BBC Weather Forecasters Don’t Like The Truth!
By Paul Homewood
Oh dear, how sad, never mind!
Weather forecasters faced unprecedented levels of trolling during this month’s extreme heat in the UK, according to leading figures in the industry.
The BBC’s team received hundreds of abusive tweets or emails questioning their reports and telling them to "get a grip", as temperatures hit 40C.
BBC meteorologist Matt Taylor said he had never experienced anything like it in nearly 25 years working in weather.
The Royal Meteorological Society condemned the trolling.
Most of the abuse seems to have been prompted as links were made between the heatwave and climate change.
The UK saw record high temperatures on 19 July, with 40C exceeded for the first time. Dozens of locations saw temperatures above the previous UK record of 38.7C and 15 fire services declared a state of emergency because of a surge in blazes.
The Met Office estimated the heatwave had been made 10 times more likely because of climate change.
The BBC’s Matt Taylor said: "It’s a more abusive tone than I’ve ever received. I switched off a bit from it all as it became too depressing to read some of the responses."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62323048
Let me be quite clear – any sort of personal trolling is not acceptable at any level. But the examples given by the BBC are certainly not personal criticism, nor are they in any way abuse. Instead they are merely comments on the BBC’s weather programmes:
Licence payers are fully entitles to give their opinions on BBC programmes, and many would certainly agree with the sentiments, not least because the BBC weather forecasters now constantly blame climate change for bad weather.
If the BBC does not like the criticism, it could start by dropping the scary reds on weather charts. They could also start pointing out next winter that, before global warming, we had much more extreme cold weather.
A couple of years ago, the BBC’s senior management took the decision to build climate change indoctrination into regular programming, including weather forecasts. It is unsurprising that viewers are now reacting.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
And demanding something be done about it.
Insight isn’t their best quality.
If I even once heard the words “…… on the other hand”, I might be a little more inclined to listen. Impartiality does not appear to extend to this particular religion!
Biased Brainwashing Cult: Never knowingly impartial.
What do the BBC expect? It is biased, one sided propaganda. Anyone who criticises this Agenda is blacklisted, David Bellamy is a prime example. The BBC needs an investigation, their Charter clearly states that the must not show political bias.
The fact that the NOAA official observations clearly demonstrate that mankind is not creating more CO2 than nature has been ignored. The evidence is crystal clear, there was no change whatsoever in the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 during the Covid 19 Pandemic worldwide lockdown!
They would claim it’s not political, but that they are merely reporting the ‘facts’. On pillar box red maps……….
The reason for the trolling is that they are not reporting the facts .
The satellite temperature recording is a lot more accurate than ground based weather stations , and since about 1998 , they have been reporting a cooling of the world .
This is why the Climategate Emails had the instruction ” Hide The Decline “.
Since then temperatures are being adjusted , and readings are used from unreliable places which have urban heat effects and runways with jets flying around
So it is all propaganda from the Warmists , and politicians and the media are telling lies because it is all part of the great world reset .
Hopefully , more people will realise the truth and keep on at the lying BBC
@In The Real World
Funny thing about facts, there are your fact’s and there are my facts.
The problem is, sceptics only use facts, believing everyone understand what a fact is when, in fact, few people understand what a fact is.
What’s more useful to the public at large is propaganda. Everyone understand propaganda, so the alarmists use it because less than 10% of the world’s population have a scientific qualification so just don’t understand what a fact is.
Sceptics have been fighting a losing battle for the last 40 years on ‘scientific fact’. It’s got us nowhere.
Stupidity is demonstrably more effective than science.
The most stupid man on the planet, Joe Biden, has done more for sceptics in 18 months than sceptical science has done in 40 years.
Scientific fact is largely a pointless exercise when it comes to an argument. It will always be beaten by propaganda and stupidity.
TBH, Real World, I think you’ll find that the decline Mann wanted to hide was the fact that his models were showing a cooling, when what he wanted was an warming pattern. So, to hide the decline he spliced the real-world (natural) rising temp series onto his tree-ring model. Hey Presto! MMGW!
Harry Passfield . I did realise that there was all sorts of stories to try to explain away the ” Hide The Decline “.
As I understood it , tree ring growth towards the end of the 20th Century was showing a decline , so they left that factor out so that they could use fake temperature readings to try to show warming . But the ongoing satellite temp records were also declining and they only used ground temp readings to fit their story they wanted people to believe .
The trouble is that there are now two kinds of facts – objective and subjective. This is down to the spread of wokism and is perfectly portrayed by the Duchess of Woke talking about her ‘truth’. There was a good piece in the Mail looking at the Duchess of Woke and her ‘growing up as an only child’ – other than the fact that she has a half-sister. She may have ‘felt’ like she was an only child growing up but clearly has a sister. To put it simply we have ‘reality’ and ‘bullshit’.
In The Real World
You’re wrong on both counts.
The satellite record shows a continued warming since 1998.
The “Hide the decline” was a reduction in tree ring widths during the 1960s, when if they were acting as a thermometer, they’d be growing.
This thus cast doubt upon the veracity of the “Treemometer”.
Take the tree rings from his reconstructions & the warming would be much less/disappear.
Extensively covered in Climate Audit.
Adam Gallon ,I must have been looking at the satellite records before they were adjusted .http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Variations.jpg
Because I was sure that they showed the 1998 temps higher than most of the later ones .
So perhaps the ones shown above were before they got the ” Hide The Decline ” message.
Also just remembered that Paul did a posting showing that the world has not warmed since 1998.https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/01/11/the-world-has-been-getting-much-colder-for-the-last-six-years/
CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT!!!
CO2 FEEDS THE PLANET!!!
‘The Met Office estimated the heatwave had been made 10 times more likely because of climate change.’
’10 times more likely’ is not a cause.
It wasn’t a heatwave.
Just exactly HOW did ‘climate change’ make it ’10 times more likely?’
What do they mean by ‘climate change?’ What does that mean? Attribution should include definition.
In truth, ‘climate change’ is an undefined abstract. A tool for avoiding science.
Their attribution studies are pure fiction. They expect more and more extreme extreme events because of their models. But they can’t show that events are happening more frequently nor that they are more extreme. So they use attribution studies to show that they are. And their attribution studies use their models…
They are literally using the models that make the prediction to confirm the prediction.
Absolutely right. The 64 billion (probably literally!) dollar question is how do you get the scientific illiterates which is most of the BBC, parliament, the civil service, so-called ‘progressives’ and 90% of the population (which included me until what I was reading just didn’t seem to make sense) to understand they are being sold a pup?
With one or two obvious exceptions, the BBC (I’m fairly sure) are quite sincere, as are most of the rest of the media, as are most MPs who — like a lot of us — are being suckered because they/we don’t KNOW and, not unreasonably, we believe that those who should know are not deliberately lying to us.
Trolling is despicable wherever it happens but perhaps somebody might just sit up and start asking why suddenly tranches of the British public are picking on their weathermen. Denial and doubling-down will be the first reaction but from small seeds ……
Attribution studies are as attached to empirical data as Experimental Archeology is to history. They are a step further into fantasy land than their already hopelessly WRONG models.
They are of course very popular with those infesting what were once places of learning because they allow the “expert” and team of assorted hangers on complete control over outcome. Their input is hidden by smoke and mirrors by using a word salad of fancy acronyms they made up only yesterday.
Very useful tool to produce “oh no it’s worse than we thought” scenarios to sex up submission of the next inflated budget estimates for the expansion of their departments and their oh so critically important work.
Reality strikes back
The sequel.
I posted in the BBC comments the World Meteorological Organisation’s guidance on weather station location together with examples of the “record breaking” UK sites aerial images from google maps as an indication of how the sites simply did not conform to basic minimum requirements. I deliberately made no adverse comments, ad hominem remarks, nor improper suggestions. I just provided impartial data for readers to consider. My post was immediately deleted. The good old impartial BBC eh!
Dissent verboten.
@Ray Sanders I do believe you
but you should screenshot so you can prove things like that
Good point Stew, in future I will. I really don’t think I should have to but if that is what it takes then yes I will.
My calculations indicate that the energy content of the air at Cambridge on 25th July 2019 (previous record) was approximately 40% higher than the energy content of the air at Coningsby on 19th July 2022 i.e. a substantial reduction in energy content can still permit an increase in temperature if humidity is substantially reduced.
Does this not undermine the core belief of those who believe that increasing the energy content of the atmosphere will lead to warming of the atmosphere?
Anyone else care to get their calculator out?
But it was hot only because we had hot air from somewhere that’s usually really hot at this time of year. Small changes in the variables (how heat it was in north Africa, how quickly it came north, what the temperature was here when it arrived etc) all have a say in what the temperature was. But none are “climate change”. It seems clear that slightly hotter Saharan air moving quickly to the UK where it’s warm already will produce record temperatures. That it only lasted a few hours shows it was a fleeting phenomenon that required a highly specific set of circumstances to be that hot.
As I understand it the real culprit was the high pressure plus that little low tucked away in the bottom left hand corner. The sad thing is that you would expect meteorologists (who like other experts love explaining the quirks of their speciality/hobby to we ignorati) to have told us about this and the uniqueness of this particular combination …. etc., etc.
The only who did to my knowledge was, surprise surprise, Joe Bastardi. As far as the Met Office was concerned it was just another excuse to punt ‘global warming’. Lying by omission … or close to it.
Mike, I wonder how many ‘weather men’ would keep their job if they started an ‘OTOH’ movement…
Recently been reading John Dee’s interesting statistical analyses. He has a provisional estimate of Heathrow UHI compared to all other UK land stations of around 1.65 degC.
Some of his other estimates are even higher, eg UHI for >100k population is about 2.5 degC. He is embarking on a series of analyses – its good, worth following.
https://jdee.substack.com/
ITs surprising, if climate change is a thing, that its taken so long to break a record. Or of course, if much of the global temp increase is UHI, then climate change is pretty benign
Yup, we never got any online abuse 50 years ago.
“…made ten times more likely…”
Which admits that it was possible WITHOUT climate change.
So here’s a record we could have had at any time if all the variables had aligned. Not really much to get hysterical about then.
But the believers will not understand that – because they can’t or don’t want to.
Reithian values are no longer embraced by BBC.
Pheonix44. …“…made ten times more likely…”.
You are quite right, ‘more likely’ not a statement of fact but supposition, a non-scientific phrase, and when it’s rounded to 10 you instantly know it’s BS.
It’s also a recurrent phrase employed by the press like ‘worse than we thought’, go figure, as they say.
was it news or PR ?
it’s clearly a PR phrase
@ Phoenix44 , the high temperatures recorded on 19th July 2022 were weather events and not climate change events. My view is that the primary driver for the high temperatures recorded was the low relative humidity, not the energy content of the air.
Even if one accepts the “ten times more likely to occur ” this is completely meaningless.
It’s just an example of hyperbolic headlines misrepresenting relative risk giving an exaggerated impression of the importance of the hazard. It says nothing about the actual magnitude of the risk. Basically a tiny chance (1/1000) has become a slightly greater (1/100) but still very low probability.
There is no empirical bases whatsoever for that. It is simply a guess untethered to any data. As such it should be made clear that is all it is. I get them in meetings. Presenters who start off qualitatively and then suddenly start being quantitative. That is when my hand goes up and I say stop.
The BBC are lucky that they now have only a small fraction of viewers compared with a couple of decades ago, otherwise the ‘abusive tweets’ or emails would have numbered in the thousands, not just a few hundred.
I haven’t watched the BBC in many years Paul – it offers me nothing.
By mistake only now do I find myself watching one of their dramas or indeed any programming of any kind. At the most I get 5 minutes in and my woke alarm goes off. If it is a drama, they can kill my interest and the dramas credibility in the first scene.
The programming is being used as a vehicle to promote the wokey fantasies of some very disturbed people.
They should stick to their job, which is weather-forecastng. Unfortunately they are not very good at that either..
Exactly. We don’t need sermons, we need information.
LOL, Monty gardeners world is rejigging his garden to cope with climate change after 2 days hot weather. Then he says it’s getting drier, and wetter too. Monty dear, there is only one thing getting wetter….
Twitter noticed a bit
.. https://twitter.com/SueWR24/status/1553103688796971010
It would be funny if the consequences of the policies that they are supporting with their propaganda weren’t so utterly ruinous for us all.
What is so bad about that BBC report is how reasonable the complaints were! Poor Matt Taylor needs counselling now because the public have views he did not agree with and it made him depressed. How dare the people who pay for the BBC dare to have an opinion.
It is clear they are very sensitive as is always the case when they know you know there is nothing to back up what they are pushing. They are hiding behind a gossamer thin veil of lies and they do not want anyone tugging at it. Just like all the rest of the leftie promoted causes which only survive because rational debate and discussion is not allowed.
Who’s trolling who ?
As ever “PROJECTION is a libmob characteristic”
Aidan McGiven Met Office Meteorologist was super active on Twitter
Firing off an 8 tweet thread emphasising sceptics are using a DOCTORED image ..then a silent correction .. then a pushback
‘Yeh those DENIERS they are all thick,
I have proved that UK weathermap meme is DOCTORED’ I paraphrase
10:39 AM · Jul 17, 2022 .. https://twitter.com/aidanweather/status/1548603406541111297
19,000 Likes
If you look you can see he’s just being emphatic, he hasn’t cited any actual evidence is was doctored
51 hours later he backtracked
1:02 PM · Jul 19, 2022 “Update: I’ve now been told that in July 2016,
the Met Office tweeted a map that looks like the image on the right“
just 48 Likes
.. https://twitter.com/aidanweather/status/1549364093743759362
50 hours later he tried to get back momentum
“,the main point stands – this side-by-side comparison, which uses an isolated tweet from 2016, is used to misrepresent what our forecasts look like “
(That is true), someone cherrypicked an older one, the modern one is just a bit less extremist
Just as we should be careful about shouting gotcha !
the alarmists shouting “gotcha those side by side graphs are false” should also be careful
Detail
.
It’s interesting that the founder of a group called @DontCryWolf
says he’s not bothered by the FALSE doctoring claim
.. https://twitter.com/BrownBare/status/1549370226940190720
There’s a page with his first 8 tweets
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1548603406541111297.html
Reuters page “A meme comparing two UK heatwave forecasts on two different years
does not prove the media stoke baseless fears about climate change.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-weather-climate/fact-check-british-weather-maps-have-changed-for-better-accessibility-idUSL1N2Z30KX
Now it does now contain info explaining about Aidan’s false claim
.. I suspect checking the archive would show Reuters rewrote their page
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-weather-climate/fact-check-british-weather-maps-have-changed-for-better-accessibility-idUSL1N2Z30KX
Archive from Met Office facebook 2016 when they did post that image, Aidan falsely claimed was doctored .. https://archive.ph/CgkDt
Aidan tweeted in 5/8 “No dark reds and blacks”
in maps he expected the MO to use
Yet a few hours later in a modern map the Met O did use dark red
.. https://twitter.com/ASkeleton6/status/1549009690172035075
@IvorMick10 seems to prove that despite Aidan’s claims
the Met Office have darkened their colour scheme in recent years
So stewgreen, it is true they have been changing the colour scale?
Yes see ivorMIck tweet above
“The Met Office estimated the heatwave had been made 10 times more likely because of climate change.”
That is abusing the public with anti-science, rising CO2 forcing is modeled to increase positive NAO conditions, but brief Saharan plumes are dependent on negative NAO conditions which are more likely with low solar.
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html
Like a neurotic broken record
They used to do this colour alarmism with CO2 until the OCO2 satelite went up and started to function. It showed emissions centred over equatorial Africa, the Russian Steppe and the Amazon.
I sometimes wonder if the OCO1 launch failure was not an accident.
Perhaps they would not get trolled if they stuck to reporting the weather and not speculating about climate change?
It must be the highest trolling since records began, and it is all due to climate change.
‘Weather forecasters faced unprecedented levels of trolling during this month’s extreme heat in the UK, according to leading figures in the industry.’
“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means” – Inigo Montoya
‘The BBC’s team received hundreds of abusive tweets or emails questioning their reports and telling them to “get a grip”, as temperatures hit 40C.
BBC meteorologist Matt Taylor said he had never experienced anything like it in nearly 25 years working in weather.
The Royal Meteorological Society condemned the trolling.’
‘abusive tweets or email’ is not trolling.
Trolling is intentionally trying to provoke an emotional response. People telling BBC idiots they are stupid is trying to get them to shut up.
Maybe mentally precarious BBC idiots think everyone has an emotional response when they are shown to be wrong.
There’s a lot of difference between Theory and Theology. CAGW devotees are very clearly in the grip of a religious mania that is completely unsupported by real-world observations. Scientists change their theory if its predictions are refuted by evidence.
” CAGW devotees are very clearly in the grip of a religious mania ”
Yes, mental illness being the common factor. A definition of psychosis from the UK NHS website:
” Psychosis is when people lose some contact with reality. This might involve seeing or hearing things that other people cannot see or hear (hallucinations) and believing things that are not actually true (delusions). “
During the 48 hours of our minor period of warmth Plymouth suffered a murderous 26degsC with rain,
The BBC’s charter busting bias goes back to Horrorbin’s conspiracy in 2006. Read Montford’s The Propaganda Bureau for the whole sordid story.
The way for the BBC’s weather forecasters to stop getting abusive trolls is to stick to their job of forecasting the weather and to stop lecturing us on climate change – and to stop giving out fatuous and infantile advice on how to survive when it gets a bit hot in Summer
Yeah.
“Wear less clothes. And enjoy.”
I have just Complained, requiring a reply. In parenthesis asked the BBC why they have never told their license payers that UK emits only one per cent of global CO2 . That would run against their narrative and bring Net Zero to a halt.