Interest and concern continues to grow about the numerous retrospective adjustments that the U.K. Met Office has made to its global HadCRUT temperature database. Often the adjustments cool earlier periods going back to the 1930s and add warming in more recent times. The adjustments are of course most convenient in promoting the global warming narrative surrounding Net Zero fantasies. There is particular interest in the 0.15°C cooling inserted in the 1940s and the greater warming added in more recent decades. The scientific blog No Tricks Zone (NTZ) has recently returned to the story noting the state-controlled Met Office has “corrected” the data to “align with their narrative”.
In suggesting a narrative, NTZ traces the adjustments back to the 2009 leak of ‘Climategate’ emails from academic staff at the University of East Anglia working on the HadCRUT project. In one email speculating on ‘correcting’ sea surface temperatures to partly explain the 1940s ‘warming blip’, it is noted that “if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15°C, then this would be significant for the global mean”. It would be good to “remove at least part of the 1940s blip”, it is suggested. Just as they have said they would do, comments NTZ, 0.15°C of warmth has gradually been removed from the 1940s HadCRUT global temperature data over the last 15 years.
The block graph above is compiled and published on Professor Ole Humlum’s climate4you site. It shows the net changes made since February 28th 2008 in the global monthly surface air temperature prepared by the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit. The significant cooling adjustment in the 1930s and 40s is clearly shown in blue, but what really stands out is how much warming has been added in the 21st century.
In the hiatus years of 2000-2014, the third version of HadCRUT recorded just 0.03°C warming per decade. In fact at this time the Met Office published a paper looking into the causes of the ‘pause’, in which it referred to “little further warming” at the time. But the warming, or ‘heating’ as many in the mainstream media now like to call it, was increased to 0.08°C per decade in version 4. The recent HadCRUT5 provides no less than 0.14°C per decade of warming, using what NTZ describes as the “computer model-infilling method”.
As NTZ notes, within the last decade, a 15-year temperature trend has been changed from a pause to a strong warming. “After all, when the observations don’t fit the narrative, it is time to change the observations,” adds NTZ.
Nicola Scafetta is a research scientist at the University of Naples and he is a recognised authority on temperature datasets and climate models. He has compiled the above graph showing the ever increasing retrospectively-applied temperature anomalies from HadCRUT3 through to HadCRUT5.
As regular readers will recall, the Daily Sceptic recently broke the story that nearly 80% of the Met Office’s 380 U.K. temperature measuring stations had internationally recognised ‘uncertainties’ between 2-5°C. Specifically, almost one in three (29.2%) in ‘junk’ Class 5 had ‘uncertainties’ up to 5°C as defined by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). Nearly half (48.7%) were sited at ‘near junk’ Class 4 sites with ‘uncertainties’ of 2°C. Shockingly, only 52 stations, or just 13.7% of the total, came without any ‘uncertainty’ rating. Class 5 station are prone to pick up all manner of human and natural caused heat corruptions, while class 1 sites simply measure the surrounding air temperature.
These station class classifications, which the Daily Sceptic obtained under a freedom of information (FOI) request, cast substantial doubt on the accuracy of all ‘heat’ records recently claimed. The data might be useful for general local weather forecasting, showing, for instance, that it is warmer in cities than the surrounding countryside. A degree or more either way is not significant, and precision is not an absolute requirement for people deciding what clothing to wear. But the Met Office, a highly politicised state-funded operation devoted to pushing the Net Zero narrative, uses them to make observations down to one hundredth of a degree (0.01°) centigrade. Recently it made great play of its suggestion that last year was just 0.06°C cooler than 2022.
Having finished compiling U.K. temperatures that it can be argued have little overall statistical significance, the dataset is then inserted into the HadCRUT operation where a global temperature is announced. This, of course, is the go-to figure for any alarmist who claims global heating/boiling and the likelihood of climate collapse. It is the bedrock support for climate models claiming all manner of interesting stories such as the Arctic summer sea ice disappearing within a decade and severe air turbulence doubling in short order. Such is the fairy dust it bestows that some activists even claim they can link individual bad weather events to long-term changes in the climate caused by humans. This then percolates down to hysterical halfwits on mainstream media pointing outside the window to the weather and making unchallenged claims that the end is nigh.
Given the pivotal role the Met Office’s local and global figures play in the Net Zero narrative, it is a surprise that it has yet to make a statement, two months after the Daily Sceptic’s U.K. class revelations, explaining and justifying its temperature statistics. Can we deduce from this that its scientists are happy that they are using such poor data to scare populations over minuscule rises in temperature? Would it not be a wise use of public money to expand its class 1 network to provide data that are unadulterated with obvious heat corruptions?
The Met Office does not return the calls of the Daily Sceptic. Mainstream media and politicians ignore the story, hoping that it will go away. The temperature data are at the heart of their Net Zero goals. It appears there is too much to lose by asking a few obvious, and necessary, questions.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
All Religion is mind control. And socialism grew from religion. Evil. Atheism is rhe beast course.
Lucky the world has benefited from the peaceful atheism of Mao,Stalin and Hitler.
Not to mention the current example: North Korea.
Atheism never lasts: sooner or later it transforms into two possible outcomes: nihilism (a sort of self-destructive suicidal anarchy) or totalitarianism.
Of these two outcomes anarchy does not last for very long either (it can’t as it is by its very nature dysfunctional), so eventually the only possible outcome is totalitarianism. Which is just a form of bad religion, as it replaces God with the Fűhrer or the State.
So, like it or not, the outcome is always religious, the question is who or what society worships.
Anarchy simply describes a situation where there is no leader (Greek, an archos). It does not have be bad or chaotic or violent. It depends on the people, like everything.
Anarcho-Capitalism suggests an absence of STATE, but not an absence of Law and Order.
You still have a constabulary, courts and prisons, but not centralised state control. No taxation on production, only on consumption.
Anarchy does not have to mean violence and lawlessness.
Read Murray Rothbard for explanations. Also, F.A. Hayek.
The state in principle is not bad, but the reality, as we see every single day is terrible.
Agnosticism is the best course. It’s OK to say, “I haven’t got the foggiest idea, I am going to focus on doing what I believe is right in the here and now, instead.”
Atheism is just another religion, in my opinion. “There is no God” is just as dogmatic a view as the rest.
They should stick to porridge.
good one!
At least they’d get their oats that way.
Hasn’t porridge been highlighted as a “bad” food?
Thank you, Charlotte Gill, for once again exposing the activities of the Provisional Wing of the Enemy Within. Marxists masquerading in Quaker pointed-hats, getting the usual kicks out of Telling Other People What To Do.
Chocolate Money getting up to all sorts of mischief – descendents of the filthy rich assuaging wealth-guilt through God’s Work.
Meanwhile, as ever, the real guardians of modern civilisation – farmers, food-retailers, engineers, plumbers, electricians, builders, materials scientists, software experts, etc, etc, etc – go purposefully about their daily business.
Seems as of tomorrow, steel-manufacturing notionally to continue, albeit through the usual expedient of throwing other people’s money at it.
My family knew two Quakers, they were the most genuine, serious and peaceful people. Both Master Cabinet Makers, of the Arts and Crafts movement, and both Conscientious Objectors.
Yes, it seems there will always be people ready to infect good things.
From what I have read, I don’t want these people to succeed in whatever they are doing, but phrases like “undermining democracy” make me uncomfortable. They are playing the system, perhaps sometimes with help from the system itself. But it’s up to what should be the most important participants in “democracy” to wake the hell up and act accordingly. It’s good that Charlotte Gill, DS and others shine a light – shame the information is not yet spread widely and has not sunk in.
The original Quakers were largely anti-establishment. Now that they have aligned themselves with the state and its progressive left-liberal policies and its sectarian system of governance known as diversity, they effectively have no king but Caesar.
