Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
Randy Winkman said:
turbobloke said:
Randy Winkman said:
Is there anything they could do to satisfy you other than close down?
With respect, what a silly question.Yes.
Remain wholly impartial and scrupulously unbiased - no bias in any direction - at all times in every element of output via radio, tv and online...as required.
Drop the archaic funding mechanism, recruit and retain competent managers who can cut the appalling levels of intra-corp largesse and waste.
Porcine aviation may evolve first but that ( ^ ) would be satisfactory.
C4 and C5 were given some (but not full) public service broadcasting remits on formation, with public money attached, and the BBC could operate in a similar way in future as above. It could quite easily coexist with other broadcasters in a PSB future with no licence fee...commercial material funded commerially, other material relating to its national broadcaster plus PSB remit supported by public funds but not as now.
http://www.channel4.com/info/corporate/about/chann...
A more pertinent question surely is how the BBC has been allowed to exceed its public service remit by such a wide margin in terms of output that could be provided by commercial broadcasters. As a result the BBC distorts the market by using its funding mechanism to support such excursions, just as its growing and unchecked left wing bias - as a supposedly impartial national broadcasrer - distorts public debate. The same unacceptability applies to right wing bias or any other form of political leaning.
In the above scenario there would not be any facility for millions in grants from the EU as happens at present, as taking money from external political sources stops the BBC from being seen to be impartial.
Yet more..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33754931
Yes folks, it was all the horrible capitalist Americans fault. The Japanese were just about to surrender, really they were. Honest.
Perhaps Mr Maddox and Mr Wingfield-Hayes need to do some research into:
The work of Unit 731.
The Japanese plan to use a special submarine to ferry planes in American markings close to the US, to either bomb California with nerve agents or a possible 'dirty bomb' one of which was actually sunk on its way for a dry run.
& speaking of that, the strange stories of U-234 and U-196 & the cargos that they were carrying.
The Baka suicide planes and the stockpiling of hundreds of Japanese aircraft for attacks on the invading forces.
The ferocity and insanity of the battle for Okinawa.
The treatment of the slave workers building rifles in a factory in Hiroshima.
The treatment of British POWs on the Burma railway.
The treatment of Chinese civilians (including rape on an organised level.) before the war against the allies had even started.
The warrior code of Bushido which permeated every level of Japanese society at the time.
But don't worry Japan didn't deserve it, it was the nasty Americans fault. And of course if the honourable Japanese had the bomb (or even just a 'dirty' version.) they would never, ever use it against us.....
Yeah. Right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33754931
Yes folks, it was all the horrible capitalist Americans fault. The Japanese were just about to surrender, really they were. Honest.
Perhaps Mr Maddox and Mr Wingfield-Hayes need to do some research into:
The work of Unit 731.
The Japanese plan to use a special submarine to ferry planes in American markings close to the US, to either bomb California with nerve agents or a possible 'dirty bomb' one of which was actually sunk on its way for a dry run.
& speaking of that, the strange stories of U-234 and U-196 & the cargos that they were carrying.
The Baka suicide planes and the stockpiling of hundreds of Japanese aircraft for attacks on the invading forces.
The ferocity and insanity of the battle for Okinawa.
The treatment of the slave workers building rifles in a factory in Hiroshima.
The treatment of British POWs on the Burma railway.
The treatment of Chinese civilians (including rape on an organised level.) before the war against the allies had even started.
The warrior code of Bushido which permeated every level of Japanese society at the time.
But don't worry Japan didn't deserve it, it was the nasty Americans fault. And of course if the honourable Japanese had the bomb (or even just a 'dirty' version.) they would never, ever use it against us.....
Yeah. Right.
The Hypno-Toad said:
Yet more..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33754931
Yes folks, it was all the horrible capitalist Americans fault. The Japanese were just about to surrender, really they were. Honest.
Perhaps Mr Maddox and Mr Wingfield-Hayes need to do some research into:
The work of Unit 731.
The Japanese plan to use a special submarine to ferry planes in American markings close to the US, to either bomb California with nerve agents or a possible 'dirty bomb' one of which was actually sunk on its way for a dry run.
& speaking of that, the strange stories of U-234 and U-196 & the cargos that they were carrying.
The Baka suicide planes and the stockpiling of hundreds of Japanese aircraft for attacks on the invading forces.
