cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" date: Wed Sep 23 14:25:10 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: FOIA meeting documentation [FOI_09-117; EIR-09-14] to: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" Dave, 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 recently. 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. Cheers Phil At 12:14 23/09/2009, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote: Phil, 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. Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 5:25 PM To: Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Subject: FOIA meeting documentation Jonathan, 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! Cheers, Dave PS. Got a request for agreements with the Mef Office in Australia today - wonder if this is a new tack? ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services 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.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------