Fascinated listening to Roger Harrabin talking through his hat about the rainfall records (2 hrs 49 mins 20 secs).

He wraps up his report in a vast number of equivocations… many that you might start to believe that he didn’t really believe his own report….it’s quite clear that the man made global warming advocates have had their fingers burnt so many times with failed predictions that they now refuse to state anything absolutely categorically…except that global warming is defintitely man made.

Some useful hedging phrases:

Massive variablity from year to year (in weather)

Figures are preliminary

There is a trend of increasing episodes of extreme rain…but it could just stop

Predicting climate in the UK is particularly difficult

Weather in the UK is much more unpredictable

… he isn’t even sure about his ‘scientific consensus’….‘I think that one thing underpins this, and there are a lot of caveats around this, the Earth has got warmer.’


Ah of course…global warming.


What is it about the rain that means we get more floods now?

The issue is the way it falls in sudden bursts not the amount of rain.


Not where I live……lots of floods around here and yet no ‘extreme rain’ falling in awesomely heavy bursts… floods because the rain falls over a long period of time rather than in one deluge….the ground is sodden and eventually cannot soak up anymore water…then it floods.

It would be interestig, sort of, to sit down and check the Met Office stats…..but life is too short…however a quick perusal might raise a few questions when you look at historic data for rainfall and sunshine levels in various locations.

Looking back over 100 years  and you might see that  some places have become cooler and have less rain…or stayed very similar.

These so called ‘record’ weather events must be based upon very slim margins or increases in whichever data is selected.

Bradford’s worst rainfall year was 2007 but otherwise is fairly average with 2012 being lower than average by a long way for rain.

Lowestoft looks to have less rain… 1915  123 mm and 2012  109 mm.

Eskdalemuir had 313 mm in 1921 but only 246 mm in 2012.

Heathrow seems to have remained fairly static weather wise…whilst Oxford has had more rain.

Which all raises the question…just which figures does the Met Office use to judge a ‘record’ year?

I’m no expert but it is apparent that selective data can easily be used to massage figures….just limiting the period that is examined from 1960 onwards limits the credibility of any claimed record.


This does seem to be a non-story in the scale of things and not based on anything really concrete….yes it has rained for long periods…but is that really so unusual?  Look back over 100 years and it doesn’t seem at all unusual….isn’t Britain famous for its rain?

Even Harrabin admits…it could just stop.

Inconvenient facts I guess…just like that one about ‘no warming for the last 16 years’.



More Met Office historic data here

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. AsISeeIt says:

    Increasingly across the BBC we have been talking about these extreme weather events. What precisely do we mean by extreme weather events? If we are going to shout about them in our headlines, if we are to be alarming the public about their increasing occurrence, then we need to spend a moment or two baffling you with the science. So to put up a quick definition we are joined by Dr Sheldon Cooper of the University of the hit US comedy The Big Bang Theory (you know, the kind of sit-com show with the originality, acclaim and popularity that the BBC can only dream of since Dawn French first donned a cassock).
    Well firstly we must change the public’s concept of extreme weather events. We must have a scientific definition. These were once very simple instances of when the BBC happily sent you on your merry way without an umbrella and caught you out in a downpour – but on a grander scale. We all remember Michael Fish and his ‘I can assure you there is not going to be a hurricane’. And this led to a certain lack of trust. Then there was global warming and we promised there would never again be any snow in the UK. Blizzards followed. Again the problem was that we said one thing and the weather acted differently. All very old fashioned, I think you will agree. So should the public have trust in the BBC and in the Met Office? Or is that trust what our grandparents might have likened to wandering out in February without the benefit of your thermal under-crackers?
    Things are set to become much more scientific. This will work in just the same way that when we want to bleat on about poverty in our headlines we need to have some underlying scientific definition of what we mean by poverty. After all the public may catch sight of a wide screen TV in the home of a family defined as below the poverty line and leap to the wrong conclusion; so with the weather. Think of all this as modern thinking moving in the opposite direction to the way we are now taking science out of our concept of gender. But I digress.
    An extreme weather event is one that would be expected to occur only once in every 100 days. (I kid you not – that should work out to approximately three and a half a year!) Now we at the Met office have run everything through our computer and noticed that these extreme events are now occurring more regularly. Somewhere close to the rate of one every 14 and a bit weeks – no I’m kidding – they are cropping up once every 90 days. That’s a 10% increase. I think. So QED extreme weather is on the increase. Gosh and goodness me, were we at the BBC impressed by this!


    • Mice Height says:

      Everyone knows that the Earth’s climate was entirely stable for the 4.5 billion years preceding 1990 . . . FACT!!!


      • The General says:

        Yes and no doubt the climate in Britain was much better between 1997 and 2010.


      • Richard Pinder says:

        I am fully confident that all Hurricanes in the 21st century are known. On the other hand I am not confident that all the Hurricanes in the 19th Century are known, especially the period before 1840, before newspaper publications in New Zealand.


    • Noggin says:

      dont know why but this just comes to mind 😀
      7mins 25.


    • Richard Pinder says:

      Have just been informed of possible scientific fraud a the core of the Met Office computer models by the people at Mensa.

      Global warming ended 15 years ago but continued in the Arctic. The Met office models assume that the Arctic warming is caused by a decrease in Albedo, but observations using the CERES instrument on the Modis satellites show that the Albedo has increased, contradicting the models. So the this means that an increase in cloud cover in the Arctic has increased temperatures as clouds trap heat, which is in line with Cosmoclimatology Theory.

      In its defence, I suppose the Met Office could plead ignorance. But it confirms that the Met Office computer Models are even fictional for the past and present events as well as for the bullshit predictions.


  2. George R says:


  3. Noggin says:

    would that be THIS! r harrabin, 12 mins 40


    • ROBERT BROWN says:

      Good find with the interview with Lord Monckton, Monbiot a 14th rate zoologist! Ouch! Also please note, Naughtie and Humph, the interviewer let the man speak, and there was no interruptions.


    • johnnythefish says:

      Ah, if only Sir Paul Nurse had interviewed Monckton on the Today programme whilst he had the chance.

      Wonder why he didn’t? Can anybody guess?


  4. Noggin says:

    more 😀


  5. David Preiser (USA) says:

    This is beside the point, isn’t it? None of this is going to convince defenders of the indefensible that the BBC is biased because, as Jim Dandy explained, their position that the science is settled is “sensible”. The only problem we can really address is the BBC lying to the public about that forum, and lying about how they never give directives from on high for incorporating an editorial position on a specific issue into non-news broadcasting.

    The BBC has been caught red-handed doing this, and no amount of debate about the reality or non-reality of Man-Made Global Warming, aka “Climate Change” is going to make one bit of difference.


    • Richard Pinder says:

      If the statement, the science is settled was sensible. Then they would not be ignorant about how I can calibrate carbon dioxide warming in the Earths Atmosphere to be about 0.007 Kelvin for 100 ppmv or 0.1 millibars, without even having to use the carbon dioxide atmospheres of Mars or Venus as a proxy.

      At this moment that information is only known by a few academics at Oxford.

      This is solid proof that the man-made Global Warming Theory is bullshit.


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        The BBC will never admit that. Best to nail them on the blatant lies, get the public to recognize it, and then ask the Beeboids why they had to lie about it.


        • Richard Pinder says:

          The BBC censor the science, scientists and scientific debate. So none of this information is broadcast and therefore we cannot take legal action against lies and scientific fraud if they do not tell the pheasants anything. That is why they say it is too complex to be certain of anything other than Global Warming.


          • Richard Pinder says:

            Or in other words, the reason for the caveats


          • David Preiser (USA) says:

            I’m not talking about lies about science and the evidence. I’m talking about the BBC lying about top scientists being at that Warmist conclave, and lying about how they don’t give directives to staff on which editorial stance to take on a given issue, and lying about how they don’t spread partisanship and editorial positions throughout their broadcasting, including into drama and comedy.

            Even if Warmism was real and the oceans will really boil away staring next year, the BBC is still lying about what happened at that meeting, and lying about not giving orders from on high about editorial positions on specific issues.


            • Richard Pinder says:

              I will inform this blog on the progress of the complaint to the BBC Trust about misleading Mensa members about this seminar in a previous complaint in 2011. If an article appears in the Mensa Magazine, I do not think anyone at the BBC would notice because the morons only read the Guardian.


  6. Justin Casey says:

    Just finished watching a BBC news segment which followed the 12.00 Midnight Weather Forecast…..
    Seeing is believing …. Well I saw it and I do not believe it…
    Apparently the cause of all the flooding in the South West of England “could be the shape of things to come”…. You see according to the report the current flooding situation in that part of the country is all down to climate change… and this is becouse the Ice cap is melting and the North Atlantic drifts` path has deviated from its normal route and is now dropping its rainfall on the UK….. According to a `woman from the met office` (No mention of who she is or what she does there, but she looks like one of the cleaners) the current changes have been so quick that they are “now crippling the infrastructure that would normally be able deal with the rainfall at this time of the year” she adds ” The effects of climate change are impossible to predict, last year we had drought conditions in the same part of the UK and within a few months we have floods…. ” Obviously the narrator adds his assertion that more `MORE COULD BE ON THE WAY` … its impossible to predict (Well he is in the wrong f*cking job then isn`t he?? A weatherman is meant to do just that….
    All through the report nobody mentioned the fact that the Water Authorities in that part of England had created the problem themselves by spending all the revenues from the last ten years on the shareholders instead of updating the way they looked after the resources they needed to ensure thier system remained viable and sustainable….. Nobody mentioned that becouse they had sucked all the groundwater out of the watertable becouse the limestone and rock filtered the water much cheaper than replacing and building new filtration and sewage treatment plants which normally would be able to supply the area with safe clean drinking water…. None of these experts knew that if the groundwater is used in this way that it will produce a situation where the first heavy rains struggle to be absorbed by the compacted and dry earth, m uch in the same way flash floods happen in the deserts….. Nobody asked the Water Authorities why after only a few days of rain thier flood defences were unable to cope and the fire brigade and the RNLI had to step in with pumps and rescue teams before people started to drown….. In so many cases the Water Board were unable even to get anyway near the floods….. The BBC are just a bunch of c*nts, like the Water Authorities they rely on revenue which is guaranteed and think themselves above reproach….. Perfect bedmates for each other….. Wankers!!!


    • Mice Height says:

      I used to live in one of the S.W villages that flooded (again recently – Braunton, N.Devon – and it’s built right on the edge of swampland that extends to the estuary, a mile or so away. There is hardly any topsoil above the bedrock in the surrounding catchment area, so rainfall runs straight in to the river Cain, much as it does in to the river Lyn further round the coast (and look at the measures they had to take after the Lynmouth flood disaster in 1952. i.e. changing the course of the river) There are pictures of the village in flood going back decades and decades, and the size of the village has more than doubled in the last two decades or so, with a large supermarket and housing estate built just three years ago.
      When I see ‘climate change’ fanatics campaigning as tirelessly for an end to mass-immigration, and the extra housing that needs to be built to cater for it, then maybe I’ll take them a tiny bit more seriously.


      • Old Goat says:

        I was at school in Devon from 1959 until the mid 60’s. I so well remember 1960, and the floods everywhere – the Exe, Culme, Lowman all overflowing and flooding vast expanses of pasture, and parts of local towns like Tiverton and Exeter, and also the railway line at Cowley Bridge underwater. Then of course there were the blizzards of ’62/’63, and 10 foot drifts blocking my route to school.

        Nobody mentioned climate change, or global warming then – it was all accepted as the vagaries of the British weather, and everyone just got on with it. And in each case the following year was better.

        Why all weather has now to be labelled ‘extreme’ because it may be slightly noteworthy defeats me – then to say that it’s our fault and that we can change it in some way – are they mad?


    • Sceptical steve says:

      Your sentiments are admirable, but the Water Authorities haven’t existed for the best part of twenty years, and their drainage responsibilities are undertaken by no fewer than 121 Quangos, known as “Internal Drainage Boards” (IDBs), under the supervision of DEFRA.
      Predictably, the green mafia have ensured that these Quangos aren’t just responsible for keeping our houses dry, but they have also been saddled with a statutory Environmental responsibilities. as explained in their Wikipedia entry,

      “Internal drainage boards in England have responsibilities associated with 398 Sites of Special Scientific Interest plus other designated environmental areas, in co-ordination with Natural England. Slow flowing drainage channels such as those managed by IDBs can form an important habitat for a diverse community of aquatic and emergent plants, invertebrates and higher organisms. IDB channels form one of the last refuges in the UK of the BAP registered spined loach (Cobitis Taenia), a small nocturnal bottom feeding fish that have been recorded only in the lower parts of the Trent and Great Ouse catchments, and in some small rivers and drains in Lincolnshire and East Anglia.[6] All IDBs are currently engaging with the their own individual biodiversity action plans which will further enhance their environmental role.

      Many IDBs are involved with assisting major wetland biodiversity projects with organisations such as the RSPB, National Trust and the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust. Many smaller conservation projects are co-ordinated with Wildlife Trusts and Local Authorities. Current projects include: The Great Fen Project (Middle Level Commissioners),[7] Newport Wetlands Reserve (Caldicot and Wentlooge Levels IDB) and WWT Welney (MLC). Middle Level Commissioners launched a three year Otter Recovery Project in December 2007. It will build 33 otter holts and 15 other habitat areas.[8]

      Given that in April 2012, the Met Office was telling everyone to expect drought conditions through until the year end, it was entirely predictable that the IDBs would concentrate their spending on “biodiversity action plans” etc. rather than flood defence schemes.

      Every year, the Met Office top brass gets performance-related bonuses. Given their lamentable performance in 2012, and the huge costs that the country has incurred as a result of its unpreparedness for the heavy rains, does anyone expect to see these bonuses reduced this year?


      • Guest Who says:

        “Internal Drainage Boards”
        Now that would be a business card title that would inspire the best and brightest.


  7. tckev says:

    Roger Harrabin and the rest of the BBC alarmist are just dinosaurs of the bygone AGW age.
    Just so 1990s.


  8. AsISeeIt says:

    A top secret meeting is taking place, at some unknown location – the new centre of world Marxism.
    So comrade-underling, have you at last found a way, finally, to undermine freedom and capitalism in the British?
    Why yes, I have done so, comrade-leader. It has been a most difficult task. First my crack team of propagandists studied the example of the French. Their pride, their love of soft-living and their arrogance could be used as weapons against them. The Germans were also an interesting project. We played on their industriousness and obedience.
    And what of the British, comrade-underling? I fear you prevaricate! The time is long overdue that the British are subdued.
    Apologies comrade-leader. The task was daunting. The very weaknesses of the British character served to resist our plans for domination. Their self-deprecation and tendency toward guilt appeared at first to provide us with potential themes for our propaganda. They were lazier than the Germans but harder working than the French. They would tend to do as they were told by authority – but they would moan about it afterwards! Their humour also proved problematic.
    Then, almost by chance, we honed in on the one tiny chink in their totalitarianism resisting armour. The British obsession with the weather! Their tendency to exaggerate the importance of their unremarkable climate. The sad propensity of the British to imagine that some harmless shower in Slough might be the harbinger of global doom – this, comrades, will give us victory!


  9. johnnythefish says:

    Let’s just stick with the science, eh?

    (from Open Thread)

    Just to put the BBC’s shameless propaganda piece on ‘extreme weather’ into perspective….

    Balance – what balance? But then, what do you expect from a corporation who agreed to do the environmentalists’ bidding at a secret meeting back in 2006?


  10. Phil Ford says:

    As I suggested in the Open Thread yesterday, it seems the BBC is currently engaged in a febrile attempt to push its cretinous CAGW agenda, hiding behind the invention of ‘extreme weather’ (there is no such thing, in the context intended by the BBC).

    Amazing, yesterday’s ‘Six’ news on BBC1 TV was headlined by Comrade Harrabin’s breathless report informing us that the Met Office appear to have claimed increasing incidents of ‘extreme weather’ are now to be expected across the UK, all thanks (of course) to ‘man-made climate change’.

    As this urgent CAGW-approved bulletin was read out to the nation by Comrade Harrabin, I slyly checked on Sky News’ lead story (running concurrently) and was shocked to discover Sky actually failed to mention this urgent matter of national importance. What on earth could possibly explain this dreadful dereliction of journalistic duty?

    Then I remembered that the BBC is now institutionally incapable of reporting the truth on matters of weather and climate. That the BBC, by default, flavours all of it’s output wherever possible, with the CAGW meme; sometimes subtly, sometimes blatantly. That it’s once-respected natural history output has been irrevocably stained with the disingenuous mark of the CAGW manifesto, that none – not one – of it’s reporters can ever lay claim to integrity when it comes to such matters, ever again – or until the Corporation is finally forced to admit that, for them, CAGW is (and always has been) a political issue and really has nothing at all to do with the climate.


    • Isn’t it curious how fast they have moved on this. Only a year ago did David Shukman advise us that the Jetstream was playing pivotal role in the amount of rain we were seeing as it had moved south:

      All well and good and especially some of the comments from him that this was complex stuff and a key comment is this:

      <b<This is no comfort as the forecasts continue to be grim, but it is a measure of the complexity of the physics involved – how air moves in waves, why certain patterns form – that more than 60 years later scientists are still wrestling with the question of how the jet stream operates and what shapes it.

      Yet here we are with less than a year gone and according to the BBC what has baffled big minds for 60 years has now been solved.

      Oh but it hasn’t has it? Having watched the report last night on the news at 10 there were a few “coulds” and “woulds” that they ascribed to potentially blaming the melting arctic ice and warming seas. Of course no notion of explaining that these were potential factors in a myriad of factors to explain something that has dogged scientists for decades.

      I don’t suppose it hurt however that they were the two factors that is easiest for them to paint a picture of a warming planet.


  11. Old Goat says:

    It’s not just the horrible BBC – Channel 4 news went way over the top with it yesterday evening. They are ALL pushing this global warming stuff for all they’re worth, and telling us how the scientists have agreed that it is occurring, and that it is man-made, and that carbon (as well as us) is to blame.

    Yet, when I look at the various websites dedicated to disproving this fraudulent rubbish, it is easy to see that the truth of the matter is that CO2 (and thus, man) is NOT causing any warming at all – in fact, the feeling is that there is considerable cooling on the way, and that these unusual (rather than extreme – everything is “extreme” in the eyes of the MSM) rainfall events are quite common, and have been for ever.

    The screaming headlines “since records began” are absolutely meaningless.

    Do they honestly believe that, if we all recycle everything, stop driving, heating and lighting our homes, stop flying, and burning anything, oh, and stop farting, too, the weather and/or climate is going to be any different?


    • TigerOC says:

      They were all at it. SKY 18:00 hrs; global temps 0.7C higher than pre-industrial = global warming. ITV had a woman described as the Met Office Chief Scientist; These events will continue for decades.

      So lets step back in time 3 years; Met office scientists predict barbecue summer; rained the summer; red faces. Later predictions of warm winter; heaviest snow falls for decades and chaos. Government revealed poor preparation and lack of equipment based on advice of Climate Scientists (read UEA) and Met Office. Met office then withdraw from issuing long term forecasts because they lack sufficient data.

      If I can remember this, then they can and but not one of our highly paid reporters or editors can remember this and call them on it.

      We should all be requesting Ofcom to investigate spurious reports.


