The UK Met Office recently declared an average daily maximum temperature of 22.3°C for June 2025 at Lowestoft: Monkton Avenue. But there is no weather station at Lowestoft and hasn’t been since 2010. Over the last 15 years, the temperature measurements published in the Met Office’s Historic Station Database have been invented, or rather estimated according to the State meteorologist with figures from “well-correlated related neighbouring stations”. This explanation might be more plausible if the Met Office could actually name the stations, presumably a simple task with the vital scientific input data readily to hand. Alas, it seems not. A number of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for the identity of these well-correlated stations near Lowestoft and other non-existent stations have been denied by the Met Office quoting “vexatious” grounds. It has concluded that the “public interest factors in favour of not responding to the requests outweighed the public interest factors in favour of responding to the requests”.
The FOI requests have been made by citizen super sleuth Ray Sanders who is engaged on a detailed scientific study of the Met Office’s nationwide temperature measuring network and climate average databases. His requests for help in this work are simple and, in addition to seeking how data is inputted into non-existent weather stations – 103 at the last count – he asked why a national record of 40.3°C on July 19th, 2022 at RAF Waddington is to be found in the CEDA archives, but was not claimed at the time. Great play was made of the record 40.3°C declared at nearby RAF Coningsby on the same day, although later disclosures have shown it was a 60-second spike as three Typhoon jets were attempting to land. Sanders is not asking for anything complicated that might involve considerable work on the part of the Met Office. He is merely seeking information that should be easily obtained within the records of the Met Office.
The ‘vexatious/public interest’ suggestion is the latest dog ate my homework excuse offered by the Met Office to avoid identifying the so-called well-correlated neighbouring stations. Earlier this year, it told Sanders that the information was not actually held by the Met Office. It was claimed that “the specific stations used in regressive analysis each month are not an output from the process”. Needless to say, that nonsense failed to satisfy Sanders and you can read here details of his recent FOI requests and the Met Office’s lengthy reply.
The Met Office’s inability to produce this information will inevitably lead to speculation that the data is being invented, possibly with a political motive in mind to promote Net Zero. To head off such damaging conclusions being drawn, the State-funded Met Office needs to stop hiding behind “vexatious” excuses and treat these reasonable requests with the attention and respect they deserve. As Sanders notes, it is impossible to rationally justify any climate average figures without knowing what the relevant inputs were. If these well-correlated stations are unknown or no details retained, “then you have no proof whatsoever of the accuracy of the outputs” – outputs, it might additionally be noted, that should be removed when they are being used to promote the Net Zero fantasy.
It is hardly vexatious or not in the public interest to identify the stations currently supplying data for Lowestoft. In fact, Sanders went out of his way to explain that he was solely concerned with the details of which stations’ data are currently being used. “Obviously, as this is an ongoing process these stations must be known”, he writes. Similar inquiries have also been made about Scole, Manby, Fontmell Magna, Nairn Druim, Bodiam and Aberdaron weather stations. Answers to all of these came back none. In a long, detailed and legalistic explanation arguing why the Met Office should not provide the information, it was claimed that the “public interest test arguments were upheld”.
Sanders’ view is an obvious one – “It would have been much simpler and less expensive to actually answer my questions than go to all this rigmarole to not answer… In early August they will produce such figures for Lowestoft, Nairn Druim and Paisley (all long closed) but they will not be able to produce details of the stations used to compile such ‘data’ – does anyone really believe that? Why do they allow readings they know to be wrong to be archived? If the Met Office cannot (or will not) produce evidence to support their claims why should anyone believe them?”.
Interest in the temperature measuring activities of the Met Office has grown over the last year following revelations published in the Daily Sceptic that nearly 80% of its 380 sites are poorly located. As a result, they are subject to unnatural temperature corruptions that lead to classification ratings that come with possible ‘uncertainties’ between 2°C and 5°C. Not to exaggerate, many sites seem to measure everything except the natural ambient air temperature. Further work from Dr Eric Huxter has shown that many of the ‘extremes’ and ‘records’ claimed recently by the Met Office are due to suspicious heat spikes in junk sites picked up by recently introduced electronic devices. In addition to his work describing the lamentable state of many temperature sites, Ray Sanders has also discovered the massive estimations made for over 100 non-existent stations. Mainstream media has been slow to pick up on this story since it leads to the obvious opening of a Pandora’s Box and a questioning of the Met Office’s role in promoting a made-up climate crisis that requires an unnecessary Net Zero solution.
But with the fantasy nature of Net Zero coming to the fore, this is starting to change. The walls are slowly crumbling. On July 3rd, the distinguished science writer Matt Ridley noted in the Telegraph that the 34.7°C recorded two days before in London’s St James’s Park might have something to do with that weather station being a low reliability Class 5 site with an error rating up to 5°C. “So yes, the heat is indeed partly man-made – but not necessarily in the way the Met Office means,” he observed.
