“We’re Not Stupid” | Met Office Says UK Had Warmest May Since Records Began In 1884
June 8, 2024
The public simply don’t believe the Met Office lies anymore;
39 Comments
leave one →
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
Ray Sanders on Justin Rowlatt’s Renewab… Ray Sanders on Justin Rowlatt’s Renewab… davewoolcock on Justin Rowlatt’s Renewab… davewoolcock on Justin Rowlatt’s Renewab… oldbrew on Latest CfD Subsidies Ray Sanders on Latest CfD Subsidies glenartney on Latest CfD Subsidies tsash5a175fdcda on The world is using more oil, c… erichux on Daily Temperature Highs David W. on “We’re Not Stupid…
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
This is yet another instance where optimistic me would say it was a turning point where the general public would wake up to the fact that the climate crisis is fabricated nonsense. Unfortunately I fear that people are stupid, very stupid in fact.
In other news, the cricket World Cup is happening in the Caribbean. The roof of the stadium is covered in solar panels, well at least they are in a part of the world where the sun shines. The problem is that cricket balls are sort of hard and the players keep whacking them onto the roof.
Stonyground.
What’s going to happen to all those solar panels in Morocco when a Saharan sand storm wipes the surface off the ones that haven’t already been stolen and sold off?
The Met is an absolute disgrace.
Only a fool, or a benefitting shill, would build a solar park in a desert – of course they’re not using their own money, theyre wasting ours, subsidies galore and no accountability for crap generation levels (dust will reduce the CF to single digit)
Obviously it goes dark in Morocco so what are we going to do without all that solar power at 6p.m. on a winters evening when demand peaks?
All the Met Office is good for bumping up house prices in Exeter
.
We had warmer nights, because the weather was overcast and raining. But we had colder daytimes, because the weather was overcast and raining.
Mix those readings together and you can say, on average, that the month was warmer. But this is a complete nonsense. This is not what we as humans want, nor what plants want – we want some nice sunny warm daytimes.
It also goes to show what a nonsense the average global temperature is. The globe varies 20 degrees from day to night, and varies 70 degrees between pole and tropic — yet the single temperature they give is supposed to be meaningful??
And why is the warming always in far-away places, where we cannot verify it?
Ralph
“And why is the warming always in far-away places,”
Exactly! Rather like sea level rise which is always causing problems somewhere else.
The port authority in Dover has been measuring mean sea level for centuries. Odd that their accurate equipment never agrees with all those dodgy readings on “threatened” Indian or Pacific islands. Perhaps someone built a wall across the oceans to stop the sea balancing out its “level”.
.
Yet Dover SHOULD have rising sea levels, as it is on the negative side of the post-glacial isostatic rebound.
Which is why sea levels in Scandinavia are rapidly falling.
R
it’s causing major problems in the Maldives because it’s not happening! They’re still going round with the begging bowl even though the land area has increased and they’re extending the airport to cater for more tourists.
Being essentially a coral atoll (I’m told) they’re on a hiding to nothing. Eventually the islands will sink back into the ocean where they originally popped up from!
As far as temperatures go, Hansen eventually admitted that global average temperature is “not a useful metric”!
Quite right Newminster and Ray et al. GAT is as meaningful as computing the averages of lottery numbers and expecting to get six numbers which will make you rich.
The Met Office are not stupid, they are worse, they are a dangerous, deceitful mob, regularly tweaking data and making stuff up to fit the narrative because empirical science and reality say no to AGW, no to climate crisis and no to net zero
I know of no credible organisation, or individual, that trusts them, or believes their dystopian hype
Good point. If they are not stupid, how do they explain all their actions?
“The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.”
― Robert Conquest
Used to be part of the MOD, it’s now a government agency. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/governance
The ultimate responsibility and accountability for the work of the Met Office is with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT).
Michelle Donelan was appointed Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology on Thursday 20 July. She was a Minister on Leave from Friday 28 April to Thursday 20 July. She was first appointed Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology on 7 February 2023.
Day-to-day ministerial oversight and the formal business ownership role are delegated to the Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation.
Andrew Griffith was appointed Minister of State for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on 13 November 2023. He was previously Economic Secretary to the Treasury between 27 October 2022 and 13 November 2023.
In 2006, a Defra invitation to tender contained this explanation of “The Science”
“The Climate Prediction Programme was not an academic research programme; its work plan and deliverables was driven by Defra’s requirements for science to inform UK government policy on climate change mitigation and adaptation. As the policy requirements changed, so did the research programme objectives.
The Met Office will focus on research that contributes to UK government policy objectives and will communicate the results to government and the public.”
The UK Met Office cannot deny their mendacious complicity in leading the globally-coordinated establishment suppression of news on the January 2022 Hunga Tonga undersea volcanic eruption which has led to a sudden unprecedented ~1°C spike in global temperatures. If you search for Hunga Tonga on BBC News, for example, you find zilch of climatic relevance.
The UK Met Office took the lead on the Hunga Tonga cover-up because, for some strange reason, the Hunga Tonga spike showed up almost immediately in their CET series despite the volcanic aerosols which delayed its manifestation in global temperature series such as UAH: https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2024_v6_20x9-scaled.jpg.
The Met Office March 2022 CET update showing the unprecedented post-Hunga Tonga spike (in green) is here: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/legacy/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate_3.gif
They even went so far as to stop putting out their monthly CET updates after March 2022 when they realised they were facing a major PR disaster on their precious “climate change” global warming narrative. Jaime Jessop was among the first to report on this Met Office skulduggery in her post “Hunga Games”: https://jaimejessop.substack.com/p/hunga-games?utm_source=publication-search.
It is utterly unacceptable that a public body funded by hard-pressed taxpayers should be allowed to get away with such propagandist mendacity.
In this particular case the met. office have probably not mentioned H.T. because it has had no effect on the climate.
I can think of 5 reasons why HT had no effect:
I think you’ll find HT, combined with El Niño and enhanced solar activity, had a very significant effect on temperature in 2023
I have no meteorology expertise on this issue, just a well-honed capability for detecting lies and deceptions. The fact that the Met Office pulled their monthly CET updates in March 2022 as soon as the HT spike appeared and well before the EL Nino had even started was all I needed to smell a rat, especially coming on top of all the multi-faceted establishment lies, deceptions and coercions of recent years.
I agree that HT has had little discernible effect on climate but it was almost certainly the cause of the unprecedented spike in recorded temperatures, first in the CET series, then a year later after the aerosols had dispersed, on global series such as UAH.
To my layman’s eye, the steep leading edge of the spike is very similar to what we see (e.g. in the UAH series) in EL Nino events caused by the sudden release of heat from the tropical Pacific. This is almost certainly because, like HT, these events involve water vapour, the most important greenhouse gas. The rate of heating is orders of magnitude faster than the UN IPCC’s (pseudo) science prediction for CO2 global warming of at most 0.3°C per decade.
I believe that the globally-coordinated suppression of news on HT is because they don’t want to admit that CO2-induced warming is puny relative to H2O-induced warming. They take us all for fools by pretending that the HT spike is due to man-made CO2. They prefer to avoid discussion on El Nino spikes as well.
Energywise:
I have given 5 reasons why HT has not played a part in the recent warming. If you can fault any of them feel free to do so, if there is a mechanism by which it could happen then I would be interested to know. The only scientific claims I have read so far rely on the fact that water vapour is a GHG and therefore should have an effect on surface temperatures. They obviously do not understand how the GHG effect works. If you have any doubts about the reverse greenhouse effect, then consider that over the Antarctic plateau the GHG effect is negative (and caused by water vapour not CO2).
dougbrodie1
‘I agree that HT has had little discernible effect on climate but it was almost certainly the cause of the unprecedented spike in recorded temperatures’
Are you not contradicting yourself, Doug?
If you are still convinced that HT has had an effect, please give me mechanisms by which it has warmed the global surface.
I can imagine that the met office is a shambles, probably similar to all other departments, one being the pension office with which I have had only problems. World leaders? What a joke!
The Met Office is climate woke and is being disingenuous. It has become very selective in the data it uses. For example, when quoting warmest temps in each of the home nations it used outliers that completely ignore the temperatures elsewhere. One site they used was Kinlochewe in the north west Highlands of Scotland. This site often breaks records due to its location where the Foehn effect often occurs, something the Met Office acknowledged. Like wise the site at Santon Downham in Suffolk has unusually sandy soil which warms up more quickly and heats up the air. The Welsh site at Hawarden is an airport with tarmac – enough said.
Hi Devon, Kinkochewe is bad (CIMO Class 4) here is the google aerial view.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/57%C2%B036'46.3%22N+5%C2%B018'22.9%22W/@57.6128658,-5.3065856,146m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d57.6128665!4d-5.3063496?entry=ttu
BUT there are much worse in Scotland by a long way! How about taking the temperature of Airbus A319 exhausts at Dyce (a.k.a. Aberdeen Airport!)
