Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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# |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Some contradictions in long term Met Office forecast | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Met Office's longer-term forecasts criticised | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Farmers Lose Faith In Long Term Weather Forecasts | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
Wrong type of weather trips up Met Office | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Met office get it wrong again sigh :| | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) |