Wednesday
Nov202013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill FOI fighters
Nov 20, 2013 Climate: IPCC Climate: MetOffice FOI 
The Met Office has refused to release the Zero Order Drafts of the Fourth Assessment Report (yes, that's Fourth, not Fifth). This is quite interesting, because a the Information Commissioners have recently suggested that once the assessments have passed into history, the related drafts should be published.
Andrew Orlowski has the full story at El Reg.
Reader Comments (57)
@ Mickey Reno - ownership of emails is a different point altogether. Everybody who is employed anywhere knows (or should know) that any and all emails they send using their employer's equipment are the property of the employer.
But that does not give the employer the right to publicise them, or in the case of public sector employees the automatic right for all such communications to be publicly released under FOI. All FOI legislation has exemptions for personal communications ("please collect the kids at 5.30" - to spouse - for example), matters relating to national security, certain police operational material and so on. It is not an unfettered right just because it was done on the public dime.
Nor should it be, as I am sure you would concede if you value employees' right to personal privacy about where their kids go to school and things like national security and effective policing.
Of course Lisa Jackson's shadow email account was scandalous and unethical, but that does not mean that every single email from that account ought to be in the public domain.
More broadly, all the FOI Acts I am familiar with exclude draft documents from being released, because of the points I made above about the iterative process needing to be protected from political point-scoring in the interest of maximising good policy development.
Johanna,
A couple of points. It is important to understand that yesterday’s TAR disclosures were made as a result of European Law from which our Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) descend. In it there is a presumption in favour of disclosure that has to be overcome by the public interest in non-disclosure. Even personal information is subject to the public interest test – which almost invariably favours non-disclosure.
Climategate has disclosed a great deal of personal information – including quite a bit of mine although nothing that I am embarrassed by. However, some personal information on climate scientists is very informative as to why some things happened as they did. In the case of our MP’s expenses, however, home addresses that could well have withheld in law under our FOIA were leaked and resulted in the seriousness of scandal.
johanna private e-mails , keep them in private time using private computers NOT work time on the Tax payers tab.
Those that cannot handle separating the personal from the professional , and even more so the scientific, should perhaps ask themselves if they’re in the right job.
That the term ‘the cause ‘ is used at all tells us how many in climate ‘science ‘ community have failed to have this ability to the cost or many others.
knr, public and private sector employers have policies about the use of email, work phones etc for private purposes. Generally, they accept a certain amount of personal use for essential purposes - eg organising medical appointments, family things like arranging to pick up spouse or kids after work, etc. In my last workplace you were allowed to do internet banking (in your lunch hour) from your work terminal because there were no banks nearby.
These sorts of things are not subject to FOI, and a private employer who released such information would be prosecuted under the privacy laws.
The idea that public employees should be subject to Dickensian restrictions about such matters, or risk having their private lives made public because of someone's curiosity, is ridiculous - and FOI legislation recognises that.
Joanna is right (as usual). FOI must have reasonable limits. You cannot justify a requirement to disclose everything on the basis that in particular cases it might be useful.
I don't understand Entropic Man's comment that "The science is settled" is a sceptic straw man. Sir Mark Walport used this exact expression - with great confidence, and not ironically - in addressing the Parliamentary Scientific Committee annual lunch earlier this month. Is he a sceptic, or not a scientist? (I'm still smarting under EM's assessment that I'm not)
And while I'm writing - Johanna - apologies for spelling your name wrong.
osseo - let s/he who has never made a typo cast the first stone - no need to apologise :)