The ferocity and insanity of the battle for Okinawa.
The treatment of the slave workers building rifles in a factory in Hiroshima.
The treatment of British POWs on the Burma railway.
The treatment of Chinese civilians (including rape on an organised level.) before the war against the allies had even started.
The warrior code of Bushido which permeated every level of Japanese society at the time.
But don't worry Japan didn't deserve it, it was the nasty Americans fault. And of course if the honourable Japanese had the bomb (or even just a 'dirty' version.) they would never, ever use it against us.....
Yeah. Right.
Crikey, that is some opinion piece.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33754931
Yes folks, it was all the horrible capitalist Americans fault. The Japanese were just about to surrender, really they were. Honest.
Perhaps Mr Maddox and Mr Wingfield-Hayes need to do some research into:
The work of Unit 731.
The Japanese plan to use a special submarine to ferry planes in American markings close to the US, to either bomb California with nerve agents or a possible 'dirty bomb' one of which was actually sunk on its way for a dry run.
& speaking of that, the strange stories of U-234 and U-196 & the cargos that they were carrying.
The Baka suicide planes and the stockpiling of hundreds of Japanese aircraft for attacks on the invading forces.
The ferocity and insanity of the battle for Okinawa.
The treatment of the slave workers building rifles in a factory in Hiroshima.
The treatment of British POWs on the Burma railway.
The treatment of Chinese civilians (including rape on an organised level.) before the war against the allies had even started.
The warrior code of Bushido which permeated every level of Japanese society at the time.
But don't worry Japan didn't deserve it, it was the nasty Americans fault. And of course if the honourable Japanese had the bomb (or even just a 'dirty' version.) they would never, ever use it against us.....
Yeah. Right.
Rupert something said:
As Jamal Maddox put it to me so well, how was it that the country that entered the war to save civilisation ended it by slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians?
I don't think a feather duster was ever going to do the trick, it's not as though the atomic bomb was their first move. Peculiar angle.As a balance, BBC Radio York had an interview with an RAF pilot who visited the City not long after the bomb. He said he spoke to a Japanese man and asked him if dropping the bomb was the right thing. The man replied that it was, it saved lives. British, American and Japanese lives where all saved.
Mine or his?
(did I miss the sound of the whoosh parrot?)
What people are beginning to forget is that WWII was total war. Any side would have done anything to win and their attempts to do this resulted in terrible atrocities on all sides.(including the UK.)
The article shows again that some academics believe that certain groups should feel terrible shame & guilt for their actions against some races of the world no matter how far in the past these events to took place.
"Everyone is equal, we should embrace other cultures as they will embrace us, we should be inclusive in our thoughts and deeds and must pay penance for our previous heinous crimes. Then everyone will live in a happy clappy world where everyone is equal. (except for anyone who wants to earn or keep money, THEY MUST BE PUNISHED.)"
The events of Hiroshima were terrible, the consequences far reaching and the cities recovery incredible and moving. But do I believe Truman did the right thing? Yes. Part of the problems we have in the world today are due to world leaders are more worried about the opinion of academics and focus groups than they are about taking action which may result in terrible consequences but through the glass of history will prove to have been the right course.
Unfortunately, the people who are enemies now know this....
(did I miss the sound of the whoosh parrot?)
What people are beginning to forget is that WWII was total war. Any side would have done anything to win and their attempts to do this resulted in terrible atrocities on all sides.(including the UK.)
The article shows again that some academics believe that certain groups should feel terrible shame & guilt for their actions against some races of the world no matter how far in the past these events to took place.
"Everyone is equal, we should embrace other cultures as they will embrace us, we should be inclusive in our thoughts and deeds and must pay penance for our previous heinous crimes. Then everyone will live in a happy clappy world where everyone is equal. (except for anyone who wants to earn or keep money, THEY MUST BE PUNISHED.)"
The events of Hiroshima were terrible, the consequences far reaching and the cities recovery incredible and moving. But do I believe Truman did the right thing? Yes. Part of the problems we have in the world today are due to world leaders are more worried about the opinion of academics and focus groups than they are about taking action which may result in terrible consequences but through the glass of history will prove to have been the right course.
Unfortunately, the people who are enemies now know this....
The BBC is run by left wing progressives. Being an apologist, consumed by guilt and trendy self loathing, is at the core of being a progressive. It is the same mindset that has allowed all sorts of nonsense to go unchecked in our own country...
Regarding the bomb, tragically it was a necessary evil. The US were war weary, and faced the prospect of a devastating conventional battle with a foe who was fanatical, resulting in immeasurable losses. The atomic bomb is evil, as is all war. However, as somebody put it once "those who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind". And that is pretty much what happened. It wasn't America who committed an unprovoked attack, not butchered their away across the Pacific.
Regarding the bomb, tragically it was a necessary evil. The US were war weary, and faced the prospect of a devastating conventional battle with a foe who was fanatical, resulting in immeasurable losses. The atomic bomb is evil, as is all war. However, as somebody put it once "those who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind". And that is pretty much what happened. It wasn't America who committed an unprovoked attack, not butchered their away across the Pacific.
My Uncle was a guest of the Japanese, he went in the bag at Singapore. He was treated in a bestial manner, surviving the railway, and ending his war in a mine in Taiwan. He weighed 6 stone.
He despised the Japanese for the rest of his life, he could never understand why they treated people in the way did , to him it made no sense. He spoke little of his experiences, but the nightmares he had , and what I heard, illustrated how it affected him in the years after.
One quote of his thats stuck in my mind is "The Japanese asked for what they got, but did not get half of what they deserved" I could see his point.
Having said that , whilst the A Bombs caused large loss of life, the resultant capitulation by Japan, saved many more, hundreds of thousands , if not (as in some estimates) more than a million lives.
It was the right thing at the time, simple as that.
He despised the Japanese for the rest of his life, he could never understand why they treated people in the way did , to him it made no sense. He spoke little of his experiences, but the nightmares he had , and what I heard, illustrated how it affected him in the years after.
One quote of his thats stuck in my mind is "The Japanese asked for what they got, but did not get half of what they deserved" I could see his point.
Having said that , whilst the A Bombs caused large loss of life, the resultant capitulation by Japan, saved many more, hundreds of thousands , if not (as in some estimates) more than a million lives.
It was the right thing at the time, simple as that.
hornetrider said:
The Hypno-Toad said:
Yet more..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33754931
Yes folks, it was all the horrible capitalist Americans fault. The Japanese were just about to surrender, really they were. Honest.
Perhaps Mr Maddox and Mr Wingfield-Hayes need to do some research into:
The work of Unit 731.
The Japanese plan to use a special submarine to ferry planes in American markings close to the US, to either bomb California with nerve agents or a possible 'dirty bomb' one of which was actually sunk on its way for a dry run.
& speaking of that, the strange stories of U-234 and U-196 & the cargos that they were carrying.
The Baka suicide planes and the stockpiling of hundreds of Japanese aircraft for attacks on the invading forces.
The ferocity and insanity of the battle for Okinawa.
The treatment of the slave workers building rifles in a factory in Hiroshima.
The treatment of British POWs on the Burma railway.
The treatment of Chinese civilians (including rape on an organised level.) before the war against the allies had even started.
The warrior code of Bushido which permeated every level of Japanese society at the time.
But don't worry Japan didn't deserve it, it was the nasty Americans fault. And of course if the honourable Japanese had the bomb (or even just a 'dirty' version.) they would never, ever use it against us.....
Yeah. Right.
Crikey, that is some opinion piece.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33754931
Yes folks, it was all the horrible capitalist Americans fault. The Japanese were just about to surrender, really they were. Honest.
Perhaps Mr Maddox and Mr Wingfield-Hayes need to do some research into:
The work of Unit 731.
The Japanese plan to use a special submarine to ferry planes in American markings close to the US, to either bomb California with nerve agents or a possible 'dirty bomb' one of which was actually sunk on its way for a dry run.
& speaking of that, the strange stories of U-234 and U-196 & the cargos that they were carrying.
The Baka suicide planes and the stockpiling of hundreds of Japanese aircraft for attacks on the invading forces.
The ferocity and insanity of the battle for Okinawa.
The treatment of the slave workers building rifles in a factory in Hiroshima.
The treatment of British POWs on the Burma railway.
The treatment of Chinese civilians (including rape on an organised level.) before the war against the allies had even started.
The warrior code of Bushido which permeated every level of Japanese society at the time.
But don't worry Japan didn't deserve it, it was the nasty Americans fault. And of course if the honourable Japanese had the bomb (or even just a 'dirty' version.) they would never, ever use it against us.....
Yeah. Right.
That's the problem with having a self-confirming obsession with bias - you only focus on those things that confirm your own pre-conceived ideas and ignore all the other evidence.
Just wondering why no one so far has posted about the R4 show yesterday where good old Mystic Met and "alarmist" man made climate change got a good old battering. Look for "What's the point of... The Met Office?"
Maybe some of the comments go contrary to this thread? Stuff like "Why spend all this money to just calculate the wrong answer faster" or "They've been charged with supporting the man made global warming theory." or the overt snipe at Julia Slingo etc etc.
Maybe some of the comments go contrary to this thread? Stuff like "Why spend all this money to just calculate the wrong answer faster" or "They've been charged with supporting the man made global warming theory." or the overt snipe at Julia Slingo etc etc.
FiF said:
Just wondering why no one so far has posted about the R4 show yesterday where good old Mystic Met and "alarmist" man made climate change got a good old battering. Look for "What's the point of... The Met Office?"
Maybe some of the comments go contrary to this thread? Stuff like "Why spend all this money to just calculate the wrong answer faster" or "They've been charged with supporting the man made global warming theory." or the overt snipe at Julia Slingo etc etc.
Probably because it doesn't chime with the "BBC bias" narrative - a programme bashing climate change by a Daily Mail journalist.Maybe some of the comments go contrary to this thread? Stuff like "Why spend all this money to just calculate the wrong answer faster" or "They've been charged with supporting the man made global warming theory." or the overt snipe at Julia Slingo etc etc.
I thought it was glib, unbalanced, scientifically inaccurate and poor quality but not worth getting excited about - there's usually a better programme along shortly.
Bluebarge said:
It's not an opinion piece, it's a report from the other side of the fence by a Japanese-speaking journalist - exactly the sort of thing the BBC should be doing. For balance's sake, the BBC recently carried a report on a Dutch former POW on his horrific experiences at the hands of the Japanese and how he was transported through Nagasaki 3 months after the bomb, where he says he felt no remorse or pity because of the appalling things the Japanese had done.
That's the problem with having a self-confirming obsession with bias - you only focus on those things that confirm your own pre-conceived ideas and ignore all the other evidence.
Yep, I watched an interesting program about the British nuclear weapons program a week or so ago and in that the right-wing bias was unbelievable! Several commentators on the show explained how the development of a new plane was going to be the saviour of British industry and how we would all be rich and successful if only the nasty Labour government hadn't cancelled the project as it was overdue and over-budget.That's the problem with having a self-confirming obsession with bias - you only focus on those things that confirm your own pre-conceived ideas and ignore all the other evidence.
I reckon if i wanted to I could spend ages looking for other right-wing biased stories, but frankly I don't think that bias either way is that much of an issue.
Bluebarge said:
FiF said:
Just wondering why no one so far has posted about the R4 show yesterday where good old Mystic Met and "alarmist" man made climate change got a good old battering. Look for "What's the point of... The Met Office?"
Maybe some of the comments go contrary to this thread? Stuff like "Why spend all this money to just calculate the wrong answer faster" or "They've been charged with supporting the man made global warming theory." or the overt snipe at Julia Slingo etc etc.
Probably because it doesn't chime with the "BBC bias" narrative - a programme bashing climate change by a Daily Mail journalist.Maybe some of the comments go contrary to this thread? Stuff like "Why spend all this money to just calculate the wrong answer faster" or "They've been charged with supporting the man made global warming theory." or the overt snipe at Julia Slingo etc etc.
Bluebarge said:
I thought it was glib, unbalanced, scientifically inaccurate and poor quality but not worth getting excited about - there's usually a better programme along shortly.
It underplayed the costly shambles of the global warming obsessed Mystic Met. It would take much longer to do justice to that level of one-sided ineptitude, as can be demonstrated most easily from its shockingly bad track record. It's nothing more or less than a sorry tale of costly bungling when we examine how the Met Office's sooperdoopercompooter modelling has performed in the past 10 years. In 2004 the fabled Mystic Met predicted that by 2014 the world would have warmed by 0.8C, and that 4 of the 5 years after 2009 would beat the 1998 (non) record as the "hottest year ever". Wrong. In 2007, the same expensive computer predicted "the warmest year ever", just before global temperatures temporarily plummeted by 0.7C equal to their entire net rise in the 20th century. Ooops wrong again.
That year's summer would be "drier than average", we were informed, just before some of the worst floods in living memory. From 2008 to 2010 the Met Office models consistently predicted "warmer than average" winters and "hotter and drier summers" when much of the northern hemisphere endured record winter freezing remperatures and snowfalls. In the UK we were promised a "barbecue summer" in 2009. Scorchio.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/5...
In October 2010, we got the the UKMO prediction that the UK winter would be up to "2 deg C warmer than average" just before the coldest December since records began in 1659. Oh dear never mind just pay Mystic Met more money for an even more sooperdoopercompooter so they can get it wrong quicker with a higher degree of spurious accuracy.
In November 2011 their computer modelling forecast global temperatures rising over the next five years by up to 0.5C from the 1971-2000 average, a prediction so far off that one year later it was quietly removed from the Met Office website and replaced with one showing the flat-lining temperature trend as "likely to continue". Fantastic hindsight from Mystic Met, not a hint of duplicity either.
In 2012 Mystic Met told us that spring would (yawm) be "drier than average", just before the wettest April on record. Oh dear, never mind.
One recent November, Mystic Met's sooperdoopercompooter predicted that the winter would be "drier than usual" just before the wettest three winter months on record. As PHers may recall.
Looking back in 2015 we can assess the brilliance of the 2004 Met Orifice forecast that, by 2014, the world would have warmed by 0.8C - as it happens globally temperatures have not warmed for 18+ years.
The Met Office's record has gone beyond a national joke because it relies on computer models programmed to assume that the chief factor determining outputs is the steady rise in carbon dioxide. GIGO. So we got all those "hotter, drier summers" and "warmer than average winter" predictions; way out.
Unfit for purpose...as not heard even on a singleton BBC output offering a token presence to heresy against doctrine from the unfaithful. Won't somebody think of the BBC pension fund depending on green investements to get out of the poo that a green investment policy got it into.
turbobloke said:
It underplayed the cosrly shambles of the global warming obsessed Mystic Met. It would take much longer to do justice to that level of one-sided ineptitude, as can be demonstrated most easily from its shockingly bad track record. It's nothing more or less than a sorry tale of costly bungling when we examine how the Met Office's sooperdoopercompooter modelling has performed in the past 10 years.
In 2004 the fabled Mystic Met predicted that by 2014 the world would have warmed by 0.8C, and that 4 of the 5 years after 2009 would beat the 1998 (non) record as the "hottest year ever". Wrong. In 2007, the same expensive computer predicted "the warmest year ever", just before global temperatures temporarily plummeted by 0.7C equal to their entire net rise in the 20th century. Ooops wrong again.
That year's summer would be "drier than average", we were informed, just before some of the worst floods in living memory. From 2008 to 2010 the Met Office models consistently predicted "warmer than average" winters and "hotter and drier summers" when much of the northern hemisphere endured record winter freezing remperatures and snowfalls. In the UK we were promised a "barbecue summer" in 2009. Scorchio.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/5...
In October 2010, we got the the UKMO prediction that the UK winter would be up to "2 deg C warmer than average" just before the coldest December since records began in 1659. Oh dear never mind just pay Mystic Met more money for an even more sooperdoopercompooter so they can get it wrong quicker with a higher degree of spurious accuracy.
In November 2011 their computer modelling forecast global temperatures rising over the next five years by up to 0.5C from the 1971-2000 average, a prediction so far off that one year later it was quietly removed from the Met Office website and replaced with one showing the flat-lining temperature trend as "likely to continue". Fantastic hindsight from Mystic Met, not a hint of duplicity either.
In 2012 Mystic Met told us that spring would (yawm) be "drier than average", just before the wettest April on record. Oh dear, never mind.
One recent November, Mystic Met's sooperdoopercompooter predicted that the winter would be "drier than usual" just before the wettest three winter months on record. As PHers may recall.
Looking back in 2015 we can assess the brilliance of the 2004 Met Orifice forecast that, by 2014, the world would have warmed by 0.8C - as it happens globally temperatures have not warmed for 18+ years.
The Met Office's record has gone beyond a national joke because it relies on computer models programmed to assume that the chief factor determining outputs is the steady rise in carbon dioxide. GIGO. So we got all those "hotter, drier summers" and "warmer than average winter" predictions; way out.
