September 3, 2026
From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
Huge news from Dr Eric Huxter’s website:
As Ray Sanders had picked up from a January 2026 FOI request for a list of CIMO 1 and 2 class weather stations.
Kew Gardens, up to now Class 2, did not appear on this list. On May 24th I sent an enquiry as to its current status to the Meteorological Office Enquiries desk. My enquiry was given a case number and I awaited the response. In July there had been no answer therefore I sent the question again, with the associated number. On the 29th August I received the following answer:
We apologies in the delay getting back to you, our support team has come back and said the CIMO rating is or can be different for each sensor depending on the exposure assessment.
I was suitably impressed at the length of time to produce this deflection and sent a more precise question as to the CIMO Site Class for the air temperature sensor and today received this response:
The air temperature sensor at Kew Gardens is classified as CIMO 5.
Full story here.
As readers will be aware, Ray, Eric and I have been paying close attention to Kew Gardens, since it set the May temperature record earlier this year.
Despite being classified as Class 2, recent photographs revealed overgrown vegetation and close proximity of the screen to a fence. By WMO standards, Kew should at best be a Class 4.
On top of that are the inappropriate surroundings in the Gardens.
Kew has often topped the daily lists for hottest places, including that May record:
As WMO rules make clear that Class 5 sites should not be used for climatological purposes, I look forward to the Met Office removing the spurious “record temperature” from their website.
You are looking forward to the Met Office removing etc..
I wouldn’t hold your breath.
And I bet the BBC, who used the “record from Kew” just the other day, doesn’t report this either.
Did you know that Kew is only one of 23 other UK weather stations that, in May 2023, broke the previous May max temperature record?
A further 76 station broke their individual May max temperature records.
So if the Kew Gardens record gets wiped, Homewood and co only have another 22 sites to investigate and diss.
Or they could all just grow up and accept that the UK May maximum temperature record was shattered in multiple locations in 2026.
May 2026…. not “May 2023”.
23 stations, Kew inclusive.
Why would they delete the record?
The recording and presence of daily weather trivia is not ‘for climatological purposes’.
If/how they use the data in long term analysis and/or climate propaganda is where the issue arises.
Sharpen your reading skills? Record is being used in two senses.
One is, keeping it as a unit of data in a list of recordings from the detector
The other: Record! being the highest or the biggest or the longest as in climate catastrophe propaganda.
It’s you that needs to sharpen your reading comprehension skills and that has failed to understand the distinction.
Why would they delete the record?
Well, Mr Smarty Gin, why indeed would they delete the record when they have 103 imaginary, non-existent weather stations – their class rating is immaterial – gathering and reporting vital climate data?
Answers on a postcard….
One can only hope that they do keep misusing these kinds of dodgy records as input to “average temperature” constructs.
Supports the reality of the piss-poor probity of the “data” used in GAT constructs.
You can record the data in a record and report it as a record when the recorded data is the maximum of the data in the corresponding records.
Er, yes.
For years I’ve been running the 100m dash worlds anmual best performance on New years Day at 00.01 o’clock
yet I never make it into the record books.
I wonder why? 38.98 seconds is quite a decent time.
Btw – ever asked yourself why those trashy recordings always turn out in favor of the great narrative?
(using those junk sites for measurement I’d be able to run 100m in 8 seconds)
Maybe that’s one of many reasons to delete records.
I’m sure in your head that made some sense and/or sounded clever.
Logically, what you and Paul are asking is for all data from less than perfect stations to be deleted. That’s just stupid.
You can’t delete from just one day because it happens to be the highest, readings on other days are going to be just as invalid.
I look forward to the Met Office removing the spurious “record
Fifty quid says they won’t do it. They haven’t given up on RCP8.5
Do the useless pen-pushers and pretend-administrators realise that they are responsible for misleading potentially millions of people…the sort of thing that can lead to the downfall of a nation..?
YES !!
That’s why they do it.
Recently we had the utterly pointless wildfire alert – don’t have a bbq. And now another pointless and utterly nonsensical warning in print.
Minister tells Brits to stock up on days of supplies after ‘supersize’ El Niño warning
British people have been urged to have enough food and water on hand to survive a few days without power or water, as the UN said the El Niño climate phenomenon was “supersizing before our eyes”, exacerbating extreme weather events worldwide.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/sep/03/angela-eagle-uk-stock-up-supplies-el-nino-warning
I don’t know what planet they are on.
They are on a planet where renewab… El Nino related Black Outs and Diesel shortages will become the norm.
Predictive programming is an underestimated but effective tool.
They tend to favour working with the young; cohort by cohort by cohort. Education and the media are key when it comes to Inducing Psychoneuroses by Conditioned Reflex under strESS. And that’s how we get climate anxiety and all the other youth afflictions, and the groupthink.
They should be in rehab.
“stock up on days of supplies”
This is common sense at any time. Of course, the number of days is important. I don’t get really serious, such as 100 pounds of rice and beans, but I do have 10 days of food. Some people need to be reminded of both clean water, and water for cleaning and flushing.
