Eugene Wahl Confirms..Mann asked him to delete Emails

[stellarfun]

Some are laboring mightily to create a mountain out of a mole-hill.

A.) Any emails that Wahl deleted were never lost, because they were retained at CRU's archives.

B.) Wahl's emails were not subject to FOIA because he was not a government employee at the time.

C.) Penn State's policies on research do not apply to third parties; in this instance, Wahl was then an employee of Alfred University and the emails in question were between Wahl, as an employee of Alfred, and CRU/ East Anglia.

.D.) Nobody seems to be interested in reading this report.

http://www.oig.doc.g...011/001688.html

Why? Probably because it doesn't support their argument, perception, belief, whatever.

[BethesdaWX]

Some are laboring mightily to create a mountain out of a mole-hill.

A.) Any emails that Wahl deleted were never lost, because they were retained at CRU's archives.

B.) Wahl's emails were not subject to FOIA because he was not a government employee at the time.

C.) Penn State's policies on research do not apply to third parties; in this instance, Wahl was then an employee of Alfred University and the emails in question were between Wahl, as an employee of Alfred, and CRU/ East Anglia.

.D.) Nobody seems to be interested in reading this report.

http://www.oig.doc.g...011/001688.html

Why? Probably because it doesn't support their argument, perception, belief, whatever.

We'll never know what the deleted emails said, because they're, well...gone.

Michael Mann was, as ORH stated, Guilty of "Directly or Indirectly" participating in the deletion of emails, which not only goes against the Penn State inquiry, but the reasoning for doing such is a bigger concern.

Its unacceptable.

[Snow_Miser]

Its unacceptable.

Big Money (like a Green Energy Company) will try to it's best to hide whatever is needed in order to keep that money. Unfortunately, the trickery that is going on with Penn State suggests that they are in fact perhaps being funded by Big Energy Companies. After all, Mike Mann is the one who made the Hockey Stick!

[skierinvermont]

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.

How is PSU being deceitful when the forwarded email is specifically referenced in the inquiry? They are not covering up the fact that he forwarded this email.

Nobody has denied that Phil Jones' request was unethical. Reviews of his conduct concluded that he did "not embrace the spirit of openness of the FOI Act." The Sir Muir Russell review made many specific recommendations to the UEA about how they could improve compliance with both the spirit and letter of FOIA and EIR.

It's not semantics. It's the difference between asking someone to delete emails or deleting his own, and simply forwarding a request which he may or may not have condoned. PSU was obviously aware that he forwarded a request. They did not believe this constituted intent.

I simply do not believe that forwarding an email upon request constitutes an action with intent, and I agree with the PSU inquiry. Jones likely would have found another way of contacting Wahl, and Mann likely did not think much of the request at all. It is only subsequently that others have made a mountain out of the molehill (IE forwarding an email upon request). Mann did not delete his own emails concerning AR4, and has provided a full public record of them. He claims to disprove of deleting emails, and given that he did not delete his own and has provided a full public record, despite the harassment he has been subject to, I am inclined to believe him. It is odd that skeptics are after Mann, and not Jones who was the author of the request. Most likely because Mann is more prominent and American.

Moreover, I do not blame these scientists for not complying with FOIA, as the intent of the requests has essentially been harassment of the scientists personally and professionally and not a proper formal critique through the appropriate channels. Multiple reviews have concluded that while they were less than open about their work, the rigor and objectiveness of the work itself is not in doubt.

[nzucker]

Moreover, I do not blame these scientists for not complying with FOIA, as the intent of the requests has essentially been harassment of the scientists personally and professionally and not a proper formal critique through the appropriate channels.

So we should just ignore the FOIA because people might be harassed?

I didn't know the purpose of the FOIA was a "proper formal critique through the appropriate channels..

[skierinvermont]

So we should just ignore the FOIA because people might be harassed?

I didn't know the purpose of the FOIA was a "proper formal critique through the appropriate channels.."

