The UK Met Office recently declared an average daily maximum temperature of 22.3°C for June 2025 at Lowestoft: Monkton Avenue. But there is no weather station at Lowestoft and hasn’t been since 2010. Over the last 15 years, the temperature measurements published in the Met Office’s Historic Station Database have been invented, or rather estimated according to the State meteorologist with figures from “well-correlated related neighbouring stations”. This explanation might be more plausible if the Met Office could actually name the stations, presumably a simple task with the vital scientific input data readily to hand. Alas, it seems not. A number of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for the identity of these well-correlated stations near Lowestoft and other non-existent stations have been denied by the Met Office quoting “vexatious” grounds. It has concluded that the “public interest factors in favour of not responding to the requests outweighed the public interest factors in favour of responding to the requests”.
The FOI requests have been made by citizen super sleuth Ray Sanders who is engaged on a detailed scientific study of the Met Office’s nationwide temperature measuring network and climate average databases. His requests for help in this work are simple and, in addition to seeking how data is inputted into non-existent weather stations – 103 at the last count – he asked why a national record of 40.3°C on July 19th, 2022 at RAF Waddington is to be found in the CEDA archives, but was not claimed at the time. Great play was made of the record 40.3°C declared at nearby RAF Coningsby on the same day, although later disclosures have shown it was a 60-second spike as three Typhoon jets were attempting to land. Sanders is not asking for anything complicated that might involve considerable work on the part of the Met Office. He is merely seeking information that should be easily obtained within the records of the Met Office.
The ‘vexatious/public interest’ suggestion is the latest dog ate my homework excuse offered by the Met Office to avoid identifying the so-called well-correlated neighbouring stations. Earlier this year, it told Sanders that the information was not actually held by the Met Office. It was claimed that “the specific stations used in regressive analysis each month are not an output from the process”. Needless to say, that nonsense failed to satisfy Sanders and you can read here details of his recent FOI requests and the Met Office’s lengthy reply.
The Met Office’s inability to produce this information will inevitably lead to speculation that the data is being invented, possibly with a political motive in mind to promote Net Zero. To head off such damaging conclusions being drawn, the State-funded Met Office needs to stop hiding behind “vexatious” excuses and treat these reasonable requests with the attention and respect they deserve. As Sanders notes, it is impossible to rationally justify any climate average figures without knowing what the relevant inputs were. If these well-correlated stations are unknown or no details retained, “then you have no proof whatsoever of the accuracy of the outputs” – outputs, it might additionally be noted, that should be removed when they are being used to promote the Net Zero fantasy.
It is hardly vexatious or not in the public interest to identify the stations currently supplying data for Lowestoft. In fact, Sanders went out of his way to explain that he was solely concerned with the details of which stations’ data are currently being used. “Obviously, as this is an ongoing process these stations must be known”, he writes. Similar inquiries have also been made about Scole, Manby, Fontmell Magna, Nairn Druim, Bodiam and Aberdaron weather stations. Answers to all of these came back none. In a long, detailed and legalistic explanation arguing why the Met Office should not provide the information, it was claimed that the “public interest test arguments were upheld”.
Sanders’ view is an obvious one – “It would have been much simpler and less expensive to actually answer my questions than go to all this rigmarole to not answer… In early August they will produce such figures for Lowestoft, Nairn Druim and Paisley (all long closed) but they will not be able to produce details of the stations used to compile such ‘data’ – does anyone really believe that? Why do they allow readings they know to be wrong to be archived? If the Met Office cannot (or will not) produce evidence to support their claims why should anyone believe them?”.
Interest in the temperature measuring activities of the Met Office has grown over the last year following revelations published in the Daily Sceptic that nearly 80% of its 380 sites are poorly located. As a result, they are subject to unnatural temperature corruptions that lead to classification ratings that come with possible ‘uncertainties’ between 2°C and 5°C. Not to exaggerate, many sites seem to measure everything except the natural ambient air temperature. Further work from Dr Eric Huxter has shown that many of the ‘extremes’ and ‘records’ claimed recently by the Met Office are due to suspicious heat spikes in junk sites picked up by recently introduced electronic devices. In addition to his work describing the lamentable state of many temperature sites, Ray Sanders has also discovered the massive estimations made for over 100 non-existent stations. Mainstream media has been slow to pick up on this story since it leads to the obvious opening of a Pandora’s Box and a questioning of the Met Office’s role in promoting a made-up climate crisis that requires an unnecessary Net Zero solution.
