In all the hubub last week, I missed this press release from the University of East Anglia. In it, they try to explain away some of the first highlighted email phrases. But we’ve all moved well beyond those now. The rebuttals seems almost comical now in light of the deeper context discovered since then.
From http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/rebuttalsandcorrections/phrasesexplained
Cherry-picked phrases explained
Wed, 23 Nov 2011
Professor Phil Jones, and his colleagues, explain the context of some of the phrases cherry-picked from the thousands of emails (1995-2009) posted on the web on November 22, 2011.
Because of the volume of messages, this is inevitably a small selection that have been most quoted. Professor Jones stresses the importance of reading each quote in the context of the whole email trails – which have also been posted online.
Phil Jones:
Email 3062: “We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written […] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff.”
What has been cut out of this quote is the explanation that we wanted the science to reflect the limits of scientific knowledge ‘warts and all’: “We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written that sounds as though it could have been written by a coral person 25 years ago. We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff. What we want is good honest stuff, warts and all, dubious dating, interpretation marginally better etc.”
Incidentally, this refers to Michael Schulz and not Michael Mann as bloggers appear to believe.
Email 2775: “I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show the warming.”
The full email exchange reveals that we were choosing colours for a chart covering periods that showed warming. The periods chosen were 1901 to 2005 (the long record) and 1979 to 2005 (the satellite record).
Email 0714: “Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about the tornadoes group.”
This was related to the selection of contributing authors, not IPCC-appointed chapter authors over which I have no influence. It means scientists we could trust to write succinct and clear text.
Email 1788: “There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views [from “recent extreme weather is due to global warming”] – at least not a climatologist.”
This was in response to a request from a TV programme (via the university press office) which wanted to find two climatologists from UEA with differing views to debate on air. It was my view that I doubted if we could find anyone of that opposing view among my colleagues.
Email 0896: “I think the urban-related warming should be smaller than this, but I can’t think of a good way to argue this. I am hopeful of finding something in the data that makes by their Figure 3.”
These were discussions between me and two Chinese scientists and they were resolved, as evidenced by the paper in Journal of Geophysical Research. It was about confusion over different regions of China.
Email 4443: “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.”
This is a discussion that referred to climate models of the late 1990s vintage. These issues were well-known and they have improved in more recent modelling. This related to model differences in development of a multi-model average for the future. The work was not published in the peer-reviewed literature.
Email 2440: “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process”
At the end of the IPCC process, chapters, formal comments and responses are all published and that is the appropriate place for this information. It is important that scientists should be allowed free and frank discussion during the writing process. I might also point out that I decided not to take part in AR5 because of the time commitment it requires. .
Email 1577: “Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder…in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
‘Hidden’ refers here to some of the work on data collection and management. This is a common issue in some areas of climate research and refers to issues of an operational nature and research aspects. An obvious example is updating earlier data sets within a new project. Most funders are fully aware that this is common practice.
Email 1897: “Do I understand it correctly – if he doesn’t pay the £10 we don’t have to respond? With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent.”
This relates to a request from Steve McIntyre made under the Data Protection Act for any personal data held about him. Following a previous experience with FoI, I had adopted a more judicious approach to retention of emails that I no longer needed. I had deleted old exchanges with sceptics I had prior to 2005. I was saying that I probably no longer had any emails relating to Mr McIntyre, a prominent sceptic.
The emails referred to were unrelated to any prior request from Mr Holland. Let me say again that I have never knowingly deleted any material subject to a current FoI request and this email should not be read in that way.
Keith Briffa:
Email 2009: “I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!”
In email 2009, I am trying to reinforce the request to my co-author to provide a strongly critical review of the draft text. I believed that I had taken account of the considerable uncertainties in the evidence when producing the draft and still came to the conclusion that the late 20th century was unusually warm. I wanted to know whether he thought that this assessment was entirely valid. I would add that I was and still am acutely aware of the shortcomings of the palaeoclimate evidence but the conclusions of chapter 6 of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report were arrived at after taking these into account, as is made clear by the section on ‘Key Uncertainties” (p. 483).
Tim Osborn (an author of the 2007 palaeoclimate chapter):
Email 4923:
The 2007 IPCC report conclusions did not weaken the 2001 IPCC report conclusions. The 2007 IPCC report said this (page 436): “The TAR [2001 report] pointed to the ‘exceptional warmth of the late 20th century, relative to the past 1,000 years’. Subsequent evidence has strengthened this conclusion.
