date: Wed Jul 15 15:33:43 2009 from: Tim Osborn subject: IPCC and UK Freedom of Information law to: stocker@ipcc.unibe.ch Dear Thomas, about a year ago we (UEA) had a request under UK Freedom of Information law from David Holland for all correspondence and emails to/from Keith Briffa and me in connection with drafting the IPCC AR4, listing many people involved. Phil Jones was also involved because Holland asked for all internal CRU/UEA documents that related to the IPCC process. UEA rejected this request on a number of grounds, including (i) individuals expected confidentiality and (ii) that our future relationship with the IPCC might be adversely affected if these materials were released. The latter view was based in part on an email from the previous WG1 co-chair, Susan Solomon, indicating that releasing further material was not appropriate. Holland has appealed to the UK body that deals with these things, and UEA must provide evidence to support its reasons for rejecting the original request. I've been asked if we can obtain a further statement about confidentiality amongst the authors that are drafting IPCC reports, and about the impact on the IPCC and its relationship with UEA (and *all* other contributing scientists at any UK university or UK public body such as the Met Office) if we were to break this confidentiality. The reason why I'm contacting you as new co-chair of WG1, is that it is the impact on our future relationship with the IPCC WG1 that matters, rather than on the past. We're very firmly of the belief that there are important principles to uphold here, related to our (and all our co-authors') freedom to have frank and open exchange of views while drafting these important reports. I notice that Holland states on McIntrye's blog: <[1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6040#comment-342457> comment #46 "The point is not AR4 but to get precedence so as to get into AR5 information as soon as it is held." If he wins his appeal and we release the AR4-related correspondence, his opinion seems to be that this precedence will open up access to AR5 correspondence "as soon as it is held". All UK-based authors would then expect to receive regular requests for their AR5 correspondence *during* the drafting process. This would, in my opinion, adversely affect the relationship between UEA (and all UK universities/public institutions such as Met Office) and the IPCC -- it would be very supportive if someone who currently represents IPCC (or at least IPCC WG1) could indicate that this is also the view/position of the IPCC. There are four specific items that we would ideally like to have you view on: (1) Does the IPCC WG1 expect authors to keep confidential the emails/correspondence/chapter text that they receive from fellow authors during the drafting process? (2) Would there be an adverse effect on the IPCC WG1 if we were to break this confidentiality? (Note that we might be forced to break it *during* the drafting of the next report) (3) Would there be an adverse effect on UEA's relationship with IPCC WG1? (4) In providing views on items (1)-(3), are they your personal view or can we say that they represent IPCC WG1 position? Sorry for the lengthy email, and thanks in advance for any help you can give. Best regards Tim