Wednesday, January 18, 2012


date: Tue May 31 10:11:10 2005
from: Keith Briffa <>
subject: Fwd: Re: FW: Imprint

Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 06:46:01 +0200
To:, Keith Briffa <>
From: Eystein Jansen <>
Subject: Re: FW: Imprint
X-checked-clean: by exiscan on noralf
X-Scanner: 5b3c8d86a19165b1fc6316d8c0ee82f5 [1]
X-UiB-SpamFlag: NO UIB: -15 hits, 8.0 required
X-UiB-SpamReport: spamassassin found;
-15 From is listed in 'whitelist_from'
X-Spam-Score: 0.1
X-Spam-Level: /
X-Spam-Flag: NO
Hi Simon and Keith,
sorry for not answering before. We had the annual external evaluation of the Bjerknes
Centre last week, which kept me busy.
I see the points raised by the Hadley Centre, although I am not sure I agree. If our
community does not make strong statements, we may risk being further marginalised, and
even though this will be annoying some in the Commission it might in balance make it
The reality of the mattter is that Met Office is sceptical to sending official
complaints, and the same position is also taken by CNRS.
This will dilute the protest, and i think we need to follow the alternative strategy of
informing our national reps. This approach could be strengthened if we write a memo,
summarizing our concerns, i.e. something which would be very close to the leter we
intended to send to the Commission, and made sure all national reps get a copy. Thus our
arguments would be well known.
In addition we should request a meeting with the Commission.
Could you let me know if you think we should take this route? If yes, I can have a draft
ready tomorrow.
At 10:15 +0100 26-05-05, Tett, Simon wrote:

Eystein & Keith,
I have talked to Adrian Broad (who is responsible for links with the EU
amongst other things). He has talked to Dave Griggs.
Met Office position is basically that I should not sign any formal
letter to the commission as it will change nothing and just annoy them
(which would do the Met Office no good). Other proposals, that the Met
Office was involved with, also seem to have had evaluation problems so
Imprint is not our only concern.
Adrian thinks the best way forward is to forward our concerns directly
to our national representatives so that they are aware of the
`evidence'/opinions regarding the latest round of evaluations. Adrian
has also told me that Dave will have a private word with contacts he
knows in DG(Research) who manage the budget for GCE (Global Change and
Environment) under FP6 (and forwards into the equivalent top level theme
in FP7).
Adrian thinks the best way forward would be for all partners in Imprint
to raise the issues through their national reps + other contacts rather
than through a formal complaint.
On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 04:46, Eystein Jansen wrote:

Keith, what do you think?
Concerning the committee having met, this is only
partly corrrect, as they have approved the short
listing of proposals to start negotiations with,
but haven��t formally decided on giving any
projects the green light. This will happen in
September as far as I have been informed.
Some say it will help us writing a complaint
which will be seen by both the national reps of
the committee as well as parliament members.
At 16:06 +0100 25-05-05, Tett, Simon wrote:
> see Dave's comments below. Adrian Broad
>tells me that the appropriate committee has
>already met so we will not be able to change the
>Dr Simon Tett Managing Scientist, Data development and applications.
>Met Office Hadley Centre (Reading Unit)
>Meteorology Building, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB
>Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5614 Fax +44 (0)118 378 5615
>Mobex: +44-(0)1392 886886
>E-mail: [2]
>Global climate data sets are available from [3]
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Griggs, Dave
>Sent: 24 May 2005 16:47
>To: Tett, Simon; Broad, Adrian
>Cc: Brohan, Philip; Hewitt, Chris; Crucifix, Michel; Jones, Chris D
>Subject: RE: Imprint
>I think we have to be very cautious about doing
>something like this. It is unlikely to be
>effective (as acknowledged by Eystein) and may
>be counterproductive as it may even predjudice
>the Commission against future bids. My preferred
>route would be to make the concerns very clear
>to the Commission, but to do it informally so

> >that they are not embarrassed in public.

