Eugene Wahl Confirms..Mann asked him to delete Emails

[BethesdaWX]

The IPCC is down in the dumps for a reason.

http://climateaudit....script-excerpt/

http://wattsupwithth.../to-serve-mann/

"From Capitol Hill come excerpted notes from the interview transcript between the NOAA Inspector General and Eugene Wahl. I am advised that it’s not a continuous chain, with some back and forth between the paragraphs excluded. I am advised that the excluded sections, often lengthy, do not place the excerpts in any different light than reading them as presented below.

Neither the Muir Russell nor Oxburgh “inquiries” took transcripts despite requests from the UK Parliamentary COmmittee to do so.

Q. Did you ever receive a request by either Michael Mann or any others to delete any emails?

A. I did receive that email. That’s the last one on your list here. I did receive that.

Q. So, how did you actually come about receiving that? Did you actually just — he just forward the — Michael Mann — and it was Michael Mann I guess?

A. Yes

Q. — That you received the email from?

A. Correct …

A. To my knowledge, I just received a forward from him.

Q. And what were the actions that you took?

A. Well, to the best of my recollection, I did delete the emails.

Q. So, did you find the request unusual, that they were — that the request — that you were being requested to delete such emails?

A. Well, I had never received one like it. In that sense, it was unusual.

Q. I guess if the exchange of comments and your review was appropriate, I guess what I’m just trying to understand why you’d be ask to delete the emails after the fact, at the time that they’re — it appears that the CRU is receiving FOIA requests

A. Yeah. I had no knowledge of anything like that. But that’s what they were — where they were coming from. And so, you’d have to ask Keith Briffa that. I don’t know what was in his mind."

[skierinvermont]

IPCC authors can and should be able to correspond with whomever they so please. WUWT's and McIntyre's claims that this is against the rules are bogus.

It wasn't Mann that asked him to delete the emails.. Mann forwarded a request by Phil Jones at Jones' request.

The request to delete emails made by Jones was ill-advised, but the content of the emails is completely legitimate. In fact it simply reinforces the fact that the M&M critique doesn't make an ounce of difference to MBH. The contents of the emails show Keith Briffa to have been especially careful that he incorporated the M&M critiques as accurately and objectively as possible into AR4.

[BethesdaWX]

I'm referring to the review done by penn state of the issue. Clearly, inaccurate.

readb the quote

[WeatherRusty]

Bethesda,

Do you realize the perverted scumbag, lying sacks of sh*t you are in bed with?

The

Daily Caller

blog yesterday contained an inaccurate story

regarding a correspondence that was part of the emails hacked from East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009.

For the record, while I received the email from CRU as forwarded by Dr. Mann, the forwarded message came without any additional comment from Dr. Mann;

there was no request from him to delete emails.

At the time of the email in May 2008, I was employed by Alfred University, New York. I became a NOAA employee in August 2008.

The emails I deleted while a university employee are the correspondence I had with Dr. Briffa of CRU regarding the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, all of which have been in the public domain since the CRU hack in November 2009. This correspondence has been extensively examined and no misconduct found. As a NOAA employee, I follow agency record retention policies and associated guidance from information technology staff.

Dr. Eugene R. Wahl

March 9, 2011

Anthony Watts

has this post written by

Steven Mosher

highlighted on his blog:

“Sources confirm that a federal inspector has questioned Eugene Wahl and Wahl has confirmed that Mann asked him to delete emails. Wahl has also informed the inspector that he did delete emails as the result of this request.”

Chris Horner

writes:

”Wahl says Mann did indeed ask Wahl to destroy records, and Wahl did.”

On ClimateAudit, McIntyre published the leaked partial transcript and writes:

“From Capitol Hill come excerpted notes from the interview transcript between the NOAA Inspector General and Eugene Wahl.”

Horner writes

here

of the leaked transcript, “

This has been confirmed to Senate offices

.”

So it would appear that the source is a Senator. And what a shock that Sen. Inhofe was the fastest to repost these lies.

Michael Mann:

The claim by fossil fuel industry lobbyist Chris Horner in his “Daily Caller” piece that I told Eugene Wahl to delete emails is a fabrication–a lie, and a libelous allegation. My only involvement in the episode in question is that I forwarded Wahl an email that Phil Jones had sent me, which I felt Wahl needed to see. There was no accompanying commentary by me or additional correspondence from me regarding the matter, nor did I speak to Wahl about the matter.

This is, in short, a despicable smear that, more than anything else, speaks to the depths of dishonesty of professional climate change deniers like Chris Horner, Marc Morano, Stephen McIntyre, and Anthony Watts.

[Clifford]

This is just making mountains out of molehills.

E-Mail Archives are great... but a pain to wade through unless there is something very specific that one is looking for. And, you can imagine how some things will be taken out of context.

Even business accounts will get some amount of personal mail, even between business associates.

If the questions are the computer models... then go through them with a fine tooth comb. That is the end result of all this anyway.

[BethesdaWX]

The WUWT story has been updated to reflect the issues raised by Mann

http://wattsupwiththat.com/ (below linked from)

In 2010, in an effort to clear Mann of any wrong doing, a committee of inquiry was set up at Penn State. We now know that committee failed miserably. They failed for many reasons, but the Wahl admission is the starkest example.

Here is one allegation the committee investigated:

Allegation 2: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly

or indirectly

, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails

, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

Finding 2. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones. Dr. Mann has stated that he did not delete emails in response to Dr. Jones’ request. Further, Dr. Mann produced upon request a full archive of his emails in and around the time of the preparation of AR4. The archive contained e-mails related to AR4.

The committee found this because they apparently failed to understand Mann’s reply. As they reported:

He [Mann] explained that he never deleted emails at the behest of any other scientist, specifically including Dr. Phil Jones, and that he never withheld data with the intention of obstructing science; …

What can we make of this? Mann was apparently asked the question: “Did you engage in or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete emails.”

And it seems clear he only answered half of the question, leaving the unanswered second part dangling: did you contact anyone or otherwise ‘indirectly’ participate in deleting records? This either did not strike, or did not interest, the Penn State ‘investigators’. This despite that Mann, it appears, answered “carefully” and incompletely. He only answered that he hadn’t deleted emails. He never directly denies partaking, indirectly, in the deletion of Wahl’s emails. He apparently withheld the information that he had asked [forwarded the request to] Wahl to delete emails.

[skierinvermont]

At the time of the PSU inquiry, they were perfectly aware that Mann forwarded the email from Jones requesting that Wahl delete emails. As they were in possession of this email at the time, apparently the PSU inquiry concluded that forwarding this email did not constitute a "direct or indirect action with the intent to delete emails." They probably concluded that forwarding an email, upon request and which Mann may not even have read, did not constitute a direct or indirect action with intent.

Wahls recent testimony does not include anything remotely new. It simply restates what has been known for a long time now, which is that Mann forwarded an email from Jones to Wahl requesting he delete emails. This is just an attempt by Watts, McIntyre and Senator Inhofe to get the story going again based on Wahl's recent testimony which simply confirms what has already been known for two years. As Gavin Schmidt put it, they are simply "stoking the fires of manufactured outraged."

What is new is McIntyre's and Watt's false claims that Mann directly asked for the emails to be deleted. As both Wahl and Mann have stated, this is false and libelous, and McIntyre and Watts have since retracted the claims. The only other thing that is new about this story is McIntyre and Watts' claim that the correspondence between Briffa and Wahl was "against the rules" which it was not, nor should it be. As a lead author of an AR4 chapter, Briffa has the freedom and responsibility to consult with anybody he believes will help him formulate an objective and accurate report.

10% of this story is old news (Mann forwarded an email to Wahl from Jones requesting Wahl delete emails) and the other 90% is fabrication and libel by McIntyre, Watts and Senator Inhofe. They have fabricated the fact that Mann was the one that requested the emails be deleted, and they fabricated the idea that the correspondence between Briffa and Wahl was "against the rules."

[BethesdaWX]

There are no false claims here, its your own stupidity. Why don't you quote the false claims by WUWT? The story has been updated to reflect Mann, and its still pathetic.

Wahls stated he deleted emails based on the message Forwarded By Mann...(not written by), ok? Again, emails were deleted. if they were deleted, Mann should have noted that Emails were deleted.

Again..emails were deleted in regards to FOI.

Is the Correpsondance throughout the group somehow not fit this? Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails

You are making no sense skier. The "range of actions" the questions posed by the comitee should have had this covered, but when they try to hide the correspondance and forwarding of the message to action by Wahls.

[skierinvermont]

There are no false claims here, its your own stupidity.

This is the garbage I have to deal with and then people have the gall to claim I am the one with an attitude.

I'm done. I have presented what happened. PSU was aware of the forwarded email by Mann when they concluded he did not engage in any actions with the INTENT to delete emails. Apparently they concluded that forwarding an email did not constitute an action with intent. If you want to resort to ad hominems, as usual for you and zucker and most of the skeptics on here, go right ahead.

[BethesdaWX]

This is the garbage I have to deal with and then people have the gall to claim I am the one with an attitude.

I'm done. I have presented what happened. PSU was aware of the forwarded email by Mann when they concluded he did not engage in any actions with the INTENT to delete emails. Apparently they concluded that forwarding an email did not constitute an action with intent. If you want to resort to ad hominems, as usual for you and zucker and most of the skeptics on here, go right ahead.

Back at ya 100%, Mr Hypocrite.

If there are false claims, post them or get lost, please. Direct quotes are a necessity.

You're acting like a prototypical warmist, all talk/attitude...but no game.

[ORH_wxman]

Cut the crap guys. Bethesda, do you want to be put on mod preview again like you were on eastern?

[BethesdaWX]

Cut the crap guys. Bethesda, do you want to be put on mod preview again like you were on eastern?

these topics always get heated for some reason.

but yeah i'm leaving this thread for now to avoid the constant nerve beating , apologize for my contributions i guess

[WeatherRusty]

There are no false claims here, its your own stupidity. Why don't you quote the false claims by WUWT? The story has been updated to reflect Mann, and its still pathetic.

Wahls stated he deleted emails based on the message Forwarded By Mann...(not written by), ok? Again, emails were deleted. if they were deleted, Mann should have noted that Emails were deleted.

Again..emails were deleted in regards to FOI.

Is the Correpsondance throughout the group somehow not fit this? Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails

You are making no sense skier. The "range of actions" the questions posed by the comitee should have had this covered, but when they try to hide the correspondance and forwarding of the message to action by Wahls.

Don't you ever again claim not to be a conspiracy theorist. If you support criminal/unethical acts (stolen/leaked emails) and fabricated lies against climate scientists, then you are either stupid (I doubt it) or just as bad as the actual perpetrators of this witch hunt.

This science and it's practicing scientists are under vicious attack by a vested ideology, and if you and others refuse to acknowledge as much then you either agree with the tactics or you are blind.

I'm done too. To hell with it.

[LakeEffectKing]

Don't you ever again claim not to be a conspiracy theorist. If you support criminal/unethical acts (stolen/leaked emails) and fabricated lies against climate scientists, then you are either stupid (I doubt it) or just as bad as the actual perpetrators of this witch hunt.

This science and it's practicing scientists are under vicious attack by a vested ideology, and if you and others refuse to acknowledge as much then you either agree with the tactics or you are blind.

I'm done too. To hell with it.

And somehow, the bringing in (and the allowance by the scientists) of Al Gore to become the leader of this movement is somehow NOT an initial ideological move????????

And there are LOTS of scientists out there that are "under attack" that don't tow the AGW line......but many of the ideological left conveiniently lump EVERYONE of them into some big oil, big stupid or big whatever......again....this line of thinking is what is sinking the entire movement....it's called elitism....and people don't like it....especially when the climate at the sensible level is quite cool......AND throwing more gas on the fire....trying to claim cool, snowy for AGW.....

The AGW folks need to go regroup, because this whole hypothesis (in the eyes of the public) is spinning out of control.

If the hypothesis is going to continue to be more than a political power wedge, those proposing such MUST back as far away from activism, and stereotyping other scientists as much as possible....

[BethesdaWX]

Don't you ever again claim not to be a conspiracy theorist. If you support criminal/unethical acts (stolen/leaked emails) and fabricated lies against climate scientists, then you are either stupid (I doubt it) or just as bad as the actual perpetrators of this witch hunt.

This science and it's practicing scientists are under vicious attack by a vested ideology, and if you and others refuse to acknowledge as much then you either agree with the tactics or you are blind.

I'm done too. To hell with it.

I was hoping we could turn the discussion into something positive. This has nothing to do with conspiracy, its the Penn state inquiry that I'm focusing on, and the obvious errors made there. I Never stated they did this on purpose, but it now needs to be addressed immediately. If there are any issues that are not delt with, they will leak out to the public, and that is not a good thing for AGW, which is already losing pubic & scientific support.

I hear the words "denialist", "big oil funded", "holocaust denier", etc all the time. Now when we call them on the issues, its conspiracy, and we are to blame for them?

This is not how we go about these things.

[iceicebyebye]

And somehow, the bringing in (and the allowance by the scientists) of Al Gore to become the leader of this movement is somehow NOT an initial ideological move????????

And there are LOTS of scientists out there that are "under attack" that don't tow the AGW line......but many of the ideological left conveiniently lump EVERYONE of them into some big oil, big stupid or big whatever......again....this line of thinking is what is sinking the entire movement....it's called elitism....and people don't like it....especially when the climate at the sensible level is quite cool......AND throwing more gas on the fire....trying to claim cool, snowy for AGW.....

The AGW folks need to go regroup, because this whole hypothesis (in the eyes of the public) is spinning out of control.

If the hypothesis is going to continue to be more than a political power wedge, those proposing such MUST back as far away from activism, and stereotyping other scientists as much as possible....

good example of trying to construct a false equivalency.

anti-AGW ideology is much more centrally organized around a deeply vested, and powerful, set of interests....first and foremost the top global compaines engaged in fossil fuel translation, and various organizations in parallel industries.

"elitism" is often leveraged by this ideology as a pejorative term...being highly educated and associated with top universities, being a progressive thinker, etc is considered "elite"....probably best if we have more elites and less people who aspire to be anti-science/afraid of change in the world

the only thing "spinning out of control" will be the future viability for humans within Earth's climate system.

just connect the dots of the physical science, BAU emission paths and a world population moving to 9B+....AGW folks need to step it up and not back away from the nay sayers.

cheers.

[BethesdaWX]

good example of trying to construct a false equivalency.

cheers.

good example of trying to cronstruct a false anti-equivalency. If you ask me, the proceses science-wise going on in the IPCC are the worst of anything in the debate...aside from those denying the earth has warmed.

AGW is a hypothesis, there is no need to take drastic measures to our economy for a Hypoethesis...that has somewhat failed to this point, and is completely unproven to this point based on our weak understanding of the climate system & the effects of trace CO2 modecule/how it is handled.

Its good to be cautious, not alarmist.

[LakeEffectKing]

good example of trying to construct a false equivalency.

anti-AGW ideology is much more centrally organized around a deeply vested, and powerful, set of interests....first and foremost the top global compaines engaged in fossil fuel translation, and various organizations in parallel industries.

"elitism" is often leveraged by this ideology as a pejorative term...being highly educated and associated with top universities, being a progressive thinker, etc is considered "elite"....probably best if we have more elites and less people who aspire to be anti-science/afraid of change in the world

the only thing "spinning out of control" will be the future viability for humans within Earth's climate system.

just connect the dots of the physical science, BAU emission paths and a world population moving to 9B+....AGW folks need to step it up and not back away from the nay sayers.

cheers.

That maybe the case, but the method in which the AGW scientific community allowed political mouthpieces to intervene (knowing or ignorant of the political opposition's response) and subsequently turning this into a cesspool of political/scientific/wedge driving mess, lies at the feet of those "scientists" that allowed such political activism to take over the head....that'd be the AGW'ers with the initial push into the cesspool.

[tacoman25]

This is the garbage I have to deal with and then people have the gall to claim I am the one with an attitude.

I'm done. I have presented what happened. PSU was aware of the forwarded email by Mann when they concluded he did not engage in any actions with the INTENT to delete emails. Apparently they concluded that forwarding an email did not constitute an action with intent. If you want to resort to ad hominems, as usual for you and zucker and most of the skeptics on here, go right ahead.

Wrong.

Just because a few individuals make the most posts does not mean they represent the majority.

[tacoman25]

good example of trying to construct a false equivalency.

anti-AGW ideology is much more centrally organized around a deeply vested, and powerful, set of interests....first and foremost the top global compaines engaged in fossil fuel translation, and various organizations in parallel industries.

"elitism" is often leveraged by this ideology as a pejorative term...being highly educated and associated with top universities, being a progressive thinker, etc is considered "elite"....probably best if we have more elites and less people who aspire to be anti-science/afraid of change in the world

the only thing "spinning out of control" will be the future viability for humans within Earth's climate system.

just connect the dots of the physical science, BAU emission paths and a world population moving to 9B+....AGW folks need to step it up and not back away from the nay sayers.

cheers.

So most skeptics are motivated by Big Oil?

Sorry, I don't buy it. Makes it easy to quickly discredit skeptics and their motivations, though, doesn't it?

[BethesdaWX]

So most skeptics are motivated by Big Oil?

Sorry, I don't buy it. Makes it easy to quickly discredit skeptics and their motivations, though, doesn't it?

Its a conspiracy dude

[Mello]

This is the garbage I have to deal with and then people have the gall to claim I am the one with an attitude.

I'm done. I have presented what happened. PSU was aware of the forwarded email by Mann when they concluded he did not engage in any actions with the INTENT to delete emails. Apparently they concluded that forwarding an email did not constitute an action with intent. If you want to resort to ad hominems, as usual for you and zucker and most of the skeptics on here, go right ahead.

Then their conclusion was wrong. Why are you trying so hard to defend that. The PSU report specifically states:

"After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones."

Forwarding the email to someone else clearly is indirectly participating in an action that had the intent to delete emails as suggested by Jones. I can't see any other way to see things. Why do you and so many people that agree with these scientists' findings try so hard to defend every little thing? And people wonder why so many people that really don't know any better are so skeptical. If Penn State knew about the forwarded email, then admit they were wrong in their conclusion.

[skierinvermont]

Wrong.

Just because a few individuals make the most posts does not mean they represent the majority.

Well maybe not most but many.. I didn't mean you.

Regardless of the exact proportion I italicized most to emphasize that I did not mean all. There are individuals that can argue a skeptical or semi-skeptical opinion calmly.

[skierinvermont]

Then their conclusion was wrong. Why are you trying so hard to defend that. The PSU report specifically states:

"After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones."

Forwarding the email to someone else clearly is indirectly participating in an action that had the intent to delete emails as suggested by Jones. I can't see any other way to see things. Why do you and so many people that agree with these scientists' findings try so hard to defend every little thing? And people wonder why so many people that really don't know any better are so skeptical. If Penn State knew about the forwarded email, then admit they were wrong in their conclusion.

I don't agree with Jone's request to delete emails - I am not defending that. And I don't believe most scientists do either.

Penn State knew Mann forwarded an email which contained a request to delete emails. So either they are completely stupid or they didn't believe that forwarding emails constituted an action with the intent to delete emails. Clearly Jones' intent was to delete emails, but the inquiry was concerned with Mann's intent. Which is why they concluded

there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones.

There are obviously two ways of reading the above conclusion from the PSU inquiry. Either they mean

1) Mann did not participate in any activity where the activity itself had the intent to delete emails

or

2) Mann did not participate in any activity where Mann himself had the intent to delete emails (his or anybody else's)

I believe, reading it, that (2) is the more probable meaning. And this is especially true in light of the fact that PSU was well aware at the time that Mann forwarded an email from Jones requesting that Wahl delete emails. (1) is obviously false ... he did participate in an activity, the intent of which was to delete emails. However, 2 is plausibly true. He may not have participated in any activity with the intent (personally himself) to delete his or anybody else's emails.

The real issue here is that NO NEW INFORMATION has come to light since the PSU inquiry. Wahl has simply confirmed what we already knew to be true at the time of the inquiry (IE Mann forwarded the Jones email). Watts, McIntyre, and Inhofe are simply trying to get this story going again, even though nothing new has come to light.

This is a non-story. Nothing new has come to light. All that is new is 1) WUWT's false assertion that Mann made the request himself (they have retracted this libelous claim) 2) WUWT's false assertion that the correspondence between Briffa and Wahl was "against the rules" which it wasn't.

[Mello]

Maybe Penn State meant that, but their wording does not specify only Mann's emails or require Mann to have direct intent to delete the emails himself. He participated indirectly in deleting Wahl's emails by forwarding the note.

If Penn State did only consider Mann's direct actions that then I think they failed in their responsibility. One of the terms for research misconduct at Penn State is:

"fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other practices that seriously deviate from accepted practices within the academic communityfor proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities;"

Forwarding that email should fall under this. Unless accepted practices include forwarding along instructions for someone else to do something that would break that term.

You may think this is a nothing story. I'm not going to argue about that. It may be old news. That's fine. Doesn't change the fact that Penn State got this wrong.

[BethesdaWX]

Thankyou Mello, I just realized how totally awesome you are

[nzucker]

If you want to resort to ad hominems, as usual for you and zucker and most of the skeptics on here, go right ahead.

Huh? How did I get involved in this thread?

[ORH_wxman]

What this likely does is at best make Penn State look incompetent or at worst, purposefully deceitful.

[skierinvermont]

Maybe Penn State meant that, but their wording does not specify only Mann's emails or require Mann to have direct intent to delete the emails himself. He participated indirectly in deleting Wahl's emails by forwarding the note.

If Penn State did only consider Mann's direct actions that then I think they failed in their responsibility. One of the terms for research misconduct at Penn State is:

"fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other practices that seriously deviate from accepted practices within the academic communityfor proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities;"

Forwarding that email should fall under this. Unless accepted practices include forwarding along instructions for someone else to do something that would break that term.

You may think this is a nothing story. I'm not going to argue about that. It may be old news. That's fine. Doesn't change the fact that Penn State got this wrong.

OK well at least we are clear that this is an old story which the WUWT - Inhofe spin machine is attempting to recycle.

Whether the PSU inquiry was accurate or not is a separate question which should be considered separately.

I believe that the PSU inquiry was correct. You aren't reading the wording specifically enough. If Mann did not act with INTENT then the statement is correct. To me, forwarding the email does not constitute intent. He forwarded the email upon the request of another individual.

there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones.

I believe the above statement from PSU is accurate. Forwarding the email does not constitute an "action with intent" in my opinion.

Considering that PSU was clearly aware of the forwarded email and it is specifically referenced in the inquiry, they obviously did not believe that forwarding the email constituted an "action with intent" and on that I would probably agree.

[ORH_wxman]

Its mostly semantics when delving into whether Mann has "intent"....its a dumb and irrelevant argument to the overall picture of the conduct of the authors of AR4.

Mann had several choices when Jones sent him the email to forward to Wahl. He could have said no, he could have not forwarded it, he could have emailed Jones back and said that he felt uncomfortable with the request....he could have forwarded it with text that said "I do not condone this" or "I'm not comfortable with this". He did none of that. In fact, he even emailed Jones back and said "I'll inform Gene ASAP" to paraphrase it...that is not the words of someone who did not like the intent of the email.

Mann is is most definitely guilty of "directly or indirectly" of contributing tot he deletion of emails concerning AR4. I don't think it should constitute his banning or dismissal from his position because his infraction is pretty marginal, but he is absolutely guilty of the exact statement penn state says he was not. For PSU to say he had no intent (even indirectly) is pretty bad given the light of this evidence. They are either completely incompetent or deceitful. Both which look bad for them.

But anyone who says he did not know what was going on is completely lying to themselves. What this situation shows is an inherent deceit and unethical attitude toward their climate studies which is what should be taken from all of this. Whether Mann did anything "illegal" or without "intent" is quite irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. There were blatant unethical procedures going on in the whole process and that obviously leaves a big black mark on their work. This is the exact reason that people are not trusting their work. They are basically black balling any skeptic view on their work which is a huge no-no in science.