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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Theo Goodwin says: “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.”
If not, there are always: (1) Insanity; (2) Temporary insanity; (3) Nolo contendere; (4) Excessive Twinkie consumption. (5) Alcoholic blackout; (6) Sleepwalking; (7) Reduced mental capacity; (8) Parental abuse involving brain damage; (9) Demonic possession [“De Debbil made me do it!”]; and (10) the law is unconstitutional as it discriminates against short, bald, ego-inflated academics.
you keep using the word scientist to describe these men … I don’t think the word means the same thing to you and them … and I’m fairly certain they do not fit your definition … they certainly don’t fit my definition of a scientist …
There’s another possibility of what occured:
Mann, Jones etc. were using ‘other’ non-government emails to communicate official business (which is not acceptable). So, the emails directing the erasure effort didn’t result in any official emails being erased. Still, if that is true, there is yet more to be discovered.
So many questions.
Obviously, these guys failed to learn the lesson I am trying to impart to my children…lying to cover up nefarious shenanigans will get you in far more serious trouble than the aforementioned monkey-business…
Although the proximate cause of the lying is pretty serious stuff, too…
I swear it’s getting to the point where every revelation about Mann just conjures up the mental image of Bill Clinton telling America “I did not have sex with that woman”; which was true in the narrowest, most pedantic context, but not true enough to prevent Hillary from making him sleep on the couch. Mann, Jones and company have been tip-toeing a razor’s edge short of criminal activity for so long it’s just a matter of time before one of them falls upsetting the whole dominoes chain.
Mikey can sure tap dance . . . . dance Mikey, dance.
It won’t change the outcome but it might make you feel like you are getting away with something, that your are pulling the wool over our eyes, that we are just a bunch of rubes to be conned.
As a further to all the comment to Noelle:
It matters because the climate science community is asking us to “trust them” on much of their work. Their history of acting in a secretive manor makes people uneasy. So if you have direct proof of not only Mann, but also his “investigators” lying or willfully ommiting facts, it calls into question their honesty.
Hence the desire for real investigations of Mann.
It matters double, when the people in question have stood on a soapbox repeatedly saying that anyone who has ever worked for or recieved money from an oil or coal company, should be ignored. When they claim to be the moral high ground and any who question them are dishonest.
So if they can call into question others’ motives simply by association (or often just assuming the association exists without any proof), then the motives of people caught lying or covering up should immediately make all their work suspect. By their own set of rules, their work and influences should be at a minimum investigated.
Disclosure: I worked for a trucking company moving oil rigs for a couple years before I went to university. But rather than (in some peoples stange views of reality) earning my undying loyalty, it made me hate them and be less likely to defend them. I also worked several years in television, does that make me a stooge for the MSM? I now work in architecture, so is my loyalty now bought by sustainable building groups? See how stupid that game is.
To those struggling willy wonderers like Noelle, you just have to watch the response from RC and other such sites, the rabid defence, the blind acceptance of arrogant “clearance” by whitewash coverups, glib bending of truths to suit agenda.
This whole issue will not “go away” as much as you would like it to be hidden in the dark basement of modern day climate “science”, well out of the view and reach of those ordinary people that do have a brain and can think for themselves.
It goes to the crux of the state of Climate “Science” before and after Climategate. How arrogant the claims, how dismissive of other disenting scientists, how underhand in its tactical behind the scenes adjustment and manipulation of both media, the political scene, and the creation of a propaganda machine aimed at our children, the creation of a mythical consensus when actually they fought to keep their science elitist by subverting the very tools that should have exposed their faults, the peer review and publication process.
Then after Climategate, the arrogance of deception, diverting efforts to uncover the truth. The gradual drawing out of those truths and now the efforts by a majority of scientists to rebuild the reputation of science so sullied by those who dipped their toe in these murky waters of climate elitism.
These few hold back the process and progress of science back to a position of trust in the eyes of the taxpayers who ultimately fund the research grants. You see this as some continuing attack on science, I see it as a return to true science – let the pain and scrutiny continue, but set it plainly on those that willingly participated for their own gain. Time to cut them adrift just like you would excise and remove a cancerous growth for the good of the whole and healthy body of science. IMHO!
