Trevor Davies, UEA on Leaked Documents: Then and Now

Trevor Davies, University of East Anglia pro-vice chancellor with responsibiltiy for research and enterprise, recently condemned the use of “stolen” emails on behalf of the University of East Anglia e.g. here.

In email 0925823304.txt on May 4, 1999, Trevor Davies wrote to Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Mike Hulme, Jean Palutikoff and Mick Kelly (who are referred to as the “CRU5” in the email) saying that he is in posession of a “leaked document” regarding funding from the research council, which he needs to keep secret to avoid “compromising the source”. On this earlier occasion, Davies didn’t appear to have any pangs of conscience about using leaked documents nor to have reported the source of the leaked document to local police. Davies:

I now have a leaked document which spells out some of the research councils’ thinking. I will get a copy over to CRU today. Please keep this document within the CRU5, since it may compromise the source. NERC and EPSRC are signed up. ESRC are not yet. Given the EPSRC stake, it will certainly be be useful to get RAL etc involved. The funding might be 2million per year. That might imply that the Councils favour multi-site, clusters, etc, but they stress they have no preconceptions.

The full letter is here.


  1. LMB
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 8:53 AM | Permalink

    Nice find! Now will the media confront him and hold him accountable?

    • Olle
      Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 12:30 PM | Permalink

      A New scientific discovery!!??

      Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

      These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.

      Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 – 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each re-organization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

      Found om the Swedisch “climatescam today”

      • Arn Riewe
        Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 8:54 PM | Permalink


        • 40 Shades of Green
          Posted Dec 14, 2009 at 7:43 AM | Permalink

          Absolutely priceless.

  2. curious
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 8:56 AM | Permalink

    There’s a typo (“position of a “leaked document””) in para 2.

  3. Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 8:58 AM | Permalink

    Wow! Who knew that Warmists are so stupid as to document their malfeasance AND their hypocrisy over and over again?

  4. APF
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:04 AM | Permalink

    Outstanding work. This one will rank up there with “the trick” once all is said and done. Think about it – this is the chancellor of the Uni.

  5. APF
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:05 AM | Permalink

    Apologies for mistake in above post – Vice Chancellor.

  6. Dr Slop
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:06 AM | Permalink

    On careless leaking of data, Tim to Tom (

    the file contains 11 others series
    too. Please do *not* use the others because I’m not sure whether I am free to
    distribute them or not – I just haven’t time to extract the 2 you want. I’m sure I can
    trust you not to use anything that I shouldn’t have sent!

  7. kadaka
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:10 AM | Permalink

    curious, I see what you mean, should be “possession” instead of “position.”

    Might be an understandable slip though, as Davies is metaphorically in the position of a “leaked document,” now publicly exposed.

  8. DaveJR
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:24 AM | Permalink

    For those not familiar with the UK system, Chancellor is largely a figurehead role often given to someone famous. The Vice-Chancellor is the person who deals with the running of the university.

  9. AdderW
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

    …”I now have a leaked document which spells out some of the research
    councils’ thinking.”

    Any clues as to which document he is referring to?

  10. Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:33 AM | Permalink

    Para 2 “position” should read “possession”.

    Why be surprised at double standards? Even their temperature measurements and records have double standards.

  11. John M
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:33 AM | Permalink

    Well as long as we’re on the subject of “privileged communication”, what do you suppose Phil was referring to here? (Emphasis mine):

    Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY – don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last
    2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
    for years. He knows the’re wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
    to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
    I didn’t say any of this, so be careful how you use it – if at all. Keep quiet also
    that you have the pdf.

    • John M
      Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:34 AM | Permalink

      Well, I guess I overemphasized. 🙂

      • Chris S
        Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 1:57 PM | Permalink

        If I’ve got this right, Jones and Mann are discussing a paper by Adrian Simmons and others, with Jones himself cited as co-author, to be submitted to JGR.
        Comparison of trends and low-frequency variability in CRU, ERA-40, and NCEP/NCAR analyses of surface air temperature

        One of it’s aims was to counter a paper published in Nature by Eugenia Kalnay and M Cai (2003) Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate, Nature 423, 528−531

        The Kalnay and Cai paper appeared to suggest that:

        the “unprecedented” global warming of the past century, which has been derived from the surface air temperature record, is significantly inflated.

        Obviously not on message, damage limitation ensues. Hence Jones to Mann:

        I can’t see either of these papers (referring also to McIntyre/McKitrick)being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

        Which is exactly what they try.

        Roger Pielke Sr. also gives his view of this IPCC bias.

        There seems to be something rotten under every stone. (apologies if this is already common knowledge.)

        • John M
          Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 2:25 PM | Permalink

          Interesting. Jones sure doens’t sound like a co-author in the e-mail, especially since he’s only got the pdf version.

          I wonder why he seems to treat it like it’s the Dreyfus memorandum.

        • Chris S
          Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 2:45 PM | Permalink

          John, I think they discuss it further in this e-mail.

          A worrying facet of many of the e-mails is just how much Mann and Jones influence papers where they aren’t cited as co-authors. Maybe that’s just how Science works these days:(

        • aylamp
          Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 12:40 PM | Permalink

          “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow”

          Very similar approach to Phil Jones”

          “so we are going to have to add in relevant new and important papers. I hope it is up to us to decide what is important and new.”

          Can someone please check if the whole text of 1120593115 is available? I have on my pc much more text than I see at the searchable site, where the text ends at “Unlike the UK, the public in Australia is very very na”

        • Geoff Sherrington
          Posted Jan 9, 2010 at 6:28 PM | Permalink

          Back-browsing – In case you never received a response, here is the text (not all of it, just ask) surrounding the unfinished quote above:
          ” Also this load of rubbish !

          This is from an Australian at BMRC (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached

          article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no
          uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only
          7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.

          The Australian also alerted me to this blogging ! I think this is the term ! Luckily

          I don’t live in Australia.

          Unlike the UK, the public in Australia is very very naïve about climate change, mostly
          because of our governments Kyoto stance, and because there is a proliferation of people
          with no climate knowledge at all that are prepared to do the gov bidding. Hence the
          general populace is at best confused, and at worst, antagonistic about climate change –
          for instance, at a recent rural meeting on drought, attended by politicians and around
          2000 farmers, a Qld collegue – Dr Roger Stone – spoke about drought from a climatologist
          point of view, and suggested that climate change may be playing a role in Australias
          continuing drought+water problem. He was booed and heckled (and unfortunately some
          politicians applauded when this happened) – that’s what we’re dealing with due to
          columists such as the one I sent to you.”

  12. mitchel44
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:35 AM | Permalink

    Mr Davies appears to be poised on the horns of an ethical dilemma, how you act in private and how you speak in public.

    Wonder how the PR coverage is going to go on this one.

    Congrats Steve, I must say that I found todays article rather refreshing, for the red star of course, lol.–portrait-of-a-local-climate-skeptic

    • Sean Peake
      Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 1:52 PM | Permalink

      The photographer took your picture, I assume, from your front porch? If anyone from The Star appeared at my door, I wouldn’t let them in either!

      Steve: It was posed.

  13. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:39 AM | Permalink

    I look forward to this post for the posters that it might attract to defend and explain why one kind of leaking is heroic and another is dastardly. Politicians in the US do it all the time – but they are not scientists and are partisan. When they rationalize they are hilarious.

  14. Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:41 AM | Permalink

    Ouch – great spot.

  15. Fred
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:49 AM | Permalink

    “the only UK university which has covered and can cover all aspects of the climate issue from hard science to policy and philosophy”

    Well that explains a lot . . . Climate Philosophers. Who knew there was such an area of study.

    The middle ages had their philosophers discussing how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

    What do EAU Climate Philosophers discuss . . . how many carbon molecules make up a tipping point?

  16. dearieme
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

    “For those not familiar with the UK system, Chancellor is largely a figurehead role.” Correct.

    “The Vice-Chancellor is the person who deals with the running of the university.”
    Correct, but the present VC is Acton, not Davies.

    Davies is Pro-Vice Chancellor – i.e the VC’s sidekick in charge of something-or-other – and (I understand) was previously Head of the CRU (Cooked Results Unit).

  17. non
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

    Anyone want to hazard a guess at what he really meant by “I now have a leaked document” after the spin meisters have had a whack?

    • stan
      Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 12:19 PM | Permalink

      that’s just naughty vernacular for an accident in the men’s room. Doesn’t mean anything at all about the contents of the document.

  18. Dr Slop
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 10:07 AM | Permalink

    On double standards on confidentiality, Phil to Caspar on the Jesus Paper perhaps being available via CA (1141930111.txt, but note that this doesn’t show up, e.g. in the copy of the mail at — makes me wonder if there’s more stuff that’s not available via that site):

    >>>>>>> Caspar,
    >>>> I guess you’ve seen the site in the last day or so.
    >>>> Did you give them your CC paper to post up and attack?
    >>>> They clearly shouldn’t have it.

    but shows Phil forwarding to Mike a copy of McKitrick and Michaels which Phil apparently has for review. I’ll wager a bottle of good malt that Phil is breaking reviewer confidentiality here.

  19. whitherindustrialwindpower
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 10:15 AM | Permalink


    No need to post this. Please check my wordpress blog at whither… as above and look at About, Expert Opinion and Conventional Wisdom. I think you will find we have a lot in common, except for celebrity status. I am now posting on Robert Bradley’s blog, Master Resource in the US. Check the Wind Integration series Parts I-III. I am now working on part IV. My email address is and phone 613-476-4808. I live in Prince Edward County (used to live on Dingwall, I understand near where you are). Contact me if you like.

    Kent Hawkins

    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 10:48 AM | Permalink

    sad decline for uea

  21. Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 11:25 AM | Permalink

    This email exposes a mechanism for preferential funding from the IPCC to preferred scientists.

  22. Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 11:48 AM | Permalink

    OT – the title/author lines are conflicting/overlapping with each other in IE8.

    • CC Rick
      Posted Dec 14, 2009 at 1:54 PM | Permalink

      On the topic of your OT – widen your window.
      I’m not familiar enough with html rendering to know how it SHOULD handle line spacing when returns are forced by window width, but this problem goes away with a wider window (~1250 pixels).

  23. EdeF
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 11:52 AM | Permalink

    BTW, my English wife informs me that a Bodge is not very good. A “Bodged Job”
    is a real mess, a real pig’s ear.

    • thefordprefect
      Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 1:23 PM | Permalink

      Unfortunately your wife is wrong
      A bodger is an artisan capable of using rudimentary tools to produce a servicable item see wiki
      Bodging is a traditional wood-turning craft, using green (unseasoned) wood to create cylindrical wooden woodturning via a traditional wooden-bed, polelathe, most commonly chair legs and stretcher poles, historically for the Windsor chair manufacturing industry.

      In contemporary British English slang, bodging can also refer to a job done of necessity using whatever tools and materials come to hand and which, whilst not necessarily pretty, is nevertheless serviceable. Bodged should not be confused with a “botched” job: a poor, incompetent or shoddy example of work, deriving from the mediaeval word “botch” – a bruise or carbuncle, typically in the field of DIY, though often in fashion magazines to describe poorly executed cosmetic surgery. A “bodged” DIY job is serviceable: a “botched” DIY one most certainly is not- but a total failure.


      • Chris S
        Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 3:02 PM | Permalink

        Although your historical perspective is partly correct, the use of green (unseasoned) wood to produce dowels and pegs led to joinery that suffered premature failure. Hence a “bodged job”

        I’ll amend the wiki article when I get the chance;)

      • Skip Smith
        Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 4:13 PM | Permalink

        “Bodge” and “botch” are synonyms:

        • Spanner in the works
          Posted Dec 17, 2009 at 9:28 PM | Permalink

          What a bodger’s botch of a subthread this turned out to be. Or should that be botcher’s bodge?

          Oh who cares. I’m not paying for it. Take it back and get a refund.


  24. trbixler
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 11:58 AM | Permalink

    As someone once said follow the money. Great work.

  25. Mike
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 12:48 PM | Permalink

    “Given some of their requirements, the JIF bid may be useful.

    An important requirement seems to be to attract an “internationally
    renowned and charismatic scientist” to be overall Director. Do you think we should sound out Schneider? Watson? ??”

    I’m not sure who the “research council” is, but doesn’t their letting of bids with the additional requirement of charisma speak to an additional set of issues contained in the email?

  26. Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 12:55 PM | Permalink

    Dear Sir,
    Could you offer some information about the NOAA V2 GHCN climate data? I downloaded the whole thing and plotted the data from v2.mean and v2.mean_adj. The Excel plots are posted on my blog, whose address is below by signature here.
    The v2.mean data goes back to 1701 and shows a fairly straight line growth from maybe 9 degrees C in th1 1700’s to perhaps 14 degrees C by 2009. The v2.mean_adj data has been trashed from 1701 to about 1838. From 1838 to 2009 it is a good deal flatter than the v2.mean data and even shows a decline in world temp from 1999 to 2009.
    The readme claims that v2.mean_adj was created from v2.mean but doesn’t say what adjustments were made.
    Depending upon which file you use, you can conclude that the world temp has risen 5 degrees C over three hundred years, OR, world temp is mostly flat since 1838 and we know nothing earlier than 1838. Or the adjusted data set is corrupt.
    Can you give me any guidance about the reliability of the NOAA V2 data? Or other data sets?

    David J. Starr


  27. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 1:05 PM | Permalink

    I realize that there are new readers and blog policies may not be familiar to you. However, the general issue of the impact of doubled CO2 has nothing to do with this thread. If you wish to discuss this, find an Unthreaded. Normally, I discourage efforts to debate the effect of doubled CO2 in one paragraph bites on editorial grounds as otherwise every thread turns into the same argument. I’ll experiment with a little more latitude on an Unthreaded for a while but would much prefer that people stick to threaded issues.

  28. Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 1:12 PM | Permalink

    Did I read that right? The “CRU5”?

    What a handy shortcut for the principal players in this saga, the CRU5. From their mouths (er, keyboards) to God’s ears.

  29. MarkB
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 1:19 PM | Permalink

    From the linked site:

    “Statement from Professor Phil Jones, Head of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia.

    In the frenzy of the past few days, the most vital issue is being overshadowed: we face enormous challenges ahead if we are to continue to live on this planet.”

    Is there a plan to leave the planet that I haven’t been told about? Poor Dr. Jones has reached the point where he can only double down every hand. And then try to double down again when he’s called.

  30. Paul
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 1:21 PM | Permalink

    A guide to acronyms:

    NERC: Natural Environment Research Council
    EPSRC: Engineering and Physical Science Research Council
    ESRC: Economics and Social Science Research Council
    RAL: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

    I think this email may relate to the attempt to establish a National Climate (Change) Centre. About a decade ago there were moves mooted to take the Met Office from Bracknell to Norwich. In the end it went to Exeter.

    • Rattus Norvegicus
      Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 2:59 PM | Permalink

      Yes. I believe this was part of the political fight to get the Tyndall Center and the associated funding. Around this time there were a lot of emails discussing this. Since the first papers from scientists associated with the Tyndall Center were published in 2000, the time frame is about right.

  31. Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 1:27 PM | Permalink

    I think the Vice Chancellor is Sir Edward Acton. Davies is Dean of the school of Environmental Sciences.

    Steve: Thanks and fixed.

  32. Paul
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 1:38 PM | Permalink

    Trevor Davies was Dean of the School of Environmental Sciences some 5 or 6 years ago. He is pro-vice chancellor with responsibiltiy for research and enterprise

  33. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 1:45 PM | Permalink

    ln(380/280)/ln(2) is 0.44 or 44% not 75%. People who claim to be skeptics should be extra careful of confirmation bias.

    • ad
      Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 4:43 PM | Permalink

      BTW, for those that don’t know, you can just type formaulae like ln(380/280)/ln(2) into Google’s search bar and it will calculate for you. Of course, it should be ln(388/280)/ln(2) which is 47%.

      • ad
        Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 4:47 PM | Permalink

        Oops, case of self-spell-check confirmation bias there. Also, Bing does the same.

  34. Rattus Norvegicus
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 2:49 PM | Permalink

    Fact: we are only about 1/3 of the way to a doubling of CO2.

