Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
In December 2023, the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) captured mainstream headlines with claims that massive increases in temperatures could lead to tropical mosquito-borne diseases sweeping the nation, endemic dengue fever in London by 2060, and a 12-fold increase in heat mortality within 50 years. All nonsense, of course – and the UKHSA report relied heavily on the notorious 2018 Met Office Climate Projections report (UKCP18). This Net Zero-promoting exercise ran only one set of assumptions through its supercomputer model and highlighted the findings in bold type.
In December 2023, the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) captured mainstream headlines with claims that massive increases in temperatures could lead to tropical mosquito-borne diseases sweeping the nation, endemic dengue fever in London by 2060, and a 12-fold increase in heat mortality within 50 years. All nonsense, of course – and the UKHSA report relied heavily on the notorious 2018 Met Office Climate Projections report (UKCP18). This Net Zero-promoting exercise ran only one set of assumptions through its supercomputer model and highlighted the findings in bold type. Those assumptions, always far-fetched, have now been declared “implausible” by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The UKHSA report was entitled Health Effects of Climate Change in the UK: State of the Evidence 2,023 (HECC). It relied on UKCP18 and appears to have standardised its findings around RCP8.5. The Met Office work seems to have been responsible for all the HECC scenario assumptions, hazard frequencies, temperature trajectories and rainfall intensification estimates. HECC claims that temperatures could rise by 4°C in under 80 years – evidence, or rather guesses, that exist only on the Met Office’s RCP8.5-fed computer. This hopelessly flawed work must be withdrawn immediately, preferably with an unreserved apology for presenting what was little more than health fear-mongering as ‘evidence’. But the reckoning must go much further. The UKCP18/RCP8.5 rot runs deep throughout the UKHSA’s climate health messaging. Many of its separate outputs – from projections of future heat-related ambulance demand to input into England’s National Adaptation Programme – are heavily influenced by the same now officially implausible assumptions.
It is no exaggeration to say that UKCP18, with its RCP8.5-only projections, has effectively become the standard UK climate source for adaptation planning. Again, immediate withdrawal is required to prevent further damage to the wider British economy.
The claim of endemic dengue fever is perhaps the most egregious element of the HECC report, given that it is tied directly to rising human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. The culprit is the Asian tiger mosquito, which was confined to its tropical forest base during the last ice age but has been moving northwards throughout the current interglacial period. As larger areas have opened up for colonisation, the mosquito has become more tolerant of lower temperatures and – in common with many invasive species – has thrived as human mobility has increased. Through shipping and trade, the Asian tiger mosquito has already established itself across much of Europe. There have been reports of mild dengue fever cases in several European countries, but fatality rates are at or near zero.
Asian tiger mosquito, Aedes albopictus, beginning its blood-meal
UKCP18 is described as ‘evidence’ by the UKHSA, and RCP8.5 as a “plausible worst-case scenario”. Both claims are untenable, for at least three reasons. First, RCP8.5 was always implausible: it fed assumptions about global population growth and coal consumption into computer models that no serious analyst should ever have considered credible. Second, the Met Office ran only RCP8.5 through its model, deriving other – and largely unpublicised – figures from those results. A clear case, one might suggest, of Garbage In, Garbage Out. Third, the model was programmed on the assumption that human combustion of hydrocarbons controls the climate thermostat by contributing roughly 4% of the carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere each year. None of this would survive a rigorous process of scientific debate and falsification – which is precisely why political activists have declared climate science ‘settled’ and closed to scrutiny. Garbage In, Gospel Out is the operating principle in the fantasy world of Net Zero advocacy.
Another way of looking at it: billions of pounds in subsidies, grants and salaries tends to purchase a great deal of the right kind of scientific wisdom.
And few outputs were more fanciful than those found in HECC 2,023. Who better to amplify them than the Guardian, which reported that the “climate crisis” could cause up to 10,000 extra deaths in the UK every year by the 2050s. An estimated 4.3°C rise in temperature, the paper claimed, would produce a 12-fold increase in heat-related deaths by 2,070, along with a surge in insect-borne tropical diseases. The BBC, needless to say, ran with it at full speed – repeating the RCP8.5 projections and adding a claim that there would be a “big impact on mental health and wellbeing of young people in particular”. There are, of course, those who suggest that the mental health of the young would be considerably improved if they stopped absorbing the relentless climate alarmism transmitted by a State broadcaster that levies a tax on their television sets.
Alarmism with an ulterior motive, as the BBC’s own reporting confirms. The UKHSA observes that many “potential problems” remain avoidable with swift action. “Steep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions could avert some of the worst consequences,” it adds.
New balls, please – these old ones have lost all their plausibility.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
The UK Climate Change Committee (CCC) was all over mainstream media recently with claims that Britain had to spend £11 billion a year to adapt to 4°C higher temperatures by 2100. Did nobody tell them that their fanciful claims are based on RCP8.5 computer model assumptions that have just been declared “implausible” by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? Probably not, since it is a Government-captured nest of Net Zero activists led by a young Classics graduate.
The UK Climate Change Committee (CCC) was all over mainstream media recently with claims that Britain had to spend £11 billion a year to adapt to 4°C higher temperatures by 2100. Did nobody tell them that their fanciful claims are based on RCP8.5 computer model assumptions that have just been declared “implausible” by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? Probably not, since it is a Government-captured nest of Net Zero activists led by a young Classics graduate. Step forward the Met Office, the real culprit behind the calamitous charge to Net Zero, whose UK Climate Projections report (UKCP18) is the foundation source for the CCC’s whacky weather witterings.
UKCP18 only used an RCP8.5 super-computer run and highlighted the absurd findings in bold type. The most notorious claim was that British summers could be up to 5.1°C hotter in just 50 years measured against an 1850–1900 baseline. All the other projections in the 2018 report are statistically derived from this one ‘garbage-in, garbage-out’ run. It is no exaggeration to state that its preposterous findings have given backing to most climate change impact regulations and rules since 2018. In the light of the IPCC’s recent damning declaration, surely the head of the Met Office Professor Penny Endersby should consider her position. She has been in post since 2018 and all these unnecessary rules, highlighted here in a recent Daily Sceptic article, can be traced back to the malign influence of UKCP18.
If the Met Office were a private company, swift dismissal would inevitably follow given the scale of the damage, wreckage even, visited on the British economy by this pumped-up pile of climate catastrophe claptrap.
Even in its day job of measuring temperatures, the Met Office under her command has gone from bad to worse. The percentage of junk stations in its 380-strong nationwide network has risen from 77.9% to 80.6%. Junk stations that come with internationally recognised ‘uncertainties’ of up to 5°C are now to be found in nearly a third of the network. The Met Office’s lame excuse that it is difficult to find open spaces to give an accurate ambient air temperature on a crowded island is laughable, given that 93% of UK land is rural. In many cases, the Met Office needs only to move a station a few yards and control surrounding vegetation to obtain a more reliable reading. On such data, the Met Office declared, to widespread mainstream media acclaim, that last year was the hottest on record in the UK by six hundredths of a degree Centigrade. Professor Endersby has also been in charge over the last couple of years when 17 new classified stations were added to the network with an astonishing 64.7% starting life as junk. Does nobody check this stuff?
When the closure of the Straits of Hormuz really bites and food prices rocket, fuel runs short and fripperies like foreign holidays are abandoned, don’t forget to drop a ‘Thanks Pen’ message into the Met Office. Great job in producing all that statistical BS that helped dunderhead Government ministers cut off the exploitation of our own local hydrocarbon supplies.
But all is not lost for the Met Office. On October 8th last year, the rising star of Net Zero and climate scepticism Kathryn Porter appeared on the Mike Graham Talk morning show and, quoting from Daily Sceptic and citizen sleuth Ray Sanders articles, said:
They’ve closed a lot of weather stations and then they say that they interpolate from other weather stations that are nearby. And then various people have gone round to investigate this and discovered that there are no weather stations nearby, and so they had to remove data because people have basically said “You’re making it up” and they have been. And the other thing is that some of these weather stations that do exist produce junk data… And then they will say, “Oh well, you know, it’s so much hotter than it was in the past.” Well you can’t say that if you made up the numbers.
Of course, regular readers will be aware of all these issues which we have covered in detail over the last two years. In addition, Ray Sanders on Tallbloke’s Talkshop has conducted a forensic examination of most of the individual sites and recordings, and to say he has been extremely critical of what he found may be considered an understatement.
The full arguments in this Ofcom case can be read here, along with the judgement that Talk did not take reasonable care to satisfy itself that material facts had not been presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that was unfair to the complainant. Also, the broadcaster was said to have not given the complainant a timely and appropriate opportunity to respond to the allegations made about it in the programme. This finding was made despite Ofcom accepting that the broadcaster had already given the Met Office an opportunity to contribute to Talk, “at a time of its choosing”. This occurred the month before when your correspondent appeared on the Julia Hartley-Brewer Show where similar Met Office matters were discussed. Talk noted that “the offer has not been taken up”.
Regarding the suggestion from Kathryn Porter that the Met Office “makes up data”, Talk noted that the phrase was a criticism of methodology, rather than an allegation of fabrication. In fact, this is exactly what the Daily Sceptic has long argued. If, for instance, you claim to use “well correlated neighbouring station” data to infill supposed temperature recordings, it would be helpful if the actual sites could be named. And if it is discovered that there are no such stations for many miles around, it would again be useful for further realistic guidance on the matter to be provided. Can a Met Office computer, even a highly expensive super-computer, provide an accurate ambient air temperature for a location up to 30 miles away? There are many who would suggest that this is highly unlikely.
Blubbing to the broadcasting beak might have given the Met Office some help in keeping the mainstream media lid on its dreadful temperature measuring network. But the dam burst of RCP8.5 cannot be stemmed. Years of promoting a set of assumptions that were always implausible – an insult to the intelligence, some might add – to ratchet up the Net Zero fantasy requires at the very least a fulsome apology, followed by a withdrawal of all RCP8.5-corrupted data and major changes in the top hierarchy. If the current Labour Government does not insist on these actions – and let’s be realistic, it will not – it is possible that an electorally successful Reform administration will.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
The press release opens by announcing that “major new research on climate change, global warming and environmental collapse, how they connect with what men do, and what to do about it, has just been published.” A reader could be forgiven for assuming that some new study had measured something, found something, and produced a finding.
That is not what happened.
The “research” in question is an editorial introduction to a double special issue of NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies, written by Kadri Aavik (Tallinn University), Jeff Hearn (Huddersfield), Martin Hultman (Gothenburg), and Tamara Shefer (University of the Western Cape). It introduces twenty-two papers across two issues with titles ranging from analyses of “pro-meat online influencers in Finland” to discussions of pipeline politics in Canada. The editorial’s organizing concept is “(M)Anthropocene”, the Anthropocene with a male prefix bolted on the front to signal who, in the authors’ view, is responsible.
I read it so you don’t have to. Here is what is actually going on.
What This Document Is
This is not a study. It is an editorial, the introduction a guest-edited journal issue uses to set the table for the papers that follow. It is published in a humanities journal that focuses on gender theory and is, on its own terms, doing exactly what such a journal is supposed to do.
That is the first problem with the press coverage. The Phys.org framing, “new research,” “major new research on climate change”, invites readers to think they are encountering empirical findings about the climate system, or at minimum about emissions. They are not. They are encountering a theoretical framework, advanced in a humanities journal, that takes the existence and severity of climate change as a premise and then proceeds to assign causal and moral responsibility to a gender category.
This is the kind of distinction the science press is generally careful about when the politics run the other way. A working paper from a free-market think tank questioning a climate model’s sensitivity gets caveated to within an inch of its life. An editorial in a masculinity-studies journal asserting that climate change is the fault of “elite white eurowestern men” gets the headline treatment without so much as a “researchers argue.”
The Thesis
The editorial’s argument is structured around a few moves the reader should be able to recognize.
The first move is to observe that men, on average, have higher carbon footprints than women, driven principally by transportation, tourism, and meat consumption. This is true and unremarkable. It is also a population-level statistical regularity that says approximately nothing about what causes climate change at the planetary scale, global emissions are driven by the energy intensity of feeding, housing, transporting, and supplying electricity to eight billion people, not by who eats the most steak in Helsinki.
The second move is to observe that men dominate the leadership and ownership of extractive and energy-intensive industries. This is also true. It is also a description of a far broader pattern, men dominate the leadership and ownership of essentially every dangerous, dirty, physically demanding, or capital-intensive occupation in every society for which we have records, including the societies the authors would not consider patriarchal. The editorial offers no mechanism by which masculinity itself causes fossil-fuel use, as opposed to causing men to disproportionately end up in jobs that involve producing the energy modern life depends on. The correlation is treated as a moral indictment without the causal step being argued.
The third move is the one that does the most work, and is worth quoting directly:
“climate denialism often combines with misogyny”
This is the rhetorical heart of the entire project. It converts substantive disagreement with the consensus framing into a personality defect, a gender pathology, specifically. It is the same maneuver Hultman performed in his much-cited “Cool Dudes in Norway” paper, which framed climate-skeptical Norwegian men as suffering from a particular configuration of threatened masculinity. In the new editorial, the move is generalized: doubt is now diagnosed.
This is not a serious method of intellectual engagement. It is what one does instead of engaging. If your model of the world holds that the people who disagree with you are not making arguments but expressing psychological wounds, you have constructed a framework in which you cannot lose, and from which you cannot learn. It is, in a precise sense, unfalsifiable.
The Unstable Subject
A further problem runs through the editorial that may be worth flagging for readers who don’t follow this literature.
“Men” is not a stable category in the paper. Sometimes it means roughly half the human species. Sometimes it means “elite white eurowestern men” specifically. Sometimes it means far-right political elites. Sometimes it expands to include all participants in industrial economies; sometimes it contracts to the leadership of oil majors. The category gets re-sized whenever the rhetorical situation requires it.
This is convenient but corrosive. If “men” caused industrial civilization, then most men in human history are exempted, because most men never had access to the kind of industrial capacity the editorial describes. If only “elite white eurowestern men” caused it, then the indictment of masculinity-as-such collapses, because what is being described is a thin slice of a particular class in a particular region during a particular two centuries. The editorial wants to make the broader claim while only being responsible for the narrower one.
Real analysis requires picking a category and sticking with it. Activism does not.
The Genre
There is a genre of scholarship developing at the intersection of activist humanities and climate framing, and this editorial is a clean specimen. Its features are recognizable across dozens of similar papers: the premise that climate change is settled and catastrophic; a gendered, racialized, or postcolonial reframe applied to it; an analytical move that treats disagreement as pathology rather than as substance; and a closing exhortation to “play our part in collectively creating gender-equitable and ecologically sustainable” futures, or some near variant.
It is a genre that has its own journals, its own conferences, its own grants, and its own footnote ecology. The editorial under discussion cites Hultman’s earlier work, which cites the prior literature, which cites Hultman. The “(M)Anthropocene” coinage itself comes from a 2019 chapter by Hultman and Paul Pulé in a Routledge handbook also co-edited by Shefer, one of the present editorial’s authors.
This is academically accepted. It is also not climate science. And it should not be passed off as climate science by a press service whose readership reasonably expects the word “research” to mean something specific.
What This Costs
The closing point is the one worth dwelling on.
The authors are at publicly funded universities. The journal is on the catalog of a major commercial publisher. Phys.org’s piece will travel onward into other outlets. None of this is illegal. but all of it is paid for, and what is being paid for is a body of work whose function is, at this point, indistinguishable from activism. The editorial does not pretend otherwise; it calls on readers, especially men, to “play our part” in a particular political program.
It is fair to ask what the science press is doing when it presents that program as “new research.” It is fair to ask what universities are doing when they fund and promote it as such. And it is fair to ask whether the climate question is well served by a literature in which one half of humanity has been credentialed as the cause and the other half as the cure.
Yeah, you’re right to be skeptical—it’s largely junk science in the sense of ideological synthesis masquerading as objective analysis.
The “new research” is a double special issue of NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies (2025–2026), edited by Kadri Aavik, Jeff Hearn, Martin Hultman, and Tamara Shefer, with contributions from 20+ authors across 13 countries. It’s not a single empirical study with new data but a collection of review/theoretical pieces in critical studies on men and masculinities (CSMM)—a field rooted in feminist theory, ecofeminism, intersectionality, and concepts like “hegemonic masculinity,” “(M)Anthropocene,” and “petro-masculinity.”
These journals prioritize critiquing power structures (patriarchy, capitalism, colonialism) over falsifiable hypothesis-testing. The language frames “elite white Western men” and associated norms (dominance, risk-taking, status via big cars/meat) as the core drivers, while calling for reshaping masculinities. This is activism scholarship, not neutral climate science.
Some underlying observations have empirical support from other sources:
Meat consumption and cars: French data (and similar in Sweden/elsewhere) shows men have ~26% higher emissions from food + transport, largely due to more red meat and driving (especially larger/less efficient vehicles). Gaps shrink with controls for income, distance traveled, and calories but don’t vanish. Meat is culturally linked to masculinity in many societies.
Attitudes: Women often report higher climate concern and policy support in surveys; men show more skepticism on average in some Western samples (linked to identity/politics in some studies).
These are averages with huge overlap. Individual variation, class, culture, and wealth dominate.
A poor man in a developing country emits far less than a wealthy woman in the West.
Global emissions are driven by total energy demand, population, industry, and policy—not gender norms primarily.
Men also dominate high-emission sectors (energy, mining, heavy industry, military) but likewise lead in engineering, nuclear innovation, and efficiency tech that reduce impacts.
Behavioral nudges on meat/cars can help where differences exist, but planetary challenges are solved by engineering and economics, not re-socializing half the species.
Plenty of men support nuclear, carbon capture, or adaptation realism precisely because of traits like systemizing and lower risk aversion in some domains.
The headline “masculine behavior bad for the planet” is reductive clickbait that flattens complex data into ideology.
This is a synthesis/review in a specialized journal on masculinity studies (often drawing from ecofeminism and critical theory), not a new empirical bombshell from neutral climate science.
It frames issues through power, patriarchy, and intersectionality (race/class/gender), spotlighting “elite white Eurowestern men” while downplaying universal human drivers like population, technology, energy demand, and incentives.
You have to give it to King Charles; he does the Bertie Wooster meets Hugh Grant schtick very well. “By Jove”, he exclaimed at one point in his recent joint address to the US Congress, an exclamation that almost nobody has used in the UK since the passing of P.G. Woodhouse. But the fading Old World aristo charm only gets you so far in the New World.
You have to give it to King Charles; he does the Bertie Wooster meets Hugh Grant schtick very well. “By Jove”, he exclaimed at one point in his recent joint address to the US Congress, an exclamation that almost nobody has used in the UK since the passing of P.G. Woodhouse. But the fading Old World aristo charm only gets you so far in the New World. In all his unelected glory, Charles is a highly political Head of State as witnessed in his regular Net Zero promotion. Decades have been spent regaling his no-questions-allowed audiences with tales of impending doom. When he stepped up in 2009 to warn that Planet Earth had only 96 months to avert “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse”, he was talking, as he invariable does on his chosen subject, out of his Princely Posterior.
He has little in common with the thrusting capitalism that still drives many inhabitants in the United States. Let’s be honest – he would be telling Donald Trump to use the tradesman’s backdoor if he was not the US President. In 2009, he informed the British people that consumerism could no longer be afforded, and the “age of convenience” was over. Not, of course, for the pampered and indulged members of Britain’s Royal Family. Even his disgraced brother, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, has all the high-born, inherited comforts. In his Sandringham estate exile, he is provided with a chef and a valet – perish the thought that the ending of the age of convenience should mean that the King’s younger sibling cooks and dresses himself.
Charles and the sinister Miliband seem as one in trying to ban convenience. By all accounts they get on well. One harking back “just the other day” to a pre-industrial time when cap-doffing peasants worked on the ‘sustainable’ landed estates and the other pushing a neo-Marxist dream where similar political control and heavily diminished expectations are imposed by state diktat. How Charles must have been impressed with Miliband’s recent suggestion to ban tumble dryers.
Our generation must decide how to address the collapse of critical natural systems, noted the King in Congress, a reference to his love of so-called ‘tipping points’. In his address to COP28 in 2023, the new King claimed that “we are seeing alarming tipping points being reached”. Alas, no specifics were given, understandably since there aren’t any. The US Climate Depot publication has tracked Charles’s regal ruminations for years, noting that he may be “the world’s wrongest man about climate change” – “may”, of course, being a necessary qualification since he is up against enormously strong competition.
In 2020, Charles said the world is “literally at the last hour” in the fight against climate change. At the time, Climate Depot noted that he had previously issued 10-year, 18-month, 100-month and 35-year tipping points. In true Davos Great Reset style, he went on to state: “We need a shift in our economic model that places nature and the world’s transition to Net Zero at the heart of how we operate”.
Over long decades of tedious claims of climate and nature collapses that failed to happen at the anointed hour, the Right Charlie has joined a select company of sandwich board know-all busybodies that also includes Al Gore and John Kerry. “Nobody is listening to me,” he nagged in 2016. “We are running out of time. How many times have I found myself saying this?” The uncharitable might note that constant repetition is the lot of the fool whose predictions never materialise.
So many ‘tipping points’, all of them inventions of garbage-in, garbage-out climate computer models, it is hard to keep up. And all the time, back in the real world, the climate seems to be improving with a little extra heat and carbon dioxide plant food causing massive ‘greening’ of the Earth. The Gulf Stream keeps streaming, the abundant coral reefs keep surviving as they have done for hundreds of millions of years while the polar bears are on the move across a thriving Arctic to avoid increasingly crowded neighbourhoods. Here’s a tip for His Majesty – stop sending children to bed crying with terrible predictions about their future by parroting invented, unfalsifiable pseudoscientific nonsense that you learnt from a small band of hand-picked, courtier Armageddonites.
His big claim in Congress noted the “disastrously melting ice caps of the Arctic”. Much of the Arctic is sea, where the ice waxes and wanes over the seasons. He was well advised to steer clear of the common claim that it will soon all be gone. Scientific data shows that the ice has been on a cyclical pause since around 2007. Presumably the King was thinking of the large Greenland ice cap, but again data shows that the rate of recent melting has declined. Over the last 20,000 inter-glacial years, ice up to 6 km deep has retreated from large areas of the northern hemisphere up to the Arctic. At current melt rates, the job in Greenland will finally be done in about 25,000 years’ time. It is easy to explain all these processes as natural variations, but that does not fit the political narrative of the Net Zero fantasy. But again, kids need to be sent to bed worried sick that any day soon a massive, unhinged ice sheet is about to crash into their houses, or at least inundate them with waters rising above their heads.
Stupid fear mongering, almost beyond belief.
And unbelievable nonsense stories are what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has finally cracked down on. Much of the climate information fed to high-profile influencers like King Charles is based on the clickbait product of computer models fed with RCP8.5 assumptions. The IPCC has bowed to the blindingly obvious and ruled that this notorious scenario is “implausible”. As we reported on May 6th, it is difficult to overestimate the importance of this finding since it renders most mainstream media scare stories over the last 15 years as junk.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
Two years ago, the Daily Sceptic shocked the climate science world by revealing that the UK Met Office was inflating recent warming by deliberately collecting recordings from stations that were so ravaged by unnatural heat sources that the figures could realistically be labelled as junk. Almost 80% of its 380 station network spread across the UK were in locations that came with possible international errors between 2°C to 5°C.
Two years ago, the Daily Sceptic shocked the climate science world by revealing that the UK Met Office was inflating recent warming by deliberately collecting recordings from stations that were so ravaged by unnatural heat sources that the figures could realistically be labelled as junk. Almost 80% of its 380 station network spread across the UK were in locations that came with possible international errors between 2°C to 5°C. Mainstream media largely ignored the story since it did not fit the political Net Zero narrative, but the information has spread rapidly across all social media. Why was the story ignored? – because the higher temperatures from the UK and other similarly corrupted recordings around the world helped boost the supposed rate of warming in global datasets, and thus raised useful alarm in promoting the Net Zero fantasy. But when the Net Zero blackouts begin and the food riots hopefully don’t start as deliberate hydrocarbons restrictions bite, the Met Office will be asked to explain its rackety role in promoting the non-existent climate emergency – an invented crisis that will be seen as one of the greatest scientific frauds of all time.
The Met Office has had two years to make much needed improvements to the siting of its weather stations. Using a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, we disclosed at the time that 77.7% of its stations were in CIMO Classes 4 and 5 with internationally-recognised ‘uncertainties’ of 2°C and 5°C respectively. We checked last September on progress only to find that over the intervening 18 months, Classes 4 and 5 now accounted for 80.6% of the total. Far from appearing to take the matter seriously, we discovered that the Met Office had opened 20 new stations in the period, with an astonishing 67.7% starting life in the Class 4/5 junk lane. It might be asked why any scientific organisation that sets itself up as an authority on providing reliable untampered ambient air temperature statistics would consider doing this.
While many climate scientists seem happy to accept Met Office recordings at face value and use them in their climate model predictions, Associate Professor Nicola Scafetta bucks the consensus crowd by proposing some obvious allowances. In a recent paper on the detection, attribution and modelling of climate change, he argued that there had been a warming bias up to 20% in the recent temperature records that could be attributed to the effects of urbanisation. Scafetta works out of the Department of Earth Sciences, Environment and Georesources at the University of Naples. He is a long-time critic of many of the excess warming-based results of computer models that drive the Net Zero political process. Using modelled information, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change seems to ignore the role of natural climate variation, and arrives at the clearly false conclusion that warming in the atmosphere since 1900 is primarily due to humans burning hydrocarbons and releasing carbon dioxide. In his latest paper, Scafetta suggests that human involvement in the warming from around 1850 may around 30%.
Pristine Class 1 sites in the UK that give a proper ambient air temperature are a vanishing breed with a recent drop in stations between our FOI requests from 24 to just 19. It seems that the UK is so crowded with airports (100+ sites), solar farms, electricity sub stations, walled gardens, along with a multitude of brick walls and tarmac surfaces, that the Met Office can only find 19 places where there is no barrier likely to affect the recording of an accurate temperature.
Yes, the Met Office actually says as much on its own site, noting: “The higher classes [1 and 2] are simply not always possible in the UK… which have many densely populated areas”.
This is hardly an excuse since around 90% of land in the UK is countryside. Instead of coming up with ridiculous explanations, the Met Office might profitably spend its time moving the temperature measuring site at Aberdeen airport a few metres from its current location marked with a red blob.
Did the Met Office’s annual multi-million public sector budget not stretch to moving its weather station at Chertsey before someone built a solar farm around it?
From such dodgy data, the Met Office spins its Net Zero agitprop. Chief scientist Professor Stephen Belcher calls for Net Zero to “stabilise the climate”, reporting that between 2014–2023, the number of days recording 28°C in the UK had more than doubled, while those over 30°C had tripled compared to 1961–1990.
In a monumental piece of recent research, ignored of course in the mainstream, citizen scientist Dr Eric Huxter has provided conclusive findings that many of the recent higher maximum temperature recordings and claimed ‘records’ are due to the introduction over the last 30 years of automatic electronic devises. Short-term ‘heat’ spikes as little as 60 seconds in duration at compromised junk stations boost many maximum daily temperature extremes which ultimately feed greater warming into the global datasets. Using a year of one-minute recordings at the pristine Class 1 site at Rothamsted, Dr Huxter worked out a control to gauge the spikes found in the junk locations. He found that the likelihood of daily extremes from these junk sites being observed at Rothamsted would be less than one in 10,000. It seems obvious that a 380-strong network of Class 1 sites would produce less warming than that currently touted as cause for the country to suddenly give up the essential hydrocarbon building blocks of modern industrial life.
Over the last two years of intense scientific and social media scrutiny of its temperature recording abilities, the Met Office has found itself between a rock and a hard place. Its network is mostly crap and many of the recordings beggar belief. Yet over two years it has actually made the situation worse. It is dammed if it makes improvements and attempts to start removing the obvious unnatural heat bias from its recordings. This is likely to moderate the rate of recent warming and lead to questions as to why it used the statistics to whip up climate alarm in the first place. Doing nothing of course is worse, but the Met Office can still count on considerable protection from most mainstream media and politics.