Years ago, I saw an article of a person (before a hurricane) filling teacups and wine glasses with water. That’s too little too late. My power is more likely to go out because a tipsy driver takes a utility pole out.
A single power pole can be replaced in just a few hours. Just keep the refrigerator closed.
About a year ago ago a tree truck caught an overhead power line. By the time the truck stopped, 5 poles were down, including 3 with transformers and street lights. The box that held the meter was ripped completely off the wall of my house.
Everything was back up and running in less than 12 hours, including new transformers and lights.
The connection between the meter and the grid was up to code back in 1980, it wasn’t up to the current code. I got a free upgrade to current code, out of this accident. (That was one of the items on by Honey Do List.)
The problem is not so much that there are biased stations, as long as the bias in question is honestly taken into account when calculating the temperature increase. If a station, because of its location, is biased 2 degrees higher, it would be normal to take that into account and subtract those two degrees from the final calculation. Thermometers work well, after all; indeed, it is precisely because they function properly that there is a problem of an upward bias caused by their poor location.
I am reminded of a line by the famous French comedian Pierre Dac:
“During a heatwave, many people exclaim: ‘It’s frightening, it’s 35°C in the shade.’ But who is forcing them to stay in the shade?”
How would anyone know to correct a supposed bias, when the physically correct temperature is unknown?
Field calibration only yields a (plus/minus) measurement uncertainty.
How do these folks justify, with a straight face, the claim that they are doing “scientific” measurements for climate scientists.
They take an average…
The map with all the ‘hot spots’ marked is rather misleading since they’re more than 30m away from the site (CIMO class 2).
Of course one reason it would be classified as CIMO 5 at the moment is that all the grass in the area has been removed!
“Ground is no longer covered with natural and low vegetation (< 10 cm) representative of the region;”
Check on Google Earth.
Wondering . . . did you look at any of the photos of Kew Gardens temperature monitoring site provided in the above article???
Yes, but I’m talking about how it is now!
blob:https://wattsupwiththat.com/746bec90-1994-495f-b6ca-a0081d0e6018
“On top of that are the inappropriate surroundings in the Gardens.”
Ok, let’s examine that assertion ……
Class 2 (Good Standard):Distance from buildings/heat sources: 30 m to 100 m
Additional siting uncertainty: Up to 0.1°C / 0.5°C [1]
The indicated buildings above have distaces from the instrument enclosure (via Google maps) ….:BTW: what occurs within them is irrelevant as far as WMO classification is concerned
Waterlily house = 215m
The Hive 150m
Conservatory 230-260m
Palm House 200m
Orangery 155m
Royal Kitchen 88m
So just one building prevents an inclusion in class 1 – the Royal Kitchen, by ~12m …. which is a single story white tented roof structure.
Additionally there are trees obscuring a sig part of it from the enclosure site.
So, in no way a heat source for something 88m away.
“As WMO rules make clear that Class 5 sites should not be used for climatological purposes”
No, that is not the case:
https://community.wmo.int/site/knowledge-hub/programmes-and-initiatives/instruments-and-methods-of-observation-programme-imop/siting-classification
“WMO Statement on UK Met Office Observations and Siting Classification
Prof. Celeste Saulo, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization, expresses her appreciation to the UK’s Met Office for the free exchange of high quality observations and data, and its commitment to international meteorological cooperation and trust. Prof.Saulo emphasizes that the siting classification does not reflect the quality or suitability of the stations for weather and climate monitoring, but rather it provides scientists with information about the ability of the stations to represent the area in which the observations are made.”
And (you’ll like this) -sarc
https://science.feedback.org/review/no-the-uk-met-office-is-not-fabricating-climate-data-contrary-to-a-bloggers-claims/
“As explained in the guidance (linked here), a Class 5 site suggests that there are nearby obstacles that create an inappropriate environment (e.g., shade) for the station’s meteorological measurements to be representative of a wide area (i.e., tens of square kilometers [km2] or more). But, contrary to the blog’s claims, higher classification ratings do not necessarily mean the data is ‘junk’ for climate reporting purposes.
In fact, the WMO explains that “[t]he numbers should not be taken to mean that higher class stations are of low value, as there may be very good reasons for the site exposure depending on the purpose for which that station was established”. They continue, explaining “we acknowledge that the use of numbers can easily lead one to suggest a ranking. This is not the purpose and should be avoided.”
May I add however that the enclosure fence appears to be to close (hence class 4 or 5) and that the pictures of the overgrown grass within it are just a snapshot and may or may not have been the case for the majority of the summer reporting period.
Using the indicated…..
So, what about the wholly imaginary 103 weather stations, Mr Banton? What of the missing 103?
The claimed co-ordinates for Dover placed the station in the water on the local beach as shown by the Google Earth photo below.
In the case of Dover, the nearest ‘station’ is seven miles away at non-existent Folkestone followed by Manston which is 15 miles distant. By “well correlated” perhaps the Met Office means they are in the same county of Kent. – Source
Part of “providing scientists with information” includes providing them with the measurement uncertainty associated with the readings. To do proper science requires the uncertainty to be propagated throughout any calculations. I could find nothing anywhere in a temperature database that indicates on a station-by-station basis what the measurement uncertainty is nor an indication of its classification.
What are the ramifications of this absence? Scientists assume that all stations are Class 1 or 2 with no added uncertainty. Worse, there is no indication of the base uncertainty of any station regardless of type. Why is that? Climate science believes that with sufficient averaging measurement uncertainty disappears. What a joke. Why don’t we just have experimental chemists and physicists measure things, toss all their measurements into a database and find for example, the speed of light MEASURED to 20 decimal places.
The fact that the MET had to have multiple questions asked before responding fully illustrates that the uncertainty information is not truly available.
You gave the quote, but either did not understand it, or are hoping that you can fool everyone else about it’s meaning.
“On top of that are the inappropriate surroundings in the Gardens.”
None of the facts that you mention were included in the downgrading of this site.
However they are still examples of why this was never a good site for a weather station.
Sincere questions: What are the two big white boxes on either side of the Stevenson screen stand? Has something similar been on the temperature stations for a long time, or is that new?
Looking at the photo, it is obvious that there will be certain times of the year and certain times of day, where light will be reflected off of those surfaces and directly through the slats of the screen.
Met Office classifications
WMO Class 5 is Met Office Class 1
WMO Class 4 is Met Office Class 2
WMO Class 3 is still Class 3
3 big boxes, mounted to what look to be 2 substantial metal plates.
Not just reflected light:
1) The sun will end up heating those boxes and plates, all of which are directly below the station.
2) The boxes and plates are going to interfere with air circulation.
3) Each of those boxes has multiple, large cables entering them, indicating that the boxes contain powered electronics. How much power and how much heat do the electronics give off 24/7?
Having done 20 years in Manhattan , took me a bit to realize you weren’t talking about Kew Gardens , Queens .
It can’t be easy with New England, New Jersey, Birmingham, Athens in Georgia, Achille in Oklahoma and Achilles, Virginia and the like. Then there’s Marathon, New York. Parthenon, Arkansas.
The famous weather station in NY City is the Central park one (located at Belvedere Castle since 1919), apparently ranked as CIMO class 2.
I thought the ground cover near a weather station was supposed to be representative of the general area.
I never knew that Central Park was covered in gravel.
Not to mention the following requirements for CIMO class 2
“Flat, horizontal land, surrounded by an open space,”
“Away from all projected shade when the sun is higher than 7°”
Looks like class 4 or 5 to me. ! So many things wrong with it !!
Ummm . . . I do believe brown (dry) vegetation and exposed soil, as is obvious in proximity to the Kew Gardens screened enclosure for temperature monitoring/recording as seen in the above article’s photos, will produce unrepresentative high local air convection temperatures. Same goes for the unpainted wood picket fence located within 3-4 feet of that enclosure. A Class 5 (aka “junk”) rating for the site and its data is appropriate.
BTW, superb clear photos! . . . thank you Paul Homewood, Dr. Eric Huxter and Ray Sanders.
That site is so bad, they may have to create a new, Class 6, classification to cover it.
Or just declare the data from it no longer fit for purpose and drop it from any climatological data.
The Kew Garden station is a naturally ventilated Stevenson screen.
That means the daily average systematic measurement error is about ±0.4 C, even if the sensor is a high-quality PRT.
That’s in addition to any measurement errors stemming from the certainly poor-quality site.
It’s ironic, too, because 19th century Kew was the early source, in the UK, of high-quality LiG thermometers. How the integrity has fallen.
Great comments! I think this is what happens when a “hidden agenda” creeps into the realm of scientific data collection/reporting . . . something real scientists have to continuously be on guard to prevent.
And it happens in the US and well as in the UK!
““hidden agenda”” ?
Agenda, yes… Hidden.. nope.. Blatant , and there for all to see.
Those boxes mounted to the frame of the weather station have some pretty big cables leading into them. I wonder how much heat they are giving off.
Given that the instruments inside the screen that are supplied consume micro/milliamps … then next to nothing for them, however the large box is a data-loger and that is prob between 5-10W.
The Kew Gardens AWS is powered by a small, dedicated solar panel paired with a rechargeable backup battery.
Notice how the apologist just assumes he knows what the answer is, even though has no idea what is in the boxes.
Individual sensors may only consume a few milli-watts, but the supporting electronics consumes a lot more power.
Since you know exactly what equipment is in those boxes, why don’t you list them out so the rest of us can verify your claims?
He has no idea about the data processing units associated with all the sensors . They are basically CPU’s with memory storage for routines and data. And a digital thermometer is not the only piece of equipment.
When the sun hits them , the boxes themselves will heat up, basically creating a heat source directly below the screen. They are also mounted on galvanised metal plates which will also heat up a lot when the the sun hits them.
Why anyone would put them there unless they were either incredibly stupid or deliberately wanted to raise the high temperature readings, is beyond me. !
How do the Met administrators keep their jobs? They are disgraceful.