    Steve: OT. What does this have to do with Trevor Davies?

  35. Tim Channon
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 4:47 PM | Permalink

    And another link appears… “get RAL etc involved”

    RAL = Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

  36. Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 4:52 PM | Permalink

    Et tu, Trevor?

  37. Paul Penrose
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 5:03 PM | Permalink

    I don’t understand your last sentence. Are you saying that the contents of the leaked emails are nonsense? That would be the most damning thing I’ve heard said about them, and the people that wrote them, to date. Or perhaps you are saying that you don’t care that researchers at a public institution using public money attempted to, and probably succeeded, in thwarting the FOIA process. And that it’s no big deal that these same people distorted the peer review process into a grotesque parody of itself? Maybe you can clarify for me instead of throwing around old worn out insults.

  38. Lea
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 11:14 PM | Permalink

    Yes,yes,Steve..naughty hypocritical Trevor. At least he didn’t use the leaked document in a public attempt to question your reputation..

    • geronimo
      Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 4:01 AM | Permalink

      Lea, how could Trevor Davies use the leaked document to question anyone’s reputation? The point is, in case you’ve missed it, that Trevor Davies’ stand on the CRU leaked documents doesn’t seem to be an obstacle to him using leaked documents to his own advantage.

      • Lea
        Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 7:56 PM | Permalink

        Oh,I don’t believe I’m reading that response! Oh look he did the same,nyah,nyah,nyah! Now that we’re all hypocrites anything goes,eh? Getting a little inside insight into funding directions is entirely equivalent to systematic attempts to damn reputations by decontextualising and editing,is it now?

        • Paul Penrose
          Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 8:38 PM | Permalink

          The full text of these emails is available to anybody that wishes to check for themselves. But the more important issue is that these emails were never “private” regardless of what you may think. They are the property of a publicly funded university and subject to FOIA. There was always the possibility that they would become public, especially considering that the papers written by the affected scientists are being used (in part) to affect public policy designed to change our entire civilization. This is the case at all public institutions, and the group at CRU should have known this; it’s not a secret.

        • Lea
          Posted Dec 14, 2009 at 9:24 AM | Permalink

          Indeed,Paul,check the full texts for yourself,why have Steve filter them for you? By all means read them, and in full,but be frank about your ability -and motivation- to interpret them. CRU are more than well aware of who foots the bill,and FOI responsibilities…and if it’s OK for everyone to do what they wish with leaked material,as it appears to be, then don’t be surprised if some people seek to do the minimum required under the FOI provisions.

        • bender
          Posted Dec 14, 2009 at 10:32 AM | Permalink

          You think *cost* was the reason Jones wouldn’t release the data? It’s you who needs to get a grip! Phil Jones said [paraphrase]: why should I make the data available to you when your only goal is to find something wrong with it? That was his OPENING line – a hard line that he has taken all along. He created all these problems for himself to due to his personal culture of non-transparency, which is not the stated policy of the institutions under which he operates. He made some foolish choices.

        • Lea
          Posted Dec 14, 2009 at 9:33 PM | Permalink

          My reference to “who foots the bill” was a reply to Paul’s comment about UEA being a publicly-funded university, not the cost of fulfilling FOI requests. His contention was that CRU may be confused about who and what they are,and their obligations..which is absurd. ‘Opinionating’ about Phil Jones personal culture and choices has been done to death.

        • ML
          Posted Dec 16, 2009 at 1:50 AM | Permalink

          Where exactly has Steve “decontextualized” and edited the emails? Explain, please.

          And complaining about “systematic attempts to damn reputations” when the supposed targets are in fact guilty of disreputable acts is beyond silly.

  39. pete m
    Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 9:16 PM | Permalink


    1. Steve did not make public any document.

    2. Steve has not questioned anyone’s reputation. Quite the contrary, he has just joined some dots and let the information speak for itself.

    3. The emails, as regards Steve, show their blind hatred of him and pathetic name-calling. I’m not sure Steve is too excited at having such foul words made public, although I bet he wasn’t surprised they existed.

    4. Jones deserves EVERYTHING he gets out of this. We’ll see how the investigations pans out.

    Back to your hopey changey world please.

    • Lea
      Posted Dec 14, 2009 at 9:34 AM | Permalink

      Pete, Steve is publicising these documents. Steve initially UNjoined some dots and let what was left speak less entirely for itself. There is clear hostility between both parties,and remember,by default and design the pre-selection of these particular emails makes the writers appear more preoccupied with ‘things Steve’ than they really are. What do you think is the total volume of correspondence generated by a large group over twelve years? You have no idea what Jones deserves. Get a grip.

      • Clif C
        Posted Jan 9, 2010 at 5:39 PM | Permalink

        “by . . . design, the pre-selection of these particular emails makes the writers appear more preoccupied with ‘things Steve’ than they really are”

        An aide-memoire (which includes this site) IS all about the author. So what? Any perceptive reader knows that.

  40. rafa
    Posted Dec 14, 2009 at 9:17 AM | Permalink

    Stan, I support Bender’s request. If you can find such information please let us know.

  41. Acton Now
    Posted Dec 14, 2009 at 5:00 PM | Permalink

    UEA tell us that their Vice Chancellor Edward Acton is descended from Lord Acton who might have had this to say:

    On The Antics of the Team
    “And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control.
    History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

    On the IPCC
    “There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”

    On Peer Review
    “Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right to do what we ought.”

    On the Settled Science
    “There is no error so monstrous that it fails to find defenders among the ablest men.”

    On Scepticism
    “Be not content with the best book; seek sidelights from the others; have no favourites.”

    On Cap and Trade
    “Socialism means slavery.”

  42. bender
    Posted Dec 14, 2009 at 5:01 PM | Permalink

    This entire branch is OT, where T=Trevor Davies. [See the value of nesting? You can prune this whole branch back without losing a thing of value!]

  43. Posted Dec 15, 2009 at 11:16 PM | Permalink

    Trevor Davies’ pangs of conscience might be more topical than Trevor Davies simpliciter.

  44. MikeE
    Posted Dec 16, 2009 at 4:08 PM | Permalink

    Trivia, possibly, but there is a reference to “Reading” in the first paragraph of the full letter.

    This is presumably
    either Reading University, Department of Meteorology who worked (and possibly still work) closely with the UK Met Office (then in Bracknell, not too far from Reading; there were, and I think still are Met Office personnel based at Reading U.),
    ECMWF Shinfield Park, Reading, the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts.

    In the context of the overall email (and the one it is replying to), the former seems more likely.

    I’m guessing that “ENV” is The School of Environmental Sciences, UEA.

  45. Joss
    Posted Dec 17, 2009 at 11:00 AM | Permalink

    If the FOI request is refused why not also pump in an EIR which has less of a chance of refusal.

    gives some more data specifically. If the request can be phrased or go after a specific set of data this is a lot more difficult to refuse than an FOI.

  46. Peter Oneil
    Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 3:53 PM | Permalink

    I cannot believe that all the establisment figures who comment(DISMISS) the contents of the e-mails, have read them in their entirity. Furthermore, i cannot understand why professor jones contemplated suicide if their contents were so beiign.The scientific community must stand up and be counted on this issue,if they are going to regain any semblance of credibility.They either support the hockey stick team or they condemn it. Speak up now or condemn science to an ignominious and deserved place of contempt in the minds of (in my opinion) most reasonable people.

  47. Peter Oneil
    Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 3:55 PM | Permalink

    Apologies, that should read BENIGN

4 Trackbacks

  1. […] Davis began with his condemnation of the leaks when first disclosed, but he had no problem with leaked emails he obtained about funding and provided to the CRU […]

  2. […] Davis began with his condemnation of the leaks when first disclosed, but he had no problem with leaked emails he obtained about funding and provided to the CRU […]

  3. […] Davis began with his condemnation of the leaks when first disclosed, but he had no problem with leaked emails he obtained about funding and provided to the CRU […]

  4. By Oxburgh and Davies « Climate Audit on Mar 24, 2010 at 8:15 PM

    […] discussed Davies in an earlier CA post here. In that letter, Davies (who has vociferously denounced the public circulation of the Climategate […]

%d bloggers like this: