The revelation that the UK Met Office has been reporting data from non-existent weather stations, such as Newton Rigg, Lowestoft, Cwmystwyth, Nairn Druim, Eastbourne, Oxford, and Paisley, raises serious questions about the integrity of climate data used to support global warming narratives. According to reports, Newton Rigg, a station near Penrith in Cumbria, was closed in 2021, yet the Met Office continued to publish temperature and rainfall figures for it in 2025, claiming an average maximum of 11.5°C and a minimum of 3°C last month, alongside 23mm of rain. This is not an isolated case—19% of the 37 stations in the Met Office's historic database, which spans 50 to over 100 years, are either closed or entirely fictional, with data for these sites admittedly "estimated" rather than measured. Such practices, uncovered through Freedom of Information requests and citizen investigations, fuel scepticism about climate change claims, suggesting that the data driving policy and public perception may be less reliable than presented. This blog piece argues that these findings bolster climate change scepticism by exposing flaws in data collection, undermining trust in scientific institutions, and highlighting the politicisation of climate science.
The core issue lies in the Met Office's use of invented data for stations that no longer exist. Newton Rigg, for instance, was photographed in 2021 with its measuring equipment intact, but by 2022, it was visibly defunct, yet the Met Office's database still marked it as operational with an orange tag. Similar discrepancies apply to Lowestoft, closed since 2010, and others like Paisley and Nairn Druim, where estimated figures replace real observations. The Met Office defends these estimates as derived from "well-correlated neighbouring stations," but this explanation falters when, as critics point out, some correlating stations—like five used for Norwich—are themselves non-existent. This circular reliance on fictional data undermines the scientific method, which demands empirical evidence over conjecture. For sceptics, this suggests that the temperature records underpinning claims of rising global temperatures may be artificially constructed, casting doubt on the magnitude or even the existence of reported warming trends.
This data manipulation erodes public trust in institutions tasked with providing objective climate information. The Met Office's historic database is meant to offer reliable long-term records, yet the inclusion of fabricated figures for 19% of its stations calls into question the accuracy of the entire dataset. When nearly one in five data points is invented, sceptics argue, the resulting averages—used to justify policies like Net Zero—lose credibility. The Met Office's claim of precision, reporting temperatures to hundredths of a degree, appears absurd when 80% of its operational stations have internationally recognised uncertainties of 2-5°C due to poor placement near heat sources like airports or car parks. This discrepancy between claimed accuracy and actual reliability fuels suspicions that the data is being tailored to fit a predetermined narrative rather than reflecting reality, a concern amplified by the Met Office's reluctance to fully disclose its estimation methods.
The politicisation of climate science further deepens scepticism. The Met Office's data is not merely academic—it informs aggressive policy goals like Net Zero, which demand significant economic and social sacrifices. When invented figures from ghost stations are used to support claims of a "climate emergency," sceptics see evidence of agenda-driven science. The organisation's history of controversy, including earlier reports of 103 non-existent stations in a separate database, adds weight to this view. That incident, which gained traction on social media and led to a hasty database revision, was dismissed by a Met Office-backed fact-check as "misleading" rather than addressed transparently. Such defensiveness, coupled with mainstream media's reluctance to probe the issue, suggests to sceptics that the climate narrative is being protected at the expense of truth. The Scottish Daily Express's report that most of Scotland's stations have 2-5°C inaccuracies underscores this, hinting at systemic flaws that undermine the case for urgent climate action.
Social media amplifies these concerns, with users openly mocking the Met Office for "fiddled figures" and "propaganda." The viral Eighth Fake News Awards, which singled out the Met Office for fabricating 30-year averages from 103 fake sites, reflects a growing public backlash. Comments like "Is that real data, or more stuff from imaginary weather stations?" capture a sentiment that the Met Office is less a scientific body than a political actor. This perception is reinforced by its attribution studies, such as one claiming 2022 UK wildfires were six times more likely due to climate change—a claim sceptics dismiss as unprovable pseudoscience when grounded in questionable data. For climate change sceptics, these reactions highlight a broader issue: institutions are weaponising flawed data to instil panic and justify control, not to advance knowledge.
The Met Office's practices also raise practical concerns about the feasibility of climate claims. If a significant portion of historical temperature records is estimated, how can we trust assertions about unprecedented warming? Stations like Oxford and Eastbourne, with decades of supposed data, are now revealed to rely on guesswork, suggesting that long-term trends may be artifacts of estimation rather than measurements. Sceptics argue this invalidates comparisons between past and present climates, weakening the case for human-driven warming. Moreover, the use of Kipp and Zonen sensors for some stations and Campbell-Stokes recorders for others introduces inconsistencies, yet the Met Office fails to clarify how these are reconciled with invented data, further muddying the waters.
In fairness, the Met Office may argue that estimating data for closed stations preserves long-term records, preventing gaps in climate analysis. But this defence falters when the estimates lack transparency and rely on dubious correlations. Sceptics contend that true science would acknowledge these limitations rather than present fiction as fact. The organisation's failure to address criticisms head-on, instead retreating behind peer-reviewed claims or rebranding databases, only strengthens doubts. When data is used to drive policies that reshape economies, scepticism becomes not just reasonable but necessary.
In conclusion, the Met Office's reporting of invented data from non-existent stations like Newton Rigg and others provides compelling ammunition for climate change scepticism. It exposes a reliance on fabricated figures that undermines the credibility of temperature records, erodes trust in scientific institutions, and suggests a politicised agenda over objective inquiry. For sceptics, this is not a minor error but a symptom of a broader flaw in climate science, where data is manipulated to fit narratives rather than reveal truths. While the Met Office's day-to-day meteorology may be admirable, its handling of climate data invites distrust, fuelling a growing chorus of voices questioning the foundations of the global warming consensus. Until transparency and rigor replace estimation and obfuscation, such scepticism will only deepen.
"Last month the average maximum temperature at Newton Rigg was 11.5°C, the lowest was 3°C, while 23mm of rain fell. Newton Rigg is near Penrith in Cumbria and in its historic database the UK Met Office claims it is an open site and is one of its 380 UK wide temperature measuring stations. This claim is also made in two Met Office lists of site class classification obtained under Freedom of Information (FOI) requests in 2023 and 2024. All of which is rather strange. Newton Rigg closed in 2021 and all the data being published as climate averages are estimated, i.e., invented. The historic database contains 37 stations and seven of the total, no less than 19%, are closed or do not exist. Invented figures are also being supplied for Lowestoft, Cwmystwyth, Nairn Druim, Eastbourne, Oxford and Paisley.
The Met Office claims that monthly data are available for a selection of long-running historic stations and series typically range from 50 to more than 100 years in length. Sunshine data are noted to use a Kipp and Zonen sensor in some sites, while all the others have data recorded by a Campbell-Stokes recorder. All the others, the Met Office omitted to make clear, except those where the figures have been invented for the non-existent stations.
Of course as regular readers well know, the UK Met Office has form as long as its arm when it comes to making up temperature data. In a separate public database it was recently found that the state meteorologist was making up 30-year average temperatures from 103 non-existent stations. The Met Office referenced the station names and provided single location coordinates for the imaginary sites including one improbably based next to the water on Dover Beach. Massive social media publicity led to a rapid change, with individual coordinates being removed and the database being renamed to suggest the information came from a wider location.
A subsequent inept 'fact check' from Science Feedback largely written by the Met Office found it "misleading" to suggest that the data were "fabricated". Rather they were estimated using "well-correlated neighbouring stations". Alas for this explanation, it was subsequently revealed that the location of Norwich in this dataset uses supposedly well-correlated information from five stations that do not exist. The Met Office claims its estimates use a scientific method that is published in peer-reviewed literature.
Of course at this stage in our corresponding we must give our regular shout out to citizen super-sleuth Ray Sanders. Writing on Tallbloke's Talkshop, Sanders is undertaking a forensic investigation of the Met Office's weather data gathering operations. In his recent investigation into the Newton Rigg site he provides the following photographic evidence of its closure. First the site in April 2021, based in the grounds of a college campus. The measuring device is clearly visible in the near centre of the picture.
The same site in July 2022 confirms the closure, despite the Met Office still claiming on its historic database that the site is still open.
And here according to Sanders is the screen shot take from the current historic database that shows the Met Office is still claiming with an orange tag that Newton Rigg is open.
Sanders is withering in his concluding criticism:
The Met Office is operating in an extremely unscientific and even incompetent manner. Analysis of such incomplete and inaccurate, even invented numbers is a futile exercise. That such non-data are being statistically tortured to the Nth degree by alleged peer-review scientific processes is frankly a bad joke and completely unacceptable.
The Daily Sceptic had noted on a number of occasions that the Met Office has only itself to blame for a tidal wave of bad publicity that has arisen over its obviously defective weather measuring network. The network across the UK was never intended to provide the precision that is being claimed, but internal activists have weaponised the data to invoke climate panic in the interest of promoting the Net Zero fantasy. Despite nearly 80% of its weather stations being so badly placed they have internationally recognised 'uncertainties' between 2-5°C, political capital is made by claiming accuracy to within one hundredth of a degree centigrade.
Possibly the Met Office feels protected from criticism since both mainstream media and mainstream politics have avoided the story like the plague, fearful, of course, that it could open a pandora's box on the temperature inputs that back the agreed Net Zero narrative. But the dam might be starting to burst with the Scottish Daily Express running a story last January noting that "most of Scotland's Met Office stations can be wrong by two to five degrees". The newspaper did its own FOI request and found that only three out of 95 local stations were rated at the highest pristine standard by the World Meteorological Organisation.
Needless to say, there are no holds barred on uncensored social media, a far more important communicating vehicle these days than fast-fading, narrative-driven legacy operations. Recently, the Met Office posted some of its own research on X that claimed the wildfires that broke out during a brief UK 2022 heatwave were made "at least six times" more likely due to human-caused climate change. Complete unprovable pseudoscience attribution twaddle, some would argue, and this view was seemingly shared in many of the 200 plus responses.
"Give it a rest"
"Utter ballcocks. It was human induced arson. You really are the stupidest scientists."
"Was this 'research' carried out using fiddled figures produced by stations which don't exist."
"Is that real data. Or more stuff from imaginary weather stations?"
"It's your job to forecast the weather, not to broadcast propaganda."
Recently, the Eighth Fake News Awards went viral on social media. The professionally-produced film pulled no punches in awarding one of its unwelcome gongs to the Met Office for "literally making up 103 fake temperature sites reporting 30-year averages from those non-existent sites". It was said to be a massive ongoing scheme to control the future by controlling the past. The award was said to be deserved due to the Met Office's "most shameless attempt at lying to the public in a field overwhelmed with people shamelessly lying to the public".
The Met Office has a real problem in attracting this level of vociferous criticism, justified or not, since it distracts from a great deal of admirable day-to-day scientific meteorology. But it shows what can happen to public trust when an increasingly controversial political agenda disrupts the usual workings of the scientific process."