This is an update to this post.
The BBC have explained why they completely messed up the weather forecast.
First thing to know is that they didn’t mess up.
Second thing to know is that, no, they didn’t ignore the computer model.
Third thing to know is that they ignored LOTS of computer models from all over Europe.
Why? Because they all gave different results, or as the BBC put it…‘A massive broad spectrum of weather solutions’.
In the end it was down to ‘human judgement’.
In other words they guessed what the weather would be.
So which one of those computers do they rely on to give us the predictions for weather 100 years from now and the resultant effect on climate and how many very, very expensive wind turbines it will take to change that outcome?
Their source for predicting the weather is similar to that upon which they try to predict the Economy :-
BALLS.
If the results of Computer Models are random, then we can tell what the political prejudices of the BBC are, by simply looking at the BBC’s choice of long term weather forecast. Predictions of Mild wet Winters and Hot dry Summers are forgotten by the BBC. But then surly, would it not be cheaper just to throw a dice, it would also produce a more accurate forecast because throwing a dice would remove BBC Bias.
That Micheal Fish weather forcast in 1987 is a classic.
The colon has finally been cleared and the shit is free to flow again. Biased BBC rocks!
BBC Weather on the television. Jobs for the boys and girls in their sponsored outfits and shoes!. It’s like an audition for drama school dropouts. And why does each channel, region and radio station need its own presenter?
answer : diversity
Just a couple of hot days in London and the BBC comes out with lots of predictions of Global warming. Even in many documentaries the (provan fact) of global warming comes out. They don’t even bother to use the expression of Climate Change.
The BBC and the Met both base their weather forecasts on what the situation might be if the wildest predictions of the warmist lobby were based on anything resembling science.
That is why their forecasts are often wrong.
They are both quick to present hot spells of weather as firm evidence of warming, but are strangely subdued when we are subject to uncharacteristically cold conditions.
I have even heard the unpredictability of the British climate being attributed by BBC commentators to “climate change”, a win-win situation for followers of the warmist religion.
It is now impossible to sit through any BBC science documentary, regardless of subject matter, or any BBC natural history programming, without hearing continuous subtle (and unsubtle) references to global warming, climate change, sea level rise, polar ice loss, and their unarguable anthropogenic causes.
I am now at the point where I have to leave the room if I happen to be present when Kate Humble, Chris Packham or the like appear on my TV.
I can almost predict the point at which the presenter will adopt the practiced condemnatory tone and visage, and proceed to tell us what bad people we are to be mucking up the environment for some obscure meadow flower or small mammal on the edge of survival.
It’s what they do.
The BBC says that Climate Wars was its most important documentary on Climate Change. The word “Wars” shows that the BBC sees this as a political war. Almost all BBC science documentaries are .presented by a scientist who is qualified in a scientific discipline relevant to the documentary, but in the case of the most important BBC documentary on the most important scientific subject of the age, this documentary was presented by a geologist.
Should be climate “whores”, not “wars”. For EU and local council funding see –
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9055183/BBC-admits-receiving-millions-in-grants-from-EU-and-councils.html
I have long held the theory that the only equipment the BBC weather department actually uses is a f*cking Pine Cone hung on a piece of cotton…..