[John Mason]

mrfizz, on 27 January 2012 - 13:17, said:

I see on the Daily MAil website that they are now quoting the Met when announcing the forthcoming winter apocalypse.

http://www.dailymail...es-Britain.html

And cue the first comment beneath the piece:

"Since when did we ever believe the Met. Office? And what has happened to Global Warming that we have all been taxed out of existence for?" - Janet, Berkshire, 27/1/2012 14:47


Is this another way of saying. "We Want Piers", or "Come back PWS, all is forgiven"? I have no idea myself!

Cheers - John

[Howard Kirby]

John Mason, on 27 January 2012 - 15:18, said:

And cue the first comment beneath the piece:

"Since when did we ever believe the Met. Office? And what has happened to Global Warming that we have all been taxed out of existence for?" - Janet, Berkshire, 27/1/2012 14:47


Is this another way of saying. "We Want Piers", or "Come back PWS, all is forgiven"? I have no idea myself!

Cheers - John

Its a way of saying "I totally don't understand the difference between weather and Global Warming "

[Andy Mayhew]

As an aside, Piers has become very reticent about revealing any of his forecasts atm unless you pay for them. Although he held one of his conferences today and I've not yet looked to see if there's a video. I have no idea at present as to what he forecast for Feb.

[Bluebreezer54]

I will probably be shot down for asking this question, but will ask it anyway. In all the time PWS were having their overblown headlines plastered across the front pages of the usual papers, did anyone with far more knowledge and qualifications ever question it with those publications ? More to the point, did they offer an alternative ?

[Howard Kirby]

Bluebreezer54, on 27 January 2012 - 20:23, said:

I will probably be shot down for asking this question, but will ask it anyway. In all the time PWS were having their overblown headlines plastered across the front pages of the usual papers, did anyone with far more knowledge and qualifications ever question it with those publications ? More to the point, did they offer an alternative ?

I emailed a website which he contributed to once...they forwarded it to him and I got a very snotty reply. I only asked what his credentials were as a forecaster and got a bit of a rant in reply...telling me he used to write for The Fast Show and other stuff. I think I may have offended him tbh...so I agreed to back off. But he really didn't like being questioned!

[Howard Kirby]

Chris Lloyd, on 27 January 2012 - 19:19, said:

I am sure Janet wouldn't share your view of her intelligence

I didn't mention anything about intelligence, I was commenting on her lack of understanding. Please don't twist what I have said its ridiculous...

[Dave K]

Chris Lloyd, on 27 January 2012 - 22:05, said:

I think the METO published a response on their site to the arctic blast headlines recently.

In reality, if serious meteorology does not think there is any worth in the forecasts they shouldn't be threatened by it and feel the need to respond. The fact that is does get a response is rather "Biting one's nose off to spite it's face"

There is an inference from responding - it makes it credible when it isn't.

That's a logical fallacy and you should know it. What the MetO are doing is making a clear statement that they are not responsible for sensationalistic headlines and content being trotted out. Besides, you are pretty damn quick to respond to any implied criticism of your posts - should we infer that such criticism is credible on the same basis?

[Andy Mayhew]

Chris Lloyd, on 27 January 2012 - 22:05, said:

In reality, if serious meteorology does not think there is any worth in the forecasts they shouldn't be threatened by it and feel the need to respond.

I disagree.

I think we have a responsibilty to point out when the public are being misled on something.

If you saw alarmist media headlines about a subject you were an expert on, and knew them be totally false, would you do nothing? Of contact the press to put the story right?