Click the graphic to read more:
How many data points used to justify the global warming scam were UKAS-accredited?
Were any? Do research scientists have to bother with accreditation?
What is the value of super-precise measurements when fed into speculative computer models?
What was the uncertainty of measurement for each lab that made the measurements?
Did all labs contribute measurements for each point in time or were some edited out?
Had measurements been accredited, would it have spared taxpayers from this expensive deception designed to monetise fear?
If not, does obsessive measurement have value apart from the political dogma that uses it?