  12. Guest Who says:

    The entire alarmist community, and especially fully-signed up media remoras, were already to gun for this, and then it came out with only a silver. Still, nothing ventured…
    ‘..they now refuse to state anything absolutely categorically’
    None could of course resist weighing in, but every headline has had either ‘may’ or ‘could’ in it as they are starting to twig that without a bit of derriere coverage they might be held to account down the line…. but it simply maintains most ‘reporting’ of ‘science’ at the laughable level it now is and is set to remain while the PPE and English grads cut and paste press releases from activist NGOs.


  13. davews says:

    Thanks for that summary Alan, more or less agrees with my views. What is not clear is actually how the Met Office has calculated these figures. It is of course based only on official Met Office weather stations, the nearest to me being Heathrow and Oxford both showing much higher numbers than the unofficial site down the road from here ( that shows 861.2mm for the year, higher than 2007, the earliest that site has, but certainly not unusual and way less than the ‘England’ figure. There was a Met Office station nearby at Beaufort Park but that closed when the Met Office moved to Exeter – its figures presumably appear in the 2000 figure but not this year’s, so how have they taken into account obvious changes to the stations reporting over the years?

    As for ‘extreme weather is what occurs every 100 days’ I can find no definition, even on the Met Office site, of how ‘extreme weather’ is defined, so how can you say it is happening more often….

    It certainly seems like some sensationalist reporting by the BBC, but the other MSM is not immune from it either in this case. No doubt it will be barbecue summer again this year!



  14. AngusPangus says:

    Do have a look at my posts over at Bishop Hill here:

    where I take a look at some of the BBC’s drought-hysteria bleatings from last spring.

    You will not be surprised to hear that less than a year ago, climate change impacts were expected to be less summer rainfall and droughts, and the long-term trends were towards drier conditions. In other words, the exact opposite of what they’re saying now.


  15. AsISeeIt says:

    Shock. A BBC story where the ‘reds’ are the bad guys?
    A BBC story suggesting lovely unhuntable foxes might be a nuisance?

    ‘Arctic fox sightings in northern Canada are at an unprecedented low this winter, according to wildlife guides.

    And, unusually, the number of red foxes has simultaneously surged in the area, on Hudson Bay.

    The surprising pattern has prompted observers to question whether the elusive Arctic foxes are being driven out of their dens by invading red relatives. ‘

    Climate change surely?

    Wait for it, wait for it……..

    ‘The change in red fox distribution, with the species pushing further northwards, has been associated with climate change in the Arctic.’

    Ah, the BBC money shot.


  16. bodo says:

    It all seems so long ago…. 🙂 From April 2012
    Drought may last until Christmas: Environment Agency


    • Noggin says:

      better kick out as much CO2 as is humanly possible then
      to aid our failing foilage .. seeing as at its base its plant food


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘It all seems so long ago…. From April 2012’
      Ah… but… as the BBC will tell you… ‘it was a different time’.
      Interesting to note the Editors’ Picks here too vs. top and lowest rated comms.
      Their credibility was long shot in this arena; now they are just digging its corpse up for an airing.
      Quite why one is compelled to pay so much money for so many overpaid people to be so wrong so often, escapes me still.


  17. Steve Jones says:

    I should know better by now than to be shocked at the AGW bias of the BBC but was still taken aback by today’s piece on the ‘World at One’ about California’s wonderful new Cap and Trade scam. There were comments from, would you believe it, Peter Gleick ! The piece ended with the comment,”… and as the world continues to warm.”
    So the BBC is prepared to air the views of a self-confessed liar and to make statistically indefensible comments. Even Prof Phil Jones wouldn’t back them up on the continued warming bit.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      It’s okay: Gleick holds the approved thoughts, so if he lies to promote those thoughts he gets a free pass. The BBC also lies in order to promote their own Warmist agenda, so he fits right in.

      Yet Piers Corbyn remains discredited in their view because of a few things he says about earthquakes. The double standards at the BBC are clear.


      • pah says:

        It’s called ‘Subjective Truth.’ Not what is actually true but what should be true given a fairer (i.e. more socialist) world.

