Posts Tagged 'Joe Bastardi'

Joe Bastardi examines NASA’s temperature record

It’s good to see Joe Bastardi continuing to share his thoughts via his blog.  Today Big Joe presents a very simple case as to why anyone with an open mind would not swallow the idea that man is causing out of control doomsday warming.

When comparing NASA’s temperature graph with that of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) there is a noticeable difference in the warming curve over the last 40 years.  What Bastardi sees is a levelling off in temperature rise over the last 15 years, during which time he reminds us that atmospheric CO2 has increased by around 8%.

But then he begs a question to which the warmists still have no rational answer:

If there is feedback, where is it, and cant the warming be attributed to the oceans, the flattening to the fact there is only so much you can warm the earth before it fights back.  Which goes right to the heart of my perfectly logical, though most certainly debatable theory, that with the oceans cooling, we will cool back to where we were in the 70s by the time we get to 2030.

Yes, as Joe says it is only a theory.  But then, so is everything we are told about anthropogenic global warming (AGW).  There is simply no evidence to support the hypothesis.  Guesswork, reason and correlation are evident, but there is insufficient evidence to state with absolute factual certainty that mankind and not nature has caused the planet to warm.

There is certainly not sufficient evidence to justify the hyperbole and doom laden prophecies, let alone the billions of pounds of our tax revenues being wasted on scandalous faux projects and gimmicks to ‘fight climate change’.

Bastardi: A trace atmospheric gas can not push nature around

On his Sunday 6pm entry on his Accuweather blog, Joe Bastardi explains that the sudden collapse of the warmth in the equatorial Pacific has a lag effect on global temperatures.

Bastardi goes on to say that when one considers the amount of heat in energy in the oceans, and how it is stacked into the tropical oceans, one sees why the co2 argument about global warming is so far fetched. The section below puts his argument into context:

But the fact is this. YOU ARE THE DENIER if you dont think the oceans play an enormous role! And if you think that trace amounts of co2 in the atmosphere will push around the entire ocean-atmospheric system.. you are delusional. Seriously. I mean I am bending over backwards to say, okay lets watch this global temp the next 20-30 years, but if you dont see in the end the oceans are the main control ( if one does not start with the true source, the sun) then you really, that is almost incomprehensible.

Now the counter argument is that the oceans are warming because of the air above. Well then let me ask you this. How is the warming you think is occurring CANT EVEN FORCE THE COOLING OF THE STRATOSPHERE WHICH IS THE REAL SMOKING GUN?! A true positive feedback and tropospheric warming should be forcing a contraction of the stratosphere and major cooling. Nothing, nada, zilch. And the density considerations of the stratosphere are next to nothing compared to the oceans. So let me get this straight… you want to warm the oceans via the warmer troposphere above it, in other words have something with less energy push something around with much more, yet you cant even get the response first in what it should obviously be able to do?

But no matter how many scientists and meteorologists point this out the politicians and corporations press ahead with their lucrative plans for a low carbon world.  They have too many vested interests at stake to let the very serious question marks over the science of climate change knock them off course.

If you are on Twitter you can follow Joe via @BigJoeBastardi (and you can follow @Autonomous_Mind on Twitter too).

Comparing apples with oranges

Joe Bastardi with a salient observation about temperature measurements that are not like for like and why the accuracy of the Met Office figures can be called into question.

So the UKMET number is based on the 30 year means ending in 1990. I understand why, because they will probably change in 2020 again. But now wait a minute and this is why I assumed they werent using that. About 2/3rds of that is measured one way, the other 3rd has to take into account satellite data. So my question is why not just use the 30 year means just ended, its all done with a better measuring stick. I actually assumed that is what they were doing. But since they are not, and the increase since the period they are using is about .2, then I guess their number would be .24 against the past 30 years. Mine is normal. there is still a big difference…. 2 decades worth of warming.

Read the whole thing here ‘Okay here is the deal‘ at the bottom of the page before it scrolls off…

Bastardi: Don’t disband the Met Office

A cautionary post on his Accuweather blog from Joe Bastardi may give one or two people pause for thought in the current storm surrounding the Met Office.

While recognising some of the central problems undermining the Met Office, namely the Julia Slingo argument that there is no way they could see the cold accurately without spending tens of millions of pounds on a new supercomputer; and the controversy that the Met Office is saying it saw the cold, though the computer said warm, Bastardi says in his ‘Wednesday Early‘ post:

But I am not in favor of the UKMET or any other government weather agencies globally being disbanded. They do alot of good. I am in favor of them a) making sure agendas are not involved and b) understanding they supply the crucial infrastructure needed to advance the forecast, but that is where they should be.

There are some excellent people at the Met Office who do a good job in challenging circumstances. For me there is no argument about that. But the major problem with the Met Office is that it has been hijacked by people who are beholden to a politicised agenda – man made global warming – and allow this to dictate the forecasting approach of the organisation.

And to compound this, when their agenda driven output is ridiculed for its very visible inaccuracies, they resort to spin and distortion in an attempt to rewrite history and claim they were right all along. The answer is not to disband the Met Office, as some have suggested. It is to either:

i) replace the leadership with people without any agenda or preconceptions about climate change who will just focus on solid meterology and producing accurate forecasts within the public sector

ii) privatise the department and make it wholly reliant providing accurate forecasts in the competitive commercial sector, which will to force it to adopt methods that remove its global warming bias

However, no more public money should be put into the Met Office to make it a more attractive proposition for privatisation. In its current form the Met Office is not fit for purpose, it is failing the public and wasting our money and its leadership is deserving of rigorous scrutiny. That is the purpose of the relentless focus on that department at this time.

No one should confuse that purpose with any supposed effort to close the department down. We just want it to become an honest broker that forecasts weather as effectively as the independent providers.

Bastardi and Corbyn reply

Following on from the blog post yesterday about the Met Office’s Julia Slingo claiming the recent ‘freak weather’ (aka a cold winter) could have been predicted if only the Met Office had more supercomputing power…

AM emailed respected meterology experts Joe Bastardi and Piers Corbyn to ask them what supercomputing technology they employ that helps them to generate forecasts that are consistently more accurate than those of the Met Office.

Both gentlemen, who enjoy an excellent track record for their forecasting accuracy, have very kindly replied and their answers are published in full below:

Joe Bastardi said:

I look at the models, and I do use them as input to the forecast with many other factors. However they are not Gods, and to make the excuse we need a bigger computer when in reality all they do is arrive at a solution … right or wrong … faster, and have nothing factored in  about past weather events, or natural cycles, or some of the other things Piers and I  use, seems to me to be  blaming the model and then saying you need more of what failed in the first place.

If the Physics is not right, then forget it. Modeling for instance, relying on greenhouse gasses to warm the atmosphere will come out at a warmer  solution. The UKMET model now has suddenly flipped to a cool solution across much of the world for the coming months, but well after it was obvious to us that major cooling  was going to occur ( last March I said 2011 would try to return to near normal, similar to the La Nina of the late 90s and the recent one… That is because I knew before the computer a major La Nina was coming on and said so in February.. and based the high  total number of hurricanes  for the season on the La Nina and the very warm tropical atlantic at the time ..which has cooled since then, btw).

As someone who has no access to public funds, or grants, well I don’t have the computer they do.

Which is interesting since I think we can agree since I joined this little forecasting battle the past  3 years,  I have hit the cold  over in Europe. Part of the reason is the model and computer has a warm bias since the PDO ( Pacific Decadol Oscillation flipped to cool). Now I wonder why that would be?

And what will happen when the Atlantic turns cold?  Throw in solar cycles, and increased arctic or tropical volcanic activity… no computer is going to handle that.

Computer models are tools to get an answer, but not the answer. There is the difference. These folks have not had the kind of forecasting experience that Piers and I have,  so they put all this faith in models. We use models, but only as  the icing on the cake so to speak.  While both of us may have our favorite  major climate driver,  The ability to see all the players on the field is enhanced when one does not rely on the computer. A good forecaster has to have a visual idea of what a pattern should look like BEFORE HE BRINGS IN THE COMPUTER MODELS, and then have the models  confirm or question  his conclusion.. much like team mates challenge each other in competition.

To simply use the model as the number one input to ones forecast.. well then what is the need for the forecaster?  Maybe that is what this is all about, getting rid of any  human touch to the weather, and convincing the public its so. Either that, or saying. I give up, I cant do it, so I will let the model  do it. Well I  not cut from the cloth that backs away at challenges  in things I was made to do, one of them forecast the weather, so I do not become a puppet of models, but instead will accept the model as a team-mate.. another source of input.  But that is all it is.

A forecast  for instance, for winter starts way in advance,  looking at  many years  of  past weather to understand similarities to where  we are now  UNDERSTANDING THE MAJOR PHYSICAL NATURAL DRIVERS  that are affecting the pattern and also understanding  where we are in the climate cycle and not assuming that the earth is headed in one direction.

Such open mindedness and the crucible of capitalism and competition, where if not right enough, Piers and I  will get fired,  makes a bigger difference than just saying I need more money for a bigger computer so I can rely on it.

Funny but true, a video I did back in March showed 11 year cycle forecasts for the summer indicating a warm US summer, while NOAAs  computer had it cool for summer  Guess what one was right.  The  11 year cycle forecast.

Last Spring, the computer had a very warm winter for Alaska this winter, which I  hammered. Well guess what is going on.

The UKMET model had a warm winter this winter.  Well.

It’s not the computer, it’s the limits of the computer in  trying to adjust to what only men can understand and use. I dont think you need more money to arrive at the wrong answer faster. Should put it into fighting hunger, or giving men a chance to be free enough to dream and pursue that dream… much better causes in my opinion.

Piers Corbyn said:

My answer to What supercomputers do I use? is:

W A I T  F O R  I T…………..


And before someone goes looking for the ‘NONE’ computer company I mean: We do not use ANY Supercomputer we use P H Y S I C S.

In WeatherAction my Solar Lunar Action Technique (SLAT) does involve a number of equations and theoretical concepts (Weather action indicators) and calculations which are all performed on a pretty low level PC.The key thing to understand is that all weather circulation patterns have near enough happened before; the key is to find out when and how this time around they will be not quite the same as before.

I explained at some length HOW & WHY my technique(s) work at our WeatherAction Climate Fools Day conference in October 2009 held at Imperial College London. The Warmists were explicitly invited and given a slot to speak but none came.

A video of one of my invites, made direct to John Ackers of Friends of The Earth live on Sky news in October 2009, is linked below. Looking at it now I find it even more hilarious than at the time (when we had ’50 days left to save the Planet’) and suggest readers have a look and a laugh (no mention of ‘cold is warm’ here!!)

The GWers claim that we haven’t explained what we do. That is untrue. The truth is they don’t want to know and don’t want anyone else to know {Recall Phil Jones CRU E-mails described me as The MAIN enemy on the Europe side of the Atlantic and that he and his mates would do everything in their power to prevent the likes of me ever getting anything into print}. I thank blogs such as this which have enabled me and Bastardi and loads of others to break partly through the Greenwash cult.

I say our technique(s) plural because they are evolving and now on Solar Lunar Action Technique – SLAT5b, which supersedes our SWT (Solar Weather Technique). What I do is very different from Bastardi who is clearly also skilled especially for USA. Nevertheless his approach is more Earth-based, not so far ahead and less skilled and much less detailed [Of course we are not always right but I would just like to mention Xmas Day and the nights before and after in the UK were EXTREMELY COLD as we predicted from during November when I placed some successful bets on the matter of snow, contrary to his ‘It will turn mild’ prognoses].

A few links here explain key ideas of what I do –

1. VIDEO of why it (SWT/SLAT) works – Imperial college Oct 2009 –

2. Presentation similar to as presented at Climate Fools day 2010 in Parliament:

3. “World cooling has ….” –

On supercomputers and the The Met Office I would say that no amount of spending on their approach will ever produce better forecasts in any forecasting more than 3 days ahead. Standard Meteorology has reached the end of its potential. It can go no further. What we do is infinitely more skilled (since they have zero skill) in any long range forecasting. Let’s be clear no amount of investment in wax technology will ever produce a light bulb. For a small fraction of the extra money they want to waste on supercomputers we could reliably forecast extreme events and general weather development details across the WORLD many months ahead.

Happy 1 1 11 – see my WeatherAction new Year message –

Piers Corbyn
Msc (astrophysics), ARCS FRAS FRMetS
MD long range weather & climate forecasters

Please note: If you’re a blogger or journalist and wish to quote from either response, please provide a link back to this post so your readers can see the comments in their full context and avoid any misunderstanding – it’s only proper.

There is clearly an overwhelming case here for challenging the Met Office robustly about its assertion that it requires additional huge sums of money to purchase more supercomputing technology. The question is, will those who control our tax pounds undertake that challenge and stop our money being spent wastefully? Bastardi and Corbyn’s replies demonstrate that the fundamental difference between the Met Office and those meterologists who forecast with much greater accuracy is a matter of technique and approach rather than technology and processing power. The politicians need to understand this.

I’m extremely grateful to Joe and Piers for taking the time late on New Year’s Day to consider the question posed on this blog and write such detailed replies so quickly. Thank you gentlemen.

Joe Bastardi is on the money again

I know I said I wouldn’t be back until tomorrow, but Joe Bastadi’s latest post on his Accuweather column shows he got it right again with his forecast of a let up in the icy conditions between Christmas and New Year.

Bastardi continues on theme of deconstructing of the alarmism of those who believe human CO2 emissions are warming the planet – and who have unashamedly stated that all this ‘localised’ (China, US, Europe, even Australia…) extreme winter weather is evidence of global warming, after telling us the lack of extreme winter weather was… evidence of global warming.

We are in nature’s cycle.  We have had a warming period which the alarmists have clenched in a vice like grip to argue the planet is burning up. Now we are entering what Bastardi has identified as a cooling period for the next few decades, the alarmists are trying to keep their demolished hypothesis going in spite of the evidence running contrary to everything they have claimed up until now requiring them to reverse their arguments. As Bastardi says:

Winter is not over, though for the U.K. and Ireland, the coldest part (against the NORMALS) is. But look, folks, with low solar, natural oceanic cycles, and the wild card of my triple crown of cooling, volcanic activity, especially in high latitudes, my advice is to get ready for more of this in coming decades. And the CO2 people should open their eyes to other sides of the argument, since in 30 years or so when we come out of the cooling cycle, there may be room for your argument being pressed forth… but first we have to watch and see if the naturalists like me (that is my new nickname… nature boy) have a point.

Ozone hole, Ice Age, Y2K, etc., etc., etc. Is it any wonder why this just looks like another in a string of missed ideas that cause needless worry? You know what is the most hideous thing about all this? The money, time and energy wasted on what may be nothing more than a fictional ghost that man has nothing to do with, while tangible societal problems that need attention are given the short end of the stick. And it’s interesting to see that whether by magic, coincidence, or lord forbid, the actual ideas laid out here a few years ago as to why this is going to start happening again, WHO THE TRUE DENIERS ARE! […]

[…] Well, why would a trace gas needed for life on the planet have more control over the planet than the interaction between the source of energy, and the system itself?

While Bastardi is on the money the alarmists continue to chase the money. That underlines the difference in agenda.

Joe Bastardi explains the Triple Crown of Cooling

Could you imagine the ‘impartial’ BBC, with its supposed commitment to educate and inform, ever giving air time like this to anyone who is countering the global warming argument? Bastardi’s rationale for the cold we have seen this winter, and his dismissal of claims that global warming is causing it, make this a must watch video clip.

Meanwhile author and climatologist Gavin Cooke has set out the most controversial weather forecast ever, according to the Daily Express. Plugging his new book, Cooke says:

Forget about global warming – what most forecasters have failed to acknowledge is that Britain is on the cusp of a mini ice age.

He seems to think man made global warming will kick in after this mini ice age. But if an ice age ends then that is surely because the cyclical warming effect has returned. Then after a warm period that catches up to what we saw at the end of the 1990s we would expect another cooling period to commence. Let us not forget there have been warmer periods than those recorded, even though people like Mann, Trenberth and Jones do all they can to airbrush that fact from history. And none of it has anything to do with the miniscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The great weather forecasting match up

Over at Real Science, Steven Goddard says there are only two real players in the long range weather forecasting profession – Joe Bastardi and Piers Corbyn.

The Met Office’s determination to put its global warming ideology before accurate forecasting has long since ruled it out as a serious player in meterology. As a result more articles like this are appearing as the Met Office desperately spins the line that it didn’t issue a seasonal forecast. Perhaps not in name, but it certainly used its infamous, lavishly taxpayer funded computer models to predict the temperatures this winter and were completely wrong – again.

Bastardi and Corbyn have different outlooks for the weather after the holiday period. As Steven says his understanding is that, ‘Joe is forecasting milder European weather after Christmas, and Piers isn’t’. So which of these long range forecasting titans will be more accurate? It’s Joe vs Piers and readers are being invited to share their thoughts in the comments. The most amusing comment so far is this from ‘suyts’:

I take Joe, but probably because I’m really hoping for a warm turn so we can hear all of the alarmists stutter and say they didn’t mean warming was causing cold and that we misunderstood.

Why not have a punt? Enjoy!

Cancun – another nail in our economic coffin

“We’re talking about a [combined] reduction in emissions of 13-16%, and what this means is an increase of more than 4C.

“Responsibly, we cannot go along with this – this would mean we went along with a situation that my president has termed ‘ecocide and genocide’.”

These were the words reported by the BBC of Bolivian climate change conference delegate Pablo Solon. Do you notice the casual yet earnest way this man states as fact that CO2 emission reductions of 13-16% means global temperatures will rise more than 4C? It is not fact. It is a piece of guesswork based on flawed computer models that have failed to accurately project anything. The whole thing is about money.

Yet people who rely on the BBC and other mainstream media for their information, and are not aware of the significant body of scientific dissent from the supposed consensus, will accept such unsubstantiated comments as facts and as is intended, panic and press for a ‘solution’. This is what the climate change lobby, the pressure groups, the corporates and the governments want because they can then execute their political and financial – not environmental – plans. Plans such as the carbon trade and climate change fund that will leave ordinary people in the western world poorer, people in developing countries deceived and the corporates and their big business investors even richer than now.

The agreement in Cancun brings the UN’s plan to assume hegemonic control over the political structures of the world much closer. It takes another step towards the dismantling of democracy and places more power in the hands of the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in the supranational bodies that seek to control us. A global ruling elite is cementing its power in full view of a world of uncomprehending people who have been conned into believing this is being done for their own good.

And what of the environment? Around the globe climate will continue its natural cyclical changes, sometimes warming and sometimes cooling. Doomesday prophecies of catastrophing warming will not materialise. If anything the new cooling phase signalled by Joe Bastardi will destroy the credibility of the warmists, whose narrative will smoothly move on to ‘human overpopulation’ and ‘natural resources’ as the new justification for taking our money, undermining democracy and eroding our liberty. No wonder the BBC and its fellow inspid media parasites do all they can to keep inconvenient facts off the airwaves.

Are we freezing because of global warming?

Over to expert meterologist, Joe Bastardi:


In case you did not read the article, here is the question:

Are we freezing because of global warming?

Here is the answer: No, you are freezing, and get used to it, because the cyclical nature of climate is heading for colder times.

Several years ago, here in the states on the O’Reilly Factor TV show, I revealed a chart entitled the triple crown of cooling. Natural Oceanic cycles, Solar cycles and volcanic activity. Why is it, that when the PDO has changed, the sun is much less active than it has been in previous times ( the time of Victoria was referenced, and lo and behold, perhaps we are getting weather like that) and two major arctic volcanoes go off and with them, their natural lag time for cooling which is evolving now, the very answers that are logical are ignored in such articles.

It is amazing how we are expected to swallow such things.

I will give an example of the basic difference between what I do, and what the global warming community does. The post below explains that the NSIDC ideas are above board, when I had posted my suspicions on them and showed the evidence as I saw it. When they took the time to email and show me exactly what they were doing, what did I do? Immediately made sure you knew I had seen that and corrected for it. Not simply say, no its still as I say.

Yet NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS WITH THESE FOLKS AS FAR AS THE EARTHS TEMPS there is no getting around the fact they will claim they are right, and do so to a point where they seek to shut down debate.

Now perhaps in this Alice in Wonderland weather world, if the earths temps drop as I say, we will find that up is down and down is up. But if its me, and I have said this many many times, if you want a reason to push the agenda of alternative energy, you better darn well understand that what I am saying, that the earth cools back to the 70s, given the population and economies of the planet, is much more a pressing issue than if we warm it up. And simply shutting off the current sources that help in the advancement of mankind because of some unproven argument, is only going to lead to increased misery on our planet.. of our own making, and it wont be because of an increase in co2.

Again, for my euro readers, using the football argument..if we follow the logic put forth in this article, then the more your team scores, the more they will fall behind.

ciao for now ****

Bastardi has consistently outperformed the Met Office when it comes to long range weather forecasting. He understands the weather and he also understands the climate. He believes nature is driving cyclical changes in our climate, not the incredibly tiny proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere that has been emitted by human activity. If his premise is flawed or incorrect how does he keep getting it right? The more we assess the facts, the clearer the CO2 fraud becomes.

What does the increase in Arctic Sea Ice tell us?

The amount of ocean covered by Arctic Sea Ice has continued to increase, despite us having reached the time of the year when melting should have started.  The Daily Mail reports today that this increase has ‘astonished climate scientists’.

Scientists from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado say that last month’s rise was part of yearly variations in ice cover and could not be taken as a sign that global warming is coming to an end.  But that is one hell of a variation and it is in keeping with the recent trend of Arctic Sea Ice recovery over the last few years.

The question is, what does this increase in Arctic Sea Ice tell us?  Anthony Watts of the excellent Watts Up With That? blog gave a very good explanation yesterday when he wrote:

It may be winds pushing ice further southwards in the Bering Sea, it may be fresh ice. It may be a combination. While this event isn’t by itself an about-face of the longer downward trend we’ve seen, it does seem to suggest that predictions assuming a linear (or even spiral) demise aren’t holding up.

That’s the bottom line.  What this does is undermine the computer models upon which so many projections are made, and treated by some as fact.  The models upon which governments are making policy that have huge economic implications for us are not performing.  They are flawed.

Many years ago this planet experienced an ice age.  Without mankind’s recent small contribution to nature’s emission of CO2, the planet started to warm.  Most of the ice melted, glaciers receded, seas rose and permafrost reduced.  What is to say the earth is not continuing that natural transformation now and mankind is not responsible for the warming seen in recent decades?  What is to say we are not seeing the first signs of the Earth arresting that change and cooling again, as per its own natural cycle?

Climate scientists argue that it is the increased rate of change in recent decades that proves (without hard evidence) mankind is a causal factor in recent warming.  But over the last year the increased rate of sea ice recovery has been put down to natural variation.  So too has the bitter cold experienced from the UK to China. Climate Change scientists can’t have it both ways.

There is still too much we do not know or understand about our planet’s regulation of the climate to make ‘certain’ pronouncements.  How can we be sure that the recent warming was not a natural variation?  Over the next few years this question will have to be answered if Joe Bastardi’s forecast of a warmer summer is followed by his consistent prediction of a period of cooling – particularly if CO2 continues to rise.

There is no getting away from the observations over the last few years showing that despite an increase in CO2 concentration, the volume of sea ice in the Arctic has been recovering.  Something is awry.  Some parts of the globe continue to warm while many others are showing signs of cooling down.  The models have been shown to be flawed.  If you put incorrect information in you’re going to get incorrect information out.

Instead of doggedly sticking to a rigid, inflexible position on climate change and its causes, scientists should be exploring what is really going on and be prepared to reconsider what observation, rather than modelling, tells us.  That after all is the role of science.  It is not there to be used as a tool to steer political policy making.

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

Met Office v Joe Bastardi

What Paul Hudson, weather presenter and climate correspondent for BBC Look North, writes on his blog is so distinct from the rest of the BBC’s weather and climate output it makes me suspicious of why it gets published.  You wouldn’t see Richard Black, Roger Harrabin or David Shukman writing pieces that, say, explore the influence of the sun on climate, because their friends in the global warming consensus have dismissed such ideas.

I keep waiting for Hudson to suddenly pop up and say ‘Ha ha! Fooled you!’ which, when you think about it, is a terrible indictment of the BBC.  Hudson’s latest offering, “A frozen Britain turns the heat up on the Met Office” questions whether there is a ‘warm’ bias in the forecasting model of the Hadley supercomputer.  Well it is very possible.  Models are created with human determined parameters and if you put junk in you get junk out, and let’s face it, Hadley is infested with people who are slavishly devoted to the global warming creed so the likelihood of bias is high.  But I digress.

Hudson refers in his blog to an expert senior meterologist at called Joe Bastardi.  While the UK Met Office was trotting out its repeated claims that we were going to experience a mild winter with less than a 20% chance of really cold weather, Bastardi was warning us that this extreme cold was on its way.  He took a lot of flak for it, but stuck to his guns and events have shown him to be extremely accurate.

One commenter on Hudson’s blog claimed Bastardi “always forecasts a cold winter so eventually will get it right one day”.  But is that fair or just an ad hominem attack on a man who put the Met Office’s collective nose out of joint?  Over a period of time, just how accurate is Joe Bastardi compared to our lavishly funded Met Office?

Of the last eleven winters, the Met Office forecast milder conditions than actually occurred for nine of them.  The last time Bastardi predicted a colder winter was last year for eastern Europe.  He was right (again). Prior to that, the last cold winter he predicted was for 2002-3.  Hardly evidence of him always forecasting cold winters.

How come the Met Office gets seasonal forecasting wrong so often, but Joe Bastardi has a greater degree of accuracy?  Perhaps it’s because the Met Office approaches its forecasts from a default position of mankind warming the globe, while Bastardi has no bias and relies on proper scientific method and observation.  Bastardi’s accuracy clearly speaks for itself.  Despite the recession the number of companies relying on accurate forecasting who are buying Bastardi’s forecasts has actually increased.

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

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

%d bloggers like this: