New Dogs; Old Tricks:

Not exactly Hansen's bulldog (Photo from Cupofdog.com)

Over at Climate Audit Steve McIntyre has started a  new series on the “the trick.”  To this day the trick is still largely misunderstood by nearly everyone discussing it, except Steve and a few of his readers.  The trick deniers, are back at it using some old stupid pet tricks –moving the pea under the thimble. They clearly do not have a command of the mathematical operations underlying the trick or a command of all the versions of the trick. As Steve writes:

“All too often writers like Morgan Goodwin at desmog here or Brian Angliss at S& R here think that tricks are a “good way to solve a problem” (as per Gavin Schmidt at realclimate.)

In a recent post, Angliss moves the pea under the thimble, using an IPCC diagram to supposedly rebut a criticism of Jones’ trick email (about the WMO 1999 diagram), and then, after this sleight-of-hand, accuses me of making claims “not supported by the published record” – relying on this trick to supposedly justify his claim. Desmogblog, without doing any due diligence of their own to determine whether Angliss’ claims are valid, spreads this disinformation.” Read the rest of Steve here.

Recently, Angliss contacted me to ask me questions about the climategate mails and whether or not I thought they were being taken in context. I’ll excerpt a bit of our discussion to illustrate his ability to question his own bias:

Angliss:….. In his testimony before the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Phil Jones estimated that he had sent about 1.5 million emails over the period covered in the published CRU emails.  That compares to approximately 200 emails that were from Jones in the published emails (via a quick search at eastangliaemails.com).  Do you think that not having access to those other emails limits what we can say about the context of the published emails, and why or why not?

Mosher: “From 1996 to 2009 is say 13 years. 1,500,000, mails is what 115K mails per year. 365 days a year so   316 mails a day or about 13 mails per hour 24 hours a day. Wilt Chamberlain claims to have had sex with 20,000 women. I regard both claims with the some skepticism. Who knows perhaps Jones does have a mighty pen.”

Angliss: “Even if we assume that Jones’ email estimate is an exaggeration, even 1100 emails represents a very small percentage of the total email output of CRU over the past 20 years.  Does it bother you that to date we don’t know who edited the emails, why they did it, and what criteria they used to choose between what emails they published and what emails they deleted?”

People should watch this tactic closely. Jones makes a claim. Angliss, unthinkingly, not pausing two seconds to do a back of the envelope check, proceeds on the assumption that Jones is telling the truth. That’s his bias. When his source is challenged, rather than rethink his assessment of Jones, he reaffirms his bias and the storyline that some person selected and edited the mails. There is strong evidence, as I argued in our book, that indicates there was little human intervention in the selection of the texts. That the selection was done algorithmically. But that doesn’t fit the story line of an evil hacker who cherry picked the worst mails. Angliss cannot see how Jones exaggeration is relevant. He cannot see that Jones is a serial hyperbolist.  We may never know who picked the mails or how they were selected. But we can watch the things Angliss chooses to discuss and which things get ignored.

About these ads

About Steven Mosher

President at new Venture
This entry was posted in Climategate. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to New Dogs; Old Tricks:

  1. Vuk etc. says:

    Goebbels that spin doctor supreme, or was it Vladimir Ilich said to paraphrase:

    If you repeat a lie often enough, people eventually would believe it.

    Perhaps emails were auto- self- generated (every 5 minutes, according to my calculations) in order to reinforce the ‘truth’ about AGW.

  2. Mooloo says:

    Even if we assume that Jones’ email estimate is an exaggeration, even 1100 emails represents a very small percentage of the total email output of CRU over the past 20 years.

    So?

    I don’t like to use criminal analogies, because I doubt any crime has been committed, but it’s like a lawyer arguing that his client hardly ever mugged people!

  3. JB Williamson says:

    Interesting article by Christopher Booker today…

    Margaret Thatcher was the first leader to warn of global warming – but also the first to see the flaws in the climate change orthodoxy

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7823477/Was-Margaret-Thatcher-the-first-climate-sceptic.html

  4. Mike Davis says:

    I would think the e-mails were picked by a random search using key words through a search engine just like the files that were released were probably also a random selection. Using 10 key words for individual searches then sorting by date would probably give similar results. We did that at work to find specific options and when they were applied.

  5. Julian in Wales says:

    Put up a straw man, knock it down, it is just another trick.

  6. Gareth says:

    “But that doesn’t fit the story line of an evil hacker who cherry picked the worst mails.”

    If Jones wants to corroborate his assertion that the climategate emails are indeed the worst he could simply release the lot. ‘They have been taken out of context’ can only be proven by providing the context they were removed from.

  7. Joe Lalonde says:

    He may have had that many emails, but how much was spam and how many did he respond back too? Assistants are good for sorting through mail as well.

  8. DirkH says:

    “JB Williamson says:
    June 13, 2010 at 4:29 am
    Interesting article by Christopher Booker today…

    Margaret Thatcher was the first leader to warn of global warming – but also the first to see the flaws in the climate change orthodoxy

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7823477/Was-Margaret-Thatcher-the-first-climate-sceptic.html


    »In die Ecke,
    Besen! Besen!
    Seid’s gewesen.
    Denn als Geister
    Ruft euch nur, zu seinem Zwecke,
    Erst hervor der alte Meister.«

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Zauberlehrling

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sorcerer%27s_Apprentice

  9. kim says:

    Hide the hiding.
    ==========

  10. pesadilla says:

    In the post modern scientific era, it is evidently reasonable (and seemingly,easy)to provide a robust defence of the indefensible.
    Three enquiries so far have proved it.
    I do not want to believe that there is a major conspiracy which goes way beyond the hockey team but the possibility and evidence seems to be increasingly pointing in that direction.
    Where are the voices of moderate scientists who are well placed to understand what is happening out there. Why are they staying so tight lipped. Where is their propriety.

  11. MikeEE says:

    I don’t think its fair to describe what happened as saying the emails were ‘edited’. A better choice is ‘filtered’ or ‘selected’.

    Using the term ‘edited’ will lead casual readers to believe that content of individual emails was changed in some way, and I never heard that was the case.

    MikeEE

  12. TJA says:

    Let’s say I hadn’t been a ClimateAudit reader for years, and so was utterly unsurprised by anything in the emails, and suspected that most of it was there and my only shock was to see it all confirmed at the hands of a leaker.

    I would give them their argument on “trick”, or I might conceivably give them their argument on “Hide the decline”, but both? Naah.

    It is like that line, I think from the movie “Road Trip” that talks about “shortcuts.” If it is really shorter, it wouldn’t be called a “shortcut”, it would be called “the way.”

  13. tarpon says:

    Just can’t give up on all that money without trying every trick in the book.

    Why don’t they spend sometime looking for Al Gore’s CO2 blanket.

  14. Wade says:

    I see something different.

    When buying a car from a dubious car salesmen, he starts the price very high. The car dealership knows that only a few people are going to accept that amount. The goal is, not to sell you a car at the high amount, but to make you won when in fact they have won. For example, let us suppose I wanted to buy a car dealership purchased at $10,000. If I wanted to buy that car, the dubious seller may given me an opening bid of $14,000. I, having played the game before, counter with a bid of $12,000. A fair price to pay for that car is $10,500 to $11,000. But because the initial amount was way too high, I think I am getting a good deal by asking $2000 less. I am not; the dealership has won.

    In the emails above, the 1.5 million was an obviously bogus amount. Only the gullible would believe it. And sadly, there are many gullible ones out there. So Phil Jones and Angliss started high, and if you here the sense to do call them to task for that amount, they lower it greatly. Just like that dubious car salesmen. Now you think you have won, when in fact they have won.

    That is what I see. Angliss would make a very good car salesman.

  15. P.F. says:

    Nicely done, Steven.
    This underscores the necessity for good skeptics to understand propaganda techniques and their variations to be able to recognize when the alarmists are resorting to such things — especially logical fallacies.