1) I did not say they should ignore FOIA, I said I do not blame them, IE their reluctance is understandable though unprincipled.

2) I did not say that the purpose of FOIA was "a proper formal critique through the appropriate channels." I said that the attackers were not conducting a proper formal critique.

[BethesdaWX]

Nobody has denied that Phil Jones' request was unethical. Reviews of his conduct concluded that he did "not embrace the spirit of openness of the FOI Act." The Sir Muir Russell review made many specific recommendations to the UEA about how they could improve compliance with both the spirit and letter of FOIA and EIR.

It's not semantics. It's the difference between asking someone to delete emails or deleting his own, and simply forwarding a request which he may or may not have condoned. PSU was obviously aware that he forwarded a request. They did not believe this constituted intent.

I simply do not believe that forwarding an email upon request constitutes an action with intent, and I agree with the PSU inquiry. Jones likely would have found another way of contacting Wahl, and Mann likely did not think much of the request at all. It is only subsequently that others have made a mountain out of the molehill (IE forwarding an email upon request). Mann did not delete his own emails concerning AR4, and has provided a full public record of them. He claims to disprove of deleting emails, and given that he did not delete his own and has provided a full public record, despite the harassment he has been subject to, I am inclined to believe him. It is odd that skeptics are after Mann, and not Jones who was the author of the request. Most likely because Mann is more prominent and American.

Moreover, I do not blame these scientists for not complying with FOIA, as the intent of the requests has essentially been harassment of the scientists personally and professionally and not a proper formal critique through the appropriate channels. Multiple reviews have concluded that while they were less than open about their work, the rigor and objectiveness of the work itself is not in doubt.

If Michael Mann/Phil Jones had any concerns about forwarding the mesages to Delete Emails, they would have made it known, not sa......... "I'll forward this to ASAP"

FYI...The Penn State review clearly states "directly or indirectly participated in"... Forwarding messages with instructions to delete emails is not participating?!? Again..."I'll forward this ASAP".......think about it.......

What a pathetic review...Its very sad that you'd actually defend PSU in light of these errors.

In addition, who are you to say what the "intentions" of the skeptics were? Are you a mind reader? It was most likely pointing out the data flaws/errors that are all too common in the work of the IPCC/Warmistas in that organization...who pull non-reviewed articles from magazines as "evidence", who cannot even get the Topography of Europe below sea level correct, & state the Himalayan Glaciers will melt in 35yrs. LOL all the way through.

What a proffessional organization we have running the world policies on the AGW theory!

[BethesdaWX]

skier you didn't read my post, you come on and immediately start posting.

calm down

[skierinvermont]

If Michael Mann/Phil Jones had any concerns about forwarding the mesages to Delete Emails, they would have made it known, not sa......... "I'll forward this to ASAP"

FYI...The Penn State review clearly states "directly or indirectly participated in"... Forwarding messages with instructions to delete emails is not participating?!? Again..."I'll forward this ASAP".......think about it.......

What a pathetic review...Its very sad that you'd actually defend PSU in light of these errors.

In addition, who are you to say what the "intentions" of the skeptics were? Are you a mind reader? It was most likely pointing out the data flaws/errors that are all too common in the work of the IPCC/Warmistas in that organization...who pull non-reviewed articles from magazines as "evidence", who cannot even get the Topography of Europe below sea level correct, & state the Himalayan Glaciers will melt in 35yrs. LOL all the way through.

What a proffessional organization we have running the world policies on the AGW theory!

Is it possible that Mann condoned and intended for the deletion of emails? Yes. I am not a mind reader. But there is not evidence enough to show that he did.

If he deleted his own emails, or requested that others delete emails, that would constitute an action with intent.

You are correct.. he absolutely did "directly or indirectly participate in" the deletion of emails.. however you are leaving out part of the phrase. The PSU inquiry asks whether his participation was "with intent." It is worded very precisely, and you are leaving out an essential phrase. He says that he did not act with intent and that he doesn't condone deleting emails and given he did not delete any of his own emails and has made them public, I am inclined to believe him.

