You see, Willard occasionally puts a bell into a headline, even if the bell doesn't belong there, and the dogs of commenters begin to salivate and slobber their comments all over the thread running beneath the article. It isn't enlightening in any way, other than that it shows a denier behaviour that no doubt he would deny.
Today he puts the headline
Future changes in atmospheric rivers and their implications for winter flooding in Britain.
Can you see what he's done? Yes, boys and girls, he put in the phrase Met Office and used the word summer. Can you see what the paper is about? Yep, winter. I am no climate scientist (which puts me on exactly the same footing as Lord Monckton, Wallace Eschenbach and Willard himself) but I did pretty well at infants' school and could read by the time I was six. Why have the word "summer" in the headline when the paper (I've linked to it above) is about "winter". But I suppose living in California, it is hard to tell the difference between summer and winter - one clue though is that your electric car doesn't start so well in winter.
|Is this Willard once he realises his simple error?|
Don't see Met Office there. Looked deeper. Richard Allan has collaborated with the staff at the Met Office (which presumably would give James Delingpole reason to give him the same fate as WW2 collaborators). Ben Lloyd-Hughes also comes under that cover, having done some work with the Met Office, as has Brayshaw. But then that's not surprising. The Met Office is going to use expertise to try to do the best job they can. It would be stupid of them to ignore climate scientists entirely. 1 Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK
2 Walker Institute, University of Reading, Reading, UK
3 National Centre for Atmospheric Science, University of Reading, Reading, UK
4 IIHR-Hydroscience and Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
5 Department of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Reading, Reading, UK
6 Present address: IIHR-Hydroscience and Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
But Watts's headline specifically mentions summer and the Met Office when neither of them are relevant. His readers, such as their reading ages go, don't make the subtle distinction between nothing to do with summer or Met Office and let's shred the Met Office and, unexpectedly perhaps, go for the latter.
Would it be uncharitable to suggest that is precisely what Willard wanted? If he did, he gets what he wanted. You can detect the snarling a mile off:
All this research is pointless. UK weather can be forecasted deterministically: it’s the opposite of whatever the Met Office predicts.
Er, the RMS Titanic was built and run by the White Star Line, a private enterprise, not a government one. So the UK didn't put a boat out to sea in 1912. But don't let facts spoil a good fight.
Like this one?
Can't find a hosepipe ban in the UK but I do know the Met Office got the severe storms forecast right. I was one of those awoken the other night by the thunder.
The invented phenomenon illustrated by a 2009 weather map posted by Willard himself. I notice Steve didn't just not read all of it, he didn't look at the pretty pictures either. So in case he's looking:
I couldn’t even read all of this.
My Bullshat detector was going wild.
On it’s face this is so unbelievable it almost hurts. The authors appear to have supplanted the jet stream with an entirely invented phenomenon.
Garbage in, garbage out, the IT folks tell me. So if you set up a rubbish headline, you can expect to get rubbish comments. And so it proves. WattsUpWithThat, the gift that keeps giving examples of bad science.