""The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised."

Well Phil, if this were true, why was there an instant anti-clusterfuck response from CRU and the School of Environmental Sciences, with a School wide staff meeting that imposed an embargo on everyone making any statements about the email release (without even confirming that the emails were even genuine)? This kneejerk response was a reaction to something feared. The School and eventually the University were deathly afraid of reputational damage. But why, if there was nothing to it? The staff meeting also occurred days before most of the sullied details emerged, and before questions about the possible manipulation of data arose. Why were CRU in such a meltdown, with your namesake having to take time off? Why was I, as the then Director of Teaching, instructed to fob off any inquiries about the matter from informed parents during imminent admission open days? I was certainly and in no uncertain terms given the impression that the developing Climategate story was being treated with all seriousness.
Once again there is this overarching conclusion that Climategate was not a conspiracy from you and others like you. Once again this ignores the deliberate attempt to subvert FOI and to persuade others to destroy evidence. Conspiracy in anyone's book.

The School and eventually the University were deathly afraid of reputational damage. But why, if there was nothing to it? The staff meeting also occurred days before most of the sullied details emerged, and before questions about the possible manipulation of data arose.

This is just a variant on the 'no smoke without fire' fallacy. 'Reputational' damage can and does occur even when there has been no real malpractice; really - have you never seen PR people over-react anywhere else? The context was the online media frenzy (not least at BH), people falling on the mails and finding any and all quotes that could be spun to show the scientists in the worst possible light, misinterpreting inside jokes, private remarks and jargon and so forth. In this context of extreme hostility it is utterly unsurprising that the institution went into damage limitation mode. So what?

Once again there is this overarching conclusion that Climategate was not a conspiracy from you and others like you. Once again this ignores the deliberate attempt to subvert FOI and to persuade others to destroy evidence. Conspiracy in anyone's book.

I am ignoring nothing, the request from Jones to destroy emails was ill-advised (though it is far from clear whether such mails were actually subject to FOI). You seem to be ignoring the nature of the requests being submitted however - vexatious hardly covers it - Lord Oxburgh describes the campaign, orchestrated at Climate Audit, as 'harassment'.

Some called for Jones' resignation, however, at least one of his critics relented once the issues were properly investigated:

So was I wrong to call, soon after this story broke, for Jones's resignation? I think, on balance, that I was. He said some very stupid things. At times he squelched the scientific principles of transparency and openness. He might have broken the law. But he was also provoked beyond endurance. I think, in the light of everything I've now seen and read, that if I were to write that article again I'd conclude that Phil Jones should hang on – but only just. I hope the last review gives him some peace.

Somebody went trawling through ten years of private emails and selectively released the most damaging they could find, these were then ruthlessly mined and spun. Were the CRU team infallible angels? Of course not. They made errors of judgement, record keeping was sometimes lacking, and in private they wrote some tasteless and dumb things (who hasn't?). But nobody has found any evidence of a 'conspiracy' meaningfully to deceive or manipulate results that would affect the case for AGW one iota, indeed the Russell enquiry were able to independently reproduce their main work product - the global temperature series - in a just a few days using open source data.

'ClimateGate' is an old, mouldy, nothingburger.

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

Cardinal Richelieu

"Not the case - as I've pointed out many times.
Mar 7, 2019 at 2:17 PM | Phil Clarke"

Is there anything about Climate Science that is not based on lies, or are you also paid by the whopper?

"This is just a variant on the 'no smoke without fire' fallacy".
So sorry Phil, but these are memories, not a fallacy. These rapid and, to my eyes, extreme measures were taken well before the full extent of the email contents were known or verified to the outside world. I recall reading in WUWT to be careful in that the whole thing could be fake. Methods to manage the damage were instigated well before full knowledge was known by critics.
CRU personal knew just how bad it could have got. How they got away with it beggars belief.

Mar 7, 2019 at 6:03 PM | Phil Clarke

You really should stop trusting what lying Climate Scientists tell you to believe.

Good evidence stands the test of time. Have you found any yet to support Mann's Hockey Stick?

US Democrats are going to be asked to explain why their New Green Deal is not a con trick, that will impose Austerity measures on every US citizen. There will be lots of opportunities for Mann to appear on TV, as he is frightened of appearing in Court. Rival Democrats may decide to publicise the scientific corruption of Wikipedia by William M Connolley, which will be wonderful publicity for the UK Green Party.

If only Climate Scientists had been honest about the Hockey Teamsters

CRU personal (sic) knew just how bad it could have got. How they got away with it beggars belief.

Not sure what to make of that. There's malfeasance still hidden? Got away with what?

You still haven't quoted any primary source to back up these nebulous claims, but that's OK, nor has anybody else.

Mar 7, 2019 at 11:00 PM | Phil Clarke

You are accepting the lies of Climate Scientists.

Are you now copy pasting a US Legal opinion? A sign of panic setting in across the pond?