Ridley goes on to note that the Met Office seems increasingly bored by its day job of forecasting the weather, “so it likes to lecture us about climate change”. In his view it has been “embarrassingly duped by activists”. He gives the example of its continued use of the de-bunked RCP8.5 ‘business-as-usual’ scenario to make future apocalyptic predictions that summers in less than 50 years could be up to 6°C warmer and 60% drier. In his view, the Met Office is “deliberately seeking extreme predictions to scare people and so get media attention”.
Recent revelations might suggest that it is none too fussy in how it goes about achieving these desperate ends.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X
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.
Would it work if an MP asked a written question in the HoC. I can think of four or five MPs who might help.
One of the benefits – ignoring the expenses and fat pension – of being an MP is the right to be able to submit written questions to government departments and to continue to pursue them if the answers start out as bullshit. There is a party that should be doing this although I think you can rule out the Dear Leader – a man not noted as doing detail – and two others as being capable of doing this. One who is perfect for this has been expelled. One is now under investigation for fraud leaving us with Sarah Pochin. Oh, well.
It does give credence to the lightweight nature of Reform as a determined interrogation of the Met Office could really damage the climate change myth and the need for Net Zero. They are supposed to be against Net Zero…
It’s a bit mean to be dismissive of a leader who has taken his party to 30% from ?12% in a year.
public interest factors in favour of not responding to the requests
What possible “public interest” could the Met Office have in maintaining public ignorance? It’s a puzzle, isn’t it?. One might say that it’s a puzzling puzzle. Or one could say that it’s a mysterious and puzzling puzzle.
Not really, they know they are faking it for the WEF and UN.
It’s as clear as mud.
You could add The Club of Rome and the Trilateral Commission to that list, but it’s just the same billionaire elites running them all.
The Met Office is yet another example of The Long March Through the Institutions – captured by activists.
I believe along with the fraudulent Australian BoM and NOAA in the US, the Met Office was charged with creating proof of global warming for the IPCC – the world’s leading global warming activist organisation. They probably think they are doing a great job.
Same for the Rona fraud. They won’t answer simple and valid questions. I am waiting for the day when you go to prison for sending in an FOI.
Are there no lawyers out there that are willing to challenge the Met Office’s refusal to answer the FOI requests?
Most if not all agree with the Met…..
So there is no freedom of information then. How does that work?
It works as intended: there is the illusion of freedom of information, but if you ask anything they don’t want you to know they can use the carefully crafted “get out clauses” to deny it.
Doesn’t the refusal to publish your data make it un-scientific?
Exactly, it’s supposed to be verifiable and repeatable or it’s not science
Only one political leader in the West is prepared to defend the scientific method and his name begins with ‘T’ and ends with ‘rump’.
Here’s a record for the Met Orifice, ‘Arctic records new low temperature of -80C.
Woudn’t work, I’m afraid. They’d just cite it as another example of an “extreme weather event”, and an inevitable outcome of manmade climate change.
Exactly. The ‘settled science’ that never stops re-inventing itself.
“Freedom of Information”?
Freedom of information you’re allowed and that backs up the narrative, maybe.
The Met Office or rather, the driving forces behind it, claim that the supposedly climate-related policies championed by them are very much the only interest the public should really have. And hence, revealing less-than-complimentary details about how their propaganda machine works cannot ever be.
That’s basically asking a fox for reasons why open access to the henhouse could be a bad idea.
Does anyone know where the Met office gets its funding from these days – has it changed in recent years from government to some private funding? They seem to have plenty to spend on new supercomputers every 4-5 years.
Looked it up… it’s AI but sounds reasonable. That last section has considerable scope to ‘shape’ strategy I reckon…
The UK Met Office is primarily funded by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT). DSIT provides the majority of funding for the Public Weather Service (PWS).Additionally, other government departments like the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), and Defra contribute a smaller percentage of funding.The Civil Aviation Authority also contributes to the funding to support aviation-related services.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
Met Office funded by taxpayers then. What a shock.
Interesting read through one of the recent annual reports – it seems the latest craze for extreme weather warnings and alerts has come from a UN initiative… no one will be safe from these by 2027
It was originally under the MoD as weather information is very important for aviation and for naval operations. Also very useful if you were planning on the greatest seaborne invasion in history – just think how much of a disaster that would be these days. The aviation link is why we have so many dodgy weather stations because pretty much every airstrip will have one to provide pilot information. The Met O can sell its ‘forecasting’ service to companies as it did to the BBC and does now to GB News. The BBC contract went to Meteo Group a while back as they went out to tender. Some say BBC forecasts have improved.
Most of the org looks sensible… the idea of ‘virtual’ weather stations sounds pretty dodgy to me though, and unscientific
We had the very excitable BBC Wales weather presenter telling us about the heatwave the other day and how it was the hottest July day since 2022. Strange, methinks, I thought every year was getting hotter and hotter, so surely it should have been the hottest since last year? So I found an article from the previous hottest day in 2022, which lists all of the records. The 2022 record was Hawarden, the Airbus runway in North Wales. Then you have to go back to 1990, same place.
Out of the ten hottest days, only three are in the current century and one of those in seventh place, so where is this continuous increasing heat we keep being told about. 1976 has three of the top ten alone.
Thanks for the research.
The weather changes from year to year, that is why any gradual “background” temperature change is not visible.
What do we, the public, need to do to confirm to the MO that we are very interested in this topic.
It important that we get reliable information to avoid unnecessary panic due to the imminent demise of our planet as a result of temperatures incompatible with human life.
My guess is that the Met Office are justified in rejecting the FOI claim. The FOI regulations apply to information THAT EXISTS, but has not been disclosed. It is very plausible that the nearby stations used are not routinely produced by the sofware used, hence the requested information does not exist.
I suspect that the estimation algorithms used are highly reliable, since this data are only monthly averages, which change in lock-step across nearby stations. Hence the view of the Met Office would be that responding to this FOI request would be a pointless waste of time.
You say that, but this site has had countless instances of citizen meteorologists who report lower temperature readings, in some cases significantly lower, than the runway temperatures the MO claim and even more than the fake sites
What station are you referring to? The article is initially about an FOI for Lowestoft, then it switches to RAF Waddington, my reply is about Lowestoft, are you talking about RAF Waddington?
The point is thanks to the work that Ray Sanders has been doing and that has been repeatedly referenced on this site, we know that when the Met Office claim that their algorithms are accurate because station A has a range of temperatures and therefore a station closed years or even decades ago can be stated as having the same temperature range, they are lying. What we discover is the temperature range of station A is junk, because it’s right next to a runway or other heat sink, so no way can the temperature movement be applied to a more rural, now non-existant station, especially when a citizen meteorologist near to the non-existant station gets substantially different readings. The Met Office are trying to claim accurate data from their computer when the old GIGO term applies. In truth, they have a multi million pound white elephant until they get readings from real stations that are not classified as junk sites under WMO rules.
It is certainly the case that DAILY data cannot be estimated accurately from nearby stations, mostly due to patchy cloud cover. But monthly averages are different, you just need to plot some examples to see that the estimation is very reliable.
Going back to daily data, here is a comparison of daily maxima, for RAF Waddington and nearby stations. There is no smoking gun.
Estimation may well be reliable for the purposes that the weather stations were originally established for – i.e. for aircraft taking off and landing. I’d guess that +/1 deg C would be OK. But the data that is being derived from multiple sources is instead being used for purposes where tenths or even hundredths of a degree C are deemed to be significant.
FOI
Only permitted if you ask an ‘appropriate question’….
In this case perhaps “please send me fictional proof of the climate catastrophe'”?
Lies, damned lies … and the MET Office.
The BBC propaganda never misses a chance to mention the climate apocalypse. Even the Wimbledon commentators this year were discussing how it was somehow affecting the way tennis balls bounce on grass…. I am not making this up.
Dear Chris, I always read your articles with amusement and interest, so it pains me (slightly) to point out that “how data is inputted” has triggered my inner pedant. “Data”, being a plural noun requires “are”, not “is”. The past tense of “input” is “input”, as in “Where did you put the biscuits?” “I put them in the tin.” Apart from that, thanks for another great article.
Give the questions to me and I’ll ask the Met Office. I have never had any communication with any government agency or quango so they will not be able to accuse me of vexatious intent.
hasnt anyone thought of setting up independent temperature monitoring at or near to where the Met office claim to do it? Even by someone in their back garden?! If I lived in Lowestoft or the numerous other places I’d do it myself! As for the refusal of FOI requests isnt it possible to challenge this in the courts? I dont doubt it would take time and money but I’m more than willing to contribute some cash.
Information Commissioner then?
The whole Climate Crisis Agenda has been “invented”. —-But this denying access to data is nothing new. We saw it with the famous Hockey Stick Graph where statistician Steve McIntyre was denied access to data, computer code and methodology when trying to check the graph for himself. But like a dog with a bone he eventually exposed the graph as statistically flawed. In other words the graph was not a true representation of temperature at all. ——On further investigation most of the phony planet saving agenda is Politics rather than science. Our energy policies are all based on Politicised Science, and this is why anyone questioning the climate orthodoxy is shunned, ostracised, banned and silenced.
The BBC in consideration of the outrageous demands by ‘people’, through the auspices of FOI, to divulge evidence backing up extensive reports by impeccable sources, is proud to announce with the full backing of their celebrity staff, and in conjunction with officials from the UN Human Rights Council; that open collaboration with AI and agreements to follow the science in all reporting, will observe the factual consensus as dictated by those having all the requisite information from social media; removing the need for costly evidence that is readily available elsewhere. It apologises for any delay in recovering historic evidence, but assures everyone of its inclusive intent for all future news reporting.