The Met Office has released all of its stored temperature readings "confident that they will prove its prediction of global warming". Useful.
Purely at random I chose a Midlands city - Oxford, which has recorded data going back to 1853.
The last year for which there is recorded data in full is 2008 so I looked at every 10th year from 1868 onwards. I thought it fair, since we are talking about proving global warming, to note the highest recorded temperature in June and in December. Anyone with a week to spare can look at other months and years.
The highest June days were recorded in 1858 and 1868 at 23.6C. The highest December day was 1868 with 10.4C [1898 and 1988 being 10.1C]. The lowest recorded noon temperature in June was 1888 at 16.3C.
The relative records for 1998 [the hottest year on record, we are told] are almost identical to those of 1938.
Returning to 2008 we read the June high to be 20.1C which is beaten by 6 years. December of that year had a high of 6.9C and higher December records occurred in 1858, 1868, 1888, 1898, 1918, 1938, 1948, 1958. 1978, 1988 and 1998. I could have shortened that by telling you that only on 4 occasions has the December high been lower than in 2008.
You may choose any other town or city and any other range of years. The few that I have looked at show no evidence of any warming trend at all unless you compare 2008 with 1928 or 1968, the only years in the sample of 16 which were cooler than 2008.
I am perfectly sure that the Met Office has all of these trends computerised and graphed. If they had proven the contention then those graphs would have been released, not just raw data.
Of course, I am perfectly prepared to concede that Oxford is not necessarily typical of all world spots. Neither is any other place.
I encourage readers to pick other cities and do the same as Victor has done. The Met Office data is HERE.
UPDATE Monday 5pm: Watching the Church of Climateology react to this post has been a joy to behold. Clearly the left, stung by the post about Kerry McCarthy seem to think they can get back at me through this post. Well, hey, good luck to them. The insults flying around on Twitter have to be seen to be believed.
I posted this because I thought it was interesting. It was not my work, as I made clear in the opening line. I then at the end encouraged readers to test the data themselves. And yet Will Straw, for it is he, seems to think I have something to apologise for. In his world maybe, but not in mine. I regard the internet as a place for debate - where you can throw something out there and let people debate the rights and wrongs.
My mind is not closed ont he issue of climate change. I like conventional orthodoxies to be challenged, to be tested. The reason I posted this was because I found what Victor had done interesting. I wanted to get a reaction, to test what Victor had done. To see if it stood up to scrutiny or not. Readers can make their own judgements as to whether it has or not.
Most people on the left on Twitter haven't really bothered engaging in an argument - all they have done is hurl insults. That's fine. I expect it from them. They're the internet equivalent of pond life. At least Will Straw attempts to argue the toss without descending into the gutter. Unlike his friends at Liberal Conspiracy who I won't even grace with a link. Until they grow up.