Actually, if you refer to email 4923 itself, it says: “Temperatures during the last two decades of the 20th century were probably the warmest of the last millennium.” Note the word ‘PROBABLY’. Neither the 2001 (Third Assessment Report) nor the 2007 (Fourth Assessment Report) by the IPCC stated that these decades WERE the warmest of the millennium. Both used less certain language, acknowledging that prior to the period with instrumental temperatures from thermometers things are much less certain (in IPCC parlance “likely” meant “with a probability above 66%”). The crux of the question is whether the 2007 report backtracked or watered down the 2001 report’s conclusions.
2001 TAR (page 102): “the 1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade of the millennium in the Northern Hemisphere and 1998 is likely to have been the warmest year”.
2007 AR4 (page 436): “The TAR [2001 report] pointed to the ‘exceptional warmth of the late 20th century, relative to the past 1,000 years’. Subsequent evidence has strengthened this conclusion. It is very likely that average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were higher than for any other 50-year period in the last 500 years. It is also likely that this 50-year period was the warmest Northern Hemisphere period in the last 1.3 kyr, and that this warmth was more widespread than during any other 50-year period in the last 1.3 kyr.”
So, the 2007 report considers that subsequent evidence has strengthened the 2001 report conclusions. But neither report referred explicitly to the last two decades of the 1900s: TAR (2001) talked about just one decade, the 1990s. AR4 (2007) talked about 50-year periods.
My bet is that the password protected file will decimate these excuses … the leaker may be setting them up …
Trying to clarify an issue often makes it darker.
Well, if their tenure as climate scientists ever comes to an end, they have a bright future in political spin circles.
‘This was in response to a request from a TV programme (via the university press office) which wanted to find two climatologists from UEA with differing views to debate on air. It was my view that I doubted if we could find anyone of that opposing view among my colleagues’
apart from the swine who has been leaking all my bl**dy emails
Following the release of the Climategate 2.0 files I’m now looking forward to Michael Mann’s book, ‘Dispatches from the Front Lines’ due out in Spring 2012, which was completed and sent to the publisher prior to the e-mails coming out. Won’t that be fun!
@eo
Lol.
I have to disagree with Phil Jourdan, Phil Jones’ attempts at spin are laughable.
When in a hole…
“A clarification is not to make oneself clear. It is to put oneself in the clear.” Sir Humphrey Appleby in “Yes, Prime Minister”
Their response to email 1577:
Email 1577: “Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder…in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
‘Hidden’ refers here to some of the work on data collection and management. This is a common issue in some areas of climate research and refers to issues of an operational nature and research aspects. An obvious example is updating earlier data sets within a new project. Most funders are fully aware that this is common practice.
Note the “…” section that they leave out. (US Dept of Energy)
Why do they leave this short text out? Very telling.
Follow the money!
@JeffC says:
November 29, 2011 at 7:07 am
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
We can only speculate what might be in that file. On the other hand UEA knows or should know what is in that file.
If I was at the UEA in charge of PR, I would certainly want to see a copy of the server taken at about the time the emails were leaked/hacked/otherwise taken off the server and I would want to compare this with the emails that have been released in Climategate I and II and then compile a file of emails not yet released into the public domain. I would wish to review those to see what they say so that I would be forewarned as to what to expect from Climategate III.
It would be prudent to carry out such review before anyone at UEA responds to Climategate II and seeks to put the released emails in context, since as you observe, the University may be running the risk that the University will look even more stupid (or even dishonest) come Climategate III. . ;
It means scientists we could trust to write succinct and clear text.
Yeah. Sure.
It was vital, vital, to get people you know into the IPCC because only people you know could possibly write succinctly?
Perhaps your real concern was that only people you know could be counted on to parrot the party line succinctly, which is really a completely different concern.
How many picked cherries are required to establish a trend?
@tallbloke – well in all fairness, most of the attempts at spin by the political spinners are laughable as well. 😉
Decimate means to cut by 10%. I think it will be worse than that. Or am I being to pedantic?
Sarc/On
‘…Our Science is bunk and it is what it is but dangit, they keep mis-representing our innocent conspiracies….and that won’t do!!!!;…
That’s their response to 11 emails?
Will they respond to the really good ones?
Only 5,000 more to go before the next release?
I doubt anyone on the Team could have crafted this Rapid Response spin.
