Friday, June 15, 2012

5184.txt

date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 08:52:09 +0100
from: Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Fwd: RE: ICO request [FOI_08-23]: Ammann email
to: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>,Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

<x-flowed>
it goes on and on....

is it fair to say that Susan Solomon's position as WG1 co-chair
allowed her to speak on behalf of the IPCC on this matter of confidentiality?

Tim

>Subject: RE: ICO request [FOI_08-23]: Ammann email
>Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 16:45:45 +0100
>From: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" <David.PalmeratXYZxyz.ac.uk>
>To: "Tim Osborn" <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
>Cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" <M.McgarvieatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
>
>Tim,
>I met with Michael today and I think we are making progress on a
>response to the ICO when we 'present' our case for the actions we
>have taken on this matter.
>
>One question did arise however; in claiming an exemption under
>s.27(2) and (3) (see:
><http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_3#pt2-l1g27>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_3#pt2-l1g27
>for section 27), the section makes reference to the expectations of
>the international organisation. We proceeded on the basis that
>Susan Solomon represented the 'official' view of the IPCC as an
>international organisation and that her statements represented those
>of the IPCC. Could you confirm Susan's position vis a vis the IPCC
>and if she does not 'represent' the IPCC, who would, or would be in
>a position to state their position on the confidentiality of
>information passing between IPCC participants that is at question in this case?
>
>Cheers, Dave
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Tim Osborn [<mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk]
> >Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 3:28 PM
> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
> >Subject: RE: ICO request [FOI_08-23]: Ammann email
> >
> >Dave,
> >
> >for Dominique Raynaud, we *did* get input (see my table and the
> >correspondence -- very last entry in last year's document).
> >
> >for the other 5 in your list below, I can confirm that we didn't
> >receive any response to our request for their view on
> >confidentiality. Susan Solomon had indicated the IPCC view that
> >confidentiality should kept, so they may rely on this. I don't
> >believe we hold any correspondence from Olago, Ramesh or Zhang
> >anyway, but we probably do from Villalba and Fyfe (indeed some from
> >Fyfe was in the sample I sent you).
> >
> >Finally, in my table I indicate that for Richard Peltier he had not
> >clarified his position. However, I note that in my compilation of
> >responses from last year, a response from him is present and he asks
> >that confidence be maintained. Please could you
> >update/correct that table?
> >
> >Tim
> >
> >At 15:09 29/05/2009, you wrote:
> >>Tim,
> >>Quick question - judging by the lack of correspondence on the
> >file, and
> >>your notation on your list, could you confirm that we did NOT receive
> >>any input from the following:
> >>
> >>Daniel Olago
> >>Rengaswamy Ramesh
> >>Dominque Raynaud
> >>Ricoardo Villalba
> >>De'er Zhang
> >>John Fyfe
> >>
> >>Cheers. Dave
> >>
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: Tim Osborn [<mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk]
> >> >Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 1:00 PM
> >> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
> >> >Subject: ICO request [FOI_08-23]: Ammann email
> >> >
> >> >Dave - here's the third. Less forthright, perhaps, but still clear
> >> >that his intent was that the emails were for limited
> >distribution only.
> >> >
> >> >>Cc: "keith Briffa" <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
> >> >>From: Caspar Ammann <ammannatXYZxyzr.edu>
> >> >>To: t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk
> >> >>Subject: Re: request for your emails
> >> >>Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 10:14:46 -0600
> >> >>
> >> >>Hi Tim,
> >> >>
> >> >>in response to your inquiry about my take on the confidentiality of
> >> >>my email communications with you, Keith or Phil, I have to say that
> >> >>the intent of these emails is to reply or communicate with the
> >> >>individuals on the distribution list, and they are not intended for
> >> >>general 'publication'. If I would consider my texts to potentially
> >> >>get wider dissemination then I would probably have written
> >them in a
> >> >>different style. Having said that, as far as I can remember (and I
> >> >>haven't checked in the records, if they even still exist) I have
> >> >>never written an explicit statement on these messages that would
> >> >>label them strictly confidential.
> >> >>
> >> >>Not sure if this is of any help, but it seems to me that
> >it reflects
> >> >>our standard way of interaction in the scientific community.
> >> >>
> >> >>Caspar
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
> >> >Climatic Research Unit
> >> >School of Environmental Sciences
> >> >University of East Anglia
> >> >Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
> >> >
> >> >e-mail: t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk
> >> >phone: +44 1603 592089
> >> >fax: +44 1603 507784
> >> >web:
> <http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
> >> >sunclock:
> <http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
> >Climatic Research Unit
> >School of Environmental Sciences
> >University of East Anglia
> >Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
> >
> >e-mail: t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk
> >phone: +44 1603 592089
> >fax: +44 1603 507784
> >web: <http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
> >sunclock:
> <http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>
> >
> >
> >

Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

e-mail: t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm


</x-flowed>

No comments:

Post a Comment