Is Michael Mann in doo-doo?

To Hey DooK:

In plain English. After the climategate scandal "independent" investigations were set up to determine if the climate scientists behaved immorally. These "independent" investigations on Micheal Mann determined that he did not delete any emails and did not encourage others to do so. The confession of Wahl prove proves that they were wrong. This raises the further questions: is this an isolated incidence were the investigation was wrong or are there more of such instances? Was the purpose of these inquiries to find the truth, or was this a mock investigation with a predetermined agenda to clear Mann?

"From Capitol Hill come excerpted notes from the interview transcript between the NOAA Inspector General and Eugene Wahl. I am advised that it’s not a continuous chain, with some back and forth between the paragraphs excluded.

Neither the Muir Russell nor Oxburgh “inquiries” took transcripts despite requests from the UK Parliamentary COmmittee to do so."

The above quote is from the link you provided. I find this part of the quote to be fascinating, if you wish to deal in specifics - "I am advised that the excluded sections, often lengthy, do not place the excerpts in any different light than reading them as presented below." - Until we know this is true, this is pure conjecture on the part of Steve McIntyre. Would you not agree?

There are some questions that do need to be asked:

1. Is this claim true?

2. Should this claim be true, were any relevant emails deleted?

3. Would any relevant deleted emails have changed the outcome of the findings on "climategate"?

The finding that you state says that Dr. Mann turned over his fully archived emails. Do you have any evidence that this is not true?

I, as we all should, seek the truth, detest the lies and will accept the science for what the science shows to be true. Do you have any peer reviewed scientific evidence that the previous studies are flawed to the point that it undermines the science performed to date?

***Added *** James P - While I do not know this to be a fact, I am fairly certain that the NOAA emails come through an Exchange server or another type of email server. The server logs the emails and emails are backed up as well. Visit the logs and retrieve the backups. This should tell the story. Should your company use its own Exchange server and does routine backups then you can delete all of your emails and there will still be a record of them. The "delete" key is not the all powerful key you believe it to be. You can format your hard drive and I can recover every bit of data that was there before and had not been over written. I could even retrieve parts of files that had not been over written yet. Seems science is not your only short coming. You don't know much about the very computer you are using either.

Nope. Let's just ask Wahl himself:

"The Daily Caller blog yesterday contained an inaccurate story regarding a correspondence that was part of the emails hacked from East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009.

For the record, while I received the email from CRU as forwarded by Dr. Mann, the forwarded message came without any additional comment from Dr. Mann; there was no request from him to delete emails. At the time of the email in May 2008, I was employed by Alfred University, New York. I became a NOAA employee in August 2008.

The emails I deleted while a university employee are the correspondence I had with Dr. Briffa of CRU regarding the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, all of which have been in the public domain since the CRU hack in November 2009. This correspondence has been extensively examined and no misconduct found. As a NOAA employee, I follow agency record retention policies and associated guidance from information technology staff."

Dr. Eugene R. Wahl

March 9, 2011

Jones asked Mann to forward an email to Wahl, so he did. End of story.

A hundred bucks says the many perpetrators of this lie, including Anthony Watts, never retract their libelous claims. A thousand bucks says deniers like Ottawa Mike and eric continue to blindly believe everything they say anyway.

I second pegminer's sentiments. It's unfortunate that deniers waste so much time muckracking instead of using that time learning some basic science.

*edit* thanks for proving my point, OM. Seriously, you think telling Phil Jones that he would forward his email is equivalent to telling Wahl to delete emails? You live in some kind of denier Bizarro world. I don't think your brain is working correctly.

Sooner or later the truth will come out.

"A federal government inspector general has revealed prima facie proof that the so-called independent inquiries widely if implausibly described as clearing the ClimateGate principals of wrongdoing were, in fact, whitewashes. This has been confirmed to Senate offices. It will not be released to the public for some time because the investigation is ongoing."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/08/penn-state-white...

>>Q. Did you ever receive a request by either Michael Mann or any others to delete any emails?

A. I did receive that email.<<

Where is the email he received? Or did he receive an email telling him to delete the email he just received?

>>Q. So, how did you actually come about receiving that? Did you actually just — he just forward the — Michael Mann — and it was Michael Mann I guess?

A. Yes

Q. — That you received the email from?

A. Correct …

A. To my knowledge, I just received a forward from him. <<

Again, without the email - so what? I forward email all the time without looking at every exchange that preceded my getting it and so does everyone else.

====

In mid 2006 the following exchange occurs between Briffa and Eugene Wahl:

From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]

Sent: Tue 7/18/2006 10:20 AM

To: Wahl, Eugene R

Subject: confidential

Gene

I am taking the liberty (confidentially) to send you a copy of the reviewers[McIntyre’s] comments (please keep these to yourself) of the last IPCC draft chapter. I am concerned that I am not as objective as perhaps I should be and would appreciate your take on the comments from number 6-737 onwards , that relate to your reassessment of the Mann et al work. I have to consider whether the current text is fair or whether I should change things in the light of the sceptic comments. In practise this brief version has evolved and there is little scope for additional text , but I must put on record responses to these comments – any confidential help , opinions are appreciated . I have only days now to complete this revision and response

Wahl responds

Thoughts and perspective concerning the reviewer’s comments per se. These are coded in blue and are in the “Notes” column between pages 103 and 122 inclusive. It got to the point that I could not be exhaustive, given the very lengthy set of review thoughts, so I am also attaching a review article Caspar [Ammann] and I plan to submit to Climatic Change in the next few days….Please note that this Ammann-Wahl text is sent strictly confidentially — it should not be cited or mentioned in any form, and MUST not be transmitted without permission. However, I am more than happy to send it for your use, because it succinctly summarizes what we have found on all the issues that have come up re: MBH. As you can see, we agree at some level with some of the criticisms raised by MM [McIntyre] and others, but we do not find that they invalidate MBH in any substantial way.

Briffa responds

Gene

here is where I am up to now with my responses (still a load to do) you can see that I have “borrowed (stolen)” from 2 of your responses in a significant degree – please assure me that this OK (and will not later be obvious) hopefully.You will get the whole text(confidentially again ) soon. You could also see that I hope to be fair to Mike[Mann] – but he can be a little unbalanced in his remarks sometime – and I have had to disagree with his interpretations of some issues also. Please do not pass these on to anyone at all.

Keith

Wahl responds, jumping into the “divergence” problem which has come to be known as the “hide the decline” problem.

Hi Keith:

Here is the text with my comments. I will go over the “stolen” parts (highlighted in blue outline) for a final time tomorrow morning, but I wanted to get this to you ASAP. The main new point I have to make is added in bold/blue font on pp. 101-103. I question the way the response to the comment there is currently worded, as it seems to imply that the divergence issue really does invalidate any dendro-based reconstructions before about 1850–which I imagine is not what you would like to say. I give a series of arguments against this as a general conclusion. Maybe I got over-bold in doing so, as in my point (1) I’m examining issues that are at the very core of your expertise! Excuse me that one, but I decided to jump in anyway. Let me know if I got it wrong in any way!

=====

I can't enter the rest, but you can read it here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/08/to-serve-man...

There may indeed be a rather serious 'disconnect'. Do you have a source for the transcript?

Edit Mike. I'm not suggesting that this is made up at all. As you say, there is no benefit in making something like that up.

I just like to see information at its source.

Hey Mike, consider this to be an FOI request for every private email you ever sent. Or does right to privacy only apply to those who are out to destroy our planet?

edit

OK, so it is not private. So, he deletes emails which he isn't supposed to. Does he also park overtime in loading zones? We should be talking about the future of the planet, not about a scientist who is so squeaky clean that the worst thing we can talk about is deleted emails. All important information is available for download and if someone wants independent confirmation of his or other scientists' work,they should write their own code. Using his code is not independent confirmation.

Yawwwwn. I'd love to see you apply the same sort of effort to learning science that you do to researching alleged misdeeds by climate scientists.

The noose is slowly tigtening around the fraudsters neck like a slimely python aroumd a cunning coyotes neck... His time is coming and the sceptics cant wait to see him get what he deserves for playing a large part in ruining the global economy!

Some body is damn sure lying, of course I could easily copy a hand full of e-mails to note book then print. Claiming that they were all of my emails.