“Refusal to disclose information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004”

I personally earned £17 million last year. Well actually I didn’t, I just made that up to sound impressive. Of course it would not be too bright an idea to make that claim in case His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs heard and wondered why I paid such a relatively small amount of tax. Obviously even if I had made that much, the amount of tax due would be subject to an audit calculation. ALL numbers have to be backed up with facts. If you cannot, or will not, produce your workings out then nobody is going to believe you….unless of course you are the UK Meteorological Office who feel they are above such bothersome detail. Welcome to a world where record keeping is optional.

As ever I would like to declare the information below is for my own non commercial research and I am sharing the images on my personal laptop screen with anyone interested in viewing.

One of my earlier reports related to Dungeness – and The 103 Missing Met Stations Mystery. I questioned what were then described as “Climate Averages” stations and discovered that 103 do not even exist. The Met office duly explained a detailed “internationally accepted” and “peer reviewed” process for using data from stations after the closed down. {N.B. what about data used for periods before these station opened?} Lots of “science” in there that must seemingly be believed. However, when I enquired which actual stations were used in the compilation of data for the two specific locations of Folkestone and Dover the Met Office were unable to offer any details as such data had “not been retained.” Really? Is the general public simply just supposed to “believe” the Met Office without any workings outs evident. To me, and every single scientist who has ever lived, it is imperative to show the data used – ANYTHING LESS IS NOT VALID. No Verifiable Data Source = No Credibility = no better than Fiction.

Having reviewed Scole weather Station and its apparent mystical afterlife I decided to enquire of the Met Office which stations had been used to create the sixty year rolling averages for a weather station that had only ever existed for under 9 years. No need to paraphrase anything because here is their response including my simple questions verbatim.

So yes, you read that correctly “Regulation 12(4)(a) – “request for information that is not held”.

The UK Met Office that archives literally billions of numbers and data items DID NOT KEEP A RECORD OF ITS WORKINGS OUT

So they have no proof whatsoever of how their Climate Averages were compiled. A total “Peer Review” failure.

Okay let’s move on to another Met Office ZOMBIE that refuses to die at Manby. A reality or figment of the imagination had to be checked out – again the verbatim response.

So here we have it again, the Met office is publishing “authoritative” data for which it simply cannot supply any evidence whatsoever to substantiate. Let’s not worry about that shall we because the Met Office are more than happy to talk to “Science Feedback” to ineptly try to debunk me BUT neither the Met Office nor their Meta sponsored censorship unit were willing to talk directly to me. Odd that really.

But it does not stop there, there appears to be an FOI game that government agencies play, thus when enquiring you have to be very specific and not allow any “get out” clauses. I asked more very simple questions only requiring simple factual answers. Such simple specifics can be such demanding questions that they cannot be answered in twenty working days. I asked about Bodiam, Waddington and Aberdaron. More verbatim questions:-

Has it really come to such a sorry pass that a Government agency entrusted with £billions of Tax Payer funding cannot even retain its workings out? Cannot answer basic, simple questions without enquirers having to resort to Freedom on Information requests? Cannot even seem to pass accurate data to their own archives? This may seem difficult to believe but there are even more simplistic questions than these “tricky” ones that they cannot/will not or simply don’t know. The following one frankly beggars belief.

The Met Office does not know whether or not it has any “Aspirated Screens” or at least it is not telling eh?

Surely this was not a difficult question to answer – do they not read their own literature? Or are they unwilling to admit that their systems might just not be as accurate as the WMO is suggesting they should be. After all the Heathrow Airport authority uses artificially aspirated instruments but the Met Office site there does not.

“and aspirated only by natural ventilation through the side louvers” is fairly straightforward. {Talkshop comment – shouldn’t the UK Met Office be using English – as in “louvres”}

If all this seems a bit overwhelming I would like to add there are another five FOI requests on varying different topics in hand and reaching the critical answer by dates. Despite all this not only does the Met Office refuse to open into discussion with me about these issues, the Minister of State responsible (Peter Kyle MP) nor any of his representatives have still not made any response to my letter of July last year even though my own MP has confirmed twice forwarding reminders.

We are regularly told in the main stream media, particularly the BBC, that we are entering an existential “Climate Emergency” so how is it nobody wants to discuss the obviously fictional data that is being manipulated to support this “argument”.

Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2025/05/09/refusal-to-disclose-information-under-the-environmental-information-regulations-2004/