But with the fantasy nature of Net Zero coming to the fore, this is starting to change. The walls are slowly crumbling. On July 3rd, the distinguished science writer Matt Ridley noted in the Telegraph that the 34.7°C recorded two days before in London’s St James’s Park might have something to do with that weather station being a low reliability Class 5 site with an error rating up to 5°C. “So yes, the heat is indeed partly man-made – but not necessarily in the way the Met Office means,” he observed.
Ridley goes on to note that the Met Office seems increasingly bored by its day job of forecasting the weather, “so it likes to lecture us about climate change”. In his view it has been “embarrassingly duped by activists”. He gives the example of its continued use of the de-bunked RCP8.5 ‘business-as-usual’ scenario to make future apocalyptic predictions that summers in less than 50 years could be up to 6°C warmer and 60% drier. In his view, the Met Office is “deliberately seeking extreme predictions to scare people and so get media attention”.
Recent revelations might suggest that it is none too fussy in how it goes about achieving these desperate ends.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Since that MO report came out there has been a literal tsunami of full-on alarmism across the board.
The problem? Reform UK has pledged to ditch net zero and they are ~9 points ahead in all the polls – so it’s very popular with voters…. Can’t be having that.
“Ed Miliband has promised to inject some ‘radical truth-telling’ into the climate-change debate. Fearing waning support for his Net Zero agenda, with the climate-sceptical Reform UK surging in the polls, the UK energy secretary is planning to deliver a ‘state of the climate’ speech in the House of Commons, in which he will declare the British way of life to be ‘under threat’ and accuse his opponents of ‘betraying future generations’.“
https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/07/14/ed-miliband-is-more-dangerous-than-climate-change/
The trouble is the MOs data is hopelessly compromised and largely a work of fiction. And now that the cat is out of the bag they do what ideologically driven activists always do – they double down.
Paging Hiliary Cass…
I bet she could sell Bud Lite.
“ he will declare the British way of life to be ‘under threat’ ”
The question is will Britain manage to survive Mad Ed Miliband. At least, that’s assuming Britain survives the waves of illegal migrants.
Your attention is being deliberately directed to the illegals. They are a dribble compared to the “wave” of perfectly legal migrants actively recruited in large part by the government.
The illegals are annoying, especially when you hear them being interviewed in the media and admitting—with no hint of shame—what people who don’t work for the BBC would have guessed is their real motivation. But they are only annoying, and a menace mostly to themselves. The real challenge is the legal migrants.
Umm, no.”perfectly legal migrants actively recruited in large part by the government”
Most legal migrants come into the country because employers need them. They will do the jobs that local residents refuse to do and have refused to do for decades.In many cases, migrant labour has the skills to do the jobs which are necessary but that locals no longer have the skills to perform.
Has it escaped you that we have a whole generation of young people living in Mommy’s basement and having no job or employable skills? They have no skills except playing games on their mobile phones.
“They will do the jobs that local residents refuse to do” In USA those refused jobs include Doctor, Engineer and University Professor- really anything that would pay for the tuition in less than 10 years.
I am pretty sure you are disagreeing only that legal migrants are largely recruited by the government. Let me be more precise: they are largely recruited by the NHS and local authority (i.e. local government) care providers. Government, in short.
Please defend your claim that the illegals are the “wave”. They are not; annoying and expensive though they may be,
hey will do the jobs that local residents refuse to do
Microsoft recently laid off 9000 US-based employees. At the same time, it applied for 14,000 H1B Visa’s. Doesn’t seem to add up to me.
The interesting thing is the move, like a conjuring trick, from arguing that there is a climate crisis due to GLOBAL emissions to arguing that in some way taking the UK to Net Zero will in some way avert the local consequences of this GLOBAL phenomenon.
: he will declare the British way of life to be ‘under threat’ and accuse his opponents of ‘betraying future generations’
Of course, even if there is a global climate crisis, there is nothing the UK can do in local energy policy which will make the slightest difference. UK Net Zero can have no effect on it.
You have to watch the pea under the thimble. This move in the same sentence from alleged GLOBAL crisis, and criticism of skeptics about that as ‘deniers’, to some essentially irrelevant local action, its very common.
Ed has given two reasons for UK Net Zero. One is ‘because climate’. The other reason is that its going to mean cheaper elecricity and cheaper energy in general. As the climate argument gets blown up, he has moved to the cost argument, but that too is in the process of being blown up. Or perhaps we should say, eroded!
In the end he hasn’t and can’t give any reason that makes any sense to do it. I don’t think any of them in any of the supporting parties know why they are doing it
As the recent Energy Institute ‘Statistical Review of World Energy’ points out
Coal reached a record global level of demand of 165EJ in 2024. This was 83% centred on the Asia-Pacific region and 67% of that total was in China. Coal still dominates China’s electricity supply sector at 58%.
India’s coal demand grew 4% in 2024 and is now equal to coal use in CIS (9 member countries of the ex Soviet Union including Russia), South and Central America, , North America and Europe combined. India’s coal fleet comprises 75% of its generation fleet.
The expansion of coal in the Asia- Pacific Region is nnly going one way and that is up
Mad Ed’s stupid pursuit of net zero is not going to have any influence on the above nor on overall emissions increase.
Stupid Ed just doesn’t get it. He’s spinning his wheels and bankrupting the UK with his Net Zero efforts, which will have absolutely no impact on global CO2 levels.
Stupid Ed is doing great harm to the UK.
Actually it will have a small effect directly contradicting the “goals” of Nut Zero.
It will *INCREASE* “emissions” (not that they matter!) by transferring British manufacturing to China/other “developing” nations, where “emissions” per item manufactured will be higher, PLUS additional transport emissions to get the now-foreign-made goods to UK consumers.
D’oh!
Worse still, the
idiotsgovernment have decided to spend our money on people who can afford to buy an EV.Drivers offered up to £3,750 discount to buy electric car
Story Tip
Why remove an accurate descriptor entirely?
“Idiot government” would do nicely. 😄
It is time the Met Office was disbanded. Their weather forecasts are rubbish and their temperature records are pure forgery. I hope Nigel Farage is taking note of all this and does something about it.
The Met Office is addicted to fraudulent temperature data; transparency is neither achievable nor desirable.
I think the Met Office weather forecasts are pretty solid when compared to others like the US.
These forecasts always entail a caveat that comes standard in all forecasts. Their estimates are based on an ensemble of models. So we are talking likelyhoods. Things may change quickly like windspeed etc. I don’t blame the MO if things turn out differently, like a band of rain or low/ high pressure zones shifting position. In regards to rain, it might or might not fall and it is actually clouds moisture content that are estimated. It comes with a % of likelyhood.
But I do object to adjectives like ‘torrential’ downpours, especially if it is speculated and might not happen at all as witnessed in the previous month. And of course all the standard alarmist nonsense and climate ‘science’ which is a given.
Weather and climate are not the same thing. But Met Office allows their catastrophist language to creep into their weather reports.In this regard they are no different than another government owned media corporation – the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation).
I watch the MO weather reports almost every day. I live in Ireland in Donegal, next to Northern Ireland so i am well aware. I can tell you w high certainty that they usually leave the climate stuff for their ‘deep dive’ and ‘climate’sections. They do some alarmist stuff about weather events and hype it up but that is just par for the course. They changed their colour chart, things like that.
And why you feel the need to say ‘ weather is not climate’ beats me. It is totally irrelevant in this context.
O/T-ish but maybe interesting.
‘[Armagh] Observatory marks 230 years of recording weather.’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yg4369pv0o.amp
Claims to be hand recorded throughout.
“The seasons aren’t quite as clearly cut as they used to be”
“The unbroken sequence of data recorded in Armagh has largely been written by men”
And one for the Met Office…
“Measuring the weather actually teaches you a lot about science… It helps you understand your data.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yg4369pv0o.amp
That was a fun article. They are so self-unaware.
Should have read your comment first – I posted the same thing
“the specific stations used in regressive analysis each month are not an output from the process”.
…and here was me thinking they might possibly be an input into the process? Smacks forehead… silly me!!
In all likelihood the program itself decides what stations to use after doing some statistical analysis, it may not even use the same station(s) for consecutive days.
As I’ve said before, it’s the program specification you need to request.
