Comments on: More NOAA Disinformation and an Appeal to the UK ICO http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/12/noaa-disinformation-and-an-appeal-to-the-uk-ico/ by Steve McIntyre Wed, 22 May 2013 20:55:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Eudora and the Briffa Attachments « Climate Audit http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/12/noaa-disinformation-and-an-appeal-to-the-uk-ico/#comment-317386 Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:49:48 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=13232#comment-317386 [...] to Wahl’s emails. I provided a review of this and subsequent events earlier this year here – worth re-reading if you wish further context on today’s [...]

]]> By: Sal http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/12/noaa-disinformation-and-an-appeal-to-the-uk-ico/#comment-259508 Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:14:37 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=13232#comment-259508 From: Michael Mann
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
Reply-to: mann@psu.edu

Hi Phil,

laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would
have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to
have been true.

I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@yahoo.com

talk to you later,

mike

It appears from the above that Gene Wahl and probably the others set up email accounts outside of their university affiliations in order to circumvent the FOIA process. This had to have occurred recently when these emails were sent because Phil Jones states that he does not have Gene’s new email address which is why he is asking Michael Mann to send it to him.

If this is true, then those emails sent to that address should be opened up to public scrutiny as they are public records.

]]> By: Ray Sieben http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/12/noaa-disinformation-and-an-appeal-to-the-uk-ico/#comment-258323 Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:44:02 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=13232#comment-258323 With the scientists involved in this scandal creating a negative view of scientists, I don’t understand why the scientific community is not demanding full disclosure and honesty from the scandal ridden group.
All of science is getting a black eye over this.
I used to trust that scientists believed their opinions and conclusions enough to have their data openly reviewed. Now I believe many scientists only want their work materials reviewed by other scientists that will agree with their opinions.
Growing up, I still remember being concerned over the coming Ice Age.
Based on the last few winters here in Western Canada, I suspect an Ice Age is closer than Global Warming.
Keep up the pressure Steve.

]]> By: John Trigge http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/12/noaa-disinformation-and-an-appeal-to-the-uk-ico/#comment-258316 Mon, 14 Mar 2011 06:57:37 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=13232#comment-258316 Expect to see more emails between the ‘team’ with very little content in the body but lots of attachments. Future FOI requests would then produce the emails sans attachments and they can claim they met the requirements of the FOI request.

]]> By: Top Posts — WordPress.com http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/12/noaa-disinformation-and-an-appeal-to-the-uk-ico/#comment-258304 Mon, 14 Mar 2011 00:13:15 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=13232#comment-258304 [...] More NOAA Disinformation and an Appeal to the UK ICO On March 9, 2011, NOAA scientist Eugene Wahl claimed that the “emails [he] deleted” were “all” “in the public domain” [...] [...]

]]> By: Dishman http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/12/noaa-disinformation-and-an-appeal-to-the-uk-ico/#comment-258302 Sun, 13 Mar 2011 22:03:32 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=13232#comment-258302 The politicians and institutions had an opportunity to wash their hands of it after Climategate, but chose instead to double down.

It did break some people loose, like Judith Curry.

Unfortunately, I’m not seeing any way to unwind this that isn’t ugly. It appears to me that it will take much more or larger shoes dropping to clean up the science.

]]> By: Pat Frank http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/12/noaa-disinformation-and-an-appeal-to-the-uk-ico/#comment-258301 Sun, 13 Mar 2011 22:01:08 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=13232#comment-258301 Mainly that some segment of the population with which you’re familiar has a short attention span.

]]> By: stan http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/12/noaa-disinformation-and-an-appeal-to-the-uk-ico/#comment-258295 Sun, 13 Mar 2011 18:14:51 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=13232#comment-258295 Individual scientists involved in the mess should not be confused with the institutions. There are scientists who are not involved in the corruption who are seeing harm to the reputation of science generally and climate science particularly. Those scientists have an incentive to see that the mess gets cleaned up. When their numbers are sufficient to impel change in the institutions, change will begin.

]]> By: Viv Evans http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/12/noaa-disinformation-and-an-appeal-to-the-uk-ico/#comment-258293 Sun, 13 Mar 2011 18:10:21 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=13232#comment-258293 Just a footnote:

Wahl claims the e-mails are now ‘in the public domain’ because of climategate … a bit like the man begging for compassion because he’s an orphan, having just murdered his parents,no?

]]> By: Vorlath http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/12/noaa-disinformation-and-an-appeal-to-the-uk-ico/#comment-258290 Sun, 13 Mar 2011 17:15:40 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=13232#comment-258290 Actually, attachments on the server are part of the message. To remove the attachment from the message, you’d have to manually separate them or write a program that filters them out on the server itself which would be proof of questionable behaviour.

I found that I could not stop reading Steve’s post. It is not the readers who glaze over the details, but rather those involved in Climategate. The amount of obstruction is fascinating and something that is difficult to explain from both a scientific and PR POV.

]]>