The main target of Phil Jones’ notorious email deletion campaign was Eugene Wahl’s surreptitious correspondence with Briffa in summer 2006, in which Wahl changed the IPCC assessment of the Mann controversy from that which had been sent out for external review. Wahl’s changes were contained in attachments to his emails to Briffa. The emails mostly […]
In yesterday’s post (as noted), I only responded to one aspect of Schmidt’s Yamal article, as it contains numerous extraneous spitballs, each of which takes time to respond to. In yesterday’s post, I focused on points of agreement or points where agreement ought to be possible. In a subsequent RC comment, Schmidt complained that I […]
UEA made lengthy submission to Information Tribunal, re-iterating their claim that attachments to the Wahl emails have been destroyed. The present appeal arises in part from Acton telling to the Parliamentary Committee that they did not inquire deeply into Jones’ deletion of email request because the “emails do exist”: Q84 Graham Stringer: Thank you. Sir […]
In today’s post, I continue my re-appraisal of various untrue statements made by the University of East Anglia in order to avoid disclosure of CRUTEM station data. I do not consider motives at this time. Also see preceding posts here, here. In East Anglia’s response to July 2009 FOI requests for alleged confidentiality agreements (here) […]
In March 2010, Eugene Wahl admitted to the NOAA Inspector-General that he had destroyed his email correspondence with Keith Briffa about changes to IPCC and falsely stated that “all” the emails were in the public domain. This was untrue. The attachments were not in the public domain. Not only were the attachments not in the […]
David Holland, in a guest post at Bishop Hill, shows that Climategate 2.0 has provided more context on Phil Jones’ efforts to organize the deletion of documents.
Fred Pearce reported in the The Climate Files (page 54): When I phoned Jones on the day the emails were published online and asked him what he thought was behind it, he said: “It’s about Yamal, I think”. The word turns up in 100 separate emails, more than “hockey stick” or any other totem of […]
New Scientist has used the occasion of CRU’s release of CRUTEM station data in response to the ICO’s rejection of CRU excuses to disseminate further disinformation about the Climategate dossier. Anyone can now view for themselves the raw data that was at the centre of last year’s “climategate” scandal. The Climategate dossier is about the […]
More developments from Bishop Hill on the strange relationship between the University of East Anglia and the supposedly “independent” Muir Russell review. On yet another occasion, the University gave untrue answers in order to avoid FOI disclosure, an untrue answer that led to several follow-up FOI requests that they were unable to subvert, but which […]
Breaking news: Today probably marks the closing chapter of the longstanding FOI request for CRUTEM station data. The UK Information Commissioner (ICO) has rendered a decision (see here) on Jonathan Jones’ appeal of the UEA’s refusal to provide Prof J. Jones with the CRUTEM station data that they had previously provided to Georgia Tech. The […]
Climate Audit 