“what stations to use”
Real or imaginary (there are 103 imaginary stations to choose from)
Sited on a runway or in an urban botanic garden…
etc
So the algorithm just chooses whichever ones that recorded the highest temperature?
Silly.
I’d say that there is “high confidence” that is the case. 😅🤣😂
Almost certainly which is why they will not answer my questions.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2025/07/05/why-is-the-met-office-withholding-so-much-basic-information/
There is no good reason for why the Met Office should refuse to answer these questions.
I think Nigel can you this issue. The Met Office refusing to answer legitimate, easily answered questions, demonstrates dishonesty, and your average citizen can understand dishonesty, and exposing this dishonesty will be a help to Nigel.
The UK needs to get rid of the Net Zero liars that are killing its economy: Ed Milliband and those running the Met Office..
In all likelihood the program itself decides what stations to use after doing some statistical analysis
Phew that’s a relief. I thought for a moment there it could have been some devious human with their thumb on the scale when all I need do is get with the program. Some skeptical folks might want to check with AI but it would know all about the program anyway.
Or, let’s dump this on the floor and see if the cat licks it up.
How about they stop making up imaginary “data” for non-existent “weather stations?!”
Abd do you think I have not done that? Why are you such a risible apologist for the Met Office. Have you even read what I actually asked?
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2025/07/05/why-is-the-met-office-withholding-so-much-basic-information/
A week ago we were told that we would be having hot dry weather in Dublin this week. Now suddenly a warning has been issued about rain and cooler temperatures. It they cannot get their predictions correct a week out how can we trust their predictions for 2050? I know, they lick a finger and hold it up to the political winds to see where these are blowing. This is very scientific and reliable.
Weather is changeable and so are predictions. When there is a lot of flux dynamics in the system predictions get harder and they sometimes change from day to day. Never rely on predictions.
The Met forecasts are scientifically solid unlike their temperature ‘measurements’.
Their climate change section is as stupid as they come. Unlike their % chance of precipitation their CO2 linked long term predictions are always stated as certain which is ironic given the fact that they know AND state the growing error margins over time when forecasting normal weather. It is reversed w their climate change take where the uncertainties get less over time. Somehow at the Met Office they can live w that glaring contradiction. It is a matter of Faith..
“The Met forecasts are scientifically solid unlike their temperature ‘measurements’.”
If the forecasts are scientifically solid but the model runs begin with incorrect temperature measurements (as you say) then how on earth are the forecasts for any decent period ahead (2 or 3 days or in the case above, 7 days in advance) accurate?
To me, correct temperatures do not matter much in a weather forecast unless it is close to freezing. It doesnt matter whether it is 24 or 28 degrees. And that is most def not why people watch the forecasts. It is mainly about wind, rain, snow, sleet. But ok, i DO care about temperature in relation to pressure zones. Quite often Ireland and Scotland find themselves on the wrong side of the deviding line. Last month for instance: 16/ 17 degrees w a hard, cold wind against 24 degrees in southern England. That hurts.
Different models using different principles. You might as well ask why, if they can model airplanes, why can’t they model the weather.
For many places, weather is controlled by weather fronts and just how far south they get.
Assume current temperature is hot and dry and there is an approaching cold front.
If the cold front stalls out before reaching your area, it remains hot and dry.
If the cold front stalls on top of you, it will be cool and rainy for several days.
If the cold front blows on through and stalls out well south of you, then there will be a brief period of rain followed by cold and dry.
Where exactly a cold front is going to stall out depends on many factors. The position and strength of high and low pressure zones, the vagaries of the jet stream and others.
Metoffice Deep Dive forecast presented on 8th July (6 or 7 days ago). Pretty accurate don’t you think? Main model has Dublin behind the cold front and therefore cooler weather. Please provide link where hot dry weather was forecast. Weather forecasts 5 days in advance are now as accurate as what 2 or 3 day forecasts used to be. But weather forecasting is different to climate forecasting. In many ways climate forecasting is easier – more GHG, more heat. https://youtu.be/VURaCGbzbPw?list=PLGVVqeJodR_ZGnhyYdlEpdYrjZ-Pmj2rt&t=1086
If I am not mistaken the forecast was the Irish weather service that I referred to. I have not compared this with the UK Met to see the differences.
