I forwarded the email before I was against it

The revelation a couple of days ago that Dr. Eugene Wahl deleted emails with an IPCC author after receiving some form of communication with Dr. Michael Mann has caused quite a bit of excitement.

The more recent revelation is that Dr. Mann claims that:

This has been known for a year and a half that all I did was forward Phil’s e-mail to Eugene.

But….apparently he did not intend Dr. Wahl to act on it as if it was an instruction:

I felt Eugene Wahl had to be aware of this e-mail … it could be used against him. I didn’t delete any e-mails and nor did I tell Wahl to delete any e-mails.

I’m struggling with this. At the time, Mann wrote to Jones “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP.” How could a private mail from Jones to Mann be used against Wahl? Jones asks Mann to ask Wahl? and this could be used…. against Wahl? huh? Wahl hasn’t done anything wrong. Yet.  The claims being made are ridiculous and clearly conflict with Wahl’s testimony.

I think I finally get it.  These scientists just have too good a sense of humor and we’ve been missing the joke, just like the public misunderstood the sophisticated humor of the Nixon Administration as demonstrated by this video clip.

About these ads

96 thoughts on “I forwarded the email before I was against it

  1. Give the Mann a break. He is trying to save face and gets exoneration on Climate Progress where he is not under oath.

  2. This bothers me. Mann is a chatty kathy in shoveling large quantities of messages, claims, posts and stories to Climate Progress. He was verbose on Real Climate Nov over a year ago. But why interference with the law for FOIA, turning over stuff in Virginia and cooperation with investigation? I understand criminal law. He is extremely uncooperative with investigation for detective work that so far is no where near criminal. Does his behavior hint toward some criminal intent?

  3. “I’m struggling with this.”

    And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.

    • Noelle,

      I’m gonna quote Ross from the linked CA thread. He sums it up nicely.

      Suppose Penn State investigated the question: Did you delete any emails that you knew or believed to be subject to US FOIA rules? then I think Mann would be free and clear. He passed along an email from Jones to Wahl pertaining to emails that he could reasonably claim he not believe were subject to US FOIA requests and which were not agency records of the US government, etc.

      The issue here is that Penn State asked a different question, and made a different claim. They asked whether Mann had engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4. Not–nota molto bene–emails etc. under a US FOIA request, or emails belonging to NOAA, etc., but emails related to AR4. Jones’ request to Mann was “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4… Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?”

      Having asked the question they asked, and light of the fact that Mann did pass on the request, even without Wahl’s admission Penn State was obliged to report the obvious answer that yes, Mann did engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4. And had they checked with Wahl they would have confirmed that it was not mere intent, but that it had the actual effect.

      They might have gone on to say that no laws were broken, or to make a case about why it was entirely appropriate for Mann to facilitate the destruction of this portion of the IPCC review/writing record–after all whose f**king business is it if IPCC Lead Authors toss the rules and engage in unrecorded, backroom re-writing of key sections of disputed text with the help of partisan authors whose involvement as contributors or reviewers is not revealed in the report.

      But that’s not what Penn State did. They went on to state that “After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4″.

      I believe we now know what the term “denialism” means.

  4. It’s the “HMS TeamTanic” and they fully plan to go down with the ship till it settles on the bottom of the frozen Pacific.

    It is their best chance of avoiding prosecution and probably a presidential pardon for towing the line all the way to the end.

    As Bill Clinton advised “Deny deny deny”.

  5. I love the early SNL cast – but that is no Nixon. Akroyd sounds like Jimmie Stewart!

    OIC! Like Mann does not sound like himself, but Larry the Liar! ;)

  6. Mann seems to have an estranged relationship with logic. Fortunately for him, he chose to be a climate scientist.

  7. “Even though I made no mention in my forward that such actions could mean trouble, I did a blind forward without any dialog and that was meant to inform the recipient of trouble.”

    Did you ever see someone who should have just shut up because every time they tried to justify their actions they just dug the hole bigger and bigger? If you haven’t, you have now.

  8. Thanks CTM for locating the SNL clip. The original cast and writers were amazingly gifted. When Al Franken joined, not so much. Hmmm – whatever happened to him?

    It reminds me how similar Montford’s “Hockey Stick Illusion” was to “All the President’s Men”. Both great reads, filled with intrigue, drama, high stakes, and monumental egos.

  9. Perfect title for this article Charles!

    The ‘protect the recipient’ excuse here truly is laughable. I suppose it is intended to show what a ‘nice’ guy Mann is as well.

    I’m still waiting for the ‘national security’ angle, which seems to be able to cover up anything these days.

  10. david elder says:
    March 10, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    “The dog ate my original excuse. I didn’t do it. I couldn’t help it. The real issue here is the hole in the greenhouse.”

    LOL. Good one David. Of course, the “hole in the greenhouse.” Since Irritable Climate Syndrome causes EVERYTHING, it is obvious that the planetary fever must have caused Mann to send this email. Maybe he was delirious with malaria. Or he wasn’t thinking clearly because of the water rising in his office or the hideous howls of dying polar bears. The possibilities are endless.

  11. What have we learned:
    Mann is a liar, or,
    there is a small percent chance that Mann is telling the truth, and that is enough not to have him convicted in court for conspiracy to obstruct freedom of information etc.

    Well, the science community knows how to deal with statistics like theese, you are not inside the 95% intervall of probability Mr Mann, Occhams racor will make short of your story, you are a fraud, bye bye.

  12. I love this.

    On one end, you’ve got Jones – clearly, undeniably, condemned out of his own mouth – being a bad boy.

