Vallance’s Vanishing Act: Official Response to Stationgate

Image and caption below:Courtesy of Grok AI on reading the letter detailed below.

“The UK Government’s Minister of State for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear has finally replied (via Sir Julian Lewis MP) to concerns about Met Office station closures, poor siting, and mysterious data “archiving”. Spoiler: no admissions, plenty of assurances, and an invitation to submit more evidence. Classic.”

New Forest councillor, Derek Tipp, has been a continuous supporter of my work on the Talkshop ever since I first restarted the Surface Stations Project in August 2024. As well as providing moral support he has been actively lobbying on my behalf…..and Derek is a very successful operator indeed.

Readers will almost certainly be aware of wannabe US President Al Gore’s anti-science propaganda film “An Inconvenient Truth”. What many will probably be unaware of is that, following a political decision to show this film as part of the UK educational syllabus, Derek along with Kent business man Stewart Dimmock took the Secretary of State for Education to court over the issue. {Case known as Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills}

From the Wikipedia page:

“….a group of parents in the New Forest region of Hampshire, who argued that the film was “inaccurate and politically motivated” and threatened to take legal action against the Government. The parents’ spokesman, Conservative councillor Derek Tipp, asserted that the circulation of the film by the Government amounted to political indoctrination and was in breach of the Education Act 2002.“

The action was remarkable in that it was largely successful despite the incredible odds stacked against it. Unsurprisingly the media were typically reticent in promoting the result…..copies of Martin Durkin’s excellent film “The Great global Warming Swindle” {viewable Link} were distributed to every school as well as Gore’s. Whether it was actually shown to students is perhaps more debateable.

Derek is a former professional research Chemist, educator, long standing county councillor and has his own excellent Climate Science blog.

When I published my original letter to Peter Kyle and was clearly getting no response, Derek offered his assistance and considerable expertise to push the matter forward via his own MP Sir Julian Lewis. A lengthy period of delay and fudged responses followed including the change of responsible minister to Liz Kendall. Derek doggedly persisted and in July put this question to the Secretary of State via his constituency MP, Sir Julian Lewis.

“Rt Hon Julian Lewis MP 3 rd July
2025
House of Commons
London
SW1A OAA
Dear Julian,
Thank you for sending me a copy of the long-awaited reply from the Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP to the
very detailed points raised by Ray Sanders in his research into Met Office Temperature stations. I
was very disappointed in the Minister’s response to the many serious issues. In particular he gave
no response to the question of the Met Office continuing to pass off data as coming from a large
number of stations which have been closed for decades. That deceitful practice was only adjusted
as a result of Ray Sanders probing questions. Will he now denounce this practice and ask the Met
Office to issue an apology?
In his letter, the Minister claims that CIMO class 4 and 5 stations are acceptable for producing
accurate data, despite the fact that in the CIMO_Guide_2014-Met_Site_Classification.pdf it clearly
states that there are inaccuracies of from 2 degrees up to as much as 5 degrees Celsius for such
sites. Nearly one in three (29.2%) U.K. Met Office temperature measuring stations have such a
margin of error. Another 48.7% of the total 380 stations could produce errors up to 2°C, meaning
nearly eight out of ten stations (77.9%) are producing unreliable readings of surface air
temperatures. The Met Office frequently use them to report rises in temperature of as little as
0.01°C. Will the Minister now call for the Met Office to only use data from CIMO class 1 or 2
stations to announce new record temperatures?
The statement that it is difficult to achieve high class weather stations in the UK seems a very
defeatist attitude. There are already 52 Met Office stations which achieve CIMO class 1 or 2, and
surely with such importance now attached to climate measurements it is vital that we have the
best sites. It seems bizarre that the Met Office have in the last twenty years set up new stations
that only achieve CIMO class 4 or 5. Of the 13 sites opened in the last 5 years, 8 fail to make
Classes 1 or 2. Does the Minister not agree that we should achieve CIMO class 1 or 2 for all our
new stations?
Mr Kyle’s assertion that “Met Office observations are underpinned by a rigorous quality
management system, including a longstanding and well-honed site inspection methodology”
seems more than a little complacent in view of the reports from Mr Sanders, backed up by a
wealth of photographic evidence that clearly shows otherwise. See the three attached clear
example photos of poor sites.

Example 1. Kingston Maurward which was only installed for temperature readings in 2019. This
site sits inside a Victorian walled kitchen garden. This will create an artificially warmer
microclimate with much reduced likelihood of frosts and colder conditions. It is not representative
of the wider area.

Example 2. Dyce (Aberdeen) Airport is a site adjacent to a runway with jet engine turbines in close
proximity. Clearly unsuitable for recording natural temperatures.

Example 3. West Bingley, Bradford The photo clearly shows this site alongside an electricity
substation which gives out large quantities of waste heat – so much that they can explode as at
Heathrow earlier this year.
Ray Sanders has dozens of similar examples. Does the Minister believe that these sites are
suitable for producing accurate temperatures representative of the wider area?
I would like the Minister to focus on the three questions as summarised below:

1. Will he ask the Met Office to issue a public apology for continuing to pass off data as if it
   was from over 100 weather stations for many years after they had closed them?
2. Will he call for the Met Office to only use CIMO class 1 or 2 stations to announce record
   temperatures?
3. Does he agree that new weather stations should only be approved if they achieve CIMO
   class 1 or 2 status?

Kind regards,

Derek Tipp

I certainly feel Derek has specified in very great detail exactly what he wanted to know and framed the points extremely succinctly.

And so to the reply from Patrick Vallance who formerly “served” as HM Government chief scientific adviser from 2018 to 2023 but has since been elevated to the House Of Lords and is now Minister of State for Science,Innovation, Research and Nuclear.

Department for Science, Innovation & Technology
9 December 2025

Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Ref: MC/MC/2025-05-01-01

Dear Sir Julian,

Thank you for your correspondence of 7th October addressed to to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Rt hon Liz Kendall MP on behalf of constituent, Mr Derek Tipp, regarding the accuracy of Met Office weather station temperature measurements. I am responding as the Minister of State for Science,Innovation, Research & Nuclear and apologise for the delay in you receiving this response.

Your constituent raised concerns over data being deleted from the Met Office website. I would like to assure you that the Met office is not deleting data.

The Met Office provides historic station data on its public website. The web page shows a small subset of some of the Met Office’s climate station data. The web page is for general interest only and is not intended for official climate monitoring purposes.

In Mr Tipp’s earlier letter, dated 3 July 2025 , he expressed concern over the Met Office using data from closed stations. Weather stations open and close over time and may have incomplete records for reasons such as maintenance or power cuts. For the historic station data web page an automated process is in place, when data is missing, to provide an estimated value taken from the closest point in the Met Office’s official gridded climate data set HadUK-Grid. On the public webpage showing historic station data estimated data are transparently marked with an asterisk.

The Met Office took a decision in September to remove the estimated data from the webpage for a small number of sites that are no longer operating. They recognised that confusion could be caused when there appears to be a continued flow of data on this webpage from stations that have closed indefinitely.

In the former Science Secretary, the Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP’s response to you in June 2025 he set out how the CIMO classification scheme is used, noting that it is designed with reference to a very wide range of global environments which, as recognised internationally, can make some of the higher classes difficult to achieve in more-densely populated and higher latitude regions like the UK. The Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) issued a statement in September 2025 stating confidence in the quality and reliability of the Met office observations. The WMO emphasises that CIMO classifications should not be used to rank station quality and are working now to progress a review of the CIMO in light of members experiences applying it to their networks.

It is misleading and inappropriate to interpret the CIMO classifications in isolation to questionthe quality of the Met Office’s observing network or the integrity of the UK’s climate record. Equally, it is misleading and incorrect to interpret the estimated representativity uncertainties quoted for each CIMO classification as an indicator of instrument measurement uncertainty or accuracy. Most Stevenson Screens in the UK are class 3 or 4 for temperatureas a result of the above considerations but continue to produce high-quality data. Given theconfusion and repeated misleading claims relating to the CIMO classifications, the Met Office has taken steps to carefully explain their approach on their external website.

The Met Office follows a structured, requirements-driven process to identify and establish new land observing stations, designing networks to satisfy a wide set of needs across a broad range of application areas, ranging from climate monitoring to site specific services. Many factors are reviewed during site selection and network design, such as spatial representativity, longevity of data records, site availability, feasibilty assessments and local engagement. When a potential site is identified, it is initially assessed against CIMO and Met Office guidelines to ensure it meets required standards.

Whilst every effort is made to maintain high quality standards across Met Office observing networks, CIMO class 1 or 2 standards are not always possible or required for new weather stations. As previously explained, many UK weather stations – due to geographic and environmental constraints – are classified as CIMO class 3, 4,or 5. These stations continue to produce valid, high – quality data and are subject to rigorous inspection, maintenance quality assurance processes that align with both national and international standards.

There has been a growing online narrative in some online and social media spaces attempting to undermine Met Office observations and data. Misinformation of this nature has proliferated in conspiracy networks. Online misinformation weakens trust in science. The Met office has been working hard to tackle this misinformation and has created a toolkit to support parliamentarians and the public. If you would like further information on misinformation in general or specifically surrounding observations and data please do let me know and a personalised brief can be arranged.

Thank you for your support in tackling this important matter

Lord Vallance
Minister of State for Science, Innovation, Research & Nuclear

……………………………………………………………………………………….

So there it is, the official ministerial response. At this stage I am not going to comment on specific points. Rather I make the basic observation that not one word written above constitutes a scientific approach – it is a political monologue of the lowest order. The signatory, Mr Vallance, is responsible for this letter and has clearly deserted any scientific principles.

I would like to give my sincerest thanks to Derek for all his ongoing effort and can assure him and everyone else that this nonsense response only drives me further on with this project. I will come back to this letter – repeatedly…………

I will finish, for now, with a quote from  Richard Charles Horton OBE FRCPH FMedSci editor in chief of The Lancet who has published more peer reviewed material than probably anyone else ever 

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness”

Comments and opinions are most welcome and please, if possible, publicise this post as widely as you are able.

Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2025/12/14/vallances-vanishing-act-official-response-to-stationgate/