Charities (including religious orders which enjoy similar tax and reputations advantages) must be taken in hand. They must lose status when they become political campaign groups.
Hear, hear!
I tend to think that no special privileges should be given to “charities”
There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of small local charities that do excellent work and that couldn’t exist without things like tax exemptions. My dad ran one for over two decades, helping poor and working-class people in Stoke-on-Trent insulate and heat their Victorian terraced homes so they could save much-needed money. I don’t think they particularly made it into a political cause. Then there are the small local private schools that have been forced to close because of the VAT policy, leaving special-needs children without suitable education and the state school system under serious pressure.
Perhaps more rigorous vetting is required before granting an organisation charitable status, but that status shouldn’t be abolished completely.
I’m sure you are right about lots of them doing good work. My issue is that I think it’s inevitable that the vetting process will become corrupted. In any case, my thoughts and your thoughts may differ from other people’s regarding what constitutes a good cause. An alternative is to treat them all as not-for-profit concerns which also attract some tax exemptions.
As soon as they become “political” and/or “activist” they should have their charitable status revoked, so the likes of RSPB, NT and many others should be put on notice, ditch your ideology or lose your status.
Who would decide whether something was “political” or “activist”? Who would appoint the body that decides this? To whom would this body be accountable? Whose definition of “political” or “activist” would be used?
I accept this is difficult to achieve, there is a charities commission, and this needs to be populated with non-partisan members, with no political bias, no conflicts of interest, and no political alliances. Several people on here might qualify!
The National Trust exists to preserve our national heritage and protect national and historical properties and artifacts – it does not exist to flaunt its Woke credentials, virtue signal and dismantle our history and heritage by de-colonising properties and artifacts.
If these organisations stray from their purpose, or “forget” why they exist (their mission) they should be issued with an order to either get their house in order or lose their charitable status and benefits.
I think it’s impossible to achieve. I certainly do not qualify – I am very partisan. Who appoints the charities commission?
Well done to Charlotte Gill for shining a light into the strange dark world of Quakerism. Her article inspired me to find out more about what Quakers actually believe, and it turns out that they are so extremely tolerant and welcoming that there are Muslim Quakers, Jewish Quakers, Hindu Quakers, Humanist Quakers and every other possible kind, though very few these days are Christian Quakers. They don’t like music or people singing hymns or praying aloud. You’re supposed to just keep silent and meditate, unless there’s a visiting imam giving a Muslim talk. Their main belief is in SOCIAL JUSTICE.
The Quaker ideas about sin and evil have shifted “from evil within the individual, to the Revealing of Social Evils”.
“Specific evils and sins named are personal pride, the vain use of resources and economic inequality (20.29), exploitative relationships (22.38), torture and slavery (23.31/30), homelessness and unjust land owners (23.23), unemployment (23.69), war (23.92; 24.04) armaments (24.40), and nuclear weapons (24.41).”
What does ‘Quaker Faith and Practice’ say about sin and evil? – Jolly Quaker
Well that’s a relief to know that when you become a Quaker, you don’t have to worry about repenting your own sins, or not committing adultery or any other sexual sin, but just focus on “SOCIAL JUSTICE”. You also won’t have to worry about Hell, because they don’t believe in Hell or any kind of just punishment for evil, though they also don’t believe in Heaven, so I guess you’ll be stuck in the grey mist of purgatory. But you’ll be stumbling round there with the other Lost Souls, happy to know you did your bit for SOCIAL JUSTICE on earth.
I used to go to some of their meetings in York. This was thirty years ago but I have to say that there was nothing pushy or bolshy about them then quite the contrary. We used to wait in quiet contemplation until the correct spirit had entered into us before saying anything. Any talking that ensued was conducted with great humility I remember being struck by that.
Bravo Charlotte Gill, following the money. I hope mainstream journalists start to pay attention to her investigations.
It’s a shame they can’t be bothered to look into human rights abuse in the UK