♫ You've got…that vexatious feeling ♫

It started out simple enough, a standard “righteous” FOIA request to UEA/CRU’s David Palmer, the FOI officer, from a researcher in Britain no less. This is email 0584.txt Dr. Phil Jones take on it didn’t seem to impress FOI agent Palmer at all.

>>X-Authentication-Warning: ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk: defang set sender

>>to <REDACTED> using -f

>>Subject: Freedom of Information

>>Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:33:56 +0100

>>X-MS-Has-Attach:

>>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:

>>Thread-Topic: Freedom of Information

>>Thread-Index: Acoc/QT7+Yv13Ew0Q5SXODkiAy56LA==

>>Priority: Urgent

>>From: “Keiller, Donald” <REDACTED>

>>To: <REDACTED>, <REDACTED>

>>Cc: <REDACTED>

Dear Mrs Palmer,

I have been reading with increasing disbelief the litany of excuses offered by CRU FOI Officers to Steve McIntyre at “Climate Audit” (http://www.climateaudit.org/) to refuse release of original temperature data held at CRU.

The refusal of FOI requests on the basis of confidentiality agreements which were either “verbal”, or “lost” is clearly illegal. If you cannot substantiate these agreements, then they are null and void.

Similarly the refusal to provide data to allow fellow scientists access to original data to reproduce published findings strikes at the very heart of scientific enquiry.

Papers produced without such supporting data become hearsay

and must be withdrawn.

Accordingly I make the following FOI request, confirming that

I am a academic who has published in the area of climate change in the past and that I

currently work in an academic institution.

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (2000) “General right of access to information held by public authorities”

In this Act any reference to a “request for information” is a reference to such a request which-

(a) is in writing,

(b) states the name of the applicant and an address for

correspondence, and

(c) describes the information requested.

For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be treated as made in writing where the text of the request-

(a) is transmitted by electronic means,

(b) is received in legible form, and

(c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference.

I hereby request:

1. A copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009

2. A copy of any instructions or stipulations accompanying the transmission of data to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 limiting its further dissemination or  disclosure.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. D.R. Keiller.

Department of Life Sciences,

Anglia Ruskin University,

East Road,

Cambridge,

CB1 1PT

Here’s Dr. Jones response to Dave Palmer

>—–Original Message—–

>From: Phil Jones [REDACTEDREDACTED]

>Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 5:00 PM

>To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)

>Subject: Fwd: Freedom of Information

>

>

> Dave,

> From the language in this request, I’d regard it as vexatious.

> Cheers

> Phil

>

And Dave Palmer’s response to Dr. Jones

cc: “Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)” <REDACTED>

date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:58:28 +0100

from: “Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)” <REDACTED>

subject: RE: Freedom of Information [FOI-09-129]

to: “Jones Philip Prof (ENV)” <REDACTED>

Phil,

Whilst it’s getting close, I would not regard the language as sufficiently abusive or argumentative as to render this request as vexatious. In fact, I logged it and acknowledged it prior to my departure on hols but didn’t get around to circulating the request it seems… (I would, however, appreciate my proper gender being recognised! Lol)

As it is very much in line with other such requests, I presumed our response would be very much the same…

Cheers, Dave

It seems as if Palmer is duty bound by all that “vexatious” extra work that these requests supposedly caused CRU scientists, but it seems all Dr. Phil Jones has to do is dismiss each with a wave of the hand.

It seems Dr. Jones finally figured out “the mole” was their own open FTP server with inconvenient bytes lying around. Apparently, that’s vexatious too.

From: Phil Jones [[1] REDACTEDREDACTED]

Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:06 PM

To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)

Subject: Fwd: RE: Station data

Dave,

REDACTEDSee this link below. This message sent by someone at the Hadley Centre. I guess we don’t rise to the bait. Can we say taunting is vexatious?

Cheers

Phil

[2]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6644#comments

This suggests to me that as there is no way that Dan would be aware its not him. Could it be that Mr. M sniffed the FTP site and ahs led everyone a merry dance. Can you log when that file was accessed? One for Mike and IT support at your end?

–

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

For the record, from I still don’t have a photograph of “the mole” as alluded to in CA comments by “vexatious” commenter “The Ford Prefect”. I do however have a screencap of that event and the file of interest (red arrow). Of course that’s not the file(s) Dr. Keiller and others have been seeking.

BTW there are many emails with “vexatious” in them