  16. HankHenry says:

    I think we have an idea of what the larger context of the “hide the decline” statement would be because there have been answers given and responses made. Using the words and phrases of their camp, “hide the decline” only becomes, “hide the divergence problem.” So we know that there is indeed a problem, the divergence problem, and that since artifice is employed to distract us from the problems with their data, these people behaving more as advocates or adversaries than judges. If we seek the truth in the matter of climate science we will have to continue seeking and judge for ourselves. This is the clear message I get, so I continue on my skeptical quest.

  17. John Blake says:

    In 1993 Islam’s supreme doctrinal authority Sheikh Abdel-aziz ibn Ba’az, Grand Mufti of Mecca and Medina, issued a binding edict (fatwa) declaring that the world is flat. (If it is not, the Prophet’s Star-and-Crescent is not as advertised.) “Anyone of the round persuasion” is an infidel at war with Allah, subject to termination with extreme prejudice (Carl Sagan, “The Demon Haunted World”, p. 325; Ballantine, 1996).

    Grand Mufti, indeed! Blinkered climate hysterics deserve no more credibility than Sheikh ibn Ba’az. (Note, by the way, that Sagan’s exhaustive index makes no reference whatever to this passage. Mecca and Medina’s Religion of Peace has a way of resolving such disputes with bloodthirsty violence.) To True Believers of any stripe, Reality is quite beside the point.

  18. martyn says:

    I don’t recall Jones actually put a figure on the number of emails he wrote at anytime during his testimony before the House of Commons Committee so where 1.5 million came from I have no idea. I suppose reading the minutes of evidence would help.

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387b/38701.htm

  19. Steve in SC says:

    Another day and time Jones et al would have had a fair trial and a nice hanging.

  20. martyn says:

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387b/38701.htm

    Q158 Dr Harris: The Institute of Physics say—and this is quite strong—”The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima face evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law.” That is partly, I suppose, coming back to transparency, but what is your view on that? Do you think the emails reveal anything that you may be vulnerable on or are you confident that the emails, if looked at as a whole, will clear you as it were in the review? I am not asking you to forecast the result of the review, I just want to ask your state of mind in respect of this.

    Professor Jones: You have to realise that you have only seen a tenth of 1% of my emails in this respect.

    Q159 Graham Stringer: We do not want to read the rest.

    Professor Jones: But I do not think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I or CRU have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way. I have just been giving my views on specific papers.

    “a tenth of 1% of my emails in this respect”. = 1.5 million apparently metaphorically

  21. Gail Combs says:

    Steve in SC says:
    June 13, 2010 at 7:50 am

    Another day and time Jones et al would have had a fair trial and a nice hanging.
    _____________________________________________________

    If we get a nasty Russian or Icelandic volcano causing major cooling as in a “year without summer”, it may be a mob and guillotine al la French Revolution.

  22. Gail Combs says:

    martyn says:
    June 13, 2010 at 8:19 am

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387b/38701.htm

    Q158 Dr Harris: The Institute of Physics say—and this is quite strong—”The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima face evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law.” That is partly, I suppose, coming back to transparency, but what is your view on that? Do you think the emails reveal anything that you may be vulnerable on or are you confident that the emails, if looked at as a whole, will clear you as it were in the review? I am not asking you to forecast the result of the review, I just want to ask your state of mind in respect of this.

    Professor Jones: You have to realise that you have only seen a tenth of 1% of my emails in this respect.

    Q159 Graham Stringer: We do not want to read the rest.

    Professor Jones: But I do not think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I or CRU have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way. I have just been giving my views on specific papers.

    “a tenth of 1% of my emails in this respect”. = 1.5 million apparently metaphorically
    _____________________________________________________________________

    Sounds like two counts of perjury by MR. Jones right there.

  23. PaulH says:

    This is a not-uncommon tactic by various political pundits of a certain leaning. They will throw out an exaggerated or made-up claim/percentage/number that supports their position, then quickly move on to a slightly different point before the exaggeration can be challenged.

  24. Brian Ag says:

    Steve, you made this same basic claim at S&R in the comments. So allow me to make the same point here that I made there.

    First, I didn’t repeat Jones’ claims in either the original post (linked above) or in the original “there’s not enough context to draw broad conclusions” post. I didn’t repeat them precisely because they weren’t credible, and you weren’t the only person to say so. Tom Wigley pointed out to me in his communications that suspected Jones was referring to the sum of his sent and received emails, not just to his sent emails. Given your quick analysis and Wigley’s concurrence that it was a likely exaggeration, I didn’t spend any more time on that particular detail and intentionally didn’t mention it when I pointed out the email output of multiple different professions including a climate researcher

    S&R surveyed its own members as well as Tom Wigley to estimate how many emails were sent per year by different occupations. We found that

    approximately 1,500 emails per year sent by the electrical engineer
    approximately 1,100 emails were sent by the home manager
    between 2,500 and 3,500 emails sent by the marketing professional
    about 1,500 emails were sent by the university English professor
    and about 5,500 emails sent by climate scientist Wigley (with another 33,000 received emails).

    If we estimate that the S&R writers surveyed each receive three emails for every email sent, then we get a yearly total of 6,000 emails, 4,400 emails, 10,000 emails, and 6,000 emails respectively for the S&R writers plu a total of about 39,000 emails per year for Wigley. Over the course of 13 years and for a 15-member workgroup (the period of the CRU emails and the size of the CRU), the total for both the electrical engineer and the English professor is 1.17 million emails, 858k emails for the home manager, a minimum of 1.95 million emails for the marketing professional, and 7.51 million emails for Wigley’s.

    Furthemore, I didn’t “change the subject” or ignore it, however, as you claim. My followup question is in the exact same line of inquiry as the original question.

    There are plenty of possible reasons to be skeptical of Jones’ opinions and statements, but rhetorical exaggeration is not one of them.

  25. Apologies – should have been “Brian Angliss.”

  26. Wind Rider says:

    Angliss also seems to wildly miss the point that if Dr. Jones is to believed about the volume of his e-mails, that it is little wonder his ‘work product’ is so shoddy. Apparently, by his own testimony, the doctor did little else besides sit at his desk playing with his e-mail application.

  27. Tom in Florida says:

    Perhaps Dr Jones used the same “adjustments” to his email count as he did to his temperature records.

  28. Mike D. says:

    Can’t we please change the topic?

    Who or what is a Brian Angliss? Is he a scholar or a rogue? He can’t do math, so that rules out scholar. Honest to Pete, who cares what some math-challenged moron thinks about anything, much less issues of science?

    It’s over, Brian. Climategate really happened, your boyos lied, they’ve been lying and cheating for years, global warming is a hoax, and warmer is better anyway. Hoax off. Find something useful to do, like learning how to add and subtract.

    PS – Steve, you are under no obligation to respond to idiot questions from a hoax-n-gouger. The issue is not Jonesy’s emails, it’s the years of nefarious manipulation of the data and of climate science itself to derive patently false conclusions and to enflame commie-fascist-induced hysteria. The Goebbels ref above fits like a glove, and if the glove fits, we must convict. You don’t need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows.

  29. Mike McMillan says:

    John Blake says:June 13, 2010 at 7:36 am
    In 1993 Islam’s supreme doctrinal authority Sheikh Abdel-aziz ibn Ba’az, Grand Mufti of Mecca and Medina, issued a binding edict (fatwa) declaring that the world is flat
    . . . (Carl Sagan, “The Demon Haunted World”, p. 325; Ballantine, 1996).
    Blinkered climate hysterics deserve no more credibility than Sheikh ibn Ba’az. (Note, by the way, that Sagan’s exhaustive index makes no reference whatever to this passage. Mecca and Medina’s Religion of Peace has a way of resolving such disputes with bloodthirsty violence.) To True Believers of any stripe, Reality is quite beside the point.

