date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:39:00 +0100
from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" <David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk>
subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44;  
to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" <P.Jones@uea.ac.uk>, "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" <k364@uea.ac.uk>

   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 organisation   That 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
     ______________________________________________________________________________________

   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
     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
     Faculty of Science
     Room 0.22B
     University of East Anglia
     Norwich NR4 7TJ
     tel: 01603 593229
     fax: 01603 593045
     m.mcgarvie@uea.ac.uk

         _______________________________________________________________________________

          From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
          Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 3:53 PM
          To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)
          Cc: Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV)
          Subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03]
          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
              _________________________________________________________________________

                From: Phil Jones [[1] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
                Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 3:16 PM
                To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)
                Cc: Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV)
                Subject: Re: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03]
                 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
                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 [ [2]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
                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

                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

