date: Mon, 12 May 2008 14:02:02 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: RE: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter to: "Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" Keith, 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. Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >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. >regards >Keith > > > >-- >Professor Keith Briffa, >Climatic Research Unit >University of East Anglia >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > >Phone: +44-1603-593909 >Fax: +44-1603-507784 > >http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ >