Kew Gardens yet again- Now beyond a joke. The Met Office has to be held account for this and lots of others.

The above Met Office page is from their official “X”/Twitter feed and has been reposted by numerous “weather” oriented accounts inevitably as “indisputable” proof of disastrous anthropgenic global warming. I propose to look at this Kew “record”, consider the Cardiff reading and put both these and other area readings into the context of this rare weather event with emphasis on the Met Office’s role in all this hype.

I do not hold the current Kew Gardens weather station in high regard, in fact I feel it is definitely a poor quality site which has been substantiated by past low CIMO ratings and unusually poor husbandry by the responsible body i.e. the Met Office. It is easily demonstrated that the site is regularly subject to extraneous detrimental events and area alterations beringing its historical reading provenance into serious doubt. As an example I refer back to my last post on this site prior to the above event. Screen at the wrong height and images like this below call the site into serious question particularly considering observations were not suspended at this time and during other equally compromising events held there.

The above is simply not an acceptable place to take readings but they were all archived when this event was ongoing – frankly a quite disgraceful practise. The general public would not expect something like this to happen again.

I would like to acknowledge the assistance of someone who, quite understandably wishes to remain anonymous, who took several images of the Kew Gardens weather station site on 10/6/2026 and kindly forwarded them to me knowing that I would publish them on this blog. Before we get to them though a reminder of Met Office claims.

“Consistency is vital for both short-term forecasts and long-term climate records. To maintain this, weather stations must adhere to strict criteria set by international meteorological organisations. These standards cover aspects such as grass cover and the need for clear space, ensuring that readings are not affected by buildings, trees, or other non-meteorological influences.”

“Ideal weather station sites feature level ground with no nearby trees, buildings, or steep terrain. Undesirable locations include areas affected by building warmth, tree sheltering, frost hollows, or hilltops, as these can distort temperature, wind, and sunshine measurements.“

I could copy and paste dozens of proclamations from the Met office telling the public how truly wonderful they are and how pristine their sites are – So what happened here?

Or in more close up.

I personally find this quite remarkable to say the least. That “chicken wire” over a wooden frame really must be of grave importance to “improve” reading accuracy or is this just a rubbish tip really?

Rather than my ranting about this, I sought a second opinion from a (science) Research Director at an internationally highly regarded university who not only runs his own weather station but also has family ties to a significant UK Met Office former site. His first blunt remark regarding the overall site condition was

“Derelict. It hasn’t been touched for months:

The screen itself looks OK, however, (this applies to all automated sites) what effect do the white boxes have on the Temp readings? Shading of the ground, heat reflected off their surfaces. Latent heat from the electronics inside. I have lots of questions about that.

– The 5″ rain gauge is lying on its side (bottom left of photo and the one XXXXXX posted.

– I don’t know if the other two rain gauges are automated (white funnel and large copper funnel).

– What is the wooden frame with mesh doing on the grass in front of the screen? Reminds me of a photo of a screen from WattsUp with the waste burner drum next to the screen.

– The fence is way too close to the screen (approx 3 ft) so it will reflect the heat towards the screen.

– The grass has not been cut. Thinking about xxxxxxxxxxxx’s comment on WattsUp, yes, it would shade the ground but it reduces the wind flow around and through the screen by reducing the effective height of the screen. The fencing does the same. The long grass will retain the heat at night. Everything is too compacted together.

The Baltasound* fencing would be much better. To be honest an experiment should be carried out to compare.

Compare with the photo of the old Kew observatory – they had space – the nearest object to the two screens in Fig. 5 was at least 20-30 yds away.

A dereliction of duty on the part of those responsible for the site.”

{*my link added for clarity}

These are the remarks of a professor in a science speciality who is an expert in the rigours of scientific experimentation. I certainly cannot argue with him but I would like to reinforce that first point about all the equipment mounted on the screen stand. These additions are hugely different to a conventional manual historic site where precisely none of those boxes, cabling and trunking exist.

So by way of a quick “refresher” here is an “official” image of the modern day Kew Gardens site from 2010. Not a derelict rubbish tip, no overgrown vegetation and a perfectly clear screen stand.

