Met Office Must Account for the ‘Junk’ Temperature Data

No we are back to rigorous scepticism as part of the scientific method, the method all the scientists in the world are supposed to be working to. Why would they dodge the hard questions on their findings, we know why politicians dodge the hard questions, we can only wonder why scientists do. By the way the data is not manipulated by the sceptics, nor is it invented by the sceptics, all the information I have given is in the public domain, is based on official assessments of groups and organisations that are both climate savvy and part of the official input into the IPCC reports.

So where are those investigations and replies to the specific points made then? Rigorous scepticism is a process of questioning and addressing and should be part of the process undertaken by the scientists supplying the IPCC with their information. If there are queries on the data there should be a clear line of addressing that point. Dismissing the sceptics as charlatans and corrupt scientists is not addressing the points made on a regular basis. The MO of reply very often seems to be along the lines of pseudo science site, bloggers ugh, flat earthers and in the  pay of  the fossil fuel industry. Those are not replies they are shooting the messenger. A bit like when one says I thought 2+2 =4 the answer is you would wouldn't you; not relevant at all.

I don't know where they are because they don't exist. They are piffling little anomalies that any proper scientist dismisses as irrelevant. 

One weather station at Heathrow another next to a white building in Texas. Blogger clickbait is all you've presented me. Alongside opinion pieces saying it means they could be out so we don't know. 
Well I say every scientific institution says we do know, we know Co2 is increasing rapidly and we know its warming the planet. Enough people are seeing it for themselves now (Which is a shame because it means we left it too long) but means deniers are now just an irritation and not a threat to the planet. 

Jumping to conclusions again. I have not said the planet is not becoming warmer overall; why, by how much  and what will happen are all realistically unknown. A degree of uncertainty is a degree of uncertainty it matters little if it is up or down what matters is what it is presented as. The planet may be 2.5C warmer it may also be only 0.5 C warmer, the point is no one knows. You seem to be saying the uncertainty does not matter as the average is what counts. Do you really need me to tell you that averaging out  inaccurate readings does not make anything more accurate. My scrutiny resides in the unanswered questions and the consideration of the details that are at best sketchy and the noticing that in order to refute the questions they do not answer they frequently attack the questioner. The unanswered questions are not the 'have you stopped beating your wife' type questions they are clearly the 'your figures say this is the case' type questions

What has been cherry - picked. The WMO rate the Met offices stations, they have not cherry picked the bad ones they have assessed the lot as far as I can see and stated that 80% have an uncertainty of at least 1C with the majority having an uncertainty of at least 2C. 

There are many reasons why things happen. Why was Franklin ice bound in teh 1840s for several years when normally that area is open water in those decades. Why did Scott in 1901 get his ship all the way up McMurdo sound but in 1911 could not get past Cape Evans. Why is the Antarctic sea ice increasing if teh planet is warming in a catastrophic way. There is normal variation of many things and systems and climate parameters shift and change as a multitude of different factors affect the planet and no doubt man has an effect. So far the predictions on what will happen are seriously at odds with the actual observations being made.

Again you don't understand the scientific process. There are indeed MANY so-called scientists who are stupid (or just get things wrong) and/or lie. There always have been, but it's a veritable epidemic nowadays, with pseudo-science proliferating everywhere. The usual way that this is weeded out is by the process of peer-review. Scientists write their experimental results and their potential theories as to why, and other scientists review their paper by either replicating or reproducing their research. A lot of junk science is exposed in this way.

The problem with the climate change research is that it is NOT peer-reviewed. The Earth is far too complex to be replicated and there's only ONE set of data that we have - data (of varying accuracy) that has been collected over the decades. And the theories that the IPCC uses are built in to their model - which exists as millions of lines of code on a supercomputer. How on earth could anyone peer-review that? You'd need an army of scientists of various specialisms and a vast budget. It's impossible.

Of course the data can be changed - and the IPCC is adept at this - and we know that they've been playing ducks and drakes with the data for years. But no one can peer-review anything else. All we can do is look at the predictions that their model makes and notice that they're consistently wrong (all in the direction of exaggeration of warming). So the theories are wrong. And if anyone - scientist or not - tries to draw any conclusions from this model they are indeed lairs. The use of Kalman filtering (using their own model to detect "inaccurate" readings) was the last straw for some scientists, who resigned a few years ago.