The creative placement of temperature monitoring stations has led to predictably bad results, and as bad as we thought it was, it turns out that it's even worse than that. Now, as reported in The Daily Sceptic by Environment Editor Chris Morrison, a notorious British climate sleuth, Ray Sanders, has uncovered even more damning evidence of the Met Office's tomfoolery.

Calling this stuff "suspicious" just doesn't quite seem to do it justice.

How we laughed when the Met Office declared a UK temperature record of 40.3°C at 3.12pm on July 19th 2022, halfway down the runway at RAF Coningsby at a time when it later transpired three typhoon jets were coming into land. Mirth was unconfined when the ‘record’ that stood for 60 seconds as the temperature briefly spiked by 0.6°C was later declared by the Met Office to be a “milestone in UK climate history”. Now it appears that another nearby and busy RAF station in Lincolnshire is getting in on the ‘joke’ record business. It appears that RAF Waddington also declared a record high on the same day of 40.3°C and this has been entered into the archive run by the Centre for Environmental Data Analysis (CEDA). This is despite the Met Office itself calling the Waddington reading ‘suspect’ due to an application of weedkiller. Quite why this should disqualify a temperature recording four feet from the ground when jet exhaust does not is unclear, and the excuse has a touch of the ‘dog ate my homework’ about it.

I've reported on the Met Office's shenanigans before:

See Also: BUSTED: UK Meteorology Office Invents Imaginary Temperature Stations to Claim Climate Change

Global Warming or Global Incompetence? Study on Locations of Temp-Monitoring Stations Is Revealing.

But this time, it seems even more egregious.

Regular readers will recall that Ray Sanders was behind the recent discovery that the Met Office had been inventing temperature averages at 103 non-existent sites. The Met Office even went so far as to supply coordinates, elevations and purposes of the imaginary sites.

103 non-existent sites. One good thing, at least: the American taxpayers aren't getting soaked for this. The British taxpayers are, though, and all the while, American climate scolds are looking on the Met Office's pious pronouncements and taking them as Holy Writ. Don't think they wouldn't do it here if they thought for a moment they would get away with it.

Here's the onion:

Sanders has now come up with an even worse example of these imaginary readings. Just when you thought things could not get worse, he investigates the location of Norwich. This is an area closely associated with some of the Met Office’s work, with connections to the University of East Anglia and past TV recordings from a local weather centre. There have been numerous temperature recordings in Norwich since 1873, but none are supplied under ‘location specific’ Norwich. Instead the long-term average temperature for the cell area is provided from five closed stations inventing data, despite nearby open sites. Sanders is not inclined to be charitable, noting: “The facts are quite simple, the vast majority of all the Met Office’s supposedly Climate Average data is covertly concocted by a system only accepted by a tiny cabal of anonymous peer reviewers operating a witches brew of contrived data that is a closely guarded secret.”

The first layer of this stinker is that we don't know, and the Met Office isn't telling, where these stations are. That, I should note, is completely against the scientific method, in which all raw data should be available so that we might verify the test methods and conclusions. But the Met Office isn't even revealing where their data comes from.

The second layer is that only a small number of no doubt carefully chosen reviewers have back-checked the Met Office's data, their calculations, and their conclusions. Those reviewers are anonymous, and the data is still held as a secret.

This is not how science works - and isn't it always the climate scolds who are lecturing us about "trusting the science"?

What we see here is unreliable data from questionable or even fraudulent sources, leading to meaningless conclusions, and this is all being used to drive policy. The people driving this policy, using these garbage conclusions from garbage data, are the same ones advocating for a major adjustment - for the worse - in our modern, energy-hungry, comfortable technological lifestyles.

I wonder what Winston Churchill would have to say about all this.