Gary Myers 📡📻🛰️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧

Licensed Radio Amateur; Electronics Engineer; CITP MBCS; EMC and Radio Interference campaigner; Space Cowboy; East Anglian Mountain Rescue.

[Gary Myers 📡📻🛰️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 @M0PLT]

@sepehr_ghafari @kmcnam1 Dell servers and their insane BIOS that would re-arrange the Ethernet adapters on every boot. You have to use biosdevname with Dell servers to stop them being re-arranged on each reboot. fscking annoying!

[Interesting AF @interesting_aIl]

I really appreciate the efforts of designing and coding this masterpiece

[Glenn Meder @GlennMeder]

🧵 THREAD

1/ They are coming for open source software.

Not by banning it. By requiring identity verification for anyone who contributes code.

No more anonymous developers. No more pseudonymous contributors. No more building tools without attaching your real name and government ID to every line of code you write.

If they can identify every developer, they can control what gets built. And if they can control what gets built, they can stop anything that threatens their power.

[Gary Myers 📡📻🛰️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 @M0PLT]

2x #WSJTX operating #FT8 via my FT-991A and FT-710 at the same time. Bit of a lift on VHF and UHF. #amateurradio #hamradio

[Gary Myers 📡📻🛰️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 @M0PLT]

Reminder to all UK #RadioAmateurs that #5MHz can only be used by those who hold a Full Amateur Radio licence. It cannot be used by Foundation (Mx3/Mx6/Mx7) or Intermediate (Mx8/Mx9/2x0/2x1) licence holders. #hamradio #amateurradio

[Andrea Borgnino IW0HK @aborgnino]

New free Handbook from ITU: Amateur and amateur-satellite services https://t.co/OE26OwHqC9

[Gary Myers 📡📻🛰️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 @M0PLT]

@Anaya_sharma876 Rocky Linux 9 used across all of my systems. I rebuild Fedora SRPMs for the Amateur Radio packages. I like the Enterprise Linux stability - especially as I run VirtualBox. OpenShot, KiCAD, LibreOffice from Flatpak is OK - if a little space hogging on /var.

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

The Emperor Has No Clothes: How the IPCC Built a 38-Year Climate Empire on a Circle of Lies
Summary of my talk at ICCC16 on April 8, 2026.
The papers underlying this analysis are available at https://t.co/TiXR6dk7Uk.

For nearly four decades, the world has been told a story. The story goes like this: the Earth is warming at an alarming rate, humans are causing it by burning fossil fuels, and unless we spend trillions of dollars to stop it, catastrophe awaits. Governments have reorganized their economies around this story. Children have grown up afraid of it. Scientists who questioned it have been ostracized.

There is just one problem. The scientific foundation of that story — every single number the IPCC uses to tell it — is physically meaningless. Not uncertain. Not debatable. Physically meaningless, in the same way that the average of everyone's phone numbers in Washington, DC is meaningless. You can calculate it. The arithmetic works out fine. But the result tells you absolutely nothing about reality.

This is not a fringe claim. It is a mathematical and physical demonstration, built on peer-reviewed papers and the foundational principles of thermodynamics. And once you see it, you cannot unsee it.

The First Lie: A Temperature That Does Not Exist

Everything begins with the Global Mean Surface Temperature, or GMST. This is the single number — usually expressed as an anomaly from a pre-industrial baseline — that the entire IPCC enterprise is built upon. When you hear that the Earth has warmed 1.2 degrees since the industrial revolution, you are hearing about GMST. When climate models project warming of 2 or 3 or 4 degrees by 2100, they are projecting changes in GMST. When the Paris Agreement sets a limit of 1.5 degrees, it is a limit on GMST.

So what exactly is GMST? Here is where the story starts to unravel.

Temperature, in physics, is what is called an intensive property. That means it describes the state of a specific physical system — a system that has boundaries, that is in or near thermal equilibrium, that has a single governing equation of state. You can meaningfully talk about the temperature of a cup of coffee, or a room, or the ocean at a particular depth, because each of those is a defined physical system. What you cannot do, without violating the laws of thermodynamics, is aggregate temperatures across systems that are not in thermal contact with each other and call the result a "temperature."

The Earth's surface is not a thermodynamic system. It is a patchwork of thousands of local systems — deserts and rainforests, polar ice sheets and tropical oceans, mountain peaks and valley floors — none of which are in thermal equilibrium with each other. Averaging their temperatures produces a number, yes. But that number is not a temperature in any physically meaningful sense. It has no equation of state governing it. There is no physical law that connects it to anything. It is, as physicist Christopher Essex and colleagues demonstrated rigorously in a 2007 paper, simply not a temperature.

