Sentences with phrase «confidentiality agreements»

If he were genuinely an academic, why would he issue the CRU with an FOI request about confidentiality agreements restricting transmission of CRUTEM data to non-academics involving the listed countries?

This was the exact text: I hereby make a EIR / FOI request in respect to any confidentiality agreements restricting transmission of CRUTEM data to non-academics involving the following countries: CAROLINE ISLANDS SOLOMON ISLANDS WALLIS ISLANDS COOK ISLANDS NIUE ISLAND 1.

the date of any applicable confidentiality agreements; 2.

Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby make an EIR / FOI request for the following information in respect to any confidentiality agreements affecting CRUTEM station data involving station data in France, Germany, Italy, Austria and the Ukraine:

Accordingly, I request that you review the actual restrictive language in the various confidentiality agreements and, if the language, as I surmise, pertains to «use», I request that you re-consider your decision and provide the requested data.

In addition, it is my expectation that any restrictive language in the relevant confidentiality agreements will apply only to the «use» of the data and my use is academic; I doubt that the restrictive language is explicitly framed in terms of affiliation.

And stop suggesting that I violate confidentiality agreements.

My sole involvement was as a participant in a voluntary effort to determine precisely what confidentiality agreements the CRU possessed that kept them from disclosing the raw data files used to create their climate analysis product.

It's been referred to on a number of occasions as evidence that there were either no confidentiality agreements from the 1980s or Jones disregarded them and the data is no longer confidential.

As Nature went to press, Jones was expected to post a statement on the CRU website to that effect, including any existing confidentiality agreements.

Confidentiality agreements which didn't exist only materialized as an excuse years later.

People asked for documents showing the existence of the confidentiality agreements.

Jones said that he was unable to provide data because of existing confidentiality agreements.

In East Anglia's response to July 2009 FOI requests for alleged confidentiality agreements (here)-LSB-...]

CRU has posted up an undated webpage on data availability here, responding to the various recent FOI requests for station data and confidentiality agreements.

Unfortunately, Jones seems to have lost or destroyed the confidentiality agreements in question and, according to the Met Office, -LSB-...]

«Community» climate scientists (e.g. Nature, Realclimate) have been quick to accept the idea that CRU was prevented from releasing station data because of confidentiality agreements with originating meteorological services.

Jones says he can't fulfil the requests because of confidentiality agreements signed in the 1990s with some nations, including Spain, Germany, Bahrain and Norway, that restrict the data to academic use.

Phil Jones made false claims (confidentiality agreements allowing release to academics but not Steve) to block the release of the data.

Recently, Philip Jones of CRU (Climatic Research Unit) claimed to have entered into a variety of confidentiality agreements with national meteorological services that prevent him from publicly archiving the land temperature data relied upon by IPCC.

In order to «explain» why he could send data to Peter Webster (and to Scott Rutherford), Phil Jones untruthfully said that there were confidentiality agreements that prevented distribution of the data to «non-academics».

he even implied at the time that the data was covered by confidentiality agreements and he believed that WMO policy trumped that policy.

CRU's claim that there were «non-academic» clauses in its confidentiality agreements was totally fabricated.

which countries actually had confidentiality agreements 2.

58 requests for details about the confidentiality agreements associated with data sources used by the CRU.

Well yes in 2005 when Jones shared the data with Rutherford he knew that some of the data may be covered by confidentiality agreements 4.

well yes, in 2004 when Jones promised the data to Hughes, he noted that the data may be covered by confidentiality agreements but Jones also added that the agreements were probably superceeded by WMO obligations 3.

So, yes I agree with you it looks like Jones violated confidentiality agreements.

As reported here, CRU said that these were governed by confidentiality agreements: The remaining 2 % of data that is -LSB-...]

Ooops... sorry, they said, but they had lost the rest of the confidentiality agreements.

Jones refused to release the data to me because he said that some of it (2 % by his figures) was covered by confidentiality agreements.

The excuse du jour for the secrecy of climate data is confidentiality agreements.

In addition to US government scientists having no first amendment protection, and in addition to confidentiality agreements being standard for so many government positions and posts, now there is the illegal federal «gag order» on all National Weather Service and NOAA employees to consider.

In respect to the alleged CRU confidentiality agreements (which look increasingly fictitious), Jean S made the interesting observation that CRU archived station in the 1980s and early 1990s at CDIAC (ndp020) and that the alleged CRU confidentiality agreements, for some reason, did not interfere with that data being archived.

Mr. Wagner fails, yet again, to mention the fact that US government scientists have no first amendment protection, are generally required to sign confidentiality agreements, and now have an illegal federal gag order placed on them.

As someone with some familiarity with confidentiality agreements and (by then) FOI regulations, it occurred to me that FOI provisions applying to the Met Office (a government agency) might differ in some respect from the FOI provisions applying to the University of East Anglia.

His inability to provide 196 confidentiality agreements (lost in an office move?

If there actually are confidentiality agreements, I would expect the relevant language to be framed in terms of «academic use» as opposed to guild membership i.e. I'd be surprised if the language were framed in terms of institutional affiliation as opposed to use.

Today, I» m going to follow the gradual realization by East Anglia administrators that there were no confidentiality agreements containing language specifically restricting the transmission of data to non-academics and their seamless and unapologetic change of argument to one that was less transparently untrue.

The curtain rises again on Thursday, July 16 (and this passed unnoticed at CA at the time) when Andrew Montford sent an FOI request (2786) presciently requesting copies of the confidentiality agreements governing the station data.

Quickly Climate Audit readers submitted nearly 60 FOI requests for the so - called confidentiality agreements, each reader specifying five different countries.

They now argued that Jones» still unseen «confidentiality agreements» prevented access not simply to non-academics, but to third parties in general.

And, despite CRU's serial violation of the supposed confidentiality agreements now said to be so important, the university closed their eyes to these prior violations rather than reprimand CRU.

It was inconceivable to me that CRU's «confidentiality agreements», even if they existed, contained the claimed specific language about «non-academics».

Jones» attitude to the supposed confidentiality agreements is further evidenced in an email to Palmer and Mcgarvie (Sep 23 — 2840) about Jonathan Jones» FOI request in which he said that they were «quite adept» in the past at getting around any conditions set by NMSs in the alleged confidentiality agreements:

But over at CRU, they purport to «know» nuanced details of the contractual language of the confidentiality agreements — clauses that have the effect of justifying the refusal of the data.

Perhaps his dog ate the meatadata and / or the confidentiality agreements barring the public from seeing the data it funded.

In fact, if there ever were such confidentiality agreements, then CRU had breached them right from the start — by sending the 1991 version of the data to the US Department of Energy which published the station data online; by placing the 1996 version online at CRU as part of the ADVANCE / 10K program; and by sending station data out on request (not just to Georgia Tech, but to others, including Mann and Rutherford in 2005 and even to me in 2002 before I was identified as a potential critic).

Maintain position regarding Reg 12 (5)(f) re confidentiality agreements and point him to published versions on website 2.

On July 24, Palmer sent out the refusal (untruthfully) claiming that language in their confidentiality agreements prevented the sending of data to «non-academics»: