Bishop Hill's compendium of CRU email issues

For those of you who don’t know of the blog Bishop Hill, let me say that he is a succinct and careful writer who has earned praise from many (including myself and Steve McIntyre) in taking a difficult niche subject such as the Hockey Stick and paleoclimatology and condensed into into a readable form for the layman. He’s also writing a book about it called: The Hockey Stick Illusion

In his latest post, Climate Cuttings 33, he gives a list of interesting issues he’s identified. I’ve reproduced it below for WUWT readers to consider. Be sure to visit his blog and have a look and drop an encouraging word. – Anthony

Climate cuttings 33

If you are interested in more on global warming material, check out Caspar and the Jesus Paper and The Yamal Implosion, or check out the forthcoming book.

General reaction seems to be that the CRUgate emails are genuine, but with the caveat that there could be some less reliable stuff slipped in.

In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files. I’ll update these as and when I can. The refs are the email number.

  • Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
  • Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
  • Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
  • Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as “cheering news”.(1075403821)
  • Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
  • Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
  • Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
  • Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
  • Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)
  • Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi’s paper is crap.(1257532857)
  • Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
  • Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he’s “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
  • Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘”contain” the putative Medieval Warm Period’. (1054736277)
  • Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
  • Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it’s insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre’s sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many “good” scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
  • Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
  • Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
  • Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
  • Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them”.(1106338806)
  • Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
  • Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)
  • Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)
  • Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)
  • Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the “increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage” he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)
  • Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman’s admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)
  • Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)
  • Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
  • Reaction to McIntyre’s 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers – Saiers was subsequently ousted]
  • Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
  • Jones says he’s found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)
  • Wigley says Keenan’s fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
  • Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)
  • Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)
  • Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn’t be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don’t want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
  • Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data”. [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
  • Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
  • Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)
  • Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)
  • Funkhouser says he’s pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn’t think it’s productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)
  • Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
  • Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)
  • Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)
  • Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
  • David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn’t be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)
  • Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)
  • Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr “I’m not entirely there in the head” will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)
  • Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)

Sponsored IT training links:

If looking for 646-205 exam help then head to 350-030 training program for guaranteed success and get free download link for next 640-863 exam.


Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
crosspatch

Folks, hit the donate button if you have a little to spare. Sites like this don’t just create themselves out of thin air and I believe Anthony also helps with the administration of CA.
If information such as this has value to you, take a moment and consider a donation.
NOTE: I have absolutely nothing to do with this site and have no economic interest in it whatsoever. It is simply a valuable information source that I find worth more than what I pay for an annual subscription to my local newspaper.

Jim Hodgen

The Wegman report hit the nail on the head. This clique has gone far beyond the bounds of acceptability, beyond the bounds of academic protections for opinions, beyond the bounds of fiducial responsibility.
By actively attempting to suppress, and successfully removing people from boards they have created a monoculture that has reinforced specific political movements. While they have a right to do so as citizens of the UK and US, they do not have the right to use their positions to do so. These people have moved from academia to the political realm and in doing so have violated a number of US and I suspect UK laws.
When do they get called to account for their behavior… or is breaking the law ok if you support the right cause?

Glenn

“Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)”
I’m thinking that’s right, Jones would like to discredit Christiansen, but not only for the reasons intimated in the emails. Christiansen is dangerous to Jones, not only as editor of Energy and Environment, but perhaps more as a scientist who has published in many major journals, one at least on the topic of MBH98:
“The inadequacy of the MBH98 methodology for climate reconstructions was later independently confirmed in other publications, for instance by Lee, Zwiers and Tsao in the August 2008 issue of the journal Climate Dynamics or by Christiansen et al. in the Journal of Climate. Since 1999, the MBH98 method has never again been applied for climate reconstructions.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch
“A Surrogate Ensemble Study of Climate Reconstruction Methods : Stochasticity and Robustness” Journal of Climate
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=21289329

Roger Knights

It’s great someone is doing this filtering and summarization. I suggest the addition of the collection of Ben Santer’s bullying remarks that was posted in one of the earlier threads. (Whoever posted it there should repost it here.) Also, suggested additions to the list above, in the same style, should be posted.

Gregg E.

Keep the pressure on! Hopefully these revelations will inspire many good scientists who’ve kept quiet about the AGW fraud to speak up.
At the very least there looks to be plenty of evidence to bring prosecutions for misappropriation of grant funds and possibly tax evasion, going by the list above and excerpts in other threads on here of discussions on how to keep funding for trips not taken and other things they begged money for but didn’t do.

Alan Wilkinson

This is a damning litany.
All real scientists and honest intelligent people can have nothing but contempt for this behaviour and a profound distrust of everything this mob have claimed and done.

As with other posters, my instinct is that the e-mails are only the beginning; that there will be more bombshells once the likes of Steve McIntyre get through the data.

mlsimon

When do they get called to account for their behavior… or is breaking the law ok if you support the right cause?
The UK is responsible for most of that.

par5

I learned of Bishop Hill from Jeff Id (The Air Vent). The Bish did a great primer called Casper and the Jesus Paper for those interested.

vukcevic

Emails in chronological order (in blocks of 10) here:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/cruemails2.php

Phillip Bratby

In response to a comment at Bishop Hill’s blog about a cover up, I posted something like this:
The BBC is hard at it. Richard Black’s blog has shut up shop. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack . That doyen of investigative journalism [sark – he toes the BBC line], Roger Harrabin has a deep throat at CRU to provide the truth. He also relies on RealClimate and Gavin for the real outside view on events! See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371597.stm for the dismissive cover-up.

Phillip Bratby

Cover up = damage control

Patrick Davis

Still no MSM coverage here in Australia. Me thinks they are keeping it quiet asthe Govn’t and opposition have to come to an agreement on the CPRS (ETS) on Tuesday, just before their long Chrissy break!

crosspatch

“Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. ”
And as it happens, for some reason it apparently disappeared. Interesting.
The idea that he would delete it seems to imply that it existed up to that point.

…and in doing so have violated a number of US and I suspect UK laws.
Correct. If all those e-mails are genuine, each recipient and respondent is also liable for prosecution under the all-encompassing RICO law. But, absent a complaint, I doubt that will occur.
Personally, I think they should all be given an auger and a yardstick, then sent to measure the Arctic ice cap in January, clad in nothing but walking shorts and “Save the Planet” T-shirts…

Mark Hind

I was reading the Guardian online yesterday(british newspaper) concerning this subject and I made a comment with a link to this website about the 450 sceptical papers ,it was ok for a while then 20 minutes later it was deleted ,nuff said.
BTW Piers Corbyn must be a time traveller the weather over here is exactly as predicted.

Geoff Sherrington

The one of most concern to me is the above 1228330629.txt
To my simple mind, this could be seen as a wilful attempt to conspire to avoid compliance with a legitimate Act of Parliament. That’s against the law, if it is so.
For extras, there’s a section on deletion of data.
1228330629.txt
From: Phil Jones
To: santer, Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: Schles suggestion
Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008
Cc: mann , Gavin Schmidt , Karl Taylor , peter gleckler
Ben,
When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on – at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn’t know the number we’re dealing with. We are in double figures.
One issue is that these requests aren’t that widely known within the School. So I don’t know who else at UEA may be getting them. CRU is moving up the ladder of requests at UEA though – we’re way behind computing though. We’re away of
requests going to others in the UK – MOHC, Reading, DEFRA and Imperial College.
So spelling out all the detail to the LLNL management should be the first thing you do. I hope that Dave is being supportive at PCMDI.
The inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data Protection Act request sent by a certain Canadian, saying that the email maligned his scientific credibility with his peers! If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn’t yet) I am supposed to go through my emails and he can get anything I’ve written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all. This legislation is different from the FOI – it is supposed to be used to find put why you might have a poor credit rating !
In response to FOI and EIR requests, we’ve put up some data – mainly paleo data.
Each request generally leads to more – to explain what we’ve put up. Every time, so far, that hasn’t led to anything being added – instead just statements saying read what is in the papers and what is on the web site! Tim Osborn sent one such response (via the FOI person) earlier this week. We’ve never sent programs, any codes and manuals.
In the UK, the Research Assessment Exercise results will be out in 2 weeks time.
These are expensive to produce and take too much time, so from next year we’ll be moving onto a metric based system. The metrics will be # and amounts of grants, papers and citations etc. I did flippantly suggest that the # of FOI requests you get should be another.
When you look at CA, they only look papers from a handful of people. They will start on another coming out in The Holocene early next year. Gavin and Mike are on this with loads of others. I’ve told both exactly what will appear on CA once they get access to it!
Cheers
Phil
At 01:17 03/12/2008, Ben Santer wrote:
Dear Tom,
I think that the idea of a Commentary in Science or Nature is a good one. Steve Sherwood made a similar suggestion. I’d be perfectly happy NOT to be involved in such a Commentary. My involvement would look too self-serving.
One of the problems is that I’m caught in a real Catch-22 situation. At present, I’m damned and publicly vilified because I refused to provide McIntyre with the data he requested. But had I acceded to McIntyre’s initial request for climate model data, I’m
convinced (based on the past experiences of Mike Mann, Phil, and Gavin) that I would have spent years of my scientific career dealing with demands for further explanations, additional data, Fortran code, etc. (Phil has been complying with FOIA requests from McIntyre and his cronies for over two years). And if I ever denied a single request for further information, McIntyre would have rubbed his hands gleefully and written: “You see – he’s guilty as charged!” on his website.
You and I have spent over a decade of our scientific careers on the MSU issue, Tom.
During much of that time, we’ve had to do science in “reactive mode”, responding to the latest outrageous claims and inept science by John Christy, David Douglass, or S. Fred Singer. For the remainder of my scientific career, I’d like to dictate my own research agenda. I don’t want that agenda driven by the constant need to respond to Christy, Douglass, and Singer. And I certainly don’t want to spend years of my life interacting with the likes of Steven McIntyre.
I hope LLNL management will provide me with their full support. If they do not, I’m fully prepared to seek employment elsewhere.
With best regards,
Ben
Tom Wigley wrote:
Ben,
Re the idea Michael sent around (to Revkin et al.)
this is something that Nature or Science might like
as a Commentary. It might even be possible to include
some indirect reference to the Mc audit issue. The
notes I sent could be a starting point. One problem
is that you could not be first author as this would
look like garnering publicity for your own work (as
the 2 key papers are both Santer et al.) Even having
me as the first author may not work. An ideal person
would be Tom Karl, who sent me a response saying “nice
summary”.
What do you think?
Tom.
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-

kmye

Re: Crosspatch (#1)
Absolutely agreed regarding donations to WUWT, and CA as well, but don’t forget Bishop Hill, who created this post, and has contributed quite a bit in the past…
He doesn’t seem to have any ads to follow or donation box on his site, but he does have a book coming out soon, with an Amazon pre-order link on his site…

From: mann
To: p.jones
Subject: Re: Something far more interesting
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:03:13 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: t.osborn
Dear Phil,
Of course I’ll be happy to be on board. I think the opportunity for some direct collaboration between us (me, and you/tim/keith) is ripe, and the plan to compare and contrast different approaches and data and synthesize the different results is a good one. Though sidetracked by other projects recently, I remain committed to doing this with you guys, and to explore applications to synthetic datasets with manufactured biases/etc remains high priority. It sounds like it would all fit into the proposal you mention. There may be some overlap w/proposals we will eventually submit to NSF (renewal of our present funding), etc. by I don’t see a problem with that in the least.
Once the collaboration is officially in place, I think that sharing of codes, data, etc. should not be a problem. I would be happy to make mine available, though can’t promise its the most user friendly thing in the world.
In short, I like the idea. INclude me in, and let me know what you need from me (cv, etc.).
cheers,
mike
____________________________________________________________________
Michael E. Mann
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Geosciences
Morrill Science Center
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
____________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann
Web: http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/mike
Phone: (413) FAX: (413)
– Mods, please delete the previous one

Mark Hind

PS, and I still havent seen it on british news channels yet.

tallbloke

Nice job from Bishop Hill. Getting a digestible summary to the MSM is a priority at this point. Plaster the link everywhere.

Patrick Davis

But we have Dateline, an ABC program in Australia, all out pro-AGW stories tonight. WOW! Staggering. River deltas being washed away because of AGW. Forget the cyclones and increased shipping.

M White

An entry from Christopher Booker’s Blogg, “Van Rompuy wants the EU to run on CO2”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6623665/Van-Rompuy-wants-the-EU-to-run-on-CO2.html
I am a long time AGW supporter.
But the latest revelations from Hadley CRU emails left me sick to my stomach.
At this point I don’t know what the believe anymore. What I do know is that this is no way to conduct science.
I am sick to my stomach. I know there are so many other hard working scientists that have not tainted themselves. But this group � Phil Jones, Ken Briffa, Mike Man, Gavin Schmidt have casted a huge shadow of doubt over the entire field and caused a huge damage to the green movement.
I talked with many of my friends who, like most of us, continue to believe in AGW, and we think that as long as these guys continue to lead the science and the IPCC assessments they will continue to taint all of the good work done by thousands of other scientists.
We need to acknowledge that wrong was done. We need to replace the tainted leadership and continue the research without the air of doubt.
And we need to reassess where the climate science really stand after remove these rotten apples and reassess the policy.
JohnS
on November 22, 2009
at 06:19 AM

Mike Core

@Mark Hind.
re: the Guardian
Dear Mark, as the Hadley story broke, there was no reference or post regarding it, just a story about flying polar bears. Many used that post to break the Hadley Story. Though off topic, this was the only possible sounding board that day. All posts re Hadley were deleted. Many including two of mine just disappeared completely.
I complained by email that the Guardian was effectively shutting down debate. Later a piece making light of the Hadley story came out with no comments. I complained again. Comments were finally allowed and then shut down quicker than is usual.
The Guardian has a problem with this story, but so it seems has quite a few broad-sheets.
Dellingpole in the Telegraph has run with it and quite well. But it generally appears to be an embarrasment to MSM hacks – many who have been spoon-fed propaganda by the same crew involved in these emails.

Neil O'Rourke

Patrick Davis (01:15:43) :
Still no MSM coverage here in Australia. Me thinks they are keeping it quiet asthe Govn’t and opposition have to come to an agreement on the CPRS (ETS) on Tuesday, just before their long Chrissy break

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26384297-952,00.html
Story has been on the front page (although you have to scroll down a bit) of the Courier Mall for a few hours now. Only 7 comments.

M White

Phillip Bratby (01:10:19) :
“The BBC is hard at it. Richard Black’s blog has shut up shop. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack . That doyen of investigative journalism [sark – he toes the BBC line], Roger Harrabin has a deep throat at CRU to provide the truth. He also relies on RealClimate and Gavin for the real outside view on events! See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371597.stm for the dismissive cover-up.”
For those who have something to say to the BBC about this episode you may like to look at these two sites
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/feedback/contact/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview
Feedback radio, Points of view TV.

dodgy geezer

Many of the ‘data manipulation’ emails can be ‘explained away’ by claiming that all we are seeing here is ‘robust scientific criticism’. Though they indicate the closed mindset of the Team, they may not be obviously illegal.
Where the Team ARE vulnerable is with the emails which indicate that they are working to stop publication of papers which do not support Global Warming, and that they are working to remove people who do not support their views from IPCC working parties and other official posts.
All that will cause a major scandal if exposed, and will certainly strike a chord with other scientists. Few scientists would mind someone trying to ‘prove their theory’, but all of them would be very unhappy to learn that, if they do not hold the right views, they are barred from career advancement….

Barry Foster

There is indeed lock-down going on over at the BBC, as this impacts them also with their solid promotion of AGW. However, it’s still not being reported over here either on TV or radio news. There’s hardly anything about it even on newspaper web sites. It’s like being in China!
I love the internet – you can find out what’s going on and by-pass the TV stations like the BBC (where once you would have gone to!) and the newspapers and find out for yourself thanks to people like McIntyre, Watts and Bishop Hill – amongst many, many others. Seriously (and I wouldn’t have thought I would ever say this) where would we be without the internet now? In the dark!
My comment on a BBC forum has been removed before it even got on the page! This despite the fact I was very careful not to break any forum rules. Like I said, China!

Cognog2

If these e-mails are genuine, it is appalling to think that the UK Climate Change Act rests upon the deliberations of this devious bunch.
Perhaps Ed Miliband our Energy Minister would care to comment?

Dr Tim Ball discusses the implications of the leaked files on YouTube (and they’re pretty damning). 10 minutes of enlightenment. Go to the Corbett Report on YouTube.

JASmith

Seems that the way Gavin runs his blog is completely in line with the way Mann, Briffa & Jones do their science…. Maximise the signal to noise ratio…. LMAO
That’s really easy to do when you simply make up the signal and reject the noise you don’t like….
_______________________________________________________________________
[Response: This is a moderated site, and always has been. We do screen out a lot of the random squawk of the blogosphere and the baseless accusations of malfeasance that are commonplace on open forums. We do that unapologetically in order to maximise the signal-to-noise ratio in threads……… – gavin]

Donald (Australia)

Surely there is more than enough here to demand the surrender of passports by this “team” and for them to be told to not leave town !
Proceedings need to begin before there is further destruction of evidence. Lock the offices and forbid any further inter-communication.
A Royal Commission, followed by any prosecutions, must follow.
And let’s hear Prince Charles lead the call for the honourable course of action!

Nice job from Bishop Hill. Getting a digestible summary to the MSM is a priority at this point. Plaster the link everywhere.
Make sure Christopher Booker (the UK journalist) is aware of the situation. He probably has the best understanding of the issues.
The UK press have been a bit low key, but this might be for legal reasons. Hopefully the big splash will come.

Thomas Gough

Re donations to WUWT ( kmye (01:45:17) and Crosspatch (#1) ) I did so yesterday. I have been coming here regularly for 2 years and have been much informed as I believe many of us have. Not forgetting CA and the likes of Bishop Hill. I suggest that when the history of (the collapse of) AGW comes to be written the important part played by sites such as these will be fully acknowledged.

Phil Clarke

How many have actually read the text on which these one-line summaries are based? I did so for the first 15 and almost without exception it does not support the claims the Bishop makes. In some cases the scientists are saying the opposite of what is implied, e.g. ‘contain’ the MWP is actually used in the sense of ‘include’ the MWP, Tom Wigley did not say that the truth of his claim didn’t matter, and so on.
I posted supporting quotes in the ‘CRU hacked’ thread.

P Gosselin

I sent an e-mail asking the Landmark Legal Foundation to look into this.
Maybe they’ll take this up if they get more requests to do so.

dearieme

“The VC is also aware of what is going on”: “VC” = Vice Chancellor i.e. the head of the University. He’ll be just delighted to be mentioned in the context of what might conceivably prove to be criminal action. Just delighted.

M White

google
Results 61 – 70 of about 53,600 for climategate

JimB

This is just one more fine example of how these people hold themselves above the law(s):
“Ben,
When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on – at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn’t know the number we’re dealing with. We are in double figures.”
I’m sorry…YOU don’t get to decide when/where the LAW applies. YOU don’t get to decide WHICH FOI requests you honor, based on who originated the request. And the fact that YOU showed others in your organization a few posts from CA and then they all supported you, simply makes them accomplices and lemmings.
I’d like to be able to say that the arrogance is amazing…but sadly, it actually is right in line with what we’ve all come to expect.
JimB

michael

someone shoul organise a big DEMO at Copenhagen!

PhilW

Mark Hind (01:45:56) :
PS, and I still havent seen it on british news channels yet.
BBC don’t want to spoil their party…………..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229695/BBC-dispatches-35-staff-climate-talks–creating-carbon-African-village-does-year.html

HAts off to Bishop Hill, Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre etc as well as many others, Thankyou for your ongoing work over the years keeping us updated and informed!

Frank Lansner

Robert van der Veeke (01:45:31) :
Yes its an important email you present there.
And this might be the core of it all:
From this and other mails its so obvious that we have this little group of scientist that cooperates very very close. “Include me in” etc.
They have a common strategy, a plan , a goal.
FACT: IPCC is OVERREPRESENTING RESULTS FROM THIS GROUP.
Again and again IPCC chooses specifically historical temperature data from this specific group. There are SO many other scientists in the field.
So what to do:
Create 2 graphs of historical temperatures.
1) result from this group
2) result from ALL other scientists in the field.
The difference here will show if IPCC has chosen a balanced view of the MWP or not.
I will myself start soon to make such a graph, but hope others will examine this too.

geronimo

It will take time for this thing to go through the system. First off the strategy will be no comment. No comment means no cross examination. Then they will say these are interpersonal e-mails taken out of context. The politicians, with the exception of Inhofe, and Smokin’ Joe Barton in the US will remain silent because they are all now on board the AGW train and plans are being made to spend the carbon taxes. As well as this they aren’t likely to want things investigated too thoroughly because they will look foolish for being taken in.
On top of this the whole Green movement isn’t going to be swayed either, they believe humans are ruining the planet and won’t be disturbed by people lying and plotting to get that top of the political agenda. It’s going to take a long time.
The really scary bit is that Phil Jones is saying he went to the UK Information Commissioner to get advice on how NOT to provide information under the FOIA and GOT the advice.
It will be an uphill struggle.

Alec, a.k.a Daffy Duck

An important addition to this one!!!!!
“Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122) ”
It is not just the Phil requests information be deleted, it is also that Mann acted on the request [“I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP.]
The Sqeuence:
From: Phil Jones p.jones@xxx
To: “Michael E. Mann” mann@xxx, “raymond s. bradley” rbradley@xxxx
Subject: A couple of things
Date: Fri May 9 09:53:41 2008
Cc: “Caspar Ammann” ammann@xxxx
Mike, Ray, Caspar,
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this.
………………………………………………
From: Phil Jones p.jones@xxx
To: t.osborn@xxxx “Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)” David.Palmer@xxxx
Subject: Re: FW: Your Ref: FOI_08-23 – IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 Assessment Process [FOI_08-23]
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 17:13:35 +0100
Cc: “Briffa Keith Prof ” k.briffa@xxxx, “Mcgarvie Michael Mr ” m.mcgarvie@xxx
Dave,
Although requests (1) and (2) are for the IPCC, so irrelevant to UEA, Keith (or you Dave) could say that for (1) Keith didn’t get any additional comments in the drafts other than those supplied by IPCC. On (2) Keith should say that he didn’t get any papers through the IPCC process.either.
I was doing a different chapter from Keith and I didn’t get any. What we did get were papers sent to us directly – so not through IPCC, asking us to refer to them in the IPCC chapters. If only Holland knew how the process really worked!! Every faculty member in ENV and all the post docs and most PhDs do, but seemingly not Holland.
So the answers to both (1) and (2) should be directed to IPCC, but Keith should say that he didn’t get anything extra that wasn’t in the IPCC comments.
As for (3) Tim has asked Caspar, but Caspar is one of the worse responders to emails known. I doubt either he emailed Keith or Keith emailed him related to IPCC.
…………………………………………….
From: Phil Jones p.jones@x
To: “Michael E. Mann” mann@xxx
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil
…………
From: Michael Mann mann@xxx
To: Phil Jones p.jones@xx
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
Reply-to: mann@xxx
Hi Phil,
laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to have been true.
I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxx
talk to you later,
mike
…………………

Otter

I have heard that Phil Jones is resigning his post. Can anyone verify that?

BR

Let’s not call it CRUgate; too obscure. Climategate is better.