"Runner, you were linking to the wettest UK in 100 years.

I know it might seem simplistic to you (it has to be) ... but which part are you having difficulty with:"

Patronising to the end; whatever part Runner is having difficulty with the MET also had the same problem; their forecast:

"Met Office 3-month Outlook
Period: April – June 2012 Issue date: 23.03.12

SUMMARY – PRECIPITATION:
The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier than average conditions for April-May-June as a whole, and also slightly favours April being the driest of the 3 months. With this forecast, the water resources situation in southern, eastern and central England is likely to deteriorate further during the April-May-June period. The probability that UK precipitation for April-May-June will fall into the driest of our five categories is 20-25% whilst the probability that it will fall into the wettest of our five categories is 10-15% (the 197-2000 climatological probability for each of these categories is 20%)."

In fact the period was the wettest for over 100 years.

In years to come the synonym for stupid and arrogant will be AGW supporter/scientist.

cohenite

thanks for putting it so clearly. Also if what bonmot is so confident of then he/she must be convinced of how stupid successive State Labour parties have been in listening to the Greens and not building more dams for our increased population.

"Patronising to the end; whatever part Runner is having difficulty with the MET also had the same problem"

Now there's a poser ... Who is the pot and who is the Kettle?

OMG, those damn probabilities again ... 20-25% dry vs 10-15% wet.

Who'd wanna a be a weatherman ... I'm sticking to climate.

"In fact the period was the wettest for over 100 years." Well duh, exactly the point.

To simplify even further (always a risk) ... in some regions, weather will be more varied (hotter, drier, wetter, take your pick) and more extreme.

Anthony, today the synonym for religious zealot and political ideologue are the same. Science has got nothing to do with it - as you and the likes of runner have so aptly demonstrated with the Lord Monckton road-show.

Oh, and runner ... take your blinkers off. Successive Labor AND Liberal governments have not planned enough for the future.

Why? Because when they do, it scares the bejeebus out of the electorate and they're voted out.

Perhaps it's got something to do with selfishness and greed.

When do you think we should start preparing and paying (literally and metaphorically) for the future, runner?

Hint: prayers alone won't be enough.

bonmot,

"Anthony, today the synonym for religious zealot and political ideologue are the same. Science has got nothing to do with it..."

It would seem so - and cohenite and runner teaming up demonstrates your premise well.

It's all about biased assimilation in cohenite's case, and belief in runner's ("evidence just bounces off"). This from the following article:

"....the more scientifically literate people are, the more their ideological filters kick in when reading information about climate change. It might seem counterintuitive, but the more confidence people have in their ability to grasp the science, the more able they are to slot it into their existing world view."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/30/belief-climate-change-scepticism

Just highlighting an article embedded in the last one.

Vicky Pope - senior scientist at the British Met office.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/23/climate-change-believe-in-it

I've said this before and it is always worth saying again: the so-called AGW science cannot even get it right in the immediate present yet we are bombaded with continuous claims that the AGW science is certain about what will happen in the medium and far future [10 to 200 years].

How can that be when NO prediction of AGW has come to pass.

AGW is a theory which has been disproved, simply by what has happened in the weather and climate over the last 30 years.

Unfortunately there is too much money and too many egoes involved in propping up AGW for people to let it go.

So, which explains the commentators', here and elsewhere, slavish support for this dead but not buried theory: money or ego?