Met Office Must Account for the ‘Junk’ Temperature Data Propping up Net Zero Insanity
By Paul Homewood
Chris Morrison is keeping the pressure up:
Pressure is likely to grow in the coming days for the U.K. Met Office to make a full public statement about the state of its nationwide temperature measuring stations. This follows sensational revelations in last Friday’s Daily Sceptic that nearly eight out of ten sites had huge scientifically-designated ‘uncertainties’ that essentially disqualified them from providing the accurate data required to promote the collectivist Net Zero agenda. Our report went viral on social media with over 1,300 retweets on X, and it was reposted on a number of sites. The investigative journalist Paul Homewood has covered the Met Office’s temperature claims for many years, and in the light of the new disclosures he noted that if it wanted to continue to use its existing station measurements, it should show a warning that the margin of error is so great “that they have no statistical significance at all”.
Full story here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Like most UK Institutions, the Met Office seems to be immune to criticsm. It will never admit wrong doing and using false data.
Much as I love the Daily Sceptic, Chris M does go a bit hyperbolic when trying to make his case – which is often quite strong and convincing enough without using ‘sensational’ and ‘groundbreaking’ and ‘shocking’. It’s all a bit tabloidesque.
It’s not a subject that will inflame the populace in today’s political climate and 1300 retweets ain’t much. But press on everybody wherever you can.
Compared to X-Tweets by people like Patrick Moore Ex Greenpeace 1300 is pretty good.
Bravo Chris, and Paul!!
+1 👍
It is but the tip of the iceberg. We are not measuring temperature accurately today, yet we supposedly know what temperatures were 150 years ago. So accurately that important people say the global mean temperature has risen 1.2ºC since. An absurdity. Yet the West is willing to die on that mountain.
Agree – if the input data is wrong than the output data is wrong
Even if they had good input data, they’d still get it wrong. Not only is their data wrong, their software is wrong.
It would be great to be a fly on the wall in Prof Jones’ office in the ‘University’ of East Anglia as he reads this, as he almost certainly will.
‘Hide the decline anyone?’
‘Well, we could always place a weather station just outside a blast furnace, couldn’t we? Oh, I don’t think we’ve got any more of those…’
‘Well, how about a cooling tower at Drax?’
‘Brilliant! But we won’t let on that it’s one of those fuelled by wood pellets. Oh no, the public simply wouldn’t understand…’
‘I think I’ll call my pal Michael E. Mann, he can write something nasty and suitably personal about the editor of The Daily Sceptic. And that Homewood fella too… He’s VERY good at that, you know!’
Not far from the truth
Worse that there is no simple summation of all daily averages and a temperature series produced for local regional and national averages made from that….. oh no, for some reason I do not understand, the data have to be homogenized, pasteurised, liquidized which to me sounds like “fudgerized “…… one has to ask the question, WHY?
One also must ask WHY given what is at stake, that the MetOffice have not establish a Class A network of stations in AVERAGE non-urban and none- coastal and non-mountainous locations IF the want to get representative data rather than unrepresentative data or am I being naive?
They torture the data til it tells them what they want.
Torturing good data is one thing. To deliberately include bad and unrepresentative data begs the question.
What do they do with all that taxpayer money – they’re clearly not interested developing primary accurate data collection
They spent a lot of it on yet another super computer, but the tendering was a bit iffy on this occasion. The deal was agreed during Covid, the then government Chief Scientist would have been involved in procurement discussions and had meetings with Gates Foundation at that time on other matters, but I doubt that had anything to do with choosing Microsoft for the Met Office.
https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/09/uk_gov_atos_settlement/
“The UK government agreed to pay Atos £24 million ($29 million) in an out-of-court settlement following a challenge to its decision to award an £854 million ($1 billion) Met Office supercomputer contract to Microsoft.
The Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and the Met Office entered into a settlement agreement with the French IT supplier and agreed to a joint payment of £24 million “without admission of liability,” according to the department’s annual report [PDF].
The central government department agreed to contribute £20.7 million ($25.13 million) to this settlement with the balance of £3.3 million ($4 million) being paid by the Met Office.”
Far from that.
It is clear that the Met Office, like so many other of our institutions has been taken over and is actively being turned against the population for political purposes. The mind virus injected and incubated, this now captured institution is being used in turn to transmit the virus and infect minds from behind a cloak of assumed scientific integrity. Like any other virus it hides and cloaks it’s self while hollowing out the institution but preserving the all important facade to appear normal and authoritative.
You do not have to be a scientist to notice the increasingly emotional language used by it’s propaganda mouth pieces to spread the virus, which once again is in support of the one trick pony that is rabid left wing politics, promoted as the pied piper to save us all from their imaginary “crisis”.
The Midwich cuckoos running the joint aided and abetted by the salaried cowards they rule over are out of control thinking they are beyond reproach and can create a fog penetrable only by a cancellable few, pretending to the great unwashed that nameless “experts” and “scientists” say so, so shut up.
Running the same old crap software on a new, super-duper computer will produce the same crap result . . . sooner.
. . . for a billion.
Ah, but a new computer means they will be wrong more accurately!
If the MetOffice is so shambolic about accurate data collection …whats it like in other countries, can we trust any of the published data
Well to see how bad the US and Australia are just check out WUWT and Jo Nova. Some of the same sort of site problems but in Australia there is some outrageous fraud going on.
I honestly do not know where any authentic and reliable data is anymore. The increasingly impenetrable language used and ways supposedly authoritative bodies mess around with “simple” measurements is for a reason.
I think this is about as good a source as you are likely to get, PMFB.
https://temperature.global/
What does anyone think?
How difficult can it be to gather daily temperature data from X weather stations and come up with local regional and national daily weekly and monthly averages? A piece of paper and a pencil would be a good start.
It’s more fun using a £100,000,000 supercomputer, PMFB!
Met Office Must Account
In what imaginary country does the government have to account? Certainly not UK.
And dissent has a use-by date of 28 January 2025.
Doh, sceptics were hot on the trail of homogenisation errors, but for some reason the GWPF called off its investigation and the subject died. Climate Science is so broken by politics that it will never reveal these errors.
Now, sceptics are going down the rabbit hole of UHI and poor siting of thermometers, forgetting that satellite data confirms the warming they have observed over the last 40 years. Big Green will not be quaking, they will be laughing like drains.
Nonsense.
Satellite data indicates some warming, but significantly less than the ‘adjusted’ and ‘homogenised’ data from deliberately badly sited surface monitoring sites.
And when was it last claimed, on the basis of satellite data, that we have experienced the hottest / coldest / wettest / dryest / windiest / calmest / most boring weather EVVVVAH!!!!
The answer to Pardonme… about why the Met office have not invested in good locations and Class 1 stations is simply that they believe the models are more accurate and meaningful than measured values. As anyone who has done research knows, it is far harder to do field measurements than to play with computer games (models), and models allow far more doomsday predictions and papers to be published if you want them.
Hence the new super-computer project.
Is there a way of comparing the overall figure obtained using all the data with that obtained only compiant stations?
from only compliant stations.
Do we know for a fact how these low-class stations are used ?
Are they used for anything other than sensational headlines?
Do they contribute to the climate averages and computer models ?
If they are not used for anything important then there is no real concern, so this needs to be established first.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/climate-monitoring/land-and-atmosphere/surface-station-records/index
Isn’t the problem that the measurements from these stations, and more unofficial ones, used by the Met Office, BBC and others as reinforcement of the man-made global warming story.
The surface stations take precedence over satellite records. So you could say if only the UK had poorly sited stations the problem would be minor but as the USA, Australia and most other sources are equally bad then it just makes matters worse by making one or two models look better than they actually are
Hey, Bot, what is a “climate average?”
Gamecock, it would actually be an improvement if there was a resident bot on here -one that argued like a climate alarmist. Because there is a big danger you are all in a self-reinforcing echo chamber.
So the site should change so that it could become influential?
I love it when commie bots offer advice to the successful.
Thanks for the proof that you are a bot. Actual humans evaluate multiple steams of information. Which lead the self evident conclusion that the Met Office can’t be trusted. Only a bot like you would make excuses for them.
You auditioning for Klaus?
They are all used for the Met Office’s national statistics.
So when they say the UK temperature in 2023 was 9.97C (sic!), it is built up from all of those 300+ sites, and no others
Thank you Paul that is answer I was looking for. I hope you appreciate I am only coming up with the same points that the other side would come up with.
They would laugh if these low-rated sites were not actually used for anything other than media weather sensationalism.
I’m sure Paul can feel the love.
Paul; great work as always.
I may have missed it but has anyone drawn up a graph of the temperature records as reported by each “grade” of weather station?
I expect it would show a relatively gentle rise for the prime sites with increasing divergence moving towards the “junk” ones.
Quote “the other side”….which “other side” would that be?
Letter to my MP:
“Sir,
As you must by now be aware, it has been revealed that the Met Office’s network of temperature measurement stations across the UK has been found wanting, with a large majority of stations categorised as Class 4 and 5, i.e. the most inaccurate, making their usefulness for any sort of climate statement or prediction utterly void.
What remains to be seen is how the Met Office will spin this, and ‘adjust’ to pretend everything is somehow ok. It will not work, as the stations themselves are compromised and no data from them is trustable.
As the temperature record is so untrustworthy, it must be abandoned, and its use for propping up the madness of ‘net zero’ also abandoned, and with it the whole net zero monstrosity itself. The ‘climate change/net zero’ mantra has always been, but especially is now, baseless and wholly untenable.
It is time to dismount this farcical climate hobbyhorse and return to the real world.”