This is not a technicality. It is the kind of category error that, in any other field of science, would end a research program immediately. Averaging intensive properties across non-equilibrium systems is like averaging the zip codes of everyone in New York City and then using the result to give someone directions. The arithmetic produces a number. The number means nothing.

The International Organization for Standardization recognized this implicitly decades ago. ISO was tasked in 2002 with defining all important terms related to climate change — and to this day, "global average temperature" does not appear in their completed definitions. The omission is not an oversight. ISO's mandate requires metrological rigor, and "global average temperature" cannot survive it.

Neither the IPCC nor any climate agency has ever produced a rigorous physical definition of GMST. They use it constantly — it appears in virtually every chapter of the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report — but they have never defined what physical quantity it represents, because no such definition is possible.

The Second Lie: Models Built on Nothing

If GMST is physically meaningless, what are the IPCC's climate models actually doing?

The answer is uncomfortable. Every major climate model used by the IPCC — the ensemble known as CMIP, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project — is tuned to reproduce historical GMST trends. These models have hundreds of adjustable parameters, and those parameters are set so that the model's output matches the observed GMST record. This is called validation: you adjust the model until it fits the data, and then you declare that the model has been validated against observations.

But if GMST is not a physically meaningful quantity, then tuning a model to reproduce it is not validation. It is curve-fitting against a number that has no physical content. The model learns to reproduce a mathematical artifact, not a physical reality. And because these are coupled global circulation models — where temperature interacts with precipitation, wind, ocean currents, sea ice, and dozens of other variables — the corruption spreads everywhere. Every projection the model produces, for every variable, inherits the original meaninglessness.

The implications are staggering. Every temperature projection. Every sea level projection. Every extreme weather projection. Every carbon budget. Every remaining-emissions calculation. All of it flows from models validated against a quantity that does not physically exist.

The Third Lie: An Ocean That Was Never Measured

Recognizing that surface temperature records were contested and unreliable, the IPCC developed a second line of evidence: ocean heat content, or OHC. The argument was straightforward — if the planet is accumulating energy from the greenhouse effect, that energy must be going somewhere, and most of it should be going into the oceans. Measure the ocean's heat content over time, and you have a direct measurement of the planet's energy imbalance.

This argument sounds compelling. It rests on a program called Argo — a network of roughly 4,400 robotic floats deployed across the world's oceans, each one diving to 2,000 meters and rising back to the surface every ten days, transmitting temperature and salinity profiles along the way. Argo is a genuine scientific achievement, an engineering marvel that has produced an enormous amount of valuable oceanographic data.

But here is what Argo was actually designed to do, according to its founding documents from 1998: observe the evolving physical state of the upper ocean, track regional patterns of heat and salinity, support weather forecasting, and complement satellite altimeters. Global ocean heat content and Earth's energy imbalance are mentioned nowhere. The program was not designed for that purpose, and its design is fundamentally unsuited to it.

The problem begins with basic physics. When an Argo float ascends from 2,000 meters to the surface over six to ten hours, it collects roughly 1,000 temperature measurements along the way. But the float is drifting the entire time. By the time it surfaces and phones home via satellite, it may be fifty kilometers from where its deepest measurements were taken. Those measurements are all assigned to the surface GPS position — the only location that is actually known. The actual underwater trajectory is entirely unknown. Every single data point below the surface is assigned to the wrong location.

Then the interpolation begins. Those 12,000 real measurements per month — already spatially misassigned — are used to fill 45,000 three-dimensional grid cells covering the global ocean. The vast majority of the ocean is not measured at all; it is calculated. The polar regions, coastal zones, and marginal seas are largely excluded. About half the total ocean volume, including all water below 2,000 meters, is simply ignored. The calculations use correlation functions that blend measurements from water masses hundreds or even thousands of kilometers apart, destroying any local information the floats actually captured.

The anomalies computed from this process — the differences from a historical baseline — then run into the same fundamental physics problem as GMST. Temperature is an intensive property. You cannot meaningfully average temperature anomalies across non-equilibrium volumes of ocean any more than you can average them across the Earth's surface. The resulting number has units attached to it, and the arithmetic is consistent, but it does not represent a physical reality.