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/57%C2%B012'18.1%22N+2%C2%B012'19.1%22W/@57.2050229,-2.2059611,147m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d57.2050222!4d-2.2053174?entry=ttu
It’s about time that Talk TV actually got alternative meteorologists on it’s program to back up the claims that we are being lied to. There are thousands of ex professionals out there who no longer have to stay silent to protect their careers. I am a fellow of the RMS and I can tell you that the MetO are being dishonest and I can tell you how they are did this. They have put a slant on the statistics by using the wrong dataset as a benchmark to make out that May was the warmest year on record. They are using the coldest 30 year rolling average temperature data that occurred between 1960 and 1989. They should be using the most current data set 1990 to 2029. But if they did use the current data set as a benchmark it would NOT show May this year as the warmest May.
Further, one month’s temperature data in one location on this planet is NOT evidence of climate change. It’s simply data from a few weeks in one year which is NOT how the climate is measured. So the MetO are being dishonest and the people are rightly calling them out for misinforming all of us.
One other thing. The MetO dataset of continual daily instrumentally recorded temperatures does NOT start in 1884. It goes back to just before the 1700’s. So yet again they are NOT being truthful. Why have they eliminated the 180 years plus of recorded data from before 1884 to compare against?
It’s just another slight of hand.
Excuse my glaringly obvious mistakes above:
May the warmest MONTH on record. (Not year)
There are thousands of RETIRED ex professionals out there who no longer have to stay silent to protect their careers. (Now retired)
A crucial point, David W.; retired folk do not need to protect their careers.
You are quite right [not just in meteorology].
But isn’t it a terrible reflection on ‘the State’ [here the UK – but elsewhere, too] that this needs to be said – because it’s true.
Is this talked about at the 2024 General Election?
No.
Auto
Yes indeed – so Why Don’t they ? and you’ll hear the many (obvious) answers …. that’s the problem, that Gravy tasted so good. Hi Sugar content …… sleepiness …
David, very interesting comment. I am expressly not a meteorologist but I do know spurious data when I see it thus it am currently engaged in trying to prove disinformation by the Met Office on a highly organised and surprisingly large scale. I find it staggering that they publicise highly specific, daily temperature readings for sites (with quoted map co-ordinates and elevations i.e. Lowestoft) that have not existed for decades. It worries me that anyone looking at this data (a student for example) may believe it is accurate primary data from a reputable source and not realise it is no better than “make believe” At first I assumed it was genuine data until I couldn’t locate the site on google maps.
In recent conversations with amateur meteorologists ( one has five stations spread over a wide area) I was astonished to find that they are all very concerned about aspects of the validity of Met Office practices and data.
As an example, one has a station in close proximity to an official Met Office site. Whilst he has gone to great lengths to meet the highest standards of equipment and siting, the official one is regularly surrounded by poly tunnels and is poorly maintained. The latter regularly records much higher temps than his and does not concur with others in the area. To his credit he has raised this issue with the Met but they appear to have taken no action and even use the site’s data in their “Daily Weather Extremes” reports. Notably it is a relatively modern 21st century installation.
A question, if I may, is the RMO itself as an organisation as sceptical of the Met Office as some of its members are? In my research I have encountered much by the late Philip Eden who it appears was at times openly questioning Met Office data. He apparently found Screens at official sites set too low (notably Kew) and seriously questioned the Gravesend/Faversham 2003 records which I believe ultimately led to the closure of Gravesend.
It seriously would help if sceptics could have a high profile route of “exposure” of the Met Offices Disinformation.
p.s. Another poster on this site has kindly helped, by visiting and photographing the new station at Neatishead installed in December 2022. Whilst I do not yet have an answer (under FOI request) regarding the CIMO assessed classification, my own view is that there is no way it is better than Class 3 and probably only Class 4. Why on earth would a hugely financed government body still be installing poorly sited stations?….well it did record the UK daily highest temperature 2 weeks ago!
Ray, in response to you about the RMS.
The membership I regularly speak with all have different opinions about climate data from the MetO. There is most definitely NOT any consensus of thought amongst members regarding climate. I personally am a purist and I really dislike seeing the MetO database being altered in weird ways. It debases the real science and begs the questions, who makes the decission to alter things and what are their motives?
Unfortunately the RMS has also gone down the woke route as all of our major authorities and institutions have done. The climate emergency monologue is promoted in publications at every opportunity along with every other woke agenda. For instance RMS Fellows and students were recently polled for our thoughts on LGBGT..whatever.