        There’s no point arguing with such delusions. 🙁


  18. John Anderson says:

    Yes that was an awful report – by Akastair Leithead who used to report from Afghanistan ? His clsing remark “as the world continues to warm” was just the icing on the cake.

    He is pig-ignorant about Cap and Trade, that it has been discredited long since – except by the Dem loons in California who continue to impose ridiculous regulations on the already-worsening California economy.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      A few other States are now actually sending business recruiters to California, trying to lure them away to set up shop in more business-friendly environments.


  19. Richard Pinder says:

    I can understand why it is too complex for the morons at the BBC, but its quite simple, if the world suddenly gets cooler, then there will be a lot of rain, because there is not the energy to keep the water vapour in the Atmosphere any more. According to the Cosmoclimatology Theory we are at the warm side of a thermal lag before a mini ice age.


  20. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Some weatherman on Celebrity Mastermind yesterday said that there was definitely Global Warming, and then quickly qualified that by saying it meant that some places might actually get colder. He said the next consequence of AGW was that Britain would get colder. He tried to say it with a straight face, but I thought I detected a hint of recognition that he sounded like a fool.

    The Warmists had to drop “Global Warming” because evidence didn’t back them up, and so we now have “Climate Change”. The inherent meaninglessness of that term is proving quite useful to their cause now.


    • Phil Ford says:

      When I was a boy in the 70’s the talk back then was of ‘a new ice age’ just around the corner and ‘global cooling’ was all the rage; the hole in the ozone layer was the next scare tactic…

      These common purpose trolls are continuously having to think up new terms for their on-going money-making scam, as each previous scare fails to materialise…and so it goes on.

      ‘Climate Chaos’
      ‘Extreme Weather’
      ‘Global Weirding’

      To name just a few. I’m sure avid readers here can recall a few other equally disingenuous descriptors for a ‘problem’ that simply does not exist and for which there is absolutely no sound scientific proof at all – except for a satellite record which clearly and unambiguously shows (rather inconveniently for the warmists) that there has been no significant warming of the global climate for 16 continuous years now. Don’t take my word for it: that’s according to the Met Office themselves.–chart-prove-it.html


      • Guest Who says:

        ‘Climate Chaos’
        ‘Extreme Weather’
        ‘Global Weirding’

        You have hit the nail on the head with that trio.
        Expect variations in turn of these.
        Extreme weirding?
        It is mainly the media to blame for these daft hooks, but in turn the bozos who should know better appear only to happy to deliver when called upon.
        They are like abused spouses though, as their BFF media mates seduce them into idiot predictions that backfire, and the round on them when they do.


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          This is why it’s more of a religious belief than anything else. A true believer sees evidence of God’s handiwork everywhere.


  21. johnnythefish says:

    Even the scientists who the BBC like to think are telling them the science is settled have found no overwhelming evidence linking ‘climate change’ to extreme weather events.

    Here is the UN IPCC position:

    So where is the BBC getting its science from? This is pi55-poor journalism at best, extreme alarm-inducing bias at worst.

    But then, what’s this? In Richard Black’s own words ‘There is “low confidence” that tropical cyclones have become more frequent, “limited-to-medium evidence available” to assess whether climatic factors have changed the frequency of floods, and “low confidence” on a global scale even on whether the frequency has risen or fallen.’

    Confused? I think they are – and they’re all warmists. Lots of peer-reviewed studies on this available on the internet by scientists in the sceptic’s camp, but looks like the BBC is more than capable of digging its own hole.

    In the meantime, here’s a flavour of the great deceit that’s being perpetrated on us all in the name of science, and the political control over the IPCC which is encapsulated in the ‘Summary for Policymakers’, as well as the shortcomings of the climate models we keep hearing about:


  22. George R says:

    Hampstead Harrabin knows that much of UK has now shifted into a few days of relatively dry weather under the influence of a high pressure system. Will Hampstead Harrabin now try to make something of the distinctive dryness of this dry spell?