By Paul Homewood
Chris Morrison has the latest on how the Met Office, in league with the green blob, are trying to shut down debate on the junk weather station scandal:
After a year of damaging revelations about the state of the Met Office’s temperature measuring network, the Green Blob-funded ‘fact-checker’ Science Feedback has sprung to the defence of the state-funded U.K. weather service. It has published a long ‘fact check’ seeking to exonerate practices that have recently come to light including the locating of stations with huge heat corrupted ‘uncertainties’ and the publication of invented data from 103 non-existent sites. Inept is a word that springs to mind. At one point, Science Feedback justifies the estimation of data at the non-existent stations by referring to the hastily changed Met Office explanation for station/location long-term averages. The original and now deleted Met Office webpage referenced station names and provided single location coordinates including one improbable siting next to the sea on Dover beach. This would appear to be a new low in the world of so-called fact-checking – designating copy as ‘misleading’ based on an explanation changed after the article was published.
Full story here.
Instead of promulgating misinformation and shutting down debate, maybe the Met Office should do what NOAA did two decades ago and set up a new, high quality weather station network.
They called theirs the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), which was introduced because of biases in the previous network, which is still operational:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/overview.html
NOAA’s Site Selection Criteria puts the Met Office’s shoddy network to shame:
It really is that simple, Met Office!
Just get on and do it.
We know they won’t of course, because they are only interested in their Net Zero propaganda.