Ed P wrote:
> I know you have some background in the sciences, have you ever looked at

THIS:

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/11/05/science-shock-u-k-met-office-is-inventing-temperature-data-from-100-non-existent-stations/

Shocking evidence has emerged that points to the U.K. Met Office
inventing temperature data from over 100 non-existent weather stations.
The explosive allegations have been made by citizen journalist Ray
Sanders and sent to the new Labour Science Minister Peter Kyle MP.
Following a number of Freedom of Information requests to the Met Office
and diligent field work visiting individuals stations, Sanders has
discovered that 103 stations out of 302 sites supplying temperature
averages do not exist. “How would any reasonable observer know that the
data was not real and simply ‘made up’ by a Government agency,” asks
Sanders. He calls for an “open declaration” of likely inaccuracy of
existing published data, “to avoid other institutions and researchers
using unreliable data and reaching erroneous conclusions”.

In his home county of Kent, Sanders charges that four of the eight sites
identified by the Met Office, namely Dungeness, Folkestone, Dover and
Gillingham – which all produce rolling temperature averages to the
second decimal place of a degree – are “fiction”. Sanders notes that
there has been no weather station at Dungeness since 1986. The Daily
Sceptic is able to confirm that none of the four stations appear in the
list of Met sites with a classification from the World Meteorological
Organisation (WMO). The Met Office directs online inquiries about Dover
to the ”nearest climate station” at Dover Harbour (Beach) and provides a
full set of rolling 30-year averages. According to Met Office
co-ordinates, the site is on Dover beach as the Google Earth photo below
shows. It seems unlikely that any scientific organisation would site a
temperature monitoring station that is likely to be submerged on a
regular basis. Who is running this station on the beach, have accurate
records been kept for 30 years and why is it not listed under the 380
sites that are given a WMO rating?

On 11/12/24 08:24, De-Trois-Leaning wrote:
> Ed P wrote:
>> I know you have some background in the sciences, have you ever looked at
>
> THIS:
>
> https://dailysceptic.org/2024/11/05/science-shock-u-k-met-office-is-
> inventing-temperature-data-from-100-non-existent-stations/
>
> Shocking evidence has emerged that points to the U.K. Met Office
> inventing temperature data from over 100 non-existent weather stations.
> The explosive allegations have been made by citizen journalist Ray
> Sanders and sent to the new Labour Science Minister Peter Kyle MP.
> Following a number of Freedom of Information requests to the Met Office
> and diligent field work visiting individuals stations, Sanders has
> discovered that 103 stations out of 302 sites supplying temperature
> averages do not exist. “How would any reasonable observer know that the
> data was not real and simply ‘made up’ by a Government agency,” asks
> Sanders. He calls for an “open declaration” of likely inaccuracy of
> existing published data, “to avoid other institutions and researchers
> using unreliable data and reaching erroneous conclusions”.

WOW! Fabricating evidence?!!
>
> In his home county of Kent, Sanders charges that four of the eight sites
> identified by the Met Office, namely Dungeness, Folkestone, Dover and
> Gillingham – which all produce rolling temperature averages to the
> second decimal place of a degree – are “fiction”. Sanders notes that
> there has been no weather station at Dungeness since 1986. The Daily
> Sceptic is able to confirm that none of the four stations appear in the
> list of Met sites with a classification from the World Meteorological
> Organisation (WMO). The Met Office directs online inquiries about Dover
> to the ”nearest climate station” at Dover Harbour (Beach) and provides a
> full set of rolling 30-year averages. According to Met Office co-
> ordinates, the site is on Dover beach as the Google Earth photo below
> shows. It seems unlikely that any scientific organisation would site a
> temperature monitoring station that is likely to be submerged on a
> regular basis. Who is running this station on the beach, have accurate
> records been kept for 30 years and why is it not listed under the 380
> sites that are given a WMO rating?