[nzucker]

Is it possible that Mann condoned and intended for the deletion of emails? Yes. I am not a mind reader. But there is not evidence enough to show that he did.

If he deleted his own emails, or requested that others delete emails, that would constitute an action with intent.

You are correct.. he absolutely did "directly or indirectly participate in" the deletion of emails.. however you are leaving out part of the phrase. The PSU inquiry asks whether his participation was "with intent." It is worded very precisely, and you are leaving out an essential phrase. He says that he did not act with intent and that he doesn't condone deleting emails and given he did not delete any of his own emails and has made them public, I am inclined to believe him.

How can you forward something "without intent"? If you forwarded it, it's with intent, it's not an accident unless you slipped and hit the keyboard by accident.

I'm sure he knew what he was doing, and yet forwarded the request for the e-mails to be deleted anyway.

[skierinvermont]

How can you forward something "without intent"? If you forwarded it, it's with intent, it's not an accident unless you slipped and hit the keyboard by accident.

I'm sure he knew what he was doing, and yet forwarded the request for the e-mails to be deleted anyway.

His intent may have been simply to forward an email to make someone else's life easier who didn't have Wahl's email address. His intent may not have been for the deletion of emails. If he intended for emails to be deleted, he would have deleted his own and/or requested that others delete emails. And he did neither. Given he says he does not condone deleting emails and has provided a full public record of his emails, I am inclined to believe him. Forwarding an email is a frivolous and thoughtless act that doesn't demonstrate intent.

As many other posters have said this is making a mountain of a molehill.

[BethesdaWX]

Is it possible that Mann condoned and intended for the deletion of emails? Yes. I am not a mind reader. But there is not evidence enough to show that he did.

If he deleted his own emails, or requested that others delete emails, that would constitute an action with intent.

You are correct.. he absolutely did "directly or indirectly participate in" the deletion of emails.. however you are leaving out part of the phrase. The PSU inquiry asks whether his participation was "with intent." It is worded very precisely, and you are leaving out an essential phrase. He says that he did not act with intent and that he doesn't condone deleting emails and given he did not delete any of his own emails and has made them public, I am inclined to believe him.

Read this. There was obviously knowledge of what was going on, and...In the forwarding of the messages ASKING for emails to be deleted, obviously, there was intent for an action to be done...the emails were deleted.

Read how dirty this is...eeewww

Mike,

Can you delete any emails

you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise

. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis Can you also

email Gene and get him to do the same

? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting

Caspar to do likewise

. I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper

Mann responds that he will contact Wahl ASAP, which he does.

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: [email protected]

talk to you later,

mike

There ya go...Intent Intent Intent..."I'll contact Gene about this ASAP"...Intent. Forwarding a message asking for emails to be deleted is not intent for action in indirect participation?

ok?

Its over.

[skierinvermont]

Read this. There was obviously knowledge of what was going on, and...In the forwarding of the messages ASKING for emails to be deleted, obviously, there was intent for an action to be done...the emails were deleted.

Read how dirty this is...eeewww

Mike,

Can you delete any emails

you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise

. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis Can you also

email Gene and get him to do the same

? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting

Caspar to do likewise

. I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper

Mann responds that he will contact Wahl ASAP, which he does.

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: [email protected]

talk to you later,

mike

There ya go...Intent Intent Intent..."I'll contact Gene about this ASAP"...Intent. Forwarding a message asking for emails to be deleted is not intent for action in indirect participation?

ok?

Its over.

Yes he forwarded the email at the request of Jones.. that doesn't mean he condoned the request.

Given that he did NOT delete his own emails, as Jones requested he do, I am inclined to believe his statement that he did not condone the request and was simply forwarding it to make Jone's life easier.

[BethesdaWX]

Yes he forwarded the email at the request of Jones.. that doesn't mean he condoned the request.

Given that he did NOT delete his own emails, as Jones requested he do, I am inclined to believe his statement that he did not condone the request and was simply forwarding it to make Jone's life easier.

We don't know that he didn't delete his own emails... Phil Jones asked Mann to delete emails, I actually believe he is lying, or we'd have seen Mann respond to Jones, or note "I will not delete emails", or at least bring it up.

A more viable explanation would have been " I did not have a conversation reagrding AR4", rather than he didn't delete his emails, and Someone else did? Emails he had recieved on his computer/his inbox...who would have deleted those besides himself?

Mann's s emails were never found/brought up in the climategate scandal..

Regardless, forwarding a message asking for emails to be deleted, in my view, clearly speaks of intent behind the action...and the fact he said he'd get it done "ASAP".

Many scientists there deleted emails besides Mann...clearly, the "investigations" have sucked COC the whole way through.

[skierinvermont]

We don't know that he didn't delete his own emails... Phil Jones asked Mann to delete emails, I actually believe he is lying,

This is blatantly false. Mann has provided a full record of his emails pertaining to AR4.

He did not delete the emails, as per Jones' request. This indicates to me that he did not condone the request and was forwarding it as a matter of courtesy.

[tacoman25]

I'm not saying there was necessarily any wrongdoing here, or that this is even a big deal, but I think the attitudes expressed by some prominent AGW scientists have repeatedly shown they are not exactly open to criticism or pointed questions. Naturally...that's human nature. And anyone who thinks science is not influenced by egos and other aspects of human nature is very naive.

[skierinvermont]

I'm not saying there was necessarily any wrongdoing here, or that this is even a big deal, but I think the attitudes expressed by some prominent AGW scientists have repeatedly shown they are not exactly open to criticism or pointed questions. Naturally...that's human nature. And anyone who thinks science is not influenced by egos and other aspects of human nature is very naive.

This is the general conclusion I have drawn as well.

The irony is there really is nothing to cover up in this particular instance, as the correspondence between Wahl and Briffa was completely appropriate. By requesting the deletion of emails, Jones created a scandal where there was none before.

[BethesdaWX]

This is blatantly false. Mann has provided a full record of his emails pertaining to AR4.

He did not delete the emails, as per Jones' request. This indicates to me that he did not condone the request and was forwarding it as a matter of courtesy.

His emails regarding AR4 are gone, or they would have been revealed in Climategate...I read all the emails, and I can give you a link.

Are you telling me someone else went into his computer & deleted them for him? Remember, his Inbox would be full of the emails sent TO him, so who deleted those?

[skierinvermont]

His emails regarding AR4 are gone, or they would have been revealed in Climategate...I read all the emails, and I can give you a link.

Are you telling me someone else went into his computer & deleted them for him? Remember, his Inbox would be full of the emails sent TO him, so who deleted those?

His emails are not revealed in Climategate because he doesn't work at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit in England. He works at Pennsylvania State University in the United States. Why would his personal emails be on the hacked back up server in England, except for those between him and CRU scientists?

He has released all of his emails pertaining to AR4 publicly. Your allegation that he has deleted emails is blatantly false and libelous.

[BethesdaWX]

His emails are not revealed in Climategate because he doesn't work at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit in England. He works at Pennsylvania State University in the United States. Why would his personal emails be on the hacked back up server in England, except for those between him and CRU scientists?

He has released all of his emails pertaining to AR4 publicly. Your allegation that he has deleted emails is blatantly false and libelous.

HIS emails would show up at the East Anglia Center...He was responding to scientists who work THERE. THEIR inboxes.

Lets say you email me...you're at penn State, I'm at CRU. Your email would show up in my files. Thats Why so Many messages from Mann were revealed in Climategte!

The ones in question are gone.

Thats why his story makes no sense, the hacked emails came out of the Inboxes of CRU, not Penn State, so HIS emails were deleted.

[skierinvermont]

HIS emails would show up at the East Anglia Center...He was responding to scientists who work THERE. THEIR inboxes.

Lets say you email me...you're at penn State, I'm at CRU. Your email would show up in my files. Thats Why so Many messages from Mann were revealed in Climategte!

The ones in question are gone.

Thats why his story makes no sense, the hacked emails came out of the Inboxes of CRU, not Penn State, so HIS emails were deleted.

You said that he deleted emails. This is blatantly false. He has provided a full record of his emails pertaining to AR4.

[BethesdaWX]

You said that he deleted emails. This is blatantly false. He has provided a full record of his emails pertaining to AR4.

His emails would show up and CRU, since thats who he is mailing to.

Mind Posting them?

He probably did delete emails, because any Conversation he had with anyone was lost completely...so his emails were deleted. I wonder who deleted them? Someone was very kind to do so.

And who would have given the instructions to delete Mann's emails? And who would have done it?

[skierinvermont]

His emails would show up and CRU, since thats who he is mailing to.

Mind Posting them?

He probably did delete emails, because any Conversation he had with anyone was lost completely...so his emails were deleted. I wonder who deleted them? Someone was very kind to do so.

And who would have given the instructions to delete Mann's emails? And who would have done it?

He can't delete emails from the inbox of other people working at the CRU. Even if CRU scientists did delete corresponce with Mann, the deleted email would still be on the back up server at the CRU, which is what was hacked.

He did not delete any emails. He provided a full record of his emails pertaining to the AR4 to the PSU inquiry. Read the PSU inquiry which has already been linked to in this thread.

[BethesdaWX]

He can't delete emails from the inbox of other people working at the CRU. Even if CRU scientists did delete corresponce with Mann, the deleted email would still be on the back up server at the CRU, which is what was hacked.

He did not delete any emails. He provided a full record of his emails pertaining to the AR4 to the PSU inquiry. Read the PSU inquiry which has already been linked to in this thread.

Yes...when it was hacked, no emails from Mann in that regard were discovered...yet we know he was corresponding with CRU on the issue. And it was not just the Backup Server that was hacked.

Are you seeing my point now?

[stellarfun]

Once again the parrot squawks, but knows not what of he speaks.

From November 30 to December 14, 2009, staff in the Office for Research Protections culled through approximately 1075 of the emails that were purloined from a server at the University of East Anglia. Emails were reviewed if they were sent by Dr. Mann, were sent to Dr. Mann, were copied to Dr. Mann, or discussed Dr. Mann (but were neither addressed nor copied to him). In summary, the following were found:

•

206 emails that contained a message/text from Dr. Mann somewhere in the chain;

•

92 emails that were received by Dr. Mann, but in which he did not write/participate in the discussion; and

•

79 that dealt with Dr. Mann, his work or publications; he neither authored nor was he copied on any of these.

From among these 377 emails, the inquiry committee focused on 47 emails that were deemed relevant

http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf

[BethesdaWX]

Once again the parrot squawks, but knows not what of he speaks.

http://www.research....ann_Inquiry.pdf

Once again, the warmist screams, but nothing comes out.

None of those are the relating AR4 emails discussing FOI from Micintyre. There are no emails posted. There is nothing in that link that has not been discussed here already.

The Inquiry is the problem, not the solution to a problem.

[stellarfun]

None of those are the relating AR4 emails discussing FOI from Micintyre.

A.) How do you know that? If those emails don't exist, how do you know they ever existed?

[BethesdaWX]

A.) How do you know that? If those emails don't exist, how do you know they ever existed?

Uhh, because we know he corresponded with CRU.

[stellarfun]

Uhh, because we know he corresponded with CRU.

So the 206 emails/texts sent to CRU from Mann are ephemeral bytes that have vanished into the ether?

[BethesdaWX]

So the 206 emails/texts sent to CRU from Mann are ephemeral bytes that have vanished into the ether?

Its the specific emails on the AR4 matter we're looking for, not every email Mann sent.