is no warming, and it’s a travesty there isn’t. All our scaremongering has come to nought (but it’s just a temporary aberration).
But don’t worry – it’s only a blip – full warming will be resumed one day, perhaps – even after the coming Little Ice Age, but it’ll be back, you mark our words!
In the meantime, every little weather thing you folk experience will be classed as “record breaking” or “extreme”, and we’ll continue to put out orange and red alerts for, er, weather. Also, when it’s cold it’s warm, really, and when it’s dry it’ll really be quite wet, and we’ll managed to trigger a hosepipe ban sometime next year, you wait and see…
Don’t forget, your children won’t be seeing snow any more, so you’d better get used to it, and prepare those barbies for the next warm summer, and yes, we DID forecast a Mediterranean climate in the future, but what we forgot to mention was the fact that the Med will be bloody cold, too.
But you MUST all realise that warming hasn’t gone away, it’s merely taking a break and will return, rejuvenated, to prove us right all along, you see if it doesn’t.
Incidentally, sorry to frighten you with all these scares about catastrophic global warming, and blaming you for it all, but it was a good wheeze, as was our insistence that CO2 and other greenhouse gases were the cause, when we knew all along that it was the sun and other natural causes.
PS. Thanks for the contributions to our coffers so far – any chance of a new supercomputer? We like playing with useless models…”
“Global warming has STALLED since 1998: Met Office admits Earth’s temperature is rising slower than first thought”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2259012/Global-warming-Met-Office-releases-revised-global-temperature-predictions-showing-planet-NOT-rapidly-heating-up.html#ixzz2HTYbrRK5
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Note how Beeboid Shukman writes as though high-cost BBC ‘greenies’ have not been long-term active propagandists for Met Office and for AGW:-
Though pursed lips-
“Climate model forecast is revised”
(How/ Why?)
By David Shukman
Science editor, BBC News.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20947224
Is Hampstead Harrabin ‘on leave’, or in frantic conference in East Anglia?
Just because there has been no warming for sixteen years does not mean it will never be a warmer year, sometimes. Weather is weather, continuous chaotic system which does what it does. I can believe in “Weather Change” not in our ability to change the weather. ” It may get warmer, for a while, that would not prove anything, any more than it being colder does. Its a con, plain and simple.
“Climate” is a made up word like “Society”. There ain’t no such thing: there is weather, and there are people. The rest is a political agenda.
“Inconvenient truths: Met Office buried global warming data.
The Met Office has been criticised for releasing information on Christmas Eve, without a press release, that shows that global warming has all but ceased.”
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2411/inconvenient_truths_met_office_buried_global_warming_data
Incidentally,
“Lawson Collects on Climate Change Bet”
BY OLIVER WISEMAN
“Thanks to a bet made during a Standpoint dialogue, Nigel Lawson has started 2013 £100 richer than he ended 2012. ”
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/4842
For London Calling: You seem to miss the point completely. It doesn’t matter about the political agenda of any “news” organisation. I’m simply calling for a lot more scientific research before any of them, and you, jump to conclusions.
Nonsense.
No temperature rise for nearly 2 decades, in spite of rising CO2 levels.
QED. Man-Made Global Warming is a myth.
So why pay for more expensive “research” – when we know that a lot of the researchers cooked the books anyway ! We know that the whole Hockey Stick image was a fraud.
The answer is not to spend more money.
The proper response is to spend far less money. Cut out all the subsidies to windfarms that don’t provide energy cheaply. Cut the budget of the Met Office by 70% or more, shoot down any idea of yet another supercomputer. Abolish all Government contributions to “charities” that are warmist fanatics. Oh – and close down the East Anglia CRU completely, it is long-since discredited as incompetent and devious.
And at the BBC – prohibit any more foreign junkets to climate conferences, no more fake “reviews”, offset any speaking or chairmanship fees against the BBC salaries already being paid,. Good practice for cutting the whole of the BBC down to size.
BK I think I got your point.
There has already been trillions of dollars spent on research. It is political – its not subject to the test of normal science. “It’s Settled” Too many people invested in the lie to admit a thing. Our children have been taught it at school, Mis-selling like PPI, now we have Carbon Taxes, and its all a lie. No amount of research will dislodge the eco-zealots, will get WWF, Greenpeace Oxfam or CAFOD back to being boring charities and not “planet-savers” or the UN to own up and stop trying to redistribute the worlds wealth.
It needs citizens to call it what it is, at every possible opportunity, to their faces. Few have the courage, or willingness to sacrifice their own well being, but a lie it remains.
‘I’m simply calling for a lot more scientific research before any of them, and you, jump to conclusions.’
Welcome to the sceptics camp.
Harrabin: late plea to Met Office –
“Say it isn’t so” –
How the BBC (and the Guardian, 2 cheeks of the same arse) are spinning the MetOffice admissions.
Shukman says that the temp increase will be 0,47 degrees by 2017, not 0.54. It is presented in a way that suggests that this increase will occur over just the next 5 years – when in fact it is a suggested increase from the baseline decades ago.
News At Ten showed this in a 5-year graph. Which obviously gives the impression that temperatures are still rising – and that the increase has been shaded down only a fraction.
If Shukman cannot read the Met Office press release properly he should not be employed as lead reporter on climate issues. Or maybe he did read it properly – but deliberately reported it in a misleading manner. Paul Hudson, a mere junior, read and reported on it properly.
I understand that all this has been brought to Shukman’s attention. But he is failing to alter his report..
You really can’t trust the BBC anywhere near climate issues. Lie after lie after lie.
‘all this has been brought to Shukman’s attention. But he is failing to alter his report..’
Blimey, what do you expect? This is a 24/7, finger on the pulse ‘news’ outfit, after all. Ok, a unique one, but still.
CECUTT works on a cycle to rival geological time.
No matter what, even a blatant howler has to go through channels, especially if from outside the bubble.
If you’re lucky it will be fast-tracked and stealth ‘evolved’ within, say, a week.
If there’s an agenda at play or an Abbess in the wings, the whole thing could get booted upstairs and take months.
You don’t get world class trust in educating and informing any other way you know.
And the best part is, even if folk are misled at the time, anyone looking back in archive won’t know it ever happened.
The BBC – it was a different time… and place… and wasn’t them… honest.
Tangentially related is the prominence the BBC’s ‘news’ website is currently giving to hot weather in Australia, while the news that China is freezing in the worst cold for thirty years is conspicuous by its absence.
Frankly extremes of any kind are a concern, but only if they are, actually, extremes.
Most appear ‘unprecedented’ only as far back as the last one, and a BBC ‘journalist’s’ grasp of the actual meaning of the term, can extend.
But hanging on such things seems to be creating unnecessary pinhead discussions, angels or otherwise, anyway.
IF…. we are headed into a period of more unsettled weather, worrying about man’s possible influence seems now less than productive. It seems pretty clear we as a race are puny in comparison to nature, so tinkering to suit social engineering control ambitions or subsidy-addicted greed is daft.
If I can locate a government and/or a medium who is into contingency planning and mitigation preparations, they get my vote.
Flying John ‘Rappoteur’ Prescott and David Shuckman to an exotic location to pontificate on how Cameron’s Dad and Nick Clegg’s missus should get another bung as pensioners freeze… not so much.
Any day now I expect the BBC to report 2012 as the second most “most average year” ever. Perhaps Spring will be “Extremely Mild”. With no understanding of statistics, straightfaced.
CO2 is allegedly heating the whole planet, not any particular localty. “Global temperature” makes as much sense as the world’s average telephone number. But some people are always looking for a sign, proof where none can exist. Life of Brian, the dropped shoe, He has given us a sign! Early snowdrops anyone?
BBC News have been playing a bit of 3 card trick with their sensationalist reporting of Aussie bush fires. As I (and no doubt David Attenborough) would understand it these fires are completely expected natural events and Australia is of course in the southern hemisphere therefore at the height of their summer. Facts not prominent in BBC reporting.
Are we going to see a repeat of last time, where the Australian victims themselves blamed Greenie policies for creating an inferno waiting to happen? Which the BBC will censor, of course.
Excellent. Like not clearing drainage ditches – for ecological reasons, of course – can lead to floods. The BBC will only approve of man interfering with nature if it conserves wildlife, not mankind.
Same deal for floods in some parts of Australia, IIRC. Which the BBC and the Australian Watermelon government blamed on AGW.
This is how Shukman’s article of 8 January centred on a total porkie :
The Met Office report said :
“Global average temperature is expected to remain between 0.28 °C and 0.59 °C (90% confidence range) above the long-term (1971-2000) average during the period 2013-2017, with values most likely to be about 0.43 °C higher than average.”
Shukman wrote :
“The UK Met Office has revised one of its forecasts for how much the world may warm in the next few years.
It says that the average temperature is likely to rise by 0.43 C by 2017 – as opposed to an earlier forecast that suggested a warming of 0.54C.”
Shukman’s piece clearly suggested that the 0.43 degree rise will occur over just 4 or 5 years, implying a rise of about 1 degree a decade. And implying continuing global warming.
He has finally amended his misleading piece – after it has been criticised all round the Web., including here..
But the damage was already done. It was the second paragraph of his piece – the “takeaway” punchline, coming after the first para that simply stated that the Met Office had revised its forecasts..
Incompetent reporting or what ?
Shukman’s 8 January article now has :
“the average temperature is likely to be 0.43 C above the long-term average by 2017, as opposed to an earlier forecast suggesting a difference of 0.54C.
Not much of an improvement really – he doesn’t say what “long-term average” means.
The BBC just keeps playing the shell game on its audience.
The BBC keeps suggesting that we have been seeing extrem wet weather and floods – unprecedented.
Who do you believe – the BBC or your lying eyes ?
http://www.thamesweb.co.uk/windsor/windsorhistory/images1800s/floodsJan1872_03.jpg
http://www.thamesweb.co.uk/windsor/windsorhistory/images1800s/1873floodILN.jpg