When all the genuine sources of uncertainty are properly quantified — the untracked trajectories, the interpolation errors, the deep ocean ignorance, the polar gaps, the mismatched measurement frameworks — the true uncertainty in the derived Earth Energy Imbalance figure is greater than plus or minus one watt per square meter at 95% confidence. The IPCC's AR6 reports it as 0.7 plus or minus 0.2 watts per square meter. The actual uncertainty is roughly five times larger than the signal being measured. The result is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

The Fourth Lie: Satellites Adjusted to Match the Fiction

The IPCC presents its ocean heat content figure and its satellite-derived energy imbalance figure as two independent lines of evidence that agree with each other. This agreement is cited as powerful confirmation that the Earth is accumulating energy at the rate claimed.

What the IPCC does not prominently advertise is how that agreement was achieved.

NASA's CERES instruments — satellites measuring the radiation budget at the top of the atmosphere — produce raw measurements with an absolute uncertainty of roughly three to five watts per square meter. The signal the IPCC claims to be measuring is 0.7 watts per square meter. The satellites, on their own, cannot resolve it.

So what was done? The CERES data were adjusted — via a least-squares optimization — to force agreement with the Argo-derived ocean heat content estimate. The IPCC's own AR6 documentation acknowledges this directly: the CERES fluxes "were adjusted, within the estimated uncertainties, to ensure that the net TOA flux was consistent with the estimated Earth's energy imbalance based on ocean heat content measurements."

In other words: they adjusted the satellites to match the floats, and then cited the match as independent confirmation. That is not science. That is circular reasoning with extra steps.

This is not unprecedented behavior in the IPCC ecosystem. Kevin Trenberth, one of the architects of the ocean heat content framework, wrote in a now-famous 2009 email obtained through the ClimateGate disclosure: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in August shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong." When the satellites disagree with the models, the satellites are wrong. When the satellites are adjusted to agree, that agreement is cited as confirmation. The game is rigged by construction.

The Fifth Lie: The CO₂ Fingerprint That Was Never There

The final pillar of the IPCC's case is carbon dioxide attribution. Yes, CO₂ has risen in the atmosphere. Yes, human industrial activity emits CO₂. But the IPCC goes further, claiming that the rise in atmospheric CO₂ is almost entirely anthropogenic — that natural processes cannot account for it, and that the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO₂ provides an unambiguous human fingerprint.

This claim rests on the Bern model, a mathematical framework describing how CO₂ moves between the atmosphere and natural reservoirs. The Bern model has a particularly alarming feature: it predicts that a substantial fraction of CO₂ emitted today will remain in the atmosphere for centuries or millennia. The IPCC's AR5 report states that fifteen to forty percent of emitted CO₂ will persist in the atmosphere for more than a thousand years. This is the foundation of carbon budgets and net-zero targets.

The Bern model has been falsified by evidence that has been sitting in plain sight for sixty years.

When atmospheric nuclear testing peaked in the early 1960s, it injected a massive pulse of radioactive carbon — bomb carbon-14 — into the atmosphere. This pulse has been tracked continuously ever since. If the Bern model were correct, that pulse should decay slowly, with a substantial permanent fraction remaining. Instead, it decays as a single exponential with an e-folding time of about seventeen years. The bomb carbon is gone. It cycled through the system and was absorbed — completely — in roughly half a century. The multi-exponential Bern model, with its permanent airborne fraction, is simply wrong. CO₂ does not persist in the atmosphere for millennia. It cycles through in years to decades.

The isotopic evidence tells the same story. The carbon isotope ratio in atmospheric CO₂ — the quantity called delta-13C — is supposed to be declining as fossil fuel CO₂, which is isotopically light, mixes into the atmosphere. The IPCC treats this decline as the smoking gun of human causation.

But a 2024 peer-reviewed study by Prof. Demetris Koutsoyiannis examined the actual isotopic data carefully and found something the consensus narrative cannot accommodate: the net isotopic input signature to the atmosphere has been essentially unchanged since the Little Ice Age. The value has remained stable — globally, across all major measurement sites, throughout the entire period of industrialization. A changing human fingerprint should show up as a changing net signature. It does not. The isotopic composition is consistent with natural biosphere dominance and an undetectable human contribution.

The reason is not mysterious. The biosphere — plants, soils, oceans — cycles roughly twenty-five times more carbon per year than human industrial emissions. Natural processes are overwhelmingly dominant. Human emissions are noise on top of a vast natural signal. And temperature, not human activity, drives the dominant part of that signal: warming causes the biosphere to exhale more CO₂, which raises atmospheric concentrations. The causality runs from temperature to CO₂, not the reverse.

5 x 0 = 0

Step back and look at the full picture.

The IPCC's case for human-caused climate catastrophe rests on five interlocking metrics: GMST, the climate models tuned to it, ocean heat content, Earth's energy imbalance derived from ocean heat, and CO₂ attribution. Each one is presented as an independent line of evidence. Together, the IPCC says, they constitute overwhelming proof.

But they are not independent. They form a circle. GMST is physically meaningless. The models are tuned to GMST and inherit its meaninglessness. Ocean heat content is computed through a process that violates measurement physics and is statistically indistinguishable from zero. Earth's energy imbalance is derived from ocean heat content and confirmed by satellites that were adjusted to match it. CO₂ attribution rests on a model falsified by nuclear bomb data and an isotopic fingerprint that does not exist in the observations.

Each element of the chain depends on the others. None stands independently. The IPCC calls this "multiple lines of evidence." But five times zero is still zero.

What This Means

None of this proves that the climate is not changing, or that human activity has no effect on the atmosphere. Climate changes continuously, and has for billions of years. What it demonstrates is that the specific metrics the IPCC uses to quantify the crisis — every number that drives the policy, every figure that justifies the spending, every projection that frightens the public — are built on a foundation that does not survive contact with basic physics.

The International Organization for Standardization could not define global average temperature because it fails metrological requirements. Four different AI systems, presented with the mathematical arguments, reached the same conclusion independently. The emperor has no clothes — and even the tools his court built to defend him can see it.

For thirty-eight years, an enormous scientific and political infrastructure has been constructed on top of these metrics. Trillions of dollars in spending have been justified by them. Careers, institutions, and international agreements depend on them. Questioning them has been treated as heresy.

But physics does not negotiate. A number that has no physical meaning does not acquire one because important people find it useful. A measurement indistinguishable from zero does not become evidence of a crisis because a satellite was adjusted to agree with it. A model falsified by sixty years of bomb carbon data does not become valid because it has been cited ten thousand times.

The work is done. The papers are published. The mathematics is there for anyone who wishes to examine it. The question now is not scientific. It is whether the institutions that built their empires on these numbers will acknowledge what the physics has always been trying to tell them.

The emperor has no clothes. He never did. And it is long past time to say so.

The presentation "The Emperor Has No Clothes" was delivered at the 16th International Climate Change Conference, Washington DC, April 8–9, 2026.

👇👇👇👇👇

[Gary Myers 📡📻🛰️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 @M0PLT]

Showing some love for the 5 MHz band tonight with v3.0.0 of #WSJTX and #FT8 with the Yaesu FT-710 and a terminated-folded-dipole aerial. #hamradio

[Gary Myers 📡📻🛰️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 @M0PLT]

@K3TripleR Rebuilt Rawhide SRPM for Rocky 9 today and have been playing. Nice auto-responder action if you miss a QSO. Had to flip a setting to restore old Erase button function. Enabled filter to hide stations worked on band - decreased clutter!

[Wide Awake Media @wideawake_media]

In 2023, long before the synchronised global rollout of under-16 social media bans, investigative journalist Whitney Webb exposed the WEF's plan to mandate digital ID as a requirement to access the internet.

"If your ID is linked to your internet access, intelligence agencies know exactly what media you are consuming... and also what you post online. And that has been the goal for a very, very long time."

"People aren't necessarily going to consent to that unless they are made to believe that anonymity and privacy online are dangerous."

Credit: @_whitneywebb @RedactedNews

[Danish nuclear advocate🇩🇰 @danishnuclear]

Tell me again how wind energy can be cheaper than nuclear 🤷‍♂️

[John Shewchuk @_ClimateCraze]

Latest UAH data show that earth continues into its 3rd year of global cooling. CO2 continues to underperform.

[Electroverse @Electroversenet]

Almost 80% of UK Met Office stations have error margins of up to 2C, with many as bad as 5C. Yet the same agency claims new records down to a hundredth of a degree.

Of the UK's 380 stations, only 14% meet World Meteorological Organization standards.

The rest sit beside roads, buildings or runways, places like Heathrow and St James' Park.

According to the WMO, almost half of UK stations are rated Class 4, unreliable, with a third rated Class 5, effectively junk.

These distorted readings feed climate emergency headlines and Net Zero policies.

Meanwhile, satellite and high-grade US datasets show only slight warming - a continuation of the post-Little Ice Age temperature rise. But those don't serve the narrative, so they're routinely ignored.

[Michael Shellenberger @shellenberger]

The Hormuz crisis is the precipitating factor in the current energy crisis, but the underlying cause is too little oil and gas production outside the Persian Gulf.

Had the world spent the past decade building the oil, gas, LNG, pipeline, and fertilizer infrastructure that engineers designed and companies proposed, the Hormuz crisis would still be a serious geopolitical event, but it would not threaten to cause a recession.

North America

— The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a 600-mile natural gas line from West Virginia to North Carolina, saw its cost double from $4.5 billion to $8 billion during years of environmental litigation before Duke Energy and Dominion Energy cancelled it in July 2020.

— The Constitution Pipeline from Pennsylvania to New York died the same year.

— The PennEast Pipeline won its case at the United States Supreme Court in 2021 and still could not get built because New Jersey refused to issue state permits.

— In Canada, TransCanada abandoned the $15.7 billion Energy East pipeline in 2017 after the National Energy Board required an unprecedented review of upstream and downstream emissions.

— In January 2024, the Biden administration paused all pending approvals for LNG export terminals shipping to non-free-trade-agreement countries, freezing projects representing tens of billions of cubic feet per day of potential capacity.

— Venture Global’s CP2 terminal in Louisiana, designed for 20 million tonnes per annum, sat in regulatory limbo for over a year.

— NextDecade’s Rio Grande LNG in Texas, with 48 MTPA of planned capacity, stalled alongside it.

— PTT Global Chemical’s proposed $10 billion ethane cracker in Belmont County, Ohio, first announced in 2015, remains on indefinite hold after failing to attract financing partners amid climate-driven investor sentiment.

— Across the US Gulf Coast, nearly 60% of planned plastic and petrochemical production projects sit on hold.

— LNG Canada, the Shell-led terminal at Kitimat, British Columbia, took over six years from construction start to first cargo, with its pipeline running 263% over budget. Environmental review, Indigenous disputes, and contractor cost escalation all contributed.

— Pieridae Energy’s Goldboro LNG project in Nova Scotia, a 10 MTPA facility first proposed in 2012, was abandoned in November 2023 after more than a decade of permitting and financing obstacles.

Australia

— Australia’s Santos’s Barossa gas project was halted midway through construction after a Federal Court ruling overturned its environmental approval.

— Woodside’s Scarborough project faces ongoing litigation from the Australian Conservation Foundation seeking to block it on climate grounds.

Africa

— Perhaps nowhere has the damage been more consequential than in Africa. At COP26 in 2021, wealthy nations pledged to halt overseas development finance for gas projects, a commitment that fell hardest on the continent least responsible for climate change and most in need of energy infrastructure.

— The World Bank stopped financing oil and gas extraction in 2019 and imposed restrictive conditions on downstream gas projects.

— The European Investment Bank announced a complete ban on unabated fossil fuel financing by the end of 2021, with its president declaring that “gas is over.”

— At least 21 other development finance institutions followed suit.

As a result:

— TotalEnergies’ Mozambique LNG project sat under force majeure for four and a half years after the UK Export Credit Agency and other backers withdrew climate-motivated financing.

— The East African Crude Oil Pipeline lost financing commitments from more than 30 major international banks under pressure from climatists.

Europe

— France prevented the completion of a third gas interconnector with Spain, citing climate neutrality goals.

— The United Kingdom imposed a moratorium on fracking in 2019 despite sitting atop one of Europe’s most promising shale gas formations.

— Germany, which shuttered its last three nuclear plants in April 2023, compounded its gas dependency by refusing to develop domestic shale resources.

— CF Industries permanently shut the UK’s largest ammonia plant at Billingham, a facility that also produced 60% of Britain’s food-grade CO2.

— Yara International curtailed output across plants in France, Italy, and Belgium before permanently closing its 400,000 tonne per year ammonia facility at Tertre, Belgium, in October 2024.

These closures occurred because European climate policy made gas too expensive for the domestic industry to survive.

[Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki @MatthewWielicki]

The 'trick' of climate alarmism.

[Anika @anika_climate]

🚨 BREAKING NEWS: SCOTTISH MET OFFICE CAUGHT IN SCANDAL!!! Scottish MET office still providing temperature data even though they have been CLOSED for 60 years!!! 😱🌡️

“Another shocking example of decades-long invented temperature figures at non-existent UK Met Office measuring stations has come to light. The Lephinmore ‘station’ was situated in the upper reaches of the Firth of Clyde, and according to the “location-specific long-term averages” Met Office database it can supply monthly temperature readings along with rainfall amounts going back to 1960. This supply can be considered a modern scientific wonder given that the actual station closed five months before England won the World Cup in 1966.
The usual form when the Met Office is asked to provide further and better particulars on its invention techniques is for the explanation to be given that batches of figures from “well-correlated neighbouring stations” are modelled by a computer. But in the case of location-specific station Lephinmore, there are no neighbouring stations, well-correlated or otherwise.
The three nearest with any long-term records are CIMO Class 4 ‘junk’ station Dunstaffnage at 27 miles distance, Class 4 Glasgow Bishopton 29 miles away, and the Class 4 airport site 45 miles away at Prestwick Gannet. A station called “Bute: Rothesay” is said to be 18 miles away but this closed some time ago. A new station “Bute: Rothesay No 2” opened in 2012 and this is also in the Class 4 junk portfolio. The considerable distances involved and the ‘junk’ nature of all the sites with internationally recognised uncertainties of up to 2°C, would appear to rule out well-correlation for either a single ‘station’ or a fudged ‘location-specific’ claim.
Not to put too fine a point on it, the idea that an airport site can provide scientific information about likely temperature and rainfall conditions at a rural location 45 miles away is little short of risible. A Class 4 site is unable to give a true ambient air temperature in its own backyard, let alone one tens of miles distance.”

👏🏻 Another fantastic article by Chris Morrison @CMorrisonEsq Original Article ⬇️

https://t.co/Zo0eDtNWaA

[Anika @anika_climate]

🚨 BREAKING NEWS!!! STATISTICAL PROOF THE MET OFFICE IS INFLATING UK MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE RECORDS, TO CREATE NET ZERO SUPPORTING CLIMATE ALARM!!!

Conclusive’ statistical proof has emerged over the last year to show the UK Met Office is inflating maximum temperature readings to create Net Zero-supporting climate alarm. Over the last 30 years, the Met Office has produced the vast majority of its data from unnaturally heat-ravaged ‘junk’ sites using newly-installed accurate electronic devices able to record one minute heat spikes. The independent researcher Dr Eric Huxter has taken a year to examine the unnatural sudden rises that supply many daily ‘records’, and compared the overall spike averages with a pristine CIMO Class 1 control station.

He concludes that it “could well explain the step change in rate of temperature change, and the marked increase in the step of new daily maximum records since 1990”.

During his year-long project, Dr Huxter examined 340 daily maximum temperature highs recorded across 96 Met Office stations and discovered that these sites showed average short heat spikes around 1.1°C. Most of these spikes occurred around daily ‘records’ in junk CIMO Class 3, 4 and 5 locations. These sites have internationally recognised ‘uncertainties’ or possible errors of 1°C, 2°C and 5°C respectively. But spikes in temperature can occur naturally, so Huxter consulted a full year of individual minute temperature figures at a pristine Class 1 site in open farmland at Rothamsted. From the purchased records – a total of 525,541 – he was able to compile a baseline probability control.

Here is the kicker – comparing the Rothamsted control with the 360 heat spikes at the largely junk sites, a chi-square test showed a highly significant difference of p <0.0001. This means that if there were truly no difference between the sites, the chances of observing such a large discrepancy in heat spikes would be less than one in 10,000 – in other words, more unlikely than one in 10,000 and quite possibly far smaller – for example, one in 100,000.

Using such obviously flawed data, the Met Office’s Chief Scientist Professor Stephen Belcher calls for Net Zero to “stabilise the climate”, reporting that between 2014-2023 the number of days recording 28°C in the UK had more than doubled, while those over 30°C had tripled compared to 1961-1990. The BBC’s Chief Climate Headbanger Justin Rowlatt adds even more to the gaiety of the nation by reporting a Met Office claim that there has been a 40% increase in “pleasant days”, and these are defined as 20°C and above. “These changes may sound positive, but the UK’s shifting climate represents a dangerous upheaval for our ecosystems as well as our infrastructure”, he extrapolates. Words by Chris Morrison.

[Gary Myers 📡📻🛰️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 @M0PLT]

@whoknows97531 @RaySand17710097 Lots of devices have Lithium Ion batteries and those of us from an Engineering background have seen an increase in the number of fires over the last 10+ years. Insurance companies will have also noticed and will be increasing premiums accordingly.

[Gary Myers 📡📻🛰️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 @M0PLT]

@Burntime0101 Growing up in Biggleswade, the Rolls Royce Merlin was our soundtrack thanks to the Shuttleworth Collection and Duxford. I never tire of the sound of freedom!