OK, I admit I’m just extremely pissed off with the weather! (And by the time I finished writing this I was even more pissed off with the Met Office for their dishonest portrayal of this weather)
OK, there’s no evidence that the ice age is coming (my original title), but I rightly feel rightly miffed with the Met Office and all the other climate extremists. It’s another cold wet day, after a cold wet July following the coldest June in 40 years. And to put it in context, this coldest July since 1998* included a spectacular hot 2-3 days (see: How to survive a Scottish heat wave).
So, if this coldest July since 1998 includes a heat wave – which we couldn’t appreciate because it came as shock after the previous cold weather and so none of us had time to acclimatise and get to enjoy it – you can imagine how grim the rest of the month was like!
Scotland was the coldest July since 1998* – and probably if you exclude those 2-3 days with heat – it may well be the coldest on record.
And this is how the Met Office show it (courtesy of “NotALotOfPeopleKnowThat“).
AND HERE IT MIGHT HAVE ENDED HOWEVER ….
As I peered to see why there wasn’t a HUGE dark blue pot where we live, something occurred to me. It’s really easy to give a false perception of the climate by adjusting the scale. THIS SCALE GOES UP IN 1C STEPS. So I checked on line to see what scale the Met Office used when it is warm and I found this:
THIS SCALE FROM THE SAME MONTH LAST YEAR GOES UP IN 0.5C steps (not 1C as this year), but worse, the first colouring of “warm” is at +0.2C allowing them to plaster the whole map with red.
The majority of the warm of the map last year was “up to +1.5C”. This is exactly the same limit for the cold this july, but don’t the maps look completley different! This shows a clear conscious decision to down play the recent cold and/or to enhance the recent warming using to dishonest tricks:
- Picking an abnormally low level for “warming” so as to ensure the map is entirely coved in red hue when it is warm whilst picking a much higher threshold for “cooling” so that a large part of the map has no hue
- Increasing the scale so that anomalies that appear this July in a faded blue, appear as a dense red last year.
I don’t have the actual data to allow a map similar to the above, but using something similar to last July’s scale and guessing where the -0.2C limit would be, I think it would not look too different from this:
|
Scale as used by Met Office this year. |
 The same colour scale as July 2013** |
* Allegedly but the Met Office clearly have a culture of exaggerating warmth when it comes and severely down-playing cold, so for very good reason I don’t trust the Met Office on any statistics.
**As close as I can get it given I don’t have all the data.
I’d like to know how entities like the Met Office get to play along with what’s clearly a scam. Surely they aren’t ill-informed and nåive like the pope.
Very simple John: there is no scam.
Organisational failure is very common, but in essence it is just that people behave differently as a “herd” than as individuals leading to the group behaving in a way that none of them would do so individually.
Usually social pressure works to “bring them back in line” and raise standards. However, sometimes as in the area of climate that approach fails.
There are ways to modify this behaviour, but almost all require the consent of those in authority in the organisation. Obviously the first action (if possible) is to change the leadership. But if that is not possible, or their behaviour is actively condoned or tolerated by those in power (Saville), then without consent, the only recourse for the public is some form of public condemnation and if that does not work, then the final recourse is to have prosecutions of individuals to amend their behaviour.
However, it will be a really sad day if/when we get to the prosecutions, because it’s usually not those most at fault who end up in court and suffer most.
You are spending an awful lot of effort saying nothing much at all.
John asked a very astute question:
I’d like to know how entities like the Met Office get to play along with what’s clearly a scam.
Notice the “how” bit?
I did.
You didn’t answer. You dived deep in the wonderful world of the waffle.
Organisational failure something, something “herd” something social pressure works to “bring them back in line” and raise standards. Something something in authority in the organisation. Obviously the first action (if possible) is to change the leadership. Something something , the only recourse for the public is some form of public condemnation something prosecutions.
Pure word salad.
Sarah Palin could do a better job sounding more coherent.
However, it will be a really sad day if/when we get to the prosecutions…
Yes, those mysterious and vague…prosecutions against persons unknown.
Hmm.
You know what I’d like to know?
I’d like to know how entities like the Met Office…and NASA…get to play along with what’s clearly a scam.
“Very simple John: there is no scam.”
Sez you…
It’s the first time in living memory that Mrs H has worn a thermal vest in June, July & August, so in answer to an earlier thread asking “when will global warming have ended”, I think you can take that as definitive proof that it just has (for Cedric’s benefit, in view of his humour bypass, that’s my attempt at a poor joke, not a serious comment).
Seriously though, it is an example of Met Office spin, and you perform valuable work in exposing it. It’s the little insidious details, relentlessly pushing “the cause” without actually lying, just creating a false impression, that’s so disturbing, both with regard to the Met Office and the BBC.
Well, if there is a scam, you’re certainly not going to be able to come up with a mechanism for one.
No mechanism = no scam.
Simple really.
Seriously though, it is an example of Met Office spin, and you perform valuable work in exposing it.,
If a guy with a blog can expose it then….where’s the confirmation from the outside world?
Where’s some other scientific community somewhere out there going…
“Hang on! What the Brit Met Office yapping on about? They’ve made a right mess of things on their website.”
Here that?
(….silence….)
That’s the sound of that not happening.
Now if you want to explain that away somehow as…all those other scientific communities being “in on it” somehow because something, something, hazy detail, something….then go right ahead.
But I don’t think you will.
Scottish Sceptic certainly will not.
Nor will anyone else.
I am at a loss to understand what you are trying to say Cedric. The original post makes the point that the Met Office represents warming pictorially in a much more dramatic way than it represents cooling. Do you agree or disagree with that point?
Also how do you know that “some other scientific community somewhere out there” isn’t being critical of the Met Office – people discuss things critically in there place of work without necessarily going into print on it; indeed it may not be politic to do so?
Also how do you know that “some other scientific community somewhere out there” isn’t being critical of the Met Office –people discuss things critically in there place of work without necessarily going into print on it; indeed it may not be politic to do so?
Well, scientists are born iconoclasts. They just love to gleefully point out stuff that’s wrong. Some poor sap in a science department somewhere writes up an article or paper that is just a little bit silly and….his next door neighbor or that other guy in Germany will pop out a rebuttal article and make him do the walk of shame.
They just love doing that stuff.
We’ve all read examples of it ourselves.
The Met office can get it wrong. NASA can get it wrong. The Royal Society can get it wrong. Only when they get stuff wrong, they tell people about it. They have a long and predictable track record of doing that. It’s a science thing.
So when some guy with a blog goes “blah blah” about NASA or whatever….it pays to wait just a little bit for the other shoe to drop. And if the other shoe does not drop then you have to ask yourself what’s really going on….and cast a jaded eye at the blogger.
Personally, I don’t meekly trust some guy with a blog for my science information.
I’ll go the Met Office and maybe for a second opinion I’ll go to the Royal Society, for example.
They do the work.
Cedric, my first article on global warming (http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2014/01/14/the-global-warming-scam-2008/) highlighted how the Met Office had got almost every single forecast on yearly global warming wrong.
To my knowledge some 7 years later they still have not admitted that fact despite the 14 year forecast also being disastrously wrong.
And after all these unequivocal failings of their climate model, rather than saying they were less certain they were right, the FRAUDULENTLY claimed higher confidence.
how the Met Office had got almost every single forecast on yearly global warming wrong.
To my knowledge some 7 years later they still have not admitted that fact despite the 14 year forecast also being disastrously wrong.
So….as a sceptic, what scientific communities unrelated to the Met have weighed in on your side and vindicated you?
This has happened time and time again right?
You’ve been right every time and they’ve been very wrong, right?
Over the course of many years?
Ok.
So out of those many times, what does your batting average look like?
What scientific communities had to play “Tail End Charlie” to your revelations?
I’m not kidding. I’d honestly like to know.
Cedric: “So….as a sceptic, what scientific communities unrelated to the Met have weighed in on your side and vindicated you?”
As a scientist and someone at the time engaged in meteorological equipment and signal analysis I was an expert in the subject and using the Met Office’s own statistics there was something like a 1 in 30,000 chance of them being so wrong purely be chance.
So, it is the Met Office themselves who vindicated me – or more exactly, they condemned themselves.
And shortly after I started pointed out this failure of their yearly predictions, they stopped making them public, which as far as I am concerned was a tacit admission that they knew the forecasts had been appalling bad.
Enjoy…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3187587/What-shower-money-Met-Office-gets-ludicrously-inaccurate-doom-mongering-climate-change.html
I think all computer predictions are pretty well useless, as the output relies on the model’s initial parameters [I mean human input ].
On predictive computers [and cycles] I consider Martin Armstrong to win the prize.
His AI has cost him M$100 and is based on pi, and has been significantly successful in predicting events across a wide range of areas.
In relation to this discussion “..There is a 300 year cycle to the sun. There are short-term cycles of sunspots that range from 9 to 14 years in length, with an average length of 11.1 years. The polarity of the sun actually flips. These too come in cycles for each 11 year cycle is not the same level of intensity. They also seem to build up in waves into a major long-term cycles. The interesting aspect is this bottomed in 2008 and rallied into 2012, and has turned back down due for a low around 2020 with the ECM once again.”
http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/28011
[The ECM is his economic confidence model. http://www.economicconfidencemodels.com]
That’s a very bad answer.
You are creating a bubble around yourself.
You set yourself up as your own critic of your own work and you (inevitably) see no fault in it.
That’s not science or skepticism.
That’s narcissism.
You cannot name any scientific communities that have weighed in on your side and vindicated you.
It’s not your conclusions that matter; it’s your methodology.
Your methodology is completely insular and self-sealing.
Look hard at your batting average from outside the bubble.
Then look at many years have you been doing this.
It’s not a pretty sight.
Have you ever studied science Cedric? You are clearly adept at writing tedious and misleading comments about cargo cult sciences. My guess is your an ex-theology phd. Not much science in that brain of yours that’s for sure.
Cedric – I am intrigued by your stance.
I suppose you would feel the same about me …
The weight of the emotional appeal which has deluged us all for so long from the media has become a paradigm-prison. [People exposed to a lie long enough will believe it].
I see most of my friends in this cage – like a hypnosis. Yet, there are so many people, dedicated to the honest application of impartial observation of the climate change subject, who have shared their findings on youtube, etc [see the Heartland Institute, for example].
It becomes clear that the subject, to those who believe in the thesis that we cause climate change, is more like a religion than a science. It’s about emotions and ideals rather than facts.
You know what, Cedric?
I really don’t think you know what you’re wittering about.
But I’ll tell you what, you don’t half use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing meaningful whatsoever.
Do you by chance live under a bridge?
Because it certainly looks very much like it.
Oh, and by the way, argumentum ad verecundiam cuts no ice on a science blog – and that’s all you’ve got, isn’t it?.
You are leaving Scottish Sceptic out to dry. You could at least make a bit of an effort on his behalf.
[see the Heartland Institute, for example].
Give me a good reason why.
I’m not blocking you.
Only…..look carefully at what you have written.
You are saying that I should go to…youtube videos and something called…The Heartland Institute.
(???)
Explain your methodology.
It doesn’t sound very skeptical at all.
I’d like to know how entities like the Met Office get to play along with what’s clearly a scam. Surely they aren’t ill-informed and nåive like the pope.
Well, this question is actually a good one. I meant it before when I said it was astute. I really did.
Again, look at it carefully.
You have the Met Office.
Plus entities like the Met Office.
Now I don’t know exactly what you mean by that but…you are probably not talking about Starbucks.
So, at the risk of putting words in your mouth, I’ll go ahead and assume you mean the Met Office and…the Royal Society maybe. And maybe other scientific communities too. Such as (and this is just a total stab in the dark)….hmmm….NASA. And….well…every single scientific community on the planet.
(Entities as it were.)
So…how? How does the Met and NASA and all the rest of them play along with what is clearly a scam?
It’s a really, really good question.
It’s a basic question.
A good skeptic would be asking that right of the bat.
I’m certainly not the first one to ask it.
Probably not you either.
It’s not really something you can gloss over.
Kinda big. Kinda important.
So there it is. How?
(Please note that the key word here is “how”. Not “dinosaur”, “why”, “custard”, or “spirituality”. The key word really and truly is “how”.)
How?
And nobody can answer it. It’s a basic question. Very honest. Very straightforward. And so far, nothing.
Not a sausage.
Can you think of anyone in your travels who’s been about to give the rest of us a peek behind the curtain?
The “how” part of this vast, global operation?
The logistics alone are mind boggling.
Let me confess here and now that I could not put something like that together. I wouldn’t even know where to begin.
Or when.
Or with whom.
Even if you gave it to me as a simple….thought experiment, well, I….I still couldn’t do it.
It’s not like you’re asking me to give the nuts and bolts on a viable mechanic to rob the Queen Mary. I could probably do that.
I’d need some resources and some very talented people with particular skills but…yeah, I could whip something together if those requirements are not really a problem.
Probably need a small submarine, a few naval uniforms, a radio jammer would be nice, perhaps an inside man or two, a map, a few weapons, a dedicated team of say….four (five?) people, some training and some dynamite for the purser’s safe.
That would probably work. No guarantees, of course, but as a viable plot sketched out on the back of a napkin I can see how that would be viable.
Getting the Met Office and NASA and every single scientific community on the planet to be in cahoots on a scam..(???)…when there are brave bloggers out there sternly and repeatedly pointing out the flaws clearly worthy of criminal prosecutions for years and years and years?
Well,…I just don’t see how. It’s a genuine head scratcher. Something’s very wrong somewhere.
You can persuade people with incentives like money…[is that how you get to troll the skeptic sites, Cedric?]
😉
and/or dissuade them with threats – like getting scientists dismissed from their university, etc positions..[eg Prof Salby]
You can persuade people with incentives like money…
You can indeed persuade people.
With incentives.
Money is always nice.
Only that’s not a mechanism.
A: How are we going to rob the Queen Mary?
B: Money.
A: Sorry?
B: Money. That’s how we’ll do it.
A: We’re going to bribe the Captain or something?
B: I didn’t say that.
A: Well…
B: Look. It’s perfectly simple. Money. That’s how we’re going to do it. Plus incentives.
A: Incentives?
B: Sure. Incentives like money.
A: So…..money. That’s your big plan? That’s your ‘viable’ mechanic?
B: I have thought of everything. I might include…gullibility….but that might be too much detail. Best to keep it simple.
A: Hmm. So what do I do?
B: Sorry?
A: What’s my part in this.
B: Money.
A: I deliver the money? Or something? To whom?
B: Money.
(…awkward silence…)
and/or dissuade them with threats – like getting scientists dismissed from their university, etc positions..[eg Prof Salby]
How? Who makes the threats? The police? Ninjas? NASA? Bananarama? How are the threats delivered?
Emails?
(That’s not a very good idea, right? Think about it.)
How do you dismiss scientists from universities to your hearts content? With a magic wand or something?
What about the ones that don’t work at universities? How do you even compile a working list?
What happens to the dismissed scientists…after their dismissed? Can’t very well dismiss them again. Do you shoot them? Spirit their families away in black helicopters?
It doesn’t work.
It’s a problem of scale.
So many words Cedric.
So little meaning.
Surely a shining wit such as yoursef can do better?
Yawn…
You don’t half spout some drivel, Cedric.
No viable mechanic = No scam.