Cooking the Climate Books? The UK Met Office's Dubious Data Practices, By Richard Miller (Londonistan)
The UK Met Office, a cornerstone of weather and climate data, is under fire for what some call a scandal in temperature reporting. A bombshell report reveals that one of its stations, Cwmystradllyn, has been churning out 60 years of temperature averages based on just eight years of actual data from 1974 to 1982! Even worse, another station, RAF Valley, boasts "historic" records back to 1930, 11 years before it existed as a military base! This raises serious questions about the integrity of climate data used to fuel the Net Zero narrative. If these practices continue unchecked, the consequences could erode public trust, skew scientific research, and undermine global climate policies, itself a good thing. Is the Met Office cooking the books to push an agenda, or is this just sloppy science?
Citizen sleuth Ray Sanders has uncovered troubling discrepancies in the Met Office's public-domain database, which includes 37 key stations meant to provide decades-long temperature records. Cwmystradllyn, a station near RAF Valley on Anglesey, is a glaring example. It recorded data for only eight years (1974–1982), with over 10% of days missing and temperatures rounded to whole numbers, hardly precise. Yet, the Met Office claims monthly averages for this site from 1961 to today, a 60-year span. How? Through a process called CARLOS, run by the National Climate Information Centre (NCIC), which "estimates" data using "well-correlated neighbouring stations." Problem is, the Met Office won't name these stations, dismissing Freedom of Information (FOI) requests as "vexatious."
RAF Valley's data is equally suspect. Its records stretch back to 1930, but the station only became operational in 1941. Sanders found the pre-1941 data was actually from Salt-Holyhead, six miles away, yet the Met Office hasn't corrected this misattribution in its historic records. This isn't a one-off, Sanders previously revealed that 103 of 302 Met Office stations reporting 30-year averages don't even exist, with data fabricated via CARLOS.
Long-term temperature averages, ideally spanning 30 years or more, are critical for tracking climate trends. The Met Office uses these to produce reports like the annual State of the UK Climate, which often fuel alarmist headlines. For instance, BBC's Ben Rich cited the latest report to ask, "Has the British summer changed beyond recognition?" — a question that leans on these questionable numbers. The NCIC also supports "attribution studies" linking weather events to climate change, blending computer models with these shaky datasets to drive Net Zero policies.
But the data's reliability is crumbling. Nearly 80% of the Met Office's 380-plus active stations are rated Class 4 or 5 by the World Meteorological Organization, with potential errors of up to 2°C and 5°C, respectively, due to poor siting near heat sources like buildings or runways. Add in the fact that stations frequently open, close, or move, and uninterrupted, accurate records are rare. When the Met Office reports temperatures to two decimal places, claiming, say, 2023 was 0.06°C shy of the UK's hottest year, it's hard to take seriously. As Sanders quips, "What confidence can the UK public have in any of this? Almost certainly none at all."
If the Met Office keeps relying on fabricated or low-quality data, the fallout could be severe:
Eroded Public Trust: As exposés like Sanders' gain traction, think 800 YouTube comments ripping into the Met Office after a Talk interview with Julia Hartley-Brewer, public scepticism grows. When a government agency is seen as massaging numbers to push a political agenda like Net Zero, it risks becoming a "national joke," as the article suggests. This could undermine faith in all meteorological work, even accurate weather forecasting.
Skewed Science and Policy: Researchers worldwide rely on datasets like the Met Office's. If 60-year averages are built on eight years of spotty data, studies on climate trends could be wildly off, leading to flawed models and misguided policies. Net Zero, already divisive, could lose credibility if based on what Sanders calls "fiction." Globally, similar issues at NOAA (where 30% of stations reportedly use estimated data) suggest this isn't just a UK problem.
Economic and Social Impacts: Policies driven by exaggerated warming claims could lead to costly, unnecessary measures, like higher energy bills from rushed green initiatives. If temperatures are only "a tad higher," as the article notes, public backlash against overblown climate alarmism would arise.
Worst-Case Scenario: If unchecked, the Met Office's practices could contribute to a broader crisis in scientific integrity. Imagine a future where climate data is so distrusted that governments cherry-pick numbers to suit their agendas, delaying action on real issues or pushing draconian measures without evidence. The NCIC's refusal to disclose CARLOS's methodology only fuels suspicions of deliberate obfuscation. Many of us feel that we have now reached that terminal point.
The Met Office's data practices could be fraud, but theydo scream incompetence or bias. Why not correct RAF Valley's misattributed data? Why hide the "neighbouring stations" behind CARLOS? The refusal to answer FOI requests only deepens the perception of cooking the books to prop up Net Zero. If the Met Office wants to be taken seriously, it needs to ditch the two-decimal-point bravado and own up to its data's limitations.
This scandal could mark a turning point. If the public and scientists lose faith in institutions like the Met Office, the climate debate risks fracturing further, which is a good thing.
