I forwarded the email before I was against it

The revelation a couple of days ago that Dr. Eugene Wahl deleted emails with an IPCC author after receiving some form of communication with Dr. Michael Mann has caused quite a bit of excitement.

The more recent revelation is that Dr. Mann claims that:

This has been known for a year and a half that all I did was forward Phil’s e-mail to Eugene.

But….apparently he did not intend Dr. Wahl to act on it as if it was an instruction:

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.

I’m struggling with this. At the time, Mann wrote to Jones “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP.” How could a private mail from Jones to Mann be used against Wahl? Jones asks Mann to ask Wahl? and this could be used…. against Wahl? huh? Wahl hasn’t done anything wrong. Yet.  The claims being made are ridiculous and clearly conflict with Wahl’s testimony.

I think I finally get it.  These scientists just have too good a sense of humor and we’ve been missing the joke, just like the public misunderstood the sophisticated humor of the Nixon Administration as demonstrated by this video clip.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Henry chance

Give the Mann a break. He is trying to save face and gets exoneration on Climate Progress where he is not under oath.

Good gried! Mann’s defence is right up there with

I was not in any way involved in the robbery, I merely drove the getaway car from the bank to the hide-out!

James Sexton

Yes, now that I see, this is a laugh a minute!! What a bunch of cards they are!!

Henry chance

This bothers me. Mann is a chatty kathy in shoveling large quantities of messages, claims, posts and stories to Climate Progress. He was verbose on Real Climate Nov over a year ago. But why interference with the law for FOIA, turning over stuff in Virginia and cooperation with investigation? I understand criminal law. He is extremely uncooperative with investigation for detective work that so far is no where near criminal. Does his behavior hint toward some criminal intent?

Noelle

“I’m struggling with this.”
And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.

Noelle,
I’m gonna quote Ross from the linked CA thread. He sums it up nicely.

Suppose Penn State investigated the question: Did you delete any emails that you knew or believed to be subject to US FOIA rules? then I think Mann would be free and clear. He passed along an email from Jones to Wahl pertaining to emails that he could reasonably claim he not believe were subject to US FOIA requests and which were not agency records of the US government, etc.
The issue here is that Penn State asked a different question, and made a different claim. They asked whether Mann had engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4. Not–nota molto bene–emails etc. under a US FOIA request, or emails belonging to NOAA, etc., but emails related to AR4. Jones’ request to Mann was “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4… Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?”
Having asked the question they asked, and light of the fact that Mann did pass on the request, even without Wahl’s admission Penn State was obliged to report the obvious answer that yes, Mann did engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4. And had they checked with Wahl they would have confirmed that it was not mere intent, but that it had the actual effect.
They might have gone on to say that no laws were broken, or to make a case about why it was entirely appropriate for Mann to facilitate the destruction of this portion of the IPCC review/writing record–after all whose f**king business is it if IPCC Lead Authors toss the rules and engage in unrecorded, backroom re-writing of key sections of disputed text with the help of partisan authors whose involvement as contributors or reviewers is not revealed in the report.
But that’s not what Penn State did. They went on to state that “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″.
I believe we now know what the term “denialism” means.

Scott Covert

It’s the “HMS TeamTanic” and they fully plan to go down with the ship till it settles on the bottom of the frozen Pacific.
It is their best chance of avoiding prosecution and probably a presidential pardon for towing the line all the way to the end.
As Bill Clinton advised “Deny deny deny”.

I know you think you understand what you heard me say but you don’t realize that what I said is not what I really meant.

I love the early SNL cast – but that is no Nixon. Akroyd sounds like Jimmie Stewart!
OIC! Like Mann does not sound like himself, but Larry the Liar! 😉

stan

Mann seems to have an estranged relationship with logic. Fortunately for him, he chose to be a climate scientist.

John503

Investigate the links between the CRU, Brandon Gough (Chancellor of the University of East Anglia) and Common Purpose.
http://www.stopcp.com/cpclimategate.php

“Even though I made no mention in my forward that such actions could mean trouble, I did a blind forward without any dialog and that was meant to inform the recipient of trouble.”
Did you ever see someone who should have just shut up because every time they tried to justify their actions they just dug the hole bigger and bigger? If you haven’t, you have now.

Jim Cole

Thanks CTM for locating the SNL clip. The original cast and writers were amazingly gifted. When Al Franken joined, not so much. Hmmm – whatever happened to him?
It reminds me how similar Montford’s “Hockey Stick Illusion” was to “All the President’s Men”. Both great reads, filled with intrigue, drama, high stakes, and monumental egos.

The dog ate my original excuse. I didn’t do it. I couldn’t help it. The real issue here is the hole in the greenhouse.

Al Gored

Perfect title for this article Charles!
The ‘protect the recipient’ excuse here truly is laughable. I suppose it is intended to show what a ‘nice’ guy Mann is as well.
I’m still waiting for the ‘national security’ angle, which seems to be able to cover up anything these days.

Al Gored

david elder says:
March 10, 2011 at 1:08 pm
“The dog ate my original excuse. I didn’t do it. I couldn’t help it. The real issue here is the hole in the greenhouse.”
LOL. Good one David. Of course, the “hole in the greenhouse.” Since Irritable Climate Syndrome causes EVERYTHING, it is obvious that the planetary fever must have caused Mann to send this email. Maybe he was delirious with malaria. Or he wasn’t thinking clearly because of the water rising in his office or the hideous howls of dying polar bears. The possibilities are endless.

Noblesse Oblige

It depends on what you mean by “forward.”

björn

What have we learned:
Mann is a liar, or,
there is a small percent chance that Mann is telling the truth, and that is enough not to have him convicted in court for conspiracy to obstruct freedom of information etc.

Well, the science community knows how to deal with statistics like theese, you are not inside the 95% intervall of probability Mr Mann, Occhams racor will make short of your story, you are a fraud, bye bye.

JEM

I love this.
On one end, you’ve got Jones – clearly, undeniably, condemned out of his own mouth – being a bad boy.
On the other you have Gene Wahl – smartly telling what appears to be the truth – admitting that he received a request from Jones, forwarded with no annotation from Mann, and that he acted upon the request.
And in the middle we have Mann and his Penn State inquisitors, telling tales that it seems to me any rational person would regard as half-truths.
To me, forwarding without comment a message requesting someone delete a batch of email sounds just like the kind of ‘indirect’ participation in deleting email that the PSU inquisitors so fulsomely absolved Mann of.
To me, it seems quite unlikely that an individual who regards himself as educated would forward an email without comment – without any sort of annotation such as “Phil’s going to cause himself legal problems, don’t jump in the water too” or “This is from Phil but I’m not doing what he asks” or even just “Be careful with this one” – when the claimed intent of the forwarder was to warn the recipient that the message could be damaging to him.
Dr Mann – you’re in a hole. Stop digging.

Binny

These guys will never admit wrong doing even on their death bed.
To them scientific glory is more important than life itself.

Beesaman

The word duplicitous comes to mind or how about disingenuous?

Jeremy

Noelle says:
March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this.

Then you must just trust everyone at face value like a child. I’ll bet if I told you that gravity was a result of an ether that the universe is made of, you wouldn’t ask me for any data or mathematical methods to explain myself. The scientific method requires openness for replication. This episode with forwarding and deleting e-mails to cover the tracks of report rules being flaunted demonstrates that these guys behaved completely contrary to that method in this regard… and you think no one should care about this?
I’d hate to live in your fantasy world, it’s probably closer to a theocracy than you might realize.

Latitude

Noelle says:
March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here?
========================================
Only in the sense that if any of them believed in their science…
…if any of them thought their science was as “robust” as they claim
They would have put their science out there for everyone to see…
… and No one would be having this conversation

Steve R

I think it’s time to address the “who cares anyway, what’s the big deal ” argument that I can see developing. I think someone needs to keep pointing out why these individuals were collaborating on this section of the IPCC report (something to do with addressing Mr McIntyre’s comments?) and what were the circumstances that made them want to cover thier tracks.

carbon-based life form

or duplicigenuous?

Peter Miller

Noelle -see below – brings up a good point here, I think we all here – apart from the occasional warmist ranter – care about the science.
We care about the science, but we do not care for the ‘climate science’ of manipulated data, GIGO models and unsubstantiated scare stories. So when a high priest of the AGW cult is caught being dishonest and disingenuous, we want to know why and we want to know why he has not been expelled/struck off.
I suspect very many more scientists, such as myself, read WUWT regularly, than Real Climate. This is a fact which must infuriate the manipulators of climate data, the destroyers of raw data, the ignorers of UHI, the AGW fantasy writers and the politicians’ poodles.
Mann epitomises the concept of Bad Science and is guilty of practices which would only be tolerated in the bizarre world of ‘climate science’, where political whims and the economics of the grants trough prevail.
Noelle says:
March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“I’m struggling with this.”
And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.

Perhaps if Mann had deleted his email
before he read it,
we wouldn’t be talking about this.
Mann’s “tree ring” circus moves on.

BJ

Noelle says:
March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this.
Because some of us want to be able to have confidence in the “facts” that are used to justify a massive alteration to our standard of living which would require that we stop eating meat, stop driving cars, stop heating our homes, stop breathing out…

Al Gored

I see Anthony got an honorable [sarc] mention from Mann:
“This is, in short, a despicable smear that, more than anything else, speaks to the depths of dishonesty of professional climate change deniers like Chris Horner, Marc Morano, Stephen McIntyre, and Anthony Watts.”
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/09/a-reply-to-michael-mann-and-eugene-wahl/#ixzz1GEf9zRXs
I just wish that real scientists like Mann wouldn’t use such dry technical jargon when objectively discussing challenging evidence [sarc]. But, as would be expected from such a skilled manufacturer, quite the job of splicing these four different ‘Big Oil’ proxies [sarc] into a nice simplistic picture. His cheerleaders will no doubt add the Koch Brothers or one of the other usual AGW Goldsteins to this story in case their followers need further incitement. Day of Rage!!! at Huffington Post – if they dare to even mention this there.

Curiousgeorge

Sounds like a Clinton. “I did not have sex with that server.”

BillyBob

Noelle: “Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here.”
Yes, the emails discuss how sunshine hours correlate to temperature way better than CO2.

DirkH

Noelle says:
March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.”
Noelle. Downwelling LWIR is 300 W/m^2 on average. A doubling of CO2 would increase it by 3.85 W/m^2 according to IPCC numbers. We have a 40% increase by now so that would increase it by about 1.7 W/m^2 or so. That’s about half a percent increase. Forget AGW – the effect is so small it can’t be measured against the noise. It was only a political lie.

Robert M

Noelle says:
March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“I’m struggling with this.”
And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.
————————————————————————————————
Noelle, what I think you meant to say, and please correct me if I am mistaken, is that you WISH no one cared about this.
Because you are either uninformed, (Unlikely considering the nature of your post.) Or a troll. Everyone who can read, including all of the lurkers here, and Watts Up With That has a few… gazillion, know that the path that leads to all of these “Climate Scientists” committing fraud and perjury and tampering with evidence is BECAUSE a few scientists had questions and WANTED to discuss the science. …insert rant here that would be totally snipped for name calling and spittle on the monitor…
But we have never been able to discuss the science, because one side of this debate has resorted to sabotage, cheating, stealing, lying, and stealing old ladies purses. (Ok maybe not that one.) So that they do NOT have to discuss the science.
The intent of your post appears to wish to skip over the part of the problem where the reason we are not discussing the science, but the cover-up instead is because Mann, Jones and Co. were hiding the “science” not discussing it. Why are you complaining to Mr. CTM? He is not the problem. He is part of the solution.

DJ

So Noelle is wondering what the link between these emails and climate science is.
Depends on what your definition of is is.

u.k.(us)

Noelle says:
March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“I’m struggling with this.”
And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.
============
Your misdirection and minimisation aside, this is about climate science.
Its integrity.

DonK31

“I didn’t do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can’t prove anything.” Bart Simpson and Michael Mann

Joseph Murphy

Where is the e-mail Mann sent Wahl? Is it just a forward?

Theo Goodwin

Noelle says:
March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.”
Troll alert! We are discussing whether Climategaters conspired to violate FOIA laws. The focus of this forum is not on the science but on the behavior of the scientists.

Theo Goodwin

It occurs to me, Mann does have one remaining defense. He can claim that Phil Jones had hypnotic effects on them. He could claim that, try as he might, he was unable to resist a suggestion from Phil Jones. There, that should do it.

slow to follow

Noelle “I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.”
Did you see this one?:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
Or this one?:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/sol-is-finally-waking-up/
Or this one?:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/why-im-not-worried-about-greenlands-icecap/
Lots more before today too – check the archives bar on the right.

Hobo

So when the investigators looked at manns emails, did they see an email asking to delete ar4 discussions and the forwarding of that email to Wahl in Manns computer?

JEM

Why anyone cares about this?
Simple.
We’re talking about some of the most prominent figures in climate science.
We’re talking about a bunch of guys some of who clearly violated FOI laws to prevent their science from being scrutinized, and and others who may have conspired in order to prevent anyone from determining that they’d violated IPCC procedures in preparing their materials.
We’re talking about individuals whose science – the work they tried to keep from meaningful review, and which subsequently was found to be quite broken – has been held up as a club to beat the rest of us into submission to their goals of energy rationing.
“Would you buy a used climate policy from this Mann?”

Mac the Knife

A feeble and ineffective attempt at ‘plausible deniability’, at best.
Get all of them into a Grand Jury investigation, under oath, with all criminal penalties applicable for direct lying or failure to tell the whole truth, as relates to the Freedom Of Information requests. Ask them the short and specific questions that do not lend themselves to equivocation, evasion, or half truths answers, just ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘I did’, ‘I did not’, and ‘I don’t have any knowledge of that’. A patient and thorough prosecutor will pick their fabrications apart and get to a reasonable facsimile of the bare truth.
Then charge, try, and convict them. Imprison them if possible, followed by stripping of all academic standing and recision of all published works. Follow this with lawsuits to recover all taxpayer monies from their sponsoring universities and agencies, that were used in any way to perpetrate this fraud.
Heck, the RICO laws (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act) may well apply also, as their active collusion to prevent disclosure and continue funding fits the definition of RICO. That would allow both criminal and civil penalties to apply.
This will send a clear message to all would be academic frauds (not just ‘climate science’) that these deceits will not be tolerated any more. They will be prosecuted.

Bob Kutz

Here’s an example of the ‘denialist-tripe’ that is routinely censored over at RC;
So the fact that Dr. Mann told the Penn investigators he did not;” . . 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?” now squares with you, in light of the fact that he forwarded the request to Wahl?
Either what Wahl has stated under oath is not true, what Mann told the PSU inquiry was not true (and they failed to properly investigate the matter), or the PSU inquiry mischaracterized what Mann told them in their attempt to protect the university.
No matter how you look at it, it’s a problem. It’s never the crime, but the cover-up that gets you in trouble.
As to the science; if these guys had simply published their data and methodology all along, none of this would be an issue.
In short; AGW is real. It’s magnitude, certainty and the seriousness of the consequence are very much open for debate. The political ramifications are very consequential. Once these scientists became political advocates their work became suspect. Their actions in light of serious inquiry are a problem. Let them deal with that, and let’s start producing real reproducible science based on open data and methodology and an honest debate.
This whole episode is hurting real science. Not the dunderheads who doubt every bit of the science, not ‘Big Oil’, not the serious scientific skeptics, not anyone but the ‘scientists’ who became actively involved in political debate while hiding behind FOI, proprietary data, etc. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE! This problem will go away, but probably not while these guys are involved in the debate. Their objectivity is highly questionable. Especially Mann and Jones.
Also; don’t paint everyone who questions the alarm as ‘science-deniers’ and use straw man arguments that characterize everyone who questions the establishment as denying that there is global warming or that man has played a part in that. Not everyone who isn’t an alarmist is a fool or in the pocket of big oil. Any true scientist will see the flaw in the notion that the ‘science is settled’ or that ‘we are now certain’ about the consequences, either in physics or in the geo-political ramifications. We may project, we may model, but we cannot be certain, even to a statistically significant degree. (Global surface temp is now more than 2 STD below every single models projections for 2011. There is no certainty).
Warmest Regards,
Bob

Otter

Noelle says:
March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here?
Perhaps the fact that the climate science was DELETED thanks to these emails?

Jimbo

Noelle says:
March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“I’m struggling with this.”
And I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.

It IS relevant to climate science and it IS about the science. Open your eyes!

ferdberple

“Global surface temp is now more than 2 STD below every single models projections for 2011.”
Links?
2 STD is a big deal, especially if it continues year to year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Electric_rules

jorgekafkazar

Noelle says: “…I’m struggling with why anyone cares about this. Is there something about the contents of these emails that’s relevent to climate science that is worth discussing here? I’d like to see a post about that — about the science.”
Science? There ain’t any. It’s a politically-motivated hoax.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!
Back in the good ol’ days when SNL was funny !!!

jorgekafkazar

Mac the Knife says: “…Heck, the RICO laws (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act) may well apply also, as their active collusion to prevent disclosure and continue funding fits the definition of RICO. That would allow both criminal and civil penalties to apply…”
Hmm. I like it!

sHx

CTM: “I think I finally get it. These scientists just have too good a sense of humor and we’ve been missing the joke…”
Actually, these scientists completely lack a sense of humour. They weren’t funny when they were school kids, they aren’t funny when they grow up to become adults. They can only get wives and girlfriends because they have steady jobs, not because they have a sense of humour. There isn’t a single instance of a remark made in jest between so many scientists in 1000+ emails that were liberated from CRU. Their lives are pretty wretched actually.