As readers know, last week CEI scored a final court victory on the FOI request for GMU’s emails in the RICO20 case. In the final days, while GMU was prepared to release the emails under court order, the ringleader, Edward Maibach went off on his own and threw a volley of mud against the courtroom wall to see if anything would stick that would prevent the release. He failed miserably, and after just a couple of minutes hearing CEI’s counter-motion, directed that the emails be released “forthwith”.
The release consisted of boxes of paper that has the printed emails on them. This is a delaying tactic, one designed to make the petitioner jump through hoops to make former electronic documents electronic again so that they may be searchable. CEI had them scanned and has released them to me.
The result is one large PDF file of over 100 megabytes. There is a lot of information here, and thus it will benefit from a crowd sourced effort of examination, much as we did with the Climategate emails.
So here they are:
GMU-emails-20160527200127 (PDF 109 MB)
Note: if you can’t open/view this PDF, it probably has to do with your own computer not having enough memory, an updated PDF reader, etc.
UPDATE:
GOOD NEWS! Commenter “cbone” made a searchable version of the PDF using a text scanner.
searchable-gmu-emails-20160527200127 (PDF 65MB)
Those that read these are welcome to post comments/excerpts below.
UPDATE:
Tom Nelson finds this gem:
I’m surprised Trenberth didn’t go with 97%.
Here is another:
This one makes me laugh.
Trenberth thinks he is motivated by ethics; what’s so ethical about denying about one third of the world population access to cheap reliable electricity and the longevity and life-enhancements that go with it?
“Trenberth thinks he is motivated by ethics; what’s so ethical about …”
He has told The Big Lie for so very long that he now believes it. He is “saving the world” for future generations and so anything he does is “ethical”. It is the same story we see with all collectivists, socialists, communists, welfare-state lovers, and so on.
To feel great about yourself because you are “saving the world” is a common delusion among the humans. I am starting to believe that even though the “monkeys with tools” have more technology; many other animals are far more wise and intelligent than us.
Hat Tip to Marcus and dmacleo.
P 422-425 is an email from Geoff Derrick to Edward Maibach.
Derrick plays the part of B-52 pilot, casts Maibach in the role of target.
It’s Great, everybody surf over there and take a look.
Here is a repost of the link dmacleo put up. This one is too good to overlook.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8zibdzmxit5rl9v/422-425.pdf?dl=0
..B52’s…Tough, old and still kicking some ass in 2016!
There’s a nice little bit I noticed where someone offered his ‘new assistant’ to provide general help, saying that he was a good strong activist….
I checked out the “new assistant ” callled Nackerman. From Nackerman’s Linkedin profile you can see he is linked to all the usual radical campus groups including 350org. https://www.linkedin.com/in/colinnackerman
Nackerman is a typical example of the kind of SJWs that Shukla is mixing with.
Excellent!
SO THERE IS A CONSPIRACY!
Page 132 is interesting. They are emails from members of the (once) secret Climate Bloggers Google Group which appears to be sponsored by climatenexus.org—you have to email them if you want to become a member. All correspondence of this elite group are (were!) “strictly confidential.”
Members include Dana Nuccitelli, Greg Laden, Aaron Hurtas (Union of Concerned Scientists) and probably Ed Maibach.
Small quibble. Should that not be Union of Concerned Socialist Scientists?
Union of Concerned Socialists. No scientists in the bunch.
Actually, I think we already knew that activists were scheming and collaborating behind the scenes at some internet chat site but now we know where; a Google Group called Climate Bloggers. I wonder why they haven’t invited Anthony and others. : )
The big payoff is not in the amateurish Maibach FOI. As some of Maibachs stuff shows, itnis in Shukla. Shukla wrote Holden at OSTP. Shukla owned/ran IGES. CEI/Horner specifically requested relevant CoI and waiver docs. Maibach said he was confused by this; the request was aimed at Shukla. The IGES dog that did not bark in the night.
As we now now from Rep. Smith’s Congressional investigation, permission for Shukla IGES moonlighting was not given, Va mandatory CoI were not filed properly (a state crime), and the double dipping violated NSF written policy. Smith’s Congressional Oversight Committee has referred these proven matters to the NSF IG for proper legal recourse. That can include jail time for misappropriating (polite word for stealing) NSF grant funds. Most recent relevant case I found involved NIH not NSF, but similar double dipping rules. 48 months in federal penitentiary plus ~$800k restitution. Is serious.
Never cause a light to be shined on you when you have been illegally double dipping. Is why the apparent scramble for all other Rico-20 signatories to disassociate themselves from IGES.
‘”Climate change is 90% ethical and the other half is science”
It doesn’t bother him that they are discussing whether to put cientists in jail who disagree with them (RICO is a criminal statute) It only bothers him that they might get pushback. And he is claiming the high road on ethics?
Rico is both criminal and civil. The tobacco stuff was civil only. A distinction Whitehouse made in this trove of emails, that Shukla et. al. apparently did not understand.
You and I know that but as you suggested, from their point of view it’s a distinction without a difference, they are having a discussion about racketeering charges, asking the government with its full and unlimited powers to prosecute as racketeers their colleagues that don’t agree with them in science, without a second thought as to the ethics, totally convinced of their righteousness…all while trying to claim they have the ethics high road.
The fact that the left has this mindset of selfrighteousness to this degree and that it has permeated into the upper echelons of society…journalism (la times), school districts(Portland), universities (name any) and government (NY attorney general), is mind boggling if not out right scary.
To this day, there are many leftists who still defend Stalin and Mao’s killing of millions, because it was necessary to create the socialist state.
B:
Because civil RICO actions have broad scope for discovery and can thereby turn up incriminating evidence sufficient for criminal charges, it is critically important that civil RICO targets secure competent counsel and invoke their 5th amendment privileges early and often.
That said, the tobacco case was (apparently) unique. Scientific research and internal memos were run through the corporate legal dept and shielded under attorney client privilege for years (thereby concealing knowledge and intent). I don’t see anything remotely close to that with Exxon, but I’ve lived long enough to be surprised more than once. An sufficiently aggressive prosecutor could make Grandma Moses look like a Mafia Don.
Correction: I wrote “corporate legal dept” when it should have been “corporate lawyers”.
And the ravenous wolves tore them to pieces. And they were no more, never to deceive again. And the true believers wore sack cloth and sprinkled ashes on their heads, mourning the loss of their prophets. And then they left, never to be seen or heard from again.
Follow the money.
Back on May 16th, The Free Beacon reported Maibach as having said:
“If there was a settlement between the government and the fossil fuel industry” stemming from a RICO investigation, “there is no question in my mind that a good portion of that money should be spent on a national campaign to educate people on the risks of climate change”
So the money would be given “climate communicators” like Maibach.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/maibach-foresees-big-checks-from-climate-rico/
Klinger refers to skeptics as “True Believers”. That’s rich. Projection much?
Shouldn’t that be “True Unbelievers”?
My thoughts exactly. I frequently want to say to people, “Do you hear yourself???”
What was so brilliant about the Greenland trip? Is this something like turning off the AC during a talk on CAGW in order to get the listeners in the mood? Is the context of this buried in another doc dump? Perhaps as a pdf attachment that’s missing? And then asserting that it would be good idea to get a charitable foundation to pay for the deception?
Trenberth certainly comes across as arrogantly self righteous. No wonder his mind is so closed to the reality of data and physics and why the IPCC has been so misguided.
Are we missing a response email?
While saying he would be a co-signer Edward Sarachik asked Shukla: “Question: Does the RICOlaw only apply to organizations or are individuals also liable?”
Too bad Shukla didn’t respond, he could have cleared up right then they were only going after corporations… Yeah right!
——-
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Edward Sarachik
.l…Slll.i.k1a
Edward W Maibach; paul A Dirmeyer; professor Barrv Klinaer; Andrew Light; paul S Schopf; David M. Straus;
Mike Wallace; Alan Roback; Professor Eugenia Kalnay; Dr Bill Lau; Dr. Kevin Teen berth; Professor T.N.
Krishnamurti; Dr vasubandhu Misra; Dr Robert Dickinson; Dr. Michela Biasutti; Dr Mark Cane; Qr.J..i.sa
~; Dr Alan Betts
Re: Letter to President and Attorney General
Thursday, September 03, 2015 2:40:15 PM
Dear Shukla: I am happy to be a co-signer in whatever to rm the letter wi ll eventually take. Question: Does the RICO
law only apply to organ izations or are individuals also liable? Cheers .. ed
On Thu, 3 Sep 20 15, J Shukla wrote:
> Dear Friends,
>
> Thank you for agreeing to be a co-signer of the attached letter to the President and Attorney General. Please find
attached a slightly revised version of the letter which will be sent as soon as I have received your final concurrence
via email. I also plan to send a separate letter to Senator Whitehouse informing him of our letter to the President
and Attorney General.
