ROOKIE: I'm aware of backups. The point isn't whether they succeeded in deleting e-mails, but whether they tried. If Michael Mann made a personal backup of files he was deleting, then saying that he produced this backup doesn't mean he didn't delete e-mails. It looks like Phil Jones, and Mann, and Wahl, and Ammann deleted their e-mails, being clueless as to how e-mail systems work. The university should in their investigation have checked for records of deletions, assuming their system records that, and compared to what is in their backups. Instead it was basically, "Mann, did you delete e-mails." "No." "Case dismissed!"
In the UK, the head of the inquiry said they did not investigate Phil Jones, because they would have had to ask him if he committed a crime.
The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as "Climategate")[2][3] began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker.[4][5] Several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change, an unknown individual or group breached CRU's server and copied thousands of emails and computer files to various locations on the Internet.
Some 1: These have been known to be defeated. Just look at Lois Lehrner. Ha! Ha! Some people will clutch at anything to protect their fallen crooked heroes.
The Mann debacle was whitewashed. But the State of Pennsylvania is still asking for their grant money back.
If I had perpetuated a scheme like that, I would be in prison, so deep down that the Sun wouldn't shine.
@pegminer: Gotta laugh at your attempt to toe the party line.
"...there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones."
It would certainly be interesting to know the extent of the investigation was which determined "no credible evidence". A person with integrity would have rebuffed Jones immediately but it's pretty clear Mann needed to pass the message on "ASAP". A person with integrity doesn't pass on a message like that.
A better question would be what happened to Jones who clearly showed "actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4."
Actually, I don't really laugh at pegminer and others at all. It shows intellectual dishonesty to simply overlook the Climategate emails and defer to some whitewash "inquiries". An no, those emails don't change climate science but they certainly call into question the integrity and ethics of several prominent climate scientists. I takes a really skewed vision to overlook that.
_______________________________________...
Edit@pegminer: You didn't answer the question. The question was "how" and you offered up "what" (which if you read the question again is actually part of the question).
And your "what" answer was about a weak as they come. An appeal to authority and in this case a Penn State Inquiry conclusion about the investigation of a Penn State employee.
I guess at your level of intellectual honesty this was open and shut case and we should all just accept Penn State's investigation and conclusions regardless of "how" they reached them.
_______________________________________...
Edit2@pegminer: "In fact, you are certainly one big hypocrite to impugn the reputations of others for just DISCUSSING hiding things"
I am acting as a private citizen. I have very right to hide my Q&A as does anybody else here. I would be a hypocrite if I scolded others about doing that but I do not. There are many who do the same and I yet to see you scold any of them, especially those that are on your "side".
Secondly, these "things" you are referring to are PUBLIC PROPERTY. They belong to you and me. Government officials/workers/contractors/janitors are not allowed to hide public property and especially not destroy it.
Your lack of making that distinction shows another level of intellectual dishonesty since I know you're smart enough to realize it yet you failed to anyways.
If you were actually interested the answer to your question, you could have found it in approximately 30 seconds of searching on the internet: Here's what the inquiry found regarding this subject:
"Finding 2. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the
inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had
ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones. Dr. Mann has stated that he did not delete emails in response to Dr. Jones’ request. Further, Dr. Mann produced upon request a full archive of his emails in and around the time of the preparation of AR4. The archive contained e-mails related to
AR4. "
EDIT for Ottawa Mike: There was no attempt in my answer to "toe the party line" as you call it. Instead, I did something that you did not do: I ANSWERED THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED. In fact, I don't really understand why there were so many "answers" after I promptly and correctly answered the question.
If you don't think the inquiry was valid, perhaps you should ask your own question about it (oh wait, I'm sure you've done that dozens of times in you HIDDEN questions and answers). But don't go around accusing me of garbage.
In fact, you are certainly one big hypocrite to impugn the reputations of others for just DISCUSSING hiding things, when you have hidden your own electronic communications for years. As I recall you told me privately that you were worried about privacy and computer security.
Don't try to hide behind any public sector/private sector arguments, either, when you are attacking the reputations of others in public you cease to have any reasonable expectation of privacy regarding those matters.
Another EDIT for "Do as I say, not as I do": Ottawa Mike: The investigation found that there was no credible evidence that he deleted emails, if you have evidence to the contrary, why didn't you show it to the people that did the investigation? In fact there have been numerous investigations associated with these stolen emails, and they've all turned out the same way--exonerating the scientists. You know that, but you wish to keep mudslinging by bringing up the same things over and over. You don't let people see your questions because it would be clear that you ask the same questions time and time again and ignore peoples' answers.
It would also be abundantly clear to people that looked through your questions that you have little interest at all in the truth, no matter what you claim about "intellectual honesty." You think it is a perfectly acceptable thing to trash someone's reputation and then hide behind the luxury of YA letting you block your Q&A.
It seems to me that you're implying that dishonesty is ok for you because you're not being paid by the government. I apologize if I find such an attitude distasteful in the least.
Did the Penn State inquire conclude that Mann did not do anything wrong?
Did it conclude that he did not delete emails?
Unless there were some law prohibiting the deletion of emails, the above are two separate questions.
Sageclown --
>>State of Pennsylvania is still asking for their grant money back.<<
Why would the State of Pennsylvania ask for grant money back that it never gave him?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2...
After all this time, you still don't have a clue about what is going on or how any of this works, huh?
I take it that you are unaware that the mail servers have incremental backups that can be recovered and compared to the current emails. This would have shown any deleted emails that would have been of relevance. There are also other forensic methods that could be used as well.
****Hareenda
You are truly clueless as to how back ups are performed on email servers. A zip drive back up of the emails on his workstation may be for his own sense of security, but the email servers themselves are handled in a much different manner and he would have no access to these backups himself. I would be willing to make a small wager that there is also a redundant email server that is a clone of the primary email server. http://www.eudora.com/techsupport/kb/214...
****Speaking of intellectual dishonesty
Ottawa Mike, this is for you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Re...
They cut and pasted according to the terms of their investigation, not according to cherry-picked trickery from fossil fuel industry fronts and anti-science blogs.
Hacked e-mails showed Michael Mann receiving an e-mail saying
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith 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
Mann replied the same day as follows:
Hi Phil,
… I’ll contact Gene [Wahl] about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxx
talk to you later,
mike
So how did Penn State's inquiry conclude that Mann had not done anything wrong?
