The Useless Slingo Wins A Prize
By Paul Homewood
http://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2015/06/19/met-office-staff-and-affiliates-recognised-for-their-work/
Apparently the useless Slingo has won some “prestigious award”!
Could this be the same Julia Slingo who told MP’s in 2012, that global warming was contributing to colder winters and drought?
Then blamed it for wet winters?
Or the same Julia Slingo who told us last year,
“The UK had seen the "most exceptional period of rainfall in 248 years….We have records going back to 1766 and we have nothing like this.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26084625
when her own data tells us this was untrue?
Or the same Julia Slingo who was contradicted by one of her own senior experts, who stated that there was no evidence that climate change was responsible for the wet winter.
Or the same Julia Slingo who, as Chief Scientist, was ultimately responsible for the 3-month outlook issued at the end of November 2013, which forecast “below average precipitation”, and “a significant reduction in precipitation in the western parts of the country”, (the very part that was worst hit).
Surely they cannot be the same person?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Where can I find the rainfall records from 1766 ?
Click on “own data”
All the links are there
Any time there is weather, it is a result of global warming or climate change or whatever!
Don’t forget the groundbreaking improvements in modeling that the Met Office has done leading, in 2007, to headlines such as “Global warming forecast predicts rise in 2014” in the Telegraph Science section.
Despite the stiff worldwide competition, Dame Slingo has finally been recognized as a scientist and for her services to Meteorological Finances. She has single-handedly shown that through leveraging scare stories, propaganda, waffle, sophistry and just plain lying, her Office has maximized funding. In this she is an example to all meteorological agencies everywhere. Additionally, during her time in office, the Met Office’s weather forecasting ability has been maintained at the internationally renowned laughably low standard. Surely these are her main achievements, and she has be internationally recognized for them.
So, she’s a prize idiot?
Graeme No.3, you ask ” ….she’s a prize idiot?”
Oh no. She is a prize something though, and far more dangerous than a mere idiot.
She’s a kind of a curate’s egg, good at acquiring personal fame through expanding her Met Office’s media importance, good at BS, good at finessing an argument to her advantage. As the Met Office’s chief sales person intent on acquiring the maximum of public funding she is in a class of her own.
As someone to improve the accuracy, efficacy, and efficiency of the Met Office’s weather forecasting in the short, medium, and long range she is a disaster. A total failure! But it appears weather forecasting is a tertiary function of her Met Office, so no matter eh?
If in weather forecasting there was payment by results, the Met Office would have been disbanded years ago. However within government circles these days, funding and payment appears to be linked to how large your public profile is. And this Dame and her Office looms large on the government’s skyline.
The Government could form an exciting Meteorology department at some university with Dame Julia, Prof Lockwood and Dr.Cowton as leading staff.
They would no doubt publish my forthcoming paper “Global warming causing black deposits on white cars”.
She came over as useless when she appeared on ‘The Life Scientific’, on the BBC of course. These people are only in the job for the high salary, high pension (guaranteed by you the taxpayer), high perks and the gongs. They don’t care at all that they are harming the country, ruining the countryside and making life a misery for millions.
The same person, but with a forked tongue?
It’s going to be a hot cold wet dry summer – 50% certainty. Send prize whether true or not 😉
I cnnot understand why UKMET come out with all this cilmate change stuff that Paul and others ,with all credit to them ,can show is not fully sound and seemingly heavily biased .
I disagree that professor Slingo and her colleagues are “useless”, Clearly they are highly intelligent and well qualified scientists.
My question is, why do they come out with such statements? and why dont they argue back against criticism of their output.
When you issue pronouncements from on high, you do not engage in debate.
Just another Intelligent political animal that plays the game to keep herself in a well paid job & gets rewarded for doing so.
Anyone who doesn’t toe the company line gets ‘released’ .. same with any job
It will only be when a great deal of public perception / opinion & importantly media reporting is swayed strongly against something that the Govt will / may take any notice / action
but as reported by Paul on this site £42.6 billion (i think it was) income from emission taxes is unlikely to weaken the Govts resolve on this BS
Keep up the excellent investigative reporting Paul, something which the main-stream media seems to appear to forgotten how to do.
She has ben rewarded for supporting the “Government Line” and nothing else.
They always reward whether the person fails in their primary job or not.
Another snippet about the WMO. The Task Team on Homogenization (TT-HOM) of the Commission for Climatology (CCl) of the World meteorological organization (WMO) under the chairmanship of Victor Venema has been set up to review the methods to remove non-climatic changes from temperature data. Venema sees it as a superior rival the GWPF review.
http://variable-variability.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/two-new-reviews-of-homogenization-methods.html
However, with respect to temperature homogenisation Venema makes the common assumption that it removes the measurement biases, leaving only the real climatic variation. Paul Homewood found out that in Paraguay an other areas this is clearly not the case. I propose that the homogenisation algorithms treat anomalous real world local variations just the same as anomalies caused by station moves – they remove them. Conversely, the homogenisation algorithms treat common measurement biases – such as the UHI effects in South Korea – just the same as real trends. They get included.
Further, there are huge variations in temperature trends across the land surface data, even in the homogenised data sets. So where temprature data is thin on the ground (e.g. South America), far more of the real world variations will get smoothed out then where temperature data is relatively plentiful (e.g. UK)
The climate community have missed this obvious point, as they are not in the habit of questioning their assumptions, nor in critically reviewing their data outputs like, say, beancounters.
I smell a whitewash!
Julia said, “I am surprised but rather delighted to be recognised….” I am guessing that she is not the only one surprised by this award, certainly not if you account for those outside the climate change fraternity.