    Despite his popular TV persona, Sagan shared the Sheikh’s attitude toward Christianity. This was quite evident in his movie “Contact,” which absurdly caricatured Christians as Luddites, and in his Cosmos TV series, specifically the episode on the Library at Alexandria. I’m uncertain whether his prejudice extended toward Judaism, Islam, or religion in general, though it well might.

    Religion of any sort is not Popper falsifiable and thus not scientific. It is ironic that Sagan, and more recent scientists, allow personal prejudices to taint their scientific credibility by continuing to rant against it.

  30. Schiller Thurkettle says:

    Who collected the emails, and how, is of paramount importance. That’s because some are claiming the emails were collected as part of an effort to respond to a Freedom of Information request.

    If you assume the emails were collected as part of an FOI request, that allows you to pretend that the UEA has complied with FOI, though in a roundabout way. Quite clever, that, and it’s worked.

    To this day, people continue to overlook the fact that the UEA has still not responded to FOI requests. Over in the USA, NASA et al. continue stonewalling FOI requests.

  31. Dennis Wingo says:

    I wonder of anyone has seen this post where the entire concept of the IPCC consensus is exploded by none other than CRU!

    http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1092-the-ipcc-consensus-was-phoney-says-mike-hulme.html

  32. David Ball says:

    Just wanted to give a big shout out to DePropaganda blog and Brian for keeping my father’s name in the limelight. Smarter people recognize the need for them to smear my father in any way possible. The not-so-smart ones are trying even harder now to debase him. Squirming like a hooked fish. The zombie dance of those who are wrong and in their heart of hearts know they are wrong. They have to get outside more.

  33. David Ball says:

    Look ‘em square in the eye, Steve M. Do not give them any quarter. You are dealing with professionals ( PR guys, spin doctors, propagandists). Sneaky and underhanded. Cowards always try for the sucker punch, but are too spineless to confront you on even footing.

  34. David Ball says:

    Mike McMillan says:
    June 13, 2010 at 10:55 am : Response: Mike, I am a non-believer, yet I found the movie Contact raises the question of deity in a positive light and actually gave me pause to think further on the subject. Perhaps from your point of view, the presentation of religion did not go far enough. Had this been done, I think I would have found the subject off-putting. I react the same way when I am told that AGW “causes” every problem mankind has to deal with. We can discuss religion, but do not try to force feed it to me ( not saying that you in paticular are trying to do this). Give me the information and I will decide for myself. Cheers.

  35. Sun Spot says:

    Mike McMillan says:
    June 13, 2010 at 10:55 am,

    Mike I agree! I am unclear why some scientists get so righteous and need to rail against religion, it’s like going on a vendetta against one of the arts. Lets pick Picasso and rant about how his art was not valid etc. etc., how petty can these scientists on an anti-religious crusade get ? When asked, Richard Feynman managed to state his perspective on religion clearly without a need to denigrate some one elses art/religion.

  36. Rhoda R says:

    Dennis Wingo, that is an interesting article. Why is this only coming out now? Why is Hulme only now coming out with that little choice piece of information (not that it’s any real surprise to any one here, but it’s surprising to find it in reputable “peer reviewed” type of journal).

  37. Mindbuilder says:

    1.5 million emails seems easy if you were sending a lot of carbon copies to a long list of recipients.

    Defenses of the hockey stick that I’ve seen ignore the criticism that using data from trees known to give falsely low temperatures to prove temperatures were low, is bad science, regardless if the correct result is obtained. And hiding it by covering it with thermometer temps is even worse.

  38. Steven Mosher says:

    Brian Angliss,

    You continue to miss the point. You wrote: “There are plenty of possible reasons to be skeptical of Jones’ opinions and statements, but rhetorical exaggeration is not one of them.”

