Tuesday
Mar082011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Aiding and abetting
Mar 8, 2011 Climate: Mann An article by Chris Horner looks at the question of whether Michael Mann was involved in deletion of emails during the aftermath of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report. Mann was apparently asked whether he was involved, directly or indirectly, in any such actions. His reply was that he deleted nothing.
Horner's point is that we now know from the investigation of Wahl that Mann was involved. As he helpfully paraphrases:
PSU: This is potentially very grave. We must know: Did you do A or B?
Mann: I did not do A.
PSU: Ah. There we go. It appears there is no evidence he did A or B.
H/T GWPF.
Update on Mar 8, 2011 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
McIntyre has now posted up partial transcripts of Wahl's interview during the investigation into NOAA's involvement in the deletions.
Reader Comments (22)
Crikey!
An investigation into the investigations. When will it end? Sounds like the subject for a good book.
Great. I hate it when they have incriominating information but can't release the report just yet. Well, at least we're getting a tidbit from Horner. Wonder how the Norfolk Police are doing?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/08/to-serve-mann/
Quote, "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."
Double Crikey!
I was just going to say Mac that that seemed the import of the article. How else to understand this:
"Simply by interviewing Mann’s colleague Eugene Wahl, PSU would have exposed Mann’s “answer” for what it was (and wasn’t). Such an interview was obviously necessary for any inquiry. Penn State chose not to conduct it, for its own reasons. A federal inspector general has now conducted it. And the result is damning of both Mann and the parties that chose not to interview Wahl."
At what stage does criminal law come into play?
Steven Mosher discusses the story at WUWT. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/08/to-serve-mann/#more-35440
If we now know that Mann was involved - does that not also implicate Jones? I wonder when somebody will ask UEA whether they are still satisfied that the Muir enquiry exonerated CRU staff of any wrongdoing.
Graham Stringer was not impressed with Russell Muir not asking Jones about the email he sent, something about he did not want to incriminate Jones. It was a bloody inquiry !!!!!!
Steve McIntyre has posted excerpts from the NOAA Inspector General's (IG) report at Climate Audit. Clear questions are followed by clear answers confirming the request that was forwarded by Mann and Wahl's compliance with the request. climateaudit.org/2011/03/08/wahl-transcript-excerpt/
Did he issue instructions or suggestions that others delete emails? e.g. Did he ask a sys admin to delete them for him, is that what he means.
Steve McI also posts the relevant part of the PSU "Inquiry" in the comments:
I can just hear Graham Spanier, the president of Penn State, saying "Will no one rid me of this troublesome professor?"
It'll be interesting to see how they wriggle out of this one.
You mean somebody official asked a straight question, and one of the team gave a straight answer?
I might have to lie down for a while.
Expect a tidal wave of indifference from almost everybody.
I find this both fascinating and exciting, and not just because it confirms long held personal prejudices. However, let us face it, there is not more than one person in 10,000 who would find this story either interesting or significant, although I myself happen to think it is,and so will a lot of readers of this blog.
My friends humour me but think my interest in the minutiae of climate sleaze (on the rare occasion I might air it) is verging on the certifiable.
I hope I am wrong,but, sadly, I think this will be papered over with the usual layers of harrumphing obfuscation. It might, however, just add a bit more ooomph to the battle for sight of Michael Mann's other emails.
Jack Savage,
Just another straw. The audience consists of the professors like the one at Berkeley who looked into Climategate and reacted by saying that he now had a list of people whose studies he would no longer bother to read. The drip, drip, drip to mix metaphors will eventually cause the flood -- only a different kind of flood than the one alarmists fear.
Lying by omission
One lies by omission when omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie
When will they ever learn that S.M. does not miss a thing!
It may be hidden but time and endless patience are weapons he wields with incredible skill!
Nothing to see here folks.
Move along, now, move along.
/sarc off (is that really necessary?)
Judging by the tone of the recent comments by "Michael" on Judith Curry's blog (see e.g. the "Climate story telling angst" page, and this comment on that page), some people in the Team are not all that happy with the way things are going for the moment.
Make no mistake Climategate and the Climategate whitewashes have caused great reputational damage to all those involved.
As Richard Nixon found to his great cost it wasn't the crime that ended his presidency it was the attempted cover-up.
What has been revealed is that Team members were attempting cover their tracks over how they dealt with controversial aspects of climate science and that their institutions charged with investigating those matters chose to protect the Team members involved by conducting whitewash reviews.
@ J on Mar 9, 2011 at 9:52 AM
I read that thread, and I agree you're right in that assessment. The post you linked to wasn't very convincing though. Towards the end of the thread, Michael looked to truly be flailing and reduced to pure peanut-gallery comments. It was quite sad to see. I'd like to see what Michael has to say about Wahl's admission.