There was also a recent article put out to membership based around meteorological science from just one minority demographic group of members. Why should race or skin colour or culture play any part in the science? Because the RMS is under the same pressures from aggressive minority ideologs as everyone else is today and if the secretary doesn’t act out their agenda they will be demonised and the institution with it. So the sad reality is that now instead of being able to immerse ourselves in the latest meteorological science we must also have sexual preferences, race and culture in the mix whether we like it or not.
Thanks David, most appreciated the info.
“Why have they eliminated the 180 years plus of recorded data from before 1884 to compare against?”
It’s a UN thing.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/98/9/bams-d-16-0007.1.xml 01 Sep 2017 Hawkins et al
“The basis for international negotiations on climate change has been to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,” The 2015 Paris COP21 Agreement (United Nations 2015) aims to maintain global average temperature “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels” (p. 3).
However, there is no formal definition of what is meant by “pre-industrial” in the UNFCCC or the Paris Agreement. Neither did the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) use the term when discussing when global average temperature might cross various levels because of the lack of a robust definition (Kirtman et al. 2013).
In the absence of a formal definition for preindustrial, the IPCC AR5 made a pragmatic choice to reference global temperature to the mean of 1850–1900 when assessing the time at which particular temperature levels would be crossed (Kirtman et al. 2013). In the final draft, 1850–1900 was referred to as preindustrial, but at the IPCC AR5 plenary approval session, “a contact group developed a proposal, in which reference to ‘pre-industrial’ is deleted, and this was adopted [by the governments]” (IISD 2013).
However, the term preindustrial was used in AR5, often inconsistently, in other contexts—for example, when discussing atmospheric composition, radiative forcing (the year 1750 is used as a zero-forcing baseline), sea level rise, and paleoclimate information.
…some anthropogenic warming is estimated to have already occurred by 1850 (Hegerl et al. 2007; Schurer et al. 2013; Abram et al. 2016) as greenhouse gas concentrations had started increasing around a century earlier. On the other hand, the 1880s and 1890s were cooler than the preceding decades because of the radiative impact of aerosols from several volcanic eruptions, which may have compensated for the earlier anthropogenic influence.
It is therefore plausible that a “true” pre-industrial temperature could be warmer or cooler than 1850–1900, depending on the balance of these two factors.”
The 64 million dollar question is why is it any business or purpose of the United Nations to ‘maintain’ the global temperature at any particular level.
As I wrote earlier, even Hansen is now on record as saying that ‘global average temperature is not a useful metric’ and nobody that I am aware of has yet produced any — and I mean any — science-based convincing argument to support their stance.
Of what benefit to humanity is it to attempt (the word ‘hubris’ doesn’t even start to describe the arrogance) to fix this useless metric at a level roughly equivalent to that of the MWP and, according to many palæontologists, lower than that enjoyed by the Roman or Mayan empires?
Especially when we are infinitely better equipped to adapt or mitigate than ever in history.
And why are the politicians — our politicians in virtually every democratic country in the world — falling for such a blatant con trick?
Basically, the whole global average temperature statistical baseline is complete cock and bull because almost everywhere on this planet had no recorded weather data until 1979 and from that date forward the method for collating data was completely remote and utilized different instruments and techniques for collation. Further, the few hundred locations where weather stations globally which have been operational in scientifically recording temperatures instrumentally for 150 years or more have changed significantly and all the data has to be adjusted to take into account these changes and the weather station classification index is changed or a completely different meteorological station used. All of this throws up discrepancies and inconsistencies which mess up the results. None of this is meaningfully reliable in scientific terms, in particular when the first few decades at the start of the graph is during the coldest period in 300 years which only serves to accentuate apparent warming! All of this needs to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. A much more reliable method of observation could be to study biomass, perhaps a number of tree species, however, this would have to be done collectively because yet again the locations of individual trees have changed dramatically in most cases over 100 years and also the atmospheric CO2 concentrations can alter growth rates faster than sunshine and / or precipitation. Its pointless watching sea levels also because of course its Geology and Astronomy which drive changes in sea levels most of the time, in particular over hundreds of years and in any case rates of change have hardly measurably changed over the same 150 year period. No wonder the IPCC has found no evidence that droughts are more common today or that floods are more common today or that hurricanes and tropical storm frequency and strength is greater today. Most probably because average temperature change has been overestimated over the past 150 years for the reasons stated above or that the climate model CO2 forcing value has been overestimated. Either way its difficult that one can conclude anything definite or useful from the statistics on offer. But this doesn’t stop the authorities from persistently bombarding us with the same old for political reasons only. People are now beginning to wise up to this, in particular when May was absolutely NOT a very notably hot month anywhere by any means or our Spring. It’s getting harder and harder for the authorities to keep up the climate emergency story. In fact its now that people can see for themselves how stupid the word emergency is beginning to look. They also realise that one month of temperatures in one season in one year in just one decade in one location is not how you measure the climate.
