date: Wed Sep 23 14:25:10 2009
from: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: FW: FOIA meeting documentation [FOI_09-117; EIR-09-14]
to: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" <David.PalmeratXYZxyz.ac.uk>
I agree with a lot of what you've said in your attachment - your annotated commentary.
There is the issue of wasting our time, which is the main one. The other issue is that Met
Services putting conditions for the use of the data was common in the mid-1980s and 1990s.
We were just quite adept at getting around the conditions. We went into discussions with
the Met Services assuming these would exist. The world was a very different place in 1990
than it is now.
What I sent GaTech was station data - not the gridded. I don't have this file, but I could
recreate what was sent. It won't be exactly the same, unless I strip off the last couple of
years. I would have done it in mid Jan 2009 - some back data fro 2007 and 2008 has come in
I've been talking with the Met Office. If they do send a letter around, then the normal
'allowed' time to respond is 12 months. I knew it was long, but didn't realise it was this
long. Also, you don't chase up on non responders. To avoid much admin at their end, they
are considering only releasing the data for countries which say yes. If some yes/but, no or
don't respond then we don't release it.
As an aside I'm attaching a paper I'd forgotten. This gives a comparison of the CRU and
GHCN datasets (Figure 2) for the period from 1900 (the red and blue lines). There are no
significant differences between the datasets! If only people would read the literature and
realize this. This just shows that the requests are all politically motivated.
At 12:14 23/09/2009, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote:
Please note the document 'Appeal internal assessment' - what we have decided to do is
immediately proceed to a review by JCF on this one as I don't think an 'informal review'
will yield any results. Our meeting was to do some preliminary work on what that
response will be...
In my discussion with JCF, two questions of fact arose that I'd like your opinion on
1. Is it possible, knowing the parameters of what was sent to GaTech, to work back from
the gridded data to what was sent? I'm sure you have told me this before in a meeting
but with all the requests flying about, I simply can't remember
2. Do we have a copy of the dataset sent to GaTech still in existence? (I thought not
but once again, couldn't remember - must take better notes at meetings!)
I'll ensure that you all see a draft of the response when completed.
From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 5:25 PM
To: Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)
Subject: FOIA meeting documentation
A couple of things for our meeting
1. FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03 - Copy of referral letter sent to Mr. McIntyre - went 'late' but
works to our advantage as it gives us/you more time & puts a response due after our
meeting with Phil, Michael & Annie. If Mr. McIntyre wanted to be picky, he could
maintain that our referral should have happened 2 weeks ago. However, I think he
realises the limitations of FOIA and is probably playing a 'longer game'.
2. FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14 - Annotated response to Prof. Jones' assertions. I suspect we
will get more of these so we should have our arguments at the ready!
PS. Got a request for agreements with the Mef Office in Australia today - wonder if this
is a new tack?
Information Policy & Compliance Manager
University of East Anglia
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.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk