Met Office admits it hasn’t a clue

The Met Office has admitted what many of us already knew…that they don’t have  clue about anything, least of all the weather.

If its implications were not so serious, it might have seemed hilarious that the Met Office’s scentists last week staged a conference to discuss why, in recent years, Britain’s weather has apparently gone off the rails. What they meant, without admitting it, was: why have they got their forecasts so spectacularly wrong in 12 years out of the past 13? Why in 2009 did they predict a “barbecue summer” when the summer was a washout? Why, in 2010, did they predict a “milder-than-average winter” just before we had one of the coldest-ever Decembers? Why in 2012 did they forecast a “drier-than-average” spring and early summer just before we enjoyed one of the wettest summers on record?  

The explanation, of course, is that the Met Office’s experts have been so obsessed with global warming that their computers were programmed to predict “hotter, drier summers” and “warmer, wetter winters” for decades to come. Tellingly, they last week went out of their way to discount man-made global warming as the cause of all this “climate disruption”, ascribing it instead to various natural factors, from changes in solar radiation to shifts in ocean currents: in other words, precisely the arguments less blinkered scientists have been urging in vain for years. The significance of this retreat from their former mindset is that the influence of our Met Office in driving the man-made warming scare has been second to none, not least through the prestige it has enjoyed with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ever since it was launched in 1988 under the Met Office’s then-director, Dr John Houghton,

Only two clear messages emerged from last week’s conference. The first was that the Met Office experts seem, at last, to be admitting that they really have no idea what is driving the changes in our weather. The other was their call for more research funding to help them to find out.

But as the Met Office and its much-vaunted “super-computer” is already costing us £200 million a year, I suppose that it is good to see them conceding that, so far, we haven’t really had much value for our money.

  • Euan Ross-Taylor

    At last, some acceptance that climate change is nothing to do with ‘global warming’. Has the floodgate begun to open? Will we begin to see more reports of doubt over man made weather impact? It is certainly about time the charletons are exposed, those who have vested interests and have invested heavily to reap returns from the ‘supporting evidence’.

  • Whafe

    About time some honesty prevailed… Bravo…

  • arne

    Fact, 17 years since any warming has been recorded in Britain.

    • Agent BallSack

      Links to that fact would be good. My argument of “Some guy on WhaleOil said so” doesnt stack much credence.

    • Patrick

      But the science is decided, it is settled, indisputable. Anything else says you are a denier of man made climate change, a flat earther.
      Or so the communists behind the whole climate change industry would have us believe.
      Now they scramble to try & make the facts fit their agenda.

      • rockape

        I was a denier of Global warming ,now I have seen the light, I am a denier of climate change.

  • In Vino Veritas

    “haven’t had much value for their money” – surely that would be zero value for money. A man on a mountain with his finger in the air (as opposed to up his bum) would have been more accurate!

    • kohibruce

      NZ should offer to have our experts help the UK met office – Keisha, Lucy, and the baby doctor.

  • JC

    The Met’s problem is that institutionally it now knows less about the basic facts on climate than the average reader of a right leaning blog..

    1. That the climate changes naturally.. all by itself
    2. That the temperature has been going down slowly but remorselessly for the last 6000 years. The little upwards blip of the 80s and 90s is just one of a 100 such blips on the graph.
    3. The sun might have something to do with temperature.

    JC

  • cows4me

    Ha ha , told you so, “The other was their call for more research funding to help them find out”. What we would like to hear, “We are as thick as two short planks and have no idea what the climate is doing and throwing more money at us to come up with the right answer is not possible. Thus we reject any further funding. “. It won’t happen of course, all that lovely tax payer money wasted by those who actually produced it.

  • rockape

    A friend of mine in the UK was a BBC metman. He admitted that if he said, the weather you get tomorrow will be the same as today, he would have been statistically more correct.

    • Bunswalla

      I liked that Francis with the twee knitted jumpers. Oooh he was lovely.

      • rockape

        Michael Fish was the best. Ridiculing a little old lady about a message she sent re a hurricane in Oct 1987. Was good enough to admit he was wrong the day after the UKs first ever Hurricane.

  • Si

    Have to say the guys at NIwa here seem to be getting things right. They predicted droughts and more extreme weather and from where I am in Wellington, they are on the money.

  • Mr_Blobby

    There are only 2 valid weather forecasts

    Fine with the possibility of rain.

    Rain with possibility of fine periods.

    All others are a misrepresentation, and treated as misleading advertising.

  • SJ00

    Ken Ring is doing a better job at long range forecasting than the experts.

    • Tiberius

      Ken Ring is a lunatic!

      • Dumrse

        It’s not what’s being debated. Stay on topic.

  • Bunswalla

    People say it’s very wet on the West Coast, but I disagree. Last week for example, it only rained twice. Once for 3 days, and once for 4 days.

64%