To Serve Mann

Pinocckey Stick

Breaking: Mann and Wahl have responded. See updates below.

3/9 12:45 PM Pacific Time. This story is now updated to be consistent with Mann and Wahl’s response:

By Steven Mosher

and charles the moderator

Sources confirm that a federal inspector has questioned Eugene Wahl and Wahl has confirmed that Mann asked [forwarded] him [a request] to delete emails. Wahl has also informed the inspector that he did delete emails as the result of this request.

There are times during the course of Climategate when you feel like you are in a twilight zone episode, especially the kind where the ambiguous meaning of terms plays a critical role, like “To Serve Man”.

That episode is apt because of the central role trust plays and because of the role puzzle solvers play  in uncovering that the do-gooder aliens cannot be trusted. “Serving”, of course, has now taken on new meanings, as in “you got served” or pwned. With the release of the news that Mann successfully [forwarded instructions] instructed [to] Wahl to delete emails,  it’s clear that Mann got served or pwned by Wahl; but more importantly, he got served or assisted by Dr. Pell, Dr. Scaroni, Dr Brune, and Dr. Foley. Who are they? They are the Penn State team who served Dr. Mann by purporting to exonerate him in the Penn State inquiry, despite Mann’s own non-responsive response to a key question being on its face evasive, and begging followup questions. Regardless, Mann’s non-answer did not even purport to support their conclusion about his actions. In short, they covered for him.

The puzzle begins back in 2006. Keith Briffa the author of chapter 6 in the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC (AR4) is struggling under the directive of review editor Johnathan Overpeck, who has encouraged him to come up with something “more compelling than the Hockey Stick”, that iconic symbol of Global warming created by Michael Mann in the third assessment report.

Briffa is struggling with the comments and suggestions of a particular reviewer who we now know was Steve McIntyre, the citizen scientist who has been dogging Mann for several years. In what appears to be violation of IPCC rules Briffa writes to Eugene Wahl asking for assistance in answering McIntyre’s comments. More important than this communication being apparently at odds with IPCC directives, is that Briffa is asking Wahl to comment on McIntyre’s work, a process that is clearly supposed to take place in peer reviewed literature. Wahl and McIntyre had both been critical of each other’s work and such disputes are most fairly handled by independent third parties and not by the disputants themselves.

In mid 2006 the following exchange occurs between Briffa and Eugene Wahl:

From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]

Sent: Tue 7/18/2006 10:20 AM

To: Wahl, Eugene R

Subject: confidential

Gene

I am taking the liberty (confidentially) to send you a copy of the reviewers[McIntyre’s]  comments (please keep these to yourself) of the last IPCC draft chapter. I am concerned that I am not as objective as perhaps I should be and would appreciate your take on the comments from number 6-737 onwards , that relate to your reassessment of the Mann et al work. I have to consider whether the current text is fair or whether I should change things in the light of the sceptic comments. In practise this brief version has evolved and there is little scope for additional text , but I must put on record responses to these comments – any confidential help , opinions are appreciated . I have only days now to complete this revision and response

Wahl responds

Thoughts and perspective concerning the reviewer’s comments per se. These are coded in blue and are in the “Notes” column between pages 103 and 122 inclusive. It got to the point that I could not be exhaustive, given the very lengthy set of review thoughts, so I am also attaching a review article Caspar [Ammann]  and I plan to submit to Climatic Change in the next few days….Please note that this Ammann-Wahl text is sent strictly confidentially — it should not be cited or mentioned in any form, and MUST not be transmitted without permission. However, I am more than happy to send it for your use, because it succinctly summarizes what we have found on all the issues that have come up re: MBH. As you can see, we agree at some level with some of the criticisms raised by MM [McIntyre]  and others, but we do not find that they invalidate MBH in any substantial way.

Briffa responds

Gene

here is where I am up to now with my responses (still a load to do) you can see that I have “borrowed (stolen)” from 2 of your responses in a significant degree – please assure me that this OK (and will not later be obvious) hopefully.You will get the whole text(confidentially again ) soon. You could also see that I hope to be fair to Mike[Mann] – but he can be a little unbalanced in his remarks sometime – and I have had to disagree with his interpretations of some issues also. Please do not pass these on to anyone at all.

Keith

Wahl responds, jumping into the “divergence” problem which has come to be known as the “hide the decline” problem.

Hi Keith:

Here is the text with my comments. I will go over the “stolen” parts (highlighted in blue outline) for a final time tomorrow morning, but I wanted to get this to you ASAP. The main new point I have to make is added in bold/blue font on pp. 101-103. I question the way the response to the comment there is currently worded, as it seems to imply that the divergence issue really does invalidate any dendro-based reconstructions before about 1850–which I imagine is not what you would like to say. I give a series of arguments against this as a general conclusion. Maybe I got over-bold in doing so, as in my point (1) I’m examining issues that are at the very core of your expertise! Excuse me that one, but I decided to jump in anyway. Let me know if I got it wrong in any way!

Briffa responds

First Gene – let me say that I never intended that you should spend so much time on this – though I really appreciate your take on these points. The one you highlight here – correctly warns me that in succumbing to the temptation to be lazy in the sense of the brief answer that I have provided – I do give an implied endorsement of the sense of the whole comment. This is not, of course what I intended. I simply meant to agree that some reference to the “divergence” issue was necessitated . I will revise the reply to say briefly that I do not agree with the interpretation of the reviewer. I am attaching what I have done (see blue highlighting) to the section in response to comments (including the addition of the needed extra section on the “tree-ring issues” called for by several people). I have had no feedback yet on this as it has not been generally circulated , but thought you might like to see it. PLEASE REMEMBER that this is “for your eyes only ” . Please do NOT feel that I am asking /expecting you to go through this in any detail – but given the trouble you have taken,I thought it reasonable to give you a private look. Cheers

Keith

So, Briffa writes confidentially to Wahl for help and Wahl assists him by passing a copy of a paper that has yet to be published. The aim is to answer concerns that McIntyre as reviewer has raised. Wahl and Amman’s words are incorporated in the response to McIntyre with the hope that no one will ever notice.

Two years later, someone does notice.  It’s May 24th 2008, Steve McIntyre, climate science puzzle solver, is reading the reviewer comments to chapter 6 of AR4 written in 2006.  In the course of reviewing Briffa’s replies to him, McIntyre notes something peculiar. Briffa’s replies, written in 2006, seemed to plagiarize an unpublished paper by Casper Amman and Eugene Wahl published in 2007. That is, in 2006 Briffa was repeating the argument of a paper that was not published until 2007. How could Briffa plagiarize an article that hadn’t been published? Why would he repeat the arguments almost word for word? Who was feeding Briffa his arguments? How was Briffa doing this if all communication with the authors had to be part of the official record?

At the time, in May of 2008, McIntyre assumed that Briffa was getting information from Casper Ammann since Ammann was listed as a contributing author to chapter 6. It did not occur to McIntyre that Wahl was the source of the text. Thanks to the individual who liberated the Climategate emails, we now know that Wahl was the source of that text. The Climategate emails, quoted above, show Briffa and Wahl exchanging emails about the way McIntyre’s arguments should be handled. Confidentially, outside the process of the IPCC which is designed to capture reviewer objections and authors’ responses to those objections. Wahl is brought in by Briffa to defend his own work. And defend it with literature that has not been published yet.

At the same time in 2008, across the ocean, David Holland had been reading McIntyre’s work and he had issued an FOIA request to the Climatic Research Unit–CRU. That FOIA request covered all correspondence coming in and out of CRU relative to chapter 6 of AR4.  The hunt for the source that was feeding Briffa was on, with Holland leading the charge. At CRU, FOIA officer Palmer instructs the team that they must do everything “by the book” because Holland will most certainly appeal a rejection letter.

In that context, Jones writes the famous email to Mann. Jones requests that Mann delete his emails and he requests that Mann contact Wahl and have Wahl delete his emails.  Is Jones covering his bases in case of an appeal? Is he covering his bases against an FOIA request that might be served on Mann and Wahl in the US? In any case, he appears to be conspiring with others to deny Holland his FOIA rights.

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

Mann responds that he will contact Wahl ASAP, which he does.

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@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

talk to you later,

mike

As Wahl told the investigators in 2011, Mann contacted [forwarded the email from Jones requesting deletion to] him and Wahl deleted his mails.

In 2010, in an effort to clear Mann of any wrong doing, a committee of inquiry was set up at Penn State. We now know that committee failed miserably. They failed for many reasons, but the Wahl admission is the starkest example.

Here is one allegation the committee investigated:

Allegation 2: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with  the intent  to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related  to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

Finding 2. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the  inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had  ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete,  conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested  by Dr. Phil Jones.  Dr. Mann has stated that he did not delete emails in response to Dr.  Jones’ request. Further, Dr. Mann produced upon request a full archive of his emails in  and around the time of the preparation of AR4. The archive contained e-mails related to  AR4.

The committee found this because they apparently failed to understand Mann’s reply. As they reported:

He [Mann] explained that he never deleted emails at the behest of any other scientist, specifically including Dr. Phil Jones, and that he never withheld data with the intention of obstructing science; …

What can we make of this? Mann was apparently asked the question: “Did you engage in or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete emails.”

And it seems clear he only answered half of the question, leaving the unanswered second part dangling: did you contact anyone or otherwise ‘indirectly’ participate in deleting records? This either did not strike, or did not interest, the Penn State ‘investigators’. This despite that Mann, it appears, answered “carefully” and incompletely. He only answered that he hadn’t deleted emails. He never directly denies partaking, indirectly, in the deletion of Wahl’s emails. He apparently withheld the information that he had asked [forwarded the request to] Wahl to delete emails.

Is this a lie? Not directly. It’s more what Wikipedia would describe as “Careful Speaking”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

Careful speaking is distinct from the above in that the speaker wishes to avoid imparting certain information or admitting certain facts and, additionally, does not want to ‘lie’ when doing so. Careful speaking involves using carefully-phrased statements to give a ‘half-answer’: one that does not actually ‘answer’ the question, but still provides an appropriate (and accurate) answer based on that question. As with ‘misleading’, below, ‘careful speaking’ is not outright lying.

So why did the inquiry, stocked with Mann’s fellow professors, fail to ask good follow up questions? We really do not know because we don’t have access to the transcript of their interview with Mann. Did he intend to deceive? Or did he just speak “carefully?” It would seem that the actual transcript of the questions and answers should be published. Perhaps Congress should serve the members of the inquiry with a subpoena. That would allow people to decide if Mann lied or if he just spoke carefully.

And there are a few more questions we need to ask. Mann claims that he never deleted the emails. But he asked [forwarded Jones’s request to] Wahl to delete the emails. This makes no sense. It makes no sense that Mann would participate in a cover up by passing along a message to another participant of that cover-up downstream and not delete emails himself. It defies any logical reconstruction of events. Why would Mann ask [forward a request to] Wahl to do something that he himself would not do? We also know from the inquiry that Mann delivered emails to the inquiry. From that evidence and his testimony they concluded that he deleted no emails. This does not compute. [S.M: See update below for a possible explanation ]

Jones requested of Mann: Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

The inquiry stated: The archive contained e-mails related to AR4.    (Hmm…more “Careful Speaking”?)

Did the inquiry find any emails of Mann communicating with Briffa re AR4 or just some emails related to AR4?

Did Mann turn over all the emails he wrote/received or only those he didn’t delete?

Was the email from Phil Jones requesting deletion among the emails Mann delivered to the inquiry?

Did the IT staff serve Mann, by letting him know that what he initially attempted to delete were in fact retained on the University mail server?

Did Mann turn over emails to the inquiry that he had previously deleted, deleted and then recovered with the help of some sympathetic University IT staff?

These questions need to be asked.

Perhaps Congress should serve Mann a subpoena.

Perhaps, the IG, the NSF, or some other suitable independent third party can investigate this with people who know how to watch for the pea under the thimble, and not be mislead by “Careful Speaking”.

=================================================================

UPDATES:

Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has the goods in this: Wahl Transcript Excerpt

Chris Horner at DailyCaller also has a review: Penn State whitewashed ClimateGate

In fact, Chris Horner and the Competitive Enterprise Institute were instrumental in efforts over a year to get this and other forthcoming FOIA info into the public domain. – Anthony

UPDATE 3/9 12PM Mann and Wahl have responded see here.

Excerpt:

Mann, reached on vacation in Hawaii, said the stories yesterday were “libelous” and false. “They’re spreading a lie about me,” he said of the Web sites. “This has been known for a year and a half that all I did was forward Phil’s e-mail to Eugene.” Asked why he sent the e-mail to his colleague, Mann said, “I felt Eugene Wahl had to be aware of this e-mail … it could be used against him. I didn’t delete any e-mails and nor did I tell Wahl to delete any e-mails.” Why didn’t Mann call Wahl to discuss the odd request? “I was so busy. It’s much easier to e-mail somebody. No where did I approve of the instruction to destroy e-mails.”

Also at the above link, Wahl has now publicly stated that he did in fact delete emails in response to the request forwarded to him by Mann, rendering moot our need to wait for our original sources to confirm this story.

UPDATE: 3/9 6PM Chris Horner, whose story at the Daily Caller prompted a fair amount of outrage from AGW proponents, has responded to Wahl and Mann here

==========================================================

h/t SF Grand Master, Damon Knight, who was the author of the original short story this Twilight Zone episode was based upon.

Jones specifically asked Mann to delete emails with Briffa with regard to AR4. Mann claims that he deleted no mails. This is entirely possible, especially if there were no mails fitting the description. Canvasing the  Climategate mails, we can only find a few mails between Briffa and Mann related to Ar4. If  there were few or no mails to delete, then it does make sense that Mann could have passed the instruct to delete onto Wahl, without deleting mails himself.  S. Mosher.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
BobN

I always thought that Mann’s reply to the Penn State investigators regarding this issue was too clever by half.

ShrNfr

Tastes like pork I am told.

Ron Cram

Good work on this, Steven. The problem is if Congress subpoenas Mann, they will have to offer immunity from prosecution. This certainly looks worthy of the interest of a criminal prosecutor to me.

Elizabeth

It certainly makes one wonder what other communications with authors was not part of the official record.

Fascinating reading! Of course it is just another plum in the pudding as far as the scope of the climategate emails go. But as we have seen even in recent days (I think it was your article with the link to the Alternate web site instead of the beast), there are those out there that refuse to acknowledge any fact not fed to them by their handlers. So the pontificating blowhards of PSU will go on thinking what a good boy they are, when in fact the world is laughing at their nakedness.

kuhnkat

Careful Speaking Steven?? You are at the bottom of the barrel here. How can an answer be appropriate if it is partial and tends to obscure the fact that it is incomplete?? It may be appropriate from the point of view of the liars, for whatever reasons they have, but, this needs to be explicitly stated when discussing it. It in no way changes the FACT that the truth is not conveyed within the context of the question(s).
Try a REAL resource instead of Wikipedia next time.

Bernie

Steven and Charles:
This is a very nice summary of the issue. Is there a reason that you cannot be more explicit as to the source of Wahl’s statements? Is there likely to be more to come?

mpaul

There another possibility. We know that Briffa took emails home “for safe keeping”. Perhaps Mann “moved” the emails from the server to a memory stick and then took them home “for safe keeping”. In this way, if the university ever looked for emails, they would not find any, but if Mann was specifically asked for them, he could produce them from the hidden location. Just speculation on my part.

Mike McMillan

Use the telephone next time, guys.

jd

and this is why i don’t donate to my alma mater any more.
well, that and they decided to let ramona afrkia speak on campus.

I really don’t like the idea of statements from anonymous sources, but if true this is gonna get ugly and undermine the credibility of the academy and science in general… after all, the panel that exonerated Mann were not climate scientists.

PJB

The house of cards will soon be coming down.
Kudos to all those stalwart individuals that have doggedly pursued this noble cause. I have never made a “charitable” donation that made more sense and gave better results than supporting this and other climate realist organizations.
Well done!

Chris H

As a scientist, albeit a medical scientist, I find the deceit, subterfuge and obfuscation exhibited by The Team profoundly disturbing and the lack of action taken by their parent institutions appalling.
A German professor of anaesthesia has sent shockwaves through my profession by being found to have falsified data for studies on colloids which are widely used for resuscitation and intraoperative fluid replacement. Over 90 papers, some in leading journals, have been retracted, the professor dismissed and his institution have ordered a full review.
It might be argued that The Team’s deceits haven’t cost lives in contrast to the German professor’s actions where it is alleged that the use of colloids based upon his work has increased mortality. Nevertheless, their work has been used to justify policy changes and spending decisions that have had severe adverse effects on millions of people, not least the poor through food prices and energy costs.
Where are the rigorous investigations by the parent institutions? Where are the retractions of discredited published work?

kwik

-I did not inhale.
-I did not have sex with that woman.
And so on…..

Eric Anderson

Good exposition of the events. Couple of thoughts:
Given the circumstances, it is hard to see how Mann’s “careful speaking,” if not an explicit lie, was intended to do anything other than leave an impression that the question had been answered properly. In other words it was an intent to deceive the listener into thinking that the answer was “no.” Is a lie only a lie when it is explicit, or can intentionally creating a false impression constitute a lie? Sometimes it may be necessary to engage in careful speak, for example when the question itself is logically inconsistent or when a simple answer would leave an inaccurate impression. In this case, it seems the intent was indeed to create an false impression with the carefully worded answer.
“Mann claims that he never deleted the emails. But he asked Wahl to delete the emails. This makes no sense. It makes no sense that Mann would participate in a cover up by passing along a message to another participant of that cover-up downstream and not delete emails himself. It defies any logical reconstruction of events. Why would Mann ask Wahl to do something that he himself would not do?”
I have to disagree on this one. I can very easily see Mann forwarding Jones’ request to Wahl (if for no other reason than to be able to tell Jones, “Sure I passed on the request; no idea if Wahl will delete, but I’ve done my part to ask him, as you requested.”) and then having second thoughts himself about his own actions or possible repercussions if he were to delete.
I agree with you that, given the circumstances, it would be critical to delve into Mann’s personal activities to see if he deleted (and therefore explicitely lied to the panel). Given the circumstances, we might even be tempted to think it is more likely than not that he deleted emails. But the fact that he passed on a request Jones wanted him to pass on doesn’t mean he would necessarily take the request to heart himself.

Anton

“As with ‘misleading’, below, ‘careful speaking’ is not outright lying.”–Wikipedia (ugh!)
Only a Protestant could come up with this. Of course it’s lying. Fudging, falsifying, dodging, twisting, spinning, or “careful speaking”–it doesn’t matter what you call it, it’s lying by omission, as every child tortured with Catholic catechism classes well knows. Why are most of these words listed as synonyms of “lying” in almost every English thesaurus?
Mr. Mann lied. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. Now, what are the “authorities” going to do about it?????

Jeremy

If Wahl admitted this… wait my brain is trying to understand why there are no criminal proceedings going on right now.

Baa Humbug

Interesting times. I’m sure some people are hoping this will just go away, but it won’t

woodNfish

The people on the Penn State Inquiry wanted to be misled so they could come out eith their predetermined report and be done with all this. Now it seems they may have dug themselves a deeper hole. One can only hope that is true, but as with all the AGW fraud stuff, I’m not going to hold my breath.

Kuhnkat
“Try a REAL resource instead of Wikipedia next time.”
Actually I started with a philosophy article on lying. I’ve been pretty consistent thru this whole climategate thing. Lying is making a statement you know to be false, for the purpose of deception.
if I ask you : did you punch your brother and steal his bike
and u answer: I punched my brother.
You answered half of the question truthfully and you intend to fool me, by hoping that I wont realize that you only answered half of my question.
You might have a different definition of a lie. If so, maybe we can have a philosophy thread on it. I’m the king of england so I get to decide things.
( hint speaking falsely, with no intention to deceive)

mpaul says:
March 8, 2011 at 8:52 am (Edit)
There another possibility. We know that Briffa took emails home “for safe keeping”. Perhaps Mann “moved” the emails from the server to a memory stick and then took them home “for safe keeping”. In this way, if the university ever looked for emails, they would not find any, but if Mann was specifically asked for them, he could produce them from the hidden location. Just speculation on my part.
######
ya. I suggested the same thing to CTM. but by that point in our writing it was getting complex enough.

ShrNfr

@kwik He didn’t either. They were talking about it on one of the news roundtable shows back at the time. One of the guys piped up and said that he didn’t because he was there at the time. When they picked up the host’s jaw from the floor, he asked what happened. The fellow was a Brit, and it was while Clinton was in London. He stated that they all got together to smoke some good hash, but when it came to Clinton’s turn, he sucked it in, but could not inhale because of his allergies. He wanted to, but couldn’t. So correct with regard to the absolute facts, incorrect according to the intent.

Nothing will happen. Orthodox Party members never get in trouble. Only heretics and truth-tellers get in trouble.

Bernie says:
March 8, 2011 at 8:47 am (Edit)
Steven and Charles:
This is a very nice summary of the issue. Is there a reason that you cannot be more explicit as to the source of Wahl’s statements? Is there likely to be more to come?
#################
I don’t want to have people thinking that the climategate leaker has anything
to do with this. So, I will say that they are not connected. There may be more to come.let me describe that.
If Mann emailed wahl the instructions to destroy, then there is a big problem.
This story will stay alive until all the records are released. That could be a process that lasts a long time.

Well, we now know for sure that Mann, Briffa, Wahl, Jones, et al are all corrupt liars.

Baa Humbug

He [Mann] explained that he never deleted emails at the behest of any other scientist, specifically including Dr. Phil Jones, and that he never withheld data with the intention of obstructing science; …

Truthful Answer: “No, I didn’t need any prompting by anyone else, I was well ahead of the game and deleted emails of my own accord. Don’t you know who I am? Nobody tells me what to do, especially not that cry baby pommy weakling.
As for witholding data with the intention of obstructing science, is that what you call M&Ms activities, science? I don’t hand over my data to any Tom Dick or Steve, let them get their own data, I keep mine for real scientists.”

Anton.
The inquiry did not publish the transcript of its interview with Mann.
you dont know what he said. you only know what they say he said.
so, I prefer to stick to the facts as I know them. This means the inquiry
needs to be investigated.

Larry Hamlin

I thought that this investigation was conducted by the University of Pennsylvania not Penn State. Am I mistaken?

Anton

Steve, you are correct. Thanks for pointing that out.

” the Climactic Research Unit”
No wonder they whipped themselves into a frenzy over global warming. They were in heat.
Good work Mosh and Charles. Whitewashing history is one of the establishments most unappealing habits. Keep chipping away, there is important stuff to be uncovered.
One other tiny nitpick:
Wasn’t Briffa lead author of Ch6 not sole author?

Eric anderson.
Thanks. those are just the kind of alternate explantions that need to be fleshed out.
good job! Charles had another scenario, which would explain Mann’s behavior, we will see if readers can come up with more.
That way investigators can ask all the right questions.

Anton says:
March 8, 2011 at 9:06 am
“As with ‘misleading’, below, ‘careful speaking’ is not outright lying.”–Wikipedia (ugh!)
Only a Protestant could come up with this. Of course it’s lying.

Thought of it myself, but maybe it’s just post-normalcy instead. Hiding the truth, be it all or part of it, is lying.

RayG

Steve McIntyre has posted on CA excerpts from the NOAA IG report of a session with Eugene Wahl. The excerpts show Wahl confirming that Mann forwarded the request to delete certain emails and that Wahl did so. climateaudit.org/2011/03/08/wahl-transcript-excerpt/

Ron Cram

Charles,
Thanks to you as well for your work on this. I did not mean to short change you earlier.

SSam

kuhnkat says:
“…Try a REAL resource instead of Wikipedia next time…”
Interesting (not really). You toss in a quick ad hominem on the way out the door.
One thing that Wikipedia provides that many people seem to ignore, it that it is readily available and accessible. Not some dusty tome squirreled away on a decaying bookshelf.
Sure, there is an issue with accuracy, but the prudent reader will take what available references are listed and verify if the provided data is accurate.

John F. Hultquist

I thought – incorrectly apparently – that universities and other organizations maintained internal servers that handled incoming and outgoing e-mail, and further, that all of this digital traffic was stored on those units. In a practical sense, then, this would mean that a person using a university e-mail system could not delete files except on a personal computer. A request for files to the university should search the servers and not the researcher’s office computer because those disk drives are not secure archives.

Gaelan Clark

Allegation 2: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with  the intent  to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related  to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?
The allegation is unambiguous, “engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly,”, begs the question of whether he saw anything whatsoever regarding deleting emails. He lied.

Roger Knights

Anton says:
March 8, 2011 at 9:06 am
“As with ‘misleading’, below, ‘careful speaking’ is not outright lying.”–Wikipedia (ugh!)
Only a Protestant could come up with this.

Or a Jesuit.

wobble

He [Mann] explained that he never deleted emails at the behest of any other scientist,

This doesn’t mean that Mann didn’t delete emails because of his own desire to delete such emails.
This statement merely says that Mann claims he didn’t delete emails BECAUSE of another scientists. In other words, it seems as if the answer addresses MOTIVE not whether or not any emails were actually deleted.

Gras Albert

I would observe that Wahl’s testimony would indicate that Mann knew that the contents of Penn State’s Finding #2 was false when published.
His failure to correct that false finding may be indicative of his trustworthiness!

An implausible argument can be made that Mann didn’t lie. Wrong question, though. What should be asked: Did Mann tell the truth?
And for anyone who thinks the Team uses the scientific method, they don’t. They operate on a preconceived agenda as this email comment shows:

I question the way the response to the comment there is currently worded, as it seems to imply that the divergence issue really does invalidate any dendro-based reconstructions before about 1850–which I imagine is not what you would like to say.

Climate charlatans riding the taxpayer gravy train.

Thank you for the great summary (and cartoon).
I wonder what Gavin et al can do to counter this? It would seem that as the divergent accounts pile up around the team, the only viable solutions are: fade quietly into obscurity, attack colleagues, or go down with the sinking hockey stick ship.

Roger Knights

Baa Humbug says:
March 8, 2011 at 9:27 am
He [Mann] explained that he never deleted emails at the behest of any other scientist, specifically including Dr. Phil Jones, and that he never withheld data with the intention of obstructing science; …
………………
mpaul says:
March 8, 2011 at 8:52 am (Edit)
There another possibility. We know that Briffa took emails home “for safe keeping”. Perhaps Mann “moved” the emails from the server to a memory stick and then took them home “for safe keeping”. In this way, if the university ever looked for emails, they would not find any, but if Mann was specifically asked for them, he could produce them from the hidden location. Just speculation on my part.

If he put e-mails on a memory stick and deleted them from the server, he could then truthfully say “that he never deleted emails at the behest of any other scientist.”
Not only that, but he could say that he never deleted them at all! If caught, he could claim he merely “moved” them!
Tangled Web city!

KnR

‘Mann claims that he never deleted the emails at the behest of any other scientist,’
First define ‘e-mails’ , then define ‘he’ and there, in-part lies the trick , of course if some one else deleted his -emails his correct , if they where not kept as e-mails but an format his correct and as wobble has pointed out there is other wiggle room to be found .
Mann is a very old hand at this game and in replies like this one it shows. Mann could have IM Wahl the order to delete and he would be correct in that he never ‘e-mailed’ Wahl about deleting e-mails

“Perhaps Congress should serve Mann a subpoena”
Just one question about this – what is the jurisdiction of congress in the UK?
Thanks a lot for your help and congratulations on winning the best “science” blog award.
http://mitigatingapathy.blogspot.com/

RobW

A simple answer to whether the e-mails were deleted by Mann. Demand he produce all the e-mails re:AR4. if he has not deleted them then surely he must have them and they go right to the heart of the Team activities.

wobble

Penn State (and Penn State alumni) better realize that they are NOT too big for this cover-up to severely damage their reputation.

Steve Mosher said:
“Is this a lie? Not directly. It’s more what Wikipedia would describe as “Careful Speaking””
Steve, when a statement is made, or information is delivered with the intent to deceive, that is called a lie. Wikipedia is wrong, again.
Definition of “lie” from Dictionary.com.

APACHEWHOKNOWS

Me, I would like to get them in a sweat lodge and watch them sweat.
Could be they do not need hot rocks, a lodge or fire.
Could be hard to hide the incline of sweating now.

Ken Harvey

“Or did he just speak “carefully?”
He equivocated. And as my old High School English master taught me, to equivocate is to lie.