Once proud organisation
For “public service” – Robert Napier is the head of the UK’s Met Office, you know, the one that couldn’t predict the outcome of a one-horse race, the “barbecue summer” Met Office, the “warmer winters” Met Office that somehow missed the coldest UK winter in 300 years (possibly longer). It is an organisation so blinded by global warming theology that it now spectacularly fails to do what it is supposed to do: forecast the weather. It’s the Meteorological Office after all.
As commenter Froggy UK reminded me a few days ago, Napier is an eco-fruitcake, totally conflicted out of his role at the Met Office, as is evident from his appointments:
- Chairman of the Green Fiscal Trust
- Chairman of the trustees of the World Centre of Monitoring of Conservation
- a director of the Carbon Disclosure Project
- a director of the Carbon Group
- Chief executive of the World Wildlife Fund UK
He clearly has an environmentalist agenda to push, which, sadly he is doing very well, at the expense of timely and accurate weather forecasting. The Met Office’s flawed advice to the government, which as a result failed to prepare adequately for the extreme cold, has resulted in the unnecessary suffering of millions of people in the UK. And on top of all that, he is handed a gong in the New Year’s Honours List. Someone is playing a very sick joke on the British public.
(h/t Richard North)
Australian Climate Madness 
Don’t ya know, all they need is more computing power.
MET OFFICE Q & A UK WINTER FORECAST 2010/11 YOU COULD NOT MAKE IT UP
You Could Not Make It Up: Freak weather could have been predicted by Nicola Jones, Nature.com
UK Met Office is being held back by a lack of computing power, says its chief scientist Julia Slingo.
(Q) What’s the biggest obstacle to creating better, hazard-relevant weather forecasts?
(A) Access to supercomputers. The science is well ahead of our ability to implement it. It’s quite clear that if we could run our models at a higher resolution we could do a much better job — tomorrow — in terms of our seasonal and decadal predictions. It’s so frustrating. We keep saying we need four times the computing power. We’re talking just 10 or 20 million a year — dollars or pounds — which is tiny compared to the damage done by disasters. Yet it’s a difficult argument to win. You just think: why is this so hard?
Yeah the Met office are really working on a shoestring, £30 million computer system & £170 million running costs per year, considering Napier has already made his mind up on what side he is on (the side that makes him rich) he could do the same job on a pentium 1 & a bag of wine gums & get the same wrong fudged results.