Bishop Hill UEA footdragging - Part 2
Oct 26, 2012 Climate: CRU FOI This is a guest post by Don Keiller.
At the end of Part 1, your “Big-Oil” funded, shadowy, conspirator was reeling from the righteous blows of the Freedom of Information loving UEA and its downtrodden ally, Mills & Reeve. But “Big Oil” never admits defeat, not even in the face of “overwhelming consensus.
So the next sneaky strike was electronically launched…
As before emails/letters sent to me are in italic, my responses in bold
I note your statement that, in your opinion "The University has complied with the substituted decision notice of the Tribunal dated 18 January 2012 and proposes to take no further steps".
However I do not concur with your opinion in this matter.
My view is that UEA, quite deliberately, supplied HP Enterprise Security Services with an incorrect search parameter to ensure the failure to find the email that I requested and which the Tribunal required you to make a reasonable search for. In short UEA have not complied with the Tribunal's substituted decision notice and I intend to revisit this matter with the Information Commissioner.
The response from the all-powerful Commissioner was swift and devastating:
Having reviewed the matter, the Commissioner is satisfied that an adequate search has been carried out and that therefore the substituted decision notice has been complied with.
So once again, the ICO had sided with UEA. Strange behaviour, indeed, from an organisation that on the 22nd December 2010, required UEA to sign a commitment to improve the way it responded to FOI requests!
Given that the ICO’s past judgement on matters concerning UEA and FOI have proved fallible when tested in open court, your plucky FOI seeker, amply funded by the usual suspects, reached for the “nuclear option”.
Sir. I am writing to express my profound disagreement with your decision that “the Commissioner is satisfied that an adequate search has been carried out and that therefore the substituted decision notice has been complied with”.
Throughout this whole affair, UEA has acted in a way that has been contemptuous of the FOIA and EIR, seeking at all times to delay and obfuscate the ICO, the Tribunal and the appellant in their lawful requests.
This has culminated in misleading information supplied to HP Enterprise Security Services, designed to ensure that any search would fail.
I have repeatedly stated what the correct search parameters should be and have been repeatedly ignored by UEA in this matter. It is disturbing that the ICO appears to support UEA’s policy of misdirection.
Accordingly I intend to mount an appeal against your decision that "the substituted decision notice has been complied with” and ask that you inform me as to the correct procedure to mount such an appeal.
Then came the 4th of July.
There would be no right of appeal back to the Tribunal. Your only other option would be to apply for a judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. However, whilst the Commissioner is not satisfied at present that the search was inadequate, if you are able to provide the Commissioner with more detailed arguments as to why you believe that the substituted decision notice has not been complied with the Commissioner would be prepared to reconsider his position.
Was there a glimmer of hope here, a seed of doubt in the almighty Commissioner?
A massive frontal assault was launched.
Dear Sir, it is my understanding from your email of 03/07/2012 that the “Commissioner is satisfied that an adequate search has been carried out and that therefore the substituted decision notice has been complied with”.
However in response to my email of Wed 04/07/2012, in which I expressed my disagreement with this decision, your response stated that was I to provide the Commissioner with more detailed arguments as to why I believed that the substituted decision notice has not been complied with, the Commissioner would be prepared to reconsider his position. My (abridged) detailed submission follows.
The key requirement of the Substituted Decision Notice, FER0280033, is absolutely clear:
Whether the police are prepared to provide UEA with a copy or mirror of the data stored on the CRU’s back-up server so that UEA may establish the existence of and recover the email sent by Prof Jones to Georgia Tech on or about 15 January 2009.
UEA confirmed that on 14 February 2012 that the University initiated enquiries of the Norfolk Constabulary as to whether it would be prepared to cooperate in this matter. As a result of these enquiries Norfolk Constabulary confirmed that it would be willing to allow an independent expert to search the back-up server.
On 12/06/2012 Mills & Reeve sent an email attaching a report from HP Enterprise Security Services detailing the search parameters set out by Mr. Brian Summers (Registrar & Secretary, University of East Anglia) that the search was to identify:
• Copies of any emails sent from Prof. Phil Jones' UEA email account, i.e. with sent from address containing "p.jones@uea.ac.uk"; and
• sent to a Georgia tech email account, i.e. with sent to (or CC) address containing "@gatech.edu"; in the time period
• between 1 January 2009 and 31 January 2009.
On receipt of this email and attached report, I replied that the search parameter “@gatech.edu” was not the correct email recipient address for Georgia Tech., rather that it should be “@eas.gatech.edu”.
This is my first point of contention that any search to “establish the existence of and recover the email sent by Prof Jones to Georgia Tech on or about 15 January 2009”, as required in the substituted Decision Notice (FER0280033), would necessarily fail as an incorrect search parameter was used.
My contention is confirmed by the Investigation Summary from HP Enterprise Security Services report which stated that:
“A total of twenty nine thousand and ninety two (29,092) emails were identified bearing a 'Sent' date between 01 January 2009 and 31 January 2009 (across all backups). Following a de-duplication process, one thousand two hundred and fifty five (1,255) of these were identified as being unique. Further filtering based on the 'Sent' person identity of 'p.jones@uea.ac.uk', and included a recipient name bearing '@gatech.edu', showed no emails present."
Mills & Reeve responded, reporting an alleged conversation that UEA had with HP Enterprise Security Services:
“HP confirmed that the search terms it used whilst conducting the investigation included "@gatech.edu". Here it is important to note that whilst HP Enterprise Security Services confirm the use of “@gatech.edu” they do not confirm that the search term included “@eas.gatech.edu”.
In reply I sent a further email where I noted that at no point in its written report did HP state explicitly, or implicitly, that any additional or alternative recipient name search parameter other than "@gatech.edu” was employed in their search. At this point I also requested that if I was to have any confidence in the scope and stringency of the search process, conducted by HP Enterprise Security Services on behalf of UEA, I would require a written, signed statement from the author of the report, Mr XXXXXX (Senior Forensic Consultant), confirming the use, or otherwise, of the recipient name search parameter "@eas.gatech.edu", in the aforementioned search. To date no such confirmatory statement has been provided.
This is my second point of contention. That both UEA and the Commissioner now expect me to accept Mills & Reeve’s hearsay report of an alleged conversation that UEA had with HP Enterprise Security Services that their search included the correct parameter (@eas.gatech.edu), despite the fact that HP Enterprise Security Services written report does not support this alleged conversation, either explicitly, or implicitly.
Finally there is well-documented evidence which has been available for some considerable time as to the exact recipient and transmission date of the email that I requested and which is the subject of the Decision Notice (FER0280033). Moreover it is clear that both UEA and Mills & Reeve are fully aware of this evidence because;
a) It was in the “Open Bundle” of evidence presented by Mills & Reeve at the Tribunal hearing on Tuesday 13th January 2011. In this connection I have attached scanned copies of the “Open Bundle 2 Coversheet” and scanned copies of pages 348 (paragraph 15) and 364 (bottom half) from this bundle of evidence.
b) On 14 June 2012 I sent an email to Mills & Reeve reminding them of this evidence, quoting an email sent by Professor Jones on 26th. June 2009, which specifically referred to the email that is the subject of my request and the Decision Notice (FER0280033).
This is my third point of contention. Namely throughout the period from the Tribunal case to date, both UEA and their solicitors, Mills & Reeve, have known with absolute certainty both the name of the primary recipient (Jun Jian) of the requested email, together with its date of sending (15 January 2009).
It is therefore perverse that UEA should specifically instruct for a search to be made not employing those parameters most likely to provide a definitive answer to the requirement in Decision Notice FER0280033, namely “that UEA may establish the existence of and recover the email sent by Prof Jones to Georgia Tech on or about 15 January 2009.”
Indeed the search parameters suggested by UEA appear to be specifically designed to fail to find the aforementioned email. Hence an adequate search has not been carried out and therefore the substituted Decision Notice (FER0280033) has not been complied with.
Apart from a brief acknowledgement, two days later, there was a deafening silence.
Dear Dr. Keiller.
Thank you for your email.
I will take instructions on your submissions and revert to you shortly.
By 27th July, there still had not been any response and as I was about to go on holiday I emailed the solicitor who was acting on behalf of the Commissioner.
Dear Mr. XXXX, I am writing in connection with regards to EA/2011/0152; Dr Keiller v Information Commissioner & University of East Anglia.
If there are any communications/developments between now and 20th August, inclusive, with regards to the above, I will be unable to respond as I am out of the country and will not have internet/email access.
Accordingly please delay any requirement for a response, from me, until after the 20th August.
So with perfect timing and disregard of my request, the Commissioner responded -on the 13th August …
The Commissioner has corresponded further with the University’s solicitors in response to your submission.
The University has now provided formal confirmation from HP that the scope of searches undertaken during May 2012 encapsulated emails to both "@gatech.edu" and "@eas.gatech.edu" and that any email addresses with those derivatives would have been identified. The Commissioner now attaches:-
(1) A letter to UEA dated 20 July 2012
(2) HP's response dated 30 July 2012.
The Commissioner accepts that the evidence attached demonstrates that the terms of the Tribunal's substituted decision notice of 18 January 2012 have been satisfied.
So crushing and final defeat.
Or was it?
Reader Comments (42)
Well done ... yet another cliff-hanger!
I do hope that the various newspapers and other MSM that normally serialise this sort of story are already negotiating with you.
(In fact, you may want to hang back with the final instalment until these contracts are firmly in place. Then again, maybe not ...)
So can we expect part 3?
I hope so.
I guess that most rational people instinctively prefer the 'cock up' explanation of strange and bewildering behaviour by the 'establishment', rather than assuming some fiendish conspiracy.
But I suggest that it appears increasingly improbable that a number of the cAGW sagas of strange 'behaviour' can have arisen from the lowly cock up or communication glitch.
This intriguing tale from the indefatigable Don must be considered as evidence that (a) Phil Jones and the UEA are absolutely desperate to avoid complying with this FOI request and that there must be something in the original email which is seriously damaging to their position. And that (b) they seem to be actively engaged, with the Commissioner, in a conspiracy to pervert the cause of justice.
Or is there another tenable explanation?
This had better be good or I might have to sacrifice some climate data on the alter of sacrifice (or something) to deal with the disappointment!!!!
Mailman
Just how many emails did Jones send on 15th January 2009?
This really does belong in the 'you couldn't make it up' file.
Can't wait for Part the Third!
Congratulations on your dogged persistence. Can you show us the two letters (of 20th July and 30th July) referred to at the end of your post?
I think the key point of this type of delay is that it is impossible to prove intent unless there is evidence thereof e.g. a smoking gun email that proves a conspiracy to delay exists. But what are the chances of ever getting hold of such an email?
Whether Don is ultimately successful or not matters less than what he is doing for posterity.
These foolish, well paid parasites are being forced to show that they are willing parts of a system designed to protect the orthodoxy of the day. They are recording their corruption so that the future can point at them and say, "Look, these were the guilty men."
AGW is a symptom of a larger social breakdown. It only exists because corruption has metastasized widely into govt. and academia.
This exchange demonstrates this well. The guardians are now helping the crooks.
Don, get on the phone to David Rose at the Daily Mail. I am sure he can find some column inches for this.
Somewhat off-topic, but more government non answers to an "E" Petition on wind turbines just announced here: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22958
You told them you would be on holidays to 20 August,. They moved the earth to treply to you on 13 August.
Let me guess. They stipulated a 7 day period of appeal.
I think it would be helpful if you post a link or links to the earlier chapters of this saga. [I assume it cannot all be in your new book.]
Some readers may not be aware that all this legal wrangling is over an email containing a scientific data-set, or why the UEA would apparently go to such lengths to prevent the wider publication of this data and the covering letter. Or that the Information Commissioner has ruled this email must be yielded up under freedom of information laws [as you mentioned here: bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/1/23/a-major-foi-victory.html ]
The details may be on this blog, but I confess that I myself have probably forgotten some, or not read all of them. Newer readers may not be able to follow the unfolding story.
If Don is in possession of or has access to an email from Jones which makes reference to the one now being requested then surely its existence can not be denied. Should the email truly no longer exist on the back up server then it has been deleted, does this not put UEA in a no win situation?
Hurry up with part 3 >.<
Don are you able to FOI communications between UEA and HP? And indeed anyone else involved in this sorry saga?
Well done, Dr Keiller, for all your hard work and dogged persistence.
Am I right in thinking that the current Information Commissioner has assumed office since you first submitted your FOI/EIR request ? He seems to be surprisingly complaisant towards the UEA. It looks as if - facing a possible judicial review, which might very well rule against him - his lawyer might have persuaded him to re-consider his brusque dismissal of your request; but rather than changing his mind perhaps he is set on prolonging the stand-off in the hope of wearing you down. (Lawyers do love that kind of dishonourable behaviour, which has nothing to do with the merits of the case). Maybe in Part 3 you will tell us.
Have you considered asking Georgia Tech - directly or via a pal in the USA - to release the email ? Chances are that the request would be refused (much as the U of Virginia is refusing to release Dr Mann's emails) or reported as "not found", but one never knows.
Re Dolphinhead- I did this back on 17th August- here is my request.
Dear Mr. XXXXXXX.
I am making a request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and/or the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for copies of all correspondence, between the University of East Anglia and HP Security Services (Long Down Avenue, Stoke Gifford, Bristol, BS34 8QZ) regarding the arrangements, parameters, scope and results of a search made by HP security Services on the (CRU) back-up server for “establishing the existence of and recovering the email sent by Prof. Jones to Georgia Tech on or about 15 January 2009” as directed by the Information Tribunal (Case No. EA/2011/0152), between the dates of February 1st. 2012 and 20th July, 2012.
I have recently received the email chain.
It is quite difficult to follow as there are numerous redactions, made on the basis of "commercial interest".
No obvious "smoking gun", but I have not has time to really study it yet.
This needs the Dick Barton theme at the start and end of every episode.
Michael, to clarify, I am not writing a book (Andrew Montford has written books on related topics), just reporting my experiences with trying to obtain an email from UEA, using FOI.
For information, back in September 2009, I along with about 20 others, made FOI requests to UEA, asking for;
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.
After various rejections from UEA, I (along with Professor Jonathan Jones of Oxford University) appealed to the Information Commissioner.
Some two years (23 June 2011) down the line the IC finally found in favour of Professor Jonathan Jones and I in terms of the data release (item 1), but for UEA with regards the covering email (item 2).
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&q=FER0280033&gbv=2&oq=FER0280033&gs_l=heirloom-hp.12...2047.2047.0.3141.1.1.0.0.0.0.141.141.0j1.1.0...0.0...1c.DAF1KA1zD_I
I appealed the IC's decision and UEA decided, in its wisdom, that it would prefer a Court hearing, rather than to settle the case by written submission. All this and the outcome is detailed here;
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/1/23/a-major-foi-victory.html
What followed, "More UEA footdragging" is an account of my post-Tribunal efforts to get UEA to provide the covering email.
MIke, I only have scanned copies of these two letters - I cannot provide a link.
The only other option would be for me to send you copies by email.
Here I would need to remove personal details and rescan before I could send.
Can I enquire the purpose of your request?
That Peter Webster fellow from Georgia Tech who is the recipient of the email subject to this FOI quest, is he not Judith Curry's partner? Would it be oh-so-unscientific and unethical of him to help out his colleagues at the UEA and elsewhere by releasing the said email on his wife's blog, since the UEA claims not to have it on their record?
"The Commissioner accepts that the evidence attached demonstrates that the terms of the Tribunal's substituted decision notice of 18 January 2012 have been satisfied."
So I suppose whether we get a part 3, depends on if you were satisfied or not. Also, as you are certain the email exists then perhaps you decided to take another tack as there is always more than one way to skin a cat. One thing's for sure, the UEA does not want you to get hold of the email and there has to be a jolly good reason for that, although it does not have to be sinister.
Roll on the Trilogy.
Having reviewed the matter, the Commissioner is satisfied that an adequate search has been carried out .
I wonder how much the Commissioner knows about information retrieval and search strategies? Did he ask anyone who is knowledgeable about such things for advice?
Don,
re the letters of 20th and 30th July - just idle curiosity. I wouldn't want to interfere in the slightest in your efforts. It was just to complete the picture, but I am perfectly happy to leave it to you to unfold the story in whatever way you wish.
Enough to try the patience of a ....K?
'About HP Enterprise Security
HP is a leading provider of security and compliance solutions for modern enterprises that want to mitigate risk in their hybrid environments and defend against advanced threats.'
http://www.hpenterprisesecurity.com/
Says it all really.
@Pharos. I'm flattered. I did not realise I was an "advanced threat"!
Don, many thanks for "manning the trenches" on behalf of the "skeptics/non-believers" or whatever the pro-warming lobby like to call us these days.
Some three or more years ago, when I started becoming interested in the CAGW argument, the defining issue for me was this type of behaviour exhibited by those who supposedly had a killer argument but for some reason kept their cards under the table and used any method to stop others seeing them.
I'm not a scientist, just a taxpayer who is supposed to leave his wallet open on the front door mat and not ask any questions. I could not really determine the rights and wrongs by reading the scientific papers but always thought that if the science was so obvious and settled why didn't the warmists just place their three Aces on the table face up and take the money as it were?
Instead they put one Ace face up and two cards face down and suggest everyone believes them when they say the other two cards are both Aces!
So here are you trying to see the other cards and they are moving heaven and earth to ensure they don't see the light of day!
Highly unscientific of me to come to a conclusion by this method but as a layman I have no other method of determining an opinion.
So thank you again for expending your, I'm sure, valuable time and effort on behalf of people like me - whilst I don't suggest my behaviour is the norm nevertheless I shouldn't at all surprised if there aren't more like me who have come to a conclusion using the same criteria.
In the meantime I carry on reading this blog, WUWT, CA, jonova et al and Andrew's books (by the way the latest is excellent so far) to try and understand the science better.
as with Qinetiq, there are military connections:
Wikipedia: HP Enterprise Services
Major clients
Some of HPES's largest clients include: ... United States Navy, the UK Ministry of Defence, IDA, Royal Dutch Shell, and NASA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Enterprise_Services
I fear judicial review is going to be your only option. The good news is that the pleadings will be short, very short. One page ought to do it.
They searched the wrong term therefore they are not in compliance. The Order would be to comply with the earlier Order.
Good luck and keep fighting.
Johnbuk
That pretty well sums up my position. IIRC, I was already reading books from a sceptical viewpoint when the climategate e-mails appeared, and revealed what I think was a shocking approach to science, and I still think it was shocking, made worse of course by the various whitewashes since then.
Johnbuk
That pretty well sums up my position. IIRC, I was already reading books from a sceptical viewpoint when the climategate e-mails appeared, and revealed what I think was a shocking approach to science, and I still think it was shocking, made worse of course by the various whitewashes since then.
o/t but oh so relevant to the general debate:
24 Oct: PR Web: Population Control and Fresh Water Resources Should Be Top Global Priorities Says Former NASA Climatologist
Economic Growth, and Human Survival Depend on Water and Population Control.
Special Report by DeWayne Cecil, PhD, on Sharon Kleyne Hour Radio Talk Show
That was the conclusion of DeWayne Cecil, PhD, in an interview on the Sharon Kleyne Hour Power of Water radio show, October 15, 2012.
Dr. Cecil was a researcher for NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), and currently works for the National Climatic Data Center in Ashville, North Carolina…
According to Dr. Cecil, Earth’s climate has definitely evolved in the last 50 years but if you examine the record of glacial ice cores, lake sediments and ancient tree rings, weather pattern are naturally cyclical. How much of the current global drying and warming is human caused, and whether it is cyclical or permanent, remains be determined.
“The study of weather and climate is not just about whether to wear a coat,” says Dr. Cecil. “It’s about our survival as a species.” According to Dr. Cecil, Earth can only sustain a half-billion people in a “Western” consumption oriented lifestyle whereas Earth’s population recently passed seven billion. According to Dr. Cecil, there are only enough resources on Earth to sustain about a half-billion people in the current “Western” lifestyle…
Sharon asked about the difference between “climate” and “weather.” According to Dr. Cecil, “climate” is “weather” averaged out over a long period. In other words, “climate is what you expect and weather is what you get.”
***“We can predict weather fairly accurately to about ten days in advance,” says Dr. Cecil, “but our ability predict weather over two to 20 years is less accurate…
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/10/prweb10050733.htm
DeWayne Cecil
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dewayne-cecil/36/346/5a1
haven't heard the audio - so don't know how much is Cecil - because it is downloading too slowly and i'm off to watch the women's tennis:
AUDIO: 60 min. from Mon Oct 15 00:00:00 PDT 2012 Show
http://www.sharonkleynehour.com/RSS.php
Big respect once again Don for your tenacity. Can't wait for: 'Dishonoured the third - and this is where the story REALLY begins..' (Oh dear - showing my age, with a quote from The Goons....!)
Off-topic but relevant to energy/climate/etc.:
The clocks 'go back' tonight - plunging us all into darkness at four o'clock in the afternoon for the next five months. Valid research has shown that this COSTS the country an extra 2% of its energy bill AUTOMATICALLY. Now, you'd think with all the enphasis on 'saving' energy, fuel poverty and massive price hikes by the monopolistic power companies, someone in the DECC would be brave enough to say: 'Actually we don't need to do this - kids don't walk to school any more - which was the main argument for reverting to this barmy system in the 1960's.'
Bit too simple, perhaps..?
David.
There is nothing barmy about timing midday to when the sun is at its highest. Anything other is barmy.
Pat
Once again a great story from you :)
Did Mr Cecil tell us which resources would not be sufficient to support more than 500 million "rich people" ?
(I guess water was stupidly his main concern)
"Enough to try the patience of a ....K?
Oct 26, 2012 at 8:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterNick in Vancouver"
Can't be sure. Only read parts of the book. ;-)
Were full details of the UEA's actual search strategy recorded and the negative results recorded? If so you could submit a FOI request for the entire search, including inputs and outputs, and then check any volunteers familiar with the type of database involved that the search strategy used would have retrieved the email records you wanted if they really existed (and had not already been deleted or moved to some other file!).
let me guess, they included BOTH search terms with an AND between them.
i.e they searched for:
("@gatech.edu” AND "@eas.gatech.edu")
This guarantees a return result of NIL and allows them to claim that both search terms were included in the search.
Note to UEA management: you can save the UK taxpayers a lot of money by asking me to do this kind of simple file search work as I will do it for free: no need for HP Enterprise Services. Alternately you can ask any student at UEA to do this mini job. Since you are a public funded Western open scientific institution and this not about a private or personal e-mail matter this should not pose any problem.
@Peter good guess, but I don't think they were quite cute enough for that particular antic.