date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 08:52:09 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Fwd: RE: ICO request [FOI_08-23]: Ammann email to: Keith Briffa ,Phil Jones 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)" >To: "Tim Osborn" >Cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" > >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 >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] > >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] > >> >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" , p.jones@uea.ac.uk > >> >>From: Caspar Ammann > >> >>To: t.osborn@uea.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.osborn@uea.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 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow > >Climatic Research Unit > >School of Environmental Sciences > >University of East Anglia > >Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK > > > >e-mail: t.osborn@uea.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 > > > > > > > Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: t.osborn@uea.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