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.
EFS_Junior says: March 10, 2011 at 5:05 am
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?
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; …”
—————————————–
It’s clear to me that Mann did not answer the question: “Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete….” Therefore the investigators did not get a complete answer out of Mann. Whether Mann lied or merely deceived is a matter for the next investigation. Also whether the investigators were merely incompetent or were constructing a whitewash is also a matter for the next investigation.
EFS_Junior says:
March 10, 2011 at 7:52 am
” Mann did not delete any emails.
Simply forwarding an email, when asked, does not imply, directly or indirectly, the intentions of asking someone else to delete emails, never has, never will.”
You can cite legal precedent for this?
Tony: While I would argue that mere mention of the word ethics does not constitute discussion, you are indeed correct that the word is in fact mentioned, albeit somewhat obliquely except in the case of Mr. Trigge. More importantly, as I munch on crow, is how in the HE**(double hockey sticks) did you come up with the references? I am somewhat of a neophyte in this blogging stuff.
When it comes to the definition of lying, wikipedia falls short.
We all know when we have been lied to. It’s when we come to a conclusion or opinion, or take a course of action, which is not supported by all the facts known to our informant.
When you are told by a local resident that the hotel is the first right, second left and you drive over a collapsed bridge that’s been down for weeks and die in the car crash, it is no comfort to you that the wikipedia definition tells you that the local was merely carefully speaking.
And I hope it still happens that your kith and kin would demonstrate to said local that lying and carefully speaking ain’t too different to us common folk.
Vince Causey;
Simply forwarding an email, when asked, does not imply, directly or indirectly, the intentions of asking someone else to delete emails, never has, never will.”>>>
And so? The point here is that the process was circumvented in order to bolster a pre-ordained conclusion and the evidence of doing so was covered up. The intent of forwarding an email can be debated, but let’s not lose sight of the big picture:
The science could not stand on its own merit
The process was comprimised to cover that up
Phil Jones asked Mann to help him cover up the cover up
Mann, at Jones request, passed the request on to Wahl
Wahl assisted in the cover up
Back to what initiated that string of events:
THE SCIENCE COULD NOT STAND ON ITS OWN MERIT
Patrick Davis says: (March 10, 2011 at 6:21 am)
Basically, Australians are too comfortable.
Here I can agree completely with you, Patrick. It is a universal shame that humanity has this defect. We strive for comfort, and when we attain it we become discontented and, like bored children, look for some mischief to distract us. — On the other hand, without discontent there is no progress; so perhaps it is not a shame at all?
Regurgitate what they have read? Okay. Let’s have a game of questions. In what book did Mark Twain insert himself into the fictional story, and why do you think, as an author, he did that?
And just so you are prepared for the next question, in what ways are “The Wizard of Oz” by L. Frank Baum, and “The Butter Battle Book” by Dr. Suess, alike?
My 5th grade class discussed the Mark Twain question today.
Chapter 2 from “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer”:
“If he had been a great and wise philosopher, like the writer of this book, he would now have comprehended that Work consists of whatever a body is OBLIGED to do, and that Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do.”
And he penned this in the same chapter:
“Tom said to himself that it was not such a hollow world, after all. He had discovered a great law of human action, without knowing it — namely, that in order to make a man or a boy covet a thing, it is only necessary to make the thing difficult to attain. ”
Regurgitate that, and then ask that question of students having significant learning difficulties. What they say will send you into spasms of emotion and leave you both humbled and uplifted for the rest of your life.
Now back to science. If you climate scientist Ph.D.’s wish to impress me, work as hard as my public school students do.
Pamela Gray says:
March 10, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Regurgitate what they have read? Okay. Let’s have a game of questions.>>>
Fair enough Pamela. I’ve been frequently pleasantly surprised by what my kids come home with in terms of math and literature skills. They are at a higher level by far than when I was in high school.
But when my daughter comes home with a geography exam with garbage like:
Question; Why are people in oil rich countries in Africa starving?
Answer; Because big American oil companies own all their oil.
Question; Why are people in Brazil starving?
Answer; Because companies like Folgers tell them to grow coffee instead of food.
I kid you not! Worse, when I took it up with the administration, they asked me to provide credible information to the contrary. I got a letter from Folgers indicating that they didn’t even source much of their coffee from Brazil and certainly didn’t have any influence over their agricultural policy, and the Brazilian consulate provided a letter advising that coffee wasn’t even on the list of the top ten crops in Brazil so it certainly wasn’t displacing any significant food production.
The administration “allowed” that the teacher may not have presented “both sides” of the issue.
The lack of critical thinking was appalling, as was the attitude of the administration. The number of times my kids have come home spouting some garbage that could be discredited with just a couple of obvious questions is something I lost track of long ago.
Pamela Gray – While you make very good points, with which I have no difficulty agreeing, there was a serious imbalance reported to me by one of my children (the school was in Australia, but I suspect that the same would have applied in many schools in the UK or USA) :
If you have trouble with maths, that’s understandable.
If you have trouble with english, you’re stupid.
My general observation was that the teacher mattered just as much as the pupil, as did the matching of the teacher’s methods to the pupil’s style.
At 9:32 PM on 10 March, davidmhoffer had responded to Pamela Gray‘s “game of questions” comment, writing about:
.
I had to deal with much the same when my own kids were in the hands of the pedagogues, and now I’m going through it with my youngest grandchildren, though I’m surprised that Mr. Hoffer’s daughter is taking “geography” as a subject.
The practice in these United States has been – since the time when my children were in school – to rol” geography, history, and civics into something called “social studies,” and in the process to make it the most consistently hated part of the curriculum.
At first, I had some trouble figuring out why my children (and their children) despised “social studies” so much. Civics was pretty boring, but geography was a trip to foreign countries, and history was a pure delight, a chance to learn “true stories” about real people in the distant past.
“Why don’t you like social studies?” I’d ask.
Neither my children nor my grandchildren could answer easily. I could see their frustration as they made the effort to put it into words. Almost always, it came out (and continues coming out) something like:
“I can never be sure what the right answer is.“In other words, the kids can’t make sense of what they’re getting in “social studies.” They’d be perfectly happy to “Regurgitate what they have read” if that’s what the ex-Education major at the front of the classroom demanded of them, but it’s not their grasp of content that’s being tested in their quizzes and examinations.
It’s the kids’ conditioning.
The people controlling the grade school and high school curricula don’t just want their students memorizing Ministry of Truth dogma. They want the children thinking the same way our NEA-member teachers do. They want the reliable production of responses which indicate “socialization.”
Mr. Hoffer, you’re going to get precisely nowhere in your efforts to address either the teachers or the administration of your daughter’s school. To these people, there is neither the intention to present “‘ ‘both sides’ of the issue” nor to engage students in the practice of searching out factual support for assertions.
They want your kids to think about everything the way teachers and school administrators do. They want to impose upon their students their own peculiar Weltanschauung, and they will punish your daughter (as they’ve punished my kids and my grandchildren) if the kid’s responses on her tests don’t prove that her conditioning has taken hold.
We have all noticed that warmists tend reliably to be politically leftist, and that they seem constantly to push the strange notion that a proper scientifically skeptical regard of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis is borne preponderantly of a politically conservative (“right-wing”) sentiment, not of the honestly rigorous consideration of the facts of reality as those facts can be perceived and truthfully reported.
I would like to venture speculation to the effect that the “man-made climate change” alarmists take their position on this issue for the same reason that they advocate the intrusive expansion of civil government beyond the powers specified in the U.S. Constitution and those other charters which define the concept we call “rule of law.”
It is part of their Weltanschauung, their view of the universe and the place of humanity in that universe, that the individual human being should not be the central focus of moral and therefore political valuation, but rather the society – the aggregate, as some kind of “organic” whole – which is supposed to benefit, invariably through the “contributions” of the individual.
And any individual who balks at making his or her “contributions” is evil.
Thus we get to “social studies,” and the endless stress made by the ex-Education majors on the process of “socialization” for America’s children.
Hoo, boy. Mr. Hoffer, do you hate these people as much as I do? And do you wonder about how it is that they can’t figure out why they’re hated so very, very much?
Jeremy says:
genette says:
March 10, 2011 at 8:05 am
As I posted at Bishop Hill, and as has been mentioned elsewhere, if Mann simply forwarded Jones’ email, it would have retained the subject line:
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Excellent catch.
—————————
Wouldn’t the subject line have actually read:
Fwd: IPCC & FOI
unless he changed it?
In any case, if you were part of the IPCC process at this time, you probably got thousands of emails with IPCC and FOI in the title, so changing the title to something else doesn’t imply conspiracy – I get lots of emails entitled “seminar” to forward to my department, and I change the title to the name of the seminar series to avoid confusion. Just a (probably unhelpful) thought.
http://mitigatingapathy.blogspot.com/
Paul – a possibility : Mann clicked “Reply” and cc’d Wahl, so that Jones could see it had gone on to Wahl. Hence “Re:” not “Fwd:”. Another possibility: He clicked “Reply” and changed the recipient to Wahl. Both seem more likely than changing “Re:” to “Fwd:”?
Wait. I thought this was suppose to be a top story for days? Did all of the corrections made to the original force it down on the page? Is the website trying to hide a poorly written article?
[ryanm: there was a historical earthquake, and when the Mann post was no longer a “sticky”, it went to where it was in terms of blog chronology]
sceptical, It was a top story for days, if it was up there for another few days it would be a week. What do you want here? But hey the noose is closing on the mann or men involved, in my opinion.
CTM, I just posted this to Tips & Notes:
Anthony, I’ve noticed that Gavin is saying some rather rude things about you on RC:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/03/wahl-to-wahl-coverage/
The story was planted with Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, and Chris Horner, and then linked to by Inhofe’s office to provide a little plausible denialability – a rather blatant media spin operation.
—-
I notified Sen. Jim Inhofe’s Chief of Staff about the CRU emails on the Russian server on Nov. 29, 2009 since Jim’s name was mentioned numerous times. Gavin can blame me if he wants.
Sounds like you got Gavin’s attention, CTM! Good job!
Pass the Mann, please…..Charles the DrPH