With global crises like climate change looming over our heads, scientists studying the issue are wondering what our strategies are to combat the monsters that are said to be at our doorstep. One would think that one would want the best available data to decide exactly what to do. Rather, much of the temperature data used to demonstrate “extreme” heat appears to be corrupted, giving an untrue and biased picture of what's happening with the weather.
UK uses defective weather station
For example, consider the UK Met Office (Met) and its temperature recording stations. The Daily Sketic newspaper reports that 77.9% of temperature reporting sites have an uncertainty of 2°C and 5°C. When nearly 80% of all news stations are so egregiously flawed, how can we reliably manage an existential crisis that supposedly depends on a fraction of the temperature?
The problem appears to be the placement of the temperature collection device. Common sense dictates that to obtain good temperature data, the measurement device should be placed away from obvious heat sources, such as heat-producing equipment or areas that reflect sunlight.
However, this is not happening at the Japan Meteorological Agency. The Daily Skeptic cites one example in which the hottest so-called extreme temperatures reported this year came from such a dubiously placed reporting station.
The town of Chertsey, south-west of London, reported the summer's most extreme temperatures in June. What was not reported, at least initially, was that the site was adjacent to a solar power plant with highly reflective, heat-generating solar panels. Citizen journalist Ray Saunders challenged the Met over the location of Chertsey station. The agency acknowledged that solar panels are more or less placed around temperature collection sites, but said “the temperature readings meet standards for publication and scientific use.”
Earlier this year, the Daily Skeptic reported that nearly a third of the Metropolitan Museum of Art's temperature stations could be off by up to 5 degrees Celsius. These are the stations with a class 5 rating, the lowest rating and the ones most susceptible to “uncertainty” in measurements.
96% of US sites are defective
Of course, the UK isn't the only country with highly questionable temperature data. In 2022, the Heartland Institute conducted a survey of U.S. temperature data collection sites and found that an astonishing 96 percent of them “meet the corruption-free configuration that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) considers 'acceptable.' Recall that it turns out that there is no. According to independently published standards. ”
Anthony Watts said at the time:
Temperature measurements in the United States have a warming bias of 96%, making it impossible to derive accurate climate trends for the United States using statistical methods. Data from observatories that have not been damaged by improper installation shows the rate of warming in the United States. The number has been reduced by almost half compared to all stations.
Critics dismissed Watts' claims because he is the founder of What's Up With That, the Internet's top site for climate realism. Unfortunately for them, Watts' methodology was flawless and included on-site inspections of recording stations. Those concerned about climate change mostly rely on the well-worn metaphor that Watts is a “climate change denier” and can be fired, no matter how good his research is. are.
It all reeks of the same garbage that was used to scare countries into signing the Paris climate accord in 2015. That fake agreement is still being used to force powerful countries to comply with climate change. And the UK is using fake Met temperature data to push its destructive 'net zero' policies.
The climate change cult doesn't want real data when it makes outrageous claims that humans are destroying the climate through careless use of fossil fuels. They simply want sensational headlines that they can use to scare the world's population into complying with authoritarian climate change plans.
