With a supposed global crisis like climate change hanging over our head, you’d think that the scientists studying the issue would want the best data available in order to decide exactly what our strategy should be to fight the supposed monster at the gate. Instead, much of the temperature data used to demonstrate “extreme” heat appears to be corrupted, giving a biased picture of what is going on with our weather, rather than the truth.
U.K. Using Flawed Weather Stations
For example, consider the U.K.’s Meteorological Office (Met) and their temperature recording stations. The Daily Sceptic reports that 77.9 percent of temperature reporting sites have uncertainties of 2°C and 5°C. How can an existential crisis which supposedly hinges on fractions of a degree of temperature be reliably managed when nearly 80 percent of all reporting stations are so egregiously flawed?
The problem appears to be the placement of the temperature gathering equipment. Common sense tells us that to get good temperature data, measurement devices must be placed away from obvious heat sources, such as heat-producing equipment and areas reflecting sunlight.
But that’s not happening with the Met Office. The Daily Sceptic cites one example in which so-called extreme temperatures reported as the hottest of the year were from a reporting station with such dubious placements.
In Chertsey, a town southwest of London, it was reported in June that the most extreme temperature of the summer had been observed. What wasn’t reported — at least at first — was that the reporting site was located adjacent to a solar farm with all of those highly reflective, heat-producing solar panels. Citizen journalist Ray Sanders confronted the Met about the location of the Chertsey station. The office acknowledged the situation of solar panels more or less surrounding the temperature gathering site, but said: “The temperature measurements meet standards for publication and scientific use.”
Earlier this year, The Daily Sceptic reported that nearly a third of the Met’s temperature stations may be off by up to 5°C. These were stations with a Class 5 rating — the lowest rating and the ones most susceptible to “uncertainty” of the readings.
Ninety-six Percent of U.S. Sites Flawed
Of course, Great Britain isn’t the only place where highly suspect temperature data exists. Recall that in 2022, the Heartland Institute conducted a survey of U.S. temperature data-collection sites and found that an astonishing 96 percent of them “fail to meet what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) considers to be ‘acceptable’ and uncorrupted placement by its own published standards.”
Anthony Watts said at the time:
With a 96 percent warm-bias in U.S. temperature measurements, it is impossible to use any statistical methods to derive an accurate climate trend for the U.S. Data from the stations that have not been corrupted by faulty placement show a rate of warming in the United States reduced by almost half compared to all stations.
Critics dismissed Watts’ claim, since he is the founder of Watts Up With That, the internet’s top site for climate realism. Unfortunately for them, though, Watts’ methodology was flawless and included on-site inspections of the recording stations. Climate alarmists pretty much rely on the tired trope that Watts is a “climate denier” and can thus be dismissed — no matter how good his research is.
It all stinks of the same garbage that was used to frighten nations into signing the Paris climate accord in 2015. That bogus accord is still being used to strong-arm nations into climate compliance. And the U.K. is using the phony Met temperature data to push their destructive “net zero” agenda.
The climate cult doesn’t want actual data when making their outrageous claims that mankind is destroying the climate with its careless use of fossil fuels. They simply want sensational headlines that can be used to frighten the world’s populace into submitting to authoritarian climate schemes.
