From THE DAILY SKEPTIC
by Chris Morrison
Shocking evidence has emerged which shows the UK Met Office is fabricating temperature data from more than 100 non-existent weather stations. The explosive allegations have been made by citizen journalist Ray Sanders and sent to the new Labor Science Minister Peter Kyle MP. After several Freedom of Information requests to the Met Office and diligent fieldwork visiting individual stations, Sanders discovered that 103 stations out of 302 sites providing average temperatures were missing. “How can a reasonable observer know that the data is not real and is just ‘made up’ by a Government agency,” Sanders asked. He asked for an “open declaration” of the possible inaccuracies of the data that have been published, “to avoid other institutions and researchers using unreliable data and reaching wrong conclusions”.
In his home county of Kent, Sanders accused four of the eight sites identified by the Met Office, namely Dungeness, Folkestone, Dover and Gillingham – all of which produced average temperatures falling to two decimal places – as “fiction”. Sanders noted that there has been no weather station at Dungeness since 1986. The Everyday skeptics can confirm that none of the four stations appear on the Met’s list of sites with classifications from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The Met Office directs online inquiries about Dover to the “nearest climate station” at Port of Dover (Coast) and provides a full set of 30-year averages. According to Met Office coordinates, the site is on Dover beach as per the Google Earth photo below. It doesn’t seem like any scientific organization will set up a temperature monitoring station that you can dip into on a regular basis. Who runs this station on the beach, has accurate records have been kept for 30 years and why is it not listed in the 380 Campsites that are given the WMO rating?
Of the 302 sites cited, Sanders noted that the Met Office “refused to advise me” exactly how or where the alleged ‘data’ was for these 103 non-existent sites.
The practice of ‘discovering’ temperature data from non-existent stations is a controversial issue in the United States where the local weather service NOAA has been accused of fabricating more than 30% of the data from reporting sites. Data is taken from surrounding stations and average results are given ‘E’ for estimation. “The addition of ghost station data means that NOAA’s monthly and annual reports do not reflect reality,” said meteorologist Anthony Watts. “If this kind of process is used in court, the evidence will be thrown out as impure,” he said.
In the historical data section, the Met Office lists several sites with long records of temperature data. Lowestoft provided records going back to 1914 but closed in 2010. Since that date, the figures have been followed by estimates. Stations at Nairn Druim, Paisley and Newton Rigg were closed but are still reporting monthly data. “Why should any scientific organization publish what can only be called fiction?” asked Sanders. “There is no scientific purpose to be served by making it,” he said.
Perhaps the Met Office has a reasonable scientific explanation for how it collects temperature data. Temperature calculation is an inexact science but there are concerns that the data is being used for obvious political purposes to promote the fantasy of Net Zero. Alarmists claim that a small rise in temperature can make a big climate difference. To whip up global fear, temperature figures that are supposed to be compiled with an accuracy of one hundred degrees Celsius are quoted from sources such as the Met Office and NOAA. So far, the Met Office has been silent on the gathering storm surrounding the figure and the organization has refused to return calls from Everyday skeptics.
Sanders points to another big temperature measurement problem at the Met Office around the site’s WMO classification. Almost eight out of 10 sites are rated in waste classes 4 and 5 with a probability of “uncertainty” of 2 ° C and 5 ° C. This means, Sanders notes, that they are not suitable for the purpose of reporting climate data according to international standards implemented by the Met Office. Only 52 Met Office stations, or a scant 13.7%, are in Class 1 and 2 with no recommended error. Correct, tick at least one. On the trip, Sanders pointed out the possibility of heat corruption in Class 1 Hastings and this site has now been dropped to Class 4. The Met Office said it has confirmed that the standard classification for the station is set at Class 1, “unless manually adjusted.”.
At Everyday skeptics have investigated the poor location of many Met Office stations with obvious heat corruption making a mockery of trying to measure the natural air temperature. Sanders notes the problem of many of these unsuitable sites including those placed in walled kitchen gardens and botanical gardens specially designed to produce artificial temperatures and microclimates. Other unsuitable sites include in or near car parks, airports, domestic gardens, sewage and water treatment plants, electricity sub-stations and solar farms.
Sanders has an interesting point about the closure of many temperature measurement sites in rural areas. In 1974 there were 32 operational sites in Kent, but that has now fallen to seven. Switching to electrically operated platinum resistant thermometers requires a reliable power supply and data communication. Many rural sites were closed because these facilities were not available at the start of automation. But by removing the colder recording sites from the overall data recording, this leaves the sites that are mostly urbanized to cause an increase in temperature that is not represented by the average that is turned off. “Statistical sleight of hand (however unintentional) produces an inaccurate misrepresentation of history,” Sanders said.
In an open letter to MP Peter Kyle, Sanders stated that he had shown strong evidence that the Met Office was “obviously fabricating” the data. In addition, it fails to meet high standards of scientific integrity and does not produce reliable or accurate data for climate reporting purposes from a network of poor and inadequately maintained locations. Peter Kyle is the Minister responsible for the Met Office and has yet to respond to Sanders’ allegations. Ray Sanders has done an excellent job of research to provide new and relevant details on what is a significant scientific scandal. So far, despite repeated requests, the Met Office has refused to comment and has defended its own temperature measurements and calculations. While silence in Government, Parliament and the Met Office, aided by a lack of interest in the mainstream media, remains, it can only be assumed that the interest in promoting Net Zero outweighs concerns about the underlying scientific data.
Chris Morrison is Everyday skeptics‘s Environment Editor.
Related