> Dr Dave Griggs, Director Climate Research
>>Met Office Hadley Centre
>>Fitzroy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
>>Tel: +44 (0)1392 886615 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
>>E-mail: [4]
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tett, Simon
>Sent: 24 May 2005 10:43
>To: Broad, Adrian; Griggs, Dave
>Cc: Brohan, Philip; Hewitt, Chris; Crucifix, Michel; Jones, Chris D
>Subject: Imprint
>Adrian & Dave,
> We have just received the evaluation of
>IMPRINT. Though we passed the minimum criteria
>we are unlikely to get funded. I think some of
>the referee's comments were fair. The proposal
>was too broad and trying to do too many things.
>However my colleagues are extremely unhappy that a competing proposal
>(Millennium) looks like it will be funded. We
>feel that (at least in stage 1) Millennium did
>not really answer the call. Below is an email
>from Eystein Jansen who thinks we should
>protest. On a personal basis I would like to see
>more evidence before signing onto such a thing.
>However I would also like to get a Met Office
>corporate view on this before doing anything
>else. Simon
>Dear friends of the Imprint - SSC,
>After seeing the evaluation summary of our
>proposal, and not least the same for Millennium,
>it is clear to me that we have been very badly
>treated, first by the public advice from the
>Commission in Utrecht who advised the community
>to create a proposal which we did, but which is
>orthogonal to what they now have decided to
>negotiate, later by the random way we were
>reviewed and the many inconsistencies in the
>evaluation. Compared to this the Millennium
>review was full of subjective phrases and a
>number of negative aspects were glossed over.
>The review is an insult, and it appears likely
>that elements in the panel bear some grudges
>against our community. In order to get the 0.5
>point difference between Imprint and Millennium
>they had to give a number of very imbalanced
>statements. They also had to raise the management
>score of Millennium to 4 by the xtended panel
>despite critisisms by the reviewers that the
>management was not well laid out.
>I feel that the review was very biased and the
>result is that they will probably fund a project
>with only limited relevance to the call, and miss
>a major opportunity of integrating European
>paleoclimate research and climate modelling and
>create a new major step forward.
>We have been advised to send a formal letter of
>complaint to the Commission, asking for a renewed
>evaluation, not because we think there is a good
>chance that it will lead to much, but we think it
>is important that they know that they have upset
>a community consisting of top level European
>scientists, This may help us in the longer term.
>The advice I have got is to send this to Pierre
>Valette, co-signed by the key partners, both
>their PIs and head of administration, with copies
>to our individual national members of the Global
>Change Panel of the EU.
>So far there is no formal decision on which
>proposal to fund, this may happen in September
>after negotiations with the selected proposals.
>There is a seldom precedence in Europe that such
>an intervention has been successful, but very
>In phrasing such a letter we have to be very
>careful and make sure our message is clear and
>fair, but I think it needs to be done.
>I would therefore ask you to respond immediately
>to this mail as to whether you think we should go
>this route or not. We will then in a few days
>send out a draft for comments, if you agree that
>we shall send in a complaint. We have to move
>fast here, so I hope you will be quick.

> >

>Concerning the other proposals on what to do,
>there are many good ideas, and I think we should
>have a meeting in the autumn to discuss the
>strategy of securing paleo in the 7th Framwork
>program. The text is out for review now, and we
>all need to suggest changes through our national
>representatives. I will distribute a list of who
>this is for the various countries over the
>I am also working on formulating text to help
>launch our ideas in teh European Parliament via
>AtteǬ�s wife.
>Best wishes,
>Dr Simon Tett Managing Scientist, Data development and applications.
>Met Office Hadley Centre (Reading Unit)
>Meteorology Building, University of Reading RG6 6BB
>Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5614 Fax +44 (0)118 378 5615
>Mobex: +44-(0)1392 886886
>E-mail: [5]
>Global climate data sets are available from
>[6] Dr Simon Tett Managing
>Scientist, Data development and applications.
>Met Office Hadley Centre (Reading Unit)
>Meteorology Building, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB
>Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5614 Fax +44 (0)118 378 5615
>Mobex: +44-(0)1392 886886
>E-mail: [7]
>Global climate data sets are available from [8]

Eystein Jansen
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
All�gaten 55
N-5007 Bergen
Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661
Fax: +47-55-584330

Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784

No comments:

Post a Comment