Met Office Corrupted Data vs Class 1 Pristine Sites
You will recall the massive discrepancy relating to summer temperatures between the Met Office’s UK and CET datasets
As I reported at the time, while CET (Central England Tempreature Record) concluded that this summer only tied as hottest with 1976, the UK Midland dataset, which pretty much covered the same region, claimed that this summer was 0.55C hotter.
This discrepancy remains unexplained by the Met Office who refuse to even address the issue.
I therefore decided to look closer at individual stations, focussing particularly on Rothamsted, the pristine, rural Class 1 weather station in the Hertfordshire countryside.
According to data sent to me by the Met Office, mean temperatures in Rothamsted this summer were 0.4C higher than in the summer of 1976.
Fair enough, that is what you would expect given that Rothamsted, marked with a blue arrow below, was in the region with the highest temperature anomalies this summer.
As I have noted, the Midlands region was supposedly 0.55C hotter, whilst East Anglia, where Rothamsted is located was 0.65C hotter than 1976.
I also asked the Met Office for temperature data at nearby sites surrounding Rothamsted, which have data going back to 1976. The results are damning.
A number of stations, all poorly sited, had much higher anomalies this summer than Rothamsted. None of them are far from the latter – Cambridge, for instance, is 44 miles away, Writtle in Essex is 41 and Woburn is 21 miles distant to the west.
There is no possible meteorological reason why Cambridge, for example, should be 0.93C hotter than 1976, when Rothamsted is just 0.40C. For an odd day, yes; but not for a whole summer.
We can then turn to the bottom block of Class 2 stations. It is no coincidence that these closely align with Rothamsted’s temperatures. Again, these are all relatively close to Rothamsted; Benson, for instance, is 55 miles away. and even closer to Woburn.
Cavendish is the junk site identified by Ray Sanders. The thermometer is in a garden suntrap, surrounded by large conifers. Were they there in 1976? We don’t know.
But what is significant is that, although the Met Office sent me the monthly averages for 1976, they also flagged the data as missing data for all 92 days. (I should add the station was opened in 1974, according to them).
So how did they work out the averages?
I did ask for Cambridge Botanical Gardens as well, another junk Class 5 site. Unfortunately the Met Office said they had no data for June 2025. However, the July and August data is consistent with the Cambridge NIAB site, suggesting that NIAB is no more reliable than the Botanical Garden data.
As we know, the vast majority of the Met Office’s network (80.1 percent) is made up of junk sites, with error margins of up to 5C.
The evidence is now overwhelming that these sites are drowning out the accurate data from the few pristine sites they operate and artificially inflating temperature trends.
See more here notalotofpeopleknowthat
Bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.