RE:
JEM says:
March 10, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Very well put.
And while we are discussing what “We’re talking about…”
We’re talking about the $#@*&$ hockey stick. The hockey stick that won’t go away. The hockey stick that some stubborn Alarmists continue to insist is valid.
We’re talking about a hockey stick many trusted, that many believed in, and many used as a reason for leaping to drastic actions, such as disfiguring the face of Europe with Don Quixote windmills.
We’re talking about millions of Europeans deluded into working their fingers to the bone to do what is tantamount to economic suicide.
We’re talking about England, (a formerly great power whose language many speak,) pretty much humbled and perhaps finished, (and forced to see the chagrin of having the nemesis French end up smarter, for having invested in nuclear power.)
We’re talking about the misbehavior of a lot of powerful people in high places, but it all boils down to a stupid hockey stick, and therefore it all falls on the slender shoulders of a single man: Mann.
Some may say Mann is just the tip of the iceberg, and others are culpable, but it is the tip that is visible.
Also much more of the iceberg is now visible than was visible five years ago. Five years ago you could only see the tip of the tip of the iceberg, and if you dared say we should not trust the hockey stick, you got hammered. Where now you only get snipped at Real Climate, if you dared question Mann five years ago you were treated like a pariah by otherwise kind, friendly and seemingly intelligent people. You got snipped right out of polite company. And once you have been hammered like that you don’t forget it. And on whose shoulders does the blame fall squarely on? One lone individual, named Mann.
Poor fellow, “You got some ‘splainin’ to do.”
If I were you, Mr. Mann, I’d seriously consider ratting on “higher ups.” After all, it’s a bit much for one man to face: The wrath of all Europe, and much of the rest of the world as well.
Mann had the following options:
1. reply saying “no I won’t”
2. ignore the email
3. forward with with a comment “please do not do this”
4. forward with no comment
5. forward with a comment “please do this”
I would suggest that option 4 (which we now understand he claims to have done) is closer to 5 than 3. The act of forwarding an email without a comment usually indicates some tacit approval otherwise you either wouldn’t forward it or would make a comment that you didn’t agree with the email.
Certainly it means that it is fair comment to say that Mann was at least indirectly associated with Wahl deleting emails. Assuming that Wahl didn’t receive this email from any other source, then IFF he deleted emails because of it and received it from Mann, then we can only conclude that Wahl deleted emails because of an action by Mann EVEN if that was not (as now claimed) what Mann intended.
As always (talk to Martha Stewart for recent example) the cover up can get you in more trouble than any alleged actions or alleged mis-deeds.
One final comment to Noelle–
The IPCC Report that was the subject of all those e-mails, and that was altered by pal review–that very report is being quoted in the halls of EPA to enact rules and regulations that will dramatically alter the way Americans live. That is why it is important.
DonK said
“I didn’t do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can’t prove anything.” Bart Simpson and Michael Mann”
Hilarious comment. I’m sure Josh could work something out with this. Maybe with Mann carrying a skateboard and using a slingshot to hit some models down that dont do what he wants them to do. 😀
I’m surprised no one has mentioned the other obvious thing you’d do if you really did have reservations about passing on a dubious request:
“Hi Phil – here’s Gene’s current email address….”
Speaking of things which might get deleted, someone should make sure to record all Mann and Gavin have ever said at Real Climate, because it is
1.) Possible evidence of fraud.
2.) Potentially embarrassing to people in positions of power, and therefore likely to be made less “available.”
3.) Interesting history for our grandchildren to wonder over.
Anthony;
You seem smugly sure this is one of your best post titles evah.
And so it is! Full props …
😉
The first time I saw the Hokey Stick, I knew it was preposterous, and I knew its makers knew it was preposterous.
All this is just the working out of the consequences of those two observations.
sHx says:
March 10, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Are you kidding? These guys are a laugh a minute, regularly setting up pranks just like Nixon 🙂 here let me show you one example….
Clearly these guys (Mann, Jones, Briffa, Wahl..) need our support. They are only trying to protect the income and lifestyle enjoyed by their dependents. Oh, and their reputations. Which equates to the former. If they engaged in some nefarious activity to protect their loved ones, it’s entirely understandable and forgivable. Come on!
By the way, someone should let them know how wonderful the anonymous email accounts of yahoo, gmail, hotmail, etc are in obfuscating the trail….
/sarcoff
What part of willingly complying with a request to forward advice to participate in a request to participate in an illegal action is forgivable before the law, so wondereth I. Mann is complicit in delivering Jones’s message to poor poor picked on Wahl, and it cannot be known what weight that path had on Wahl’s collapse of moral fiber to act on it. It makes me wonder if Wahl would have done the same thing if that message had come from Dick Cheney, Anthony Watts, Arianna Huffenpuff, or Stephen McIntyre, for example.
It’s a crock – all the way down.
I have a friend who is subject to a Restraint of Trade agreement. It means he can’t be involved in any way in running a company with activities within the specified Trade. The company which might prosecute him in this Agreement is all but legally defunct. So, to avoid the legal ramifications, despite the moral obligations being redundant, he uses a gmail account of random pseudonym and never signs them (with the usual, “Cheers, Sam”, or “Regards, Olaf”). Sorry to be transparent, but if these guys had half a brain they would use the tools of the street (e.g. somewhere in a Nigerian city street) to cover their tracks. Perhaps they already are. But a few years ago they were numbnuts. Geez, if you are gonna be bad, first rule: Don’t get caught.
They seem to operate under the politician’s ethos: If you get caught, deny, deny, deny as plausible as impossible.
“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.”
Unless, at the time Mann received Jones’ email, Mann knew that Wahl had, for whatever reason, already deleted the ar4 emails.
Betelgeuse said, at 7:08 pm, “I’m surprised no one has mentioned the other obvious thing you’d do if you really did have reservations about passing on a dubious request: “Hi Phil – here’s Gene’s current email address….”
So true! But, instead, Mann replied to Jones email, stating, “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP.”
To quote Judge Judith Scheindlin, “if it doesn’t make sense, it’s usually not true.”
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
Try the harry_read_me file.
Where is harry?
MSO ponders the meaning of it all with
If Mann knew Wahl had already deleted mails, why would Mann bother to forward the email? The appropriate thing to forward at that point would be advisories against breaking federal and state law regarding FOI compliance and to lawyer up, assuming Mann knew that Wahl had deleted, before receiving Jones’ plea, mails pertaining to FOI requests.
Now here’s the deal. FOI is serious stuff. To destroy material potentially subject to FOI inquiries ahead of actual requests evidences the full intent of the participants to defeat by premeditated destruction of evidence, subsequent fulfillment of FOI requests. That is to say – if I run an operation that is subject to FOI requests and I as a matter of course destroy such discoverable evidence as it occurs, I am defacto guilty of obstruction of laws granting FOI discovery. I am not allowed to bury my mistakes in a peat bog for none to see – I have to provide all evidence I’ve accumulated.
In my opinion which is worth the web page it is written upon, Mann is about to face hard time for his part in subverting due process because Americans don’t like a loser, Wahl is going to rot in a jail, and Jones is likely to face that harsh British justice known as the shunning. It would be very unBritish of them to actually do something about the problem.
Steve M (h/t Noelle):
“And had they checked with Wahl they would have confirmed that it was not mere intent, but that it had the actual effect.”
It shows how the Mann panel failed to do even rudimentary follow through on the issue.
It should not be overlooked in any way at all that this reflects as badly on the panel as it does Mann. A simple straightforward – and obvious question – was never asked to someone the panel should certainly have questioned.
Steve has it exactly right.
Where Noelle earlier asked what doe any of this have to do with actual climate science, it buggers the mind how Noelle can’t see that covering up cherry-picked science impugns the studies being addressed and the policies being advocated.
Noelle might as well be asking what the IPCC has to do with climate science.
Come to think of it, the IPCC is at the root of all of this. Take it out of the equation (go back to the beginning and remove it from the whole issue) and none of this happens – no cherry-picked science, no advocacy beyond tree hugging and singing “Kumbaya,” no FOIA stonewalling, no audience for the Hockey Stick, no glaciers melting by 2035, no decline hiding, no Climategate. Climate science would be the backwater it had always been. . .