I had a brief exchange with Rubert Darwall on Twitter today. He’s written an article in the Spectator heavily criticising the Met Office and climate scientists, and which repeats a number of the standard (but largely incorrect) arguments against global warming and climate change. I think it is a very poor article and has made me wonder if I shouldn’t propose what one might call Wott’s law, which is if you invoke Karl Popper in order to win a scientific argument, you then lose the argument by default. I was going to write a post about this Spectator article, but instead thought I would simply reblog this Met Office News Blog post which does an excellent job of rebutting what Rupert Darwall has written.
Originally posted on Met Office News Blog:
In an article which appeared in the Spectator online today, Rupert Darwall makes a sustained attack on climate scientists and specifically on the Met Office.
His main point seems to be that the Met Office gets weather forecasts wrong. To answer that, you can see our accuracy figures online and these are regularly updated to reflect our recent performance.
At the time of writing this blog, the Met Office is beating all of its forecast accuracy targets. As an example, 87.7% of our next day maximum temperature forecasts are accurate to within 2C. The target is 80%.
The Met Office is consistently recognised by the World Meteorological Organization as one of the top two most accurate operational forecasters in the world.
No forecaster can be accurate 100% of the time and we don’t claim to be, but we are at the forefront of weather and climate science and are…
View original 639 more words