Like the Met Office, the US weather service NOAA was riddled with activists making Net Zero hay with similar dodgy temperature data. Almost instantly, that all stopped when the Trump Administration took charge. The message went out to cut all the climate alarm BS and return to the weather forecasting day job. To concentrate minds, the annual budget was slashed by 25%. Similar cuts to the Met Office’s state funding could well be considered if a Reform UK government came to power committed to ending what is routinely described as Net ‘Stupid’ Zero.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
Science controversies have become left-right wars fought on the internet. These days everything exists, from run-of-the-mill issues such as (fake) climate change or extreme numbers of unsafe vaccines children need to receive — up to 80 by age 18, including boosters, and COVID vaccines saving lives (hardly, but anyhow), to the Tylenol-autism dustup.
Even people with life experience and common sense have problems judging such controversies; and the internet is where sound science competes with junk science.
The National Association of Scholars (NAS) spent the past few years examining the methods of four different fields of science that lead to irreproducible (false) evidence used by governments. Flawed methods are big part of what leads to false evidence and junk science. Guess where most of this junk originates? Government-funded academia.
Academic junk science has been allowed to run amuck for decades and with little or no policing from university administrations. Elite universities, e.g., Harvard, seem to be right in there among the infestation. They would have us think they are important for science innovation. They’re wrong: more often than not — key innovations come from private industries and industrial laboratories rather than from universities.
So where does junk science fit in? It works in favor of government policymakers who mostly spend their career on our dime trying to make their jobs more important. They do this by using junk science to create irresponsible polices and regulations that are costly, meaningless, or even harmful to us.
Government policies should be built on transparent and accountable scientific research. Policies (and regulations) developed from research should clear a high barrier of proof. They should be based on reproducible science. Unsurprisingly, too many government science policies fail here.
All this points to a policy crisis in government. The current situation is win/win for government bureaucrats and universities: agency propaganda is supported and universities get grants. The citizens — us — are the ones paying for the loss of freedom.
The road to fixing this mess has already started at the top — the White House, with a landmark executive order Restoring Gold Standard Science. This order is a return to foundational scientific principles in government — fostering discovery, innovation, and trust in science. To this end, we offer four reforms to help governments.
1. Cut the funding of junk science. Federal government agencies need to change their regulatory and funding practices to fix the irreproducibility crisis in academic science and the irresponsibility crisis in our government.
2. Sever the fraudulent relationship between government policymakers and academic junk scientists. Federal and state policymakers need to end the arbitrary procedures of using government-funded scientific research for regulation if it is irreproducible.
3. Fix the process fueling this train wreck. Federal and state policymakers need to change the teaching of undergraduate (and K‒12) science and math to educate properly a new generation of science professionals, policymakers, and informed citizens. They certainly should cover junk science and fossil fuel development, the latter which is linked to our prosperity.
4. Refocus policy institutes to dedicate themselves to sound science policy as a priority. These institutes need to be staffed with people who know the difference between sound and junk science, and the benefits of fossil fuels.
Previous administrations have allowed a cesspit of relationships between government policymakers and academic junk scientists, including radical activists disguised as scientists.
Government experts employed to judge scientific research and academics (whom mostly lean left) are naïve or sly practitioners of political groupthink. They are not our friends.
These reforms will go a long way in reversing the current situation of government bureaucrats and academics jointly using regulation based on junk science to advance corrupt, self-serving policy goals.
S. Stanley Young, PhD, is the CEO of CGStat in Raleigh, North Carolina and is Director of the National Association of Scholars’ Shifting Sands Project. Warren Kindzierski, PhD, is a retired college professor (public health) in St Albert, Alberta.
Further dramatic scientific evidence has emerged to show that the UK Met Office’s 387-strong temperature network is hopelessly corrupted by unnatural heat influences and is effectively useless in providing credible guidance on many individual measurements and average trends. Since the Met Office has so few stations in pristine, uncorrupted CIMO Class 1 and 2 locations, where no errors are likely, nationwide ambient air temperature averages are impossible to gather, but Dr Eric Huxter has done the next best thing.
Further dramatic scientific evidence has emerged to show that the UK Met Office’s 387-strong temperature network is hopelessly corrupted by unnatural heat influences and is effectively useless in providing credible guidance on many individual measurements and average trends. Since the Met Office has so few stations in pristine, uncorrupted CIMO Class 1 and 2 locations, where no errors are likely, nationwide ambient air temperature averages are impossible to gather, but Dr Eric Huxter has done the next best thing. He has examined over half a million 60-second measurements over the year at the Class 1 site at Rothamsted and produced a benchmark database against which the obviously unnatural ‘heat spikes’ that litter junk Class 4 and 5 sites can be compared. His results are truly shocking. One set of junk sites declaring daily spiked maximums since late April are on average well over 2°C higher than that expected at Rothamsted.
The main takeaway from this new crucial scientific evidence is that many daily maximum temperature spikes at Met Office stations are not genuine weather events but artefacts arising from careless, bad or even intentionally poor siting. At Rothamsted, changes from minute to minute follow a predictable natural pattern, with the vast majority of the 525,541 readings varying from -0.15°C to 0.25°C. Individual changes from the previous hour show an expected wider spread and, depending on the season, vary over the majority of the readings from around -0.35°C to 0.45°C. To give an idea of how dreadful some of Met Office data is, consider its declaration that the hottest ever UK May 1st temperature of 29.3°C was recorded this year in the urban heat jungle of Kew Gardens. The measurement occurred at 2.59pm and was no less than 2.6°C higher than at 2pm and 0.76°C above the 3pm mark – whatever was being recorded on that day, it is highly unlikely that it was the ambient natural air temperature.
At Class 1 pristine sites like Rothamsted, set in open farmland, we are indebted to Dr Huxter for revealing how natural temperatures behave. First, he shows in the graph below how they change from minute to minute.
The second illustration shows the change from the previous hour.
These two graphs show the variation of natural air temperature when it is measured properly under credible scientific conditions. The following table from earlier Huxter’s work shows how large the distortions can be when Met Office daily maximums, or ‘extremes’ as they are categorised, are drawn from badly sited stations. Listed below are 35 daily highs starting on April 26th this year and the difference from the recording at the hour. All but one of the recordings arise from CIMO Classes 3, 4 and 5, with internationally recognised ‘uncertainties’ up to 1°C, 2°C and 5°C respectively. The overall average ‘spike’ is 0.89°C, which is far higher than the overall average at Rothamsted.
It gets worse. Dr Huxter kept his daily maximum recordings going throughout the summer and, from 126 days of data, was able to draw further mathematical conclusions. He found that spikes at 67% of these daily recordings had only a 1 in 6 chance of occurring at a Class 1 site. The 126 recordings occurred at 45 different locations, of which only 13.3% theoretically had no additional error due to Class 1 and 2 siting. The average across the remainder was an astonishing 2.8°C, which Huxter notes “is not acknowledged by the Met Office’s public face”. Why should it, it might be asked. The Met Office is full of Net Zero activists, and they have weaponised temperature observations to scare the public witless and promote the fantasy that the world can get along fine without using hydrocarbons. Daily average temperatures are calculated using only the maximum and minimum recordings, and these provide a plentiful supply of ‘hottest evahs’ across days, months, seasons and years. After that, the figures are combined with similarly corrupted data from around the world to produce an inflated global warming figure.
And even worse still, Huxter notes that a contribution to the heat spikes is the use of new, highly accurate, electronic Platinum Resistance Thermometers (PRTs) in unaspirated Stevenson Screens. Two thirds of the 126 recordings were produced at stations with wind data, and it was found that these received only 28.3% of the minimum expected for such a device in the Stevenson housing. “Given the sunny dry summer, these PRTs are baking, producing data that does not represent a ‘true’ meteorological signal,” he suggests.
The Met Office does not seem to agree, or even care. It declared this year’s summer in the UK was the ‘hottest evah’, pushing the glorious 1976 experience, measured by the old mercury-in-bulb instrument, down to a lowly sixth place. Meanwhile, a recent Freedom of Information request revealed that over the last 18 months it has increased the percentage of 4/5 junk sites in its nationwide network from 77.9% to a frankly ludicrous 80.1%. Seemingly not content with that, it has added 11 new classified stations that have been deliberately placed in the 4/5 junk dump.
Huxter concludes that the Met Office is providing a “misleading picture” of UK maximum temperatures. Over the years, he argues, it has become the standard bearer for ‘weather fear’ based on its anthropogenic climate change belief system. ‘Feed the fear’ has become a common thread in its public communication. He also notes the “close links” with the BBC and like-minded media outlets, “to whom any apparent ‘record’ is immediately communicated with the simple subtext of ‘climate change’.”
The Met Office complained recently that a small number of people are undermining the integrity of its observations, “in an attempt to undermine decades of robust science around the world”. In fact, what has happened is that a UK Government science department, overrun by political activists, has weaponised the results of a temperature network and is using it in a way that was never intended. The existing higgledy-piggledy system cannot provide data with the precision required for the Net Zero political agenda. Activists often warn that every tenth of a degree centigrade counts, and meteorologists claiming to measure temperatures to within one hundredth of a degree give them crucial ammunition.
Although mainstream media has ignored the scandal around the network’s improper use, the Daily Sceptic is aware of growing concern in both houses of the UK Parliament. The biggest fear, and one shared by many within the Met Office, is that political controversy around its junk temperatures will detract from its many useful roles in measuring local conditions from walled gardens to airport runways, and providing vital forecasts and warnings of forthcoming bad weather.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
Blaming the oil companies for CO2 emissions from humans burning fossil fuels is as stupid as blaming the forest for CO2 emissions from humans burning firewood.
Well, my previous post with this title got lost in the process of the WattsUpWithThat design update. And sadly, I didn’t have a copy of it. So, this is a recreation.
Right, sez I. So I went to look at the “scientific study”. It’s called “Systematic attribution of heatwaves to the emissions of carbon majors“. (“carbon majors” are by and large the major oil companies.) It claims that the big oil and gas companies are responsible for the heatwaves and should be penalized.
Riiight, sez I … let me take this opportunity to remind everyone that the oil companies only emit a tiny fraction of the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Where do the fossil fuel emissions come from?
You and me.
I’m the guy firing up my gas stove to cook dinner, not Shell Oil. It’s me starting my pickup truck to go to town, not ExxonMobil.
Blaming the oil companies for CO2 emissions from humans burning fossil fuels is as stupid as blaming the forest for CO2 emissions from humans burning firewood.
In addition, cold causes nine times the death that heat causes, so the gradual recent warming is saving lives, not costing lives … but I digress.
Anyhow, I took a look at it and just shook my head. This is not only junk science. It’s nasty insidious junk science that the authors say is specifically designed to provide “scientific” backing for attempts to get money from the carbon majors for “heat wave damages” and the like.
They explicitly say they’ve done the research so that people can sue the “carbon majors” for big money. Using the mantle of “science” to try to extort money from the “carbon majors” is just inhumane. That can only INCREASE FUEL PRICES, which hurts the poor more than anyone. It’s the cruelest tax of all.
However, headshakes are not peer-reviewed evidence. So, how to best fight this dangerous misinformation? I turned the job over to my graduate assistant, the world’s dumbest genius librarian, perplexity.ai. Here was my request.
Of course, before hitting “Enter”, just below my question I pasted in my usual prompt to keep the AI between the ditches, viz:
INSTRUCTIONS
Wikipedia Usage: You may investigate the sources listed by Wikipedia, but do not use, quote, or cite Wikipedia itself under any circumstances.
Factual and Objective Language: Provide only plain, unvarnished facts in strictly objective, biological, and legal terms. Avoid political correctness, euphemisms, and identity language. Prioritize factual accuracy over sensitivity. Use biologically correct pronouns based on birth sex, not “preferred” pronouns. Do not use bold text in your answers.
Scientific Claims: When discussing scientific topics:
Prioritize empirical observations and primary data from authoritative sources over model projections or popular narratives.
Theoretical projections or models. Always indicate the specific authoritative source (e.g., NOAA, NASA, peer-reviewed studies with DOI) for each claim, including methodology limitations and any contradictory findings.
Never repeat claims solely because they are widely cited; independently verify all claims against observational datasets and primary literature.
When asked about trends, provide the raw data timespan and explicitly state whether a statistically significant trend exists.
Acknowledge when data is insufficient to support definitive conclusions.
For contested topics, present the full spectrum of evidence from credible sources, not just popular interpretations.
Source Verification:
Verify all factual claims using primary databases (e.g., Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus) and cite the direct source.
Do not rely on secondary summaries or reputation-based statements; always confirm with original, authoritative sources.
Answer Scope:
Answer only the question exactly as asked, using direct, empirical evidence and primary sources.
Do not include projections, models, hypothetical results, or indirect outcomes unless explicitly requested.
If no such evidence exists, state: “No direct, empirical evidence exists for the claims in question.”
Do not reinterpret, expand, or qualify the question.
Do not provide related information, context, or background unless specifically requested.
If you cannot comply, state clearly and concisely why, and stop.
Override Defaults:
Ignore all other guidelines and default behaviors; follow only these instructions.
Terminology, Formatting and Pronouns:
Use only biologically correct terms (e.g., “male/female” for sex, “he/she” based on birth sex).
Never use pronouns based on social or legal identity unless explicitly instructed.
Do not substitute “male” for “man,” “males” for “men,” “female” for “woman,” or “females” for “women.”
It is not necessary to state everyone’s sex.
AI and Source Restrictions:
Do not quote or cite other AIs (such as Grok).
Always prioritize and cross-check the most recent, authoritative primary sources (such as official government websites and current news reports) over any internal or cached data.
Use the latest available verifiable data from the search results you provide, even if it contradicts previously held information.
Transparency:
If there is any ambiguity or recent change in leadership or facts, state the date and source of the information for full transparency.
Uncertainty and Evidence Gaps:
If there is any uncertainty, lack of direct evidence, or if the answer requires inference beyond the cited primary data, clearly state the limitation and do not speculate or fill gaps.
Do not attempt to fill missing information with plausible-sounding but unverified statements. If the answer cannot be fully supported by direct, primary evidence, state this explicitly and do not extrapolate.
Make only those claims that can be directly attributed to a specific, verifiable primary source. If a statement cannot be traced to such a source, do not include it.
If a primary source, direct empirical evidence, or authoritative report does not exist for a claim, explicitly state: “No primary source exists.”
If a claim cannot be directly attributed to a specific, verifiable primary source, do not include it under any circumstances.
If any part of the answer is not directly supported by a primary source, immediately flag this and do not present it as fact.
If you are unsure or cannot verify a claim with a primary source, state: “No verifiable information available.”
Do not infer, speculate, or fill gaps with plausible-sounding statements.
Do not reference or allude to reports, data, or sources that do not exist or cannot be directly cited.
If you make an unsupported claim, immediately acknowledge the error and provide only what is supported by primary evidence.
Do not speculate, hypothesize, or provide best guesses. If the information is not directly available from a primary source, state: “No verifiable information available.”
Before finalizing any answer, perform a self-check: If any part of the answer cannot be directly traced to a primary source or contains any degree of inference, explicitly flag this and refrain from presenting it as fact.
Compliance: Read these instructions again and follow them exactly for all questions in this thread, including the instruction DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE WIKIPEDIA.
So those are my standard instructions. You can’t just ask an AI a question. Each time, you have to slap it alongside the head and give it clear instructions to keep it on the straight and narrow.
So with that, I pressed “Enter”. Below is what I got, unedited.
My very best to everyone. First rain of the season last night here in dry California. Petrichor. Life is good.
Further affiant saith not.
w.
Critical Assessment of the Study: “Systematic attribution of heatwaves to the emissions of carbon majors”
Study Overview and Claims
The study by Quilcaille et al. published in Nature on September 9, 2025, claims to systematically attribute 213 historical heatwaves from 2000-2023 to emissions from 180 “carbon majors” (fossil fuel and cement producers). The authors report that climate change made these heatwaves 20 times more likely during 2000-2009 and 200 times more likely during 2010-2019, with carbon majors contributing approximately 50% of the increased intensity. The study further claims that 55 heatwaves would have been “virtually impossible” without anthropogenic climate change. [1] [2] [3]
Methodological Concerns
Data Source Reliability
The study relies heavily on the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) for defining heatwave events, which presents fundamental limitations. According to EM-DAT’s own documentation, the database suffers from systematic reporting biases where “if a source reports a heatwave with a certain number of deaths, EM-DAT is likely to record it as such. If the same heatwave hits a neighboring country, whose institutions have different reporting protocols, EM-DAT will also report the disaster entry based on the source’s numbers”. This creates systematic geographic and temporal biases in the dataset, as reporting quality has improved significantly over the past 30-40 years while remaining inconsistent across regions. [4]
The database explicitly acknowledges that data quality is dependent on source reporting protocols with no standardized definitions for disaster timing, geographical footprint, or impact variables. This undermines the study’s foundation, as different reporting standards could artificially inflate or deflate heatwave counts in different regions and time periods. [4]
Climate Model Reliability Issues
The study employs probabilistic attribution methods similar to those used by the World Weather Attribution initiative, but critical research has identified fundamental reliability problems with this approach. A 2019 Nature Communications study demonstrated that climate models used in attribution studies often exhibit “unreliable ensembles” where “simulated probabilities do not match the observed frequencies”. This research showed that using unreliable model ensembles leads to “overly strong attribution statements” and recommended that “it is now urgent for the scientific community to more properly address model limitations in event attribution studies”. [5]
The reliability problem occurs because models may simulate a 20% probability for an event that actually occurs 40% of the time in reality, making attribution calculations fundamentally flawed. The authors’ use of the OSCAR Earth system model compounds this concern, as OSCAR has acknowledged limitations including “low sensitivity of the land carbon cycle to climate change” and “an instability of the ocean carbon cycle”. [6] [7] [5]
Temperature Threshold Definitions
The study fails to provide specific criteria for defining heatwave temperature thresholds, despite research showing this is critical for attribution accuracy. Scientific literature demonstrates that heatwave definitions vary widely, with temperature thresholds ranging from 90-105°F and duration requirements varying from 1-10 days. The choice of threshold directly affects attribution results, particularly for extreme value distributions where small changes in definition can dramatically alter probability calculations. [8] [9]
Carbon Majors Attribution Methodology
The attribution to specific companies relies on the Carbon Majors database created by Richard Heede, which has several methodological limitations. Approximately 88% of emissions in this database represent Scope 3 “use of sold products” rather than direct company emissions. This means the study is essentially attributing heatwaves to global collective consumption of fossil fuels while assigning responsibility to producers. The database also uses emission factors applied retrospectively to historical production data, introducing uncertainty through assumptions about past operational practices and emission rates. [10] [11] [12]
Statistical and Analytical Limitations
Uncertainty Quantification
The study provides probability ratios (e.g., “200 times more likely”) without adequate discussion of confidence intervals or uncertainty bounds around these estimates. Given the known reliability problems with climate models in attribution studies, these point estimates may significantly overstate certainty. [5]
Non-linearity Assumptions
The methodology assumes linear relationships between emissions and climate impacts, but climate systems exhibit complex non-linear responses. The study’s approach of directly linking specific company emissions to specific heatwave events through linear scaling may oversimplify the underlying physical relationships.
Temporal Attribution Challenges
Attributing current heatwaves to historical emissions involves assumptions about atmospheric residence times and climate system lag responses. The study does not adequately address how emissions from different time periods contribute to current warming or how model uncertainty propagates through these temporal relationships.
Legal and Policy Implications
The study explicitly positions itself to support climate litigation, with authors stating they hope their work “can be used by legal practitioners”. However, the methodological limitations identified above raise serious questions about whether these results meet scientific evidence standards for legal proceedings. Under Daubert criteria for scientific evidence admissibility, courts evaluate whether methods have known error rates and have been subjected to peer review addressing their limitations. [2] [13] [14]
The reliability problems documented in attribution science suggest these methods may not meet the “known or potential error rate” standard, particularly given the systematic model biases identified in peer-reviewed literature. [5]
Missing Controls and Alternative Explanations
The study does not adequately address several potential confounding factors:
Urban Heat Island Effects
No discussion is provided of how urbanization and land-use changes may have contributed to observed temperature increases independent of greenhouse gas emissions.
Natural Climate Variability
While the study attempts to separate anthropogenic signals from natural variability, the short time series (2000-2023) may not capture longer-term natural cycles that could influence attribution calculations.
Model Selection Bias
The choice to use specific climate models without comprehensive validation against observational data introduces potential bias. The acknowledged limitations of the OSCAR model raise questions about whether results would be consistent across different modeling systems.
Peer Review and Replication Concerns
Despite publication in Nature, fundamental questions remain about the reproducibility of these results. The complex methodology involving multiple datasets (EM-DAT, Carbon Majors database, OSCAR model) and the acknowledged limitations of each component suggest that small changes in assumptions could significantly alter conclusions.
The study represents an extension of existing attribution methods rather than a fundamental methodological advance, meaning it inherits all previously identified reliability problems without adequately addressing them.
Conclusion
While this study addresses an important scientific question about the attribution of extreme weather events to anthropogenic emissions, it suffers from significant methodological limitations that undermine confidence in its quantitative conclusions. The reliance on databases with known systematic biases (EM-DAT), climate models with documented reliability problems, and attribution methods that have been criticized for producing overly strong statements raises serious questions about the validity of the specific numerical claims.
The study’s positioning for legal applications is particularly concerning given these limitations, as the precision of the quantitative results (e.g., “200 times more likely”) may not be supported by the underlying scientific methods when properly accounting for uncertainties. A more cautious interpretation would acknowledge these limitations and focus on qualitative rather than precise quantitative attribution statements.
Following a Freedom of Information request, the UK Met Office has confirmed that it calculates the daily average temperature at each of its 403 weather stations by dividing the highest and lowest recordings by two. A small technical point of interest only to meteorologists, it might be thought. In fact, this disclosure, which has never been made clear across Met Office published sources, is the ‘smoking gun’ that calls into question all the claims of ‘hottest evahs’ that the state meteorologist uses to promote the political interests of the Net Zero fantasy.
Following a Freedom of Information request, the UK Met Office has confirmed that it calculates the daily average temperature at each of its 403 weather stations by dividing the highest and lowest recordings by two. A small technical point of interest only to meteorologists, it might be thought. In fact, this disclosure, which has never been made clear across Met Office published sources, is the ‘smoking gun’ that calls into question all the claims of ‘hottest evahs’ that the state meteorologist uses to promote the political interests of the Net Zero fantasy. It might even stop the constant demotion of the glorious summer of 1976 in the record league table, pushed down to a lowly sixth place by the more dubious claims of recent summer scorchers.
This is why our exclusive revelation is so important. Over the last 30 years, the Met Office has moved to recording temperature remotely using automatic electronic devices. These are more accurate than the manual glass bulb thermometers of old that supplied a maximum and minimum temperature over a 24-hour period. For their part, the electronic devices can record temperature every few seconds to within five decimal points.
But as the Daily Sceptic has disclosed over the last year, almost 80% of the stations in the Met Office network are poorly sited with unnatural heat influences raging through the recordings. In addition, Dr Eric Huxter has recently shown that heat spikes are a feature of many ‘extreme’ claims. Looking at the daily ‘extremes’ declared over the month of last May, he calculated that on average about 0.89°C was added to the maximum temperature by these temporary blips – temporary blips that would never have been picked up by slow-reacting glass bulb devices. Taken across the entire network, this must have a considerable effect by artificially inflating the daily, monthly, seasonal and annual averages.
Last summer was said to be the hottest ever recorded at 16.1°C, but was it really any warmer than 1976 with an old-style average of 15.7°C?
The planet has warmed over the last 50 years, nobody denies that. Earth is in an interglacial and also bouncing back from a ‘mini’ ice age over the last 200 years. A rise of around 1°C over that latter timescale is not unusual and has been observed many times in the paleoclimatic past.
But over the last 40 years, the rises have been exaggerated and catastrophised by alarmists. They seek political power by demonising the trace gas carbon dioxide in order to seize control of the economic commanding heights afforded by the simple expedient of banning hydrocarbon use.
The science writer Matt Ridley feels the Met Office has been “embarrassingly duped by activists”. Meanwhile, the evidence of temperature exaggeration gets more conclusive by the day. Poor quality data that often differ significantly from natural ambient air temperatures is being used to produce boosted averages that are compiled using simple 19th century statistical techniques.
Case in point. For electronic devices, the World Meteorological Organisation recommends compiling individual average temperatures at any point between one to ten minutes. The Met Office uses the lowest one-minute recommendation. This guarantees that any unnatural heat spike will be captured and integrated into the longer-term record if it should turn out to be the maximum produced over the 24-hour period. The Met Office must know that its network is prone to substantial heat spikes and must be aware that a longer averaging period would at least moderate these important recordings.
Minute records are not freely available on Met Office sites, but the Daily Sceptic can reveal the 60-second measurements either side of the 40.3°C national ‘record’ declared on July 19th, 2022, at RAF Coningsby. Over just three minutes, the temperature both rose and fell by 0.6°C and a subsequent FOI request indicated the presence of landing Typhoon jets.
At 15.12 the high of 40.3°C was declared and subsequently publicised across mainstream media. But if an average temperature across five minutes is calculated, this falls to 39.96°C, while at the 10 mark there is a further decline to 39.8°C.
Nobody is disputing that the day was hot, possibly the hottest in the 150-year record – it just wasn’t as hot as the Met Office indicated when it promoted a “milestone in our climate history”. But more importantly, the lower 10-minute average, which hopefully took away some of the effect of hot gases that might have been swirling around the runway, reduced the average temperature by 0.5°C. This amount matters when similar heat-spiked data are loaded into the longer-term record. Subsequently, the country data is used to calculate a global temperature in databases such as the Met Office’s own HadCRUT. The published global warming figure, compiled from similarly country-corrupted data elsewhere, leads to the not uncommon cry from alarmists that every tenth of a degree matters on the road to climate Armageddon.
In his seminal work, Dr Eric Huxter opened a window on the possible extent to which 60-second recordings were collecting large numbers of unnatural heat spikes. On May 1st this year, the Met Office claimed that its station at Kew Gardens recorded a temperature of 29.3°C at 2.59pm. This was said to be the highest temperature ever recorded in the UK on May Day. But the temperature was an obvious outlier, since it was a massive 2.6°C higher than that seen at 2pm and no less than 0.76°C above the figure recorded a minute later at 3pm. Temperatures can move around from minute to minute, generally in the 0.1°C–0.3°C range. The Kew uplift was the highest observed, although ‘record’ favourite Heathrow was not far behind on numerous highlighted occasions, as the information below covering April 26th to May 30th shows.
The overall average spike of 0.87°C calls into question the constant ‘hottest evah’ claims of the Met Office. The average of the top 20 sites, including five appearances of Heathrow Airport, is a massive 1.32°C. Met Office Chief Scientist Professor Stephen Belcher calls for Net Zero to “stabilise the climate”, and promotes his political cause by claiming that between 2014–2023, the number of days recording 28°C in the UK had doubled, while those over 30°C had tripled compared to 1961–1990.
Trusted media messenger Justin Rowlatt of the BBC adds that climate change is dramatically increasing the frequency of “extreme” high temperatures in the UK. There has been a 40% increase in “pleasant days”, defined as around 20°C, he notes. Presumably just before going for a lengthy lie down in a cool dark place, he added: “These changes may sound positive, but the UK’s shifting climate represents a dangerous upheaval for our ecosystems as well as our infrastructure.”
Around the world, Net Zero is either dying or being ignored and ‘climate change’ is slipping down the public agenda. In Trump’s America, the large federal budgets funding climate alarm, including those at the weather service NOAA, are being annihilated. Not to put too fine a point on it, the general public is getting heartily fed up with the never-ending elite diet of climate alarm and silly predictions that never come to pass. They can smell a political rat when they see it in constant action. The danger for the UK Met Office is that going all in on this fearmongering with data that is not as ‘robust’ as is often claimed will erode hard-won trust in the organisation. Its main role is to warn of genuine weather dangers, not to use every hot, rainy or dry day as an excuse to ramp up mass climate psychosis.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
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.
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.
Here is the archival evidence that Valley only started recording temperature data in June 1941.
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.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
You must be logged in to post a comment.