    On the other you have Gene Wahl – smartly telling what appears to be the truth – admitting that he received a request from Jones, forwarded with no annotation from Mann, and that he acted upon the request.

    And in the middle we have Mann and his Penn State inquisitors, telling tales that it seems to me any rational person would regard as half-truths.

    To me, forwarding without comment a message requesting someone delete a batch of email sounds just like the kind of ‘indirect’ participation in deleting email that the PSU inquisitors so fulsomely absolved Mann of.

    To me, it seems quite unlikely that an individual who regards himself as educated would forward an email without comment – without any sort of annotation such as “Phil’s going to cause himself legal problems, don’t jump in the water too” or “This is from Phil but I’m not doing what he asks” or even just “Be careful with this one” – when the claimed intent of the forwarder was to warn the recipient that the message could be damaging to him.

    Dr Mann – you’re in a hole. Stop digging.

  13. These guys will never admit wrong doing even on their death bed.
    To them scientific glory is more important than life itself.

  14. Noelle says:
    March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this.

    Then you must just trust everyone at face value like a child. I’ll bet if I told you that gravity was a result of an ether that the universe is made of, you wouldn’t ask me for any data or mathematical methods to explain myself. The scientific method requires openness for replication. This episode with forwarding and deleting e-mails to cover the tracks of report rules being flaunted demonstrates that these guys behaved completely contrary to that method in this regard… and you think no one should care about this?

    I’d hate to live in your fantasy world, it’s probably closer to a theocracy than you might realize.

  15. Noelle says:
    March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
    Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here?
    ========================================
    Only in the sense that if any of them believed in their science…
    …if any of them thought their science was as “robust” as they claim

    They would have put their science out there for everyone to see…
    … and No one would be having this conversation

  16. I think it’s time to address the “who cares anyway, what’s the big deal ” argument that I can see developing. I think someone needs to keep pointing out why these individuals were collaborating on this section of the IPCC report (something to do with addressing Mr McIntyre’s comments?) and what were the circumstances that made them want to cover thier tracks.

  17. Noelle -see below – brings up a good point here, I think we all here – apart from the occasional warmist ranter – care about the science.

    We care about the science, but we do not care for the ‘climate science’ of manipulated data, GIGO models and unsubstantiated scare stories. So when a high priest of the AGW cult is caught being dishonest and disingenuous, we want to know why and we want to know why he has not been expelled/struck off.

    I suspect very many more scientists, such as myself, read WUWT regularly, than Real Climate. This is a fact which must infuriate the manipulators of climate data, the destroyers of raw data, the ignorers of UHI, the AGW fantasy writers and the politicians’ poodles.

    Mann epitomises the concept of Bad Science and is guilty of practices which would only be tolerated in the bizarre world of ‘climate science’, where political whims and the economics of the grants trough prevail.

    Noelle says:
    March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    “I’m struggling with this.”

    And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.

  18. Perhaps if Mann had deleted his email

    before he read it,

    we wouldn’t be talking about this.

    Mann’s “tree ring” circus moves on.

  19. Noelle says:
    March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this.

    Because some of us want to be able to have confidence in the “facts” that are used to justify a massive alteration to our standard of living which would require that we stop eating meat, stop driving cars, stop heating our homes, stop breathing out…

  20. I see Anthony got an honorable [sarc] mention from Mann:

    “This is, in short, a despicable smear that, more than anything else, speaks to the depths of dishonesty of professional climate change deniers like Chris Horner, Marc Morano, Stephen McIntyre, and Anthony Watts.”

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/09/a-reply-to-michael-mann-and-eugene-wahl/#ixzz1GEf9zRXs

    I just wish that real scientists like Mann wouldn’t use such dry technical jargon when objectively discussing challenging evidence [sarc]. But, as would be expected from such a skilled manufacturer, quite the job of splicing these four different ‘Big Oil’ proxies [sarc] into a nice simplistic picture. His cheerleaders will no doubt add the Koch Brothers or one of the other usual AGW Goldsteins to this story in case their followers need further incitement. Day of Rage!!! at Huffington Post – if they dare to even mention this there.

  21. Noelle: “Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here.”

    Yes, the emails discuss how sunshine hours correlate to temperature way better than CO2.

  22. Noelle says:
    March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
    “And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.”

    Noelle. Downwelling LWIR is 300 W/m^2 on average. A doubling of CO2 would increase it by 3.85 W/m^2 according to IPCC numbers. We have a 40% increase by now so that would increase it by about 1.7 W/m^2 or so. That’s about half a percent increase. Forget AGW – the effect is so small it can’t be measured against the noise. It was only a political lie.

  23. Noelle says:
    March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    “I’m struggling with this.”

    And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.
    ————————————————————————————————
    Noelle, what I think you meant to say, and please correct me if I am mistaken, is that you WISH no one cared about this.

    Because you are either uninformed, (Unlikely considering the nature of your post.) Or a troll. Everyone who can read, including all of the lurkers here, and Watts Up With That has a few… gazillion, know that the path that leads to all of these “Climate Scientists” committing fraud and perjury and tampering with evidence is BECAUSE a few scientists had questions and WANTED to discuss the science. …insert rant here that would be totally snipped for name calling and spittle on the monitor…

    But we have never been able to discuss the science, because one side of this debate has resorted to sabotage, cheating, stealing, lying, and stealing old ladies purses. (Ok maybe not that one.) So that they do NOT have to discuss the science.

    The intent of your post appears to wish to skip over the part of the problem where the reason we are not discussing the science, but the cover-up instead is because Mann, Jones and Co. were hiding the “science” not discussing it. Why are you complaining to Mr. CTM? He is not the problem. He is part of the solution.

  24. So Noelle is wondering what the link between these emails and climate science is.

    Depends on what your definition of is is.

  25. Noelle says:
    March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
    “I’m struggling with this.”

    And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.
    ============
    Your misdirection and minimisation aside, this is about climate science.
    Its integrity.

  26. “I didn’t do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can’t prove anything.” Bart Simpson and Michael Mann

  27. Noelle says:
    March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    “And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.”

    Troll alert! We are discussing whether Climategaters conspired to violate FOIA laws. The focus of this forum is not on the science but on the behavior of the scientists.

  28. It occurs to me, Mann does have one remaining defense. He can claim that Phil Jones had hypnotic effects on them. He could claim that, try as he might, he was unable to resist a suggestion from Phil Jones. There, that should do it.

  29. So when the investigators looked at manns emails, did they see an email asking to delete ar4 discussions and the forwarding of that email to Wahl in Manns computer?

  30. Why anyone cares about this?

    Simple.

    We’re talking about some of the most prominent figures in climate science.

    We’re talking about a bunch of guys some of who clearly violated FOI laws to prevent their science from being scrutinized, and and others who may have conspired in order to prevent anyone from determining that they’d violated IPCC procedures in preparing their materials.

    We’re talking about individuals whose science – the work they tried to keep from meaningful review, and which subsequently was found to be quite broken – has been held up as a club to beat the rest of us into submission to their goals of energy rationing.

    “Would you buy a used climate policy from this Mann?”

  31. A feeble and ineffective attempt at ‘plausible deniability’, at best.

    Get all of them into a Grand Jury investigation, under oath, with all criminal penalties applicable for direct lying or failure to tell the whole truth, as relates to the Freedom Of Information requests. Ask them the short and specific questions that do not lend themselves to equivocation, evasion, or half truths answers, just ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘I did’, ‘I did not’, and ‘I don’t have any knowledge of that’. A patient and thorough prosecutor will pick their fabrications apart and get to a reasonable facsimile of the bare truth.

    Then charge, try, and convict them. Imprison them if possible, followed by stripping of all academic standing and recision of all published works. Follow this with lawsuits to recover all taxpayer monies from their sponsoring universities and agencies, that were used in any way to perpetrate this fraud.

    Heck, the RICO laws (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act) may well apply also, as their active collusion to prevent disclosure and continue funding fits the definition of RICO. That would allow both criminal and civil penalties to apply.

    This will send a clear message to all would be academic frauds (not just ‘climate science’) that these deceits will not be tolerated any more. They will be prosecuted.

  32. Here’s an example of the ‘denialist-tripe’ that is routinely censored over at RC;

    So the fact that Dr. Mann told the Penn investigators he did not;” . . engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?” now squares with you, in light of the fact that he forwarded the request to Wahl?

    Either what Wahl has stated under oath is not true, what Mann told the PSU inquiry was not true (and they failed to properly investigate the matter), or the PSU inquiry mischaracterized what Mann told them in their attempt to protect the university.

    No matter how you look at it, it’s a problem. It’s never the crime, but the cover-up that gets you in trouble.

    As to the science; if these guys had simply published their data and methodology all along, none of this would be an issue.

    In short; AGW is real. It’s magnitude, certainty and the seriousness of the consequence are very much open for debate. The political ramifications are very consequential. Once these scientists became political advocates their work became suspect. Their actions in light of serious inquiry are a problem. Let them deal with that, and let’s start producing real reproducible science based on open data and methodology and an honest debate.

    This whole episode is hurting real science. Not the dunderheads who doubt every bit of the science, not ‘Big Oil’, not the serious scientific skeptics, not anyone but the ‘scientists’ who became actively involved in political debate while hiding behind FOI, proprietary data, etc. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE! This problem will go away, but probably not while these guys are involved in the debate. Their objectivity is highly questionable. Especially Mann and Jones.

    Also; don’t paint everyone who questions the alarm as ‘science-deniers’ and use straw man arguments that characterize everyone who questions the establishment as denying that there is global warming or that man has played a part in that. Not everyone who isn’t an alarmist is a fool or in the pocket of big oil. Any true scientist will see the flaw in the notion that the ‘science is settled’ or that ‘we are now certain’ about the consequences, either in physics or in the geo-political ramifications. We may project, we may model, but we cannot be certain, even to a statistically significant degree. (Global surface temp is now more than 2 STD below every single models projections for 2011. There is no certainty).

    Warmest Regards,
    Bob

  33. Noelle says:
    March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
    Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here?

    Perhaps the fact that the climate science was DELETED thanks to these emails?

  34. Noelle says:
    March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    “I’m struggling with this.”

    And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.

    It IS relevant to climate science and it IS about the science. Open your eyes!

  35. Noelle says: “…I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.”

    Science? There ain’t any. It’s a politically-motivated hoax.

  36. Mac the Knife says: “…Heck, the RICO laws (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act) may well apply also, as their active collusion to prevent disclosure and continue funding fits the definition of RICO. That would allow both criminal and civil penalties to apply…”

    Hmm. I like it!

  37. CTM: “I think I finally get it. These scientists just have too good a sense of humor and we’ve been missing the joke…”

    Actually, these scientists completely lack a sense of humour. They weren’t funny when they were school kids, they aren’t funny when they grow up to become adults. They can only get wives and girlfriends because they have steady jobs, not because they have a sense of humour. There isn’t a single instance of a remark made in jest between so many scientists in 1000+ emails that were liberated from CRU. Their lives are pretty wretched actually.

  38. Theo Goodwin says: “It occurs to me, Mann does have one remaining defense. He can claim that Phil Jones had hypnotic effects on them. He could claim that, try as he might, he was unable to resist a suggestion from Phil Jones. There, that should do it.”

    If not, there are always: (1) Insanity; (2) Temporary insanity; (3) Nolo contendere; (4) Excessive Twinkie consumption. (5) Alcoholic blackout; (6) Sleepwalking; (7) Reduced mental capacity; (8) Parental abuse involving brain damage; (9) Demonic possession ["De Debbil made me do it!"]; and (10) the law is unconstitutional as it discriminates against short, bald, ego-inflated academics.

  39. you keep using the word scientist to describe these men … I don’t think the word means the same thing to you and them … and I’m fairly certain they do not fit your definition … they certainly don’t fit my definition of a scientist …

  40. There’s another possibility of what occured:
    Mann, Jones etc. were using ‘other’ non-government emails to communicate official business (which is not acceptable). So, the emails directing the erasure effort didn’t result in any official emails being erased. Still, if that is true, there is yet more to be discovered.
    So many questions.

  41. Obviously, these guys failed to learn the lesson I am trying to impart to my children…lying to cover up nefarious shenanigans will get you in far more serious trouble than the aforementioned monkey-business…

    Although the proximate cause of the lying is pretty serious stuff, too…

  42. I swear it’s getting to the point where every revelation about Mann just conjures up the mental image of Bill Clinton telling America “I did not have sex with that woman”; which was true in the narrowest, most pedantic context, but not true enough to prevent Hillary from making him sleep on the couch. Mann, Jones and company have been tip-toeing a razor’s edge short of criminal activity for so long it’s just a matter of time before one of them falls upsetting the whole dominoes chain.

  43. Mikey can sure tap dance . . . . dance Mikey, dance.

    It won’t change the outcome but it might make you feel like you are getting away with something, that your are pulling the wool over our eyes, that we are just a bunch of rubes to be conned.

  44. As a further to all the comment to Noelle:

    It matters because the climate science community is asking us to “trust them” on much of their work. Their history of acting in a secretive manor makes people uneasy. So if you have direct proof of not only Mann, but also his “investigators” lying or willfully ommiting facts, it calls into question their honesty.

    Hence the desire for real investigations of Mann.

    It matters double, when the people in question have stood on a soapbox repeatedly saying that anyone who has ever worked for or recieved money from an oil or coal company, should be ignored. When they claim to be the moral high ground and any who question them are dishonest.

    So if they can call into question others’ motives simply by association (or often just assuming the association exists without any proof), then the motives of people caught lying or covering up should immediately make all their work suspect. By their own set of rules, their work and influences should be at a minimum investigated.

    Disclosure: I worked for a trucking company moving oil rigs for a couple years before I went to university. But rather than (in some peoples stange views of reality) earning my undying loyalty, it made me hate them and be less likely to defend them. I also worked several years in television, does that make me a stooge for the MSM? I now work in architecture, so is my loyalty now bought by sustainable building groups? See how stupid that game is.

  45. To those struggling willy wonderers like Noelle, you just have to watch the response from RC and other such sites, the rabid defence, the blind acceptance of arrogant “clearance” by whitewash coverups, glib bending of truths to suit agenda.

    This whole issue will not “go away” as much as you would like it to be hidden in the dark basement of modern day climate “science”, well out of the view and reach of those ordinary people that do have a brain and can think for themselves.

    It goes to the crux of the state of Climate “Science” before and after Climategate. How arrogant the claims, how dismissive of other disenting scientists, how underhand in its tactical behind the scenes adjustment and manipulation of both media, the political scene, and the creation of a propaganda machine aimed at our children, the creation of a mythical consensus when actually they fought to keep their science elitist by subverting the very tools that should have exposed their faults, the peer review and publication process.

    Then after Climategate, the arrogance of deception, diverting efforts to uncover the truth. The gradual drawing out of those truths and now the efforts by a majority of scientists to rebuild the reputation of science so sullied by those who dipped their toe in these murky waters of climate elitism.

    These few hold back the process and progress of science back to a position of trust in the eyes of the taxpayers who ultimately fund the research grants. You see this as some continuing attack on science, I see it as a return to true science – let the pain and scrutiny continue, but set it plainly on those that willingly participated for their own gain. Time to cut them adrift just like you would excise and remove a cancerous growth for the good of the whole and healthy body of science. IMHO!

  46. RE:
    JEM says:
    March 10, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    Very well put.

    And while we are discussing what “We’re talking about…”

    We’re talking about the $#@*&$ hockey stick. The hockey stick that won’t go away. The hockey stick that some stubborn Alarmists continue to insist is valid.

    We’re talking about a hockey stick many trusted, that many believed in, and many used as a reason for leaping to drastic actions, such as disfiguring the face of Europe with Don Quixote windmills.

    We’re talking about millions of Europeans deluded into working their fingers to the bone to do what is tantamount to economic suicide.

    We’re talking about England, (a formerly great power whose language many speak,) pretty much humbled and perhaps finished, (and forced to see the chagrin of having the nemesis French end up smarter, for having invested in nuclear power.)

    We’re talking about the misbehavior of a lot of powerful people in high places, but it all boils down to a stupid hockey stick, and therefore it all falls on the slender shoulders of a single man: Mann.

    Some may say Mann is just the tip of the iceberg, and others are culpable, but it is the tip that is visible.

    Also much more of the iceberg is now visible than was visible five years ago. Five years ago you could only see the tip of the tip of the iceberg, and if you dared say we should not trust the hockey stick, you got hammered. Where now you only get snipped at Real Climate, if you dared question Mann five years ago you were treated like a pariah by otherwise kind, friendly and seemingly intelligent people. You got snipped right out of polite company. And once you have been hammered like that you don’t forget it. And on whose shoulders does the blame fall squarely on? One lone individual, named Mann.

    Poor fellow, “You got some ‘splainin’ to do.”

    If I were you, Mr. Mann, I’d seriously consider ratting on “higher ups.” After all, it’s a bit much for one man to face: The wrath of all Europe, and much of the rest of the world as well.

  47. Mann had the following options:

    1. reply saying “no I won’t”
    2. ignore the email
    3. forward with with a comment “please do not do this”
    4. forward with no comment
    5. forward with a comment “please do this”

    I would suggest that option 4 (which we now understand he claims to have done) is closer to 5 than 3. The act of forwarding an email without a comment usually indicates some tacit approval otherwise you either wouldn’t forward it or would make a comment that you didn’t agree with the email.

    Certainly it means that it is fair comment to say that Mann was at least indirectly associated with Wahl deleting emails. Assuming that Wahl didn’t receive this email from any other source, then IFF he deleted emails because of it and received it from Mann, then we can only conclude that Wahl deleted emails because of an action by Mann EVEN if that was not (as now claimed) what Mann intended.

    As always (talk to Martha Stewart for recent example) the cover up can get you in more trouble than any alleged actions or alleged mis-deeds.

  48. One final comment to Noelle–

    The IPCC Report that was the subject of all those e-mails, and that was altered by pal review–that very report is being quoted in the halls of EPA to enact rules and regulations that will dramatically alter the way Americans live. That is why it is important.

  49. DonK said

    “I didn’t do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can’t prove anything.” Bart Simpson and Michael Mann”

    Hilarious comment. I’m sure Josh could work something out with this. Maybe with Mann carrying a skateboard and using a slingshot to hit some models down that dont do what he wants them to do. :D

  50. I’m surprised no one has mentioned the other obvious thing you’d do if you really did have reservations about passing on a dubious request:

    “Hi Phil – here’s Gene’s current email address….”

  51. Speaking of things which might get deleted, someone should make sure to record all Mann and Gavin have ever said at Real Climate, because it is

    1.) Possible evidence of fraud.

    2.) Potentially embarrassing to people in positions of power, and therefore likely to be made less “available.”

    3.) Interesting history for our grandchildren to wonder over.

  52. Anthony;
    You seem smugly sure this is one of your best post titles evah.

    And so it is! Full props …
    ;)

  53. The first time I saw the Hokey Stick, I knew it was preposterous, and I knew its makers knew it was preposterous.

    All this is just the working out of the consequences of those two observations.

  54. sHx says:
    March 10, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    CTM: “I think I finally get it. These scientists just have too good a sense of humor and we’ve been missing the joke…”

    Actually, these scientists completely lack a sense of humour. They weren’t funny when they were school kids, they aren’t funny when they grow up to become adults.

    Are you kidding? These guys are a laugh a minute, regularly setting up pranks just like Nixon :) here let me show you one example….

    From: gjjenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, deparker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Subject: 1996 global temperatures
    Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:23 +0000 (GMT)
    Cc: llivingston@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, djcarson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

    Phil

    Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures,
    with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December
    monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?

    I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year,
    simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.

    I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:

    1. By 20 Dec we will have land and sea data up to Nov

    2. David (?) computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPa
    heights up to 20 Dec.

    3. We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov

    4. We can therefore give a good estimate of 1996 global temps by 20
    Dec

    5. We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in the
    past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write
    an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville
    Nicholls??

    6. We explain that data is provisional and how the data has been
    created so early (ie the estimate for Dec) and also

    7. We explain why the globe is 0.23k (or whatever the final figure is)
    cooler than 95 (NAO reversal, slight La Nina). Also that global annual
    avg is only accuirate to a few hundredths of a degree (we said this
    last year – can we be more exact, eg PS/MS 0.05K or is this to big??)

    8. FROM NOW ON WE ANSWER NO MORE ENQUIRIES ABOUT 1996 GLOBAL TEMPS BUT
    EXPLAIN THAT IT WILL BE RELEASED IN JANUARY.

    9. We relesae the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO
    press release. It may not evoke any interest by then.

    10. For questions after the release to Nuttall, (I late Dec, early
    Jan) we give the same answer as we gave him.

    Are you happy with this, or can you suggest something better (ie
    simpler)? I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but its just meant to
    save time in the long run.

    Im copying this to DEP and CKF also for comments.

    Cheers

    Geoff

  55. Clearly these guys (Mann, Jones, Briffa, Wahl..) need our support. They are only trying to protect the income and lifestyle enjoyed by their dependents. Oh, and their reputations. Which equates to the former. If they engaged in some nefarious activity to protect their loved ones, it’s entirely understandable and forgivable. Come on!

    By the way, someone should let them know how wonderful the anonymous email accounts of yahoo, gmail, hotmail, etc are in obfuscating the trail….

    /sarcoff

  56. What part of willingly complying with a request to forward advice to participate in a request to participate in an illegal action is forgivable before the law, so wondereth I. Mann is complicit in delivering Jones’s message to poor poor picked on Wahl, and it cannot be known what weight that path had on Wahl’s collapse of moral fiber to act on it. It makes me wonder if Wahl would have done the same thing if that message had come from Dick Cheney, Anthony Watts, Arianna Huffenpuff, or Stephen McIntyre, for example.

    It’s a crock – all the way down.

  57. I have a friend who is subject to a Restraint of Trade agreement. It means he can’t be involved in any way in running a company with activities within the specified Trade. The company which might prosecute him in this Agreement is all but legally defunct. So, to avoid the legal ramifications, despite the moral obligations being redundant, he uses a gmail account of random pseudonym and never signs them (with the usual, “Cheers, Sam”, or “Regards, Olaf”). Sorry to be transparent, but if these guys had half a brain they would use the tools of the street (e.g. somewhere in a Nigerian city street) to cover their tracks. Perhaps they already are. But a few years ago they were numbnuts. Geez, if you are gonna be bad, first rule: Don’t get caught.

    They seem to operate under the politician’s ethos: If you get caught, deny, deny, deny as plausible as impossible.

  58. “How could a private mail from Jones to Mann be used against Wahl? Jones asks Mann to ask Wahl? and this could be used…. against Wahl? huh? Wahl hasn’t done anything wrong.”

    Unless, at the time Mann received Jones’ email, Mann knew that Wahl had, for whatever reason, already deleted the ar4 emails.

  59. Betelgeuse said, at 7:08 pm, “I’m surprised no one has mentioned the other obvious thing you’d do if you really did have reservations about passing on a dubious request: “Hi Phil – here’s Gene’s current email address….”

    So true! But, instead, Mann replied to Jones email, stating, “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP.”

    To quote Judge Judith Scheindlin, “if it doesn’t make sense, it’s usually not true.”

  60. Noelle says:
    March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
    “I’m struggling with this.”

    And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science

    Try the harry_read_me file.
    Where is harry?

  61. MSO ponders the meaning of it all with

    Unless, at the time Mann received Jones’ email, Mann knew that Wahl had, for whatever reason, already deleted the ar4 emails.

    If Mann knew Wahl had already deleted mails, why would Mann bother to forward the email? The appropriate thing to forward at that point would be advisories against breaking federal and state law regarding FOI compliance and to lawyer up, assuming Mann knew that Wahl had deleted, before receiving Jones’ plea, mails pertaining to FOI requests.

    Now here’s the deal. FOI is serious stuff. To destroy material potentially subject to FOI inquiries ahead of actual requests evidences the full intent of the participants to defeat by premeditated destruction of evidence, subsequent fulfillment of FOI requests. That is to say – if I run an operation that is subject to FOI requests and I as a matter of course destroy such discoverable evidence as it occurs, I am defacto guilty of obstruction of laws granting FOI discovery. I am not allowed to bury my mistakes in a peat bog for none to see – I have to provide all evidence I’ve accumulated.

    In my opinion which is worth the web page it is written upon, Mann is about to face hard time for his part in subverting due process because Americans don’t like a loser, Wahl is going to rot in a jail, and Jones is likely to face that harsh British justice known as the shunning. It would be very unBritish of them to actually do something about the problem.

  62. Steve M (h/t Noelle):
    “And had they checked with Wahl they would have confirmed that it was not mere intent, but that it had the actual effect.”

    It shows how the Mann panel failed to do even rudimentary follow through on the issue.

    It should not be overlooked in any way at all that this reflects as badly on the panel as it does Mann. A simple straightforward – and obvious question – was never asked to someone the panel should certainly have questioned.

    Steve has it exactly right.

    Where Noelle earlier asked what doe any of this have to do with actual climate science, it buggers the mind how Noelle can’t see that covering up cherry-picked science impugns the studies being addressed and the policies being advocated.

    Noelle might as well be asking what the IPCC has to do with climate science.

    Come to think of it, the IPCC is at the root of all of this. Take it out of the equation (go back to the beginning and remove it from the whole issue) and none of this happens – no cherry-picked science, no advocacy beyond tree hugging and singing “Kumbaya,” no FOIA stonewalling, no audience for the Hockey Stick, no glaciers melting by 2035, no decline hiding, no Climategate. Climate science would be the backwater it had always been. . .

  63. dp; Wahl and Mann aren’t going to rot in jail over this. They probably won’t even get a wrist slap. The FOI was under British jurisdiction – not US. Neither lied under oath, Mann because he wasn’t questioned under oath and Wahl because he told the truth.

    A RICO investigation, on the other hand . . . .

  64. Susan posts in the PS inquiry section at Climate Audit the following statement:

    “We now know that Mann forwarded the email — without further comment — to Wahl. Wahl deleted the emails as Jones suggested. Mann states that he did not delete those emails. He produced copies of those emails to the inquiry and apparently satisfied their questions.”

    I’m sorry if everyone knows this but me. I do try to keep up. Do we know the contents of the emails, requested by Jones to be deleted but instead Mann presented in hard copy to the inquiry?

  65. Hehe, funny you mentioned kumbaya… JAE griped about all the kumbaya crap recently and I was laughing so hard I almost cried.

    Mark

  66. Noelle says:
    March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
    “And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.”
    ……………..

    u.k.(us) says:
    March 10, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    this is about climate science.
    Its integrity.

    Seconded. There was a brilliant long quote here a few months ago about how in certain fields of science, where a lab experiment can’t falsify a claim, the credibility of the leading figures in the field and its nonpartisan of its environment are of extreme importance. They mustn’the be a faction with a bee in its bonnet about something, or a snake oil to “sell.”

    Climsci needs a do-over before we commit to the expensive preventive measures it’s prescribing. There should be an oversight panel composed of 100 retired scientists from related fields that can keep an eye on these characters and hear appeals from scorcher-scoffers when their papers are delayed or toned down, the IPCC pulls a fast one on them, etc. Its internal proceedings could be handled in a secure, members-only web site.

    A similar, separate panel needs to do a rerun of the entirety of climsci, including full debates (both written and oral) on every aspect of the topic.

  67. To me, it seems quite unlikely that an individual who regards himself as educated would forward an email without comment – without any sort of annotation such as “Phil’s going to cause himself legal problems, don’t jump in the water too” or “This is from Phil but I’m not doing what he asks” or even just “Be careful with this one” – when the claimed intent of the forwarder was to warn the recipient that the message could be damaging to him.

    Dr Mann – you’re in a hole. Stop digging.

    Eh? Eh? You’re too far away!

  68. Theo Goodwin says:
    March 10, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    It occurs to me, Mann does have one remaining defense. He can claim that Phil Jones had hypnotic effects on them. He could claim that, try as he might, he was unable to resist a suggestion from Phil Jones.

    Exactly–the notorious “reality distortion field” (RDF)!

  69. So let me get this straight – Wahl receives a forwarded email message instructing him to delete emails so he deletes them but neither the person who wrote the original email message nor the person who forwarded it to him will take responsibility?

    If it was a murder case there would be no question – you indict all three of them together. (I was just looking at my knife and then someone else pushed me from behind into the victim – 50 times.)

  70. rbateman says:
    March 10, 2011 at 5:27 pm

    There’s another possibility of what occured:
    Mann, Jones etc. were using ‘other’ non-government emails to communicate official business (which is not acceptable). So, the emails directing the erasure effort didn’t result in any official emails being erased.

    A good point, but it’s unlikely, given that there aren’t allusions to a second channel in the Climategate e-mails (are there?) Still, it’s a question the PSU investigators should have asked.

    Incidentally, someone should check on what the reaction has been to this affair by the PSU’s campus newspaper. (And by the UVA’s paper to Cuccinelli’s win.)

  71. Here are some nuggets from the thread so far.

    “The dog ate my original excuse. I didn’t do it. I couldn’t help it. The real issue here is the hole in the greenhouse.”
    ………….
    The word duplicitous comes to mind or how about disingenuous?
    ………….
    I believe we now know what the term “denialism” means.
    ………….
    I’m still waiting for the ‘national security’ angle, which seems to be able to cover up anything these days.
    ………….
    It depends on what you mean by “forward.”
    ………….
    Well, the science community knows how to deal with statistics like these, you are not inside the 95% interval of probability Mr Mann,
    ………….
    “I didn’t do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can’t prove anything.”
    –Bart Simpson and Michael Mann
    ………….
    “Would you buy a used climate policy from this Mann?”
    ………….
    watch the response from RC and other such sites, the rabid defence, the blind acceptance of arrogant “clearance” by whitewash coverups, glib bending of truths to suit agenda.

    How arrogant the claims, how dismissive of other dissenting scientists, how underhand in its tactical behind the scenes adjustment and manipulation of both media, the political scene, and the creation of a propaganda machine aimed at our children, the creation of a mythical consensus when actually they fought to keep their science elitist …
    ………….
    We’re talking about a hockey stick many trusted, that many believed in, and many used as a reason for leaping to drastic actions, such as disfiguring the face of Europe with Don Quixote windmills We’re talking about millions of Europeans deluded into working their fingers to the bone to do what is tantamount to economic suicide.
    ………….
    I’m surprised no one has mentioned the other obvious thing you’d do if you really did have reservations about passing on a dubious request:
    “Hi Phil – here’s Gene’s current email address….”
    ………….
    Speaking of things which might get deleted, someone should make sure to record all Mann and Gavin have ever said at Real Climate,
    ………….
    The first time I saw the Hokey Stick, I knew it was preposterous, and I knew its makers knew it was preposterous.
    ………….
    “How could a private mail from Jones to Mann be used against Wahl? Jones asks Mann to ask Wahl? and this could be used…. against Wahl? huh? Wahl hasn’t done anything wrong.”

    Unless, at the time Mann received Jones’ email, Mann knew that Wahl had, for whatever reason, already deleted the ar4 emails.

  72. This is very simple but it seems many are struggling with the concepts of what Mann did. The facts as accepted, even by Mann are (1) Jones violated the Brit FOIA act but due to statute of limitations was not prosecuted, (2) Mann forwarded Jones request to destroy as part of the FOIA violation and (3) Wahl acted on the emails Mann forwarded.

    So what, exactly, is this all about? The answer is really very simple. (a) Jones is a principle in that he violated, at the least, the Brit FOIA law(s). (b) Wahl, under Brit law, likely would be a principle as well (either directly or as an accomplice). The issue is whether Mann is an accessory. There are lots of definition on the web but layman can start with the wikipedia one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_%28legal_term%29#England_and_Wales and skip down to the England and Wales section.

    One of the key “elements” needed to hold Mann as an accessory is whether he thought he was doing something wrong (the “mens rea” thing). The defense Mann is using is saying “I had no intent, thus I’m innocent”. This is, in reality, his only defense, given the emails and Wahls sworn statements. Thus Mann’s very carefully crafted answers.

    Whether Mann is an accessory goes to his moral turpitude (again, wikipedia is a decent starting place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_turpitude and go down to the last entry in the table of aiding, abetting, accessories). Simply, it one proves Mann fails this test then his veracity as a witness in ANY legal proceeding can be pursued to impeach his testimony. This means, in layman’s terms, if you have a proven liar then don’t believe much, if anything, from them ever again. It’s so important that there is a crime of perjury.

    Mann simply has to defend himself. The defense he’s using with the Jones emails, imho, is very, very thin.

  73. “dp; Wahl and Mann aren’t going to rot in jail over this. They probably won’t even get a wrist slap. The FOI was under British jurisdiction – not US. Neither lied under oath, Mann because he wasn’t questioned under oath and Wahl because he told the truth.?”

    Besides RICO there are a number of other acts that might apply. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, for example, where it is illegal to bribe foreign officials. The aiding of the exchange of grant money may provide the monetary link, writing of funding recommendation letters, etc. If its not a violation it may be time the FCPA gets amended once again to broaden its scope as we do not want jurisdictional boundaries to provide cover for corrupt practices as a general rule and as a national health and security issue it has real world relations implications.

    Working on government grants and corrupting a UN process, if that’s not worthy of a prosecution should anything short of murder be?

  74. Michael Mann’s mission in life is to deny the MWP when in England we had vineyards as far North as York and it was when the Vikings lived in what is called Greenland. They gave it the name because so much of it was covered in grass.

    Due to people like Mann and his friends we have had a non-proven scientific theory rammed down our throats as the truth and those of us that dissagree are call “deniers”, suggesting we also deny the Holocaust.
    Our children are being brainwashed and the general population is being treated with contempt by politicans who cannot fill out an expense claim form. On top of this we have a media, especially the BBC betraying all the trust we ever had in them.
    We are now paying the highest price for fuel in the developed world at a time when the other main players in the EU are paying substantially less.
    France in particular have quite rightly gone the nuclear route whilst we build windmills.
    If people like Mann were to end up in court we may at last see the beginning of the end of the nonensense.

  75. “De Nile” ain’t just a river in Egypt, eh? Eventually it will come to this, as Ayn Rand said: “We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.”

  76. Laurie says:
    March 10, 2011 at 10:54 pm

    Producing copies of emails is not evidence that you did not delete them. It shows simply that, at some point, you made copies of them.

  77. Mann wrote to Jones “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP.” How could a private mail from Jones to Mann be used against Wahl?

    Why wouldn’t Jones just email Wahl directly? If Mann had to forward the email he’d probably read the contents as they wouldn’t be private in this case. If Mann was so inclined to save his emails you’d think he would’ve written to Wahl himself or added to the email from Jones. This has to be a cover up, there’s no innocent way or interpreting this scenario.

  78. I was just thinking how many arguments about climate science are affected by all this deletion. Consider:

    Where’s the raw data from which you got these results?
    DELETED
    Too bad, can’t figure out…anyway, what’s with these land temps over the ocean, what happened to the ocean temps?
    DELETE
    Uhm…ok, never mind that, what’s this anomalous warming period here in the 1940’s?
    DELETE
    Oh, its gone, well what about all this Medieval Warmin Period evidence?
    DELETE
    Hmmm, was there before, but the Roman Warming Period-
    DELETE
    Now this is getting suspiscious. I should check the emails of some of the people who are coming up with this stuff and see if they are acting with integrity.
    DELETE
    Jee whilikers, can’t catch a break. Hey, here’s an email saying to delete emails and telling other people to delete emails…calling that guy right now…hey, thanks for answering, did you delete any emails or tell anyone else to?
    EXPLETIVE DELETIVE
    Well that was colorfull, but didn’t answer my question.
    EXPLETELY NEGATIVE RE DELETE
    OK, what about the other part…oh dear, he hung up on me. OK, call the guy he sent that email to, dialing….oh hey hi, that guy forwarded an email from another guy saying to delete email, what did you do when you got it?
    DELETE
    Is that a standard practice? all this deleting? what’s that” you all trained at the Nixon Academy for Professional Deletion? wow, didn’t know there was one…and also the Academy for Advanced Obfuscation? Never heard of that one either…
    OH! Never Inhaled, Didn’t Have Sex With That Woman, you mean the CLINTON Academy for Advanced Obfuscation. Can we get back to the science… I was wondering about
    DELETE
    Hey, I didn’t even ask the question yet…oh… pro-active deletion, I see…

  79. LightRain says:
    March 11, 2011 at 7:20 pm

    Why wouldn’t Jones just email Wahl directly?

    His address had changed, or Mann had lost it.

  80. Roger Knights says:
    March 11, 2011 at 11:34 pm
    LightRain says:
    March 11, 2011 at 7:20 pm
    Why wouldn’t Jones just email Wahl directly?
    His address had changed, or Mann had lost it.>>>

    Jones couldn’t email Wahl directly not because he lost his email address, but because he DELETED IT! See what a bind deleting things gets you into?

    So he had to get Mann to relay. Which he did. And when he got caught, he claimed this, then that, then the other thing until it was obvious that he has pretty much “lost it”

  81. At the height of the watergate scandal it was discovered that Nixon’s secretary had inadvertently erased some of the tape recordings. Her demonstration on TV, of the bodily contortions required for the lapse to have happened, was worthy of the children’s game “Twister”. For some reason that image comes to mind when I think of this issue.

Comments are closed.