Topic: UK MET Office non existent weather stations

[Ian.]

Saw this on YouTube and thought I’d share for info.

https://youtu.be/ARf52cwW08o?si=DGeEW4UDAm4a8r6u

[Mattk]

This guy is using all the right words and raising all the right questions towards the right direction but this is nothing actually entirely new. The dummy/virtual stations is a new one but basically homogenization has similar non scientific agenda driven outcomes. 

Manipulation of weather data has been going on for years by many jurisdictions in this ever eager end to achieve an apparent outcome,

[Ian.]

This guy is using all the right words and raising all the right questions towards the right direction but this is nothing actually entirely new. The dummy/virtual stations is a new one but basically homogenization has similar non scientific agenda driven outcomes. 

Manipulation of weather data has been going on for years by many jurisdictions in this ever eager end to achieve an apparent outcome,

The submerged weather station made me chuckle

[hofpwx]

This guy is using all the right words and raising all the right questions towards the right direction but this is nothing actually entirely new. The dummy/virtual stations is a new one but basically homogenization has similar non scientific agenda driven outcomes. 

Manipulation of weather data has been going on for years by many jurisdictions in this ever eager end to achieve an apparent outcome,

Who's paying, how, and where? So many lips to stay sealed.

[ConligWX]

I smell cover up lmao:

https://science.feedback.org/review/no-the-uk-met-office-is-not-fabricating-climate-data-contrary-to-a-bloggers-claims/

[hofpwx]

I smell cover up lmao:

https://science.feedback.org/review/no-the-uk-met-office-is-not-fabricating-climate-data-contrary-to-a-bloggers-claims/

Imagine that. The same ol' bloggers of baloney still at it. If only climate change was an artifact, nefarious or otherwise.

[Mattk]

The long worded blurb from the Met office also throws in the well worn justification fatigues which can be very simply summarized as admitting to Manipulation and Homogenization which we know occurs for the purposes of achieving apparent and predefined outcomes       

[hofpwx]

If only the planet knew the whole thing was a hoax. Someone ought to tell it.

[ConligWX]

The long worded blurb from the Met office also throws in the well worn justification fatigues which can be very simply summarized as admitting to Manipulation and Homogenization which we know occurs for the purposes of achieving apparent and predefined outcomes       

isn't that a feature set of all government agencies 

[hofpwx]

If only someone could make the mundane business of collecting obs a for-profit enterprise.

[Ian.]

I smell cover up lmao:

https://science.feedback.org/review/no-the-uk-met-office-is-not-fabricating-climate-data-contrary-to-a-bloggers-claims/

Thanks for the link it was interesting reading, but what a load of baloney. If a weather station is no longer working and generates no data, then as the quote Monty Python 'This is an ex weather station, it is dead'

[hofpwx]

Climate change is not an artifact of station siting or nefarious data manipulation. That fake skeptics keep peddling such nonsenses indicates to me that their audience is way gullible.

[Mattk]

Climate change is not an artifact of station siting or nefarious data manipulation. That fake skeptics keep peddling such nonsenses indicates to me that their audience is way gullible.

So why manipulate the data then in the first place? Looking for the required answer 

[Mattk]

I smell cover up lmao:

https://science.feedback.org/review/no-the-uk-met-office-is-not-fabricating-climate-data-contrary-to-a-bloggers-claims/

Thanks for the link it was interesting reading, but what a load of baloney. If a weather station is no longer working and generates no data, then as the quote Monty Python 'This is an ex weather station, it is dead'

Today some might call that a virtual station 

So why would they want to alter (manipulate and homogenize are the actual terms) data from a perfectly good weather station based on the observations from another perfectly good weather station? Does that make the modified weather station and ex weather station or dead, virtual, erroneous, irrelevant or just a plain con job     

[hofpwx]

Climate change is not an artifact of station siting or nefarious data manipulation. That fake skeptics keep peddling such nonsenses indicates to me that their audience is way gullible.

So why manipulate the data then in the first place? Looking for the required answer 

What's the difference between "manipulate" and "correct"?

[Mattk]

Climate change is not an artifact of station siting or nefarious data manipulation. That fake skeptics keep peddling such nonsenses indicates to me that their audience is way gullible.

So why manipulate the data then in the first place? Looking for the required answer 

What's the difference between "manipulate" and "correct"?

So obviously "correct" to you would always be higher  Is that what they call selective manipulation  Don't you think it's strange that manipulated values are only one way?

[hofpwx]

Climate change is not an artifact of station siting or nefarious data manipulation. That fake skeptics keep peddling such nonsenses indicates to me that their audience is way gullible.

So why manipulate the data then in the first place? Looking for the required answer 

What's the difference between "manipulate" and "correct"?

So obviously "correct" to you would always be higher  Is that what they call selective manipulation  Don't you think it's strange that manipulated values are only one way?

Climate change is not an artifact of station siting or nefarious data manipulation.

[Mattk]

Climate change is not an artifact of station siting or nefarious data manipulation. That fake skeptics keep peddling such nonsenses indicates to me that their audience is way gullible.

So why manipulate the data then in the first place? Looking for the required answer 

What's the difference between "manipulate" and "correct"?

So obviously "correct" to you would always be higher  Is that what they call selective manipulation  Don't you think it's strange that manipulated values are only one way?

Climate change is not an artifact of station siting or nefarious data manipulation.

So again then why manipulate/modify perfectly good data to achieve a higher value, and only a higher value, there is a problem with jurisdictions artificially inflating temperatures, why would that be, every weather station records the real world surrounding environment, why manipulate/increase the data to suit another station 100's of miles away, let the station speak for itself not the agenda.   

[hofpwx]

Climate change is not an artifact of station siting or nefarious data manipulation. That fake skeptics keep peddling such nonsenses indicates to me that their audience is way gullible.

So why manipulate the data then in the first place? Looking for the required answer 

What's the difference between "manipulate" and "correct"?

So obviously "correct" to you would always be higher  Is that what they call selective manipulation  Don't you think it's strange that manipulated values are only one way?

Climate change is not an artifact of station siting or nefarious data manipulation.

So again then why manipulate/modify perfectly good data to achieve a higher value, and only a higher value, there is a problem with jurisdictions artificially inflating temperatures, why would that be, every weather station records the real world surrounding environment, why manipulate/increase the data to suit another station 100's of miles away, let the station speak for itself not the agenda.   

Someone ought to tell the ocean about the agenda. Check out ocean heat content sometime.

[Mattk]

Climate change is not an artifact of station siting or nefarious data manipulation. That fake skeptics keep peddling such nonsenses indicates to me that their audience is way gullible.

So why manipulate the data then in the first place? Looking for the required answer 

What's the difference between "manipulate" and "correct"?

So obviously "correct" to you would always be higher  Is that what they call selective manipulation  Don't you think it's strange that manipulated values are only one way?

Climate change is not an artifact of station siting or nefarious data manipulation.

So again then why manipulate/modify perfectly good data to achieve a higher value, and only a higher value, there is a problem with jurisdictions artificially inflating temperatures, why would that be, every weather station records the real world surrounding environment, why manipulate/increase the data to suit another station 100's of miles away, let the station speak for itself not the agenda.   

Someone ought to tell the ocean about the agenda. Check out ocean heat content sometime.

So you should just be up front and honest and say you have no idea  Ducking and diving and circling what is really a very simple question highlights the fact you don't have any idea but typically push the cause without understanding the underlying manipulated data attempting to justify the agenda 

[hofpwx]

Climate change is not an artifact of station siting or nefarious data manipulation. That fake skeptics keep peddling such nonsenses indicates to me that their audience is way gullible.

So why manipulate the data then in the first place? Looking for the required answer 

What's the difference between "manipulate" and "correct"?

So obviously "correct" to you would always be higher  Is that what they call selective manipulation  Don't you think it's strange that manipulated values are only one way?

Climate change is not an artifact of station siting or nefarious data manipulation.

So again then why manipulate/modify perfectly good data to achieve a higher value, and only a higher value, there is a problem with jurisdictions artificially inflating temperatures, why would that be, every weather station records the real world surrounding environment, why manipulate/increase the data to suit another station 100's of miles away, let the station speak for itself not the agenda.   

Someone ought to tell the ocean about the agenda. Check out ocean heat content sometime.

So you should just be up front and honest and say you have no idea  Ducking and diving and circling what is really a very simple question highlights the fact you don't have any idea but typically push the cause without understanding the underlying manipulated data attempting to justify the agenda

How does the ocean know that land station data are "manipulated"? Is the ocean part of The Agenda?

[Mattk]

Climate change is not an artifact of station siting or nefarious data manipulation. That fake skeptics keep peddling such nonsenses indicates to me that their audience is way gullible.

So why manipulate the data then in the first place? Looking for the required answer 

What's the difference between "manipulate" and "correct"?

So obviously "correct" to you would always be higher  Is that what they call selective manipulation  Don't you think it's strange that manipulated values are only one way?

Climate change is not an artifact of station siting or nefarious data manipulation.

So again then why manipulate/modify perfectly good data to achieve a higher value, and only a higher value, there is a problem with jurisdictions artificially inflating temperatures, why would that be, every weather station records the real world surrounding environment, why manipulate/increase the data to suit another station 100's of miles away, let the station speak for itself not the agenda.   

Someone ought to tell the ocean about the agenda. Check out ocean heat content sometime.

So you should just be up front and honest and say you have no idea  Ducking and diving and circling what is really a very simple question highlights the fact you don't have any idea but typically push the cause without understanding the underlying manipulated data attempting to justify the agenda

How does the ocean know that land station data are "manipulated"? Is the ocean part of The Agenda?

Weather station data manipulation has absolutely nothing to do with the ocean, if you can not provide anything (which you obviously can not) with regards manipulation of actual weather station data (which was the question put to you) then stop dancing around the question with all the side stepping avoidance. Very obvious you are in denial with regard data manipulation and the facts are totally against you, buy hey you know that  just can't/won't admit it       

[Mattk]

Climate change is not an artifact of station siting or nefarious data manipulation. That fake skeptics keep peddling such nonsenses indicates to me that their audience is way gullible.

So why manipulate the data then in the first place? Looking for the required answer 

This was the question before you started your side step. Don't have an answer then then just say so.   

[saratogaWX]

This is becoming somewhat tedious in a useless back-and-forth.

Looking at the link cited above: https://science.feedback.org/review/no-the-uk-met-office-is-not-fabricating-climate-data-contrary-to-a-bloggers-claims/ seems to answer the question you have:

Conclusion

Certain UK Met Office weather stations have closed down after decades of collecting data. However, instead of letting this data go to waste, scientists at the Met Office combine this past data with more recent data from nearby well-correlated stations (i.e., those with similar trends) to look at long-term climate trends. This method is published in reputable peer-reviewed scientific papers and used by other scientists and organizations around the world; it is not ‘data fabrication’ as recent claims have suggested. The Met Office inspects their weather stations using both WMO and Met Office inspection standards, and their research and data are externally reviewed by independent scientists with relevant expertise. Therefore, recent claims implying the Met Office is ‘fabricating data’ or using ‘junk’ weather stations for climate reporting are misleading and lack important context about the scientific rigor of the Met Office’s research.