This is Part II of a Paul Homewood’s piece on the Met Office. You can read Part I here.
Here are some more of the controversies dogging the Met Office in recent weeks.
Worse than the Great Storm of 1987?
In their State of the UK Climate Report 2025, recently published, the Met Office made the astonishing suggestion that Storm Eowyn, which hit Britain in January 2025, was worse than the Great Storm of 1987. They even produced this chart to “prove” it:
This is gaslighting of the highest order and an insult to all those who lost their lives in 1987.
Apparently, they say, the severity of the 1987 storm was down to the fact that trees were still in leaf. It was not really as bad as you thought!
So why does their chart imply Eowyn was worse?
Simple. Eowyn’s storm track took it across the mountains and clifftops of Northern Ireland and southern Scotland. Naturally, winds will be stronger on high hills and exposed coastal headlands than they are down at ground level.
Wind gusts during Eowyn hit 100 mph on the top of a 900ft hill at Drumalbin, high up in the wild, windswept Lanarkshire Hills. Next highest was 96 mph at Brizlee Wood, an 800ft hill in Northumberland, so high and exposed that it has an RAF golf ball on top.
And so on: Capel Curig in Snowdonia and Aberdaron on a clifftop at the tip of the Llyn Peninsula. Down at ground level, however,
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
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.
How many more times must daily sceptic ask if the met office is a serious scientific organisation. You only have to look out your window for the answer.
We must have a commitment from Reform UK not only to take down most Quangos and integrate most of the remainder into Departments of State accountable to the people, we must also demands an accounting for the past.
Whether it is the lies about weather and climate, lies about the costs of renewables, lies about Covid or the cost of immigration, those who have lied to us for so many years must be dealt with. They have been paid for defrauding the public.
Given that the Met Office wasted supercomputer time on UKCP18 it is a major source of man-made warming – supercomputers have their own power stations. Have they provided an estimate for how many Celsius they are responsible for due to their cavalier waste of resources?
I don’t see how the emissions from this use of power make any difference, we already know that CO2 is not a significant “greenhouse gas” because in our atmosphere it’s only a trace constituent.
It is a curse of established organisations that they eventually become captured by the interests of the careerists. The original purpose of the organisation is overwhelmed by those trying to further their career by any means necessary, including the echoing of government propaganda.
So defund the BBC, abolish the Arts Councils, and return the Met Office to a data collection outfit only.
Perhaps, after a long time being regarded as the rather boring turnips of the broadcasting world, the Met Office (and its BBC outlet) just can’t give up the sexier image that all this climate apocalypse stuff lends them (or so they think).
They’re like a 45-year-old footballer who just won’t admit that his knees are gone and his glory days are over.
I think being thrust into the limelight turns a lot of people’s heads. Suddenly individuals or organisations quite like the new attention and start playing to the crowd (media), giving them exactly what they want.
The grants keep coming in, so its a win/win situation. In a way they can’t get off the hamster wheel. ‘Everyone’s winner’, except the public and of course science!
Modelling is a curse on humanity.
Implausible pandemic mortality outcomes – based on modelling.
Implausible climate scenarios – based on modelling.
Erroneous economic forecasts – based on modelling.
Modelling is scientism.
Unfortunately for us, to the people who run (or ruin) our lives, scientism looks more scientific than real science.
You forgot:
Modelling – based on modelling.
And, key word – Imperial.
How anybody could take that seriously I don’t know.
Yes, circularity is a feature, not a bug.
As I see it, modelling is basically an exercise in probability, rather than statistics, something which those who use modelling to underpin their proposals and theories generally fail to understand. If I look at the forecast for a given day and it says there’s a 30% chance of rain, then I think it’s more likely to be dry than wet at any given moment that day. The modelling junkie looks at the same figure and predicts there will be 7.2 hours of rain that day.
I would love to see a weather report with just class 1 WMO sites in the uk and see the difference.
That would not be permitted.
So would I. I’d also like to see a side-by-side comparison of the results obtained from current electronic thermometers versus the results obtained from the most accurate thermometers of the previous generation. Once you look back over more than twenty years’ temperature data, you really can’t claim to be comparing like for like.
Thanks for your sanity in a mad Met Office world, Paul.