Thursday
Aug182011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill The requester
Aug 18, 2011 Climate: other FOI H/T to Messenger for pointing me to the actual FOI request for Paul Dennis's emails. The name of the requester is unfamiliar to me.
Reader Comments (10)
Try googling Chris Tuppen!
I can't find a reference to M Tuppen but the partners in Advancing Sustainability are C Tuppen and D Tuppen.
Numerous references to the company's work much of it in the field of climate change. The firm is based in Colchester.
He is also a partner in Fronesys, a newly formed partnership which is also heavily into "sustainability". Another of the Fronesys partners is Paul Druckman.
Don't know whether any of this is relevant or not. Others might.
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/sasi/media/St%20Andrews%20lecture%20by%20Chris%20Tuppen.pdf
Interesting that a google for 'tuppen foi' turns up another whatdotheyknow entry referencing a Mike Tuppen as an IT Support Manager with the Metropolitan Police.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/request_for_crime_statistics_for
James Delingpole is covering this story and that of David Leigh at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100101517/murdoch-hackgate-climategate-the-guardian-and-the-vile-hypocrisy-of-the-left/
"Dear Mr/Ms Tuppen"
I wonder why Mr/Ms? Could it be a epicene Christian name?
bish,
saw your comment re BBCs Paul Hudson/Muir Russell inquiry on CA a couple of days ago. however, i would like to know is it possible to make an FOI request to BBC for all documents/emails received by Hudson on 12th October 2009 and the means by which they were received? if the answer is yes, would BBC have to comply?
no HARD EVIDENCE as to what Hudson received or from whom has been presented by BBC to date and, inexplicably, none of the Inquiries requested such evidence be presented. incredibly frustrating, as this was the only HARD EVIDENCE of UEA material DIRECTLY RELATED to the Climategate emails, being released (HOW MUCH, BY WHOM?) prior to the November Climategate timeline.
as we know from Hull Daily News and Daily Mail, Hudson was silenced:
27 November: Hull Daily Mail: BBC weatherman in global warming row
When contacted by the Mail, the weatherman said he was not allowed to comment and asked us to speak to the BBC press office.
A BBC spokesperson said: "Paul wrote a blog for the BBC website on October 9 entitled Whatever Happened To Global Warming. There was a big reaction to the article – not just here but around the world. Among those who responded were Professor Michael E Mann and Stephen Schneider whose e-mails were among a small handful forwarded to Paul on October 12.
"Although of interest, Paul wanted to consider the e-mails as part of a wider piece, following up his original blog piece.
"Last week, Paul spotted these few e-mails were among thousands published on the Internet following the alleged hacking of the UEA computer system.
http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/BBC-weatherman-global-warming-row/article-1553969-detail/article.html
none of the Climategate emails copied Paul Hudson, nor were any addressed to Paul Hudson, no-one has explained who "forwarded" them. there is no proof there were only a "few". BBC has never published them.
26 Nov 2009: Daily Mail: Carol Driver: Climate change scandal deepens as BBC expert claims he was sent leaked emails six weeks ago
However, Hudson does not explain why he sat on the controversial information for so long, but added: 'I do intend to write a blog regarding the CRU being hacked into, and the possible implications of this very serious affair.'..
Paul Hudson was unavailable for comment.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230943/Climate-change-scandal-BBC-expert-sent-cover-emails-month-public.html
Hudson never wrote that blog along the lines described.
Pat
BBC is subject to FOI, but they have an exemption for "journalistic purposes". The scope of this exemption is being challenged in the Supreme Court, but no result is expected until next year. Suggest you wait.
thanks bish.
It does not follow that because we do not subsidize smoking, we should not regulate unhealthy activities. Costs and savings are not the only variable. The fact that obesity creates costs is merely an additional reason to regulate it, not the only one. The main reason is its danger to an individual. You are dismissive of subsidizing smoking precisely because of this moral intuition. fjsqxx fjsqxx - Belstaff Jackets Outlet.