FOI 2009-05-11 16:27 4766. From: Steve McIntyre To: "" Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 16:27:00 +0100 Subject: Freedom of Information Request Dear Sirs, I request the "archive of raw land surface temperature observations used to create CRUTEM3" as held by the Hadley Center (referred to on your webpage http://hadobs.metoffice.com/indicators/index.html ) under the FOI Act or other applicable legislation. Thank you for your attention, Stephen McIntyre -- 2009-05-11 http://climateaudit.org/2009/05/11/another-try-on-the-wall/ Given the above statement is meant to indicate that Jones gives the archive to some people, then his refusal to give the archive to others becomes hard to justify even in “community” terms. If Jones has consistently refused to provide the archive to anyone, this seems to be a circular paper chase. 2009-05-11 CA Most of the station data was given to us by Phil Jones under conditions that don’t allow us to redistribute it. If you want the full archive, you will have to contact him. 2009-05-11 ~ Willis Eschenbach request to CRU http://climateaudit.org/2009/06/04/the-uk-hadley-center-refuses-crutem-data/#comment-184598 Dear Dr. Jones: On the Hadley Center web site at they say: “To obtain the archive of raw land surface temperature observations used to create CRUTEM3, you will need to contact Phil Jones at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.” I am interested in obtaining that data. What is the procedure for obtaining it? Many thanks for your assistance, w. 2009-05-12 16:46 4766. ___________________________________________________________________ From: Carroll, Fiona Sent: 12 May 2009 16:46 To: Archer, Marion Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request Dear Marion, The customer has already been in touch with John Kennedy who explained to him that the data set requested does not belong to the Met Office, and therefore we do not have permission to pass it on. The data set is held by Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia, and the customer should make a direct request to him. Below is John's response to the original request. Fiona 2009-05-12 16:00 4766. ______________________________________________________________________ From: Kennedy, John Sent: 12 May 2009 16:00 To: Carroll, Fiona Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request Fiona, I wondered when this would arrive. Mr McIntyre, a noted climate sceptic, is documenting all of this on his blog: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5962 The "archive of raw land surface temperature observations used to create CRUTEM3" is not ours to give away. The basic archive of observations was put together by Phil Jones at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. We collaborate with Phil so he sent us the data with the proviso (as I understand it) that we should only use it to create the gridded data set CRUTEM3. We are not to pass it on to other people. It says as much on the web page that Stephen McIntyre refers to. http://hadobs.metoffice.com/indicators/index.html What we can provide are the data that we gather and quality control on a monthly basis. http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/data/station_updates/ Stephen McIntyre has already contacted me by email asking for the data that he is now pursuing with this FOI request. I told him that we couldn't give him the full archive and that he should contact its owner, Phil Jones. I also told him where to find the data he could have. This is what I said: Dear Stephen McIntyre, Thank you for your interest in our datasets. Some of the data is available from the website. Each month we receive CLIMAT reports at the Met Office, which are quality controlled, and used to update the gridded CRUTEM3 dataset. The quality controlled CLIMAT station data for recent years can be found here: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/data/station_updates/ However, this is not all the station data used in CRUTEM3. Most of the station data was given to us by Phil Jones under conditions that don't allow us to redistribute it. If you want the full archive, you will have to contact him. Best regards, John John 2009-05-12 15:27 4766. ______________________________________________________________________ From: Carroll, Fiona Sent: 12 May 2009 15:27 To: Kennedy, John Cc: Archer, Marion Subject: FW: Freedom of Information Request John, Please could you assist marion with this FOI request. Many thanks. Fiona 2009-05-12 14:47 4766. ______________________________________________________________________ From: Marion Archer [mailto:enquiries@metoffice.gov.uk] Sent: 12 May 2009 14:47 To: Carroll, Fiona Subject: FWD: Freedom of Information Request Fiona Please see email below and can you let me know who the best person would be to send it to please. Regards Marion 2009-05-13 10:32 4766. ______________________________________________________________________ From: Archer, Marion Sent: 13 May 2009 10:32 To: Carroll, Fiona; Kennedy, John Cc: Mathews, Stuart (Legal) Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request Hi Fiona/John Thank you for your emails.As Mr McIntyre has raised this request for information and the Met Office hold the information for whatever reason, we still need to consider releasing it.We will need to do a public interest test on the pros and cons for release, for which I will need your input. Can you let me know why we are unable to release the information? Was the information given in confidence to the Met Office?Do you have any documentation from Phil Jones regarding this?We need to show we are considering both sides of the argument for release as Mr McIntyre may go to the Information Commissioner and if we cannot show a fair and open public interest test has been undertaken, they may find in his favour. If you wish to meet to discuss, please let me know. Regards Marion Marion Archer FOI/Data Protection Manager Met Office Alexandria 1 2009-05-13 10:54 4766. > On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 10:54 +0100, Kennedy, John wrote: Dear all, The FOI request from Mr McIntyre has arrived. Do we have a formal agreement with Phil Jones that says what we can and can't do with his data? John 2009-05-13 11:43 4766,1111 > -----Original Message----- > From: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) > Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:43 AM > To: Kennedy, John > Cc: Brohan, Philip; Parker, David; Simon Tett; Livingston, Linda > Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request > > Yes, we do. I guess Linda will know where it is. Simon Tett undertook > it. cc'ing Simon and Linda here to provide direction to necessary > paperwork. 2009-05-13 11:50 1111 On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 11:50 +0100, Parker, David wrote: Peter > Thanks for responding to this. I have looked in my "Collaboration with CRU" folder but found nothing that specifically addresses IPR of data. > David > David Parker, Climate Research scientist 2009-05-13 11:53 4766,1111 > At 11:53 13/05/2009, peter.thorne wrote: Sorry. I should also have copied Phil in my previous. Apologies for filling inboxes. >> On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 11:50 +0100, Parker, David wrote: > Peter > > Thanks for responding to this. I have looked in my "Collaboration with > CRU" folder but found nothing that specifically addresses IPR of data. > > David > > David Parker, Climate Research scientist 2009-05-13 12:24 4766, 2117 Phil Jones wrote: > Dear All, >There are several issues you should be aware of: > 1. UEA has denied access to the data to McIntyre (and at least two others in the past) - in 2007. One of the three appealed and that > appeal was rejected. We would look stupid if you released the data now. I can put your FOI > person in touch with the one at UEA. I think they already know each other! > We put up this page at the time > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/ > So they have a list of which stations are used. > 2. I have signed agreements with some Met Services (European ones) in > the 1990s that I would not pass on their data to third parties. The data could be > used in the gridding though and gridded products made available. I never kept a > list of which stations these were though, as I never thought such problems would arise. > 3. Work on the land station data has been funded by the US Dept of > Energy, and I have their agreement that the data needn't be passed on. I got this in > 2007. > 4. You web site says that anyone requesting the data should apply to > me, so tell him that's what they should do. I think you should remove this sentence, > by the way. It is this that has opened up the issue again. > 5. The data aren't yours to release! Maybe there is no formal IPR > agreement, but there is an implicit one. > 6. We've altered the version that you have anyway. We're also in the > process of doing more of this. > 7. You'd need to waste your time combining the two parts of the data > and removing the stations that don't get used. > Cheers Phil > > 2009-05-13 12:29 4460. On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 12:29 +0100, Phil Jones wrote: > Peter, Thanks for forwarding the FOI email. Sorry if I went over the top, but the first point is the main one. > > Here's a book not to bother reading! > Cheers Phil > 2009-05-13 12:46 4766,1217 ______________________________________________________ cc: "peter.thorne" , "Parker, David" , "Kennedy, John" , "Brohan, Philip" , "Livingston, Linda" date: Wed, 13 May 2009 12:46:26 +0100 from: Simon Tett subject: Re: Freedom of Information Request to: Phil Jones I've got some of my old met office email -- back to early 2004. We are talking about error models then so I think discussions about station level records would have taken place in 2003. My recall is that we agreed with Phil that the gridded product was jointly owned and that he owned the station level records. The web site (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/data/station_updates/) seems to reflect this view. I think when I left the met office I deleted all my email prior to 2004 so can't find a record of the email. It may well be associated with the sub-contract to CRU to work on CRUTEM3 which I think was done in 2002/2003. Simon 2009-05-13 12:48 2117. ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" date: Wed May 13 12:48:04 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: RE: Freedom of Information Request to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Dave, Nothing came over night. This email came a few minutes ago. It also includes my response - just to a few colleagues at the Hadley Centre. I've not sent anything to their FOI people, but you can see their names (if you didn't know them already) further down. The crux of the issue is their statement on their web site. [1]http://hadobs.metoffice.com/indicators/index.html within this page is this piece of text. Q. Where can I get the raw observations? A. The raw sea-surface temperature observations used to create [2]HadSST2 are taken from ICOADS (International Comprehensive Ocean Atmosphere Data Set). These can be found at [3]http://icoads.noaa.gov/. To obtain the archive of raw land surface temperature observations used to create [4]CRUTEM3, you will need to contact Phil Jones at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Recently archived station reports used to update CRUTEM3 and HadCRUT3 are available from the CRUTEM3 [5]data download page. So they say people need to contact me, but they seem to want to release the data anyway. They are probably going through the processes they have to. Is it worth me or you contacting their FOI person (Marion Archer). If they release the data it would seem to make us look very silly. As an aside, I do get contacted and I do send some stations to some people - mainly students from developing countries who are here doing PhDs in the UK and Europe. Cheers Phil 2009-05-13 13:00 4460. At 13:00 13/05/2009, you wrote: Phil, not a bother. Suggest that we arrange a legally watertight IPR on paper as this will, sadly, just repeat ad infinitum. This should cover all our collaborative efforts and not just HadCRUT. Its only a matter of time ... I know people in our legal team and we can kick it off wen this all calms down if that would be desirable to you. Peter 2009-05-13 13:40 4460. ______________________________________________________ date: Wed May 13 13:40:28 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: A bad review to: "peter.thorne" Peter, Probably worth doing. Start something off at you end. This issue should die down soon. I'm coming down for June 1. David was going to check availabilities for discussions of HadCRUT4 (and HadSST3). We could decide to make the station data available that will go into CRUTEM4 (and hence HadCRUT4). My issue about not doing it is when will it stop. They will then want programs. As you know there are two key files (the 61-90 normals and the SD file). The station headers within the station data aren't that well documented. If MOHC does release the station data, I'll let MOHC deal with all the flak. You don't know what some of the header info is, for example. There are codes that cause some series to only get used from certain dates. I can barely remember some of it. There will also be questions as to why some series don't come to the present date - the US ones for example. Cheers Phil 2009-05-13 13:57 1217. ______________________________________________________ cc: "peter.thorne" , "Parker, David" , "Kennedy, John" , "Brohan, Philip" date: Wed, 13 May 2009 13:57:14 +0100 from: Simon Tett subject: Re: Freedom of Information Request to: Phil Jones All, as it is likely that Phil "owns" the dataset can he not request that the MO deletes it... and in fact should you have done so given that the data was for a specific purpose. 2009-05-13 13:57 1217. Phil Jones wrote: Simon, Nice one! Well written Philip! > I've forwarded one of the earlier emails to our FOI person here. > Cheers Phil 2009-05-13 15:17 1111. At 15:17 13/05/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: Phil, Thanks for passing all this correspondence to me. A few comments: Hadley is under an obligation to respond to the FOIA request of Mr. McIntyre and whether they release the requested data or not is completely in their hands. However, I would argue that the EIR is the legislation under which they need to consider this information. If that is the route that they go, Regulation 12(5)(f) is the salient one: 12. - (1) Subject to paragraphs (2), (3) and (9), a public authority may refuse to disclose environmental information requested if - (a) an exception to disclosure applies under paragraphs (4) or (5); and (b) in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. (5) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect - (f) the interests of the person who provided the information where that person - (i) was not under, and could not have been put under, any legal obligation to supply it to that or any other public authority; (ii) did not supply it in circumstances such that that or any other public authority is entitled apart from these Regulations to disclose it; and (iii) has not consented to its disclosure; or Please note - there is a public interest test here that has to be addressed by Hadley as well. Bottom line - it is Hadley's call on releasing the information - all we can do is register our concern over the release of the information. We didn't actually deny Mr. McIntyre the information in 2007 - we stated we didn't actually HAVE what he was requesting. The actual text of my letter of 19 April 2007 states: "In your email of 17 April 2007, you re-iterated your request from your email of 12 March 2007, to see "B) identification ... of the stations used in the gridded network which was used as a comparandum in this study" I have been in conversation with Dr. Jones and have been advised that, in fact, we are unable to answer (B) as we do not have a copy of the station data as we had it in 1990. The station database has evolved since that time and CRU was not able to keep versions of it as stations were added, amended and deleted. This was a consequence of a lack of data storage comparable to what we have at our disposal currently. I have been advised that the best equivalent data available is within the current version of CRUTEM3(v) or CRUTEM2(v). The latter is still available on the CRU web site, though not updated beyond 2005. These latest versions are likely different from what was used in 1990. Australia and China have both released more data since then - it is likely that much of this was not digitized in 1990. Dr. Jones acknowledges that the grid resolution is now different, but this is again due to greater disk storage available. The details of our updating of the raw station data is discussed in the following article: Jones, P.D. and Moberg, A., 2003: Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001. J. Climate 16, 206-223. This is, in effect, our final attempt to resolve this matter informally. If this response is not to your satisfaction, I will initiate the second stage of our internal complaint process and will advise you of progress and outcome as appropriate." There was no response to this letter. For your information, I have attached to this memo the initial request, our answer, the appeal & our initial and subsequent appeal response. I think I will need to have a quick chat with Marion Archer at Hadley to see what approach they are taking on this... Cheers, Dave 2009-05-13 15:22 1111. From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:22 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Cc: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: RE: RE: Freedom of Information Request Dave, Thanks! Apologies for being your best customer! Phil 2009-05-13 15:36 1111. ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" date: Wed, 13 May 2009 15:36:27 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: RE: Freedom of Information Request to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Gents, Just got off the phone with Marion Archer. It appears that they will be dealing with their request under EIR. There are 2 key issues for them: (1) the terms under which Phil supplied this information to them (and of course any evidence of such terms) - I believe John Kennedy will be leading on this for them, and (2) the public interest test required regarding release. In regards the latter, the terms under which Phil received this information could be critical (and any evidence thereof). The question is the public interest in disclosure v. the public interest in non-disclosure. The existence of contracts. terms or agreements under which we received the data (and then passed it on to Hadley) would be proof a some public interest in non-disclosure (sanctity of contracts, free exchange of scientific information etc...). The request was received by Hadley this week so we are looking at an early June deadline. If we do not wish this information/data to be released, it is in our interest to bolster the public interest argument in favour of non-disclosure to the greatest extent possible. Phil - any further information available on what terms were imposed on you when you received and subsequently passed on this data? Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2009-05-13 16:254291. From: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Sent: 13 May 2009 16:25 To: Briar, Tony Subject: Are you still the man to talk to about MoU's? Tony, we need to resolve our relationship with UEA's Climatic Research Unit as shown by the current FOI request on the surface temperature record. We have nothing in writing and that puts us on a sticky wicket. We'd like to have writing for the next time it all blows up. Are you still the man to talk to about setting up a MoU on all our collaboration? If not then who is? Thanks Peter 2009-05-13 18:17 4378. ______________________________________________________ cc: "Midgley, Pauline" date: Wed, 13 May 2009 18:17:47 +0200 from: Thomas Stocker subject: Re: Data access and IPCC to: Phil Jones , wg1 Dear Phil (cc to Pauline Midgley, Head TSU WGI) Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. I knew about this when the first requests were placed on John Mitchell and Keith Briffa and they informed us. What I did not know is that they have already placed their focus on Bern (# 17)! At that time I argued that in principle there are two interests to balance: (i) FOI, and (ii) your own privacy when it comes to opening emails or other mail. Obviously, I am not in the position to judge which one obtains and in fact I think a court would be needed to establish exactly that balance. However, the Arhus Resolution, it seems to me, had another motivation: open access to environmental data associated with damage, spills, pollution; the latter word is mentioned twice - "climate" never. So to take this convention and turn it around appears to me like a perversion. One important point to consider is whether Arhus really applies to the IPCC activities. In no way are we involved in decision making. We assess and provide scientific information. The decision makers are elsewhere. More than ever need we be aware of this separation! We will discuss this in the TSU but then, this should be brought to the level of the Secretariat, at least, since it affects the very basis of our assessment work. Thanks again and best regards, Thomas 2009-05-13 18:17 4378. Phil Jones wrote: Dear Thomas, I hope you are enjoying your new job! Apologies in advance for upsetting your morning! >Below there is a link to Climate Audit and their new thread with another attempt to gain access to the CRU station temperature data. I wouldn't normally bother about this - but will deal with the FOI requests when they come. Despite WMO Resolution 40, I've signed agreements not to pass on some parts of the CRU land station data to third parties. >If you click on the link below and then on comments, look at # 17. This refers to a number of appeals a Brit has made to the Information > Commissioner in the UK. You can see various UK Universities and MOHC listed. For UEA > these relate to who changed what and why in Ch 6 of AR4. We are dealing with > these, but I wanted to alert you to few sentences about Switzerland, your > University and AR5. > Having been through numerous of these as a result of AR4, I suspect that someone will have a go at you at some point. What I think they might try later is the same issue: > Who changed what and why in various chapters of AR5? > and > When drafts of chapters come for AR5, we can't review the chapter as we can't get access to the data, or, the authors can't refer to these > papers as the data haven't been made available for audit. > Neither of these is what I would call Environmental Information,as > defined by the Aarhus Convention. > You might want to check with the IPCC Bureau. I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as > not everybody will remember to do it. I also suspect that as national measures to reduce emissions begin to affect people's lives, we are all going to get more of this. We can cope with op-ed pieces, but these FOI requests take time, as the whole process of how we all work has to be explained to FOI-responsible people at each institution. > Keep up the good work with AR5! > Cheers Phil > > > Dear Mr Jones >> As a UK tax payer from the productive economy, could you please explain why you restrict access to data sets that are gathered using tax payer funds e.g. CRUTEM3. Can you believe how embarassing this is to a UK TAX PAYER, putting up with your amateurish non disclosure of enviromental information. >> For reference http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5962 refers to your absymal attitude to public data, although this is just the latest in an embarassing set of reasonable requests from CRU, who the hell do you think you are? There will of course be an FOI on the back of this >> Regards Ian 2009-05-14 09:064291. Subject: RE: Are you still the man to talk to about MoU's? Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 09:06:37 +0100 From: "Briar, Tony" To: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" Peter Whilst an MoU is the appropriate way to document this type of relationship, it won't be possible, even with prudent drafting, for it to be used as a shield against requests for information under the FOI Act. If you can detail the our relationship (the nature of the collab')with UEA in an email to the 'legal' email inbox, one of the team will be in touch to take this forward. Regards Tony Tony Briar CertLegalStud(Open) F.Inst.Pa Customer Contracts Manager Legal and Procurement 2009-05-14 09:094291. ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 14 May 2009 09:09:24 +0100 from: "peter.thorne" subject: [Fwd: RE: Are you still the man to talk to about MoU's?] to: Phil Jones 2009-05-14 15:01 1394. At 15:01 14/05/2009, you wrote: Phil Thanks. June 1^st is fine for Ian, Peter, Kate and me. I expect discussions will include CRUTEM and Steve McIntyres FOI request, as well as Ians work. David David Parker, Climate Research scientist 2009-05-14 15:54 1394. ______________________________________________________ date: Thu May 14 15:54:35 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Your planned visit to: "Parker, David" David, Thanks - I'll go ahead and book the Holiday Inn for Sunday May 31. It is only one night! I'll be away May 25-28, but I'll be in that week on May 29 (Friday). Cheers Phil 2009-06-04 CA http://climateaudit.org/2009/06/04/the-uk-hadley-center-refuses-crutem-data/ Re: Environmental Information Regulations request Your email dated 11 May 2009 has been considered to be a request for information in accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations Act 2004. You requested the archive of raw land surface temperature observations used to create CRUTEM3, as held by the Hadley Centre (referred to on webpage http://hadobs.metoffice.com/indcators/index.html The Met Office does not hold this information. The information we hold is the value added data, which is data that has been quality controlled and where deemed appropriate, adjusted to account for apparent non-climatic influences. I hope this answers your enquiry. If you go to the Hadley Center webpage linked in my previous request – the one where they supposedly answer the question: Q. Where can I get the raw observations? that part of the webpage has been deleted. 2009-06-04 Eschenbach to Sir Gough, Chancellor, UEA http://climateaudit.org/2009/06/04/the-uk-hadley-center-refuses-crutem-data/#comment-184608 Dear Sir Gough: On the UK Met Office Website it says (regarding the CRUTEM3 temperature dataset): Q. Where can I get the raw observations? A. The raw sea-surface temperature observations used to create HadSST2 are taken from ICOADS (International Comprehensive Ocean Atmosphere Data Set). These can be found at http://icoads.noaa.gov/. To obtain the archive of raw land surface temperature observations used to create CRUTEM3, you will need to contact Phil Jones at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Recently archived station reports used to update CRUTEM3 and HadCRUT3 are available from the CRUTEM3 data download page. I recently (three weeks ago) sent the following email to Dr. Jones, viz: Dear Dr. Jones: On the Hadley Center web site they say: “To obtain the archive of raw land surface temperature observations used to create CRUTEM3, you will need to contact Phil Jones at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.” I am interested in obtaining that data. What is the procedure for obtaining it? Many thanks for your assistance, w. I have received no reply. 2009=06-05 http://climateaudit.org/2009/06/04/the-uk-hadley-center-refuses-crutem-data/#comment-184634 My own guess as to why CRU is so adamant about not disclosing their data is that the reason is commercial rather than scientific. They’ve been paid a lot of money over the years to produce a temperature index. And it’s enhanced their brand a lot. My guess is that they’ve used this as a profit center to fund non-CRUTEM3 activities. Gavin Schmidt said that GISS spent something like 1/4 man-year annually on producing GISS, which he held out as an excuse for poor quality control. Schmidt observed that GISS did not actually collect any data, it relied on GHCN for data, and any errors should be blamed on GHCN. My guess is that CRUTEM doesn’t take much more time. They get most of their data from GHCN. They get some from Canada, some from Australia separate from GHCN – which for some reason doesn’t manage to update GHCN. They get some from USHCN. They probably get current data from MCDW, if GISS is any guide. I did some posts in 2007 cross-checking CRU gridded versions against station data in areas where the stations were isolated (e.g. Barabinsk)and the CRUTEM series tied directly to the GHCN station. My guess is that the entire CRU program can be reduced to a very small number of lines of code. GHCN’s collection of rural stations after 1991 or so is almost non-existent. The issue in this field is whether the dominance of MCDW stations (mostly airports) after the early 1990s has introduced a bias. http://climateaudit.org/2009/06/04/the-uk-hadley-center-refuses-crutem-data/#comment-184647 2009-06-26 13:57 4531. At 13:57 26/06/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: Gents, A request from Mr. McIntyre under EIR that arrived today. Response due by 24 July. I have acknowledged the request and confirmed that we will be handling this under EIR. Any concerns with this request? Any need for clarification? Cheers, Dave ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Steve McIntyre [[1] mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 4:45 AM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Environmental Information Regulations Dear Mr Palmer, Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby request a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and Jun 25, 2009. Thank you for your attention, Stephen McIntyre 2009-06-26 15:16 4531. ______________________________________________________ cc: "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:16:16 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Dave, I sent some of the station data to a Jun Jian at Georgia Tech on 15 Jan 2009. I see now that Peter Webster was a recipient on the email. I also see from looking at Climate Audit that this request results from Peter saying on CA that he's not had any difficulty getting data from CRU (see what he said below on June 24). I regard this as a personal email between me and this group at Georgia Tech. So, McIntyre has no right to request the data in a personal email. I only sent a small part of the dataset anyway. They asked for a specific set and said what they were going to do with the data. Cheers Phil Steve, We have asked Phil Jones for data so that we could compare the synthesized surface temperature with actual station data. Jones has provided everything that we have asked for. This is for our study of the 1930/40 climate bump that is ongoing. Alas, these things take time. But my experience has been quite different to yours. As you know, I have often complained that the right wing and the left wing (the absolutists of AGHW and those who do not have a bar of it) have forced us into corners in which we are not comfortable. If there is to be reasonable resolution of the climate GWH issues and the fidelity of data (both critical and reasonable questions?) I think that the questions and opinions can't be shouted from one corner or the other. BTW, we have a Science article coming out next week about the changes in form of El Nino (GHW or natural variability: no idea! But changes there are) and its impact on NATL hurricanes. Not sure if it will be of interest to C-A as it does not raise the question of GW. But the data set is short.. best regards Peter W 2009-06-26 15:531320. cc: "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:53:04 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Phil [et al], The fact that information is within an email that you consider 'personal' does not render the information itself personal. In order to not disclose information under EIR, we need to have a valid exception, and then also pass a public interest test that shows that the public interest is better served by non-disclosure than disclosure. I will have a think about what exceptions are available to us, but, at this moment I am having difficulty making a case for any that would apply here. The other issue is passing the public interest test - we would, I presume be relying on some sort of public interest in preserving the confidentiality of communications between academic colleagues but there is no guarantee that the ICO would uphold this. I will get back to you next week on this one.... Cheers, Dave 2009-06-26 17:362663. At 17:36 26/06/2009, Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) wrote: Dave et al, As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that we decline this one (at the very end of the time period), with one of the valid reasons that you, Jonathan and I disucssed, and let him go through appeal. Happy to discuss further (but not for a couple of weeks since my diary is pretty full next week and the week after). Regards Michael Michael McGarvie Director of Faculty Administration 2009-06-30 09:522663. From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:52 AM To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03] Michael, Dave, I'm away part of next week (July 7-9 inclusive) and also not here at all the following week (July 13-17). I'm here all the week of July 20-24, with the exception of the Friday (24th) afternoon. Cheers Phil 2009-06-30 10:392663. ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:39:00 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Phil/Michael, I can understand your reluctance to deal with Mr. McIntyre's request but we do need to have justifiable grounds for claiming an exception under the EIR in order to do so... To address your point Michael, I think that there might be a difference seen between personal correspondence between academics and actual data which has a life/role outside that correspondence. In regards the public interest test that we have to address, once again, I would think that whilst there is a good argument for protecting the ability of academics to communicate freely and openly, the underlying data that may comprise part of that communication might well fall into another category. One only has to look at the JISC funded projects on national scientific data repositories and exchange to see that there appears to be a perception in the academic community that the exchange & re-use of data is a good thing. We also have to remember that, much like FOIA, the exception regarding 'confidentiality' is in relation to a person providing the information to the organisation - it does not touch upon correspondence from the organisationThat is covered either by 'internal communications' exception, or as in the other case with the IPCC, an 'adverse effect' on international relations (which I believe to be entirely justifiable) As you are both quite busy over the next couple of weeks, I would be happy to discuss this further w/c 13 July with you, Michael and verify our approach the following week prior to the deadline of 24 July. Cheers,. Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2009-06-30 13:19 1473. From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:19 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03] Dave, I've done something I thought I would never do - I've printed off the EIR for 2004! Here's a few thoughts. 1. I don't have the exact data that I sent in January 2009. I'd have to recreate it. The data are part of a larger database. What I'd recreate would be different from what I sent in Jan 2009 (12.4a). 2. The requester has no idea what I sent on January 2009 (12.4c). 3. If I do have to recreate it, then it will contain data where 12.5fi-iii apply. Some of the data was supplied to CRU on the grounds that we didn't pass it on. These conditions were put on it by some of the National Met Services around the World (including the UK). On a related matter and back to Michael's point. The next IPCC process will start in 2010. It is possible that UEA people will be involved in the author writing teams. The members of these teams will be available through IPCC. What is to stop people asking for emails I might write to some or all of these authors. This, in effect, is the purpose of the appeal in the other issue with Keith and Tim and IPCC correspondence. Cheers Phil 2009-06-30 14:01 1473. ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:01:41 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Phil, Ah, now we are getting somewhere.... (and I will turn you to the 'dark side' of FOIA/EIR yet! lol) I don't' think Reg. 12(4)(c) will hold water as I think we know exactly what he is asking for but it's our ability to provide it that is at issue. However, even if we think it is too general, Regulation 9 mandates us to provide advice and assistance to the requester and indeed, subsection (2) specifically notes that if we do feel that 12(4)(a) applies, we must ask the applicant to provide more particulars & to assist the applicant in providing those particulars. I would think it likely that the applicant in this case would simply ask for the entire base file....? As to point 1 below, if we don't have the original email nor any record of what was sent, then there may be a case for the application of 12(4)(a). However, being contrary (and that's part of the job description), Regulation 9 would also raise it's hoary head here and we would need to tell the applicant out problem in 'reassembling' the data. I suspect the outcome would be exactly the same as above; namely a request for the entire base data. However, point 3 has definite promise. We would have to demonstrate an adverse effect on the interests of the party providing the information/data, and then pass the public interest test, overcoming the presumption of public interest in disclosure. Clearly, if the data was given to us on terms that forbade its further disclosure to persons/instructions that would exclude the applicant (and we have evidence of that), then we can also assume some presumption of adverse effect (although once again, thinking ahead, evidence of this would be useful). We would have to overcome the obvious fact that some data was passed to a fellow academic so therefore would need to draw a distinction between that type of disclosure and that requested by the applicant. I do not disagree with your final point which is why I was drawing the potential distinction between data and private correspondence. Our case before the ICO is all about the confidentiality of information coming to us and the adverse effect its disclosure would have on the persons providing it, and the international relations we have with bodies such as the IPCC. (and I think we might have a case under EIR 'manifestly unreasonable' grounds as that definition is wider than that for 'vexatious' requests under FOIA). Cheers, Dave 2009-07-16 08:32 2786. -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Montford [mailto:request-14780-02f91044@whatdotheyknow.com] Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:32 AM To: David Keith Palmer Subject: Freedom of Information request - Climate data restrictions Dear Sir or Madam, I gather from Dr Phil Jones' correspondence with Douglas Keenan (see http://www.climateaudit.org/correspondence/cru.correspondence.pdf)that restrictions have been placed on redistribution of climate data by some of the countries that have supplied this data. I would like to receive copies of all agreements or other correspondence where such restrictions have been placed. Yours faithfully, Andrew Montford 2009-07-16 08:54 2786. ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: FW: Freedom of Information request - Climate data restrictions [FOI_09-53] From:"Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Date:Thu, July 16, 2009 8:54 am To: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Cc: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gents, A request from Mr. Montford; not a surprise I would say. I am going to treat this under FOIA as I believe that the essence of the request is a request for a 'contract' and correspondence relating to the transmission/transfer of information that just happens to be environmental in nature. In the end, I'm not sure it makes that much difference to the outcome. Perhaps a matter to add to our meeting on Monday? I will make the appropriate acknowledgement of the request. Due date is 13 August. Cheers, Dave 2009-07-16 09:18 2786. ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:18:40 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: [Fwd: FW: Freedom of Information request - Climate data to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Tim, FYI below - another request! Back to your request.. I talked to Thomas last night and am seeing Renate Christ today. I've just drafted a short note to give her with some of Dave's points. I'm asking to see if we can get an IPCC response. Thomas has spoken to her, and he has also talked to some Swiss Lawyers he knows through the University in Bern and also at WMO. Whether we will get something in time is an issue. Renate is off for the whole of August, but will be back in Geneva next week. I'll warn her to be careful what is said, and to be consistent in an future response, and that whatever is said will likely appear on some blog sites fairly quickly. I was on the boat trip last night to the dinner. David Warrilow was behind me talking to a Pauline Midgeley (who is a Brit, but she's in the TSU team in Bern). David mentioned the name David Holland. It seems that they are beginning to take the issue more seriously. Cheers Phil 2009-07-16 10:12 3541. >-----Original Message----- >From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:12 AM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV) >Cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \" , "Jones Philip >Prof \" >Subject: FOI - the issue with IPCC that is going to the Commissioner > > > Tim, Dave, I've spoken to Renate Christ who is head of the IPCC Secretariat > in Geneva. I've given her a note about what we want, but we won't > get a response by our August deadline. What will happen though is that the whole issue of National >FOIs/EIRs > will be discussed at the next full IPCC plenary meeting in > Bali in October. This is not a meeting that many scientists will > go to. IPCC have got lawyers involved from their sponsoring > UN organizations (UNEP and WMO). They have been alerted up to >the issue by > us and by others (mainly from US organizations like NOAA, DoE). They > will come to a ruling then. I know this doesn't help us for this request, but hopefully > future IPCC-related FOIs/EIRs will be easier to deal with. > It seems as though they are taking the issue seriously. I did tell > them that the various FOI acts probably differ slightly, but they > seem to be aware of that. > > Cheers > Phil > > 2009-07-16 10:453541. ______________________________________________________ cc: <"Mcgarvie Michael Mr \" , "Jones Philip Prof \" > date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:45:58 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: FOI - the issue with IPCC that is going to the Commissioner to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" Phil, Thanks for your efforts and engagement in this process. I can use what you have stated here I think, and, in reality, I suspect that the case will not be assessed prior to October (unless fast-tracked by the ICO), so we may be in a position to add the IPCC position as supplemental evidence later on (and indeed, if the ICO knows that the IPCC is considering their position, they may defer a judgement until in possession of the IPCC position) Thanks for acting as 'our' advocate there.... By the way, if the IPCC wants input on UK FOIA/EIR legislation at their meeting in October, I'm sure that I could fit a trip to Bali in! ;-) Cheers, Dave 1251. 2009-07-16 10:59:37 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Philip Prof \" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \" , "mcgarvie michael mr \" date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:59:37 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: RE: FOI - the issue with IPCC that is going to the Commissioner to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Dave, Getting IPCC to move and do something has been the key. Being a UN-type organization we may end up with some sort of fudge, but the key players here all know that they need to do something. I'm not seeing too much of Venice! It is hot and very sticky, and quite a few mozzies in the evening. See you on Monday. Cheers Phil 2009-07-21 13:223334. ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:22:15 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: McIntyre EIR request (FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03) - Draft response to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Phil/Michael, A draft response along the lines discussed yesterday. I would expect an almost immediate appeal of this decision by Mr. McIntyre. Phil, as your concern is the publication of the requested information, I wonder if a possible alternative is to release it but place conditions on it's use. This will ONLY work if UEA has some rights in the data itself or in the database. 'Copyright' in the contents of a database would require some personal creative input by ourselves to the data or database that would render it different from preceding external versions and 'original'. However, even if the contents aren't 'original', there is a 'database right' where the contents of the database are assembled as the result of substantial investment in obtaining, verifying, or presenting it's contents. It is the framework, not the contents, that attracts the rights. These rights exist for 15 years from the completion of the database BUT any substantial change to contents will 'renew' the database rights for another 15 years. The owner of database rights has the right to prevent the extraction or reuse of all or a substantial portion of the database. There is 'fair dealing' in database rights to the extent that anyone has a right to extract & reuse an insubstantial portion of the database (not really defined in law but it's very small) for any purpose, or where the portion is substantial, extract and use data for non-commercial research or private study. What can't be done is re-issuing this information to the public under a different guise. The upshot of all of this is that, if we have a 'database right' in this information, then we can release it BUT insist on our exclusive right to re-use the information - BUT the issue is actually 'enforcing' those rights...... more difficult in practice than in law or theory.... Just thought I would proffer this as an option in place of the refusal and the inevitable appeal. Cheers, Dave <> ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Response_letter_DRAFT2.doc" 2009-07-21 14:02 780. ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Jul 21 14:02:47 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: McIntyre EIR request (FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03) - Draft response to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Dave, The letter is fine. Your idea about 'copyright' of the database is an excellent one. Over the last 30 years we have reworked the database on a number of occasions - every 3-5 years, so re-extending for another 15 years is fine. I'll have retired by then anyway! Do we need to come up with a form of words elaborating on database rights? Or can we just declare this? I'm presuming we don't have to register this with anybody as would be the case with a patent? Can we go with the letter then invoke this copyright, or should the letter be modified to encompass your 'copyright' and 'database right' ? I wouldn't want to have to put this 'copyright' to the test in a Canadian court. If we send them the file and they break the copyright, can we then refuse thereafter? Apologies that nothing is ever simple. Cheers Phil 2009-07-21 16:10 3712. ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:10:42 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: McIntyre EIR request (FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03) - Draft response to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Phil/Michael, The claim of database rights is really only relevant if we are releasing information and wish to restrict the subsequent use of that information. Copyright does not 'trump' our obligations under FOIA and we cannot use any copyright in material to prevent it's disclosure. What we CAN do however, is attempt to limit the uses made of released material (assuming of course that we have rights in the material released). The remedy for breach of copyright are the remedies provided for by law but actually getting damages, for example, can be a tricky thing - it's one thing to claim copyright, and another to enforce it - helps if you have lots of lawyers and money! Cheers, Dave 2009-07-23 08:50989. _____________________________________________ From: Archer, Marion Sent: 23 July 2009 08:50 To:Stott, Peter; Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Subject: Montford - FOI Importance:High Peter I have received the following FOI. It is the second request about CRUTEM from Mr Montford. He originall asked for the names of persons who restricted the release of the data.I attach a copy of our response.I understand there is nothing in writing about confirming that we cannot release this data and and I would appreciate if you could put a short response together for me, that I can send to Mr Montford.(Request below) << File: 0003840 Montford 1.pdf >> Dear Sir or Madam, Further to my recent enquiry regarding CRUTEM station data, firstly thank-you for your prompt reply. Could you please send me a copy of the agreement/letter with Dr Jones in which he makes these restrictions on redistribution of the data. Yours faithfully, Andrew Montford 2009-07-23 08:54989. From: Stott, Peter Sent: 23 July 2009 08:54 To:Archer, Marion; Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Subject: RE: Montford - FOI I assume Peter Thorne is the lead on this, Peter Dr. Peter Stott Head, Climate Monitoring and Attribution, Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Road, Exeter. EX1 3PB, UK 2009-07-23 09:02989. _____________________________________________ From: Archer, Marion Sent: 23 July 2009 09:02 To:Stott, Peter Cc:Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Subject: RE: Montford - FOI Sorry I didn't clarify the point with either of you. If Peter T could come up with something, liaising with Peter S that would be good. Peter T if you want to meet just let me know. Regards Marion Marion Archer FOI/Data Protection Manager _____________________________________________ 2009-07-23 10:16989. _____________________________________________ From: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Sent: 23 July 2009 10:16 To:Archer, Marion; Stott, Peter; Mayhew, Stuart Subject: RE: Montford - FOI Marion, we have nothing officially in writing. Simon Tett was the lead and although he had emails we believe at the time he has since left and his account has been scrubbed. Most of the arrangement was done orally so there is very little written correspondence on the matter even if we could retrieve previous emails (which I doubt). Best I have is the following from Simon: "I've got some of my old met office email -- back to early 2004. We are talking about error models then so I think discussions about station level records would have taken place in 2003. My recall is that we agreed with Phil that the gridded product was jointly owned and that he owned the station level records. The web site ([5]http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/data/station_updates/) seems to reflect this view. I think when I left the met office I deleted all my email prior to 2004 so can't find a record of the email. It may well be associated with the sub-contract to CRU to work on CRUTEM3 which I think was done in 2002/2003." There may be something in the contract for the HadCRUT3 work that we set up with UEA back in 2001/2. Stuart can probably dig that out and let me have a look. -- Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB. 2009-07-23 13:13989. From: Archer, Marion Sent: 23 July 2009 13:13 To:Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Cc:Stott, Peter Subject: RE: McIntyre- FOI Peter I attach a copy of the letter going out to Mr McIntyre today. Regards Marion <> Marion Archer FOI/Data Protection Manager Met Office Alexandria 1 2009-07-23 15:46989. At 15:46 23/07/2009, you wrote: FYI -- Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist ______________________________________________ 2009-07-23 http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/23/uk-met-offices-refuses-to-disclose-station-data-once-again/ Our Ref: 22-06-2009-131902-003 23 July 2009 Dear Mr McIntyre Request for Information – Information not Held and Refusal to Disclose Information Your correspondence dated 9 June 2009 has been considered to be a request for information in accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Ministry of Defence is permitted to withhold information where exceptions are considered justifiable. You asked “You stated that CRUTEM3 data that you held was the value added data. Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations Act 2004, please provide me with this data in the digital form, together with any documents that you hold describing the procedures under which the data has been quality controlled and where deemed appropriate, adjusted to account for apparent non-climatic influences”. Your request has been assessed and this letter is to inform you that the Met Office does hold some information covered by the request. We do not hold documents describing the procedures under which the data has been quality controlled or adjusted to account for apparent non-climatic influences. The information held by the Met Office is withheld in accordance with the following exceptions pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations Act 2004: • Section 12 (5) (a) Information likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and any International organisation; • Section 12 (5) (e) Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest. • Section 12 (5) (f) (i) (iii) The supplier was not under legal obligation to supply the information and has not consented to its disclosure. As the above exceptions are qualified exceptions, a public interest test was undertaken by the Met Office to consider whether there are overriding reasons why disclosure of this information would not be in the public interest. The Met Office has duly considered these reasons in conjunction with the public interest in disclosing the requested information, in particular the benefits of assisting the public having information on environmental information, whereby they would hope to influence decisions from a position of knowledge rather than speculation. Access to environmental information is particularly important as environmental issues affect the whole population. Consideration of Exception Regulation 12 (5) (a) Much of the requested data comes from individual Scientists and Institutions from several countries. The Met Office received the data information from Professor Jones at the University of East Anglia on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released. If any of this information were released, scientists could be reluctant to share information and participate in scientific projects with the public sector organisations based in the UK in future. It would also damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector and could show the Met Office ignored the confidentiality in which the data information was provided. We considered that if the public have information on environmental matters, they could hope to influence decisions from a position of knowledge rather than speculation. However, the effective conduct of international relations depends upon maintaining trust and confidence between states and international organisations. This relationship of trust allows for the free and frank exchange of information on the understanding that it will be treated in confidence. If the United Kingdom does not respect such confidences, its ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations may be hampered. Competitors/ Collaborators could be damaged by the release of information which was given to us in confidence and this will detrimentally affect the ability of the Met Office (UK) to co-operate with meteorological organisations and governments of other countries. This could also provoke a negative reaction from scientist globally if their information which they have requested remains private is disclosed. Consideration of Exception Regulation 12 (5) (e) The information is also withheld in accordance with the exception under regulation 12 (5) (e) because the information comprises of Station Data which are commercially sensitive for many of the data sources (particularly European and African Meteorological services) release of any data could adversely affect relationships with other Institutions and individuals, who may plan to use their data for their own commercial interests. Some of this is documented in Hulme, 1996 but this is not a globally comprehensive summary. The Met Office are not party to information which would allow us to determine which countries and stations data can or cannot be released as records were not kept, or given to the Met Office, therefore we cannot release data where we have no authority to do so. Competitors or collaborators could be damaged by the release of information which was given to us in confidence and could affect their ability to trade. The Met Office uses the data solely and expressly to create a gridded product that we distribute without condition. Consideration of Exception Regulation 12 (5) (f) (i) and (iii) The information is also withheld in accordance with the exception under regulation 12 (5) (f) (i) (iii) as Professor Jones was not legally bound to release the data to the Met Office and has not consented to the disclosure to any other party. As stated above in 12 (5) (a) Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept. The Met Office received the data from Professor Jones on the proviso that it would not be released to any other source and to release it without authority would seriously affect the relationship between the United Kingdom and other Countries and Institutions. I hope this answers your enquiry. If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about any aspect of the handling of your request, then you should contact me in the first instance. If informal resolution is not possible and you are still dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent internal review by contacting the Head of Corporate Information, 6th Floor, MOD Main Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail CIO-XD@mod.uk). Please note that any request for an internal review must be made within 40 working days of the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an end. If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information Commissioner will not investigate your case until the MOD internal review process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of the Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner’s website, http://www.ico.gov.uk. Yours sincerely, Marion Archer FOI Manager 2009-07-23 16:00~989. Phil, as your concern is the publication of the requested information, I wonder if a possible alternative is to release it but place conditions on it's use. This will ONLY work if UEA has some rights in the data itself or in the database. 'Copyright' in the contents of a database would require some personal creative input by ourselves to the data or database that would render it different from preceding external versions and 'original'. However, even if the contents aren't 'original', there is a 'database right' where the contents of the database are assembled as the result of substantial investment in obtaining, verifying, or presenting it's contents. It is the framework, not the contents, that attracts the rights. These rights exist for 15 years from the completion of the database BUT any substantial change to contents will 'renew' the database rights for another 15 years. The owner of database rights has the right to prevent the extraction or reuse of all or a substantial portion of the database. There is 'fair dealing' in database rights to the extent that anyone has a right to extract & reuse an insubstantial portion of the database (not really defined in law but it's very small) for any purpose, or where the portion is substantial, extract and use data for non-commercial research or private study. What can't be done is re-issuing this information to the public under a different guise. The upshot of all of this is that, if we have a 'database right' in this information, then we can release it BUT insist on our exclusive right to re-use the information - BUT the issue is actually 'enforcing' those rights more difficult in practice than in law or theory. Just thought I would proffer this as an option in place of the refusal and the inevitable appeal. Cheers, Dave 2009-07-23 16:29 989. ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Jul 23 16:29:55 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: McIntyre- FOI to: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" Peter, Thanks. We've had a request from Montford as well. What we're sending him is the original letters we have from Met Services. I gave you and Marion some of these when I was down in June. I've since found a couple more. Also pointing to this page [1]http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/surface/met-nerc_agreement.html which means I can't pass on any UK data ! What we're looking into as a possibility is summarised below by our FOI person. I'm still thinking about this. We're likely to send a response to McIntyre tomorrow about a request for data I sent to a post doc working for Peter Webster. Peter said he'd had no difficulty getting data from CRU. It was only some tropical station. McIntyre has no idea what data it was. He is just asking for a copy of the email and attachment that I sent between Jan 1 and June 30, 2009! What we've signed with you is an agreement that David may have a copy of. This was about joint work and publications. Off home now - back in Monday. Cheers Phil 2009=07-24 http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/24/cru-refuses-data-once-again/ Dear Mr McIntyre ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS 2004 – INFORMATION REQUEST (FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03) Your request for information received on 26 June 2009 has now been considered and it is, unfortunately, not possible to meet all of your request. In accordance with Regulation 14 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 this letter acts as a partial Refusal Notice, and I am not obliged to supply this information and the reasons for exemption are as stated below: Exception Reason Reg. 12(5)(f) – Adverse effect on the person providing information Information is covered by a confidentiality agreement Regulation 12(5)(f) applies because the information requested was received by the University on terms that prevent further transmission to non-academics Regulation 12(1)(b) mandates that we consider the public interest in any decision to release or refuse information under Regulation 12(4). In this case, we feel that there is a strong public interest in upholding contract terms governing the use of received information. To not do so would be to potentially risk the loss of access to such data in future. I apologise that not all of your request will be met but if you have any further information needs in the future then please contact me. If you have any queries or concerns, or, if you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request please contact me at: University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Telephone: 0160 393 523 E-mail: foi AT uea.ac.uk You also have the right of appeal against the decision. If you wish to appeal please set out in writing your grounds of appeal and send to me at the same address as noted above. Subsequent to our determination of your appeal, you also have a further right of appeal to the Information Commissioner at: Information Commissioner’s Office Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF Telephone: 01625 545 700 www.ico.gov.uk Yours sincerely David Palmer Information Policy and Compliance Manager 2009-07-24 This is the first time that we’ve heard that their supposed confidentiality agreements merely restrict “further transmission to non-academics”. A couple of observations on this. I’m sure that CRU will soon receive a similar request from someone to whom this excuse does not apply. However, aside from that, there are other troubling aspects to this refusal. If there actually are confidentiality agreements, I would expect the relevant language to be framed in terms of “academic use” as opposed to guild membership i.e. I’d be surprised if the language were framed in terms of institutional affiliation as opposed to use. I’ve published relevant articles in peer reviewed literature, acted as an IPCC reviewer, been cited in IPCC AR4, been invited to present to a NAS panel – my use of data is “academic” by any legal standard. Secondly, over at the Met Office, they say “it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept.” But over at CRU, they purport to “know” nuanced details of the contractual language of the confidentiality agreements – clauses that have the effect of justifying the refusal of the data. 2009-07-24 http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/24/cru-refuses-data-once-again/ Dear Mr Palmer, I am not satisfied with your response to my request. In your letter, you stated that the “Information is covered by a confidentiality agreement” and that the terms of this(these) agreements “prevent further transmission to non-academics”. I requested the data for academic purposes. I have published relevant articles in peer-reviewed literature; I was a reviewer for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report; I have been invited to make presentations to a panel of the US National Research Council, at a Union session of the American Geophysical Union and to several universities. I undertake that my use of the data will be for “academic” and not commercial use. In addition, it is my expectation that any restrictive language in the relevant confidentiality agreements will apply only to the “use” of the data and my use is academic; I doubt that the restrictive language is explicitly framed in terms of affiliation. Accordingly, I request that you review the actual restrictive language in the various confidentiality agreements and, if the language, as I surmise, pertains to “use”, I request that you re-consider your decision and provide the requested data. In addition, I hereby make a separate FOI request in in respect to the confidentiality agreement(s) upon which you based your decision for the following countries: Canada, United States, Australia, U.K., and Brazil: 1. the date of any applicable confidentiality agreements; 2. the parties to such confidentiality agreement, including the full name of any organization; 3. a copy of the section of the confidentiality agreement that “prevents further transmission to non-academics”. 4. a copy of the entire confidentiality agreement, Thank you for your attention. Yours truly, Stephen McIntyre 2009-07-25 http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/25/cru-then-and-now/ Jean S made the interesting observation that CRU archived station in the 1980s and early 1990s at CDIAC (ndp020) and that the alleged CRU confidentiality agreements, for some reason, did not interfere with that data being archived. 2009-07-25 http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/25/a-mole/ Just to prove that I have actual CRU station data, here is the 60th series (Lund Sweden), covering the period 1753-1773: sensitive information indeed. 2009-07-27 17:49 1577. At 17:49 27/07/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: Folks, A brief summary of where we are currently. I have 42 requests with virtually the same wording as below: "Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby make an EIR/FOI request for the following information in respect to any confidentiality agreements affecting CRUTEM station data involving station data in [insert country names] 1. the date of such agreement; 2. the parties to the agreement; 3. a copy of that part of the agreement that prevents further transmission of the data to non-academics 4. a copy of the entire agreement I am requesting this information as part of my academic research." I have a further 3 requests asking for the actual data that was sent to Georgia Tech plus one asking for station data from some islands in the Pacific These will be handled under EIR. I have another 5 requests that include more than just the 'standard' request above. I have been in touch with the ICO today twice and also have consulted my HEI colleagues and the essentials are as follows: 1. We will have to acknowledge and administer these requests individually regardless of the response or approach taken. Lots of work to be done listing requests I fear. 2. We can 'aggregate' the requests for the purposes of assessing the time/work in locating & retrieving the requested information but the aggregation only goes to our ability to claim a section 12 appropriate limit exemption. Options for handling the requests 1. Business as usual - treat each request individually and respond accordingly. Could be very time-consuming although I suspect that the answer will be the same for many of them; namely that we do not have the requested data. This will set them off as we claimed with Mr. McIntyre that agreements prevented us from disclosing information - I doubt that they will see the nuances that only some of the information was covered by such agreements & we cannot release the lot without breaching one of them. 2. Vexatious request (section 14) - the test is difficult but we clearly can show that there has been a coordinated effort here but we have to show at least one (and probably more) of the following a. is the request obsessive b. is it harassing the authority or causing distress to staff c. would compliance impose a significant burden on the authority d. is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance e. does the request lack serious purpose or value f. is the request vexatious in context, part of a wider pattern of behaviour that makes it vexatious I think (a), (c), (d) & (f) might apply although individually, the requests are legitimate and are not meant solely to disrupt us. 'They' are aware of this option as comment no. 115 on the climateaudt.org website notes: "Isn't there a risk that the appearance of a concerted campaign can be used as evidence that the requests are "vexatious" which is one of the UK FOI's exceptions? Especially as the wording is all but identical? I think it's possible they may try this line of defence. However, the inquiries are not really vexatious. We're just trying to find out which countries these supposed confidentiality agreements apply to. Then we could FOI the rest. OTOH, if Phil Jones really doesn't have any records of such agreements One thing is for sure. David Palmer is not going to appreciate this pile of FOI requests and he will be motivated to resolve the impasse in a way that doesn't reflect poorly on himself and his office. I expect he'll kick it upstairs. Further, if the press get interested, I doubt that the institutions are going to put up with Jones' precious behaviour much longer." I think we can all guess the reaction if we hit everyone with a section 14 ruling, regardless of the validity of it's application.this would surely go to the ICO eventually. 3. Information available (section 21) - the approach here would be to respond to Mr. Montford's request (FOI_09-53) knowing full well that everything we send electronically will be on the 'whatdotheyknow' website (and we can hope he digitises the 'agreements' and puts them up) - we then cite section 21 for everyone else and point them at his website. The alternative would be to post the agreements on the CRU website and point them there. 4. Hybrid approach - Hit everyone with a section 14 BUT tell them that we are responding to a request for ALL agreements and will be posting whatever is found and sent. General points - 1.We are going to have to monitor the press as a number of the requesters are very 'legit' academics in their own right and would not be dismissed as the 'usual suspects' 2. Regardless of how we approach this we can expect further interaction with these folks - my take would be to publish as much as we possibly can and eliminate the hassle of constantly responding to FOIA/EIR requests (although it does keep me employed!); the larger issue is how to manage our relationship with these folks so that we can avoid this request bombardment in future. 3. Interaction with Mr. McIntyre - he has appealed our decision not to send the Ga. Tech data & we will have to respond in some fashion to this The initial stage is 'informal' led by moi and I wonder how 'informal' and open I should be with Mr. McIntyre in terms of communication and working with him to achieve a satisfactory result Thats it for now - see you tomorrow! Cheers, Dave ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager 2009-07-28 09:19 1577. ______________________________________________________ cc: "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" date: Tue Jul 28 09:19:16 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FOIA requests for 'confidentiality' agreements to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Ogden Annie Ms \(MAC\)" Dear All, Here are a few other thoughts. From looking at Climate Audit every few days, these people are not doing what I would call academic research. Also from looking they will not stop with the data, but will continue to ask for the original unadjusted data (which we don't have) and then move onto the software used to produce the gridded datasets (the ones we do release). CRU is considered by the climate community as a data centre, but we don't have any resources to undertake this work. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get - and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data. We are currently trying to do some more work with other datasets, which will get released (as gridded datasets) through the British Atmospheric Data Centre (BADC). This will involve more than just station temperature data. Perhaps we should consider setting up something like this agreement below [1]http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/surface/met-nerc_agreement.html I just want these orchestrated requests to stop. I also don't want to give away years of hard effort within CRU. Many of the agreements were made in the late 1980s and early 1990s and I don't have copies to hand. I also don't want to waste my time looking for them. Even if I were to find them all, it is likely that the people we dealt with are no longer in the same positions. These requests over the last 2.5 years have wasted much time for me, others in CRU and for Dave and Michael. Some of you may not know, but the dataset has been sent by someone at the Met Office to McIntyre. The Met Office are trying to find out who did this. I've ascertained it most likely came from there, as I'm the only one who knows where the files are here. See you all later. Phil 2009-07-28 16:10 490. ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:10:39 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: FOI/EIR requests - Strategy to: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Ogden Annie Ms \(MAC\)" Folks, Just to summarise our approach to the various requests we have received to date that we have agreed: A. 'Country' requests 1. Respond to Montford request as normally - cite s.21, information available (see point 2) 2. Place any/all agreements (or links thereto - Met Office) on the CRU website 3. Acknowledge & respond to all 44? Country requests by citing s.21 and pointing them to the CRU website B. Data requests 1. Acknowledge requests 2. Deal with as per normal, cite Reg. 12(5)(f) re agreements and Reg. 12(4)(b) 'manifestly unreasonable' on the grounds that the data is already available publicly via the ClimateAudit.org website, and note that a format of the data (gridded) already is publicly available 3. Note that raw data is available from the Met Office and other national weather services (also goes to 'manifestly unreasonable') . C. McIntyre appeal 1. Maintain position regarding Reg 12(5)(f) re confidentiality agreements and point him to published versions on website 2. Add 'manifestly unreasonable' on basis that he already has the requested information in his possession & is also available elsewhere 3. Handle as per published protocols with initial 'informal' approach, followed by review by JCF D. 'Other' requests 1. Acknowledge requests 2. Deal with as usual, citing whatever section is appropriate above to the requested information E. General points 1. Interaction with any media to be handled by Press Office 2. Approval of transfer to Georgia Tech would be good to find 3. We are NOT citing s.14 for the 'country' requests 4. Estimated time to locate ALL agreements regarding data transfer is within the 18 hour appropriate limit 5. Any correspondence to go out will be circulated prior to transmission I hope I have captured what was agreed - please comment if your understanding is different than mine Cheers, Dave ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager 2009-07-28 16:35 2924. From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 28 July 2009 15:31 To: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Subject: Station data Peter, Been to my meeting with the FOI, the Deputy Librarian and a couple of others. As McIntyre now has the data, can you let me know if you're able to determine when he might have got it? I don't want to get anyone in trouble, but if he got it on Friday, we can ignore the 48 requests we got between Sunday and today. We can say that he already has the data. I have told them that it won't stop with the data. They will move onto programs next. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones 2009-07-28 14:29 http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/28/met-officecru-finds-the-mole/ Late yesterday (Eastern time), I learned that the Met Office/CRU had identified the mole. They are now aware that there has in fact been a breach of security. They have confirmed that I am in fact in possession of CRU temperature data, data so sensitive that, according to the UK Met Office, my being in possession of this data would, “damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector”, interfere with the “effective conduct of international relations”, “hamper the ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations” and “seriously affect the relationship between the United Kingdom and other Countries and Institutions.” Although they have confirmed the breach of security, neither the Met Office nor CRU have issued a statement warning the public of the newCRU_tar leak. Nor, it seems, have they notified the various parties to the alleged confidentiality agreements that there has been a breach in those confidentiality agreements, so that the opposite parties can take appropriate counter-measures to cope with the breach of security by UK institutions. Thus far, the only actions by either the Met Office or CRU appear to have been a concerted and prompt effort to cover up the breach of security by attempting to eradicate all traces of the mole’s activities. My guess is that they will not make the slightest effort to discipline the mole. Nor have either the Met Office or CRU have contacted me asking me not to further disseminate the sensitive data or to destroy the data that I have in my possession. By not doing so, they are surely opening themselves up to further charges of negligence for the following reasons. Their stated position is that, as a “non-academic”, my possession of the data would be wrongful (a position with which I do not agree, by the way). Now that they are aware that I am in possession of the data (and they are aware, don’t kid yourselves), any prudent lawyer would advise them to immediately to notify me that I am not entitled to be in possession of the data and to ask/instruct me to destroy the data that I have in my possession and not to further disseminate the sensitive data. You send out that sort of letter even if you think that the letter is going to fall on deaf ears. Since I am always eager to help climate scientists with these conundrums, I’ll help them out a little here. If, prior to midnight Eastern time on Thursday July 30, 2009, a senior executive of the Met Office or the University of East Anglia notifies me that I am in wrongful possession of the data and directly requests me to destroy my copies of the CRU station data in question and thereby do my part in the avoidance of newCRU_tar proliferation, I will do so. I will, of course, continue my FOI requests since I do not believe, for a minute, that their excuses have any validity nor am I convinced that the alleged confidentiality agreements actually exist nor, if they exist, am I convinced that they prohibit the provision of the data to me. 2009-07-28 16:35 2924. ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:35:45 +0100 from: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" subject: RE: Station data to: "Phil Jones" Sure. Dan isn't in until Thursday and there is uncertainty over whether he's on day or night shift so it may not be til Friday at the very very earliest unless you view it as sufficiently important that I get exec over-ride for message switching services to investigate in the interim ... and its just a punt taht that will be possible. -- Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2009-07-28 17:06 4878. From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:06 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Fwd: RE: Station data Dave, See this link below. This message sent by someone at the Hadley Centre. I guess we don't rise to the bait. Can we say taunting is vexatious? Cheers Phil [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6644#comments [http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/28/met-officecru-finds-the-mole/] This suggests to me that as there is no way that Dan would be aware its not him. Could it be that Mr. M sniffed the FTP site and ahs led everyone a merry dance. Can you log when that file was accessed? One for Mike and IT support at your end? 4878. 2009-07-28 17:21:09 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:21:09 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: FW: RE: Station data to: "Press Office" See below - What now folks? In reality, we don't have any IPR in the raw data so we have no 'rights' to it, and any action on our part would be as against the Met Office for breaching the terms of the agreement under which we provided the data to them. I should have added to my prior email that part of the response to data requests would be that it would be 'manifestly unreasonable' to disaggregate the data to parse out the data that is NOT covered by the agreements noted.... Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2009-07-28 17:52 4270. Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:52:02 +0100 From: Mike Salmon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090608) To: Phil Jones Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: Station data ClimateAudit says: "July 28th, 2009 - Late yesterday (Eastern time), I learned that the Met Office/CRU had identified the mole." Looking at the FTP server logs, two addresses fetched newcru* in that time period: 99.231.2.44 = CPE0050bfe94416-CM00195efb6eb0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com 209.77.230.64 = ppp-209-77-230-64.dsl.chi2ca.pacbell.net Rogers is a Canadian company, so I assume that's McIntyre [1]http://www.rogers.com/web/Rogers.portal (PacBell is part of AT&T in the US) Looking through other log entries with that address, he's also interested in this file: /projects/advance10k/cruwlda2.zip which, ahem, also contains the LUND data! Shall I move that too? It's been there since 1996. The earliest fetch of the full data from that address was: Sat Jul 25 21:13:01 2009 11 99.231.2.44 2051007 /data/newcruextusall.dat.Z b _ o a mozilla@example.com ftp 0 * c so he "got the data" at 2009-07-25 2013UTC Mike 2009-07-29 09:15 4270. ______________________________________________________ cc: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" ,"Press Office" date: Wed Jul 29 09:15:04 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: RE: Station data to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Dave, Annie, Jonathan, Mike Salmon here has looked through the log of our ftp site. It seems that at least 3 people on July 24 and 25 picked up copies of files we'd put on the CRU site in early 2003 (Feb 24). They were put there for the Hadley Centre to pick up as we couldn't email such large files at that time. I know we should have taken them down. See below for the date someone from Canada did this. This was done between 8 and 9pm UK time on July 25 (Saturday). The other two were from the US on July 24 and much early on July 25. Our entire web site is regularly trawled - every few months by people in eastern Europe (mostly Poland) and Taiwan. Apparently this is quite common. The problem I have now is that the file that was accessed contains data up to the end of 2002. This was for data that went into a publication that appeared in the Journal of Climate in 2003. Since then we've added lots more data. So they have a copy of the data from CRUTEM2. They do not have CRUTEM3. I'll read through your summary of the meeting yesterday - your email Dave from 16.10 yesterday. Cheers Phil 2009-07-29 10:48 1131. From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:49 AM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Cc: Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Subject: Re: FW: RE: Station data Dave, Here's what I propose to do over the next week or two. I will get the agreements scanned and write some text about them and the others that we have had. CRU had longer term plans with the Hadley Centre to release all the data they want when we do the next update in 2010. I could add this in to some text I write - saying we will do this once we've contacted various Met Services. I'm not sure about this? Is saying the least best? I could say for example that McIntyre has a version through 2002 and not the current one. I'll pass the text by a couple of people here and also by you, but if you have any thoughts let me know. Cheers Phil 2009-07-29 10:48 1131. ______________________________________________________ cc: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:48:00 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: FW: RE: Station data to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Ogden Annie Ms \(MAC\)" Phil, Sorry for not getting back to you sooner - been trying to get a few other requests out the door this am. I think the text is a good idea including a reference to future plans but I would phrase it to not mention specific Met agencies but rather something along the lines of 'Subject to obtaining consent for publication from the rights holders..." . I would NOT mention Mr. McIntyre on any of our pages - we can't really state that the CRUTEM2 data is publicly available as we have no idea what Mr. McIntyre intends to do with it and I think any mention of him personally is risky at best. I think any mention of the existence of the data sets either 'taken' from our ftp server or secured from the Met Office would be risky until we know what will be done with them and our (and the rights holders') response to the acquisition of this data. Annie - your thoughts on this? Finally - in regards your earlier email, I'm not sure I understand the relationship between the acquisition of the data from us (CRUTEM2) and the data supposedly secured from the Met Office. Are they the same data sets or different? I guess I'm trying to get a handle on what Mr. McIntyre actually has in his possession.... Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2009-07-29 15:24 3402. Subject: FW: FOI/EIR requests - Strategy - Next Steps Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:24:25 +0100 From: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" To: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Ogden Annie Ms \(MAC\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Folks, Further to the memo below, Jonathan sent me his summary of our approach and asked me to comment and pass onto you. There are a couple of 'comments' that I have inserted that I'd appreciate input on, particularly from Phil. Hope this helps us to move forward Cheers, Dave <> 2009-07-29 15:57 3402. ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Jul 29 15:57:32 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: FW: FOI/EIR requests - Strategy - Next Steps to: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" Peter, We're working on some web text here. It will have in more than Dave has said in the attached. So don't read this yet. I'll send it down once Tim has had a look through. The issue now is #3 in the attached - PDJ to seek retrospective permission from the Met Office for the release of the data to Georgia Tech. Now I know this is sort of my data. I don't know who you'd ask or if you should anyway. What they were sent was everything 30N to 30S (roughly), so this includes some British Islands like St Helena and some in the Pacific. I guess I could say these are OK as they covered by WMO Res 40. It would appear from looking at the NERC/MO agreement (see link) on the BADC site that this doesn't seem to be being followed in the UK. [1]http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/surface/met-nerc_agreement.html When we need it Mike will set up what you suggest - a special ftp site just for the two of us (CRU and MOHC). Cheers Phil 2009-07-29 http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/29/cru-erases-data/ As readers know, both myself and various Climate Audit readers have requested CRU station data from both the Met Office and CRU. While my initial request to CRU was refused, I asked for a reconsideration and the matter is still outstanding, as are all the other CRU requests. Under U.K. Freedom of Information Act, once FOI requests have been made for information, public authorities are not permitted to “alter, deface, block, erase, destroy or conceal any record held by the public authority, with the intention of preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of the information to the communication of which the applicant would have been entitled.” As fordprefect observed the other day, the Computer Misuse Act also prescribes various offences, one of which is the unauthorized modification of the contents of a computer with the intent “to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer”. I was therefore more than a little surprised that on July 27, at about 2:42 p.m. (UK), CRU deleted three files from their data directory ftp://ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/data/ entitled newcrustnsall.dat.Z, newcruextusall.dat.Z and newcrustnsall.hdr. I have before and after screenshots of the contents of this directory showing the deletion, screenshots that I will show below. I also have a screenshot showing the most recent change of the directory and that no other files were changed. [As readers observed, it is possible and perhaps even likely that the files were moved to a concealed location, rather than totally erased, which would present similar sorts of issues for FOI compliance.] As noted by CA reader Jean S, on July 28 at about 2:01 p.m. (UK), one or more files was deleted from the directory ftp://ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/people/philjones/. In this case, we do not have a before screenshot, only evidence of the deletion of one or more files from the directory. [Again, it is possible that the file was moved to a concealed location, rather than totally erased.] First, here is a screenshot of ftp://ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/data/ taken on Saturday, July 25. You;ll notice the three files named above, two of which are dated 2/24/2003. ... One obvious course of action right now will be to make a FOI request to CRU, seeking information about the contents of the various files that were deleted from public directories and whether they were in any way relevant to any of the outstanding inquiries, and, if they were, whether the deletion of these files from the public directories required authorization by the university’s FOI officer and whether such authorization was obtained. 2009-07-30 11:09 4230. >-----Original Message----- >From: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) >Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:09 AM >To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD); >Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Subject: FW: > >Dear all, >In case you haven't seen this one - about a 'leak' etc... >[2]http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/07/27/0520216/Temperature-Dat >a-Wants-To-Be-Free?from=rss >Annie >------------------------------- >Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, >University of East Anglia, 2009-07-30 11:31 4230. ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:31:49 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: to: "Ogden Annie Ms \(MAC\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" Annie, One does wonder what the readership figures for these sites are however.... Of more import, the 'penetration' of the CRU server and its subsequent handling are now common knowledge ([1]http://www.climateaudit.org/) and they are claiming that we have breached s.77 of the FOIA (which applies to applications under EIR by the way) by removing the relevant files from the .FTP server. Whilst what McIntyre has quoted is entirely accurate, he hasn't told the whole story - the entire section is below: 77 Offence of altering etc. records with intent to prevent disclosure (1) Where-- (a) a request for information has been made to a public authority, and (b) under section 1 of this Act or section 7 of the [1988 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998, the applicant would have been entitled (subject to payment of any fee) to communication of any information in accordance with that section, any person to whom this subsection applies is guilty of an offence if he alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any record held by the public authority, with the intention of preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of the information to the communication of which the applicant would have been entitled. (2) Subsection (1) applies to the public authority and to any person who is employed by, is an officer of, or is subject to the direction of, the public authority. (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. (4) No proceedings for an offence under this section shall be instituted-- (a) in England or Wales, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions; (b) in Northern Ireland, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. The key point is the intent to prevent the disclosure of information to which the applicant would otherwise be entitled. One, we maintain he is not entitled to it, and two, we are not concealing it to prevent disclosure (as that has already happened). This provision is to obviously stop authorities from deleting information and then claiming they don't possess it. We are not doing that... BUT it's not good publicity on any level I would think.... I will check with the ICO to make sure we are ok on this because a momentary 'backtrack' would be much better than getting caught on a section 77 infraction.... Cheers, Dave 2009-07-30 11:34 1175. From:Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Sent:Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:34 AM To:Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Cc:Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject:RE: However - the Guardian website is very well read. See what their technology editor says in his blog: [2]http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/jul/30/microsoft-yahoo-climate-data-l icence-tv Annie ------------------------------- Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, 2009-07-30 11:37 1175. From:Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent:Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:37 AM To:Ogden Annie Ms (MAC); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Cc:Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject:RE: Ok... At what point do we publicly engage in this debate then? Not my field of expertise but the agenda is definitely being set by Mr. McIntyre et al..... Cheers, Dave 2009-07-30 11:59 1175. From:Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Sent:Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:38 AM To:Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Cc:Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject:RE: Probably best to discuss when Phil is back in the office - CRU are all out today. Annie ------------------------------- Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia, 2009-07-30 11:59 1175. ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:59:07 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: to: "Ogden Annie Ms \(MAC\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" On phone to ICO at moment awaiting input on the section 77 question - am arguing that taking the files off was to meet with our contraction obligations under which we received it and to repair what we perceive as a lapse in security.... They have now stated they don't think the removal of the data is in contravention of section 77 in that the sole purpose of the removal was NOT to deny the requester his legitimate right of access to the information. I did tell them that that our intention was stated in our response to Mr. McIntyre; namely to deny him the information on the basis of EIR Reg. 12(5)(f) & the public interest & this did not alter their position. This still leaves us with a PR problem but eliminates the legal problem.... Cheers, Dave _____________________________________________ 2009-07-31 11:325267. date: Fri Jul 31 11:32:00 2009 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: FTP server to: CRU Computing Support Hi Mike, in looking further afield than just my files, I see some other files that are no longer needed. Please can you delete: [1]ftp://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/people/craigwallace/ folder and its content (an old word doc) as I know these aren't needed any more. I'd also guess that [2]ftp://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/people/davidviner/ folder and its contents can go (files all dated >8 years ago). Effie's folder is also empty. mickkelly contains only holiday snaps! Cheers Tim At 10:10 31/07/2009, you wrote: Dear all, After the recent problems with ClimateAudit, Phil has asked for all unnecessary files to be purged from the FTP server. You have a directory in /cru/ftp1/people. Please could you take a look to see what files need to remain there? If you would like assistance with this, let me know. Please confirm by email when you've done it, so I can cross you off the list. thanks Mike 2009-07-31 12:07 http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/31/the-cru-data-purge-continues/ 2009-08-04 10:39 3364. ______________________________________________________ cc: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:39:03 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: EIR requests for CRUTEM data - Additional exception? to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" Folks, I am working on draft responses to the array of requests and will provide copies in the near future for your review. I have noted that one of the grounds that the Met Office used to reject a request for the data provided to them by Phil was Regulation 12(5)(a), adverse effect on international relations. Their reasoning is as follows: Consideration of Exception Regulation 12 (5) (a) Much of the requested data comes from individual Scientists and Institutions from several countries. The Met Office received the data information from Professor Jones at the University of East Anglia on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released. If any of this information were released, scientists could be reluctant to share information and participate in scientific projects with the public sector organisations based in the UK in future. It would also damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector and could show the Met Office ignored the confidentiality in which the data information was provided. We considered that if the public have information on environmental matters, they could hope to influence decisions from a position of knowledge rather than speculation. However, the effective conduct of international relations depends upon maintaining trust and confidence between states and international organisations. This relationship of trust allows for the free and frank exchange of information on the understanding that it will be treated in confidence. If the United Kingdom does not respect such confidences, its ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations may be hampered. Competitors/ Collaborators could be damaged by the release of information which was given to us in confidence and this will detrimentally affect the ability of the Met Office (UK) to co-operate with meteorological organisations and governments of other countries. This could also provoke a negative reaction from scientist globally if their information which they have requested remains private is disclosed. I wonder if it would be wise for us to cite the same exception under EIR in order to both bolster the Met Office case and our own in regards requests for either all the data CRU has, or for the subset that he provided to Georgia Tech? This also provides a route to raise the argument regarding academic freedom and the need for academics to be able to conduct discussions and the need to share information in order to do so. I am not sure whether the ICO will see any merit in this argument but I doubt they would consider it if we don't raise it..... Cheers, Dave ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia 2009-08-04 16:37 5101. From:Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Sent:Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:37 PM To:Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Cc:Preece Alan Mr (MAC) Subject:just a thought Dear all, I spoke to the Met Office press office yesterday about whether to respond to a piece in the Telegraph. As I have since discussed with Phil, we were both of the same opinion - that it was better to let it lie. As previously discussed, if we are actually contacted by the press for a comment, our line would be based on the text now on the CRU website (see below). Just a thought - if we are hoping to get permission from met services so the raw data can be published in 2010, can we not just expedite this and avoid a lot of unwanted negative publicity? Best, Annie The Climatic Research Unit has made available full gridded datasets of surface temperature data and averages since 1982 (on its website since the late 1990s). These datasets have been compiled from data acquired from weather stations around the world, courtesy of Meteorological agencies such as the UK's own Met Office. Some of these organisations give us this information on the understanding that it is used solely for the compilation of our gridded datasets and may only be used with the full permission of the relevant agency. We receive numerous requests for the raw data provided to us. The data are not ours to pass on without the full permission of the relevant Met Services, but we hope in future that we may be able to provide this information, jointly with the Hadley Centre, subject to obtaining consent for publication from the rights holders. ------------------------------- Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia, 2009-08-04 http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/04/dr-phil-confidential-agent/ 2009-08-05 08:25 5101. At 08:25 05/08/2009, Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) wrote: Dear Annie, I must admit I had not really appreciated the point that CRU / The Met Office plan to make the full data available next year and agree with your assessment that it would make sense to try and bring this forward if at all possible and avoid the publicity. I am not certain what this would involve, is it as simple as writing to the Met Office and requesting permission? It would be useful to know if there are any other reasons why the release of the data could not be brought forward. Incidentally, I missed the piece in the Telegraph, is there a link you could post? With regards, Jonathan 2009-08-05 10:26 5101. ______________________________________________________ cc: "Preece Alan Mr (MAC)" , "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" date: Wed Aug 5 10:26:43 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: just a thought to: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" Jonathan, Here's the link. Also one to show you more about Christopher Booker. [1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5955955/Weather-records- are-a-state-secret.html [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker Making the data available involves writing to a lot more people than just the Met Office. We can start this soon, but we need to give the Met Services time to reply. We're also working on a newer version with more data in it, so would be best if this version got released and not the current one. Cheers Phil 2009-08-05 11:52 3069. ______________________________________________________ cc: "Whitehead Steve Mr (FIN)" date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:52:13 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: FW: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69] to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" , "Mee Andrew Mr (CSED)" Folks, The next 'other' request relating the the CRU agreements & data. The first part of the query will be answered in line with the answer given to other requesters for the agreements. In regards the second part, I will need some assistance as noted below 1. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employee responsibilities regarding entering into confidentiality agreements. Steve, do we have any contracting policy on this? Phil - anything with CRU on responsibilities regarding entering agreements on behalf of CRU? I don't think we wish to state that we don't have any policies or procedures in place, but I'm not sure what to actually put here... 2. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employee responsibilities regarding the preservation of written agreements. Ah, records management rears it's head....We have a general statement on our website regarding our responsibilities for RM but we do lack any overarching records retention schedule or policy - Phil, does CRU have anything in-house? 3. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employees entering into verbal agreements. See question 1; same issue here although more likely to have a `nil' response here - consequences of that? 4. A copy of instructions to staff regarding compliance with FOI requests. We have web guidance that can be referred to, and a brochure that I distribute that could go here.... and a statement regarding the training on offer Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: steven mosher [mailto:moshersteven@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 8:16 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: FOI/EIR request Dear Mr. Palmer: Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby request the following information in respect to any confidentiality agreements affecting CRUTEM station data involving station data in NIGERIA, NETHERLANDS, NORWAY, NEPAL,NAURU 1. the date of such agreement; 2. the parties to the agreement; 3. a copy of that part of the agreement that prevents further transmission of the data to non-academics or others 4. a copy of the entire agreement In addition, I hereby request the following information: 1. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employee responsibilities regarding entering into co nfidentiality agreements. 2. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employee responsibilities regarding the preservation of written agreements. 3. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employees entering into verbal agreements. 4. A copy of instructions to staff regarding compliance with FOI requests. I am requesting this information as part of my academic research. Thank you for your attention, Steven M. Mosher 2009-08-04 http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/23/uk-met-offices-refuses-to-disclose-station-data-once-again/ Dear Ms Archer. This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 23 July 2009. I request that you reconsider your decision for the following reasons. You say that there is a strict understanding between CRU and data providers that station data not be publicly released. CRU’s actions show otherwise. CRU and Dr Jones have routinely posted station data online since 1990, with 1990, 1996 and 2003 versions being online at the time of my request to you. The 1990 version is online at CDIAC in the U.S. ( http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp020 ); from 1996 to until July 31, 2009, the 1996 version was online at CRU ( formerly accessible through http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/advance10k/climdata.htm); from early 2003 to July 27, 2009, the 2003 version was online at CRU (formerly at ftp://ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/data/). These latter two files were removed from public directories only after FOI/EIR requests for station data were submitted to the Met Office and CRU. Obviously any of the “lost” confidentiality agreements did not present a problem for placing data online up to 2003. Would you please consider your refusal in light of this additional information regarding online availability of earlier versions of these data sets between 1990 and July 31, 2009. In addition, you stated that the Met Office had entered into an agreement with Dr Jones and/or CRU which included a proviso that the data “not be released to any other source”. Under the EIR, would you please provide me with the date of this agreement, the parties to the agreement, a copy of the clause containing the precise language of this proviso and a copy of the entire agreement or any other document evidencing that the Met Office had entered into such an agreement. Yours truly, Stephen McIntyre 2009-08-05 12:15 856. From: Phil Jones [[3]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 12:15 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD); Ogden Annie Ms (MAC); Mee Andrew Mr (CSED) Cc: Whitehead Steve Mr (FIN) Subject: Re: FW: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69] Dave, A few responses inline Cheers Phil 2009-08-05 14:47 856. From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 2:47 PM To: Hume Matthew Mr (ACAD) Cc: Walker Alan Dr (ACAD) Subject: FW: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69] Importance: High Matt, Please note Phil Jones' response to question 1 below - would REE have anything that would be relevant to this request? A bit of context - in response to a rejection of a request for data, we have received over 50 requests for agreements, data and a combination thereof in relation to data sets that CRU maintains/holds. This is pretty high profile and has been noted in blogs in the Guardian and Telegraph as well as in the source of all of this (see: [2]http://www.climateaudit.org). Be assure that whatever we state in response to this request is likely to be on the web, shared and very public within hours of sending.... We have a request from another individual exactly the same as below so there will be multiple recipients of the answer we give. Our deadline for a response is 21 August but as I'm on hols commencing 17 August, the 'effective' deadline is 14 August. Cheers, Dave _________________________________________________________________________ 2009-08-05 15:16 856. From: Hume Matthew Mr (ACAD) Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 3:16 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Cc: Walker Alan Dr (ACAD) Subject: RE: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69] Hi Dave, We all just had a very good laugh at Phil's comment "We do sometime ignore the Registry advice"... If this is going to have the kind of publicity that you suggest, I would prefer if you do not quote ANY of his answer to question 1. The UEA actually has a very strict policy on entering into confidentiality agreements, however as Phil so blithely admits, a handful of academics take it upon themselves to foul things up! As you will note from points 1 & 2 of our policy; no UEA employee, except members of our office, has the right to sign anything on behalf of the university - the problem is that funders/other parties can be sneaky by sending the agreement in the name of the academic. Our policy is:- Someone from the Commercialisation & Enterprise Team should approve and sign all Confidentiality Agreements: only our staff have the legal authority to sign agreements on behalf of the University all agreements should be between the University of East Anglia and the party requesting the agreement (not an individual academic or school) we will negotiate with the other party on any issues within the document that may be contentious by doing this we will ensure you the best protection of your IP rights (In special circumstances, authorisation may be obtained from the Commercialisation & Enterprise Team allowing you to sign the agreement yourself. Such authorisation must always be obtained in advance, will only be valid for a specific instance, and the standard university agreement must be used without amendment - unless we have authorised an amendment) In all cases, a copy of the fully signed confidentiality agreement must be retained in our office. FYI - we are currently finishing off the final touches to our new intranet pages - there will be a page on CDA's with this info on it. Also, I am away on holiday next week (10th -14th), so if you do any more info on our policy regarding agreements etc, please contact Anne Donaldson, one of our Commercialisation Managers ([1]a.donaldson@uea.ac.uk). Thanks Matt. 2009-08-05 15:23 856. From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 3:23 PM To: Hume Matthew Mr (ACAD) Cc: Walker Alan Dr (ACAD) Subject: RE: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69] Matt, Thanks very much for this... You have given me a bit of a conundrum on how to respond but we do at least have something to work with.... What policy are you actually quoting from and is it publicly available? As the request was for the entire policy, is there any issue with making the policy publicly available? If the policy in regards confidentiality agreements is within a larger document with unrelated material, I am happy to quote but I do think we will need to provide a proper citation... Cheers, Dave 2009-08-05 15:32 856. From: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" To: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" , "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:32:05 +0100 Subject: FW: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69] Folks, In response to one of Phil's earlier emails regarding any policies regarding entering into confidentiality agreements etc, I sent a query to REE to determine what relevant information they might have... and received the below response to which I have responded as you can see... This does present something of a 'issue' in terms of drafting a response and dealing with any potential follow up request/query regarding our practices in this regard. I wonder if whether said policy was in force at the time the agreements were entered into would be a way around this... the request is for current policies clearly.... I will enquire further with Matt Hume.... Cheers, Dave 2009-08-05 16:58 856. ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Aug 5 16:58:21 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: My earlier comments to: matthew.hume@uea.ac.uk Hi Matt, My comments were tongue in cheek! The agreements that we're talking about are not really confidentiality agreements that you're talking about. Lots are unwritten agreements that we make scientist to scientist. Where there are written agreements they are signed between me (or previous Director's of CRU) with other academic institutions, which were not with their central administration (but again a sub part). CRU doesn't initiate these, but if the other side wants it and it will help us do some work then we go ahead and sign. There is never any obligation on CRU or UEA. They are generally about agreeing to work together on something. The agreements Dave is talking about are ones that relate to us not making climate data available to third parties, which we have got from a National Met Service. FOI is causing us a lot of problems in CRU and even more for Dave, as he has to respond to them all. It would be good if UEA went along with any other Universities who might be lobbying to remove academic research activities from FOI. FOI is having an impact on my research productivity. I also write references for people leaving CRU, students and others. If I have to write a poor one, I make sure I get the truth to the recipient in a phone call. I'm also much less helpful responding to members of the public who email CRU regularly than I was 2-3 years ago. I've seen some of what I considered private and frank emails appear on websites. Issue here is blogsites have allowed these climate change deniers to find one another around the world. Cheers Phil 2009-08-06 http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/06/a-2002-request-to-cru/ 2009-08-11 19:07 752. From: Willis Eschenbach [[1]mailto:willis@spo.com.sb] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 7:07 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); David Keith Palmer Cc: [2]www.ico.gov.uk@ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000 request (FOI_09-77) - Response Dear Mr. Palmer: Thank you for your reply. I previously formally requested you to release the CRUTEM station data, under FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUEST (FOI_07-04). You said at the time you could not do it because of confidentiality agreements. I formally requested copies of the relevant confidentiality agreements (see below). In response to my latest request, you point to the CRU web page which states inter alia: Since the early 1980s, some NMSs, other organizations and individual scientists have given or sold us (see Hulme, 1994, for a summary of European data collection efforts) additional data for inclusion in the gridded datasets, often on the understanding that the data are only used for academic purposes with the full permission of the NMSs, organizations and scientists and the original station data are not passed onto third parties. Below we list the agreements that we still hold. We know that there were others, but cannot locate them, possibly as we've moved offices several times during the 1980s. Some date back at least 20 years. Additional agreements are unwritten and relate to partnerships we've made with scientists around the world and visitors to the CRU over this period. In some of the examples given, it can be clearly seen that our requests for data from NMSs have always stated that we would not make the data available to third parties. We included such statements as standard from the 1980s, as that is what many NMSs requested. ... We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Call me crazy, but I don't think that "we think we might have made a confidentiality agreement sometime with somebody from somewhere, but we don't know who or where or when" is an adequate excuse to shield data from an FOI request. In addition, the statement: In some of the examples given, it can be clearly seen that our requests for data from NMSs have always stated that we would not make the data available to third parties. is not true. You only show one single request for data, and that is not even for a foreign country but for British Territories. It is a long way from one request for British data, which was not made to an NMS, to "our requests for data from NMSs have always stated". You have not given one single example of a request to an NMS upon which to base your statement. Science depends on replicability. You are promoting your dataset as a suitable basis for making billion-dollar decisions on what we should do on regarding the "global warming" supposedly shown by your dataset. But under your secrecy policy, your results cannot be replicated. As such, you have two ethical scientific options, and one unethical option: 1. Release the data, or 2. Retract the dataset as being unreplicable anecdotal evidence only. or ... 3. Keep stonewalling. I hereby formally appeal your decision not to supply the CRUTEM station data as requested in my FOI_07-04. "My dog ate the confidentiality agreements" doesn't cut it in the scientific world, where billions of dollars hang on your data. If you can't show your figures, you should be ashamed to publish them under the guise of scientific data. w. PS - The agreement with Spain does not support your argument, it says nothing about confidentiality or passing the information on to third parties. In fact, the Spanish agreement specifically says that you want it for "Public" use, as opposed to "Private" use, so you are breaking the agreement by not releasing the data. 2009-08-11 08:42 752. on 11/8/09 8:42 AM, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) at David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk wrote: Mr. Eschenbach Attached please find a response to your request received on 24 July 2009. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers, Dave Palmer ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager 2009-08-12 08:59 752. At 08:59 12/08/2009, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote: Gents, And so it begins again.... This appeal is not unexpected and probably will reflect what the 'public' reaction will be - see lead article in ClimateAudit.org this am. Interestingly, Eschenbach is appealing a case from 2007 that went via Kitty and was rejected. Mr. E. did not then go to the ICO which I think will probably be the only course open to him here and I will have to liaise with Jonathan about the response here (and I will provide the document chain). I think the sooner that we get agreement to release the data from the NMOs, the happier we will all be.... Cheers, Dave PS. I had a chat with the Met Office legal office yesterday and they are maintaining their position regarding confidentiality of information received from CRU - However, you can see that if our case for confidentiality disappears so does theirs - we agreed to keep in contact.... 2009-08-12 09:36 752. date: Wed Aug 12 09:36:50 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information Act 2000 request (FOI_09-77) - to: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" Dave, He has missed the point. I could have put in loads of the faxes similar to the British Territories one, as all the requests that Mike Hulme and I sent in the mid-1990s included the statement The data will not be used unauthorised for any other project and will not be passed onto any third party. I didn't include all of these as they just say the same thing. I only included those that reiterated this point when they sent us the data. This is stated on the web page we put up yesterday. We included such statements as standard from the 1980s, as that is what many NMSs requested. The inability of some agencies to release climate data held is not uncommon in climate science. UEA is not promoting this dataset as a suitable basis for making billion-dollar decisions on what we should do on regarding the 'global warming' supposedly shown by your dataset. This is simply NOT TRUE. I have sent a draft letter that the Met Office will send out to all NMSs to GCOS in Geneva. I have yet to get any email response. I'm not surprised by this as it is August. I don't know when the emails will go out. As I've told you in the past, things work very slowly within the WMO building in Geneva. We have said we will be doing this - isn't this enough!!! Cheers Phil 2009-08-13 01:00 3679. ________________________________ From: Ryan ODonnell [mailto:ode3197@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:00 AM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Re: Environmental Information Regulation 2004 request (FOI_09-123; EIR_09-16) >> >> Mr. Palmer, >> I apologize in advance for not consolidating this into a >single request. >> I request, under FOI/EIR, a list of the individual scientists, governments, NMSs, and any other organization that has been solicited to provide temperature data for inclusion in the CRU land temperature index by any person acting in an official capacity at CRU or the University of East Anglia. I additionally request, as a separate entity, a list of the individual scientists, governments, NMSs, and any other organization that is known to have provided temperature data for the aforementioned purpose. >> The reason for my request is to determine what parties have or may have contributed information in order to lobby these parties to provide the University of East Anglia written statements of unconditional or conditional release (on satisfactory terms for academic and scientific research) of this information; or, alternatively, written statements that the information is already considered public domain. >> It is in the public interest for the temperature information to be freely available in order for the scientific processes of replication and sensitivity analysis of the CRU land temperature index to be conducted. As your organisation has offered the position that it lacks the resources to complete this arduous undertaking itself, it is therefore greatly in the public interest that the individuals and organizations that are apparently preventing release of the information be provided such that they can be lobbied through the appropriate channels. >> Regards, Ryan O'Donnell >> >> --- On Wed, 8/12/09, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) > wrote: >> From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Environmental Information Regulation 2004 request >(FOI_09-123; EIR_09-16) To: "ode3197@yahoo.com" Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 6:25 AM >> Mr. O'Donnell, >> Attached please find a letter acknowledging your request received yesterday, 11 August 2009. It contains further information regarding the handling of this request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.I will be in contact with you further in due course. >> Cheers, Dave Palmer >> ___________________________________________________________________________________ 2009-08-13 14:29 2929. -----Original Message----- From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [[2] mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:29 PM To: stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca Subject: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03) - Appeal initial response Mr. McIntyre Further to your email of 24 July 2009, attached please find further information regarding your request received 26 June 2009. Feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Cheers, Dave Palmer 2009-08-14 17:33 1255. ______________________________________________________ cc: date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:33:56 +0100 from: "Keiller, Donald" subject: Freedom of Information to: , Dear Mrs Palmer, I have been reading with increasing disbelief the litany of excuses offered by CRU FOI Officers to Steve McIntyre at "Climate Audit" (http://www.climateaudit.org/) to refuse release of original temperature data held at CRU. The refusal of FOI requests on the basis of confidentiality agreements which were either "verbal", or "lost" is clearly illegal. If you cannot substantiate these agreements, then they are null and void. Similarly the refusal to provide data to allow fellow scientists access to original data to reproduce published findings strikes at the very heart of scientific enquiry. Papers produced without such supporting data become hearsay and must be withdrawn. Accordingly I make the following FOI request, confirming that I am a academic who has published in the area of climate change in the past and that I currently work in an academic institution. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (2000) "General right of access to information held by public authorities" In this Act any reference to a "request for information" is a reference to such a request which- (a) is in writing, (b) states the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence, and (c) describes the information requested. For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be treated as made in writing where the text of the request- (a) is transmitted by electronic means, (b) is received in legible form, and (c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference. I hereby request: 1. A copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 2. A copy of any instructions or stipulations accompanying the transmission of data to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 limiting its further dissemination or disclosure. Yours sincerely, Dr. D.R. Keiller. Department of Life Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, 2009-08-14 09:41 5050. From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [[6]mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 14 August 2009 09:41 To: Jonathan Jones Subject: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Response Prof. Jones Attached please find a response to your request received on 24 July 2009. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers, Dave Palmer ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager 2009-08-24 17:00 4089. ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Aug 24 17:00:16 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Freedom of Information to: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" Dave, From the language in this request, I'd regard it as vexatious. Cheers Phil 2009-08-27 12:10 5050. -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Jones [[2]mailto:Jonathan.Jones@qubit.org] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:10 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Cc: Heath Robert Mr (LIB); Baker Jane Mrs (LIB) Subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Response Dear Mr Palmer, Thank you for your letter dated 14 August, reference ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS 2004 - INFORMATION REQUEST (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) in response to my request for "a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009". I regret that I do not consider your response satisfactory, and am therefore appealing your decision. As I understand you are currently on holiday I am copying this to Bob Heath (r.heath@uea.ac.uk) and Jane Baker (jane.baker@uea.ac.uk) as you requested in your vacation message. You have refused my request on three grounds, all of which are incorrect. 1. Reg. 12(4)(b) - Request is manifestly unreasonable: Information is available elsewhere. You claim that "the requested data is a subset of data already available from other sources" namely the gridded data made available by the GHCN and the CRU. It is factually incorrect to claim that "the requested data is a subset of data already available from other sources" and your argument cannot stand. A "subset of data already available" would mean that the data I requested could be obtained from "the gridded data made available by the GHCN and the CRU" by downloading some or all of this data and deleting selected parts. The data I have requested cannot be obtained in this manner. I refer you to the discussion of the gridding process at [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/ . You further claim that "it is unreasonable for the University to spend public resources on providing information in a different format to that which is already available". However I asked for "a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and Jun 25, 2009". I have only requested a copy of a data set which has already been prepared by the university, and so is already available. Once again your statement is factually incorrect and your argument cannot stand. 2. Reg. 12(5)(a) - Adverse effect on international relations: Release would damage relations with scientists & institutions from other nations 3. Reg. 12(5)(f) - Adverse effect on the person providing information: Information is covered by a confidentiality agreement I will take these two points together as they are in essence the same. I begin by noting that it is wholly perverse to claim simultaneously that the data is "already available" and that the data is "confidential". Clearly these two statements cannot simultaneously be true. With regard to Reg. 12(5)(a) you state that releasing this information "would damage the trust that other national scientists and institutions have in UK-based public sector organisations" and consequently "would damage the ability of the University and other UK institutions to co-operate with meteorological organisations and governments of other countries". I draw your attention to resolution 40 of the World Meteorological Organization which states that "WMO commits itself to broadening and enhancing the free and unrestricted international exchange of meteorological and related data and products". It is perverse to claim that acting in accordance with this resolution could endanger cooperation with meteorological organizations. With regard to Reg. 12(5)(f), the data I requested has already been provided to at least one other individual, namely Peter Webster at Georgia Tech. Clearly this data cannot be covered by a strict confidentiality agreement. It is, of course, true that this data could be covered by limited confidentiality agreements. The FOI and EIR are quite clear on the responsibilities of organizations claiming exemption on grounds of confidentiality. The exemption "only applies if a breach of confidence would be 'actionable'". Courts will only recognise that a person holds information subject to a duty of confidence in two types of situations: a) where that person expressly agrees or undertakes to keep information confidential: there is an express duty of confidence b) where the nature of the information of the circumstances in which the information is obtained imply that the person should keep the information confidential: there is an implied duty of confidence From your letter it appears that UEA is claiming an exemption of the first kind, as you cite a number of supposed confidentiality agreements that you do hold, which are available at [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/ . In fact the great majority of these are not clearly confidentiality agreements: a) The 1994 FAX to the Met Office is simply a statement from Dr Hulme about the planned use of the data; there is no reply as to the conditions under which the data is provided. b) The 1993 letter from DNMI is a limited request for confidentiality not a formal agreement, and is almost certainly superseded by WMO Resolution 40. If UEA wishes to claim exemption under this clause it must first establish with DNMI that an express duty of confidentiality still applies. c) The form in Spanish simply states that the data should only be used for the specified purpose, and as no purpose was specified this cannot establish a duty of confidentiality. d) The web page is simply a statement by the Met Office of its own policies; this provides no evidence whatsoever of any duties under which UEA might hold data. It further notes that NERC data centres may make the data available under certain circumstances, so there is no absolute duty of confidence. e) The 1994 letter from Bahrain International Airport is a limited request for confidentiality not a formal agreement, and is almost certainly superseded by WMO Resolution 40. If UEA wishes to claim exemption under this clause it must first establish with Bahrain International Airport that an express duty of confidentiality still applies. I understand that in the past UEA has refused to release the data I have requested and related data because the request came from a person who was not an academic. I remind you that "No regard may be had to the identity of the person who is requesting the information nor to the purpose to which they will put the information." I also remind you that "When considering the balance of interests, public authorities must have regard to the interests of the person to whom the duty of confidence is owed; the public authority's own interests in non-disclosure are not relevant to the application of this exemption." I further remind you that "If you receive a request for information which, although it was confidential when it was obtained, was obtained a long time ago, you should consider carefully whether the disclosure of that information would still constitute an actionable breach of confidence within the meaning of section 41." At best UEA has limited evidence for the existence of limited confidentiality agreements covering part of the data I have requested. It is not clear to me that these documents in any way establish an express duty of confidence. However, even if they do, the responsibilities of UEA under Reg. 12(11) of the EIR are clear. Regulation 12 (11) says: (11) Nothing in these Regulations shall authorise a refusal to make available any environmental information contained in or otherwise held with other information which is withheld by virtue of these Regulations unless it is not reasonably capable of being separated from the other information for the purpose of making available that information. Thus UEA is certainly required to provide me with all the data I have requested with the possible exception of data held under an express duty of confidence (for data withheld it is required to establish that such an express duty of confidence does in fact exist). Please note that if it is not possible to identify which data is covered by supposed confidence agreements, then it is difficult to maintain that the release of this data will breach such agreements. I therefore appeal your decision, and reiterate my request for "a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009". -- Prof Jonathan A. Jonesweb page at [5]http://nmr.physics.ox.ac.uk Oxford Centre for Quantum Computation and Brasenose College Oxford ________________________________________ 2009-08-28 13:33 5050. From: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" To: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" Sender: "Baker Jane Mrs (LIB)" Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:33:59 +0100 Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Response Dear All, We have received an appeal from Prof. Jonathan Jones regarding our response to his request for the following information: "a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009". I have sent out an acknowledgement letter. We have until 24th September 2009 to respond. Kind regards, Jane ***************************************************** Jane Baker LaRC Co-ordinator / Blackboard support Learning and Resources Centre (LaRC) Library UEA 2009-09-01 15:18 4522. From: Britton, Dave [[3] mailto:Dave.Britton@metoffice.gov.uk] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 3:18 PM To: Dunford Simon Mr (MAC); Richards, Chris Subject: RE: Freedom Of Information Simon, Chris Please see the email below that I plan to send the Stuart Harmon. Do you have any issues/clarifications. A quick response on this would be very much appreciated. Cheers Dave ___________________________________________________________________________________ Stuart, Firsty, I am sorry that I have not responded sooner. Unfortunately I have been away from the office for the last 3 weeks or so. The Met Office and CRU are not in a position to release this data under FOI or otherwise as we have obtained some of the data from scientists and institutions on the understanding that this station data will be be publicly released, mainly as some of the data has a commercial value. We are not in a position to clarify which data sets have been provided under such terms and which have not as records were not kept. As a result we cannot release the data where we have no authority to do so and any such release of data could damage relationships with data providers The Met Office uses the data solely and expressly to create a gridded product that we distribute without condition. I hope this helps Dave From: STUART HARMON To: dave.britton@metoffice.gov.uk; dave.britton@metoffice.gov.uk Sent: Tuesday, 28 July, 2009 11:51:56 PM Subject: Freedom Of Information Dear Mr Britton I am preparing an article on the freedom of information act and would request your comments on why the Met Office is unwilling to release temperature data and methodology. Provided to you is a link to Mr McIntyres web site [4]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6623. The article I am proposing is to be based on the unintended consequences of abusing the freedom of information act to prevent the release of information. In summary I pose to posit the following:- 1 The reason for not releasing information is to hide information which will be embarrassing. I will use the MP's expenses to illustrate. 2 Another reason is because the organisation is incompetent. 3 The organisation is politicised and manipulates data to create an intended result. Should the organisation subsequently be guilty of any of the above the unintended consequence of not releasing data is that the organisation will bring British science into disrepute. Which is not in the national interest. Best regards Stuart Harmon 2009-09-01 15;45 4522. From: "Dunford Simon Mr (MAC)" To: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" CC: "Gook Susan Mrs (MAC)" , "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:45:51 +0100 Subject: FW: Freedom Of Information Hi Phil The Met Office would like our comments about a reply they plan to send to Stuart Harmon - see below. Could you let me know asap if you are happy with it. I wonder if the line about records not being kept is unnecessary? And I notice they are not saying that we hope to provide some of the data in the future. I attach the agreed UEA statement as a reference. Over to you... (they're in a hurry by the way). Cheers, Simon Simon Dunford, Press Officer, University of East Anglia, 2009-09-02 21:14 2929. From: Steve McIntyre [[1] mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 9:14 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03) - Appeal initial response Dear Mr Palmer, Thank you for your letter of August 13, 2009. I have been away on holidays for two weeks and apologize for the delay in replying to your letter. I am in possession of three earlier versions of the CRU station data. The 1990 version has been posted at a US Department of Energy website for many years. In September 2002, I requested a copy of this data from Dr Jones. He sent me a 1996 version (cruwlda2) - a version that was also posted at the CRU website until recently - and indicated that the then revised version would posted up when Jones and Moberg (2003) was published, which, according to the date-stamps at your FTP site was done in Feb 2003, as Dr Jones had undertaken to do (the data set newcrustnsall recently removed from your public directory). Notwithstanding this, when Warwick Hughes and Willis Eschenbach requested station data, for some reason, CRU failed to provide then with this information. As you noted in your letter, following your recent refusal to provide station data to me, I examined the CRU FTP site and determined that the newcrustnsall was the version of the station data for Jones and Moberg 2003 that Dr Jones had previously undertaken to post up on the Internet. While these data sets are of interest, my request was for the current version of the data set and I do NOT wish to withdraw my appeal of your ruling. Could you please advise me of Mr Colam-French's email so that I may submit further particulars of the basis of my appeal. In the mean-time, I would appreciate it if you reflected further about the apparent contradictions in your present refusal, given Dr Jones' previous provision of an earlier version of the dataset to me, the posting of two versions of the data set on your website, one from 1996 to the end of July 2009 and the other from 2003 to the end of July 2009 and the provision of a version to the US Department of Energy, where it has been posted on the internet since 1990. Regards, Steve McIntyre 2009-09-08 12:58584. cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:58:28 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: RE: Freedom of Information [FOI-09-129] to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" Phil, Whilst it's getting close, I would not regard the language as sufficiently abusive or argumentative as to render this request as vexatious. In fact, I logged it and acknowledged it prior to my departure on hols but didn't get around to circulating the request it seems... (I would, however, appreciate my proper gender being recognised! Lol) As it is very much in line with other such requests, I presumed our response would be very much the same... Cheers, Dave 2009-09-08 17:10 2929. ______________________________________________________ cc: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 17:10:02 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_09-44; to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" Phil, Thanks for the very prompt and complete response. While I certainly don't think we will be passing on all this information to Mr. McIntyre, I suspect we may abbreviate it in some way for use in response to Mr. McIntyre's appeal, if to only illustrate that our position is not internally inconsistent. The degree to which we engage with Mr. McIntyre will I'm sure be a topic of conversation between JCF and myself tomorrow... Cheers, Dave ___________________________________________________________________________________ 2009-09-08 15:24 2929. At 15:24 08/09/2009, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote: Phil, This has already been sent to Jonathan by Jane Baker (I believe) and I anticipate that we will be moving into the 'next phase' of our appeals process involving JCF this week or next. As a starter, could you verify/comment on the 'facts' as reported by Mr. McIntyre? Was an earlier version of the data sent to him 2002? If so, what was it - raw station data or gridded data? Also - has a set of the raw station data been sent to USDoE? I am meeting JCF tomorrow and would expect to discuss this matter.... Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2009-09-08 17:10 2929. From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 4:51 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Cc: Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Subject: Re: FW: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03) - Appeal initial response Dave, I don't recall all the facts from that long ago. There is or was a version on a US Dept of Energy website from about 1990. This was a contract requirement at the time. Much extra data has been added since then, and this is what the restrictions refer to from the mid-to-late 1990s. The 1996 version (cruwlda2) wasn't a complete version and was something we developed for a number of people in EU projects to use. We made these available to people on these projects via our ftp site, as it was easier to do this than sending disks at that time (email attachments were smaller then). I don't have a copy of that file and I know it wouldn't have had the additional US and Canadian data. The file newcrustnsall.dat was put there for the Met Office to pick up. We should have deleted it, but didn't. Despite its name, I'm not sure that it is ALL the stations. I just checked and it doesn't have the additional US and Canadian data. So if has this version it isn't the version that produced Jones and Moberg (2003). Neither of these datasets were explained in the data file. There are lots of codes with the data and I used to send the details of these codes in emails to people on the projects and the Met Office. Since 2003, we've done a lot more work on the data. We removed a lot of duplicates that had got into the dataset between the late 1990s and 2003 and also added a lot more data in. We've also modified the codes in the last few years to try and make updating easier. There are no contradictions in your present refusal. The file newcrustnsall.dat is the one that has the data that we weren't supposed to pass on. An issue is that there aren't just versions in 1990, in 1996, in 2003 and now. The dataset gets updated every month and every 4-6 months we add some more back data in as we get time. Adding in data is not a trivial task, as we have to assess whether it is OK and we have to do checks as to whether we already have the data. So even when we get permission to post the data, it will still change from month to month, just like the gridded version changes. Cheers Phil 2009-09-09 08:48 478. Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:01:28 +0200 From: "Stephan Bojinski" To: , "Phil Jones" Cc: "Carolin Richter" Subject: WMO Letter in Support of CRU Phil, Peter, I talked to Carolin about this issue. She perfectly understands your concerns and would in principle be willing to help, but advises that WMO is currently not in a position to write such a letter - this appear to be too delicate a subject (unfortunately). She confirmed to note your concerns and to build a case to revisit the issue of data exchange on the WMO level hopefully at a later stage. Please try to solve the problem on the national level first by going through the MetOffice (you may have already started doing so). Sorry for not being more helpful on this issue. Stephan _________________________________ Dr Stephan Bojinski Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) c/o World Meteorological Organization 2009-09-09 08:48 478. ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Sep 9 08:48:26 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: WMO Letter in Support of CRU to: Peter, I thought WMO might do this. Can you investigate whether the Met Office is prepared to send out the letter to all NMSs? Attached is the latest version of the letter. I guess Stephan might be able to send us a list of the PR emails, but we need first to know if the UK PR will be able to send them off. John Mitchell a year or two ago was the UK PR attending the WMO Congress, but the official PR is likely to be your CE. John would be up to speed on all these FOI issues, so would know all the background. I'll send you something else that came through whilst I was on holiday. Cheers Phil 2009-09-09 09:04 4522. From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 09 September 2009 09:04 To: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Subject: FW: Freedom Of Information Peter, Here's an email from your Press Officer to ours about a letter from a Stuart Harmon. I modified the intended reply a little and this went back to Dave Britton a few days ago via our press officer. I said the bit about records not being kept should be removed. Our FOI person has ruled that if we get an FOI request from Harmon we can treat it as vexatious! I'm surprised that your press office have bothered to reply to it. Also attaching another thing I got for amusement. This one was sent to the President of the AGU (Tim Grove) and also to Alan Robock. Alan persuaded Tim to ignore it and gave him some of the background. I wasn't aware that Alan was so up to speed with all this - good that he was. The funny thing is that the person in Cornwall sent me a hard copy which arrived last week. He sent me a copy plus the letter he's sent to the Pope. This letter is up in the CRU coffee room. The attachments are amazingly complex and ridiculous. McIntyre has appealed here and that is going through the process. Two others have appealed as well - academics at Anglia Ruskin University and one at Oxford. I have been meaning to check up on the Oxford one, and may send it on. Cheers Phil 2009-09-09 09:12 4522. ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:12:21 +0100 from: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" subject: RE: Freedom Of Information to: "Phil Jones" Sounds like a whole barrel of laughs. I hope to have booked John at 11 today but taht is hopee rather than expectation. At least his diary said he was free then ...! We've also had something through parlimentary channels from a MP in Bromsgrove I think. It was whilst I was off sick. I am chasing that down and will advise if it adds anything new to the mix. -- Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB. 5050. 2009-09-09 09:13:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Sep 9 09:13:26 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request to: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" Peter [1]http://www.bnc.ox.ac.uk/323/about-brasenose-31/academic-staff-150/professor-jonathan-jon es-457.html Here's this Oxford person's web site. I am going to contact my son who is at Bath in their Chemistry Dept as he teaches and does research in NMR. He'll probably tell me he's never heard of him. Cheers Phil 2009-09-09 09:192047. ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Sep 9 09:19:13 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Heard of this person? to: Matthew Jones Matthew, Have you heard of this person? [1]http://www.bnc.ox.ac.uk/323/about-brasenose-31/academic-staff-150/professor-jonathan-jon es-457.html He is putting in Freedom of Information Requests for CRU climate data - see below. Was he one of the people you applied to do a PhD with Oxford some time ago? I know he's in Physics, but it mentions NMR on his web site - it does seem more quantum physics than chemistry. Cheers Dad From: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" To: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" Sender: "Baker Jane Mrs (LIB)" Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:33:59 +0100 2009-09-10 15:45 3679. ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" , "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:45:57 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulation 2004 request to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" Phil, Another 'orphan' that I need to address.... I'm afraid that responding that a request is 'ludicrous' is not a viable exception under EIR! ;-) I'm assuming that the data is received from a vast array of scientists and stations around the globe. If I understand you correctly, there is no one place, either here or elsewhere, that has listed the sources of the data that comprises the CRUTEM data set? (This is question 2). If that is the case, I would think that we would need to think carefully about our response or I fear we could end up with a headline blazing 'CRU has no idea where it's data comes from!' The first question relates to who we have 'solicited' to get such information. Once again, if I understand correctly, there is no such list and such solicitations would have occurred over a long period of time and there may no longer be a record of whom we actually contacted...? I would think that even if we state in some fashion that we don't have the data on who we solicited, the question of who gives us data probably merits the invocation of the 40 day extension period to answer. Remember, we don't have the 'appropriate limit' under EIR so it's either 'we don't have it' or it's 'manifestly unreasonable' due to the time it would take to locate & retrieve the information.... Deadline on this one is tomorrow and I'm sure we won't have a response ready by then.... Cheers, Dave > Another request from Mr. O'Donnell. As this one is quite >different that the other, I will treat it separately. Do we actually have the requested information? I am assuming that we know where we get this information from so we should have a list of where we get the data; what I am not sure of is whether we have a list of who CRU/UEA has approached to provide the data. >> Deadline is 11 September BUT we have the option under Reg. 7(1) of EIR to extend this deadline to 40 days where we 'reasonably believe the the complexity and volume of the information requested means that it is impracticable either to comply or... to make a decision to refuse to do so" within the standard 20 day period. This should be considered with all requests under EIR where applicable (Note - this provision does not exist under FOIA) >> Cheers, Dave >> 2009-09-10 16:45 3679. >From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 8:49 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) >Subject: Re: FW: Environmental Information Regulation 2004 >request (FOI_09-123; EIR_09-16) [FOI_09-127: EIR_09-18] > > Dave, This is a ludicrous request!! GHCN doesn't have this sort > of information. They don't keep a track either of where each > bit of data, or each station, comes from! Some of it is in the papers we referred to on the web page > and others we have written over the years. > > Cheers > Phil > 1791. 2009-09-14 16:30:21 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:30:21 +0100 from: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" subject: RE: FW: Concrete News - HADCRU Data to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" Dear Phil, I would just advise again that the more information we give them the more column inches they come up with - but I agree that the factual inaccuracies need to be stamped on. Best, Annie ------------------------------- Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764 www.uea.ac.uk/comm ............................................ >-----Original Message----- >From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 3:39 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Cc: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Subject: Re: FW: Concrete News - HADCRU Data > > Dave, Annie, Best to suggest to Nick that he talks to me. We've lost no >data, as I keep telling anybody. The gridded datasets are >sitting on the CRU site for anybody to download. If you want me to contact Nick I can do, but he's got two >things wrong already - so this suggests the article isn't >going to be any good. > I had told Nick that I couldn't see him till the week of >Sept 28. It seems he has made up hid story already! > > Cheers > Phil > Annie, Now what? Clearly the article would appear to have a 'slant' that is not favourable to the University. I have commented on Concrete articles in past although I'm not sure what notice was taken >of my comments. I feel myself being drawn into this..... >> Cheers, Dave >> -----Original Message----- From: Nicolas.Church@uea.ac.uk [mailto:Nicolas.Church@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 3:19 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: RE: Concrete News - HADCRU Data >> Dave, >> Thanks for the reply. Would a time be possible the following week? If you would like I could send a draft of the article in advance of printing in which you could reply, if relevant to your job role, on specific issues raised? >> Also, to help with the accuracy of the article, could you comment on accusation that these agreements have been breached and undermined by: the transfer of gridded data to Peter Webster but the refusal, under conditions of CRU agreements, of the same data to other scientists; the admitted loss of copies of agreements CRU hold with countries or particular weather stations. >> Thanks again, Nick >> >Nick, >I'm pretty busy this week so an interview doesn't look likely. >>> >However, what I can state is that the Climatic Research Unit has made >available full gridded datasets of surface temperature data and >averages since 1982 (on its website since the late 1990s). These >datasets have been compiled from data acquired from weather stations >around the world, courtesy of Meteorological agencies such as the >UK's own Met Office. Some of these organisations give us this information on the >understanding that it is used solely for the compilation of our gridded datasets >and may only be used with the full permission of the relevant agency. >>> >We receive numerous requests for the raw data provided to CRU. The >data are not ours to pass on without the full permission of the >relevant Met Services, but CRU hopes in future that it may >be able to provide this information, jointly with the Hadley Centre, >subject to obtaining consent for publication from the rights holders. >>> >The methodology used in compiling datasets from this raw data is >fully explained in many published scientific papers by CRU staff. >>> >Cheers, Dave >>> -----Original Message----- From: Nicolas.Church@uea.ac.uk [mailto:Nicolas.Church@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 6:39 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Concrete News - HADCRU Data Mr.Palmer, I'm the News Editor, Nick Church, for UEA's student paper, Concrete. I'm in the process of writing an article on the recent controversy of CRU data and its availability and transparency with the scientific community. Would it be possible to have a discussion next week over this subject and the numerous FOI/EIR requests made and currently in process over this data and topic? Sincerely, Nick Church Concrete News Editor 2009-09-17 08:28 4945. ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Sep 17 08:28:03 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request to: "Myles Allen" Myles, Never say you got this email from me! I probably shouldn't be passing this on - maybe it's protected under the Data Protection Act. Several other people have tried the same ploy he has used about what the agreements we had with Met Services mean. His response contains a very mild implicit threat, but it is very mild. Some others have been much more explicit. As an aside some of the papers published on the CRU dataset contain more information than you would get with the GISS or NCDC data. The web page we put up is here - this is what he's referring to. [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/ Good to see you again - and see you on Oct 15 at the UKCP09 meet. Cheers Phil From: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" To: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" Sender: "Baker Jane Mrs (LIB)" Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:33:59 +0100 5197. 2009-09-23 12:26:15 cc: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" date: Wed Sep 23 12:26:15 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request to: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" Dave, We should discuss this one on October 1 at 08.30. This person is threatening in his final sentence. He claims to be Deputy Head of Life Sciences, but it would seem he has done no research in his life. He is an active blogger on Climate Audit. By Oct 1 I might have more news from the Met Office. They are wanting to do as little as possible as they have just lost all the MoD money for climate science, which was £4M per year. Cheers Phil At 11:27 21/09/2009, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote: Folks, NOW we have an appeal of this request and I will treat it as such. We have 28 days for the 'informal' answer which gives me a deadline of 19 October. He is disputing the rationale of our exceptions & is asking for 'evidence'.... Cheers, Dave ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Keiller, Donald [[1]mailto:Don.Keiller@anglia.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 4:17 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Importance: High Dear Mr. Palmer having had some more time to digest exactly what is said in the attached: Firstly I note that you have not stated that I have the right to an Internal Review of the decisions that were stated in the attached response. By not explicitly stating this, you are in technical breach of the Act I now wish that an internal review of the decision to withhold data is undertaken. In this connection I note that Regulation 9(1) states "A public authority shall provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to applicants and prospective applicants". In particular I want to know why you think it is unreasonable to ask for the exact dataset, as described in a peer- reviewed published paper, on a subject of great public interest and where the usual scientific convention is that authors must provide sufficient detail to allow others to replicate their work. How can you possibly claim it is "manifestly unreasonable" to send me the same data that you have sent elsewhere without any actionable undertakings from that recipient? I also require UEA to justify its assertion that disclosure of said information and data, which virtually all Academies of Science and most journals regard as essential, would have an "adverse effect on international relations and would damage relations with scientists & institutions from other nations". This assertion requires evidence to support it, otherwise it appears to be merely a convenient excuse. Finally I note that there is an obvious contradiction in your claim that you are trying "to seek permission from data suppliers in advance of the next update of the CRUTEM database in 2010 in order to provide public access to this data" and the fact that you are unable to show anything other than a couple of rather old and ineffectual documents to support your claim that this is a significant problem. Accordingly I ask that you immediately publish or send me the data for which you cannot substantiate that an actionable restrictive contract exists. Yours sincerely, Dr. D.R. Keiller, Deputy Head of Life Sciences ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [[2]mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 11 September 2009 13:16 To: Keiller, Donald Subject: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Dr. Keiller Attached please find a response to your request received on 14 August 2009. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers, Dave Palmer ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager 2009-09-21 17:25 2840. ______________________________________________ From:Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent:Monday, September 21, 2009 5:25 PM To:Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Subject:FOIA meeting documentation Jonathan, A couple of things for our meeting 1. FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03 - Copy of referral letter sent to Mr. McIntyre - went 'late' but works to our advantage as it gives us/you more time & puts a response due after our meeting with Phil, Michael & Annie. If Mr. McIntyre wanted to be picky, he could maintain that our referral should have happened 2 weeks ago. However, I think he realises the limitations of FOIA and is probably playing a 'longer game'. 2. FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14 - Annotated response to Prof. Jones' assertions. I suspect we will get more of these so we should have our arguments at the ready! Cheers, Dave PS. Got a request for agreements with the Mef Office in Australia today - wonder if this is a new tack? ____________________________ David Palmer 2009-09-23 12:14 2840. At 12:14 23/09/2009, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote: Phil, Please note the document 'Appeal internal assessment' - what we have decided to do is immediately proceed to a review by JCF on this one as I don't think an 'informal review' will yield any results. Our meeting was to do some preliminary work on what that response will be... In my discussion with JCF, two questions of fact arose that I'd like your opinion on 1. Is it possible, knowing the parameters of what was sent to GaTech, to work back from the gridded data to what was sent? I'm sure you have told me this before in a meeting but with all the requests flying about, I simply can't remember 2. Do we have a copy of the dataset sent to GaTech still in existence? (I thought not but once again, couldn't remember - must take better notes at meetings!) I'll ensure that you all see a draft of the response when completed. Cheers, Dave 2009-09-23 14:25 2840. ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" date: Wed Sep 23 14:25:10 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: FOIA meeting documentation [FOI_09-117; EIR-09-14] to: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" Dave, I agree with a lot of what you've said in your attachment - your annotated commentary. There is the issue of wasting our time, which is the main one. The other issue is that Met Services putting conditions for the use of the data was common in the mid-1980s and 1990s. We were just quite adept at getting around the conditions. We went into discussions with the Met Services assuming these would exist. The world was a very different place in 1990 than it is now. What I sent GaTech was station data - not the gridded. I don't have this file, but I could recreate what was sent. It won't be exactly the same, unless I strip off the last couple of years. I would have done it in mid Jan 2009 - some back data fro 2007 and 2008 has come in recently. I've been talking with the Met Office. If they do send a letter around, then the normal 'allowed' time to respond is 12 months. I knew it was long, but didn't realise it was this long. Also, you don't chase up on non responders. To avoid much admin at their end, they are considering only releasing the data for countries which say yes. If some yes/but, no or don't respond then we don't release it. As an aside I'm attaching a paper I'd forgotten. This gives a comparison of the CRU and GHCN datasets (Figure 2) for the period from 1900 (the red and blue lines). There are no significant differences between the datasets! If only people would read the literature and realize this. This just shows that the requests are all politically motivated. Cheers Phil 2009-10-02 11:42 3922. ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Oct 2 11:42:32 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Freedom of Information to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Keith, Here is the email he sent me on Aug 14. I seem to have deleted others he sent, or maybe they are in something Dave Palmer sent. Below he says Papers produced without such supporting data become hearsay and must be withdrawn. Perhaps you could reply briefly saying you'll respond to comments on specific things in papers you've written - then send him a few. He is emailing you because of a blog site, not a peer-review paper. I reckon a blog is hearsay! Cheers Phil Subject: Freedom of Information Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:33:56 +0100 From: "Keiller, Donald" To: , Cc: Dear Mrs Palmer, I have been reading with increasing disbelief the litany of 2009-10-12 16:08 3284. ______________________________________________________ cc: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:08:53 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: RE: FW: FOIA meeting documentation [FOI_09-117; EIR-09-14] - to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" Phil, I'm back! I have to get a draft response to Prof. Jones to JCF for review - we have an issue with whether one would be able to work back from what is available currently to what was sent to GaTech - in our original response we stated that the request was 'manifestly unreasonable' due to the fact that "the requested data is a subset of data already available from other sources; namely the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), and the Climate Research Unit already makes requested information available on it's website in a gridded format". I believe that the request for the data falls on other grounds but if the requester can't 'go back' from what is available currently, it makes this particular argument very shaky.We also have the additional problem of the requester not having any idea of how to define what was sent to GaTech. Ergo - is there any way in which we can still maintain that the GaTech data is available to the requester? Given your comments below, we can legitimately state that we no longer hold the data set and are under no obligation to 'create' information that no longer exists. However, as a policy matter, are you comfortable with this statement going out and being circulated publicly? Regardless of the above, our argument under Reg 12(5)(a) (adverse effect on international relations) and Reg. 12(5)(f) (adverse effect on person providing information where no consent for disclosure) still technically stands in my view as the confidentiality of the agreement is somewhat irrelevant - it's the effect that matters.... We still have the hurdle of the 'public interest test' to pass but hopefully all this will be approved and published by the time any appeal gets considered by the ICO. As an addendum to our efforts to secure consent, I should note that DEFRA guidance states that "Suppliers of volunteered information should be encouraged to consent to release where appropriate. Such consent can be sought in advance, when the information is collected, but can be sought later in response to a particular request or in order to proactively disseminate the information. There may however be circumstances where to obtain information the public authority wish to provide reassurance that the information, once supplied, will not be made available to a third party on request. Public authorities can undertake to consult with the volunteers of sensitive information in the event of a request for this information being received. [emphasis mine] I think that JCF can make the argument that we are doing exactly what DEFRA are asking us to do..... The response that we discussed in our meeting on 1 October I believe is to be utilised for incoming requests that follow this one - this case (and the appeal of Mr. McIntyre) are setting the precedent that we will be citing in future requests.... Cheers, Dave 2009-10-22 15:24226. From:Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent:Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:20 PM To:Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Subject:CRU data request form response Folks, A bit overdue but, in response to your instruction in our meeting of 1 October, attached please find a draft letter to anyone requesting either the full CRU raw data set, or the data sent to GaTech. As per instructions, this letter acknowledges the request, answers it in the negative, and cuts short/resolves any internal review of the response, providing instruction to the requester to go directly to the ICO. It's a bit of a pastiche of a number of letters but hopefully ticks all the boxes. Whilst I can understand the reasoning behind the letter, I think the ICO will probably take a pretty dim view of deciding the review before it's done! However, we can always claim that we are simply trying to simplify and expedite a process whose outcome is already known..... For your review and comment. Cheers, Dave << File: CRU_request_template.doc >> ____________________________ David Palmer 2009-10-23 16:07 4003. At 10:53 23/10/2009, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote: Gents, Please note all the below - it is clear that Prof. Jones will be monitoring us closely on this matter and I suspect that this will also be one that ends up with the ICO. Letter to go out shortly in response to Prof. Jones.... Cheers, Dave ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Jonathan Jones [[1]mailto:Jonathan.Jones@qubit.org] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 5:28 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Appeal referral Thanks for the update. I note, however, that UEA is now in formal breach of its own code of practice, appendix H paragraph 10. Regards, Jonathan -- Prof Jonathan A. Jonesweb page at [2]http://nmr.physics.ox.ac.uk Oxford Centre for Quantum Computation and Brasenose College Oxford ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [[3]mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 22 October 2009 14:08 To: Jonathan Jones Subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Appeal referral Mr. Jones, Just a quick note to inform you that I understand that Mr. Colam-French's response should be out to you later today, tomorrow at the latest Apologies for the delay in responding. Cheers, Dave Palmer _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Jonathan Jones [[4]mailto:Jonathan.Jones@qubit.org] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:42 AM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Appeal referral Dear Mr Palmer, Further to your email dated 22nd September, included below, and the letter attached to it, 2nd_level_referral_090922.doc, I had been expecting a response from Mr Colam-French by last Tuesday, 20th October. I have yet to hear from him, and would be grateful for your suggestions as to how I should proceed at this stage. Regards, Jonathan Jones -- Prof Jonathan A. Jonesweb page at [5]http://nmr.physics.ox.ac.uk Oxford Centre for Quantum Computation and Brasenose College Oxford _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [[6]mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 22 September 2009 15:30 To: Jonathan Jones Subject: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Appeal referral Prof. Jones Further to your email of 27 August and our response of 28 August 2009 on this matter, attached please find further information regarding the handling of your request.We will be in touch again in due course. As always, if you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers, Dave Palmer ____________________________ David Palmer 2009-10-23 16:07 4003. ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" date: Fri Oct 23 16:07:08 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_09-117; to: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" Dear All, Noted!It is ridiculous that an Oxford Quantum Physicist is going through UEA's codes of practice! Cheers Phil 2009-10-28 18:204226. ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" , "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:20:16 +0000 from: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" subject: RE: CRU data request form response to: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" Dave, Many thanks for drafting this letter which I think provides a good solution for closing down the debate. Your concern about the view that the ICO might take is noted. Michael and I discussed this approach briefly with the Registrar when we met two weeks ago and he was content with this. With regards, Jonathan 2009-10-29 10:57 4424. From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:21 AM To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Cc: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Importance: High Folks, This is the first test of our 'new' approach to such queries. Dr. Keiller's request was for: "1. A copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 2. A copy of any instructions or stipulations accompanying the transmission of data to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 limiting its further dissemination or disclosure. " Question 2 we answer in our original response (attached to Dr. Keiller's response to me). We are overtime on our response to Dr. Keiller but this is a result of sorting the response to Dr. Jones at Cambridge and agreeing our new approach. We have 2 options: (1) Proceed as in past with a referral to Jonathan, or (2) expedite the process by sending Dr. Keiller directly to the Information Commissioner. I have attached letters for both approaches. I have been in touch with the ICO on this and they stated that this approach would be ok as long as we made it clear that we are by-passing internal review and the reasons why. They did also suggest that we send a copy of the prior internal review that dealt with the request to this new requester (minus names of course) - in other words, we attach a copy of JCF's letter to Prof. Jones to the letter we send to Dr. Keiller. Are we happy to go directly to the ICO at this point? Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Keiller, Donald [mailto:Don.Keiller@anglia.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:48 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Importance: High Dear Mr. Palmer, I am still awaiting your response for my request for an internal review of the reasons for non-disclosure of the information I requested. I believe that I have allowed sufficient time for such a review and if I do not receive a complete response describing the outcome of this review within 7 working days, I will make a direct complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office. Yours sincerely, Dr. D. R. Keiller 2009-10-29 10:57 4424. ______________________________________________________ cc: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:57:50 +0000 from: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request to: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" Dave, I am happy that we progress this via the expedient route and bypass the internal review, we should follow the advice of the ICO and include an anonymised version of our response to Prof Jones. This should then become our standard approach for any further similar requests. Regards, Jonathan 2009-10-29 12:25 1173. ______________________________________________________ cc: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:25:40 +0000 from: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request to: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" Dave, I agree too Thanks Michael ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2009-10-29 12:26 1625. From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:26 PM To: Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Cc: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Dave, I am also happy with this response. There is a mistake in your Oct 29 letter in the Code of Practice link. The ! should be a / As an aside, this same person (Keiller) has emailed Keith Briffa since he put a web page up this Wednesday on the Yamal chronology. [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/ Annie is aware of all this. The email to Keith is requesting responses to an earlier email and is slightly threatening. In it Keiller states that he finds Keith's responses lack scientific rigour! So instead he accepts the word of Stephen McIntyre who has hardly any academic publications and has never produced any tree-ring chronologies in his life! I have had a thought about Keiller and the Oxford Professor. I may have mentioned to you a malicious email that was sent somewhere in the UK pointing to all these awful right wing web sites. The email was passed on to me and it came from an Emeritus Reader at Hull (first name Sonja). I was incensed by this and sent a response to the head of department of Geography at Hull. I did this on Wednesday after Keith's web page went up. I have had a couple of exchanges with the Head Of Geography. I just got this back I know, I feel for you being in that position. If its any consolation we've had it here for years, very pointed commentary at all external seminars and elsewhere, always coming back to the same theme. Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness - I've signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it.... Every now and then people say to me sotto voce with some bemusement, 'and when Sonja finds out, how will you explain it to her...!' The thought is whether we should follow the same course with these two at Anglia Ruskin and Oxford? I'm away tomorrow and Mon/Tues next week. Cheers Phil 2009-10-29 14:20 1625. At 12:46 29/10/2009, Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) wrote: Dear Phil, Do you know the heads of department at Oxford and Anglia Ruskin? Are you sure that they would dissociate themselves from their colleagues who have written? I know how frustrating you must find all of this so can understand why you feel you want to do something. But if you do decide to write, I would be cautious about how such a message is phrased - along lines of written more in sorrow than in anger... We want to avoid any accusation that you are trying to get people fired because they disagree with you. Best, Annie ------------------------------- Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia, 2009-10-29 14:20 1625. ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" date: Thu Oct 29 14:20:25 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request to: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" Annie, Dave, Thanks for the thoughts. Still undecided but I probably won't. Aware of academic freedom and aware that I might not get such a reply as I got from Hull. It will likely just inflame matters more, but I do feel strongly about academics moving outside their area of expertise. Cheers Phil