I (somewhat) disagree. The accuracy of a forecast completely depends on the circumstances. The forecasts have become somewhat more accurate. Still, 3 days have been pretty much the rule and even that can be problematic. Id like to be a weather forecaster…in the tropics.
Anyway, your GHG Dogma is noted. A regular church goer then. Have Faith, brother, maybe one day He will return..
Climate forecasting is easy when the result is predetermined as a function of a meaningless non-factor like CO2.
But let’s not mistake the easy forecast with one that is correct.
I once asked someone who did weather-based transactions how far our you could actually rely on weather forecasts.
Without hesitation, he said “Two days.”
Last couple weeks here in NC, we’re lucky if they’re accurate for 2 hours.
Story > Tip:
How Trump’s assault on science is blinding America to climate change – E&E News by POLITICO
I had a look at who E & E News is.
” … providing accurate and non-partisan ….. etc”.
Aye, right.
The left has a long history of defining their position as “non-partisan”. Disagreeing with them is always being “partisan”.
If we’re the “partisans,” that must make THEM the “Fascists.” Oh wait, they are! 😄😆😅
Could it be that they genuinely dont know? If the location was simply read from coordinates from modelled data, then the regressive analysis would have come from their GCM and involved every station in the region to some extent.
The only thing to do is stop.
the specific stations used in regressive analysis each month are not an output from the process
At least 103 MO stations do not physically exist.
Any analysis on that is pointless. Do you disagree?
Its hard to say whether there is value in extending the readings from the locations. I only hope the “readings” are properly characterised as calculated estimates in the data set.
If that is the case, they are incompetent. It’s their only job, so they should be fired
If they’re getting their “readings” from the weather model output (I’d previously suggested GCM but I think weather model is more likely) then I wouldn’t call them incompetent but I would have thought it’d be simpler for them to simply say so.
So perhaps the individual who made the statement didn’t know and in a sense that might be incompetent.
I’m twenty minutes from bodiam- the castle I assume. Is there anything I can check on?
The MSM will not report the truth, just like GMB yesterday with it’s lies about sea levels are rising fast in the UK due to global warming and cited the easy coast flood in 1963 as an example; at a time we were coming out of the coldest UK winter in 200 year and the the global cooling of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s that led to scientist and the MSM declaring a new ice age. Anyhow now the MSM is more concentrated than ever with 90% of the us MSM owned by eight corporations and in the UK pretty much the same. In fact the owners mainly subscribe to the WEF or globalist cabal, so the real truth will NEVER come from them . There is a globalist agenda to destroy Western civilization and it’s people ahead of their new dawn
That announced barnstorming speech by Mad Miliband could be worth watching. Reclaim has 4 MPs and would expect them to give him stiff opposition.
“Vetaxious”
well I wonder with what BS these eco-loons want to annoy us more?
fancy words or the utter garbage they bloke out every day on the taxpayer’s expense?
DODGE was yesterday…the chainsaw is the future
sarc
Man, that hurts!
{ Vexatious / to vex / vexed } is a word-favorite.
A beloved colleague* would use ‘vexed’ to substitute for a vulgarity:
‘Well, now we’re really vexed!‘
*an Israeli-American, he’d been a young (IDF) soldier in the Six-Days War (1967), both fronts (Suez & Jerusalem).
Pardon my simple mind, “annoying” would have done the same trick as “vetaxious” 😉
Please correct me if I’m wrong… Isn’t the Met the office that in the past only provided their “value added data” and not the raw data? I believe they even implied that the raw data had been erased.
I can provide maximum temperature data for Scunthorpe, N Lincolnshire during June. These temperatures were recorded in the middle of a urban centre with a LiG Six’s thermometer in open shade.
Mean maximum temperature for June 23C
Lowest max temp 16.3C 8th
Highest Max temp 31.2C 30th
The Met Office don’t appear to be sure about what temperature needs to be reached for it to be classed as a heatwave here in N Lincolnshire. Go to their website and its set at 27C, but recently on a BBC weather report the Met Office map was showing N Lincolnshire to be in the 26C threshold.
So depending on the threshold, here in Scunthorpe the number of heatwave days during June are as follows.
26C six days
17th
20th
21st
28th
29th
30th
27C five days
20th
21st
28th
29th
30th
I find the Met office vexatious.
Has Ray Sanders contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office? It’s their job to investigate cases like this. They are in a much better position than the Met Office to decide whether or not “public interest factors in favour of not responding to the requests outweigh the public interest factors in favour of responding to the requests”.
Not yet as it is quite a legal framework to go through. I do not expect them to be as helpful as you may think as it will all get bogged down in fine points of law. I will be pursuing other avenues.
“Ridley goes on to note that the Met Office seems increasingly bored by its day job of forecasting the weather”
Life. But it’s nice to get the paycheck.
Dunno about bored. They start in the morning and never stop. Morning- afternoon, evening- forecasts. I am mad and watch them too. It kinda matters in Ireland.
I believe Armagh Weather Station has records going back to 1784.
According to the blurb:
I don’t have the skills to do an analysis as good as Ray Sanders
Armagh is best described as a blaze of crap. I am saving up reporting on it for a “Special”
“Ed Miliband has promised to inject some ‘radical truth-telling’ into the climate-change debate”
What was he doing before?
When a climate alarmist starts talking about “truth,” you generally have to substitute the word “lie” or “lies” in accordance with the context to understand the actual meaning.
The Met Office is vexed (annoyed) by the proletariat asking about their fake data. Why should they have to explain themselves, say the Met Office royalty. They are not amused. They make up sh…tuff for the greater good, of course. Eat your cake and like it, vexatious prols.
The Met Office has literally become a Monty Python quote…
“He’s making it up as he goes along!”
Yet another example of why government is such a bad choice to be in charge of anything. Lying and cheating is not okay. If the Met is recording data from a nonexistent site it should be a simple matter to take a picture of the area if there is no weather station there all of the head administrators should be fired immediately. I would give the Met 72 hours to not use nonexistent stations. If they didn’t comply there would be wholesale firing from the top down. There is no excuse for this kind of crap.
To add some detail to the Lowestoft issue, the other “well correlated” sites shown as in the same gridded cell area are Morley St Botolph, Scole, Coltishall and Hemsby. NONE OF THEM EXIST!
Scole is really amusing – https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2025/07/05/why-is-the-met-office-withholding-so-much-basic-information/
The tale of the Undead Zombie Met Office weather stations is getting more bizarre by the day.
I think the Met Office might secretly be using a single poorly sited temperature station for their entire temperature record and simply “estimating” what the temperature “should be” everywhere else! 😆😅🤣😂
The Met Office only use “homogenized” data. The homogenization magically creates missing data from existing location, as well as data from non-existent locations. Years ago I asked for a description how the process worked. I was told that the only documentation was the program itself, freely available, and written in MathLab if memory serves. That made my further pursuit financially unaffordable. But they did not call me vexatious.
“Homogenized data” is an oxymoron.
Data is INSTRUMENT READINGS. ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS of something.
Anything else is glorified guesswork. Let’s not incorrectly label it “data” because it is nothing of the kind.
When the MO came out with all these claims a few days ago in keyed in to Google “how accurate are the met office weather stations in the UK”, I got back a full on defence of the Met Office, below is one of the links it promoted.
https://science.feedback.org/review/no-the-uk-met-office-is-not-fabricating-climate-data-contrary-to-a-bloggers-claims/
No wonder the general public believe we are all doomed if they don’t know about alternative sources like WUWT. When some goes on to me about the weather, I just reply “yes, it’s a lot better than last year, I think we only managed one BBQ because the weather was so unreliable”.
Science Feedback is actually a Facebook sponsored censorship organisation. They never spoke to me and when I approached them they refused any discussion.
From the article: “As Sanders notes, it is impossible to rationally justify any climate average figures without knowing what the relevant inputs were.”
This should also apply to the global temperature chart, the bogus Hockey Stick chart. We don’t know the inputs for the global temperature average, so we should not trust the numbers we are given.
On top of that, the original, written temperature records do not correlate with the global temperature record.
Phil Jones refused to show how he derived a global temperature record from the data available (he said if he did, someone might criticize him), and therefore, we have no basis to trust his global temperature record which is refuted by the historic, written temperature records.
You can’t honestly get a “hotter and hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick global temperature chart profile out of data that has no “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature profile. And Phil Jones had no “hotter and hotter and hotter” data to work with, since there is no such historical data.
Phil Jones just made it all up out of whole cloth, just like the Met Office is doing, and for the same Net Zero political reasons.