Tuesday, December 27, 2011

1212009215.txt

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
To: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,"Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" <David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: FW: Your Ref: FOI_08-23 - IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 Assessment Process [FOI_08-23]
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 17:13:35 +0100
Cc: "Briffa Keith Prof \" <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \" <m.mcgarvie@uea.ac.uk>

Dave,
Although requests (1) and (2) are for the IPCC, so irrelevant to UEA,
Keith (or you Dave) could say that for (1) Keith didn't get any additional
comments in the drafts other than those supplied by IPCC. On (2) Keith
should say that he didn't get any papers through the IPCC process.either.
I was doing a different chapter from Keith and I didn't get any. What we did get
were papers sent to us directly - so not through IPCC, asking us to
refer to them in the IPCC chapters. If only Holland knew how the
process really worked!! Every faculty member in ENV and all the post docs and
most PhDs do, but seemingly not Holland.
So the answers to both (1) and (2) should be directed to IPCC, but
Keith should say that he didn't get anything extra that wasn't in the IPCC
comments.
As for (3) Tim has asked Caspar, but Caspar is one of the worse responders to
emails known. I doubt either he emailed Keith or Keith emailed him related to IPCC.
I think this will be quite easy to respond to once Keith is back.
From looking at these questions and the Climate Audit web site, this
all relates to two papers in the journal Climatic Change. I know how
Keith and Tim got access to these papers and it was nothing to do
with IPCC.
Cheers
Phil
At 23:47 27/05/2008, Tim Osborn wrote:

Dear Dave,
re. David Holland's follow-up requests...
These follow-up questions appear directed more towards Keith than to me.
But Keith may be unavailable for a few days due to family illness, so I'll
attempt a brief response in case Keith doesn't get a chance to.
Items (1) and (2) concern requests that were made by the IPCC Technical
Support Unit (hosted by UCAR in the USA) and any responses would have been
sent direct to the IPCC Technical Support Unit, to the email address
specified in the quote included in item (2). These requests are,
therefore, irrelevant to UEA.
Item (3): we'll send the same enquiry to Ammann as we sent to our other
colleagues, and let you know his response.
Item (3) also asks for emails from "the journal Climatic Change that
discuss any matters in relation to the IPCC assessment process". I can
confirm that I have not received any such emails or other documents. I
expect that a similar answer will hold for Keith, since I cannot imagine
that the editor of a journal would be contacting us about the IPCC
process.
Best wishes
Tim
On Tue, May 27, 2008 6:30 pm, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote:
> Gents,
> Please note the response received today from Mr. Holland. Could you
> provide input as to his additional questions 1, and 2, and check with
> Mr. Ammann in question 3 as to whether he believes his correspondence
> with us to be confidential?
>
> Although I fear/anticipate the response, I believe that I should inform
> the requester that his request will be over the appropriate limit and
> ask him to limit it - the ICO Guidance states:
>
> 12. If an authority estimates that complying with a request will exceed
> the cost limit, can advice and assistance be offered with a view to the
> applicant refocusing the request?
>
> In such cases the authority is not obliged to comply with the request
> and will issue a refusal notice. Included within the notice (which must
> state the reason for refusing the request, provide details of complaints
> procedure, and contain particulars of section 50 rights) could be advice
> and assistance relating to the
>
> refocusing of the request, together with an indication of the
> information that would be available within the cost limit (as required
> by the Access Code).
>
> This should not preclude other 'verbal' contact with the applicant,
> whereby the authority can ascertain the requirements of the applicant,
> and the normal customer service standards that the authority usually
> adopts.
>
>
> And... our own Code of Practice states (Annex C, point 5)
>
> 5. Where the UEA is not obliged to supply the information requested
> because the cost of doing so would exceed the "appropriate limit" (i.e.
> cost threshold), and where the UEA is not prepared to meet the
> additional costs itself, it should nevertheless provide an indication of
> what information could be provided within the cost ceiling.
>
> This is based on the Lord Chancellors Code of Practice which contains a
> virtually identical provision....
>
> In effect, we have to help the requester phrase the request in such a
> way as to bring it within the appropriate limit - if the requester
> disregards that advice, then we don't provide the information and allow
> them to proceed as they wish....
>
> I just wish to ensure that we do as much as possible 'by the book' in
> this instance as I am certain that this will end up in an appeal, with
> the statutory potential to end up with the ICO.
>
> Cheers, Dave
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: David Holland [[1] mailto:d.holland@theiet.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 5:37 PM
> To: David Palmer
> Subject: Your Ref: FOI_08-23 - IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 Assessment
> Process
>
>
> Please find attached a response to your letter of 19th May 2008
>
> David Holland
>
>
>
>

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

References

1. mailto:d.holland@theiet.org

No comments:

Post a Comment