Friday, June 14, 2024
HomeClimate WatchThe climate scaremongers: Junk data trashes the Met Office’s reputation

The climate scaremongers: Junk data trashes the Met Office’s reputation


THE Met Office clearly believe they can get away with any claim, no matter how outrageous. They have just announced that this year saw the hottest May ever in the UK; and not by hundredths, but by a whole degree. I don’t think any of us need expertise in meteorology to know that this is simply absurd, even with our own short memories.

Yes, we had a few pleasant sunny days, but temperatures never rose above the ordinary. The hottest day reached an unremarkable 24.3C on the Central England Temperature index, well below the 28.9C set in 1944. Indeed, 33 years have set higher temperatures in May than this year. In the UK as a whole, the highest temperature recorded was 81F at Chertsey.

Moreover the second half of the month was distinctly cool.

Contrast last month with May 1947, for instance, when temperatures reached 90F (32C):

Yet according to the Met Office, May 1947 was 1.7C colder than last month.

This all raises the question whether we are actually comparing like with like, when the Met Office estimate UK temperatures nowadays and compare them with those of 50 or 100 years ago.

Recently they were forced to admit that most of their temperature station network is not fit for purpose. Because they are so poorly sited, 78 per cent of stations have uncertainty of at least 2C, according to the official World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) classifications. Nearly a third are assessed as Class 5, the lowest classification, officially regarded as junk, with uncertainty of up to 5C. The most common siting issue is being much too close to roads, buildings and even airport runways, all of which artificially raise temperatures.

The Met Office were desperate to keep this scandal secret, before being forced to release it after an FOI from the Daily Sceptic. The WMO clearly state that Class 3, 4 and 5 sites should not be used for climatological purposes, but that is exactly what the Met Office does.

Courtesy of the Daily Sceptic

The Met Office claim they know the temperature of the UK to a hundredth of a degree. In reality, these siting issues mean that the margin of error could be two degrees or more.

Wettest summer for 100 years?

THE Met Office are now warning that we are headed for the wettest summer since 1912.

According to LBC: ‘The Met Office has briefed the government and transport chiefs to prepare for at least 50 days of rain in the next three months, leading to fears over further flooding in the UK and dashing any hopes of a warm British summer. Last summer saw 40 days of rain, but the Met Office expects this summer to be even worse, jeopardising popular summer events such as Wimbledon, Trooping the Colour, Royal Ascot and many festivals including Glastonbury. The UK’s wettest ever summer in 1912 saw rainfall on more than 55 days.’

Maybe the Met Office should have consulted their own meteorologists. According to their 3-Month Outlook, published the day before their warning, the chances of a wet or dry summer are fairly balanced:

Their long-range weather forecast for this month suggests the same, the usual mix of sunshine and showers.

The latest warning is no more than baseless scaremongering by the Met Office in pursuit of their climate agenda. In the process they are steadily trashing the organisation’s reputation built up over the years by dedicated professionals, who must be turning in their graves now.

Labour’s energy lies

LABOUR have claimed that their plan to decarbonise the power grid by 2030 will cut household electricity bills by £300 a year.

They are lying to you.

Their claim, which emanates from the renewable lobbyist group Ember, assumes that offshore wind is much cheaper than gas-fired power. They have worked on a figure of £47/MWh at today’s prices.

However the government received no offers from offshore wind last year at higher prices than that, and have therefore had to increase the auction price to £102/MWh for this year’s round.

By contrast, the cost of gas-fired power, according to the government’s own calculations, is only £54/MWh at current gas prices. Current wholesale prices confirm this price level. The new auction prices for onshore wind and solar power are also much higher than gas.

Market wholesale prices are now returning to pre-Ukraine war levels, and the signs are that they will stabilise.

Worse still, Labour’s calculations are based on the Energy Price Cap in Q3 last year, when energy prices were still relatively high as a result of the war. Since then electricity bills have already dropped by more than £200 a year, wiping out most of Labour’s fictitious saving.

In contrast, Labour’s plans to add more renewable energy to the mix will mean subsidies increase by about £14billion a year, more than doubling the existing cost. Consequently households will be more than £500 a year worse off, not better off as Sir Keir Starmer claimed.

As for his ‘Great British Energy’ company, announced with great ceremony in Scotland last week, it was quickly exposed as a sham by the SNP, of all people. Contrary to Ed Miliband’s repeated hints, GBE won’t generate any energy, nor will it act as an energy retailer. It certainly will not replace the Big Six energy companies.

The simple fact is that its budget is so small that it will be little more than just another quango. Its capitalisation will be a comparatively tiny £8.3billion over five years, but even this cannot be funded on Labour’s plan, which involves using the extra windfall tax on North Sea oil and gas, which they plan to increase from 75 per cent to 78 per cent. This will only generate a couple of hundred million a year.

It is simply a sop to Ed Miliband, who wanted £28billion to waste on renewable energy, insulation, carbon capture, grid infrastructure and goodness knows what else.

Above all, Labour’s plan fails to explain what they will do when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine once they have shut down all our gas-fired plants.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Paul Homewood
Paul Homewood
Paul Homewood is a former accountant who blogs about climate change at Not a Lot of People Know That

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.