UK Met Office Flirts With Conspiracy Theory as it Slams Critics of Its ‘Junk’ Temperature Measuring Sites

The UK Met Office has lurched into conspiracy theory territory in a desperate attempt to rescue scientific credibility in its Net Zero-weaponised ‘junk’ temperature measuring network. In a recent public pronouncement, it claimed: “The efforts of a small number of people to undermine the integrity of Met Office observations by obscuring or misrepresenting facts is an attempt to undermine decades of robust science around the world’s changing climate.” The astonishing outburst relates of course to the recent revelations of the Daily Sceptic and a number of citizen sleuths. In March 2024, the Daily Sceptic disclosed that nearly 80% of all UK measuring sites are so poorly located they have massive temperature ‘uncertainties’. Meanwhile, Ray Sanders and Dr Eric Huxter have provided convincing proof of the lamentable state of the unnatural heat-ravaged network and its tendency to produce elevated temperatures and short-term heat spikes.

Narrative-obsessed mainstream media has been on its best behaviour and kept quiet about the growing scandal, but the shocking state of the Met Office recording operation, and its continued use to raise climate alarm, is widely discussed on social online media.

“Despite online speculation,” said the Met Office, “much of which demonstrates a clear misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the facts, Met Office weather stations are subject to stringent national and international guidelines.” The Met Office team is said to carry out hundreds of site inspections a year. “A rigorous quality assurance system, including a long-standing and well-honed site inspection methodology, ensures that data produced at our sites are as accurate as they can be,” it observed. Ray Sanders recently discovered that 103 sites providing long-term data did not actually exist and measurements were being invented/estimated from “well-correlated related neighbouring sites”. Alas, subsequent efforts to discover the identity of these vital well-correlated inputs drew a blank with Freedom of Information requests denied as “vexatious” and not in the public interest.

The ‘uncertainties’ mandated by the World Meteorological Organisation mean 48.7% of the network, based in junk Class 4, is subject to errors up to 2°C, while an almost unbelievable 29.2% in super-junk Class 5 could be out by up to 5°C. One-minute heat spikes, such as that behind the 40.3°C all-time UK record at RAF Coningsby at a time of nearby Typhoon jet activity, are common. Despite international guidance, the Met Office insists on using 60-second data recorded by recently installed sensitive electronic devices to declare individual records and higher average daily totals. Dr Huxter’s recent work indicated that daily ‘extremes’ declared throughout last May were on average 0.8°C higher than the two recordings made at the before and after hour mark. At Kew Gardens, the Met Office claimed a national May Day record high of 29.3°C at 2.59pm, but this was a massive 2.6°C higher than the 2pm recording and 0.76°C above the 3pm reading.

Like many self-important and unaccountable bureaucracies, the Met Office has a marked tendency towards supercilious arrogance. “We understand that the data from thousands of independent global weather stations (over the last seven decades) which shows a warming trend may be an uncomfortable reality for some.” Nobody, of course, denies the world is in a warming phase and that humans may have contributed by using hydrocarbons. This arrogance is a silly red herring. The Met Office has a basic temperature network that has grown from a largely amateur base in response to the needs of specific groups such as the military. It was never designed to provide an ambient, uncorrupted air temperature of the UK, let alone be utilised to help provide a global figure. It was good enough for the rough-and-ready purposes for which it was designed, but it is unable to show, as the Met Office claimed, that 2023 across the UK was 0.06°C cooler than the record year of 2022. The Met Office is simply pulling the public’s chain if it thinks it can claim recordings accurate to one hundredth of a degree centigrade using its current crappy nationwide network.

The science journalist Matt Ridley recently laid his finger on what has gone wrong at the Met Office. It has been ”embarrassingly duped by activists”. It believes that most of the recent warming has been caused by humans, even though the evidence for this statement arises mainly from simplistic climate models. Net Zero has died in the United States and sceptical voices are increasingly being heard. Decades of politicised settled science are being replaced with a broader wish to understand how the atmosphere works. The role of natural variation is being discussed and the ‘greening’ benefits of higher temperatures and carbon dioxide are being considered. The idea of a ‘settled’ anthropogenic climate opinion is starting to look rather dated. The scare/scam was useful for promoting the hard-Left Net Zero fantasy, but that fantasy is rapidly falling apart as hydrocarbon reality sets in.

Stuffed with activists, the Met Office continues on its deranged course of political Net Zero fear-mongering, turning weather maps purple in summer and issuing constant weather warnings to the amusement of grown adults. The only “uncomfortable reality” is that suffered by the Met Office with its inability to counter the charge that it is using junk statistics to claim that warming is higher than it actually is.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.

Subscribe
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

40 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
FerdIII
8 months ago

Globaloney Climate BS is a religious cult of the most serious derangement and insanity. The only green involved is the money laundering, fraud and criminal accumulation of wealth. Like most of the $cience the only ‘proof’ is data fraud and tortured maths models.

Can you imagine how stupid you have to be to argue that Co2 a trace chemical, with human emissions at 20 parts per million causes weather? About as stupid as the morons who wore diapers and received 5 poison shots for a non existing bat-anus virus I suppose.

varmint
8 months ago
Reply to  FerdIII

Good comment…but it is actually 425 parts per million. The Greens will argue that since climate change critics say we cannot change the climate with our little amount of emissions why do we say the small amount of CO2 causes greening of the planet, and that we cannot have it both ways. But the difference is that we can see the greening of the planet eg in the Sahara, whereas we cannot see changes to climate that can be attributed to humans, and even the IPCC admit that.

RichardTechnik
RichardTechnik
8 months ago
Reply to  varmint

No. The actual CO2 level is said to be 425ppm (I think measured at Mauna Loa observatory) But the fat toon of atmospheric CO2 attributable to anthropogenic combustion of Hydrocarbons and other fuels is around 3-4% so Feed III’s 20ppm is about right.

pjar
8 months ago
Reply to  varmint

You’re right… and wrong!

The entire Net Zero movement is predicated upon mankind’s contribution to the CO2 load which is just 3-4% of the whole.

Oddly, the remaining 97% which is naturally produced is, apparently, harmless… 🤷

JXB
JXB
8 months ago
Reply to  pjar

Net Grifto movement.

Marcus Aurelius knew
8 months ago
Reply to  varmint

CO2 is 425ppm but human produced quantity approximately accounts for 20ppm of that .

EDIT, I see that RichardTechnik has already made this point.

EDIT II, I see that pjar also has 🤣

Norfolk-Sceptic
Norfolk-Sceptic
8 months ago

Ed Miliband passed A level Physics, so he should understand, but a PPE degree and a Marxist father doesn’t help.

What other reason is there? 🙂

Simon MacPhisto
Simon MacPhisto
8 months ago
Reply to  FerdIII

CO2 ppm is increasing by 2ppm pa. Human activity accounts for at most 5% of that, so 0.02ppm pa. And for that we’re supposed to die cold and poor. Fuck the lot of them.

varmint
8 months ago

“undermine decades of robust science around the world’s changing climate”.—-Except the climate changes all of the time on all time scales. No two years are the same. What people in their 60”s saw in their twenties will be different to what our mothers in their 60’s saw in their 20’s. The IPCC itself has said that they see no human signal in the data, and that they cannot tell the difference between natural variability of the climate and changes allegedly caused by human activity. ——–people want “SCIENCE”, not “POLITICSED SCIENCE in support of Government agenda’s, like NET ZERO.

JXB
JXB
8 months ago
Reply to  varmint

Ask a geologist – the real climate experts – and he/she will tell you no sensible appraisal of climate on a global scale can be made by analysing the meteorological data of any period less than 10 000 years.

Gezza England
Gezza England
8 months ago
Reply to  JXB

No appraisal of our climate can exclude the role of the sun nor the role of clouds which in the current inaccurate models is considered to increase warmth just like we all know that a cloudy day is much warmer than one when the big yellow thing is not blocked by the clouds.

Marcus Aurelius knew
8 months ago
Reply to  Gezza England

Or when, every 24 hours, the temperature fluctuates tens of degrees…

Norfolk-Sceptic
Norfolk-Sceptic
8 months ago
Reply to  Gezza England

The solar weather, including Coronal Holes, where the Sun’s magnetic field opens up and allows solar wind to escape more easily into space, Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs), and Solar Flares, greatly affects the Earth’s Climate, as well as the other planets in the Solar System.

Not only do they affect the Earth’s cloud cover, and initiate lightning, they can trigger earthquake and volcanic activity, and alter the death rate of humans, (probably due to the changes in EM fields, like the Schumann Resonances).

Jeff Chambers
Jeff Chambers
8 months ago

The “Climate Emergency” is a social-control project backed up by neo-Lysenkoist pseudo-science. It’s not an environmental protection project, in other words. So of course the arrogant modern enemies of humanity have to use and defend their junk “measuring” sites by casting us sceptics as the wicked and ignorant ones.

JohnK
8 months ago
Reply to  Jeff Chambers

And the term “Climate Emergency” is oxymoronic, in effect. Climate is supposed to be a long term record from the past, and it can’t be an emergency. No such thing as a continuous emergency, after all. They are supposed to be unexpected and short term events. However, deliberate tweaking of language output is common practice by the usual suspects.

pjar
8 months ago

The problem with the Amber warnings and hellish colour palette of the weather maps that turn out to be not so much… is that when they really need to tell us something, nobody will believe them.

if only there was a fable or something we could tell children to demonstrate the point… 🙄

Marcus Aurelius knew
8 months ago
Reply to  pjar

They want to tell us real things?

Seriously tho, I lament the absence of the Grimms, Andersen and Aesop in children’s lives these days…

Actually, I think I was unusual for having them in my childhood. Not having a telly probably meant that the lessons of my forefathers were not lost to me, unlike most of my peers, even the “intelligent” ones…

JXB
JXB
8 months ago
Reply to  pjar

My question is, when I get a text “Amber Warning For Rain” – what am I supposed to do? And when it doesn’t rain, which usually it doesn’t, what then?

Norfolk-Sceptic
Norfolk-Sceptic
8 months ago
Reply to  JXB

It’s the Yellow Snow Warning that you should be worrying about. 🙂

EppingBlogger
8 months ago

Naming storms was part vanity and part political. How long before we have forecasts of “Slightly breeze Michael” or “ A bit chilly Doris”.

I wonder how best a future Reform government should handle this organisation. The problems either it are repeated across the whole Agency and Quango sectors. Should it be abolished and rebuilt, outsourced, can it be reformed, how deep does the politicised management go.

Marcus Aurelius knew
8 months ago
Reply to  EppingBlogger

The staffing should be reduced by 90%. Keep the people who display an understanding of what science really means.

JXB
JXB
8 months ago
Reply to  EppingBlogger

Privatise it if it has sufficient market value to attract investors, otherwise shut it down, there are plenty of private weather forecasting businesses.

Gezza England
Gezza England
8 months ago
Reply to  EppingBlogger

I think it needs to go the same way that police forces – oops services of course – have to be reformed. Shut down and then rebuilt from new foundations.

JXB
JXB
8 months ago
Reply to  Gezza England

Grok:

“The UK Met Office was originally part of the Ministry of Defence. It was established in 1854 as the Meteorological Department of the Board of Trade, but in 1910, it was transferred to the Air Ministry, which later became part of the Ministry of Defence.

The Met Office remained under the Ministry of Defence until 1990, when it became an executive agency of the Department of the Environment (later the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). In 2011, it moved to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and subsequently to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.”

And now the latter Department was dissolved by Sushi Ruinak and split into three, one of which is Department for Science, Innovation and Technology of which the whet Office is now part, and collaborates (apt word) with the Department for Energy Security (🤣🤣🤣) and Net Zero on climate-related initiatives, such as providing climate data to support net zero goals.

So that’s why it fiddles the data, lies, obfuscates because its primary rôle is to be part of the propaganda machine, not forecast the weather.

Norfolk-Sceptic
Norfolk-Sceptic
8 months ago
Reply to  JXB

We need an investigation to ‘clear the MET Office of all misdemeanours’. 🙂

ELH
ELH
8 months ago
Reply to  EppingBlogger

I am looking forward to naming the dunkelflautes –

Solentviews
Solentviews
8 months ago

Brilliant summary. I hope some of the activist delinquents in the Met Office read this. They are mainly fooling themselves, grifting each day to hang on to their miserable jobs.

You rightly state that the USA has called time on this scam in an official report released only days ago. We will follow soon enough and there will be a huge reorganisation the now discredited Met Office.

JXB
JXB
8 months ago

 “The efforts of a small number of people to undermine the integrity of Met Office observations…”

Integrity cannot be “undermined” when there is none.

NeilofWatford
8 months ago

They don’t like it up’em Captain Mainwaring …

RTSC
RTSC
8 months ago

I wonder how regularly the MET Office carries out inspections of their non-existent weather stations? Perhaps they’d like to release a schedule.

What a star you are Mr Morrison 🙂

Gezza England
Gezza England
8 months ago
Reply to  RTSC

It should not be difficult to do the inspections as I presume most of their staff are at home so they do not even need the leave the sofa.

sskinner
8 months ago

” The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.”
Chris Folland UK Meteorological Office: 

ACW
ACW
8 months ago

In reality the Met Office is trying to say that accurate scientific measurements are a conspiracy theory.

Grim Ace
Grim Ace
8 months ago

They are leftists pushing an anti capitalist agenda to undermine our society and control us all. Which is what communists love to do.

NubOfTheMatter
NubOfTheMatter
8 months ago

This wholly discredited organisation should be defunded (DOGEed) and reconstituted based on sound science and data integrity. (Rather than, as currently, guaranteed ‘garbage out’ based on guaranteed ‘garbage in’.

Norfolk-Sceptic
Norfolk-Sceptic
8 months ago

Anthony Watts has done a similar investigation.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/24/participate-in-the-surfacestations-project-version-2/

I think the continual pursuit of Truth is finally bearing fruit.

WillP
8 months ago

Standard trick of pompous authoritarians: claim facts are being “misrepresented” whilst simultaneously withholding them.

herbertaylor
herbertaylor
8 months ago

Net-zero”? The earth is a closed system. Nothing enters or leaves the biosphere other than heat, which comes in from the sun. Heat from burning fossil fuels is simply releasing solar radiation captured in the past. Vegetation consumes the CO2 as it absorbs the sun’s rays, completing the closed cycle. A perfect net-zero system.

james a baker
james a baker
8 months ago
Reply to  herbertaylor

I never got the point of dummy weather recording stations why not just interpolate between the results of the actual weather stations while excluding those in built up hot areas and air port hotspots. I spent years sending in weather report data from merchant vessels at sea and we were always careful to ensure the data was accurate because we knew others were relying on it. Not sure what going on with those who govern the present Met Office which should be just reporting the data and stay out of politics.

Simon MacPhisto
Simon MacPhisto
8 months ago

Well played, Chris. A veritable punch to the throat. Hats off, Sir 🙂