date: Wed Aug 12 09:36:50 2009
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information Act 2000 request (FOI_09-77) -
to: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" <David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk>, "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" <s119@uea.ac.uk>, "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" <k319@uea.ac.uk>, "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" <k364@uea.ac.uk>

    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

   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....
       ___________________________________________________________________________________

     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.
     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
          University of East Anglia
          Norwich, England
          NR4 7TJ
          Information Services
          Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523
          Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010


   Prof. Phil Jones
   Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
   School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
   University of East Anglia
   Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
   NR4 7TJ
   UK
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