    Jones is a serial hyperbolist. The next example I’ll ask you to research is his claim that the law required him to spend 18 hours on every FOIA request.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017905.ece

    In an article claiming death threats Jones is quoted :

    “Jones insists that is not the way it was, but concedes it was the way it may have looked. He now accepts that he did not treat the FoI requests as seriously as he should have done. “I regret that I did not deal with them in the right way,” he told The Sunday Times. “In a way, I misjudged the situation.”

    But he pleads provocation. Last year in July alone the unit received 60 FoI requests from across the world. With a staff of only 13 to cope with them, the demands were accumulating faster than they could be dealt with. “According to the rules,” says Jones, “you have to do 18 hours’ work on each one before you’re allowed to turn it down.” It meant that the scientists would have had a lot of their time diverted from research.”

    So Brian, facts for you to investigate.

    1. The FOIA that Jones did not handled properly according to the ICO was david hollands FOI. What is the date of that FOI? surely you know. ( oh hell I’ll tell you below, your so lazy you’d never look)

    2. The 60 or so FOIA that “provoked” Jones to mishandle the holland FOI were sent
    in 2009.

    3. can a provocation occur AFTER the incident. That is, which came first
    A. the mishandling of the Holland FOI
    B. the 60 FOI?
    Surely you can do math. Does jones have a provocation wayback machine?

    4. Is it true that the rules require Jones to spend at least 18 hours on FOI BEFORE
    rejecting it? or did Jones hyperbolize when he said that the rules REQUIRE him to spend 18 hours on a request BEFORE rejecting it?

    start here

    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_2#pt1-pb1-l1g13

    Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limi

    What about 60 requests from a group of people? see section 4. Is that 18 hours per request as some have allegded or do the rules allow them to COMBINE the requests into one request.

    Since I think you are a lazy journalist and lazy thinker who couldnt fact check whether the sun came up today, I will point you to the rule in question.

    http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/detailed_specialist_guides/fees_regulations_guidance_v2.pdf

    …”Where a reasonable estimate has been made that the appropriate limit would
    be exceeded, there is no requirement for a public authority to undertake work
    up to the limit. ”

    Now, When Phil Jones argues that his Mishandling of the FOIA ( the ICO had a prima facia case that CRU had violated Hollands right ) was provoked by the incident of 60 FOIA… I ask you.

    1. The holland FOIA occurred in 2008.
    2. The 60 FOIA occurred in 2009.

    How does an event in 2009 provoke an action in 2008. ? teleconnections?

    Then. The law states that CRU may deny a request if they ESTIMATE it will take more than 18 hours. I know. I got a denial letter like that in 2009. Further, Jones complied with those 60 FOIA requests by treating them as one request. which the law permits. His response was a 1000 word essay. So, did Jones lie when he said that the law required him to perform 18 hours of work on these 60 requests before denying them?

    Hint, Palmer does the denial letters. Hint Palmer starts his process by asking for an estimate or in the case of Holland, Palmer started the process by saying he was going to deny the request and use cost of compliance as an excuse.

    Jones of course knew this. Jones knew that he did not have to do one bit of work if he estimated it would take more than 18 hours. Palmer writing to Jones

    “On Tue, May 27, 2008 6:30 pm, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote:
    > Gents,
    > Please note the response received today from Mr. Holland. Could you
    > provide input as to his additional questions 1, and 2, and check with
    > Mr. Ammann in question 3 as to whether he believes his correspondence
    > with us to be confidential?
    >
    > Although I fear/anticipate the response, I believe that I should inform
    > the requester that his request will be over the appropriate limit and
    > ask him to limit it – the ICO Guidance states:
    >
    > 12. If an authority estimates that complying with a request will exceed
    > the cost limit, can advice and assistance be offered with a view to the
    > applicant refocusing the request?”

    in fact in the Holland case, Palmer made a determination or estimate without doing any work it appears. Probably a case there that his estimate was not “reasonable” under the guidelines. But thats a seperate matter.

    5. Was the data requested ( confidentiality agreements) already public as the article claims.

    Further, you said some untrue things with regard to McIntyre and me. Did you read all the posts and the book before your made your comments? If it concerns you that ALL the mails were not read when only some of them are available, then how can you write about McIntyre without first reading everything that is publically available. I find odd that you would be concerned about mails we could not read, while you yourself ignore a whole corpus that you could read. That’s your bias.

  39. R. Craigen says:

    Phil Jones: confessed spammer extraordinaire?

  40. R. Craigen says:

    I’m convinced the emails and code in the “leaked” folder were compiled by the guilty parties in the climategate scandal: namely principals at CRU and their colleagues, responding to a directive, perhaps from Mr. Jones himself, to put together a collection of stuff to be deleted for protection from an FOIA request. Thus the name attached to the folder of materials.

    The algorithm is simply this: each person involved provided copies of emails, etc that they thought were somehow incriminating or could be “misconstrued” as such. They were to delete these from their personal archives. The folder was also for their mutual reference so that each could check what others had flagged as incriminating so they could delete copies on their own hard drives. Presumably the folder was kept on a server they could all access, with some password protocol (or they trusted that it would be impossible for anyone else to guess where to look, and didn’t bother with further security measures).

    Perhaps another reason for the compilation was so that the information in them not be lost in case it was needed later. At some point everyone was to have deleted their copies of files, and the folder itself would be archived, perhaps on a DVD in someone’s lock box. I realise this sounds like a conspiracy theory, but consider this: in their “defense” of these emails and code, has the CRU gang ever produced an “original” of one of these emails and said, “no, look, see this paragraph that was maliciously deleted?” Perhaps they don’t exist anymore. They don’t deny the genuineness of the emails, but they also don’t contest them with specifics or provide “proper context” — they simply wildly charge that they can’t be understood without that context. Myself, I can’t see the forest for the red flags, and regard this as another example of the pea being moved around under the thimbles. If there is an ameliorating context in the email record, then PRODUCE it, for heavens’ sake. Else I think they doth protest too much.

  41. Steve Mosher – and I disputed the FOI part of any of this where exactly? I’ve addressed specific points you made in your interview with me that don’t hold water for one reason or another. My not mentioning them means that I either didn’t have a problem with them (as in the case of FOI, especially since the House of Commons report found that FOI was the single biggest issue discovered in the emails), I agreed with your interpretation, I couldn’t find sufficient support one way or another, or I made an editorial decision not to post my conclusions at this time.

    I have already investigated the 18 hour claim and found that any office receiving notifications may reject them if taking more than 18 hours is required. Yes, they may be consolidated, but they may also be rejected as “vexatious.” It’s reasonable to think that, given the CRU’s experience, the 60 requests in July made at the behest of Steve McIntyre and that were obviously in alphabetical order and from the same source could have been rejected as “vexatious” at the time. I’m not saying it was right, but that it would certainly make sense.

    What concerns me is not that all several million suspected emails were read, but that you didn’t confirm any of your conclusions with the emails’ authors before publication. Furthermore, what concerns me is that you’ve rejected the conclusions of the three completed inquiries to date, even though they did exactly what you told me they needed to do – sit down with Jones et al and ask a few simple questions – and their conclusions appear to be 180 degrees out of phase from your own.

  42. Let’s suppose Jones wrote 750,000 emails in those 13 years. It adds up to 57,692 email/year or 158 emails a day. As a bureaucrat, he worked 8 hours -9:00 am -5:00 pm- so he wrote 19 email every hour. The time employed to open the mail program, write an email of ten lines, connect to the internet and send it, waiting to see the email go out, is about three minutes.

    158 emails a day by 3 minutes = 474 minutes, that equals 7.9 hours.

    He must have taken two coffee breaks a day (did he ever had lunch?) of 5 minutes each. So he never actually worked on his duty. He spent his entire working time sending emails. The people should claim he must return his salary with 8.3% compound interest.

    If he claims 1,500,000 emails, then he had two or three secretaries doing it for him, 8 hours a day. More salaries to be returned by Jones.

  43. Spector says:

    For some reason, the picture in this article reminds me of one of the Russian tactics that the Germans found most despicable during the desperate days of World War II — the use of sacrificial anti-tank bomb carrying dogs.

  44. Jay Currie says:

    Of course, and easy way to settle the question would be to have Prof. Jones’ entire email archive posted to the net. If there is nothing to hide….

  45. First off, I’ve done some research on that comment so often attributed to Goebbels and there is not enough evidece to really give it to him. I reasearched for a school paper which I’m turning into a book. Some of us education and science like to get our facts straight before quoting.

    Secondly, I thank Mr. Mosher for his book with his co writer. I have been reading it for 2 weeks and poring over it meticulously with what I’ve seen of the live email evidence at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/. One of the original places the information was deposited at when it all broke.

    I would only disagree with Mr. Mosher slightly in that I think far too many of us are aware of the tricks going on and that is why the readers of this site and CA are always so easily riled. We are tired of the garbage being pulled by the other side and the constant ad hominym attacks thrown our way when they can’t refute with reason they throw incendiary ad hominym bombs.

    PS.. I am still looking forward to hearing back further from you on facebook, for permission to use snippets from your book.

  46. Prof. Jones has been in science and education for years. From descriptions of him and his health probably longer than most in here have been alive.

    Let’s give him his due, at one point he was a man of education. Which means that he put education, truth, dignity, honor, and passing on the truth to his students to be diseminated to others in the future.

    Some where he and Michael Mann and Briffa and others went wrong.

    I think we need to look to our own hearts and ask ourselves if the majority of us would have turned down the grants, the fame, and the continued money pouring in from the British government and the US Government. Remember that 1.8 trillion that the US has spent in less than 10 years on this subject?

    I’m sorry that men of academia have been bribed by dirty politicians and they succumbed to the big grants and cushy offices.

    What makes me angry is that they point at men like Mr. Watts, Christopher Monkton, and Mr. Bob Carter and sling accusations of taking bribes from Exxon and other big corporate think tanks. As if that makes the skeptic side any less valid. And lets remember the 1+ trillion dollar beam sticking out of their eyes as they point fingers.

    This has gone way past he says, she said and your wrong and we;re not. When you figure the 1+ trillion spent by the US and all the money to be lost from Cap and Trade.

    We need to stand united behind people like Mr. Watts, Carter, Monkton et al. not because I want to kiss up, not because I want something from them, but because the very future of our nations and our ability to carry out a career and eek out a living depend on it. Make no mistake about this. This is a battle versus evil for our very lives.

  47. geronimo says:

    Brian Angliss: Jones was exaggerating and he knew it, if any of the House of Commons Science and Technology committee had been there other than to whitewash Jones they would have simply asked what the total FOI requests were on an annual basis. From when the FOIA came into being in January 2005 until December 2010 the CRU received 103 FOI requests:

    6 in 2007
    2 in 2008
    58 in 2009 related to the David Holland 2008 request
    28 after the Climategate leak
    And 11 others throughout the year 2010.

    As far as I’m aware they did not comply with any of them. They now know that all they have to do is stonewall for six months and they are beyond prosecution so I doubt we’ll see more openness there.

    In case you’re not aware the information on the hidden decline is over on Climate Audit, but a synopsis for your benefit is that Mann didn’t put instrumental data into the graph, he used the instrumental data to smooth the graph and cut it off at 1960.

    Jones on the other hand simply added the instrumental data, and didn’t tell anyone, which in any other science would be considered to be outrageous malfeasance, but in the “all’s fair in love and war” CAGW camp it’s just “taking things out of context”.

    Still time will pass, fashionable assumptions about the climate will change, decent scientists will re-assert their control and these people will get what’s coming to them. They will join the Hall of Science Infamy.

  48. geronimo says:

    Should have been “9 others”.

  49. I still get a giggle reading the CRU letters and all the threatening that was going on and then the NOA scientists come out and say that it’s aweful that poeple made threats against alarmist scientist.

    The depraved hypocracy that prevails amongst the CRU et al. is sickening

Comments are closed.