<<  2439  • 2440 •  2441  >>
cc: "Midgley, Pauline" <REDACTED>
date: Wed Jun 24 13:23:15 2009
from: Phil Jones <REDACTED>
subject: Re: Data access and IPCC
to: Thomas Stocker <REDACTED>, wg1 <REDACTED>

Dear Thomas,
Attached is a document that you should only bother to look at it you have
time to spare - stuck on a train or long flight. It is a submission by a skeptic
to EPA in the USA.
I'm sending it only for background. I wouldn't want this issue to be raised
at the Venice meeting, but I think you'll likely to become more aware these people as
AR5 advances. I was in Boulder last week and I spoke to Susan. We agreed
that the only way IPCC can work is the collegiate way it did with AR4.
These people know they are losing (or have lost) on the science. They are now
going for the process. All you need to do is to make sure all in AR5 are aware
of the process and that they adhere to it. We all did with AR4, but these people
read much more into the IPCC procedures.
See you in Venice
Phil

At 17:17 13/05/2009, Thomas Stocker wrote:

Dear Phil (cc to Pauline Midgley, Head TSU WGI)
Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. I knew about this when the first
requests were placed on John Mitchell and Keith Briffa and they informed us. What I did
not know is that they have already placed their focus on Bern (# 17)!
At that time I argued that in principle there are two interests to balance: (i) FOI, and
(ii) your own privacy when it comes to opening emails or other mail. Obviously, I am not
in the position to judge which one obtains and in fact I think a court would be needed
to establish exactly that balance.
However, the Arhus Resolution, it seems to me, had another motivation: open access to
environmental data associated with damage, spills, pollution; the latter word is
mentioned twice - "climate" never. So to take this convention and turn it around appears
to me like a perversion.
One important point to consider is whether Arhus really applies to the IPCC activities.
In no way are we involved in decision making. We assess and provide scientific
information. The decision makers are elsewhere. More than ever need we be aware of this
separation!
We will discuss this in the TSU but then, this should be brought to the level of the
Secretariat, at least, since it affects the very basis of our assessment work.
Thanks again and best regards,
Thomas
Phil Jones wrote:

Dear Thomas,

REDACTEDI hope you are enjoying your new job! Apologies in advance
for upsetting your morning!
REDACTEDBelow there is a link to Climate Audit and their new thread with another
attempt to gain access to the CRU station temperature data. I wouldn't
normally bother about this - but will deal with the FOI requests when they
come. Despite WMO Resolution 40, I've signed agreements not to pass on
some parts of the CRU land station data to third parties.
REDACTEDIf you click on the link below and then on comments, look at # 17. This
refers to a number of appeals a Brit has made to the Information Commissioner
in the UK. You can see various UK Universities and MOHC listed. For UEA these
relate to who changed what and why in Ch 6 of AR4. We are dealing with these,
but I wanted to alert you to few sentences about Switzerland, your University
and AR5.
REDACTEDHaving been through numerous of these as a result of AR4, I suspect that
someone will have a go at you at some point. What I think they might try later
is the same issue:
Who changed what and why in various chapters of AR5?
and
When drafts of chapters come for AR5, we can't review the chapter as we
can't get access to the data, or, the authors can't refer to these papers as the data
haven't been made available for audit.
Neither of these is what I would call Environmental Information,as defined by the
Aarhus Convention.
You might want to check with the IPCC Bureau. I've been told that IPCC is
above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5
would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody
will remember to do it.
I also suspect that as national measures to reduce emissions begin to affect people's
lives, we are all going to get more of this. We can cope with op-ed pieces, but these
FOI requests take time, as the whole process of how we all work has to be explained
to FOI-responsible people at each institution.
Keep up the good work with AR5!
Cheers
Phil

Dear Mr Jones
As a UK tax payer from the productive economy, could you please explain why you restrict
access to data sets that are gathered using tax payer funds e.g. CRUTEM3. Can you
believe how embarassing this is to a UK TAX PAYER, putting up with your amateurish non
disclosure of enviromental information.
For reference [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5962 refers to your absymal attitude to
public data, although this is just the latest in an embarassing set of reasonable
requests from CRU, who the hell do you think you are? There will of course be an FOI on
the back of this
Regards
Ian

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0)REDACTED
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0)REDACTED
University of East Anglia
NorwichREDACTED Email REDACTED
NR4 7TJ
UK
REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED

--
REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED
Thomas Stocker
Climate and Environmental Physics REDACTED
Physics Institute, University of Bern ph:REDACTED
SidlerstrasseREDACTEDREDACTEDfx:REDACTED
REDACTEDBern, SwitzerlandREDACTED[2]www.climate.unibe.ch/stocker
REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0)REDACTED
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0)REDACTED
University of East Anglia
NorwichREDACTED Email REDACTED
NR4 7TJ
UK
REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED--------