Comments on: Blatant Misrepresentation by Muir Russell Panel

By: UEA “Welcomes” Untrue Muir Russell Finding | Probe International

UEA “Welcomes” Untrue Muir Russell Finding | Probe International — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:06:56 +0000

[...] See here for a review showing the falseness of their “finding”. [...]

By: UEA “Welcomes” Untrue Muir Russell Finding « Climate Audit

UEA “Welcomes” Untrue Muir Russell Finding « Climate Audit — Sun, 12 Sep 2010 01:06:12 +0000

[...] words, was a ‘subversion” of IPCC policy on openness and transparency. See here for a review showing the falseness of their [...]

By: If You Think Climategate Has Blown Over, Think Again « Things I Find Interesting

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:33:53 +0000

[...] ) and the Muir Russell Inquiry that didn’t Inquire too much about the naughty bits ( see: http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/22/blatant-misrepresentation-by-muir-russell-panel/ ), had made it safe for them to return to business as usual just got a bit of bad news: 31 August [...]

By: Bill Hunter

Bill Hunter — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 03:45:01 +0000

The appropriateness of naming this affair Climategate increases almost every day just like its namesake Watergate that eventually for the first time in history toppled a US administration. One has to wonder just how big this will get and who else is going to fall on his sword.

By: Alan Wilkinson

Alan Wilkinson — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:04:35 +0000

Oops, sorry, please delete Jones’ contact details.

By: Alan Wilkinson

Alan Wilkinson — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:02:54 +0000

The reference should be to 1212073451.txt:

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
[RomanM: Contact details deleted]
—————————————————————————-

By: The Gray Monk

The Gray Monk — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:33:25 +0000

Having worked to Civil Servants and been the victim of several of their “reviews” I have first hand experience of their methods and practices. The Conclusions are set out by the Committee at the outside when setting up the “parameters” of the review. Then they go looking for evidence to fit, anything that doesn’t is rejected and anyone who dares try to inject anything that doesn’t fit the picture they want to paint is immediately silenced.

The Official Secrets Act is a wonderful weapon n the hands of a Whitehall Mandarin.

By: Atomic Hairdryer

Atomic Hairdryer — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:01:50 +0000

Not really

It’s more about what remains unseen or overlooked by Russell et al. We have a traffic analysis shortly after the leak showing the message exchanges. That was only based on the simple header info though because the full headers were stripped. Why would a hacker bother doing this?

That email is curious because Jones suggested deletion, but either didn’t delete it himself, thought he did, or bcc’d it to someone else.

Russell report includes a brief ‘forensic’ report which has some odd things in it. The analyst had a copy of the complete data, but only seems to have done a cursory word frequency analysis of the released subset. There was a comment about needing different software, which is puzzling given the mail system seems to be standard mbox format.

It doesn’t seem to difficult to me to find where the released emails and any copies were located on the server. But neither UEA or Russell wanted to follow that path, because I suspect they already know the answer.

It may also have shown if there were any attempts to delete. It’s fairly common in mail clients to not delete a message on first pass, just flag the message for deletion. Thunderbird does this and only actually deletes the email when mailboxes are compacted. Some mail systems can override that behaviour to aid retention.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 06:02:40 +0000

Tim Yeo is Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Committee of the House of Commons. See http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/energy-and-climate-change-committee/membership

He is strongly warmist, and has relevant business interests (which he has declared).

By: Brigette Debois

Brigette Debois — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 02:00:57 +0000

Email 1212063122.txt from Mann on 29 May does indeed include Jones’ email, but it does not show what date the email was written, sent, or received. You should revise your statement above:

“The following day (May 29), Jones sent the notorious email (1212063122.txt) to Mann and Briffa famously asking them to “delete any emails” with Briffa regarding AR4, saying that they planned to also ask Ammann, and asking Mann to contact Wahl to delete his emails.”