and I’m not stupid either …. but it’s all about cut-off dates for the Boorocrats ,,,, June , now, will be the COLDEST since records began. Trees not taking up minerals and it shows in the leaves, fruit development – fruit blowing off, Yellowing of the Spring cereals lack of N2 uptake in waterlogged soils and so on. Staggers in Cows ( Mg def’y aggravated by cold weather ) and so on. It’s not just cold Low temps but High average windspeed around here of 10-15mph with regular gusts to 25 & 30mph …. which is all we got with the supposed yello storm warnings, earlier ( Hurricanes, anyone ? )
Now pray tell me, WHERE is all this Cold coming from/ I know “all ” about SP Heat of air. all that great heat from many thousands of miles away in the “winter” time, but the Artic ice has all melted YEARS ago, and is after all less than a THOUSAND miles from us so why aren’t we getting the heat from there ?
and after a waterlogging Winter to Spring, we now have drought, exacerbated by the drying cold wind. Cold scorch of our food plants. ….
The Met Office is another institutionally corrupt UK public sector organisation (which doesn’t mean that “brown envelopes” are involved) .
I am not a conspiracy theorist, so I don’t think brown envelopes are involved. The way this has been allowed to happen today is through extreme left wing woke politics. The leftist wokery insists that you must be demonised and silenced if you dare to challenge the dystopia. You are insulted with being a climate denier and the organisation you work for is pressurised and threatened by aggressive hard left woke groups to silence you or apologise or be sent packing or else. Its the mob rule, it’s Nazis all over again, but this time they are extreme socialists on the left of the political divide. They don’t wan’t discussion, they don’t want any counter science or conversation, you do as they say.
Our political elite have given in to the tyrannical mob who want to tear down capitalist based state, tear down the oil industry, demonise British culture, tear down our flag and replace our history. Everything is based around their own sick minority dystopian view of everything and until we clear out all our soft apologetic politicians in the west who cower to idiot know nothing children like Gretta Thunberg and replace them with no nonsense politicians with a backbone and a conscience for the majority democratic vote, then the west will continue down this dumb route of fictitious global emergencies one after the other so that one minority mob can threaten and silence the majority.
Great comment. My thoughts exactly.
It is difficult for us to rationalize abnormal behavior. The communist/fascist totalitarians core belief is “freedom is bad.”
We struggle to understand why people would embrace climate mania, and attack those who don’t. ‘Climate change’ is a bludgeon to eliminate freedom. They would rather you be dead than free.
Hi GC, late here in the UK but can’t sleep as my blood is boiling by the latest disgusting antics of our national propaganda TV broadcaster. Apparently it is now perfectly acceptable to launch racist tirades against poor black Africans who want to improve their lot. This sort of reporting makes me feel ashamed of my country for allowing it. Somethings gotta change.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c133r4gyx1no
I wouldn’t know about the BBC’s latest disgusting antics because I have defunded the BBC. I no longer pay a licence fee because I no longer watch the BBC or any other live TV which is complete garbage and 40% advertising anyway. I had to protect my own sanity by turning the BBC, Sky and Channel 4 off altogether because the rage that they would instil in me with their constant lies and disinformation was ruining my state of calm. The way they misinform people is by repeating the same misinformation over and over again until it is drilled into everyone so much that they simply repeat it as a fact. This technique is an old CIA trick which they used when experimenting in the 1960’s.
What they did was to take one person from the street and invite that person to take part in an experiment. They told that person that they would be asked a set of questions along with 17 other members from the public. In fact all 17 of the other people were working for the CIA. They showed a picture of a triangle and asked everyone in turn what they could see. The one member of the public was left till last. Each person said they could see a square. When it came to the last person he had two choices, he could tell the truth or lie so that he didn’t have to be the odd one out and have to explain why he was a denier. He lied and called the triangle a square to conform.
This is the way the BBC is being used to program everyone’s minds on key issues. Whether it is thoughts on BREXIT, COVID deaths or climate change, it’s all the same and I needed to act and cancel this crap once and for all and I urge everyone else to do the same to protect the freedom of your own thoughts and minds.