Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Sceptic letter in WSJ | Main | Warm weather - Josh 142 »
Thursday
Jan262012

Mann's emails - part 1

The American Tradition Institute has had sight of some of Michael Mann's emails, as part of its ongoing battle to get the University of Virginia to comply with its legal obligations. Its press release can be seen here.

The selected emails include graphic descriptions of the contempt a small circle of largely taxpayer-funded alarmists held for anyone who followed scientific principles and ended up disagreeing with them. For example, in the fifteenth Petitioners’ Exemplar (PE-15), Mann encourages a boycott of one climate journal and a direct appeal to his friends on the editorial board to have one of the journal’s editors fired for accepting papers that were carefully peer-reviewed and recommended for publication on the basis that the papers dispute Mann’s own work. In PE-38, he states that another well respected journal is “being run by the baddies,” calling them “shills for industry.” In PE-39 Mann calls U.S. Congressmen concerned about how he spent taxpayer money “thugs”.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.

Reader Comments (33)

It seems that Mann cannot change his spots. I was under the impression that he has been taking a sabbatical to study ways of getting the CAGW/alarmist message across...but his methods, to judge by recent yourtube videos, do not seem to have evolved. Can he really not see that his hate-filled, fact-free diatribes are only convincing to those who are already convinced?

Jan 26, 2012 at 5:36 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

These are all Climategate emails. They aren't "new" emails.

They are emails that were withheld by U of Virginia under claimed exemptions. My understanding is that they are being cited as exemplars challenging the UVA exemption claim on the basis that they are showing conduct that does not fall within the exemption.

Jan 26, 2012 at 5:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve McIntyre

Maybe BBD is Michael Mann? :)

Jan 26, 2012 at 6:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

"The selected emails include ..." Hold on a moment . Who is doing the selecting and under what criteria ?

Jan 26, 2012 at 6:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterHengist McStone

read the story Hengist...

Jan 26, 2012 at 6:20 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Hengist - roll your own:

http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=Mann&case=y

Jan 26, 2012 at 6:22 PM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

Re: Hengist McStone

The American Tradition Institute is doing the selecting and their criteria is to select emails that they can challenge the UVA exemption claims with.

Jan 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Mann's attorneys agreed to this mprocess...and please tell us, Hengist, what a great man Mann is once you have read this story

Jan 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Sorry, a little OT but excellent post up at Jo Nova's with a newly discovered element which I personally believe to be the source of most of our climate problems!!!

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/new-element-governmentium-heaviest-known-and-paradoxically-increasing/

Jan 26, 2012 at 6:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterMarion

Over at WUWT comments - Dr. Schnare of ATI says

"I don’t expect regular visitors to WUWT to find anything new, although there is one email that I don’t believe was in the CG emails."

Jan 26, 2012 at 7:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterRetired Dave

Ah Hengist - you do try.

Are the ATI cherrypicking - is it all out of context?

Just for once tell us you have read the emails, that you acknowledge that Mann is what he is and did what he did and lets move on. Go on just once.

Jan 26, 2012 at 9:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterRB

To be honest, the longer that the destruction of Mr Mann and his like minded entities, takes, the better. It's like Chinese water torture. It will ultimately ebb away their life force, so that they each end up an empty shell, broken and crushed under foot. It's a wonderful thing to behold.

Jan 26, 2012 at 9:04 PM | Unregistered Commenterjohn in cheshire

Gosh, that ATI press release is a dreadful piece of writing. Whoever is the author, they seriously need to hand their copy over to someone who knows how to write.

Jan 26, 2012 at 9:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterWB

All the exhibits were previously released in climategate 1.0. Here are the mappings between the PE number and the corresponding CG 1.0 file:

PE-1 = 1206628118.txt
PE-2 = 1044469169.txt
PE-3 = 0990718382.txt
PE-4 = 0938019494.txt
PE-5 = 0938108054.txt
PE-6 = 0963233839.txt
PE-7 = 0939154709.txt
PE-8 = 1102956796.txt
PE-9 = 0942777075.txt
PE-10 = 1104855751.txt
PE-11 = 1018629153.txt
PE-12 = 1102956436.txt
PE-13 = 1051915601.txt
PE-14 = 1051915601.txt
PE-15 = 1047388489.txt
PE-16 = 1051230500.txt
PE-17 = 1077829152.txt
PE-18 = 1018045075.txt
PE-19 = 1000168453.txt
PE-20 = 1016746746.txt
PE-21 = 1041862404.txt
PE-22 = 1059664704.txt
PE-23 = 1114607213.txt
PE-24 = 1109021312.txt
PE-25 = 1074277559.txt
PE-26 = 1108594561.txt
PE-27 = 1107899057.txt
PE-28 = 1075403821.txt
PE-29 = 0983207072.txt
PE-30 = 1053457075.txt
PE-31 = 1092167224.txt
PE-32 = 0938031546.txt
PE-33 = 1206549942.txt
PE-34 = 0938018124.txt
PE-35 = 0990718506.txt
PE-36 = 1059762275.txt
PE-37 = 0981859677.txt
PE-38 = 1067194064.txt
PE-39 = 1119957715.txt
PE-40 = 1068652882.txt

Jan 26, 2012 at 9:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

The ATI article says:

"On Tuesday the American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center sent the University of Virginia and Michael Mann copies of 40 emails selected as examples of the 27 categories identified as benefitting from the Court’s review of UVA and Mann’s claims that emails in the taxpayer-funded school’s possession are properly subject to the specific exemptions under Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA). These categories range from discussions of professional retaliation against other scientists who challenged Mann’s work, to those sent to or from Mann from or copying an email account covered by other FOI laws, such as the federal Freedom of Information Act."

I misread it also the first time. It clearly says these are emails sent TO UV and Mann as examples of emails NOT covered by the exemptions being claimed by UV!!!

Jan 26, 2012 at 11:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterKuhnKat

Oh I see. They're examplars from the currently published material. They are given as examples of the kind of thing one might find in the UVA emails.

Jan 26, 2012 at 11:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobinson

My take is that these are "new" in the sense that they have not been offered as evidence in these court proceedings. For that matter, only the blogs that follow the respective CGs are fully aware on the content and context therein.

Mark

Jan 26, 2012 at 11:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark T

BUT GUYS...you are taking these emails out of context. he is really inviting his friends round to a barbecue.

Jan 27, 2012 at 12:13 AM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Yeah... and cuddling.

Mark

Jan 27, 2012 at 12:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark T

need to read it all. pot calling kettle...

26 Jan: Guardian Letters: Transparency needed on donors to climate sceptic lobby
Transparency around climate-sceptic funders is essential. We support freedom of information to reveal those deliberately preventing the UK's sustainable future.
Dr Fiona Godlee Editor-in-chief, British Medical Journal
Dr. Richard Horton Editor-in-Chief, The Lancet
Professor Ian Roberts Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health
Professor Hugh Montgomery Professor of Intensive Care Medicine
Professor Anthony Costello Professor of International Child Health
Rachel Stancliffe Director, Centre for Sustainable Healthcare
Dr. Robin Stott Co-chair, Climate and Health Council
Maya Tickell-Painter Director, Medsin Healthy Planet Campaign ...
(signed) Dr Robin Russell-Jones
Chair, Planetary SOS
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/26/transparency-donors-climate-sceptic-lobby

Jan 27, 2012 at 6:59 AM | Unregistered Commenterpat

(signed) Dr Robin Russell-Jones
Chair, Planetary SOS
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/26/transparency-donors-climate-sceptic-lobby
Jan 27, 2012 at 6:59 AM pat

You'd think all of these eminent medics would have their work cut out curing cancer and sorting out the NHS - rather than dabbling in green activism.

Robin Russell-Jones has form of course. He's an eminent dermatologist who was prominent in the "ozone hole" campaign and also the campaign to get lead additives out of petrol.

He co-authored a book on ozone depletion with our old friend Tom Wigley of UEA back in the 80's (strange how the University of Easy Access pops up in nearly every activist scenario).

He runs his own charity under the banner "Planetary SOS" - which has a pretty uninformative and dormant looking website - and, needless to say, doesn't reveal its funding sources!.

http://www.planetarysos.com/

Jan 27, 2012 at 9:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterFoxgoose

@Foxgoose:

[Robin Russell-Jones] co-authored a book on ozone depletion with our old friend Tom Wigley of UEA back in the 80's [...]

Here's what he wrote about Wigley:

[CRU] was targeted by the Russian Secret service who hacked into e-mails at East Anglia and then released them in an attempt to sabotage the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen at the end of 2009. Anyway that would never have happened if Tom Wigley had still been in charge.

http://www.planetarysos.com/apps/documents/

Facts are certainly not Russell-Jones' forté, are they?!

As for the "funding" ... my guess would be that he's probably green with envy that GWPF has been able to secure donations, while his "charitable company" has not been able to do so.

And he's probably even greener with envy that GWPF have resources who know how to conduct research - and how to write in a professional manner, while he's still looking for a "campaigner".

Jan 27, 2012 at 11:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterHilary Ostrov

Interesting, Hilary.

Sounds like Russell-Jones & Wigley are joined at the hip.

Jan 27, 2012 at 1:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterFoxgoose

As Bishop Hill seems a great advocate of transparency for emails and memoranda produced at public expense, could you please arrange the publication of the contents of this wee dossier? It is accessible though the Janus website:

The Papers of Baroness Thatcher LG., OM., FRS.

Title Papers relating to Christopher Monckton (Member, PM's Policy Unit), July 1981-April 1983

Reference THCR 2/6/2/111
Covering Dates July 1981-April 1983
Extent and Medium 1 folder
Access and Use
Closed

No further on-line information.

Jan 27, 2012 at 3:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Russell.

For somebody from such a prominent university you seem to have a very shaky grasp of what it is that bloggers can "arrange".

Jan 27, 2012 at 4:02 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Planetary SOS is not known to the Charity Commission in the UK

Jan 27, 2012 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

As the Thatcher papers are on your side of the pond, your tory friends might easily request this dossier be added to the bulk of the Thatcher papers already opened.

The 20 year rule is long gone by, and these papers appears no more classified than the PM's correspondence with the Editor of The Spectator- which come to think of it, is the next file in the list and may be a good read as well.

Monckton should leap at the opportunity to use the public record to refute the unkind recollection of Mrs Thatcher's environment minister, former Conservative MP John Gummer, who told the ABC in March 2011 that he:

“Isn't taken seriously by anybody…I mean he was a bag carrier in Mrs Thatcher's office. And the idea that he advised her on climate change is laughable. The fact of the matter is, he's not a figure of importance and has made no difference to the debate.”

Making Monckton's Downing Street file public might also confirm the touching faith of the Asian and Australian speaking tour fans he has left thinking he was a Cabinet member:

”LORD CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON, ONCE THE CHIEF SCIENCE ADVISOR TO BARONESS MARGARET THATCHER, AND NOW CHIEF POLICY ADVISOR ...” (sic)
http://askville.amazon.com/Keynote-speaker-Lord-Christopher-Monckton-gave-kind-speech-global-warming/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=61796771

Surely you don't want a wet like Gummer left with the last word?

Jan 27, 2012 at 4:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Russell

Come back when you have something sensible to say.

Jan 27, 2012 at 5:32 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

The FOI request for the funding of GWPF is legitimate if, as the warmists claim to believe, skeptics such as myself are involved in a for-profit conspiracy to subvert law, order, the health and the wealth of the planet and all its inhabitants, human or otherwise. But if the request is granted, and the donors, revealed, should not the same be available to the skeptics for RealClimate, The David Suzuki Foundationa and anything massaging Al Gore?

In the current Global Warming debacle, the warmists claim that they stand for truth and justice, and all others for lies and personal gain. Such a schism existed in the witchcraft terrors of the 15th-17th centuries in Europe, and the McCarthy-ist Communist scare of the American '50s. In these previous persecutions, the terrors existed by preventing public dissent; both ended when enough dissenters - including the friends and family of the abused - felt secure enough to speak out. Perhaps the killing of the Keystone XL pipeline, and the resulting anger of the laid-off workers it would have employed, is a visible beginning of dissenters rising up over the global warming scam. I hope so.

At some point it appears everyone is going to have to speak up. FOI requests will not stop if, by simply requesting them, you can prevent your alleged enemies from supporting the "wrong" side. FOI requests will stop if, by requesting them, you make all your enemies identify you and your errors, AND are forced to reveal the dirty laundry in your own basket.

I don't use a non-de-plume in my comments. I understand why others do, but I believe it important for a person to speak up. (But I have financially suffered as a result, so I admit to have really mixed feelings on the subject.)

Jan 27, 2012 at 5:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterDoug Proctor

Doug Proctor: "...anything massaging Al Gore?"

Isn't this really an OT topic - something having to do with his Chakra and a one-on-one (or so he had hoped) experience in the western US?

Jan 27, 2012 at 5:58 PM | Unregistered Commenterj ferguson

Well the emails might not be new as such but, framed in this effort to enforce bona fide FOIA, they should provide compelling evidence that Mann was (is?) up to no good.

Hopefully, he's feeling the hot breath on the back of his neck, and is dutifully puckering up in anticipation of his 'dirty laundry' being well and truly aired.

Mann's recent past and near future seem to resemble a very long high-dive into a small, dry barrel - he's done his best attempt at back-flips, and now the head-long plummet really begins apace...

If justice is served, it will soon be banjo time.

Jan 27, 2012 at 6:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterDreadnought

I posted on their website, asking where their funding came from - but the site is basically just tumbleweeds.

I think it's a one man vanity project.

Jan 27, 2012 at 8:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterFoxgoose

Slightly OT but on topic of quality of Mann-Ian "science" there is a nice fisking I.e. shredding of Mann's recent propaganda outburst with Scientific American, see here at Roger Pielke, Sr.'s blog:


http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/comment-on-the-scientific-american-interview-by-david-biello-titled-michael-mann-defends-climate-computer-models/

Jan 27, 2012 at 10:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterSkiphil

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>