Global warming dogma and faulty computer models led the Met Office to
forecast a 'barbecue summer' for 2009, says Christopher Booker.


(Big Long Read - Daily Telegraph 3rd October)

John. Athome wrote in message
news
Global warming dogma and faulty computer models led the Met Office to
forecast a 'barbecue summer' for 2009, says Christopher Booker.


(Big Long Read - Daily Telegraph 3rd October)



Booker is absolutely right. The met office threw its lot in with AGW under
Thatcher some 20 years ago and oh boy has the Labour Party latched on

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:43:15 +0100, John. Athome wrote:

Global warming dogma and faulty computer models led the Met Office to
forecast a 'barbecue summer' for 2009, says Christopher Booker.


(Big Long Read - Daily Telegraph 3rd October)

OOoooops, forgot the link

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...so-wrong.html#

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 23:54:02 +0100, "Lawrence Jenkins"
wrote:


John. Athome wrote in message
news
Global warming dogma and faulty computer models led the Met Office to
forecast a 'barbecue summer' for 2009, says Christopher Booker.


(Big Long Read - Daily Telegraph 3rd October)



Booker is absolutely right. The met office threw its lot in with AGW under
Thatcher some 20 years ago and oh boy has the Labour Party latched on

Is this due to Dogma or an opportunity for 'New Taxes' ?

(A Politician is not looking for the truth so there must be a reason
for the Govt position)

On Oct 8, 12:57*am, John. Athome wrote:
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 23:54:02 +0100, "Lawrence Jenkins"

wrote:

John. Athome wrote in message
news
Global warming dogma and faulty computer models led the Met Office to
forecast a 'barbecue summer' for 2009, says Christopher Booker.

(Big Long Read - Daily Telegraph 3rd October)

Booker is absolutely right. The met office threw its lot in with AGW under
Thatcher some 20 years ago and oh boy has the Labour Party latched on

Is this due to Dogma or an opportunity for 'New Taxes' ?

(A Politician is not looking for the truth so there must be a reason
for the Govt position)

The government does not have a "position" on forecasts (except
presumably to say "Make them as good as possible") whatever it may
encourage us to do to reduce CO2 emissions. They are two separate
matters.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On Oct 7, 11:43*pm, John. Athome wrote:
Global warming dogma and faulty computer models led the Met Office to
forecast a 'barbecue summer' for 2009, says Christopher Booker.

(Big Long Read - Daily Telegraph 3rd October)

There is no evidence for either of those claims. Why should we
take them at all seriously, given that Christoper Booker knows very
little about meteorology and certainly has no knowledge whatever of
the models and methods used in producing seasonal forecasts, or any
other forecasts I would imagine.
The term "barbecue summer" should have been excised as a
misleadingly simplisitic description of a month or two that would be
warmer than normal.
Ignore all journalists' pieces about Global Warming. Their
ignorance of the subject is comprehensive, with the exception of one
or two we know.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey

On 8 Oct, 04:45, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Oct 7, 11:43*pm, John. Athome wrote:

Global warming dogma and faulty computer models led the Met Office to
forecast a 'barbecue summer' for 2009, says Christopher Booker.

(Big Long Read - Daily Telegraph 3rd October)

* * * There is no evidence for either of those claims. *Why should we
take them at all seriously, given that Christoper Booker knows very
little about meteorology and certainly has no knowledge whatever of
the models and methods used in producing seasonal forecasts, or any
other forecasts I would imagine.
* * * *The term "barbecue summer" should have been excised as a
misleadingly simplisitic description of a month or two that would be
warmer than normal.
* * * * Ignore all journalists' pieces about Global Warming. *Their
ignorance of the subject is comprehensive, with the exception of one
or two we know.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey

However, he does expound the fact that there is a lot of scientific
(and general) dissent out there, and this dissent isn't readily
available to the general public, because the television media just
makes a point of broadcasting whatever "this expert" or "that report"
has said, or "this" or "that" politician's view (and they know sod all
about meteorology either) without any discussion or putting forward
opposing views. I notice recently, that there again appears to be
more mentioning of "global warming" rather than "climate change" - is
this pure chance, or deliberate?

Whatever you may think of Christopher Booker, his articles certainly
generate lively debate.

CK

On Oct 8, 9:32*am, Natsman wrote:
On 8 Oct, 04:45, Tudor Hughes wrote:





On Oct 7, 11:43*pm, John. Athome wrote:

Global warming dogma and faulty computer models led the Met Office to
forecast a 'barbecue summer' for 2009, says Christopher Booker.

(Big Long Read - Daily Telegraph 3rd October)

* * * There is no evidence for either of those claims. *Why should we
take them at all seriously, given that Christoper Booker knows very
little about meteorology and certainly has no knowledge whatever of
the models and methods used in producing seasonal forecasts, or any
other forecasts I would imagine.
* * * *The term "barbecue summer" should have been excised as a
misleadingly simplisitic description of a month or two that would be
warmer than normal.
* * * * Ignore all journalists' pieces about Global Warming. *Their
ignorance of the subject is comprehensive, with the exception of one
or two we know.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey

However, he does expound the fact that there is a lot of scientific
(and general) dissent out there, and this dissent isn't readily
available to the general public, because the television media just
makes a point of broadcasting whatever "this expert" or "that report"
has said, or "this" or "that" politician's view (and they know sod all
about meteorology either) without any discussion or putting forward
opposing views. *I notice recently, that there again appears to be
more mentioning of "global warming" rather than "climate change" - is
this pure chance, or deliberate?

Whatever you may think of Christopher Booker, his articles certainly
generate lively debate.

