I asked, last week, how long it would be before the intrepid Roger Harrabin came up with a defence of the Met office, after his Yorkshire-based colleague, Paul Hudson, dared to suggest that Accuweather’s Joe Bastardi (among others) was more accurate with his weather-forecasting than the Met and its £170m global warming lying machine (aka a supercomputer). Well, it’s taken him all week. And if you can understand his back-flipping, contortionist – nay, fantastical – reasoning, you deserve a prize. As I see it, our friend Mr Harrabin believes that when the Met Office is wrong, they are actually right, because they are nearly right; and that in any case, it doesn’t matter, because it’s getting much hotter, and their supercomputer can see that, whereas the day-to-day incidences of freezing etc, don’t really count because they are part of the ‘frying tonight’ overall trend – and on that, of course, the Met Office is always right. As for those who doubt any of this, well, according to Mr Harrabin, he doesn’t give a damn, because they don’t count, and of course, they can’t count (unlike the Met). Something like that. Me? I’ll stick with Mr Bastardi. His writing style might not be the most elegant, but his message is crystal clear and honest. The Met Office are warmist crooks.
Update: it’s reported in the Sunday Times that the BBC is fed up with the inaccuracies in Met Office forecasts, and might appoint instead the New Zealand outfit Metra. Pigs might fly, they are too enmeshed. It’s a BBC press office ruse to drive prices down because the Met’s contract is up for negotiation.