>
> It is not necessary for you to send me a signed letter, please just send me an email confirming your agreement.
Thank you.
>
> Regards,
> Shukla
>
>
EdwardS. Sarachik
CIG/UW
3737 Brooklyn Ave.
Box 355674
Seattle, WA 98 195-5674
Phone 206-285-5221
Paul Lassiter June 1, 2016 at 6:13 pm
Are we missing a response email?
Dear Shukla: I am happy to be a co-signer in whatever to rm the letter wi ll eventually take.
Question: Does the RICO
law only apply to organ izations or are individuals also liable? Cheers .. ed
Edward Sarachik is agreeing sign the document. He asks if it will include the likes of you and me.
His question does not indicate conditional or limited agreement to his signing.
“State of mind”.
All Members of the rico twenty now need to have their e-mail foia request to see if there were similar requests and the responses.
Popcorn time.
by the way Paul good catch
michael duhancik
Not much new here. I don’t understand why Maibach fought so foolishly against disclosure. Maybe he used tortured logic, like Jones did in his FOI fiasco, to “justify” not giving everything. I wonder if CEI can FOI information from the various AGs to see if they have anything that wasn’t produced here?
Anyway, it adds to the “vast body of evidence” indicating that there are people conspiring behind the scenes to rig public policy to support a failed theory and a dangerous cause.
I hate the phrase “vast body of evidence.” Sure there is a vast body of evidence about global warming but there is no credible evidence that future warming will be any worse than past warming—mild and mostly beneficial to the biosphere that we are an inextricable part of—and no credible evidence that droughts, floods or dangerous storms have been increasing.
So you can pretty much toss out the vast body of evidence that alarmist point to as being non responsive to the question of what our future climate will be like if we continue to use fossil fuels. Most likely it will be more verdant and more comfortable for all life on planet Earth.
AN ESTIMATE OF THE CENTENNIAL VARIABILITY OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURES. (2015) Lloyd PJ. Energy & Environment · Vol. 26, No. 3.
“…The best estimate of the centennial standard deviation of temperature during the Holocene is 0.98 ± 0.27C.”
“During the 20th century, thermometers recorded an increase of about 0.7C. It seems reasonably certain that there was some warming due to the increasing buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but it seems difficult to estimate the magnitude of this warming in the face of a likely natural variation of the order of 1C. The signal of anthropogenic global warming may not yet have emerged from the natural background.”
On page 5 of on Maibach ‘s May 23, 2016, “Motion to intervene” Maibach’s attorney claimed these emails should not be released, in part, because it would require release of emails related to Maibach’s work on Puerto Rico. See where the motion reads:
“18. Dr. Maibach unquestionably has an interest in this litigation because Petitioners seek to compel the production of his personal email communications with fellow academics regarding a group letter, as well as his professional emails as they relate to work in Puerto Rico.” (Reference: Antony’s article “Breaking: #RICO20 Edward Maiback tries ’emergency stay’ to retroactively pull Shukla/George Mason University emails from view” written on May 23, 2016)
Yet… a check of the searchable the PDF provided here indicates none of the emails mention Puerto Rico at all. This suggest the one or more of the following: 1) Maibach didn’t know what was in the emails an and simply assumed emails with the term “Puerto Rico” were included ; 2) Maiback knew the emails didn’t mention “Puerto Rico” and was lying to the court; 3) GMU has withheld emails with the requested term “RICO”; or 4) CEI didn’t publicly release all of the emails it received.
In any event, the absence of any emails discussing Puerto Rico is raises an interesting question. .. were all of the documents requested by CEI actually released by GMU?
On page 350 of the PDF: Mark Cane or Kevin Trenberth (there are textual insertions that obscure the authorship) are discussing the advisability of leaving the Climate Stability paragraph in the RICO letter.
“Fair enough. And we will not mention the school of historians who attribute many agricultural
advances to Holocene climate crises.
The whole truth and nothing but the truth
Maibach to Shukla:
His feels the odds of the DOJ pursuing this case against industry are slim to none, because there are no easily quantifiable (health care) costs that the government can seek reimbursement for.
So, after seeking advice on the matter, and being advised that odds of any action are “slim to none” they proceeded with the letter anyway. Why? Why send a letter knowing in advance that it has no practical use? It would be reasonable to surmise that there are additional emails in which this was discussed and some reasoning around proceeding, but the FOI request didn’t capture them. I’d be interested to know if:
a) They concluded that the advice was wrong (and if so, why, and from whom did they seek alternate views?) or;
b) They decided the advice was sound but to go forward anyway.
I also note that Shukla claims to have sent this to “dozens” of other scientists, and at one point the goal seemed to be to get at least one signer from each of the 435 congressional districts (from memory on that one, I may have the number wrong). They only got 20.
Maibach himself indicated he wasn’t really interested in wither a civil/criminal RICO charges would be legitimate (or in his words “viable”). See his July 31, 2015 3:01 PM email to Peter Frumhoff (w/ Union of Concerned Scientist) entitled “Re: Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation of the fossil fuel Industry” where Maibach states:
“Shukla has been consulting with lawyers so it is possible that– with their input– we too may
decide that Senator Whitehouse’s proposal is not viable. We’ll let you know what we decide
to do.
Regardless, our real intent is to rally the climate science community around useful proposals
–focused on solutions, and on removal of barriers. Please keep us in the loop on your plans
to promote accountability in the fossil fuel industry, as we would like to be of service. I would be delighted to get involved in assessing (and helping to shape) public opinion on this issue. I am confident that a concerted “truth” campaign can generate public indignation over the deceptions sponsored by the
fosssil fuel industry.”
Maibach was replying to Frumhoff’s earlier email where Frumhoff stated (in part)
“I’m following up on the scientists letter proposal that you shared with Nancy and Alden earlier this
week to let you know that (1) it prompted a lot of discussion among our staff, including with UCS
president Ken Kimmell and (2) after taking a close look, we’ve decided to not pursue this
opportunity with you.
Here’s why: In reaching out to climate scientists to sign on, we feel that we’d need to give them
some firmer grounding for believing that a federal investigation under the RICO statute is
warranted -enough so that they’d be able to explain their rationale for signing on to reporters and
others. As you know, deception/disinformation isn’t itself a basis for criminal prosecution under
RICO. We don’t think that Sen Whitehouse’s call gives enough of a basis for scientists to sign on to
this as a solid approach at this point.
Just so you know, we’re also in the process of exploring other state-based approaches to holding
fossil fuel companies legally accountable – we think there’ll likely be a strong basis for encouraging
state (e.g. AG) action forward and, in that context, opportunities for climate scientists to weigh in.
It would be interesting – and perhaps very useful – to consider how calls for legal accountability
will play out in the court of public opinion in different states/with different subsets of the
American public – something perhaps we could work with you all on as this unfolds.”
So… at this point Maibach knows his RICO charges don’t have a firm legal basis & he knows the Union for Concerned Scientist are trying to back-door the issue by influencing Attorney General’s at the state level.
Frumhoff’s email may explain why the Virgin Island’s AG suddenly withdrew his CEI Subpoena on May 13, 2016. Could be the Virgin Island AG has connections to the Union of Concerned Scientist and he wanted to remove the spot-light before Maibach email got out (pure speculation on my part).
So… at this point Maibach knows his RICO charges don’t have a firm legal basis & he knows the Union for Concerned Scientist are trying to back-door the issue by influencing Attorney General’s at the state level.
Yes, thanks for pointing that out. Underscores my point that they knew the course of action would fail, but proceeded anyway. Why? Based on their frantic attempts to re-frame their letter as being targeted at evil organizations rather than individuals, I surmise that this was a publicity stunt intended to build public support for the AG’s contemplating court action against Exxon and others. Per my comment downthread, I just get the feeling that someone with an agenda talked Shukla into this whole thing, and now that it has backfired, he’s left holding the bag.
I suspect this was a case of flinging a ton of mud and hoping some would stick in the public’s mind, at least in part. The parties involved were probably also hoping to intimidate climate realists into silence. The thing that group thinkers do not understand is that individualists tend to hit back rather than back down. Since the individualists tend to be right, poking the bear is unwise at best.
Even RiCO’s use in the news could have shaken a singular oil fossil fuel industries campaign, into the hands of anothe who’s not so intimidated a the creator themselves.
My goodness! The list provided by Dr. John Happs in his email on pages 55 to 78 is really incredible!
I noticed that too. It could be a WUWT post all by itself.
I agree. Funny that he quotes Shukla as a skeptic.
A couple of wonderful gems of the many in the Dr. John Happs letter (found in the pdf of the latest GMU email tranche) are these,
&
That Dr John Happs letter is a good comprehensive reference of the manifest strength of skeptical criticism of the hypothesis of dangerous AGW from fossil fuels.
John
Dr Happs has a blog:
http://undeceivingourselves.org/index.htm
It seems to me that there is something missing from this batch of emails, something important. I’m having trouble figuring out exactly what it is. It just seems to me that Shukla comes across as rather naive and foolish. He admits to little experience with politics and being in the public eye. He gets advice that the DOJ would be unlikely to act, but writes the letter anyway. Actually, he only edits the letter, it looks like the original draft was done by Maibach, not Shukla. Shukla couldn’t even write the letter on his own, but this was his idea? I can’t help but ask:
Did someone put Shukla up to this?
Shukla cites no evidence of wrong doing other than Whitehouse himself. A senior scientist with decades of experience reads a single opinion piece by a politician and concludes that he should jump feet first into a lobbying campaign to prosecute under RICO? If he’d written a letter asking Whitehouse how he (Shukla) could help, that I’d understand. But this?
I just get the feeling that this was someone else’s idea, and Shukla thought he would be some sort of hero by running with it.
“Did someone put Shukla up to this?”
No, the idea of writing the letter was Shukla’s in the first place. In July he wrote to Maibach saying
“I am writing to you to ask if you are able and willing to join me in sending a letter of support to Senator Whitehouse”.
That’s the first of the emails that started the whole thing off, see
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/13/breaking-cei-defeats-rico-20-ringleader-shukla-in-foia-lawsuit-emails-to-be-made-public/
Yes, he’s naive and foolish. I think they have such an over-confident view of their own self-righteousness that they can’t see any down-side.
Re the last point, here’s Maibach:
“I am confident that a concerted “truth” campaign can generate public indignation over the deceptions sponsored by the fossil fuel industry.”
(this was before they sent the letter, in response to UCS guy Peter Frumhoff saying he wasn’t convinced it was a good idea.)
Some of Shulka’s emails included in Maibach’s are not in the FOIA batch because Shulka is often using one of his iges.org email addresses. The original Shukla email to Maibach starting the process reads like a campaigner’s circular not an email between friends.
Paul Matthews wrote: “Yes, he’s naive and foolish. I think they have such an over-confident view of their own self-righteousness that they can’t see any down-side.”
I think that is exactly right, Paul. They didn’t think of themselves as criminals, they thought of themselves as heroes.
They probably still think of themselves as heroes, although they are probably unsure about their personal future right now.
Maiback was talking publicly about RICO months before the letter was written. See my post below.
Re: Paul @ur momisugly 1:27 am:
“I am confident that a concerted truth campaign can generate public indignation over the deceptions sponsored by the CLIMATE CHANGE industry.”
Fixed it for Maibach. 😉 He inadvertently acknowledged his own dishonesty: when truth is in quotation marks, it is not truth.
Shukla and others mistake Oreskes work for something other than fiction. They attribute the very confusing lack of success in cutting CO2 to a nefarious network working against them. It never occurs to them that the scepticism is deserved. And because they’re a bit thick.
La Revenge des Incompetents.
Quote from a parent letter to college re 2 Professors signing RICO
“I ask the two of you to consider if this approach to science in which researchers demand others accept
their findings or risk defamation and imprisonment is the approach to science that UMD wishes to back.
I am not calling for any action against Professors Kalnay and Lau. I have no desire to damage anyone’s career over a difference in opinion. However, I would ask that a conversation take place with these professors, and at the very least, ensure the rights of their students to disagree with their points of view, and the rights of their students to be open to the writings of groups such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation without retribution. Furthermore, you may want to discuss the cost of having the University of Maryland’s name associated with such extreme and visible calls for action. ”
Exactly, the message to students is clear, dissent and be ruined
Here’s what Kalnay thought of the idea to write the RICO letter:
Dear Shukla:
Wow!
Great email and great letter!
(and great idea!)
Thanks for doing this!
Eugenia
Ok. Read them all.
Nothing of interest.
I agree. Except for the Climate Bloggers secret cabal. The real story is that Maibach thought he could get a piece of the pie if a RICO action generated a cash payout. See my post below.
Steven Mosher June 2, 2016 at 7:50 am
Ok. Read them all.
Nothing of interest.
Good. for myself personally and and the skeptic side of the the issue I find your lack of interest most helpful. Please maintain you mind set, it is most useful.
Michael 🙂
I read the whole pile. Same way I read all the climategate mails. in one sitting.
All the juicy stuff ( with a few exceptions) had already been covered.
A few mentions of climate audit .. Mann makes an appearence..
but nothing on the level of climategate.
The search terms were pretty narrow. I dont know what folks expected to find..
existence of a google group was interesting but expected.
so not much of interest.. a few gotchas.
The skeptical letters were pretty embarrassing,, for skeptics
Ok. Read your comment. Nothing of interest.
Closed minds rarely are.
The most interesting thing I found was
Apparently Scott base is now like some kind of royal palace where the prince can invite friends to come schmooze. Who knew!
Shukla also seems to have drafted a second letter which was supposed to respond to the points being made by his critics. It is mentioned as being attached in many of the emails but I couldn’t find the letter itself.
This will infuriate people in the UK, as Prince Charles should not be involved in politics AT ALL, but seems to be admitting that he IS in fact getting involved in political matters.
“this will infuriate people in the UK”
No it won’t, he has been doing this for 2 generations. Nobody takes any notice or cares.Why do you think HM carries on at 90 FFS other than Chukka will terminate the the monarch and she hopes to outlive him.
This point about the missing second letter is a good one. What justification did they come up with to withhold it? I hope CEI will ask for it again.
I found it in the other document dump. Search for the date October 2, 2015
Nothing of great interest. Mostly a belated attempt to take back the mistake they made in putting the letter on the IGES website.
So is anyone surprised that Bob Inglis, head of an allegedly free market think tank and a former Republican member of congress, is collaborating with these buffoons?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Inglis
http://www.republicen.org/about
Maybe not, since Inglis was defeated in the 2010 Republican Primary, by the Tea Party insurgency. Did that cause him to “switch sides” or was he always a RINO?
I also find it amusing that someone who is head of a think tank with the term “Republic” in it would be in close association with Prince Charles, a monarch. Or also be fairly gushing when referring to Prince Charles. A proper American should be skeptical of royalty. (Page 34 of the searchable doc linked above)
Peter
A RINO…I thought he was a well placed MOLE
From Page 284/285
Shukla confesses that political action would take away from his job as an educator. But then immediately says that’s what he wants to do now (regretting he hadn’t fleeced the taxpayers sooner). He admits the activism is more important than his role as a professor.
Then, just like any good liberal, launches into inequality and social justice – both socialism buzzwords. He’s saying this while taking hard working taxpayer money.
This should be grounds for termination. Period.
To be filed:
“I have changed my mind (with regrets as to why I waited so long!),and I have decided to get fully engaged in this process, not just the climate change issues but even the larger issues of inequality and social justice.”
Put this in the “scientists are as politically motivated as any one” file. Item No. 23623.
“In the past I had taken the view that perhaps I can be more effective as an educator if I were not engaged in political debates/actions.”
Put this in the “Universtity Professors are too often liberal socialists” file. Item No. 10467
Put entire letter in the in the “Socialists tend to want to use the force of government to squelch opposing views.”
Put the entire RICO2O ordeal to prosecute those who disagree with them, in the “Why Socialist mindsets lead to loss of freedom and to totalistarianism” file; also cc in the “Social Justice warriors have a perverted sense of Justice” file.
Some interesting findings. Sorry I didnt keep the page references, but I’m sure all you readers catched it (if not, you know what to look for:
– Mailbach asking URGENTLY for the private e-mail addresses of his pals. Backfire management of a public matter is certainly a private matter.
– Shukla getting advice from MIchael Mann. Nothing better than the support of a well-known, upstanding scientific figure
/SARC
So glad my eyes dropped on these gems. Just unfortunate I didn’t take the time to open a WP account at the time of reading. Will do better next time!
I have just uploaded to dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/b3gernyvm4x5um5/output.zip?dl=0
a text version of the pdf, page by page.
Download from dropbox, then you can either merge all ‘pages’ into one file for searching or use grep etc
You can see who emailed by searching for ‘To:’ also ‘From:’
quite illuminating….
This is part from page 413 of the searchable version. Might be significant.
(I searched for the work “hide”.)
I’m not sure who “the admin” is.
MODS If we copy/paste something, should we omit email addresses? I assume “yes”?
[best practice is to eliminate them. .mod]