"malfeasance Dictionary result for malfeasance, wrongdoing, especially (US) by a public official."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/malfeasance

Searching the CRU leaked emails

http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0109.txt

3. You write, "Our ftp site has had some data deleted from it. It is a site we use when
working with other scientists around the world. The datasets were not explained.
It seemed easier to stop people wasting their time trying to determine what it was."
I admit that this does not seem as straightforward as, again, one might expect from a
public servant. The decision to delete data was made during a white-hot dispute with a
little-liked and extremely dogged and intelligent statistician by the name of Steve
McIntyre. Whether or not you view Mr. McIntyre as the kind of figure whom the Royal
Society fought to keep on the margins of scientific inquiry (or farther out than that),
he is exactly such a figure.
If you wanted to "defeat" him in intellectual battle, as you naturally would, the best
way to do so is not to hide data and maintain that you are not hiding data.
The data should be restored to the website, ASAP. Mr. McIntyre should be allowed to
"audit" your methodology. If your intellectual position is truly superior to his, then
the "schooling" that you give to him in response will be of note to many.
Thank you for your consideration.
All the best, in all things,
Harold

In a famous case
known as the "Gillberg affair", a researcher at Gothenburg University
refused to obey the law. As a result, both the researcher and the rector
of the university were convicted of criminal malfeasance. (The
researcher received a suspended sentence and a fine; the rector received
a fine.)

" 'ClimateGate' is an old, mouldy, nothingburger.
Mar 7, 2019 at 6:03 PM | Phil Clarke"

From WUWT comments
"trafamadore March 6, 2019 at 4:51 pm
260 comments of nothing burger.
Wow. Eight years to get this, and ?
[the duplicate post was deleted.mod]"

The trolls are duplicating, as they have no science

Wow!!!!
"You still haven't quoted any primary source"
I am a primary source, I was there, I experienced what happened. I wondered (before the emails were authenticated) whether the School was over-reacting. I can still feel the intense anger when I heard my head of school berate all sceptics, calling them loonies for attacking Phil Jones and I then stormed out of the room in utter disgust.

But I forgot, a primary source to you is data that can be manipulated and distorted, or someone's opinion that matches your own.

In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study.

Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources. Generally, accounts written after the fact with the benefit (and possible distortions) of hindsight are secondary.

From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source>

What you have is a first hand hearsay account but (apparently) no minutes, contemperaneous notes etc. Memory famously can play tricks. You remember behaviour consistent with conspiracy and collusion (in your interpretation) and so you concluded there must be conspiracy and collusion. No smoke without fire. A staff meeting. Wow.

Supertroll,

In accordance with Climate Science's professional trolls, aka The Hockey Teamsters + choreographed cheerleaders such as Phil Clarke, you are a sourceless nothing burger. A limp lettuce leaf, sandwiched between gluten free straw.

They have full confidence in their travesty about 97% confidence, so 97% of Climate Science should be starved of funding, and composted.

Mar 8, 2019 at 9:50 AM | Phil Clarke

You just have lies., backed up by fraud and corruption.

Well, there you go Clipe. An copy-and-pasted email. You carefully excluded this bit

[[[unsent draft?]]]

No explanation, no context. Perhaps you could explain what you think this shows? Phil Jones removed some weather station data from an ftp site, used to share with colleagues but (I believe) never publicised. It contained some data obtained under confidentiality agreements with overseas Met Offices that had some commercial value to them, so he acted properly in removing it. No data was permanently deleted. This has all been discussed before, not least on Harold Amblers website and the UK Government enquiry (p33). The UEA conducted an exercise to get permission to release all the raw data from their suppliers including the small percentage subject to NDAs. Guess what? It confirmed the published results and conclusions.

So I am unsure what your point is, your evidential gold seems to be something rather more brown and soft.

How very interesting. My memories of an impromptu and absolutely unprecedented staff meeting held before most attending were even aware of what had happened are not a primary source. To my knowledge no notes were taken, so according to you, in the absence of some scrappy bit of paper, there is no acceptable evidence. Perhaps the meeting didn't actually take place. Actually, given UEA's penchant for keeping old emails there may well be evidence surviving and acceptable to you, in that I certainly emailed my thoughts about the meeting to many.

Interesting that you consider the majority of evidence in criminal trials as first hand hearsay accounts.

Ravishing Rabbit. But I have just written about the meeting, some about what was said there and my reactions to it. (My storming out will surely be remembered by many). Cannot those posts now be considered as a primary source?

Phil Clarke, are you in denial of "older" evidence, in the belief that there is some kind of time ban?

Or perhaps you believe in Squatters Rights being applicable in science, the right to squat on, and conceal evidence, or its mysterious absence?

US and UK Courts take a particularly dim view of those that withhold evidence and obstruct justice, particularly if it was in their financial interest to do so. Please keep digging a deeper oubliette for Climate Scientists. Are your US Misinformants familiar with the term oubliette? It dates back to those warmer medieval times

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/01/climategate-intensifies-jones-and-wang-hid-chinese-station-data-issues/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese
"Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.

A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced.

Jones and a collaborator have been accused by a climate change sceptic and researcher of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming – a hotly contested issue."

Mar 8, 2019 at 11:33 AM | Supertroll

If Phil Clarke or any of his paymasters could provide some supporting evidence for the meeting that concluded that manmade CO2 was the only driver of Global Warming and Cooling, 97% of Climate Scientists could stop squatting on evidence whilst producing sh!t.

97% of Climate Scientists should be deprived of Taxpayer Funding. If Grantham, Bloomberg et al want to continue funding liars, that is up to them.

Meanwhile, US Democrats are about to start infighting over Climate Science. It would be interesting if Hockey Teamsters, including William M Connolley are exposed to the US public. The Chinese and Russians have done very well out of dimwitted US, UK and EU Politicians with their Green manifestos.

UK Greens are going to be particularly exposed, having trusted William M Connolley, and Caroline Lucas may be asked why?

All UK politicians should be asked to justify their belief in Green Blob Energy Austerity in the post BREXIT era.

Mar 8, 2019 at 1:31 PM | Radical Rodent
But if turned into a film, Hollywood is full of sleazy operators to portray the Hockey Teamsters, but who would star as Supertroll?