I “hardly” see anything which seems damning at all — Michael Mann


The headline is from here.

MPaul has an excellent email in #1 below.


Phil Jones on the deletion of emails:

date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:51:44 +0200
from: Manola Brunet
subject: Re: Omar’s email
to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk

Hola Phil,

Had a smooth trip, almost everything run on time but Brits trains, as
usual, and I just got to Exeter. So replying from the B&B (quite basic
place to stay overnight, but well) and keen to sightseeing into town 🙂

For me is clear that likely Omar is the only one in WCDMP working in
several fronts and lines of activity, and MEDARE is just one of his
responsibilities. My guess is he didn’t sent at the end in early summer
the official letters of invitation to de PRs, although I can’t be sure
of this because I recall an email from Serhat Sensoy asking me if
another colleague from his office could attend the meeting. I’ll look at
my  email and PC folders to see if I can find any prove of WMO
invitation letters to this WS. Perhaps he’s right and although he had
got the agreement of the local organisers (Malta’s PR), he didn’t send
such letters. If so, still worse because he had plenty of time to do it
(remember our exchange of emails among the SG and I, that they got you
fed up). Another possibility (I think this is more correct) is he spent
the money he got in Jan/Feb 2009 for organising the WS and now has to
ask again for more money! Well, both explanations: Omar is snowed under
work or he run out of money, can be right, but it’s clear he didn’t
realise people have other things to do and have Agendas. I’m
particularly tired of this kind of informality. Yes, please, try to make
Omar understand that he can’t use (dispose) of people’s time !! I was,
and still am, upset with Omar in particular and with WMO in general.
There is no way such stile of working!

[[[redacted: chitchat]]]
[[[original email about deleting appears deleted]]]

P.Jones@uea.ac.uk escribió:
>  Hola Manola,
>     I’ve saved emails at CRU and then deleted them from the server. Now
> I’m at home I just have some hard copies.  I also don’t understand why
> he can’t do anything till Dec 09 and then he has already invited
> people? Dec 09 will likely be too late for some people as meeting
> would be in Jan or early Feb as CCL is in late Feb – or it was when he
> invited me earlier! This is always the same at WMO – leaving things
> till they are too late. In GCOS we have someone who has finally
> understood that people have agendas, so everything is planned months
> in advance – even with flight booking!
>  Off to GVA tomorrow for IPCC – they also plan well in advance. I’ll look
> out for Omar!

[[[redacted: chitchat]]]

We shouldn’t forget the history of climategate 1.0.  Recall the discussion about whether emails were or were not deleted?

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4? Keith will do likewise… Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise.
Cheers, Phil

But there is more relevent info on the record as well

But in a surprising new turn of events, it seems that VC Acton sort-of did what Muir Russell was supposed to do – ask Jones whether he had deleted emails. The Guardian reports Acton’s testimony as follows:

Prof Phil Jones told the University of East Anglia’s boss that he did not delete any of the emails that were released from the university last November, despite apparently saying he would in one of those emails.

In the narrowest sense, the very existence of the Climategate emails seems to show that, whatever Jones may or may not have attempted to do, he had not deleted the emails that survived on the back up server.

Phil Jones of Climategate 1 testified:

Phil Jones comments on questions concerning deletion of emails

Mon, 26 Jul 2010

“As I have said on a number of occasions I do delete emails from time to time – this is usually as part of a regular clear out but sometimes as I go along”.

“Most people seem to do the same to keep their email account manageable and because we are regularly reminded when storage space on our email system is nearly full”.

“There is also an environmental and economic cost to storing emails so it seems to me that it is not good practice just to keep everything”

“It would be very difficult to guess what might be asked for in future so I don’t go around deleting emails just because they might be asked for at some point.”

“I have previously confirmed that I have never knowingly deleted an email that was the subject of an active Freedom of Information request and neither have I deleted data”.

Then there is this new email 2440 by Jones:

One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody will remember to do it.

Tim Osborne says it as clearly as even I could:

date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:49:18 -0000 (GMT)
from: “Tim Osborn” <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
subject: RE: FW: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01
to: “Jones Philip Prof” <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

Hi Phil!

re. your email to Dave Palmer [which he copied in his response to you and
cc’d to me, Keith & Michael McGarvie, and which has hence already been
multiply copied within the UEA system, and therefore will probably exist
for a number of months and possibly years, and could be released under FOI
if a request is made for it during that time!]… I assume that you didn’t
delete any emails that David Holland has requested (because that would be
illegal) but that instead his request merely prompted you to do a spring
clean of various other emails that hadn’t been requested, as part of your
regular routine of deleting old emails.  If that is what you meant, then
it might be a good idea to clarify your previous email to Dave Palmer, to
avoid it being misunderstood. 🙂

The way things seem to be going, I think it best if we discuss all FOI,
EIR, Data Protection requests in person wherever possible, rather than via
email.  It’s such a shame that the skeptics’ vexatious use of this
legislation may prevent us from using such an efficient modern technology
as email, but it seems that if we want to have confidential discussions
then we may need to avoid it.

I shall delete this email and those related to it as part of my regular
routine of deleting old emails!



Ok.  I’m tired of looking for today.  Can anyone else find any record of deleted emails by Jones et all of em? In my opinion, it is nearly impossible that Jones was forthright with the investigations at this point.

18 thoughts on “I “hardly” see anything which seems damning at all — Michael Mann

  1. Yeah, here a beauty:

    From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
    Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 1:31 PM
    To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
    Subject: Re: FW: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01

    Do I understand it correctly – if he doesn’t pay the £10 we don’t have to respond?

    With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting
    numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have
    virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent.
    There might be some bits of pieces of paper, but I’m not wasting my time
    going through these.


  2. I assume that you didn’t
    delete any emails that David Holland has requested (because that would be
    illegal) but that instead his request merely prompted you to do a spring
    clean of various other emails that hadn’t been requested, as part of your
    regular routine of deleting old emails.

    Look at the case reports on Frank Quattrone to see what the SEC thought of reminding people to do housekeeping as a way of getting them to delete emails.

  3. What a sad, sad state of affairs.

    But great good may result if this forces world leaders to admit their total powerlessness over the explosive forces that sustain life as an evolving process in a climate that continuously changes as the Sun itself evolves.

    Thanks for your efforts to educate the leaders of nations and scientific organizations to basic truths.

  4. Jeff,

    I am a recent lurker on your site. I was initially interested in getting updates from your site to get a handle on data mining and the statistical methods used to make sense of the data. In an old life I was used to running experiments to determine the components of variation that effected the response of medical devices in the field. System performance and expected outcomes for real world response is something I am used to modeling.

    Unfortunately, my experience with modeling is limited to using Lotus 123, a bit of excel- primarily using Box Hunter and Hunter DOE concepts- echip and a bit with Powersim. All of this experience is more then a bit outdated to say the least… Back when I did modeling it was very expensive, and time consuming, to do experiments so I spent a lot of time with my firms experts on experimental design and statistical methods to make sure that when I/we ran an experiments the output of the experiment would be worthwhile and valid. Models without and accurate estimate of sigma’s I am not used to dealing with…………….. hence my interest in your (and your posters) thoughts on the subject of climate models. Little did I know that your posts would also cover the most recent Wiki type release of communications from the leaders of the AGW Climate Science theory. THANK YOU for your earlier post this morning!!!

    Having traversed the Upper Peninsula a few times back in the seventies (when side rules were used to get quick answers to mathematical questions) I envy your current outing. I hope you don’t get stuck in a snow drift like I did way back when just before my time to be at home for Thanksgiving dinner. I got stuck in rather deep snow twice in the UP on one trip (from Duluth, MN to Ohio). Thank goodness the folks in the UP are friendly and open to helping strangers, otherwise I wouldn’t have made it home for the Holidays.

    Hope it’s Ok that I referenced your Climategate 2.0 post to a few sites that I follow.

    For the life of me I can’t recall when the smelt run occurs in the UP, or northern MN, but if it’s occurring now enjoy a half dozen or so of the little guys for me. They are really good with Leinenkugel beer- http://www.wisconsinbeautiful.com/northern-wisconsin-tourism/leinenkugels-historic-brewery-tour-chippewa-falls-wisconsin.html

  5. I went looking for “delete” references but got sidetracked. Now I know the rules of the game, we trade travel for product.

    Dear all,

    tomorrow will be the one-year anniversary of the PAGES/CLIVAR & EPRI workshop in Wengen,
    which as we were assured repeatedly from many of you, was very enjoyable and fruitful. As
    pleasant as it was to get enthusiastic feedback, in the long term it will not suffice to
    feed the workshop sponsors and to keep their lenders happy. From talking with Larry
    Williams from EPRI I can tell that he is of the

    same opinion.

    The only product from the workshop that has materialised so far is the EOS report (Thanks
    Mike et al.!), whereas the synthesis and the PR Challenge haven’t. Undoubtedly, you all
    know the rules of the game, so my only point here is to remind you that they do operate.

    EPRI, PAGES and CLIVAR are also about to engage in the follow-up workshop project on “proxy
    data uncertainties” that was born out of the Wengen meeting. So many of you might yet again
    enjoy another workshop. We as sponsors are happy to engage in this, because of the
    important science questions addressed and excellent scientists involved. But, as said
    above, to maintain support it is paramount that the ideas result in products.

  6. Steig:

    He’s skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica —

    he thinks the “right” answer is more like our detrended results in the
    supplementary text.

    I cannot argue he is wrong.

  7. Why was Phil Jones sending out this email about carbon trading in 2000? See who got the email.


    date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 08:12:39 +0100
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: The Carbon Trader – 12th Edition – “GORE’S US$79Billion GREEN POLICY”
    to: REDACTED

    >Reply-To: “Alistair R G Paton”
    >From: “Alistair R G Paton”
    >Cc: “Gary R Stewart” ,
    >REDACTEDMartin G Green” ,
    >REDACTEDMax Kaplan” ,
    >REDACTEDGary Wilson” ,
    >REDACTEDPublic Relations Division” ,
    >REDACTEDRisk Management Division” ,
    >REDACTEDLegal Services Division” ,
    >REDACTEDFinancial Services Division”
    >REDACTEDEvaluations Division” ,
    >REDACTEDAuditing and Verification Division”
    >Subject: The Carbon Trader – 12th Edition – “GORE’S US$79Billion GREEN POLICY”
    >Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 16:58:26 +1000
    >Organization: thecarbontrader.com
    >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE VREDACTED0
    >REDACTEDREDACTEDth Edition of The Carbon Trader – weekly “the
    >worlds leading reporter, library and commercial services intermediary
    >within the emerging carbon trading market” was published this morning 3
    >JulyREDACTEDth Edition free of charge via:www.thecarbontrader.com
    >edition we report on: Al Gore’s US$79b Green Policy, World Bank’s Green
    >loans to Poland ($93m) and India ($130m), Concerns over Chinese Aluminium
    >markets, Nuclear Power to be phased out by 2020, Norway’s Energy Minister
    >announces green agency, Senator Robert Hill press releases and many more
    >must read articles. contact: REDACTED contact:
    > REDACTED contact: REDACTED I hope
    >you all enjoy the 12th Edition of http://www.thecarbontrader.com and I again look
    >forward to all your responses. Sincerely, Alistair R G Paton
    >The Carbon Trader
    >Level 4, 379 Pitt Street
    >Sydney NSW Australia 2000
    >e-mail: REDACTED
    >REDACTED089 fax:REDACTED066 Attachment Converted:
    >”c:eudoraattachAlistair R G Paton.vcf”
    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit TelephoneREDACTEDREDACTED
    School of Environmental Sciences FaxREDACTEDREDACTED
    University of East AngliaREDACTEDREDACTED
    NR4 7TJ


  8. Email Number 0344 – from: Phil Jones


    “When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on – at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn’t know the number we’re dealing with. We are in double figures.”

    “The inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data Protection Act request sent by a certain Canadian, saying that the email maligned his scientific credibility with his peers! If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn’t yet) I am supposed to go through my emails and he can get anything I’ve written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all. This legislation is different from the FOI – it is supposed to be used to find put why you might have a poor credit rating !”


    [Conspiracy to avoid and evade FOI at UEA, attempt to co-opt FOI personnel, deletion of emails]

  9. The problem indeed is that they do not see anything “damning” about getting editors fired or getting their friends to be IPCC coauthors or hiding the decline. Just getting it done! Like Jack Nicholson in that movie: “you can’t handle the truth!”

  10. “This doesn’t affect the science!”

    We read that so often. And laugh because it sounds so silly. It is, but I tried to put myself in the place of the people writing it. [yes, it is hard to do.] Forget the propagandists, paid and volunteer, and focus on the true believer who really wants to believe it when he writes it. What could he be thinking?

    The e-mails clearly show data and stats being manipulated in studies to present propaganda instead of science. They show corruption and grotesque conflicts of interest in a variety of ways. They show blatant dishonesty (“no deletion of e-mails” and a willingness to obstruct the law. They show that statements regarding certainty were not only false, but acknowledged to be false by those involved.

    Now I look at all that (and all the rest) and it is clear that these guys have zero credibility. Nothing they have done and no process where they’ve had significant input can be viewed as honest or reliable. They haven’t acted as scientists and have no reputable science to show us.

    But what of our true believer who writes that none of this affects the science. How can he reach this conclusion in good faith (or at least believe it when he writes it)? The only way that he can write it with any kind of coherence would be to argue that the hockey team exposed in Climategate I and II has never been involved in anything that actually constituted science as it relates to the earth’s climate.

    And you know what? I think I can agree with that wholeheartedly.

  11. Thanks, Phil @10, for the link to the 3 July 2000 e-mail message Phil Jones sent to others:


    About the report, AL GORE’S US$79 Billion GREEN POLICY, in the 12th Edition of “The Carbon Trader,”


    Professor Phil Jones appeared to be forwarding a message that he received from Alistar R.G. Paton, Chairman of “The Carbon Trader.”

    LIFE has this picture of Alistair R G Paton, Founder and Group CEO of ‘MINT’ – holding the ‘world’s first shareholder club’ card #0252 at the entrance to the club in Hong Kong on 11 May 2006.


    Yes indeed, CO2 is a global problem that plagues scientists and capitalist worldwide, even in exclusive clubs in Hong Kong!

  12. @ Jim Sorenson

    You could try to write a play and put in a speech like that…and it would be impossible for an actor to get it across without derisory laughter from the audience. It is staggering.

    Phil Jones will rot in Hell.

  13. Mikey would feel and claim snowy purity even as Ol’ Snatch dragged him down through a crack in the pavement by the short hairs.

    As for Phil, his ability to persuade the FOIA guy that the data requesters from CA were not to be respected is impressive. Albeit nauseating.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s