date: Wed Jul 15 15:33:43 2009
from: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
subject: IPCC and UK Freedom of Information law
to: stocker@ipcc.unibe.ch

   Dear Thomas,
   about a year ago we (UEA) had a request under UK Freedom of Information law from David
   Holland for all correspondence and emails to/from Keith Briffa and me in connection with
   drafting the IPCC AR4, listing many people involved.  Phil Jones was also involved because
   Holland asked for all internal CRU/UEA documents that related to the IPCC process.
   UEA rejected this request on a number of grounds, including (i) individuals expected
   confidentiality and (ii) that our future relationship with the IPCC might be adversely
   affected if these materials were released.  The latter view was based in part on an email
   from the previous WG1 co-chair, Susan Solomon, indicating that releasing further material
   was not appropriate.
   Holland has appealed to the UK body that deals with these things, and UEA must provide
   evidence to support its reasons for rejecting the original request.
   I've been asked if we can obtain a further statement about confidentiality amongst the
   authors that are drafting IPCC reports, and about the impact on the IPCC and its
   relationship with UEA (and *all* other contributing scientists at any UK university or UK
   public body such as the Met Office) if we were to break this confidentiality.  The reason
   why I'm contacting you as new co-chair of WG1, is that it is the impact on our future
   relationship with the IPCC WG1 that matters, rather than on the past.
   We're very firmly of the belief that there are important principles to uphold here, related
   to our (and all our co-authors') freedom to have frank and open exchange of views while
   drafting these important reports.  I notice that Holland states on McIntrye's blog:
   <[1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6040#comment-342457> comment #46
   "The point is not AR4 but to get precedence so as to get into AR5 information as soon as it
   is held."
   If he wins his appeal and we release the AR4-related correspondence, his opinion seems to
   be that this precedence will open up access to AR5 correspondence "as soon as it is held".
   All UK-based authors would then expect to receive regular requests for their AR5
   correspondence *during* the drafting process.  This would, in my opinion, adversely affect
   the relationship between UEA (and all UK universities/public institutions such as Met
   Office) and the IPCC -- it would be very supportive if someone who currently represents
   IPCC (or at least IPCC WG1) could indicate that this is also the view/position of the IPCC.
   There are four specific items that we would ideally like to have you view on:
   (1) Does the IPCC WG1 expect authors to keep confidential the emails/correspondence/chapter
   text that they receive from fellow authors during the drafting process?
   (2) Would there be an adverse effect on the IPCC WG1 if we were to break this
   confidentiality?  (Note that we might be forced to break it *during* the drafting of the
   next report)
   (3) Would there be an adverse effect on UEA's relationship with IPCC WG1?
   (4) In providing views on items (1)-(3), are they your personal view or can we say that
   they represent IPCC WG1 position?
   Sorry for the lengthy email, and thanks in advance for any help you can give.
   Best regards
   Tim