CK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There is not "a lot" of scientific dissent out there. That would be
wrong. There is some dissent, whilst the vast majority of scientists
accept the fact that the world is highly likely to continue to warm.
If the television media did made a point of reporting what; "this
expert" or "that report" has said, or "this" or "that" politician's
view (and they know sod all about meteorology either)" then if there
was presently anything like a balance of opinion, there would be a lot
more reports about GW having stopped and the theory being incorrect.
There isn't a balance of opinion, but denialists would like to portray
things as if there is.

That's just another denialist tactic to deflect from actual trends and
actual science and would purport to the denialist view being the
scientific equivalent of the mainstream. It isn't. It is the view of a
very small minority of climate scientists who are being ignored
(sensibly, IMO).

Anyway, a post such as this is very ironic, made on the back of such
an uninformed and sceptical newspaper report from a hack who really
does know "sod-all about meteorology" - really sod all about climate
science and writes to sell a right-wing newspaper.

On Oct 7, 11:43*pm, John. Athome wrote:
Global warming dogma and faulty computer models led the Met Office to
forecast a 'barbecue summer' for 2009, says Christopher Booker.

(Big Long Read - Daily Telegraph 3rd October)

You are mixing up seasonal forecasting and long-term global climate
forecasting in your title here; as is the Mr. Booker. They need
separating.

Seasonal forecasting is not possible with accuracy at present, but the
MetO is under constant pulic pressure to issue these forecasts and
there is an unfulfillable expectation that they should be right every
time. The combination of those two factors is completely certain to
expose the Met Office to criticism because they are bound to be wrong
from time to time. This summer, the MetO press office made a silly
comment from which they will learn. Between a rock and a hard place
would be an accurate description of the MetO's position here, between
public expectation and present forecasting limitations, though much
work is going on to research seasonal signals and this may reap
rewards in the near(ish) future in terms of increased forecast
accuracy.

30-100 year long-term climate forecasting has not yet come to outcome,
so how can it be wrong?

As for the word "dogma". Believe that so many climate scientists are
wrong at yours, and the world's, peril. The science is at least
9/10ths settled for most scientists and that's enough to convince me
that we should take action. It's also enough for a minority to say we
shouldn't. The smart bet would be to go with 1/9 and not bet at odds
of 9/1.

On 8 Oct, 11:35, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 8, 9:32*am, Natsman wrote:





On 8 Oct, 04:45, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Oct 7, 11:43*pm, John. Athome wrote:

Global warming dogma and faulty computer models led the Met Office to
forecast a 'barbecue summer' for 2009, says Christopher Booker.

(Big Long Read - Daily Telegraph 3rd October)

* * * There is no evidence for either of those claims. *Why should we
take them at all seriously, given that Christoper Booker knows very
little about meteorology and certainly has no knowledge whatever of
the models and methods used in producing seasonal forecasts, or any
other forecasts I would imagine.
* * * *The term "barbecue summer" should have been excised as a
misleadingly simplisitic description of a month or two that would be
warmer than normal.
* * * * Ignore all journalists' pieces about Global Warming. *Their
ignorance of the subject is comprehensive, with the exception of one
or two we know.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey

However, he does expound the fact that there is a lot of scientific
(and general) dissent out there, and this dissent isn't readily
available to the general public, because the television media just
makes a point of broadcasting whatever "this expert" or "that report"
has said, or "this" or "that" politician's view (and they know sod all
about meteorology either) without any discussion or putting forward
opposing views. *I notice recently, that there again appears to be
more mentioning of "global warming" rather than "climate change" - is
this pure chance, or deliberate?

Whatever you may think of Christopher Booker, his articles certainly
generate lively debate.

CK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There is not "a lot" of scientific dissent out there. That would be
wrong. There is some dissent, whilst the vast majority of scientists
accept the fact that the world is highly likely to continue to warm.
If the television media did made a point of reporting what; "this
expert" or "that report" has said, or "this" or "that" politician's
view (and they know sod all about meteorology either)" then if there
was presently anything like a balance of opinion, there would be a lot
more reports about GW having stopped and the theory being incorrect.
There isn't a balance of opinion, but denialists would like to portray
things as if there is.

That's just another denialist tactic to deflect from actual trends and
actual science and would purport to the denialist view being the
scientific equivalent of the mainstream. It isn't. It is the view of a
very small minority of climate scientists who are being ignored
(sensibly, IMO).

Anyway, a post such as this is very ironic, made on the back of such
an uninformed and sceptical newspaper report from a hack who really
does know "sod-all about meteorology" - really sod all about climate
science and writes to sell a right-wing newspaper.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, Dawlish, there is a LOT of dissent, despite your prejudiced
views. And the "deniers" are really those who don't believe that they
could just conceivably be wrong in their AGW prognoses. I would
rather class myself as a sceptic, chiefly because I believe that the
"arguments" that you and your ilk put forward are suspect, unproven
and biased. I've seen nothing yet that has encouraged me to change my
views, as just about every "official" publication that appears is
pulled apart because it is riddled with untruths, unproved "facts" and
generalisations. I notice that the "hockey stick" has been dispensed
with (without explanation or apology for it's erroneous predicition),
photographs of alleged Arctic ice melting in fact are those of the
Antarctic (and not melting at all, apparently), and poor stranded
polar bears on ice floes are, in fact, doing OK, thank you, and we
won't mention dendrochronology. It's all smoke and mirrors, and
becoming more so as time goes by. If you have to resort to
subterfuge, is says a lot for the "science". Well, it doesn't fool
me, but I of course can only speak for myself. However, I am
heartened to see that many others, with far greater relevant subject
knowledge than me are also sceptics.

CK