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]
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!
“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?
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?
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.
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.
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”
_____
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.
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!).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.