This is either professional PR, or the UEA CRU had already pre-lawyered up.
[SNIP: Site Policy Violation -REP]
AGW_Skeptic says re E-mail 1577:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“”Note the “…” section that they leave out. (US Dept of Energy)
Why do they leave this short text out? Very telling.
Follow the money!””
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can the U.S. Dept. of Energy be the “main funder” for British global warming “research”? Does this possibly reveal an illegal expenditure of U.S. taxpayer funding for DOE?
I don’t buy it. I know that, as an engineer, when I write an email about something I’m working on to a colleague, I am very careful to say precisely what I mean. Even within a single organization, people read correspondence from different perspectives and will read into them something that is not there if I am not explicit or if I rely on things I understand and don’t think need to be explained. The emails here are between people working around the globe on various studies, and the “explanations” would have us believe that everyone on the email list is so in-tune with each other’s thought processes that no clarification of these implied alternate meanings are necessary, and that very high-level scientists who make a living writing papers to get their theories across to others habitually dispensed with the precision such communications require when they are writing emails. I just don’t buy it. Either the warmists are incredibly sloppy and verbally-challenged to the point where they would have to be constantly edited by others to gain the necessary clarity to their published communications, or these “explanations” are BS.
Chatty bunch. Way too much talk about influencing this or that, making sure data is unavailable to outsiders, and popularization of their hypothesis for my taste. I would have expected data exchange etc, if you know what I mean..
Your free CRU to English dictionary. So post-modern and full of emergency hermeneutics.
Re: richard verney
They paid Norfolk Police £10000 to obtain a copy of all emails on the server for the Russell review. They therefore have a copy of all 200,000+ emails in the all.7z archive and know exactly what is in it.
Given their past history I expect they will just ignore encrypted emails and hope for the best.
JeffC says:
November 29, 2011 at 7:07 am
My bet is that the password protected file will decimate these excuses … the leaker may be setting them up …
My thoughts exactly! With allegedly another 220,000 more to come, this could be some serious unravelling of the cardigan of AGW!
What kind of “scientists” speak in hyperbole, dissembling, obscurantism, hyperbole and shenanigans.
Considering, they might as well have translated the e-mails into pirate talk — Avast, Mickey, yer graph’s as colorful as me parrott, yarr yarr
@TerryS says:
November 29, 2011 at 9:04 am
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Obviously at least up until the leaker/hacker (however the person/corporation should be described) is caught, matters are out of the UEA’s hand. After Climategate I, it may not have been clear how many emails have been compromised. Given that release, and the time that has since elapsed it may be that in October 2011, the UEA considered that it had little further to fear and that matters could be safe just simply left to chance,
However, given Climategate II and the threat of the encrypted further file, I do not consider that such a laissez faire approach can be justified unless there is nothing of substance in the encrypted file. One can now expect that that file will at some future date find its way into the public domain (either because the leaker/hacker provided the code or because some 3rd party hacker gets lucky with finding the code) and the UEA needs to be prepared for that eventuality. It would be very silly to say something now in late November/early December 2011 which is later contradicted by the release of the encrypted file especially if what is said is patently absurd or dishonest.
Who knows the encrypted file might not even be the end of matters There may yet be an even further cache of emails etc yet to be released.
The UEA has lost a lot of credibility over this whole affair. It would be prudent for it to plan for the worse so as to limit further humiliation.
The following is interesting, titled “How we know they know they are lying”
See http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/lying.htm
What I meant was…
Apparently in climate science you have buzzwords and you have “fudge words”: Briffa in 0016.txt
And another from the Keith Briffa’s “Fudge Factory” 0375.txt
Gary Mount says:
November 29, 2011 at 8:15 am
JeffC says:
November 29, 2011 at 7:07 am
My bet is that the password protected file will decimate these excuses …
Decimate means to cut by 10%. I think it will be worse than that. Or am I being to pedantic?
—
Would you settle for ‘extirpate’?
We have one climatologist who cannot use exel and another in Email 1778 who would fail year 7 of english comprehension.
Phil Jones’ press release has been very effective at stifling debate. Many journalists read his response which was very fast, and then decided they knew everything they needed to know about Climategate 2, and move on to read something more interesting. Unfortunately for Phil Jones the climategate 2’s emails have contained several hidden narratives, and as various interested parties have joined the bits together they have begun to publish stories that are compelling evidence of serious wrong-doing by “the team”.
Now the scandal is entering a new phase. Jones successfully stifled debate, but the debate is hotting up on sceptic blogs, and the lists of the team’s wrong-doings are getting longer and well documented. The question is; will what has been discovered by sceptics over the last few days be fairly reported, or has Phil Jones ploy of getting his word in first provided sufficient excuses that the press will simply ignore us?
Personally I think it is impossible for the team, and the UEA, to ignore Willis’ letter to Phil Jones where Jones is publically called out as being “a serial liar” and incompetent record keeper who has wilfully skewed the presentation of the case for CAGW. I think it is impossible for the BBC to leave accusations of institutional bias in favour of alarmist presentation from Phil Jones and his team. And then there are the copious new stories of attempts to sack editors and hiring private detectives etc.
I also think that scientists from fields outside climatology (and inside) cannot simply sit on the fence forever, because this scandal is eating away at the public’s perception of science.
BUT the ball is firmly in our court. We could leave the evidence on blogs like this one, and expect journalists like Dellingpole and Booker to get it out to the public. And it will eventually filter out, and Jones and Mann will eventually be held accountable.
I have written on other threads that I believe the process could be speeded up if a semi-retired/retired scientist, or small team of activist scientists, rewrote the news as it arrives on this and other sceptic blogs, in a simplified form for the lay reader. My suggestion is that the writing should be in a form that could be used by journalists to cut and paste stories into their newspapers. And these lay-edited stories should be emailed as press releases to lists of journalists. I think such a service would be simple to put together and have a very big impact on how fast and well the stories arriving on blogs like WUWT were reported in the media.
The second suggestion I have is that an international petition be set up for scientists to sign. The petition should have wording along the lines of “We the undersigned scientist do not believe that there is a consensus that recent warming is mostly caused by greenhouse gases, and carbon in particular”. The petition might have a few words about distancing themselves from the wrongdoing by the Team. This petition should be very public and be presented so that the public can see the qualification and status of the scientists who sign it. .Scientists should be free to register or delete their names. Such a petition is now due because scientists have to stand up for the integrity of their profession.
I would love to be involved because it would be such rewarding work, but I am an outsider, and artist who runs a business that will struggle to survive the impending collapse of the Eurozone. There is so much intelligence, fair and balanced opinion, politeness and humour on this blog it is obvious to me there are a lot of you who could set this up and run it in their sleep. It is a matter of one of you deciding to start, everything flows from that first step into the unknown. Anthony cannot have guessed where his blog would take him, now it is your turn?
you must be Geoffrey Boulton and never ever dig further to think these are good excuses.
One of the many things Climategate 2 tells us is that Phil Jones has an unnatural relationship with the BBC.
“Honey I shrunk the kids…”
Well this was taken out of context. I was referring to having shrunk the kid’s underwear and not my wife’s.
“Getting into debates with people is something I’d like to avoid.
Cheers
Phil”
25 August 2009 12:03
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0767.txt&search=deniers
I wonder what the official translation of this little gem is?
The ‘context’ of these emails can only be revealed when the likes of Willis (to whom I dips me lid) provide backgrounds and timelines and fit the released emails into a fuller story.
Jones et al are attempting to justify small snippets of the whole, placing them further out of context which exacerbates the confusion.
The believers in “the cause” need to explain the full trail of emails; that is the only way to reveal context.
If Phil Jones is able to exactly remember the circumstances of each commented files, why isn’t he able to remember where he “lost” the requested FoI temperature data files?
Pretended amnesia?
I have to agree. When looked an individually, some of the statements made in these emails are alarming, and often shocking.
When looked at in their full context, they are utterly damning of both the behaviour of the self-styled ‘Hockey Team’ and their crusade to demonise CO2.
“There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views [from “recent extreme weather is due to global warming”] – at least not a climatologist.”…”It was my view that I doubted if we could find anyone of that opposing view among my colleagues.”
Ha ha! Gold! I very much doubt anyone ‘could’ believe this particular whopper, and they definitely ‘shouldn’t’!
‘This was in response to a request from a TV programme (via the university press office) which wanted to find two climatologists from UEA with differing views to debate on air. It was my view that I doubted if we could find anyone of that opposing view among my colleagues’
So there’s no climatologist at UEA capable of original thought. Why does that not surprise me?
SPIN SPIN SPIN….I couldn’t even finish reading this crap. Phil never even answered this one at all:
“Email 2440: “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process”
At the end of the IPCC process, chapters, formal comments and responses are all published and that is the appropriate place for this information. It is important that scientists should be allowed free and frank discussion during the writing process. I might also point out that I decided not to take part in AR5 because of the time commitment it requires. .”
Reminds me somewhat of the Vietnam era satirical interview between the F4 pilot and a newspaper guy, with the Wing Information Officer interpreting the Captain’s remarks. “what the Captain really means is……”
“But the dog really did take the cookie jar off the top of the fridge. Or maybe it was a burglar. It was on TV, a burglar was stealing cookies. Or a ninja.”
@Werner Brozek says:
November 29, 2011 at 9:51 am
The following is interesting, titled “How we know they know they are lying”
See http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/lying.htm”
Nicely written!
So, people, which phrases in Climategate II are the most eyecatching?
Anything as classy as “hide the decline” or “travesty”?
These guys should retain counsel, and fast. Any competent attorney would tell them to shut up. They might well have civil or criminal exposure here, and nothing they say now can help them get out of that. What cocky bastards they are in the face of such exposure.
Werner Brozek says:
November 29, 2011 at 9:51 am
The following is interesting, titled “How we know they know they are lying”
See http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/lying.htm
—
What a good article! And written in 2009?
Wish I had stumbled upon it then.
Gary Mount says:
November 29, 2011 at 8:15 am
JeffC says:
November 29, 2011 at 7:07 am
My bet is that the password protected file will decimate these excuses …
Decimate means to cut by 10%. I think it will be worse than that. Or am I being to pedantic?
—————————————————————–
Gary,
Didn’t the Romans decimate their army as a form of discipline? This meant dividing the ranks into units of ten and electing one to be killed at the hands of the other nine. An interesting prospect wouldn’t you say? I think devastate would have worked better anyway…
The numberwatch link above hits a #404 wall. Remove the /lying.htm and it takes you to the home page. Once there, click on ‘index’, which takes you to all the articles. Now go to ‘essays’ and click on ‘how we know they know they are lying’.
That detour was erected pretty quickly.
Dave T
Facing the music, UEA closes… but the wrong department…
“School of Music to close, UEA council announces
28 November 2011
By Sarah Cunnane
The University of East Anglia is to close its School of Music.
The decision, announced today, was made on the basis of a review into the school’s future which said that continuing the subject was financially unsustainable and may put the continuation of other humanities subjects at UEA in jeopardy.
Richard Jewson, chair of the university council, said that the decision to close the school had given the council “no pleasure”.
“Council members believe that it would be irresponsible to ignore the danger signals highlighted by the review,” he said.
“The university cannot afford to continue to subsidise a school where the future prospects are so challenging, and this is the best way we can safeguard and strengthen other humanities subjects.”
Edward Acton, vice-chancellor of UEA, said that the “number one priority” would be the school’s current students.
“I would also like to underline our commitment to the continuation of music as an important social and cultural part of the life of the university and we will be announcing vigorous measures in the months to come,” he said.
A spirited campaign had been launched to try to save the school, and had attracted the support of notable figures such as Sir Nicholas Hytner, artistic director of the National Theatre, and musicians Jools Holland and Brian Eno.
In addition, the Royal Music Association and the National Association for Music in Higher Education had offered to conduct another review with a team of four senior academics from successful music departments.
The protestors staged a silent protest outside the council meeting this morning, and plans had been made to stage a rally in protest at the council’s decision later today.
Bill Vine, a PhD student in the school and the organiser of the Save UEA Music campaign, said that the group would take some time to consider their options, but he added that they would continue to protest against the decision and warned the university: “The gloves will come off.”
“I am disgusted and angry,” he said. “We arrived hopeful that the council would accept the extraordinarily generous offer from the RMA and the NAMHE, but clearly they had already made up their minds before they went in.
“One thing is for certain: we will not give up.”
Gary Mount says:
November 29, 2011 at 8:15 am
” Or am I being to pedantic?”
Excellent,Gary. By the omission of a single letter in your sentence you provide your own answer, in the negative, and prove it’s veracity. I also am clearly not a pedant.
Darn. Failed to close tag correctly.
[Reply: No, it was a WordPress glitch. Fixed now. ~dbs, mod.]
Pat Moffitt says:
November 29, 2011 at 7:55 am
How many picked cherries are required to establish a trend?
_______________________________________________________________________________
I would say it takes a whole tree full of cherries as long as the tree’s rings show warming, but it only takes one tree.
@David Trimble – It’s not a conspiracy! Wayne’s copy of the link has somehow gained a spare closing quote on the end, hence the 404. If you use Werner Brozek’s original link, or David L’s, it works fine. Mods, I’m guessing you can fix this? – It is a very nice link.
[FIXED. Thanks. -REP]
I don’t usually go into these nooks and crannies, but the talk of cults by others says to me that a mechanism – that might not be climate-related, but religion-related or similar – seems to bind some of these people.
For example, Ed Cook writes to Keith Briffa on Wed, 3 Sep 2003 11:13:21 −0400 “I agree that Phil and Mike are best left out of this. Bradley? Yeah,
he has done fuck−all except for the Bradley/Jones decadal series,
which he maintains has withstood the test of time. Typical posturing
on his part.”
So the cult has its cliques.
It’s also somewhat strange that Keith adresses Ed as “Hi Big Boy” (Wed, 4 Jun 2003 5:02:09 am)and signs off with ‘love and kisses’ (Fri, 22 Jun 2001 2:19:33 pm) & (Mon, 12 May 2003 6:26:29 am)
Speculation only, but does this add a dimension?
If that’s the case, given the evidence of their own obvious inability to write “succinct clear and text”, I’m not sure they’d recognize “succinct and clear text” if they encountered it. Unless, of course, like “trick”, “decline”, “peer review”, “null hypothesis” and – it would seem – “context”, they’ve now decided to redefine “succinct” and “clear”.
Amazing. Simply amazing.
Chris B says:
November 29, 2011 at 1:30 pm
“There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views [from “recent extreme weather is due to global warming”] – at least not a climatologist.”…”It was my view that I doubted if we could find anyone of that opposing view among my colleagues.”
Ha ha! Gold! I very much doubt anyone ‘could’ believe this particular whopper, and they definitely ‘shouldn’t’!
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Leaving aside the get out provision (ie., not a climatologist) is Jones lying in the recent clarification to this particular email?
I seem to recall a few days ago reading some emails in which those at the UEA disscuss another professor/academic teacher at their university (ie., at the UEA) delivering lectures that were off message (eg giving lectures relating to forcings other than CO2 such as solar, ENSO etc). I seem to recall that they were discussing shutting him up/getting rid of him but in the end he only had 1 year left on his contract and he left UEA and went elsewhere.
Does anyone else recall reading an email exchange of this type? If so I would appreciate being referred back to it.
If it is possible to prove Jones a liar by his own words etc then that would be damming for him.
I’m no climate science expert, but I’ve done electronic discovery since ’91. Given 20 years experience in this field I have some general observations that I find striking about these communications.
1) Lack of internal censorship. As a government employee, on government equipment, using government email systems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. To put in writing, and press the send button, what is in some of these emails is instructive of their overall mindset. They were absolutely sure that their communications would never be monitored. They these emails would never see the light of day. That they would never become the subject of a discovery request and even if they were, they’d be protected. I’d be willing to bet that the porn they’ve been sending around to each other has been stripped out.
2) The set is clearly incomplete and has been filtered. The gaps in time and missing threads in conversations is apparent. Anybody notice the lack of spam? There’s no such thing as an email collection entirely free of spam. Especially on accounts that have been in existence for years. With no spam and no porn in the collection, only what the reviewer has determined to be relevant is present. Trust me, no truly large email collection is entirely free of spam or porn unless it has been filtered to make it so. I don’t care what organization you’re talking about. I don’t care what types of individuals you’re talking about. I don’t care what kind of IT or security policies you have in place. I don’t care what email server/client or OS you’re using. No large email collection is completely free of these distractions. Period, full stop.
3) Having said that, the entirety of this collection – including the as yet encrypted emails – is not a large collection. Further proof that this is a very distilled set.
@TomB says:
November 30, 2011 at 7:11 am
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I agree that a couple of hundred thousand emails is not many considering the period over which these emails come from, and the number of account holders. This led me to speculate, in another comment, on whether there would be climategate IV (Climategate III being the contents of the encrypted file).
So cherry pick a couple of dozen e-mails you think you can best respond to, out of thousands. And then claim that the offending e-mails are cherry picked.
Not pedantic enough, if you can’t spell “too”!
>:(
;p
What does he mean by “a coral person twenty-five years ago”?