Met Office and BBC credibility is sunk

Friday’s news that the Met Office was scrapping its seasonal forecasting was another nail in the coffin of its credibility.  It also represents a complete vindication of those people who criticised its Chief Executive, John Hirst, for attempting to deceive the public about the accuracy of the forecasts.

The BBC report of the story suggested a change in the corporation’s approach too, not least because the piece didn’t contain the laughable spin of Susan Watts, who previously used her position at the BBC to tell Newsnight viewers on 7th January that:

In fact that seasonal forecast predicting a mild winter wasn’t actually wrong, but it left people with the wrong impression.

The BBC, egged on by Richard Black – a man with a number of vested interests in promoting the man made global warming theory as fact – has also been left licking its wounds from choosing an editorially biased approach to reporting climate issues.  Like the Met Office, the BBC is not interested in reporting facts, but pursuing an agenda devoted to arriving at a pre-determined conclusion, irrespective of any evidence to the contrary

After Hirst’s televisual spin operation and the numerous column inches spent trying to convince the public that the Met Office had actually got the winter forecast correct, the Met Office’s subsequent actions and admissions have reinforced what we already knew.

This is another small victory for the blogosphere, because had we relied on the revisionist nonsense that flooded the mainstream media as the Met Office tried to spin its way out of trouble many more people might have believed the deceitful claims Hirst, Vicky Pope and Julia Slingo were getting published almost daily.

As it was, there was enough evidence collected by bloggers to create an archive of links to forecasts, admissions and quotes that could be pointed to in order to prevent history being rewritten.  The era of the citizen journalist in the UK is starting to come into its own at last thanks to the focus on climate change and the organisations who have been retailing a set of theories as fact, while making a tidy sum in grants from the taxpayer.

But there is bad news for the taxpayer too, as if there wasn’t enough before, the money train will continue to rumble along the global warming tracks.  For although the Met Office now admits it can’t predict weather three months hence, it now says it will work towards developing the science of long range forecasting.  There is only one reason for this and that is to continue spewing propaganda about climate change. As such the fight for honesty and transparency will go on. Although the final whistle is approaching, this lot are determined to try and take us into extra time. There are too many millions of pounds, dollars and euros at stake for them not to.

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

3 Responses to “Met Office and BBC credibility is sunk”


  1. 1 WitteringsfromWitney 06/03/2010 at 9:36 am

    I believe this can best be summed up by saying that, in the blogosphere and the sterling work some have done, they have ‘Met’ their match!

    Lets face it, if they can’t predict more than five days ahead, whats all this money being spent on predicting something years ahead?

  2. 2 Drew 06/03/2010 at 4:48 pm

    How about a class action suit on behalf of the UK tax payer against the Met Office, for failing to deliver what it’s funded to do?

    Having now admitted it cannot forecast 3 months into the future, and that it intends to reallocate those specific public funds and resources into bolstering its AGW advocacy, sorry I mean’t climate science, surely there is a case for the tax payer to say “NO, that’s not what those funds are for. It’s your contractual responsibility to repay them.”

    Furthermore, if the Met admits it cannot forecast 3 months out, then clearly it has no logical claim to meaningful longer range forecasts, such as its climate model predictions. Clearly all this funding should also therefore come under close scrutiny.

    In the language of the state, where is the value for the Met’s stakeholders?


  1. 1 The Australian Press Council – 1 – With or without climate prejudice? Attitudes « TWAWKI Trackback on 08/03/2010 at 3:01 am
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