Remember earlier in the year, the MET Office in the UK was touting the 2009-2010 winter was going to be “the warmest winter in living memory?” Then remember how about a month later they had to admit it was the coldest winter in Britain in the past 30 years? Well, they’re at it again, only this time they grounded practically every airline in Europe due to their “wonderful” computer models again. More CO2 insanity (volcanoes do emit CO2 yanno).
Per this article from Telegraph.co.uk titled “Volcanic ash cloud: Met Office blamed for unnecessary 6 day closure” we find the following…
The government agency was accused of using a scientific model based on “probability” rather than fact to forecast the spread of the volcanic ash cloud that made Europe a no-fly zone and ruined the plans of more than 2.5 million travellers in and out of Britain.
See, we again have “scientific probability” and computer models making incorrect predictions again.
Much of the blame was directed at the Met Office’s Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre (VAAC). It provided the initial warning, which triggered the European-wide ban via Eurocontrol, the air traffic control centre in Brussels.
Matthias Ruete, the European Commission’s director-general of transport, said air traffic authorities should not have relied on a single source of scientific evidence before imposing the widespread ban. He suggested the no-fly zone should have been restricted to a 20 to 30-mile limit around the volcano. “The science behind the model we are running at the moment is based on certain assumptions where we do not have clear scientific evidence,” he said.
Sounds amazingly familiar doesn’t it? Kind of like telling us we have anthropogenic global warming based on computer models that conveniently alter the data to prove their theory instead of the other way around, which is the way it should be. (i.e., you get the data, then arrive at a conclusion, you don’t invent a conclusion, then make sure the data proves what you want).
Now they may get sued over all of this. I wish someone would sue them over AGW, but they’ve been whitewashed into innocence by a group of convenient peers. Still one can hope.
“This may well open the way for wider litigation against the Met Office and other government agencies who are found to have failed in their duty of care. The damages and legal costs could break the £1?billion mark.”
You want more proof that these computer models “suck” whether they are about climate or volcanic ash you can go to C3 and read this article regarding a NASA scientists comments about their computer models.
Enough with the computer models please. Can we just get the straight, unaltered data, and see what it points to before we run around screaming the sky is falling?