Tag Archives: David Holland

Jonathan Leake of the Sunday Times and the Jones et al Amendment

Inquiries from Jonathan Leake of the Sunday Times resulted in the following statement on Jan 22, 2010 by Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner, Information Commissioner’s Office. Smith stated that David Holland’s FOI requests were “not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation”, that it is an “offence for public authorities to act so […]

E-Mail, “Personal” Records and Privacy

Recently, David Holland reported the unedifying spectacle of John Mitchell, Chief Scientist of the Hadley Center, an institution which proclaimed itself to be the “most significant” contributor to WG1, attempting to circumvent mandated requirements that IPCC be “open and transparent” and that all “written comments” be archived, by claiming that his email correspondence with IPCC […]

Fortress Met Office continued

More obstruction from the Met Office, in which they have changed their obstruction strategy. Previously they said that Mitchell had destroyed all of this email correspondence. This prompted David Holland to ask for information on the date of the destruction and on records management policy at the Met Office. Rather than answer the unanswerable, the […]

Fortress CRU #2: Confidential Agent Ammann

On March 31, 2008, David Holland sent a letter to Keith Briffa asking about several IPCC issues. In correspondence released from the Hadley Center, Briffa indicated his intention of being unresponsive. On May 15, Briffa sent an unresponsive reply to Holland, following which Holland initiated a FOI request on May 27, 2008 leading to an […]

Fortress CRU

As noted in other posts, IPCC policies state: All written expert, and government review comments will be made available to reviewers on request during the review process and will be retained in an open archive in a location determined by the IPCC Secretariat on completion of the Report for a period of at least five […]

Fortress Met Office

We’ve been following with interest David Holland’s efforts to obtain information on how IPCC review editors discharged their important duties under IPCC process, with the most recent progress report here. Here’s another update.

“No Working Papers”, “No Correspondence”

Last year, we noted the insolent and unresponsive answers by IPCC chapter 6 Lead Authors to Review Comments in connection with the Hockey Stick reconstructions. Under IPCC policies, Review Editors have important obligations to ensure responsiveness of Chapter Authors (see policies discussed here). The comments by Review Editors were not put online by IPCC, but, […]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,422 other followers