Fisking Professor Julia Slingo of the Met Office

La Gray struck again on Friday with another example of unquestioning fealty to the AGW crowd, by scuttling off to the Met Office to secure another piece of propaganda to publish for the cause.  What we got was another barnstorming piece of ‘journalism’, from the girl who always asks for scissors and pritt stick for Christmas and birthday presents, titled ‘Met Office to look at more information in forecasts after ‘barbecue summer’.  Autonomous Mind has not previously fisked pieces, but as La Gray’s short communication comes from the desk of the supreme high council of weather and climate misinformation, let’s do it:

Julia Slingo [pictured], Chief Scientist at the Met Office, said the national weather service had let the public get the wrong message when it predicted a “barbecue” summer earlier this year and then revised the forecast when July and August turned out to be wet.

She also said the Met Office got “a lot of the communication wrong” this winter by predicting a mild winter before heavy snowfall brought much of the country to a standstill.

No Lou Lou, the public did not get the ‘wrong message’ with the barbecue summer prediction and there was nothing wrong with the ‘communication’ when the Met Office predicted a mild winter.  We got the message loud and clear about the summer and the communication was effective about the winter.  The problem was that the forecasts were, as is so often the case with the Met Office, completely wrong.  Over to you, Jules…

“It certainly damaged us as an organisation,” she said. “The communication of those forecasts was not done – in retrospect – very well. The science is very good and we do some very good seasonal forecasts worldwide. Trying to do a seasonal forecast for the UK is really hard.”

Just stop the lies right now, OK?  The forecasts were rubbish, not the communication of them.  If the science was very good why did you get it so badly wrong?  The answer is, bias.  The Met Office is so bought into the man made global warming project it can’t help itself and tries to reinforce the bias in every seasonal forecast. Of course a seasonal forecast for a desert region will be easier than for a group of islands like the UK whose weather fluctuates.  But Accuweather and Weather Action do it with far greater accuracy, so what’s your point?  Perhaps you’re just disappointed that your bias is now so exposed to scrutiny?

The Met Office has faced criticism for its recent predictions and its 90-year contract at the BBC is even under threat.

Even La Gray cannot dodge that one.  The issue is poor predictions, not poor communication.  But where was little Lou Lou’s challenge to Julia Slingo’s claims?  Is this the climate change equivalent of don’t ask, don’t tell?

Prof Slingo admitted there has been a particular problem in communicating the “probabilistic” nature of seasonal forecasts.

She said the weather service should look at predicting the likelihood of seasonal weather in percentages, as is done in many states of America. For example predicting the likelihood of rain as between 30 to 40 per cent.

That would be nice.  And when the probability forecast starts to show the Met Office is still unable to forecast weather with the same degree of accuracy as non politicised bodies that rely on accuracy rather than ideology to win customers, we will see the good professor back in the media blaming communication again.

She also said the public needs to better understand the science of predicting longer term weather patterns following the recent scandals around climate change.

“People will say if you cannot forecast beyond a week or so how can you forecast climate change?” she said.

Shurely that should have read ‘People will say if you cannot communicate beyond a week or so…’?  A bit of a contradiction to your earlier thrust there Jules.  Anyway, here it comes.  We are on to her pet subject now, climate change.  Forget weather forecasts, this is where the real cheesecake is.  I can see her now, the eyes glaze over, righteous indignation starts to course through her veins, visions of evil CO2 being exhaled by cows and released by oceans and decomposing vegetation Range Rovers, aircraft and power stations bubble up in her mind’s eye and she is about to pour forth her own emissions that contribute towards the 385 parts per million of sheer pollutant that has wrapped its tentacles around the atmosphere and is set to turn this planet into a fiery ball…  Then reality hits home and Jules realises that if she alludes to any scientific finding in particular, she’s open to rebuttal from those awful sceptics who have found flaws in the evidence, data and scientific method.  Oh, what to do?

“I think the public are very confused and I do not think we as scientists have helped them as much as we should to really understand the fundamental evidence of climate change. To understand why global warming is different from natural variations. Why we can have a very cold winter in the UK when the world as a whole is warming. We have not explained that very well. In the Met Office we are trying to explain the scientific basis of global warming much better at all levels of society.”

Fundamental evidence?  Warming different to natural variation?  Whole world is warming?  You’re right Prof Slingo, you’ve not explained that very well.  Where’s the beef, Jules?   People need proof, not the blind faith of you and your fellow travellers.  It’s a different standard here in the real world and your simple say so doesn’t cut it.  The reason why Professor Julia Slingo cannot offer an explanation of the scientific basis is that its foundations have crumbled.  The scientific basis used by the Met Office and the government been holed below the water line, thanks to the exposure of scientific corruption by Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa et al.  Go on Louise, bring that up.  Ask her about it.  Go on girl.  Oh, she’s gone.  That’s our lot then?

I suppose Lou Lou is expecting us to thank God for the fearless investigative search for truth by one of the Telegraph’s finest.  Forgive me if I pass on that.  Despite propagandists like Louise Gray, people are waking up to just how useless the Met Office – this black hole, into which our tax pounds are poured – really is.  Met Office weather predictions were always a standing joke because of their poor accuracy.  But with it’s leaders engaging in taxpayer funded pseudo science and helping to further a political agenda by applying biases to predicted weather, instead of simply looking accurately forecasting what the weather will be in the coming days, things are a lot more serious now and the scrutiny needs to be relentless.  But don’t rely on Louise Gray to do that.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

9 Responses to “Fisking Professor Julia Slingo of the Met Office”


  1. 1 JohnRS 06/02/2010 at 1:01 pm

    Nice job. I hope she reads it – but I doubt she will.

    She’s too busy reading this week’s issue of “Global Warming Weekly” – I believe it’s got a triple page, full colour, centrefold spread of Al Gore…and his hockey stick!!

  2. 2 man in a bed 06/02/2010 at 1:28 pm

    Looks like this is the new damage-limitation meme of our time…

    “Message is good. Communication needs improvement”

    All the shysters seem to be tripping out this line on a whole bunch of issues.
    So transparent & lame.

  3. 3 AM 06/02/2010 at 2:16 pm

    John, Louise Gray only reads press releases that land in her inbox. For a journalist she goes to great lengths to keep a low profile beyond her articles. Very curious.

    It’s no surprise, Man in a Bed, that this was used extensively by Labour in recent years and has now been adopted by their friends in the climate change industry, whenever people rejected what they wanted us to believe.

  4. 4 AJC 06/02/2010 at 5:34 pm

    EUReferendum has an item titled “Where our money goes” which exposes some of the massive cost of the Met Office from which we appear to get rather a poor return.

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/where-our-money-goes.html

    Some recent media achievements for the Met Office.

    John Hirst (Chief Executive of the Met Office) was recently eviscerated by Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics.

    Hirst and Julia Slingo, its chief scientist, wrote to 70 colleagues in December.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6951029.ece

  5. 5 AJC 07/02/2010 at 12:04 am

    The Mail Online has another Met Office story:”How Met Office blocked questions on its own man’s role in ‘hockey stick’ climate row”.

    http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1249035/How-Met-Office-blocked-questions-mans-role-hockey-stick-climate-row.html

  6. 6 AM 07/02/2010 at 12:19 am

    Thanks AJC, I have blogged it… but backdated the time to keep the Africagate story at the top of the page.

    https://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/met-office-and-mod-collude-in-climate-data-cover-up/


  1. 1 Met Office and MoD collude in climate data cover up « Autonomous Mind Trackback on 07/02/2010 at 12:16 am
  2. 2 Met Office and BBC credibility is sunk « Autonomous Mind Trackback on 06/03/2010 at 8:19 am
  3. 3 What supercomputers do Bastardi and Corbyn use? « Autonomous Mind Trackback on 01/01/2011 at 3:13 pm
Comments are currently closed.



Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive