U.K. Met Office under fire for fabricating temperature data from non-existent stations

On August 26, the U.K. Met Office, Britain’s official meteorological service, found itself at the center of a scandal after evidence emerged suggesting it was inventing temperature data from over 100 non-existent weather stations. This revelation, uncovered by citizen journalist Ray Sanders and reported by the Climate Skeptic, raises serious questions about the integrity of scientific data and the government’s climate policies. The implications are profound, as the fabricated data has been used to inform the U.K.’s drive toward net-zero emissions.

Summary of key points

• • The U.K. Met Office is accused of inventing temperature data from over 100 non-existent weather stations.

• • Ray Sanders made multiple FOI requests, which the Met Office dismissed as “vexatious.”

• • The Met Office claims to use “well-correlated neighboring sites” for data estimation, but many of these sites are also closed or non-existent.

• • The fabricated data is influencing the U.K.’s net-zero emissions policies and energy bills.

• • Experts and journalists are demanding an open declaration of the data’s inaccuracy to avoid erroneous conclusions in scientific research.

The fabrication scandal unveiled

The investigation by Ray Sanders revealed that the U.K. Met Office has over 100 non-existent weather stations where it estimates temperature data using information from purportedly “well-correlated neighboring sites.” However, when Sanders visited these locations, he found that many of the alleged “neighboring sites” were either closed or non-existent. For instance, the station at Dungeness, which closed in 1986, continues to report temperature data to the second decimal place.

One particularly damning example is the Lowestoft station. Despite closing in 2010, it remains listed as open and continues to report temperature data. According to Sanders, the nearest climate stations to Lowestoft are Hemsby (four miles away), Coltishall (25 miles), Scole (26 miles) and Morley St Botolph (30 miles). All of these stations are also closed, making it difficult to understand how the Met Office can accurately estimate temperatures for Lowestoft.

Freedom of Information requests and vexatious claims

Ray Sanders made numerous Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to the Met Office to uncover how temperature data were being derived from these non-existent sites. The Met Office repeatedly dismissed these requests, labeling them as “vexatious” and not in the public interest. This refusal to provide transparent information has fueled suspicions and criticism from the scientific community and concerned citizens.

Chris Morrison, the environment editor of The Daily Skeptic, emphasized the significance of these findings, stating, “The Met Office could easily clear this up by providing all the information. This is an absolute scandal that the scientific data we are told is the basis of these claims could possibly be being made up.”

Policy implications and financial consequences

The fabricated temperature data has far-reaching implications, particularly in the context of the U.K.’s net-zero emissions policies. These policies, which aim to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, have been informed by the Met Office’s fake temperature data. Chris Morrison pointed out, “The subsidies for renewable energy projects are out of control, amounting to £15 billion a year, which is a regressive tax on the poor. The data used to justify these policies is now under scrutiny, and it raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the net-zero agenda.”

The financial burden of these policies is already evident in rising energy bills. Morrison cited the example of Dale Vince, the owner of Ecotricity, who has collected £145 million in subsidies over the past 20 years. “This is an aggressive tax on the poor,” Morrison said. “We are building wind farms in obscure locations, like the Shetlands, where the wind is blowing, but nobody lives there. We then have to pay billions to shut off these farms when the wind is too strong or too weak, making the entire policy a Ponzi scheme.”

Call for transparency and accountability

The revelations have sparked a call for transparency and accountability from the Met Office. Sanders demands an “open declaration” of the likely inaccuracy of the published data to prevent other institutions and researchers from reaching erroneous conclusions. He stated, “No scientific purpose can possibly be served by fabrication. The Met Office must be held accountable for its actions.”

Social commentator Toby Young, writing on X, echoed this sentiment: “Shocking evidence has emerged that points to the U.K. Met Office inventing temperature data from over 100 non-existent weather stations. This is a scandal that demands explanation.”

The need for rigorous scientific integrity

The scandal surrounding the U.K. Met Office’s fabricated temperature data underscores the critical importance of scientific integrity. The use of non-existent weather stations and the refusal to provide transparent information have casts a shadow of doubt over the legitimacy of climate policies and the reliability of scientific data. As the U.K. government continues to push forward with its net-zero agenda, it is imperative that the Met Office and other scientific institutions are held to the highest standards of transparency and accountability. Only through rigorous scrutiny and open disclosure can the public trust be restored in the scientific community and the policies it informs.

Sources for this article include:

ClimateDepot.com

EuropeanConservative.com

Adblock test (Why?)

Source: https://naturalblaze.com/2025/10/u-k-met-office-under-fire-for-fabricating-temperature-data-from-non-existent-stations.html