This official image sure as hell bears no resemblance to the modern actualité of serious neglect making the site unfit for purpose – note no heat compromising equipment on the stand but still much too close to the fencing. This site though as I previously discovered is not long term. Below is the original Kew Observatory site showing how things used to be done but sadly are evidently not considered so important these days. The contrast is incredibly stark.

Returning to modern day imagery, in my previous post on Kew I noted significant occasional developments around the site plus in my very first report here indicated regular alterations to the site CIMO rating due to developments back then as well. It seems nothing changes and there are extensive ongoing building works around the area now and when that “record” was achieved. This image below bears out other reports I have received of extensive motorised machinery in very close proximity. Site huts and earth works are evident. I would also suggest this angle of view puts the screen within exceptional close proximity to the wooden railings – I doubt if that is more than 600mm, touching distance. There is no meteorological need for it to be at the edge of the compound, it would be beter much further away but currently almost invites being tampered with by “persons unknown” as was felt probable at the 2003 Faversham “record” in similar circumstances.

Whatever angle you look at this site it does not get better.

Would anyone care to give their estimate of when the grass was last attended to? Is this a case of Government cutbacks and “austerity”? Surely not given the incredibly lavish budget the Met Office enjoys to seemingly spend on NOT doing the “day job” of adequately maintaining its assets.

All this drew my mind to the nature of those recent claims of “hottest evah” for the recent May hot period. Nobody disputes that it was very hot – weather is after all highly variable in the UK and such events, though rare, occasionally happen. They used to be called pleasant but now they seem to only be considered harbingers of impending doom. However, can this May 2026 event really be decreed much hotter compared to earlier ones such as 1944 (and others). The likes of Marco Petagna “Media Advisor & Senior Operational Meteorologist UK Met Office” dramatically proclaimed on “X” that records were “Smashed” So what is the reality?

My position on this is that the recording systems of 21st Century PRTs set in Victorian Stevenson Screens with natural ventilation PLUS MOST IMPORTANTLY a modern day “anything goes” attitude to site location and maintenance leads to only comparing apples with oranges. The PRT at Kew Gardens may well have recorded higher than the LIGT at Kew Observatory in the past but the evidence of one’s own eyes surely indicates vastly different standards applied even disregarding the fundamnetal change of recording sensors. . I think I can confidently say that even in war torn Britain, meteorological “standards” were far better than the dire ones applied today. And this applies across all the Met Office network

I have already reviewed the appalling state of Cardiff Bute Park highlighted above and I am awaiting imagery that shows the site has deteriorated even more since then. Today (18/6/2026) I noted on the Met Office X feed how yesterday’s national high was recorded at Writtle near Chelmsford. However, that site is hardly visible in street view imagery and is as effectively derelict and overgrown as Kew. So very many sites now seem neglected perhaps because automation does away with an, at least, once daily human visit to note defects, effect minor maintenance as well as record observations and report problems. Kew did not get that bad overnight – has it even been inspected this year?

Perhaps more telling about this recent May weather event is this widely reported Met Office graphic showing isotherms.

Is it just me or does that cooler strip within the blue blob and starting from Luton running down to Reading indicate something slightly odd? It may be elevation related or could it be that those weather stations reporting in this area are better ranked and maintained than those elsewhere? That line runs from around the area of the excellent and impeccably maintained CIMO Class 1 Rothamsted through to Class 2 Reading White Knights providing reliable readings – coincidence? Of course the Met Office refuses to divulge to the general public whatever sites are used to contrive their covert HadUK-Grid data so we will possibly never be able to know.

So yes, lots and lots of weather stations broke historic highs in their area but of course they were likely not the same sites, typically poorly maintained (a recurring trend seen in most of my reviews) and every single one of them from, at the very latest, 2017 is recording using a PRT in a naturally ventilated screen. Conversely precisely NONE had PRTs in say 1944 or other historic hot May events, they were in much better and less compromised locations and certainly much better cared for. Apples with Oranges.

As a closing point, I do feel it is reasonable to call the Met Office to account for these sorts of poor operational standards typified at Kew and Cardiff. If anyone wishes to forward this post to the Met Office inviting their comments, I would be most happy to publish their response………but dont hold your breath waiting for a reply!

[email protected]/

Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2026/06/18/kew-gardens-yet-again-now-beyond-a-joke-the-met-office-has-to-be-held-account-for-this-and-lots-of-others/