Comments on: Wahl Transcript Excerpt

By: Weird Science — Global Warmist Sues Skeptic « Mangy Redbone Hound

Weird Science — Global Warmist Sues Skeptic « Mangy Redbone Hound — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 20:39:38 +0000

[...] recap, as detailed here, and here, Michael Mann is the guy who invented the discredited global warming “hocky stick” and [...]

By: Time to Reinvestigate Mann and Now Penn State

Time to Reinvestigate Mann and Now Penn State — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:59:05 +0000

[...] Audit’s Steve McIntyre has the relevant points of the transcripted interview between the NOAA IG and Wahl: Q. Did you ever receive a request by [...]

By: cflagle

cflagle — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:28:25 +0000

A pawn and a useful idiot. They’re basically synonymous. If e-mails are in question, the court is able use them regardless of whether they were deleted or not…I believe the term is “discoverable”. Anyway, It does not matter that these guys are PHd’s, Money runs all including mother nature.

By: Climategate: Mann Ordered Wahl To Delete Emails

Climategate: Mann Ordered Wahl To Delete Emails — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:16:29 +0000

[...] Article Source 2 Source 3 Source [...]

By: Lucy Skywalker

Lucy Skywalker — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:42:46 +0000

David your comment is ringed with light. Thank you.

By: Jeff Norman

Jeff Norman — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:43:39 +0000

“it’s not the crime they’ll nail you for, it’s the coverup”

Or what might have been spilled on the coverup.

Semantics – I only forwarded the e-mail I did not send the e-mail.

In Outlook when I hit the “Forward” it creates an e-mail. In order to discharge the e-mail, I have to hit something labelled “Send”. Are there systems that allow you to consciously “forward” an e-mail without “sending” the e-mail?

By: Shub

Shub — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 00:28:50 +0000

You don’t know much about the Wahl and Ammann papers, do you?

By: PhilJourdan

PhilJourdan — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:51:43 +0000

You seem to not understand the 3 pillars of a conviction. Motive, means and opportunity. The latter 2 are easy to discern as usually the means in evident in the method (gun, knife, etc.) and the opportunity usually by either placing the suspect at the scene or the lack of an alibi.

However, motive is not so easy, yet presented in courts every day. What is it? It is what the suspect was thinking at the time of the crime. For a few, that is easy – they confess. For most, however, the motive is imputed to the suspect based upon behaviour and other telling signs. In other words, in your own words, they read the mind of the suspect.

But in legal terms, no one is pretending to read the minds of Wahl, Mann or Briffa. They are simply imputing the motive based upon the facts in evidence. You may call a duck a horse if you like, but if it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck and walks like a duck, most of us will call it a duck.

By: Geoff Sherrington

Geoff Sherrington — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:33:27 +0000

Come on, Susan. How, without clairvoyance, might one select “emails that are not essential to the conduct of the staff person’s responsibilities”. You have before your nose, in these pages, an example of a person acting without clairvoyance and causing quite a headache.

In your heart, valuable as it is, you must know that you are making interesting hypotheses while knowing that at least a smidgin of guilt is indicated.

By: James Evans

James Evans — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 06:59:39 +0000

But surely, they’re deleting emails and trying to hide their conversations from FOI because they don’t want their shady behaviour regarding IPCC AR4 to come to light. Whether FOIA rules applied to any of these individuals isn’t entirely the point.

If you’re happy with all of this, and don’t see any ethical problems, then that’s fine. You’re obviously completely entitled to hold whatever values you like.