A British government agency, the Met Office, has come under scrutiny following claims of fabricating meteorological data from over 100 non-existent weather stations. The allegations suggest the data has been used to bolster the climate change narrative and promote the Net Zero agenda.
The fabricated data, reportedly included in climate models influencing global institutions such as the United Nations, has sparked concerns about the reliability of information shaping international climate policies.
Allegations of False Data
Investigator Ray Sanders uncovered the issue after submitting multiple Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to the Met Office and conducting on-site inspections. Sanders alleges that 103 out of the 302 stations reportedly supplying temperature data do not exist.
“How would any reasonable observer know that the data was not real and simply ‘made up’ by a Government agency?” Sanders asked. He has called for transparency and an “open declaration” of any fraudulent data to prevent misuse by other institutions and researchers.
Local Findings in Kent
In Kent, Sanders claims that four of the eight stations listed by the Met Office—Dungeness, Folkestone, Dover, and Gillingham—are fictitious. He notes that Dungeness has lacked a weather station since 1986. Furthermore, none of these sites are classified by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), raising questions about their legitimacy.
For instance, the Met Office refers inquiries about Dover’s weather data to the “nearest climate station” at Dover Harbour (Beach), which Sanders argues is an unlikely location for accurate long-term temperature monitoring.
Broader Concerns
The practice of generating estimated data from non-existent stations is not new. In the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has faced similar accusations of fabricating data for over 30% of its reporting sites. Meteorologist Anthony Watts notes that using such “ghost data” undermines the credibility of reports, likening it to inadmissible evidence in a court of law.
Calls for Accountability
In an open letter to Peter Kyle MP, the minister responsible for the Met Office, Sanders alleges that the agency is “clearly fabricating” data and failing to uphold scientific integrity. He asserts that the Met Office’s network of weather stations is inadequately maintained and poorly sited, leading to unreliable climate reporting.
Despite these serious allegations, there has been no response from Kyle, the Met Office, or other government officials. The lack of mainstream media coverage has further fueled speculation that the push for Net Zero goals may be overshadowing concerns about the accuracy of the underlying data.
As the debate continues, Sanders’s findings have sparked a broader conversation about transparency, data integrity, and the role of scientific evidence in shaping public policy.