"The UK Met Office takes great pride in its public-domain historic station database where 37 selected sites provide average temperature data going back many decades. One of the chosen few is Valley, although it is better known as the Class 3 RAF Valley station on Anglesey. Curiously its 'historic' data stretches back to 1930, but this is 11 years before it became an operational military base. But on the separate location temperature database, check out the nearby station of Cwmystradllyn which is recorded to have opened in 1974 and stopped taking manual measurements after just eight years. Yet at this site, monthly averages are claimed back to 1961 and continue to this day. Here the Valley fabrication pales into insignificance compared to around 50 years of imaginary data at Cwmystradllyn. Yes, citizen sleuth Ray Sanders is on the case again, digging deep into Met Office and public archives to reveal further horror stories about the State meteorologist's temperature collection methods.
This all matters since the compilation of long-term temperature averages over at least 30 years is a core component of the study of changes in climate. It is heavy weaponry in the hands of activist bodies such as the Met Office, which leverages its scientific reputation to promote the Net Zero fantasy. …
So where did ten years of data back to 1930 come from – data shown to this day in the historic record under the same co-ordinates as RAF Valley? Again, sleuth Sanders came up with the answer, having found in another archive that the information was compiled six miles away at Salt-Holyhead.
The Met Office knew where the data arose, but for some reason it has failed to correct its historic data. The public and the wider scientific community are left uninformed on the matter. "If this type of completely incorrect attribution is going unnoticed, what confidence can the UK public have in any of this below being correct?" Sanders asks. "Almost certainly none at all," he offers as a reply. This, of course, is the problem that the Met Office now faces. Its highly political role in using its data to promote climate psychosis in the interest of the Net Zero fantasy is leading to increased concern about the underlying figures. As a result, 'extreme' recordings from its mostly junk, unnatural, heat-ravaged locations are becoming something of a national joke. In a recent interview with your correspondent on Talk, Julia Hartley-Brewer ended up calling it an "extraordinary scandal". Subsequently posted on YouTube, it collected around 800 comments, few if any praising the Met Office for its help in saving the planet.
Sanders' reference to "any of this below" brought up a Met Office list of "nearby stations" to Valley. Sixty-year monthly temperature averages are provided for Cwmystradllyn, yet the archives show that it recorded temperature data for only eight years between 1974 and 1982. According to the archive at the Centre for Environmental Analysis (CEDA), the station is still open. The evidence below shows an interesting interpretation of the open claim.
The message type DLY3208 refers to daily manual temperature recordings, and the eight-year period is clearly shown at DCNN 7726, the station code for Cwmystradllyn. For over 40 years, the monthly averages have been invented by CARLOS, a process described by the Met Office as "monthly and annual climatological averages, calculated by NCIC [National Climate Information Centre]". In earlier work, Sanders discovered that during Cwmystradllyn's short recording life, over 10% of the days were missed and temperatures were rounded to the nearest whole number. Thus, eight years of actual data – poor quality to say the least – form the basis for 60 years of temperature averages calculated to one hundredth of a degree centigrade.
The Met Office needs to produce 30-year rolling averages to have any claim to be able to assess changes in the climate. But as we have shown at the Daily Sceptic on numerous occasions, its 380-plus active weather stations are too corrupted by unnatural heat to be taken seriously. Nearly 80% of its stations are so poorly sited they attract Class 4 and 5 ratings that come with huge internationally recognised 'uncertainties' – up to 2°C for Class 4 and 5°C for Class 5. In addition, stations open, close and move at regular intervals. Long-term, uninterrupted and accurate data recorded in one place are a rarity. In short, it is very difficult to produce with much confidence a natural ambient air temperature for the United Kingdom – let alone the planet – but that doesn't seem to worry the Met Office. It regularly makes seasonal and annual claims based on data measured to two decimal points. Without its constant Net Zero proselytising, it might not matter so much – take out the politics and it could just be accepted that, like its weather forecasts, sometimes its claims are right, sometimes less so.
And it is CARLOS that is responsible for much of the two-decimal-point stuff that lies behind claims that "well-correlated neighbouring stations" provide data for its 103 non-existent stations. It is the NCIC that estimates data from closed stations using nearby sites. Alas, although the process is said to be peer-reviewed, the Met Office is unable to disclose the names of the neighbouring stations. In fact, recent Freedom of Information requests from Ray Sanders asking for this vital input information have been dismissed on the grounds that they are "vexatious" and not in the public interest.
The NCIC uses its information, observed and estimated by CARLOS, to write reports such as the annual 'State of the UK Climate', a publication eagerly awaited by activists keen to set off another round of doom and gloom. Quoting the last report, the BBC's lead weather reporter Ben Rich asked: "Has the British summer changed beyond recognition?". Without the massaged Met Office messaging to hand, the answer is a likely no. Temperatures are a tad higher, get over it.
Interestingly, the NCIC notes a role in developing "attribution studies linking events to climate change". Here we see the Holy Grail of climate alarmism in action – comparing imaginary atmospheres on computer models with computer-generated observations to send all the children to bed crying."
Comments