By the Book

One year after climategate, a journalist has finally come close to asking the question that Tom Fuller and I wanted them to ask: “Why did Jones ask people to delete mails?” This was context that the mails could not supply. For a year now people have distracted themselves with the issue of actual wrongdoing– did he delete mails. In my mind that is less critical than understanding the motive.

As Adams writes in his interview:

So why did  [Jones] urge colleagues to delete mes-

sages in which they discussed, among other

things, the preparation of a report for the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

An attempt to thwart critics, perhaps? “That

was probably just bravado at the time,” he says.

“We just thought if they’re going to ask for

more, we might as well not have them.”

Let’s break that down and see if it makes sense. First, Jones calls it bravado. That, of course, would entail that Jones thought he could violate policy and get away with it. We called the behavior  “noble cause corruption.”  The kind of behavior that members of institutions engage in when they think that rules do not apply to them.

The other excuse Jones gives makes no logical sense. There was a request into CRU for all the mail and correspondence realting to Ar4 chapter 6. At the time Jones wrote the mail to Mann, he knew that the request was going to be denied. Holland’s request was clear. There was no possiblity of him asking for more mails relating to Chapter 6, he had already asked for them. Osborn for one had said he had none. Jones had none. Only Briffa’s mails were in question and they had been requested. Simply, Holland requested them all and Jones explanation of his behavior makes no sense.

We can, however, make deeper sense of his first excuse, “bravado” by reading the mails more closely, by looking at his prior statements and by connecting a few dots:

One of the first mentions made about the deletion of documents around the Ar4 chapter 6 actually comes before the request to delete mails.

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: “Michael E. Mann” <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, “raymond s. bradley” <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Subject: A couple of things

Date: Fri May 9 09:53:41 2008

Cc: “Caspar Ammann” <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Mike, Ray, Caspar,

A couple of things – don’t pass on either.

1. Have seen you’re RC bet. Not entirely sure this is the right way to go,but it will drum up some discussion.

Anyway Mike and Caspar have seen me present possible problems with the SST data ….This likely won’t get corrected quickly as it really needs more overlap to increase confidence. …This also means that the SST base the German modellers used in their runs was likely too warm by a similar amount. This applies to all modellers, reanalyses etc….There will be a lot of discussion of the global T series with people saying we can’t even measure it properly now…..The paper doesn’t provide a correction. This will come, but will include the addition of loads more British SSTs for WW2, which may very slightly cool the WW2 years. ….So the German group would be stupid to take your bet. There is a likely  ongoing negative volcanic event in the offing!

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…..

This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!

Cheers

Phil

While the reluctance to share adverse data the minute it becomes available might concern some, I’m more concerned with Jones instructing others to delete documents that may be subject to FOIA.  It’s also interesting to note that Jones is always looking for a way to not comply with requests. It’s that very gaming of the system and the delaying tactics he used with Willis Eschenbach that got the CA audience so inflamed.

Later Osborn will send a mail to Ammann, evidence that the matter is being discussed and that “confidentiality” will be the loophole that Jones/Palmer try to squeeze through. Note, even if Ammann considered his mails to be confidential, Ammann is not the correct person to make that determination. But CRU are not looking for their actual obligations under the law, they are feeding Ammann the excuse they want to hear:

From: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Subject: Re: request for your emails

Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 17:36:26 -0600

Cc: “keith Briffa” <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Oh MAN! will this crap ever end??

Well, I will have to properly answer in a couple days when I get a chance digging through emails. I don’t recall from the top of my head any specifics about IPCC. I’m also sorry that you guys have to go through this BS. You all did an outstanding job and

the IPCC report certainly reflects that science and literature in an accurate and balanced way.

So long,

Caspar

On May 27, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Tim Osborn wrote:

Dear Caspar,

I hope everything’s fine with you. Our university has received a request, under the UK Freedom of Information law, from someone called David Holland for emails or other documents that you may have sent to us that discuss any matters related to the IPCC assessment process. We are not sure what our university’s response will be, nor have we even checked whether you sent us emails that relate to the IPCC assessment or that we retained any that you may have sent. However, it would be useful to know your opinion on this matter. In particular, we would like to know whether you consider any emails that you sent to us as confidential.

Sorry to bother you with this,

Tim (cc Keith & Phil)

The game plan for handling Holland’s request is laid out here by the FOIA officer, Palmer:

On Tue, May 27, 2008 6:30 pm, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote:

Gents,

Please note the response received today from Mr. Holland. Could you provide input as to his additional questions 1, and 2, and check with Mr. Ammann in question 3 as to whether he believes his correspondence with us to be confidential?

Although I fear/anticipate the response, I believe that I should inform the requester that his request will be over the appropriate limit [18 hours] and ask him to limit it – the ICO Guidance states:

12. If an authority estimates that complying with a request will exceed the cost limit, can advice and assistance be offered with a view to the applicant refocusing the request?

In such cases the authority is not obliged to comply with the request and will issue a refusal notice. Included within the notice (which must state the reason for refusing the request, provide details of complaints procedure, and contain particulars of section 50 rights) could be advice and assistance relating to therefocusing of the request, together with an indication of the information that would be available within the cost limit (as required by the Access Code).

…..

And… our own Code of Practice states (Annex C, point 5)

5. Where the UEA is not obliged to supply the information requested because the cost of doing so would exceed the “appropriate limit” (i.e. cost threshold), and where the UEA is not prepared to meet the additional costs itself, it should nevertheless provide an indication of what information could be provided within the cost ceiling.

This is based on the Lord Chancellors Code of Practice which contains a virtually identical provision….

In effect, we have to help the requester phrase the request in such a way as to bring it within the appropriate limit – if the requester disregards that advice, then we don’t provide the information and allow them to proceed as they wish….

I just wish to ensure that we do as much as possible ‘by the book’ in this instance as I am certain that this will end up in an appeal, with the statutory potential to end up with the ICO.

Cheers, Dave

One thing to note here. Palmer suggests two ways to get around the request. The first method is to claim that the request would be too costly. If Palmer determines that the request may take more than 18 hours, he can deny the request. This path is troublesome because then Palmer will have to work with Holland to refine his request, or perhaps Holland could opt to pay to have the documents retrieved. Instead, Palmer sticks to the game plan in his denial:

Dear Mr Holland,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 – INFORMATION REQUEST (Our Ref: FOI_08-31)

Your request for information received on 27 May 2008 has now been considered and it is, unfortunately, not possible to meet your request.

In accordance with s.17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a Refusal Notice, and I am not obliged to supply this information and the reasons for exemption are as stated below:

Exemption: Reason

s.1(1)(a) Right to be informed if information held” : Information not held

s.41, Information provided in confidence: Release of the information could result in an actionable breach of confidence

We are unable to provide the information requested in sections (1) and (2) as we simply do not have the requested information. After consultation with colleagues, I would suggest that you contact the IPCC directly for this information.

To recap. There is a request in from Holland for email. In an early mail after receiving this request, Jones is fast on the case of deleting communications. Over the course of May a plan of action is developed. CRU will deny the request, not on the grounds of the request taking to long, but on the grounds that the communication is confidential and Jones’ dodge that they “don’t” have any documents that fit the description.

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,”Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)” <David.Palmer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

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@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, “Mcgarvie Michael Mr ” <m.mcgarvie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dave[Palmer],

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.

The fact is that Briffa did receive correspondence outside the IPCC process. He did communicate with Wahl about McIntyre’s paper. He did use Wahl’s words without proper attribution.

This, then,  is the context in which Jones asks Mann to delete mails. The plan is to deny the request. The reasons are laid out.The ploys they will hide behind. But Jones is not willing to do things by the book.  Palmer has informed everyone that they must do this by the book. Brimming with bravado, Jones writes to Mann– “delete your mails.” This is not the first time he has made such a request to Mann and others.

We can only wonder if Jones was worried about the appeal that Palmer told him was going to take place. Jones feared that Holland would appeal. He feared that the matter would be taken out of Palmer’s hands upon appeal. It would be turned over to officers he had no control over. So his fear was not that Holland would ask for more documents. Holland had already requested them all. Jones concern is that the appeal office would overturn the decision.

