date: Mon, 12 May 2008 14:02:02 +0100
from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" <David.PalmeratXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: RE: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter
to: "Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)" <K.BriffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" <M.McgarvieatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV)" <T.OsbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" <P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
I'm sorry but all I received in relation to the longer version of the
response letter is your cover note - the attachment didn't come through.
Could you please send the second version separately please? Thanks!
I have some initial thoughts on the letter from Mr. Holland to yourself
but I will incorporate them into a fuller response once I receive the
longer version of the draft response to Mr. Holland.
>From: Keith Briffa [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 1:17 PM
>To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Osborn
>Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV)
>Subject: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter
>Dear Michael, David,Tim, and Phil
>attached , as promised , are the original letter from David Holland
>to myself, along with two alternative responses. I am waiting
>comments from Phil , but both myself and Tim lean towards showing
>some degree of apparent cooperation by sending the longer ,detailed
>response. Tim is forwarding the combined responses from our
>collaborators/co-authors regarding our earlier message asking their
>opinion were we to send copies of their correspondence with regard to
>Holland's FOIA request. You will see that they are universally
>opposed. Please also see the message from Susan Solomon (via Tim),
>copying her response to John Mitchell's message related to Holland's
>earlier request to him. The FOIA request is , I know, separate from
>the issue of the specific list of questions from Holland of me, but
>we must also consider whether my decision to send one or other of the
>alternative responses will influence our decision of how to respond
>to the FOI request. My interpretation of Susan's message (though
>originally drafted in response to John Mitchell - a review editor
>rather than a lead author of the IPCC) is that she would consider the
>shorter response appropriate. If I sent this it would certainly not
>be considered sufficient to negate the FOIA request. I would value
>your opinion as to the best course of action to take ,i.e. which
>letter - or indeed neither - from here on.
>Professor Keith Briffa,
>Climatic Research Unit
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.