a425couple wrote:
> On 11/12/24 08:24, De-Trois-Leaning wrote:
>> Ed P wrote:
>>> I know you have some background in the sciences, have you ever looked at
>>
>> THIS:
>>
>> https://dailysceptic.org/2024/11/05/science-shock-u-k-met-office-is-
>> inventing-temperature-data-from-100-non-existent-stations/
>>
>> Shocking evidence has emerged that points to the U.K. Met Office
>> inventing temperature data from over 100 non-existent weather
>> stations. The explosive allegations have been made by citizen
>> journalist Ray Sanders and sent to the new Labour Science Minister
>> Peter Kyle MP. Following a number of Freedom of Information requests
>> to the Met Office and diligent field work visiting individuals
>> stations, Sanders has discovered that 103 stations out of 302 sites
>> supplying temperature averages do not exist. “How would any reasonable
>> observer know that the data was not real and simply ‘made up’ by a
>> Government agency,” asks Sanders. He calls for an “open declaration”
>> of likely inaccuracy of existing published data, “to avoid other
>> institutions and researchers using unreliable data and reaching
>> erroneous conclusions”.
>
> WOW!  Fabricating evidence?!!

And that is with precedent - big time:

https://science.house.gov/2017/2/exposed-how-world-leaders-were-duped-investing-billions-over-manipulated-global

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own
rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but
flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world
leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate
conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in
the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never
existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than
scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare,
it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by
politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an
impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence
that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process –
which Dr Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were
overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant
attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster
paper.

His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to
enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to
withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.

In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the
paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section
that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental
Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices
that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to
discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could
time publication to influence national and international deliberations
on climate policy’.

Dr. Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in
Asheville, North Carolina.

A blatant attempt to intensify paper's impact

Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly
influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris
Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in
their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new,
climate-related aid projects.

The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which
broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of
thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had
manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the
influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of
data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s
surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.

Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now
decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially
revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable
methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will
show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.

The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by
devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.

The paper relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was
never approved or verified.

A final, approved version has still not been issued. None of the data on
which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory
requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to
process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA
results.

Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year
career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the
Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in
setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve
climate data records’.

Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference,
Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.

The paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled
‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming
hiatus’, the document said the widely reported ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ was
a myth.

Less than two years earlier, a blockbuster report from the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which drew on the work
of hundreds of scientists around the world, had found ‘a much smaller
increasing trend over the past 15 years 1998-2012 than over the past 30
to 60 years’. Explaining the pause became a key issue for climate
science. It was seized on by global warming sceptics, because the level
of CO2 in the atmosphere had continued to rise.

Some scientists argued that the existence of the pause meant the world’s
climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought,
so that future warming would be slower. One of them, Professor Judith
Curry, then head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of
Technology, said it suggested that computer models used to project
future warming were ‘running too hot’.

However, the Pausebuster paper said while the rate of global warming
from 1950 to 1999 was 0.113C per decade, the rate from 2000 to 2014 was
actually higher, at 0.116C per decade. The IPCC’s claim about the pause,
it concluded, ‘was no longer valid’.

The impact was huge and lasting. On publication day, the BBC said the
pause in global warming was ‘an illusion caused by inaccurate data’.

One American magazine described the paper as a ‘science bomb’ dropped on
sceptics.

Its impact could be seen in this newspaper last month when, writing to
launch his Ladybird book about climate change, Prince Charles stated
baldly: ‘There isn’t a pause… it is hard to reject the facts on the
basis of the evidence.’

Data changed to make the sea appear warmer

The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues – known as
Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4,
tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014
from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade.

Individual measurements in some parts of the globe had increased by
about 0.1C and this resulted in the dramatic increase of the overall
global trend published by the Pausebuster paper. But Dr Bates said this
increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error
was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys,
which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from
a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates
explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves
sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of
water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so
affecting temperature readings.

Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and
“corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good
data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look
as if the sea was warmer.’

ERSSTv4 ‘adjusted’ buoy readings up by 0.12C. It also ignored data from
satellites that measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, which
are also considered reliable. Dr Bates said he gave the paper’s
co-authors ‘a hard time’ about this, ‘and they never really justified
what they were doing.’