Met office "faking" climate data

[ANDYLASER]

It appears the Met Office have been caught out faking climate data and the data that isn't fake is exceptionally innacurate.

Science Shock: U.K. Met Office is "Inventing" Temperature Data from 100 Non-Existent Stations – The Daily Sceptic

Shocking evidence has emerged that points to the U.K. Met Office inventing temperature data from over 100 non-existent weather stations. One such 'ghost' station, Dungeness, closed in 1986 but still reports "observations".

dailysceptic.org

Letter to Peter Kyle MP – Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.

On the 19th July 2024, following correct protocol, I emailed my constituency MP, Rosie Duffield, asking her to forward a report I had produced onto Peter Kyle MP (above) in his capacity of Secretar…

tallbloke.wordpress.com

The very TLDR version is that the Met Office base their “Climate Averages” on a network of 302 reporting sites across the UK. Many of these sites are poorly located eg by a runway, by an electricity sub-station, in a walled garden. Perhaps more worrying is that 103 of the 302 reporting sites don’t exist - there is no reported climate data from readings taken at these sites, only data derived by somehow interpolating (“kriging”) from other adjacent locations.

Over a third of Met Office temperature stations may be wrong by from 2°C Up to 5°C

A FOIA request to the Met Office addressed their UK weather stations' quality, asking for the individual class rating on each as defined by the World Meteorological Office. Such CIMO ratings range from the highest quality / lowest error Class 1 then on up to Class 3 with 1 deg C, class 4 @ 2 deg C error and ‘junk’ class 5 with a margin of error as large as 5 deg C.

29.2% Met Office temperature stations have an international junk rating with a margin of error 5°C
8.7% of the stations had a margin of error 2°C

The writer concludes:

“I have clearly demonstrated with hard evidence that:
The Met Office is regularly fabricating data.
It is not producing reliable nor accurate data for climate reporting purposes from a network of poorly sited and inadequately maintained locations..
It is not meeting internationally recognised standards which it was itself party to establishing.
It has, over time, contributed to historic selection of unrepresentative data produced.
It is operating in a secretive, covert way and to its own regulation without independent oversight.
It is failing to meet high standards of scientific integrity.
It marks its own homework.
I feel it warrants independent review to:

Establish a high quality series of sites solely designed for climate reporting purposes. These should be independently overseen to ensure continued integrity of data.

An independent working group should re-analyse historic data to re-compile a historic record from only high quality sites that have been identified as not being compromised by extraneous heat sources.

An open declaration of likely inaccuracy of existing published data to avoid other institutions and researchers using unreliable data and reaching erroneous conclusions.

 

[Chris]

The website is run by Toby Young, who has a long history of inaccurate reporting and science denial.

Chris Morrison is a climate change denier with history. https://science.feedback.org/review...trary-to-claims-daily-sceptic-chris-morrison/

Scientists globally agree that climate change is real. Internet quacks with these platforms are nothing more than conspiracy theorists trying to push their fringe views, based on pseudoscience at best and intentional deception at worst.

 

[C_Claycomb]

Multiple things CAN be true at the same time.
Data can be poor and falsified.
And
This can be uncovered by people with an agenda to feed who are looking for such things.
And
The people can be cranks and the conclusion they draw about the implications of their discoveries can be warped by bias.
And
The falsified data can be insignificant in quantity or magnitude to have any significant impact on the outcome.

So, rather than attack the character or other beliefs of the author and publisher (ad hominem attacks), let’s try to stick to the claims made in the piece posted by @ANDYLASER . Cheers.

Science needs critics.

Given the state of UK infrastructure in general these days (roads, sewers and treatment, mobile networks, NHS, rail) it would not surprise me to learn that weather stations have not been maintained. It would not surprise me that they are not rated highly by international standards. I would not be at all surprised to learn that a large UK organisation has been interpolating, extrapolating and generally working around poor, failing or diminishing resources and equipment. I would expect such things not to be published or highlighted by the organisation itself, the government or anyone happy with the organisation’s work.

 

[Chris]

Multiple things CAN be true at the same time.
Data can be poor and falsified.
And
This can be uncovered by people with an agenda to feed who are looking for such things.
And
The people can be cranks and the conclusion they draw about the implications of their discoveries can be warped by bias.
And
The falsified data can be insignificant in quantity or magnitude to have any significant impact on the outcome.

So, rather than attack the character or other beliefs of the author and publisher (ad hominem attacks), let’s try to stick to the claims made in the piece posted by @ANDYLASER . Cheers.

Science needs critics.

Given the state of UK infrastructure in general these days (roads, sewers and treatment, mobile networks, NHS, rail) it would not surprise me to learn that weather stations have not been maintained. It would not surprise me that they are not rated highly by international standards. I would not be at all surprised to learn that a large UK organisation has been interpolating, extrapolating and generally working around poor, failing or diminishing resources and equipment. I would expect such things not to be published or highlighted by the organisation itself, the government or anyone happy with the organisation’s work.

It's not ad hominem if a publication and author who have been proven to publish false and misleading information, are called out for doing so. It's entirely relevant when looking at something making a bold claim, to go "Is this from a reliable source, or from frauds?" This is where the 'but everyone's opinion is just as valid' fallacy causes problems.

 

[brambles]

It appears the Met Office have been caught out faking climate data and the data that isn't fake is exceptionally innacurate.

Science Shock: U.K. Met Office is "Inventing" Temperature Data from 100 Non-Existent Stations – The Daily Sceptic

Shocking evidence has emerged that points to the U.K. Met Office inventing temperature data from over 100 non-existent weather stations. One such 'ghost' station, Dungeness, closed in 1986 but still reports "observations".

dailysceptic.org

Letter to Peter Kyle MP – Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.

On the 19th July 2024, following correct protocol, I emailed my constituency MP, Rosie Duffield, asking her to forward a report I had produced onto Peter Kyle MP (above) in his capacity of Secretar…

tallbloke.wordpress.com

The very TLDR version is that the Met Office base their “Climate Averages” on a network of 302 reporting sites across the UK. Many of these sites are poorly located eg by a runway, by an electricity sub-station, in a walled garden. Perhaps more worrying is that 103 of the 302 reporting sites don’t exist - there is no reported climate data from readings taken at these sites, only data derived by somehow interpolating (“kriging”) from other adjacent locations.

Over a third of Met Office temperature stations may be wrong by from 2°C Up to 5°C

A FOIA request to the Met Office addressed their UK weather stations' quality, asking for the individual class rating on each as defined by the World Meteorological Office. Such CIMO ratings range from the highest quality / lowest error Class 1 then on up to Class 3 with 1 deg C, class 4 @ 2 deg C error and ‘junk’ class 5 with a margin of error as large as 5 deg C.

29.2% Met Office temperature stations have an international junk rating with a margin of error 5°C
8.7% of the stations had a margin of error 2°C

The writer concludes:

“I have clearly demonstrated with hard evidence that:
The Met Office is regularly fabricating data.
It is not producing reliable nor accurate data for climate reporting purposes from a network of poorly sited and inadequately maintained locations..
It is not meeting internationally recognised standards which it was itself party to establishing.
It has, over time, contributed to historic selection of unrepresentative data produced.
It is operating in a secretive, covert way and to its own regulation without independent oversight.
It is failing to meet high standards of scientific integrity.
It marks its own homework.
I feel it warrants independent review to:

Establish a high quality series of sites solely designed for climate reporting purposes. These should be independently overseen to ensure continued integrity of data.

An independent working group should re-analyse historic data to re-compile a historic record from only high quality sites that have been identified as not being compromised by extraneous heat sources.

An open declaration of likely inaccuracy of existing published data to avoid other institutions and researchers using unreliable data and reaching erroneous conclusions.

Utter gibberish whch fails at the very first hurdle. Google is your friend. Posting utter faeces like this and treating it as fact is why we have felons in positions of power. People need to stop making the movie "Idiocracy" a documentary.

 

[Nice65]

I’d suggest, as we’re generally British, the only way to know what the weather is doing is to talk about it with every individual we meet during our day.

 

[Falstaff]

I'm certainly not a climate denier but facts are facts, if he is correct. On this he might be right about the locations, and consequent accuracy of some weather stations. The rest of it, who knows.
RAF stations are always extreme, e.g. Benson is very cold (sand strata on top of a hill) and Cardington (prevailing westerley down the Thames Valley, at mild altitude). Neither are very representative of the surrounding area, ditto Redhill.
I once prepared a big flooding claim for two sites in Milton Keynes based on the weather observations of a Vicar in Milton Keynes.
He was a weather enthusiast (yes, really there are such folk, my father in law for one), who had all the right kit and submitted regular readings to the Met Office. They did not have any weather stations in the area themselves, but recognised him and his results as valid and used by the Met Office. His accurate records went back over 20 years, my claim was a slam dunk, the client beaten and paid up. So it is entirely possible that the reports from say, Dungeness, might be from another enthusiast.

 

[Jared]

Being a software dev based in a government office for several years in the late 90s.
Can confirm civil servants are (or were though I doubt gov has invested in staff) hopeless at managing data.

So who knows how inaccurate it is.

 

[Paul_B]

The met office marks its own homework does it? Jeez that is so wrong!! Don't we all criticise how inaccurate they are with the forecasts in our own areas? That is before you consider the academics and others who will effectively peer review any climate interpretations out of the met office behind the scenes that is not being considered.

As to stations being junk, they all are and all are useful. By this i mean they are only accurate for the area they are at. you can only measure the conditions for where you are so relevancy for other areas is not there in and off the data gained at each site.

On a more anecdotal basis to explain this I will tell of a time I drove past Kendal on the higher up bypass. 10 minutes south it was blue skies with a fewe nice fluffy clouds. 5 miles north it was blue skies with a few fluffy clouds. In Kendal it was grey. overcast and raining heavily!! It was like that on the bypass too but we drove through it. Very localised weather. Does that mean weather date gathered in Kendal is invalid?

Then if you are using station information to deny climate change you are on really shaky ground. Focussing on one very small area does not counter the wider data and evidence collected from such varied sources that you will never disprove climate change that way.

I had a mate who got into climate research by accident in tghe climate research goldrush days. He started at uni as an engineer or something like that but changed courses a few weeks in to biology. He did his degee project on nematodes in soils. Then that led to a PhD in a similar topic. Turns out nematodes are particularly sensitive to climate change and are in pretty much all soils around the world making them a very good climate change indicator species. In the end he as responsible for managing multi million pound research around the world on climate reasearch. So I had an idea of the issues long before the officials in governments around the world woke up to the matter. I did not however keep up on the matter since I lost contact with him.

 

[Paul_B]

One last point to make. There is some significance in the status and reputation of sources. The OP had sources and it is right that we understand the wider implications of their reputation if we are making points, even on forums like this one. AIUI these sites have been fact checked and looked into by people more able to do this than I and have been found wanting.

IT is easier to discredit than prove something which is what climate deniers do. Look into details and find insignificant details that can be magnified and blown up into a "Hah! Look at this, they are wrong!!" moments like those in the OP post. However with all science of a disputed nature such as climate change there has to be a wider perspective of the complete evidence. You can not look at very small details and conclude the whole is wrong. For all details found that seem wrong to the lay person there are probably millions of details that are without issues.

I also have a question as to how able are the lay persons who post on here and other similar general forums able to critically review googled articles for merit? Also, bias with the way people tend to find their own echo chambers online such as the tall bloke or dailysceptic. I personally prefer not to spread such sites misinformation and conspiracies. Each to their own.

Anyway, I will (try to) not add to this thread because you will never change the mind of climate deniers with reasonable discourse.

 

[Pattree]

.

 

[William_Montgomery]

Anyway, I will (try to) not add to this thread because you will never change the mind of climate deniers with reasonable discourse.

I don't think writing people off as 'climate deniers' really passes as reasonable discourse.

 

[C_Claycomb]

Multiple things can be true simultaneously.

• Human activity can be driving the observed changes in temperatures.
• There can be money made by people presenting contradictory views.
• There can be even more money made in researching, supporting and amplifying the message of anthropogenic climate change.
• There can be people working in good faith on both sides.
• There can be people motivated by money and power on both sides.
• There can be zealous activists on both sides.
• Scientists who raise concerns about aspects of research counter to the popular narrative can be vilified and lose out on funding.

I am bothered by the apparently blinkered views expressed by people who think the climate is not warming at all due to the millions of tons of oil we have burned. Seizing on anything to extrapolate a “gotcha” to discredit everything.

I am bothered by the apparently blinkered views expressed by people who think the climate is warming due to our activity. Lumping all critics and anyone who questions the narrative together and labelling them as “deniers”, as if this were a religious matter, and burning heretics was still thought reasonable.

I am bothered by the view that our little nation should charge head long towards unproven “green” schemes that risk further damaging our economy, and that seem unlikely to have an impact on “saving the planet”, given how small we are.

Even if human activity is driving climate change, we should still want all the related research to be done well. If a crank raises a concern, we should be able to crush it with facts and figures…to explain why it’s not an inconsistency, not just say they are a biased crank, so could not possibly have a point on anything. We complain about division and polarisation, and then here we go.

 

[Glow_worm]

Lumping all critics and anyone who questions the narrative together and labelling them as “deniers”, as if this were a religious matter, and burning heretics was still thought reasonable.

Spot on. The future of our planet's welfare went downhill the moment 'global warming', now 'climate change' became big news. It divided people. There will always be a big chunk of the population who don't believe, think it's too late to make a difference, or don't care.

If only we could instead concentrate on combating waste, plundering of limited resources, pollution, ecosystem damage. All very real, all undeniable, all relatable.

 

[Paul_B]

I don't think writing people off as 'climate deniers' really passes as reasonable discourse.

YMMV of course but I am not writing anyone off I am applying a label to people such as those on the links the OP posted who do not accept the consensus of evidence from mainstream science that there is climate change and it is a serious risk to a lot of the species on the planet. It is a commonly used labels and any inference you make on it is your own. I only label them as people who deny climate change and that is it significantly due to human activity, That is climate change denial is what they are doing so I used the shortened form climate denier. If this is not what the people linked in those articles are doing then what are they doing?

 

[C_Claycomb]

I like this channel on YouTube. As well as trying to provide clear explanations, without much name calling, she also illustrates one of our problems with labelling and then ignoring voices we don’t agree with.

I have little time for cranks’ overall message, but I am interested in what they say on certain cases because they will often point out problems that others miss or ignore.

 

[Paul_B]

Denial is something we all do. Deniers is what we all are. I know climate deniers is a charged term for people who are denying climate change is happening and it is significantly due to human activities. Perhaps I should not have used it but the fact I did does not mean I have blinkered views or have a religious POV about this matter. I am not burning heretics or stopping people saying these things. That is your inference on my use of this charged term.

I fully agree that we should hear these POVs in the public arena and they should be confronted. As indeed I believe these people in the two linked sites on the OPs post have been in the past. However often they have had their POV challenged successfully they are still being heavily promoted online. It is a concern that you can promote discredited data, evidence, etc no matter how many times it has been discredited. It is also a concern that there are echo chambers where discredited research and evidence is not challenged or reviewed without bias by those reading it.

It is a concern that in general the population of UK and other nations are relatively uneducated in a science field and such research is not understood or even presented well. Statistics are treated as not to be trusted when it is not statistics that is at fault but inferences made from those statistics for personal POV or gain for example political field (the old lies, damn lies and statistics attitude). There are many concerns I have that are all going on in the background with this topic and the understanding and acceptance of the level of current understanding.

It is not a religious matter and that is where it has become on both sides. Once the heretic being burnt was the proponent for significantly human caused climate change. Now it is the people chasing research to prove the opposite. I do not agree with this burning of the heretic but I do feel we have reached the point that perhaps there should be less prominence put to this pov now.

I wish I had the temperament to research the counter to those arguments to post but I don't and it is a pity nobody else has so far. It will be out there in the public domain. I am on another forum where there is this guy who mostly posts with links to the relevent data for the comments being made. Most people are expressing opinions and he simply posts a public domain (i.e. not behind a research paper firewall) link to a report giving the relevant evidence or data for everyone to review for themselves. It does not stop the opinons that are not supported from being extended later but it is a real public service on that forum. It is a refreshing change to these political and divisive threads.

One final comment I have, I do not call it human caused climate change AIUI it is significantly human caused but as we are not in control of the climate it is not completely down to us, just significantly.

 

[William_Montgomery]

It might be worth pointing out, the article and open letter linked in the original post have no mention of denying or affirming 'climate change' at all.

 

[William_Montgomery]

Multiple things can be true simultaneously.

• Human activity can be driving the observed changes in temperatures.
• There can be money made by people presenting contradictory views.
• There can be even more money made in researching, supporting and amplifying the message of anthropogenic climate change.
• There can be people working in good faith on both sides.
• There can be people motivated by money and power on both sides.
• There can be zealous activists on both sides.
• Scientists who raise concerns about aspects of research counter to the popular narrative can be vilified and lose out on funding.

I am bothered by the apparently blinkered views expressed by people who think the climate is not warming at all due to the millions of tons of oil we have burned. Seizing on anything to extrapolate a “gotcha” to discredit everything.

I am bothered by the apparently blinkered views expressed by people who think the climate is warming due to our activity. Lumping all critics and anyone who questions the narrative together and labelling them as “deniers”, as if this were a religious matter, and burning heretics was still thought reasonable.

I am bothered by the view that our little nation should charge head long towards unproven “green” schemes that risk further damaging our economy, and that seem unlikely to have an impact on “saving the planet”, given how small we are.

Even if human activity is driving climate change, we should still want all the related research to be done well. If a crank raises a concern, we should be able to crush it with facts and figures…to explain why it’s not an inconsistency, not just say they are a biased crank, so could not possibly have a point on anything. We complain about division and polarisation, and then here we go.

Well put.

 

[Falstaff]

I think Paul and Chris between them have nailed it. It takes energy to put the argument against false claims and emotioinal responses.
The ex MP/MEP Lembit Opik has studied climate change for a long time now, he is very knowleable and uses rational science and facts to challenge erroneous claims by anyone, including the scientist experts themselves. He coolly looks at the facts and research used, and whether it stands up to scrutiny. If it does then fine, if not he will challenge it and is happy to enter into intelligent discourse. But as an ex-MP even he accepts that there are those who are in emotional denial, on either side of whatever is in discussion.