This is not the first time that Jones has contemplated being forced to turn over documents. It’s not the first time he has thought about having an argument with somebody at UAE, someone who might order him to turn over documents. Long before 2008 Jones envisioned such a circumstance. Long before he ever received a FOIA, he planned his approach– “hide” behind various excuses and in the end, if you are forced to turn them over, make sure no documents exists:

Mike,

I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is

trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also

have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He

has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere

to it !

What a full context of the mails shows is this: Prior to receiving any FOIA request Jones laid out a preferred course of response. Hide behind the ins and outs of the legislation, and if it looks like you may lose some argument with an official outside of CRU about your official obligations, then destroy the documents.

Phil Jones did not ask Mann to delete documents because he feared that Holland would request more. That makes no logical sense. What makes more sense is Jones’ claim of bravado. He thought he had the game figured out. Delay Holland [ they missed the 20 day response] and use official reasons to deny the request. Official reasons that really don’t apply. And thwart any attempted appeal by destroying the documents requested. You see if Jones really did believe that the documents were confidential, if he really did believe that his denial of Holland was just and sound, there would be no reason to fear an appeal or to fear additional requests. It’s because he knew the excuses were bogus; it’s because he knew that Holland’s rights were being trampled, that he displayed such bravado.

As much as they would like it……

“This message will [Not] self  destruct in 10 seconds!

Cheers”

[Moshpit]

Advertisements

38 thoughts on “By the Book

  1. Motive is indeed the right question to ask from the point of view of the integrity of the science process. Whether deletion occurred may be releavant to the legalities of the issue. I would like to see an analysis of motives that span the space from the most innocent possibility to the most pernicious one. It is possible that the most innocent is the “bravado” claim; it seems to suggest that the team is guilty only of arrogance and obstruction of the free flow of information in science. In this case there is nothing new; we know this from a spectrum of other behaviors in other contexts. But what is the other end of the motive specturm?

  2. Just additional proof that they are really hiding something, that their “science” is not really for public discourse, testing and validation. Mr. Jones should enter politics as politicians are good at projecting something then explaining afterwards why they did not happen.

  3. Excellent summary Mosh, and very much appreciated. As a student, I haven’t had the time to read through the e-mails myself. As a graduate student in a field of science, I find the concept of deleting data or even important communications/e-mail appalling – I wouldn’t dream of deleting my raw results!…or my intermediate or final results either!
    You’re right though…the motive is what it comes down to. Unfortunately, it’s something that no one other than Phil Jones will ever know, even if he can figure out his own motive. Unfortunately, as scientists, determining motive is not what we’re experts at, so at best we can guess. IMO, the willingness to delete important stuff and the prior planning to do so speaks of some dark motives and really makes you wonder what they were trying to hide. Was it just them trying to hide how poor their record keeping was? That’s embarrassing, but it happens. Or were they trying to hide something else, such as the intentional removal of cooling stations or the artificial creation of increased warming trends? Again, we can only speculate.
    Thanks again Mosh, I appreciate all your posts,
    -Scott

  4. Scientists? NO! I apologise for ruffling (probably) yet more feathers, but you are mostly a shower of self-serving egotists.
    Most of you so-called scientists are in thrall of large salaries and little responsibility, except to maintain your own inflated egos.
    There are few of your number that I, as a professional engineer can rely on, and to start bleating about who is to blame concerning this woeful lack of foresight is almost beyond belief.
    If the same thing happened to an engineer, he would have had his b**lls cut off.
    We engineers make things happen, repair them when they go wrong, and try our best to keep them ‘happening’, usually without any assistance from the designer, oft-times a scientist.

  5. Although I personally feel bad for Mr. Jones, and he looks so down and dejected, I wish him good health. Remember, if you have good health, and a roof over your had you are doing better than 2/3 of the population of the planet.
    Aside from that, it is obvious their agenda was plain as the nose on our face, and they almost got away with it. Thankfully someone leaked the emails, and the rest is history. Personally I never fell for the bubble of man-made global warming, so it is no surprise that it isn’t true. I just wonder how so many so-called intelligent individuals could fall for this dribble with virtually no real evidence.
    Anyway, all the best. The next 2 – 3 years will see more unravelling of the scam, this is only year 1 of the end of a 20 year process which is collapsing.
    Ian

  6. Phil Jones was only responsible for one of the most important historical temperature series going back to 1850, Hadcrut3.
    If he demonstrated a propensity to delete data in this case, what does that say about what happened to one of the most important temp series over time.
    Obviously, that means everyting needs to be doublechecked.
    And that brings us to who were responsible for the other two temperature series. James Hansen of GISS and Tom Karl/Tom Peterson of the NCDC (and also of Climategate fame).
    Obviously, everything now needs to triplechecked and quadruplechecked and we have to have access to the raw data records because …

  7. Last year, about this time, the GISS lower 48 temp series changed. From ’34 being slightly cooler than ’98, (having previously been warmer), 2006 being about 5th, suddenly,m 2006 came out joint warmest with ’98!
    All this turns into a crock of $%^&!
    DaveE.

  8. (Arthur ) Andersen has said its Houston auditors started deleting Enron e-mails on Oct. 23 and stopped Nov. 9.
    This has nothing to do with bravado. Bravado tells you you will never get caught, and thus have nothing to hide.
    You delete documents to cover-up evidence of fraud. Phil was worried, so he wanted to make sure the evidence was destroyed. Fear, not bravado was Phil’s motivation.

  9. The blog that claimed to have been responsible for Climategate in Nov 2009, appeared to have a credible story before he closed his blog, ostensibly for reasons relating to privacy and future online business directions. I don’t have his blog post recorded however. If it was him, he deserves a medal.
    “Thursday, March 25, 2010
    Blog Closed | See you over at PUSH Blog
    Well this blog has now been retired and Jimi Bostock is now found over at PUSH Blog.”

  10. If Palmer is in the States, no question, he goes to jail. “Palmer suggests two ways……”. Do you Brits have a similar law? It is not legal to plan and attempt to circumvent law in the States. Palmer and Jones absolutely did attempt to do such acts. Jail or no jail in the U.K., they should not be employed by even a fish and chips factory, yet, presumably, they are employed.

  11. steven –
    these guys will get to the bottom of it. as for left-leaning me, who cannot bear to hear or read one more word about carbon/climate change/deniers or CO2/AGW/sceptics in the MSM, their promise to saturate the MSM with even MORE of the stuff is enough to ensure i’ll confine myself to the blogs :
    16 Nov: Time Blog: Michael Lemonick: Getting past “Climategate Syndrome”
    This Friday marks exactly one year since “Climategate” broke into the headlines, revealing, if nothing else, that at least some mainstream climate scientists were pretty fed up with what they saw as political attacks on the legitimate science they were trying to do…
    So after a year of taking assaults on the scientific case for human-caused climate change, and anticipating even more as Congress is becoming more conservative, the scientists are beginning to fight back in the form of a “climate rapid response team,” kind of an A-Team of working scientists ready to go on TV, radio, blogs and Op-Ed ages to counter false claims and explain the facts climate science.
    The team is the brainchild of two Americans (John Abraham and Scott Mandia), and an Australian (John Cook, creator of the website SkepticalScience). “I don’t really think articles on DotEarth change anyone’s mind,” says Mandia. “The average person doesn’t go there, and neither do politicians. If you want the story out there, the media have to be involved.”…
    “It actually has nothing to do with the Climategate anniversary,” says Mandia. But an article in the L.A. Times last week moved up the debut. “It put us on the map,” says Mandia, “and now the media knows where to go.” Not to a website yet. “We’re putting that together, we’ve got domain names registered.” The site will feature a form where editors, reporters and producers can be able to ask for a source or in-studio guest; requests will then go through the three founders who will figure out who has the necessary expertise on their list of volunteers (they already have 50 climate scientists lined up, and are aiming for a total of 100). “Then we’ll vector them to the media,” says Mandia…
    http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/11/16/getting-past-climategate-syndrome/
    all these climategate pieces and not one with a sceptic so far, Michael?

  12. I remain puzzled by the fact that scientists who tint their white mice with felt tip pens, or obtain irreproducible results for molecular transistors, are fired on the spot, but climatologists who publish papers based on fraud (in the case of the Chinese station records), employ ‘tricks’ to hide inconvenient facts (the divergence between proxy and instrumental temperatures), or incite others to delete information in response to FOI requests, are repeatedly exonerated, rehabilitated, and sympathized with.
    Or is this just another example of the distinction between science and climatology?

  13. Bob Tisdale says: “What I find remarkable is the amount of time they wasted avoiding the FOI requests.”
    Were they aware of the statute of limitations?

  14. Sorry to be so pedantic, but the article is full of typos that no spell checker will flag. As a result, it’s very difficult to read.

  15. Excellent article, excellent comments. Jones talks and acts like someone who knows he is guilty of committing fraud. He is now recanting his previous rational sounding answers when he admitted there was no statistically relevant warming, tying himself in knots now as he backpedals.
    The emails show that Michael Mann was the driving force behind the creation of RealClimate, where he acted the same guilt-ridden way by deleting the time stamps from their RealClimate moderating activities, because those time stamps show that they were defrauding the taxpayers by running a blog on work time.
    They’re getting jumpy, and overreacting; after being caught red-handed using RealClimate for their warmist propaganda, they erased all the time stamps as soon as a complaint was filed over misappropriation of public funds – an obvious indication of guilt. But of course, the internet never forgets things like time stamps. They would have been much better off by simply ignoring the time stamp issue and letting it blow over. Now they have some explaining to do.
    The FOIA issue is also interesting. Their emails show that they conspired to run out the clock by “talking to” the FOI officer – without the information requestor’s knowledge. So the FOI officer became part of the collusion, but was never disciplined for improperly taking sides. However, since the clock ran out on the original request for information, what is to stop another person from making the same request, and starting the clock running again?
    So many unanswered questions. Jones, Mann, Wigley, Briffa, Santer, and the rest are all looking extremely guilty in this cover-up. As long as they keep stonewalling the questions, more eyes will be on them, wondering what exactly it is they are hiding.

  16. ge0050 says:
    November 16, 2010 at 6:35 pm
    . . . You delete documents to cover-up evidence of fraud. Phil was worried, so he wanted to make sure the evidence was destroyed. Fear, not bravado was Phil’s motivation.

    Exactly right. “Bravado” might be an excuse for juvenile delinquency, but not for a clearly frantic attempt to remove evidence of—what? Scientific misconduct? The question always has to be, “What have you got to hide?”
    I would expect scientists who make major discoveries to be careful to preserve their notes and correspondence, for posterity if not for ego. Why would Phil Jones want to hide his role in demonstrating how mankind was endangering the planet with ‘global warming’, unless he knew that claim was an utter fraud?
    /Mr Lynn

  17. Mosher the mailman. An excellent article thanks. The photo of Jonesy in the earlier post sure looks like a deeply troubled man who feels decidedly uncomfortable in his own skin. He looks like he would rather fess up than continue to live the lie.
    It’s likely his managers and other members of the Team are putting pressure on him to backpedal.

  18. Hi, Steve. You asked for it. 🙂
    TYPOS:
    5th para., 1st line:
    Change “my” to “by” in:
    “my reading the mails”
    Correct misspelling in:
    “The ploys they will hid behind”
    And insert a space before it.

  19. These CRU people can live in their little dreamworld and state on their website that their science is of the ‘highest quality’, but they won’t fool the public. They just don’t get it; they still claim that AGW skeptics have no place in the scientific process, yet the above shows otherwise to anybody who has any sense.

  20. Its funny that a year later climate science has almost come full circle. Generally, the big event in any conspiracy (in this case climate-gate) takes a couple years to fall down, but its in the midst. In another year (or sooner barring another climate-gate like event).. this will be one for the history books.

  21. The biggest wonder in this whole episode is not that the emails exist and not the childish behaviour of the scientists concerned. The biggest wonder is the utter failure of the mainstream media to take even the slightest interest. What has happened to investigative journalism that this very sorry saga is not being reported. Journalists should be going through the details with magnifying glass in hand. To my mind this story is way bigger than Nixon’s Watergate.

  22. One may resent being questioned, but if one knows they are on firm ground and in public view it makes no sense whatsover to not PROVE your critics baseless, and thus discredit them. The team did the opposite and hid many times, often for years.

  23. I posted an article in one of the mainstream papers soon after the release of the-mails,saying that this was the biggest story that i had ever heard. I remain convinced that it still has a long way to go and will be subsequently referred too as the tipping point for the inevitable collapse of AGW. It has become more like a science of Speculative Ifology. If this happens then that will happen etc.
    Given the funding, it is easy to attribute almost anything to globalwarming/climate disruption.
    Climate change will always be with us and there will be winners and loosers as has been the case for Billions of years.
    Now is the time to put climate research back where it once was. Their job is to attempt to understand how the climate works and that is it. As of this moment, we are unable to model this highly complex coupled phenomenon we call climate.

  24. Not that there was doubt about the scientific probity of Jones and the rest of the team – certainly not after ClimateGate, and for some of us before that – but this fine analysis by Mosh shows yet again that these are not, never have been, scientists.
    Who would even contemplate to destroy records on which those analyses are based which are published?
    One of the things dinned into us as students was that field notes and lab notes are precious, because one cannot go twice into the same river.
    The Team were not, nor are, scientists.
    I shall refrain from saying what I really think of them and their ‘work’ – wouldn’t want to lower the tone of this outstanding web site!

  25. “We just thought if they’re going to ask for
    more, we might as well not have them.”
    Who are we? and who does he think he is to destroy government property?
    Steven what you have demonstrated above is a conspiracy to break the law?

  26. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone
    Is it possible that, in a mail to a trusted colleague that he believed to be private, Jones was using hyperbole? Is it in fact implausible that he would actually delete a large chunk of his life’s work out of spite? Could Mr Mosher be missing the nuances here (he has after all previously made an allegation of malfeasance that turned out to be based on a msunderstood private joke, such are the hazards of making inferences from purloined communications)? Does it actually What does it matter if Jones and Wahl communicated outside of the process – if the resulting product was correct? Many might well say so. Could it be that the question to Annann about confidentiality was well, just a simple question?
    Is this the scrapings from a rather old barrel?

  27. The world will eventually realise it owes a huge a debt of gratitude to the persistance and investigative skills of Mosh, the Macs and many others who shine their light on and from the blogosphere, and to the people such as Anthony who are facilitating the renaissance of real and credible science.
    After decades of dealing with schoolboy miscreants, I can see Jones and his coterie demonstrating the unmistakable tell-tale signs of big boys who were caught doing something absolutely apalling in class, waiting outside the Principal’s study where they know that the cane across their bottoms, or even expulsion from school, awaits. And they were Prefects, too, the bounders.
    The first faint glow of the MSM’s awakening is now appearing on the horizon.

  28. Phil Clarke,
    “Could it be that the question to Annann about confidentiality was well, just a simple question? ”
    The evidence does not support that conclusion. If Jones was really just concerned about the confidentiality issue, he would have no fear the matter to going to appeal. If the appeal ajudicator rules in Holland’s favour, then Jones would have been cleared of any criticism that he violated confidentiality – it would have been out of his hands.

  29. Phil Clarke November 17, 2010 at 3:47 am:
    “Is it possible that, in a mail to a trusted colleague that he believed to be private, Jones was using hyperbole?”
    Yeah sure – about as possible as him joshing David Palmer in front of the screen:
    ___________
    1228330629.txt
    From: Phil Jones
    To: santer1@llnl.gov, 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”
    _____

  30. Phil Clarke says:
    November 17, 2010 at 3:47 am (Edit)
    The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone
    Is it possible that, in a mail to a trusted colleague that he believed to be private, Jones was using hyperbole? Is it in fact implausible that he would actually delete a large chunk of his life’s work out of spite? Could Mr Mosher be missing the nuances here (he has after all previously made an allegation of malfeasance that turned out to be based on a msunderstood private joke, such are the hazards of making inferences from purloined communications)?”
    1. it could be hyperbole. jones has had an opportunity to defend it as hyperbole.
    Jones never defended it as hyperbole. Yes, I did make that mistake in a 200 page book. And I promptly admitted it when it was brought to my attention.
    2. I think its highly likely to be hyperbole. I’m looking at the pattern. I dont think Jones would delete his lifes work. But when he is asking Mann to delete mann mails to briffa, that NOT jones’s work. he’s asking other to do the evil deed with other people work.
    “Does it actually What does it matter if Jones and Wahl communicated outside of the process – if the resulting product was correct? Many might well say so. ”
    Do YOU READ. it was Briffa and Wahl. The resulting product was a report that was supposed to be open and transparent about all these matters to insure confidence in the result.
    “Could it be that the question to Annann about confidentiality was well, just a simple question? ”
    Do you read? Palmer asked that they contact Ammann and discuss this. Also, dont make me post the subsequent mails between Ammann and Osborn.
    The bottom line. Jones can just tell the truth about this and the science doesnt change. or he can continue to fabricate things about the mails and the public will continue to confuse lying about mails and lying about the science.

  31. Fear? Nah. Jones and his co-conspirators have the market sewn up on brown corduroy trousers.
    Bravado? Nope. The way these ‘scientists’ hid behind each other or bullied with OTT threats of action, they showed no bravado.
    But, Hubris. Yes. That is what was demonstrated here. Along with, if not illegal, then immoral acts and deeds.
    I can remember reading the HARRY.README file last year and being completely transfixed by the story it told of colossal incompetence, mis-management and lack of version history, etc. It is such a shame that our pusillanimous and useless MSM hadn’t the ability to do the digging and nail Jones and his team good and proper.
    On the basis of his work, I wonder if Jones reflects that what he has done is going to cost the world many times more than ENRON ever did. How does he sleep at night? (oh, of course, medication! HAH!).

  32. There are only three valid reasons to delete/destroy anything.
    1: It’s a duplicate
    2: It’s old and useless
    3: You need the space
    Now, if 3 is applicable, I suggest that they delete that annoying climate model that they have. It’s no more accurate than a random number generator anyway. If they don’t want to do that, let’s pass a hat and get them a few pounds for an extra terabyte of hard drive.
    I have to say “Bravado” isn’t a valid excuse here. I don’t know how much press time the Enron mess got in Britain, but no company on this side of the Pond would DREAM of issuing a delete-all-emails order.

  33. I just thought it was funny how Insert is over the delete button. Never thought about that before now even when keyboards have been with me for all this time.
    Just wished he would have used the end button to the right.

  34. A year already! I must have spent at least 25% of my waking hours on WUWT and the superb links.
    Re- reading the e-mails is almost more jaw-droppingly amazing than the first few times and really drives home how thorough and exhaustive the various inquiries were.
    More to come with any luck, either from the original source or Cucinelli’s efforts, which will keep me nicely amused through the dark UK winter months.

  35. Steve,
    Great post and thank you for your tireless work getting to the truth.
    Climategate got me started and I have been fascinated with this story ever since. Before Climategate and CruTape Letters Global Warming was just the “Al Gore Thing” to me. After reading the emails I was just stunned at the amorality of the Team. I was sure that MSM would pick the story up it would have been huge for them; but instead Sci Am, Newsweek, LA Times, NY Times et al just toed the CAGW line – disappointing. Canceled my subscriptions to everything but Guitar Player Magazine.
    Next thing you know I’m on every blog including yours and spending way too much time on this stuff. Keep it up, Mosh – this thing is huge and the truth will eventually prevail.

  36. Notwithstanding all the doubletalk, Jones was specifically trying to hide information and defy the FOIA. His motivation was that his results didn’t and don’t stand up, and his incompetence is on full display when actual data sets and his manipulations thereof are exposed to the light of day.

Comments are closed.