Unfit for purpose...as not heard even on a singleton BBC output offering a token presence to heresy against doctrine from the unfaithful. Won't somebody think of the BBC pension fund depending on green investements to get out of the poo that a green investment policy got it into.
Well there's a whole other thread for the climate change debate but I'm afraid well over 90% of the scientific community disagree with you, including these raving lefties who clearly know nothing about scienceIn 2004 the fabled Mystic Met predicted that by 2014 the world would have warmed by 0.8C, and that 4 of the 5 years after 2009 would beat the 1998 (non) record as the "hottest year ever". Wrong. In 2007, the same expensive computer predicted "the warmest year ever", just before global temperatures temporarily plummeted by 0.7C equal to their entire net rise in the 20th century. Ooops wrong again.
That year's summer would be "drier than average", we were informed, just before some of the worst floods in living memory. From 2008 to 2010 the Met Office models consistently predicted "warmer than average" winters and "hotter and drier summers" when much of the northern hemisphere endured record winter freezing remperatures and snowfalls. In the UK we were promised a "barbecue summer" in 2009. Scorchio.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/5...
In October 2010, we got the the UKMO prediction that the UK winter would be up to "2 deg C warmer than average" just before the coldest December since records began in 1659. Oh dear never mind just pay Mystic Met more money for an even more sooperdoopercompooter so they can get it wrong quicker with a higher degree of spurious accuracy.
In November 2011 their computer modelling forecast global temperatures rising over the next five years by up to 0.5C from the 1971-2000 average, a prediction so far off that one year later it was quietly removed from the Met Office website and replaced with one showing the flat-lining temperature trend as "likely to continue". Fantastic hindsight from Mystic Met, not a hint of duplicity either.
In 2012 Mystic Met told us that spring would (yawm) be "drier than average", just before the wettest April on record. Oh dear, never mind.
One recent November, Mystic Met's sooperdoopercompooter predicted that the winter would be "drier than usual" just before the wettest three winter months on record. As PHers may recall.
Looking back in 2015 we can assess the brilliance of the 2004 Met Orifice forecast that, by 2014, the world would have warmed by 0.8C - as it happens globally temperatures have not warmed for 18+ years.
The Met Office's record has gone beyond a national joke because it relies on computer models programmed to assume that the chief factor determining outputs is the steady rise in carbon dioxide. GIGO. So we got all those "hotter, drier summers" and "warmer than average winter" predictions; way out.
Unfit for purpose...as not heard even on a singleton BBC output offering a token presence to heresy against doctrine from the unfaithful. Won't somebody think of the BBC pension fund depending on green investements to get out of the poo that a green investment policy got it into.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
As to the Met's forecasts, long-range forecasting is well-known to be a mug's game, as the Met Office admit themselves, in an area with such complex and conflicting weather systems as ours; however, in terms of short-term forecasting, which is all that's possible to accurately predict for this part of the World, they do pretty well.
turbobloke said:
That post was all about the information not broadcast by the BBC.
I can see why you didn't approve. Never mind.
But not evidence of bias by the BBC given that an unpopular viewpoint held mostly by people on the right was given a full and unchallenged airing. Which I think is why FiF mentioned it.I can see why you didn't approve. Never mind.
Bluebarge said:
Well there's a whole other thread for the climate change debate but I'm afraid well over 90% of the scientific community disagree with you
It genuinely surprises me that well over 90% of the scientific community have reviewed the evidence available from the niche of climate science.I only took Maths and Computer Science but I'm also a bit put out that no one asked me.
Bluebarge said:
turbobloke said:
It underplayed the cosrly shambles of the global warming obsessed Mystic Met. It would take much longer to do justice to that level of one-sided ineptitude, as can be demonstrated most easily from its shockingly bad track record. It's nothing more or less than a sorry tale of costly bungling when we examine how the Met Office's sooperdoopercompooter modelling has performed in the past 10 years.
In 2004 the fabled Mystic Met predicted that by 2014 the world would have warmed by 0.8C, and that 4 of the 5 years after 2009 would beat the 1998 (non) record as the "hottest year ever". Wrong. In 2007, the same expensive computer predicted "the warmest year ever", just before global temperatures temporarily plummeted by 0.7C equal to their entire net rise in the 20th century. Ooops wrong again.
That year's summer would be "drier than average", we were informed, just before some of the worst floods in living memory. From 2008 to 2010 the Met Office models consistently predicted "warmer than average" winters and "hotter and drier summers" when much of the northern hemisphere endured record winter freezing remperatures and snowfalls. In the UK we were promised a "barbecue summer" in 2009. Scorchio.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/5...
In October 2010, we got the the UKMO prediction that the UK winter would be up to "2 deg C warmer than average" just before the coldest December since records began in 1659. Oh dear never mind just pay Mystic Met more money for an even more sooperdoopercompooter so they can get it wrong quicker with a higher degree of spurious accuracy.
In November 2011 their computer modelling forecast global temperatures rising over the next five years by up to 0.5C from the 1971-2000 average, a prediction so far off that one year later it was quietly removed from the Met Office website and replaced with one showing the flat-lining temperature trend as "likely to continue". Fantastic hindsight from Mystic Met, not a hint of duplicity either.
In 2012 Mystic Met told us that spring would (yawm) be "drier than average", just before the wettest April on record. Oh dear, never mind.
One recent November, Mystic Met's sooperdoopercompooter predicted that the winter would be "drier than usual" just before the wettest three winter months on record. As PHers may recall.
Looking back in 2015 we can assess the brilliance of the 2004 Met Orifice forecast that, by 2014, the world would have warmed by 0.8C - as it happens globally temperatures have not warmed for 18+ years.
The Met Office's record has gone beyond a national joke because it relies on computer models programmed to assume that the chief factor determining outputs is the steady rise in carbon dioxide. GIGO. So we got all those "hotter, drier summers" and "warmer than average winter" predictions; way out.
Unfit for purpose...as not heard even on a singleton BBC output offering a token presence to heresy against doctrine from the unfaithful. Won't somebody think of the BBC pension fund depending on green investements to get out of the poo that a green investment policy got it into.
Well there's a whole other thread for the climate change debate but I'm afraid well over 90% of the scientific community disagree with you,In 2004 the fabled Mystic Met predicted that by 2014 the world would have warmed by 0.8C, and that 4 of the 5 years after 2009 would beat the 1998 (non) record as the "hottest year ever". Wrong. In 2007, the same expensive computer predicted "the warmest year ever", just before global temperatures temporarily plummeted by 0.7C equal to their entire net rise in the 20th century. Ooops wrong again.
That year's summer would be "drier than average", we were informed, just before some of the worst floods in living memory. From 2008 to 2010 the Met Office models consistently predicted "warmer than average" winters and "hotter and drier summers" when much of the northern hemisphere endured record winter freezing remperatures and snowfalls. In the UK we were promised a "barbecue summer" in 2009. Scorchio.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/5...
In October 2010, we got the the UKMO prediction that the UK winter would be up to "2 deg C warmer than average" just before the coldest December since records began in 1659. Oh dear never mind just pay Mystic Met more money for an even more sooperdoopercompooter so they can get it wrong quicker with a higher degree of spurious accuracy.
In November 2011 their computer modelling forecast global temperatures rising over the next five years by up to 0.5C from the 1971-2000 average, a prediction so far off that one year later it was quietly removed from the Met Office website and replaced with one showing the flat-lining temperature trend as "likely to continue". Fantastic hindsight from Mystic Met, not a hint of duplicity either.
In 2012 Mystic Met told us that spring would (yawm) be "drier than average", just before the wettest April on record. Oh dear, never mind.
One recent November, Mystic Met's sooperdoopercompooter predicted that the winter would be "drier than usual" just before the wettest three winter months on record. As PHers may recall.
Looking back in 2015 we can assess the brilliance of the 2004 Met Orifice forecast that, by 2014, the world would have warmed by 0.8C - as it happens globally temperatures have not warmed for 18+ years.
The Met Office's record has gone beyond a national joke because it relies on computer models programmed to assume that the chief factor determining outputs is the steady rise in carbon dioxide. GIGO. So we got all those "hotter, drier summers" and "warmer than average winter" predictions; way out.
Unfit for purpose...as not heard even on a singleton BBC output offering a token presence to heresy against doctrine from the unfaithful. Won't somebody think of the BBC pension fund depending on green investements to get out of the poo that a green investment policy got it into.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/less-than-half-of...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff