On 11/02/2014 18:48, Brian Lawrence wrote:
Her salary as Chief Scientist seems perfectly reasonable and appropriate
to me, though I don't really know what duties she is required to perform
in that role, mostly advice and PR I imagine. I doubt she does any
research for the MetO.

This link might throw some light on the subject...

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...e/julia-slingo

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 6:48:35 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:
On 11/02/2014 18:09, Dawlish wrote:



Her qualifications, experience, knowledge and reputation warrant that

salary.



Did I say otherwise



Would you write what you did if you didn't think that she warranted that

salary? Your words are hardly complimentary and supportive, are they? *))



My words were factual. If you want to take them out of context and apply

spin that's fine. It doesn't mean that you are correct.



Her salary as Chief Scientist seems perfectly reasonable and appropriate

to me, though I don't really know what duties she is required to perform

in that role, mostly advice and PR I imagine. I doubt she does any

research for the MetO.



You appear jealous - and very suspicious of science and scientists.



Really? You think you can tell that from what I write? Or maybe you are

just fishing.



I wrote; "You appear". Closer reading would perhaps help you. You could

always deny what I said and explain your true position.



Why would you write that if you didn't think it? Why would I feel the

need to deny or explain anything? Is it a requirement to post here?



I think that regarding jealousy of science and scientists you may be

projecting your own feelings. For such a staunch advocate you really

should have gone for a career in science yourself.

Brian W Lawrence

Wantage

Oxfordshire

You also seem to be going round in circles trying to avoid what you really want to say Brian. Good luck finding a way to say it.

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:22:31 PM UTC, Metman2012 wrote:
On 11/02/2014 18:48, Brian Lawrence wrote:

Her salary as Chief Scientist seems perfectly reasonable and appropriate

to me, though I don't really know what duties she is required to perform

in that role, mostly advice and PR I imagine. I doubt she does any

research for the MetO.



This link might throw some light on the subject...



http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...e/julia-slingo

Yes, thank you. It's information that is easy to find in the public domain and is very well-known, unless of course someone didn't really want to find it, or want to know about it. *))

On 11/02/2014 19:22, Metman2012 wrote:
On 11/02/2014 18:48, Brian Lawrence wrote:
Her salary as Chief Scientist seems perfectly reasonable and appropriate
to me, though I don't really know what duties she is required to perform
in that role, mostly advice and PR I imagine. I doubt she does any
research for the MetO.

This link might throw some light on the subject...

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...e/julia-slingo

Thanks, not much different to what I surmised.

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

On 11/02/2014 19:18, Dawlish wrote:
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 6:48:35 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:

Interesting that you avoid stating your own position and instead prevaricate.
Why would I feel the need to deny or explain anything? Is it a requirement to post here?
Why wouldn't you? Maybe it's time you went back to lurking Brian, as I don't
think a requirement to post is in the group's charter.

Glad to have your seal of approval.


I think that regarding jealousy of science and scientists you may be
projecting your own feelings.

Hardly; projection is the preserve of climate deniers. I have had a
wonderful career and now run my own, highly successful company, thank
you. I hardly need you to say which career path I should have taken! *))

Some of the denizens of usw don't need you to tell them they are idiots,
etc., but it doesn't stop you expressing your opinion. Yet
you appear to want to stop me expressing mine.

I wonder why? Not that I care one iota.

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:21:19 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:
On 11/02/2014 19:18, Dawlish wrote:

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 6:48:35 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:



Interesting that you avoid stating your own position and instead prevaricate.

Why would I feel the need to deny or explain anything? Is it a requirement to post here?

Why wouldn't you? Maybe it's time you went back to lurking Brian, as I don't

think a requirement to post is in the group's charter.



Glad to have your seal of approval.





I think that regarding jealousy of science and scientists you may be

projecting your own feelings.



Hardly; projection is the preserve of climate deniers. I have had a

wonderful career and now run my own, highly successful company, thank

you. I hardly need you to say which career path I should have taken! *))



Some of the denizens of usw don't need you to tell them they are idiots

The few idiots do, as they don't seem to realise that they are. And they really are very few in number.


etc., but it doesn't stop you expressing your opinion. Yet

you appear to want to stop me expressing mine.

Do I? Where do you get that impression from? I can't get you to express an opinion, as you surround your views in prevarication and meaningless circular discussions, in which you do anything *but* express an opinion.

I wonder why? Not that I care one iota.

If I ever did, I would point it out to you, but every one of your many posts to me since breaking cover (all of which I enjoy replying to) shows you care a great deal. *))

Brian W Lawrence

Wantage

Oxfordshire

Shut up Dawlish!

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 14:06:39 UTC, Dawlish wrote:

There will never be absolute proof in science. Now learn that, deniers and don't ask for it again.

Or oo shall squeem an squeem?

Somehow the thought of a bald queer pulling its hair out fails to thrive.

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:25:28 PM UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:21:19 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:

On 11/02/2014 19:18, Dawlish wrote:



On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 6:48:35 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:







Interesting that you avoid stating your own position and instead prevaricate.



Why would I feel the need to deny or explain anything? Is it a requirement to post here?



Why wouldn't you? Maybe it's time you went back to lurking Brian, as I don't



think a requirement to post is in the group's charter.







Glad to have your seal of approval.











I think that regarding jealousy of science and scientists you may be



projecting your own feelings.







Hardly; projection is the preserve of climate deniers. I have had a



wonderful career and now run my own, highly successful company, thank



you. I hardly need you to say which career path I should have taken! *))







Some of the denizens of usw don't need you to tell them they are idiots



The few idiots do, as they don't seem to realise that they are. And they really are very few in number.

However, right on cue, one of them decided to voice his opinion and confirm his idiocy through his foulness. laughing - so predictable..........).

On 11/02/2014 12:33, Martin Brown wrote:
On 11/02/2014 11:18, Joe Egginton wrote:
On 11/02/2014 11:02, matt_sykes wrote:
On Sunday, 9 February 2014 22:04:49 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:

There will never be proof. That's because this is science. Something
the rest of your rant shows you simply don't understand.

ROFL, so what you're saying Dullish is that science is based on faith.
Science is all about evidence and proof.

What he is saying is that *proof* is only possible in mathematics. You
cannot prove a scientific hypothesis in the strict sense of the word.

In science you can easily disprove a hypothesis or theory by finding an
experiment where the experimental results disagree with the predictions
of the theory. It doesn't matter how many experiments you do that have
theory and experimental results matching you never prove it. There is
always the possibility that someone will find a clever experiment that
breaks the standard models of the day in a novel and unexpected way.

Usually such novel experiments that overthrow the scientific status quo
are ground breaking and paradigm shifting like Becquerel discovering
radioactivity, the Michelson-Moreley experiment (relativity), Hertz with
the photoelectric effect (quantum mechanics) and Penzias & Wilson
observing the microwave background (Big Bang).

You can demonstrate that the likelihood that a scientific theory is
correct increases with every independent and more sensitive test that
the theoretical model passes but it is never absolute proof.

There is no absolute proof in science only a progressively better and
better approximation to reality. We codify things that we believe are so
nearly true as to make no difference as the laws of physics but they are
always subject to later revision when better data comes along. Hard
experimental results always trump theory when they conflict.

By comparison dittohead right whingers are absolutely convinced and cock
sure that we can trash the planet with impunity for fun and profit.

You can't attribute any one weather event to AGW but on the other hand
when you have had a run of "hundred year" storms in quick succession you
have to wonder how many more it will take before the lying dittoheads
finally admit defeat. Nature is the final arbiter on this!

Still with the Tory heartlands now flooding they will have to pay some
attention to mitigating climate change instead of pretending that it
isn't happening. "Vote blue get green" slogan is looking very dodgy now.


Well said, however I would exercise caution in any claims that the
current flooding is related to climate change before any attribution
study has been conducted. Otherwise, it is no different to claiming that
the run of cold winters in the UK prior to this year demonstrates a
cooling trend.

There are some interesting rainfall statistics for wet seasons posted on
the UKWW forum:

Wettest seasons on record for England+Wales:

Autumn
502.7mm 2000
455.8mm 1852
438.6mm 1960
424.1mm 1935
402.4mm 1770
400.6mm 1772
399.1mm 1875
398.7mm 1768
396.8mm 1799
394.3mm 1872
391.1mm 1903
387.9mm 1825
384.6mm 1841
379.1mm 1880
378.9mm 1773
378.1mm 1954
377.8mm 1794
377.5mm 1944

Summer
409.7mm 1912
409.2mm 1879
396.3mm 1829
375.2mm 2012

Winter
423.0mm 1914-15
420.9mm 1989-90
418.3mm 1876-77
415.6mm 1994-95
388.3mm 1993-94
380.6mm 1868-69
374.3mm 1959-60
372.8mm 2013-14 up to 9th Feb

As can be seen, there have been several wet seasons historically going
back to the 18th century, and the current winter rainfall is far from
unprecedented.