cc: email@example.com, "Mcgarvie Michael Mr k364" <m.mcgarvieatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:40:58 +0100 (BST)
subject: RE: FW: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04)
to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" <David.PalmeratXYZxyz.ac.uk>
I have re-read the response from Eschenbech, and it seems
that he is asking two things. As we've said, ~98% of the data
are available on non-UEA websites (the two we've referred
to). What I can do is to devleop the list I said I would
- in 3-4 weeks time as I'm not there for any length of time
over this period.
I can then go through this list and extract the stations
that have come from certain countries, with whom we have
gotten data directly and signed agreements. This isn't
just from the countries (but does include a few scientists).
I still feel that, in light of the Keenan response, this
is harrassment. Keenan's request was not vaxatious, but his
recent email clearly is. What is there to stop them once they
get the data from starting down the Keenan route. The latter
has a good chance of wasting a lot of my time nnd I don't want
thtis to go beyond putting things on web sites.
I would like to have a meeting with some more people in
ENV or elsewhere at UEA before doing anything. Perhaps
Michael can talk to a few people. These requests are
harrassment despite what you say - just look at their
website! Even if the request letter looks fine, the
website shows that it isn't. My belief is that even if
I made all the data available it would just open things up
and I would be harrassed for months to come. I know I have
nothing to hide, but I am getting quite worked up about this.
We make the gridded data available. This is enough for
> One point - if we have the raw data, and can produce it, we have a
> statutory obligation to provide it save where an exemption under the Act
> to it's release applies. Not wishing to encourage others to place
> requests is not a valid exemption under the Act.
> However, not having the information, or it being available elsewhere, or
> some 20-odd other exemptions are valid and I'm happy to see what of
> these may apply to the raw data...
> As to the request itself, there is a specific test for a vexatious
> request and I'm not sure that this request, at the moment, meets that
> As always, I'm happy to discuss with you, Michael and anyone else who
> needs to be involved.
> Cheers, Dave
>>From: P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk]
>>Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:25 PM
>>To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
>>Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr k364
>>Subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04)
>> I am happy for you to involve Kitty. I am away
>> the next few weeks, so if you want to leave
>> this you can.
>> When you do, you need to point out what has
>> happened with the other request - the threat from
>> that nice chap Keenan.
>> I do not want to make the raw data available,
>> as it will involve more and more requests. We
>> make the gridded data available and that should
>> be enough.
>> I think it would be worthwhile having a meeting
>> involving a few more people in the light of the
>> Keenan letter and what has been said on the
>> Climate Audit website from Friday.
>> This to my mind is bullying and virtual harrasment.
>> This is not for any reasonable scientific point.
>> It is quite simply harrasment. These people are
>> self appointed.
>>> My head is beginning to spin here but I read this as meaning that he
>>> wants the raw station data; we don't know which data belongs to which
>>> station, correct? Our letter stated:
>>> "We can, however, send a list of all stations used, but
>>> This would include locations, names and lengths of record,
>>> latter are no guide as to the completeness of the series."
>>> Can we put this on the web? Perhaps I am being really thick here but
>>> I'm not sure if putting this on the web will actually satisfy Mr.
>>> Eschenbach - we've said we don't have data sources, he says
>>> websites don't have them, so who does? Are we back to the
>>NMS's? I am
>>> happy to give this one more go, stating exactly what we are
>>> the web and seeing if that suffices. Should Mr. Eschenbach
>>> that we actually possess the information in the form he
>>requests, I can
>>> then only give the file to Kitty Inglis for review and then
>>we move on
>>> Cheers, Dave
>>> From: Willis Eschenbach [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>>> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 9:37 PM
>>> To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
>>> Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request (FOI_07-04)
>>> Dear Mr. Palmer:
>>> It appears we have gone full circle here, and ended up back where we
>>> I had originally asked for the raw station data used to produce the
>>> HadCRUT3 dataset to be posted up on the UEA website, or made
>>> in some other form.
>>> You refused, saying that the information was available elsewhere on
>>> non-UEA websites, which is a valid reason for FOI refusals.
>>> I can report that the information requested is available on
>>> non-UEA websites as detailed below.
>>> Your most recent letter (Further
>>> _information_letter_final_070418_rev01.doc), however, says
>>that you are
>>> unable to identify the locations of the requested
>>information. Thus, the
>>> original reason for refusing to provide station data for HadCRUT3 was
>>> Therefore, since the information requested is not available
>>> websites, I wish to re-instate my original request, that the
>>> itself be made available on your website or in some other form. I
>>> understand that a small amount of this data (about 2%,
>>according to your
>>> letter) is not available due to privacy requests from the countries
>>> involved. In that case, a listing of which stations this
>>applies to will
>>> The HadCRUT3 dataset is one of the fundamental datasets in
>>> climate discussion. As such, it is vitally important that it
>>can be peer
>>> reviewed and examined to verify its accuracy. The only way
>>this can be
>>> done is for the data to be made available to other researchers in the
>>> Once again, thank you for your assistance in all of this. It is truly
>>> not a difficult request, and is fully in line with both standard
>>> scientific practice and your " CODE OF PRACTICE FOR RESPONDING TO
>>> REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
>>ACT 2000". I
>>> am sure that we can bring this to a satisfactory resolution without
>>> involving appeals or unfavorable publicity.
>>> My best regards to you,
>>> on 4/20/07 1:02 AM, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) at David.PalmeratXYZxyz.ac.uk
>>> Mr. Eschenbach,
>>> Attached please find a response to your email of 14 April. As
>>> always, don't hesitate to contact me with queries or concerns.
>>> Cheers, Dave Palmer
>>> <<Further _information_letter_final_070418_rev01.doc>>
>>> David Palmer
>>> Information Policy Officer
>>> University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich, England
>>> NR4 7TJ