3/12/11, "More NOAA disinformation and an appeal to the UK ICO," Climate Audit by Steve McIntyre
"On March 9, 2011, NOAA scientist Eugene Wahl claimed that the “emails [he] deleted” were “all” “in the public domain” since the Climategate dossier was released. This is more disinformation from NOAA. “All” of the emails are not in the public domain. Attachments to the deleted emails – including Wahl’s changes to AR4 that are in controversy – remain outside the public domain.
Worse, not only are the attachments not in the public domain, but the University of East Anglia has stated (in recent FOI refusals) that their copies of the attachments to the Wahl-Briffa correspondence have also been destroyed.
- (This contradicts Vice Chancellor Acton’s testimony to the Parliamentary Committee; the Committee observing with visible exasperation that they found it “unsatisfactory that we are left with a verbal reassurance from the Vice-Chancellor that the e-mails still exist”.)
In addition, if the University of East Anglia is to be believed, Wahl has continued to actively opposed the release of attachments to earlier emails that remain in the possession of the University of East Anglia during his employment at NOAA, most recently in connection with my FOI request of April 2010 (EIR 10-03) for eight documents attached to Climategate emails.
Requests for all but two documents were refused by the UEA. In February 2011, the UK Information Commissioner agreed to consider my appeal of the UEA refusal, the outcome of which is pending.
NOAA Scientist Wahl’s 2011 Statement
NOAA scientist Eugene Wahl told Eli Kintisch of Science here that the deleted emails were “all” “in the public domain”:
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.
In the rest of this post, I’ll refute this by reviewing the progress of my FOI request to East Anglia for the attachments to Climategate emails involving Wahl."...
===================================
Mr. McIntyre's post continues in detail about his requests for documents, having requests refused, conflicting statements made by a group of people who claim they have nothing to hide, that climate data have been reviewed exhaustively by countless panels of experts and geniuses, and they all agree that man made global warming is a clear and present danger.
- (Translation: Americans have caused starvation, drought, death, racism, too much snow, not enough snow, are selfish and must turn billions over in reparations to hedge fund thugs and UN grifters. ed.)
Comments:
------------------------------------------------
"Ron Cram
Steve,
Has the Penn State University newspaper requested an interview with you yet? The Daily Collegian, published by the students of Penn State actually did a better job covering the original investigation of Michael Mann than the New York Times did.
I think we should watch this site for upcoming news on Wahl deleting emails because Mann forwarded an email. http://www.collegian.psu.edu/
------------------------------------------
What we are seeing is merely a reflects of the message sent out by the very poor CRU reviews, which was carry on has before. Frankly, the problem is you think they would be concerned how these actions affects the public trust.
The trouble they care nothing for the public’s trust and the reality is right now those that matter in politics and in organisation like the IPCC are still fully behind the CRU
- no matter what it does.
The change will come once the politics changes, this is not about the ‘science’ it’s about waiting for the massive momentum behind the AGW cause to disperse.
--------------------------------------
It strikes me that Acton, who set up and financed the Russell inquiry/fiasco to the tune of $450k of the UEA’s money, needs to resign. Of course, the UEA has several chronological email backups of ‘CRU researchers a, b, and c’ from the CRU. (http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/09/the-botched-examination-of-the-back-up-server).
- By comparing these backups with the climategate emails it might be possible to determine properly who deleted what and when – of course that would involve an interest in the truth.
--------------------------------------------
John Whitman
Steve McIntyre,
You concluded, “In my opinion, such obstructions, especially when accompanied by untrue or misleading excuses, are far more corrosive to public trust in the institutions themselves than any conceivable benefit to the institutions achieved through the obstruction.”
Consider the idea that climate scientists and the climate institutions do not have overall incentive to change because they would get no overall greater net benefit from changing their behavior compared to their existing benefit from continuing their current behavior. Where their current behavior is what you describe so well (chronologically) in your excellent post.
Curt Doolittle argued alone those lines in his comment (on March 6, 2011 at 1:54 pm) in Judith Curry’s post ‘Climate story telling angst’ (Posted on March 6, 2011).
A very small part of what Curt said, “Why do I know that what I say here will not make a difference? Because researchers in the physical sciences have perverse and adverse incentives because of the economic structure of labor in academic research.
- Therefore, scientists will not change their behavior
because it would cause them to pay the cost of that change, and that cost is too high in relation to ALL THEIR OTHER COSTS AND BENEFITS.”
------------------------------------------------------
Sadly John I think you’re right. Most people have never heard of Climategate, and most of those who have are reassured by no less than 3 independent reviews exonerating those involved. There’s only a few of us “cranks” now who continually bang on about it.
So if the climate “scientists” continue as they are then there’s little for them to lose and a lot to gain. Only when governments turn against them
- will they lose funding;
why bring that time forward by releasing material that shows they’re wrong?
======================================
Dishman
The politicians and institutions had an opportunity to wash their hands of it after Climategate,
- but chose instead to double down.
It did break some people loose, like Judith Curry.
Unfortunately, I’m not seeing any way to unwind this that isn’t ugly. It appears to me that it will take much more or larger shoes dropping
- to clean up the science.
-----------------------------------------------
via Climate Depot
