If the AGW case is so strong, why delete emails?

Mann made warming

Despite a stack of whitewash enquiries intended to sweep the whole embarrassing episode under the carpet, Climategate just won’t go away. Watts Up With That is reporting that Eugene Wahl, physical scientist in the NOAA Paleoclimatology program at NOAA, has been quizzed by investigators and has admitted to deleting emails on the instructions of Michael Mann:

Sources confirm that a federal inspector has questioned Eugene Wahl and Wahl has confirmed that Mann asked him to delete emails. Wahl has also informed the inspector that he did delete emails as the result of this request.

There are times during the course of Climategate when you feel like you are in a Twilight Zone episode, especially the kind where the ambiguous meaning of terms plays a critical role, like “To Serve Man” [link to YouTube clip].

That episode is apt because of the central role trust plays and because of the role puzzle solvers play  in uncovering that the do-gooder aliens cannot be trusted. “Serving”, of course, has now taken on new meanings, as in “you got served” or pwned. With the release of the news that Mann successfully instructed Wahl to delete emails,  it’s clear that Mann got served or pwned by Wahl; but more importantly, he got served or assisted by Dr. Pell, Dr. Scaroni, Dr Brune, and Dr. Foley. Who are they? They are the Penn State team who served Dr. Mann by purporting to exonerate him in the Penn State inquiry, despite Mann’s own non-responsive response to a key question being on its face evasive, and begging followup questions. Regardless, Mann’s non-answer did not even purport to support their conclusion about his actions. In short, they covered for him.

So we have to ask again. Why is skulduggery like this required if the case for AGW is so strong?

Read it here.

UPDATE: Chris Horner, writing at the Daily Caller, summarises the trick admirably:

PSU [Penn State University]: This is potentially very grave. We must know: Did you do A or B?

Mann: I did not do A.

PSU: Ah. There we go. It appears there is no evidence he did A or B.

Read it here.


  1. If excess carbon is warming the planet, will reducing carbon cool the planet. We have been in a global cooling pattern for the last nine years with the present carbon levels. If we have less carbon will we have icebergs off Perth beaches in five years? Sounds crazy, sure does but no more crazy than polar bears having to swim hundreds of Kilometre between ice flows as we were told a few years ago. Apart from the Green party which is full of antiabortionist, anti vivisectionist and anti cows farting weirdos, the only others pushing man made global warming is them who are making millions selling totally unnecessary climate change equipment. So when you see someone shouting for carbon taxes or in support of climate changes policies just have a look which pie they have their fingers in

  2. While I absolutely agree with your comments about climate change I am not sure I can associate with anything that has Andrew Bolts’ name attached to it. [snip – irrelevant and offensive]

    • I bore myself having to repeat this: play the ball not the man. Disagree with the content by all means, but I’m not interested in ad hominem attacks thanks.

      • I agree with Simon,i too in the past have not agreed with Bolt,not only that but his comments and point off view have infuriated me.We must not lose sight of the fact that the message is important not the vessel of delivery.

    • Erm, this article has nothing to do with Andrew Bolt?

      It’s OK to accept and reject arguments made by the same person you know. You don’t have to agree with everything Andrew Bolt says in order to agree with him about global warming. Personally I find some of his rants kind of nutty and irrelevant, and some I downright condemn. But that doesn’t stop me agreeing with him on what he says about Global Warming, not in the least because he just repeats what he finds elsewhere.

      I don’t know where this ‘team barracking’ attitude towards people has sprung from. There seems to be this feeling that you can only agree with someone if they perfectly reflect their views, or ther reverse, if you agree with someone you have to change your views to align with theirs. More independent thinking and criticism would solve a lot of this mess.

  3. Redirection or distraction, what a powerful tool, I mention a name and I get two replies and already the focus on the main message has shifted slightly. The people behind Global warming Scam have no desire to save the planet but are using it as part of their grab for global governance and that is way past the conspiracy stage. They know that they cannot defeat the science which says that Global warming is a naturally occurring phenomenon so they divert our attention by suggesting Carbon taxes and pretty soon we are all debating the tax. We can’t afford it, it will kill off our jobs, why should we have it and the rest of the world doesn’t and so on and so forth. Now people are subconsciously accepting global warming must be true otherwise why would we need a tax, very clever.

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      Redirection or distraction, what a powerful tool


      Quite a few may disagree with your views on Andrew Bolt, but we’re right behind you on your view here Colin.

      This is the biggest scam in the history of our civilisation.

      Sleight of hand and half truths are the name of the Global Warming game.

    • Hey Colin relax dude,i think most people that have been following this story from the moment Inconvenient Truth was presented to us by Al Gore would probably agree that the greens and the labour party didnt think up the whole environmental issue to unite the people of the world,convince them they are responsible for killing the planet and eventually subjugate everyone to a global govt,(check out UN Agenda 21)apparently the framework is in place.However my point was that whether they do it as agents of disinformation or truly believe that what they convey is the truth you must look at what is being said not the mouthpiece,this time around love or hate him Andrew Bolt is speaking the truth.

  4. Look I am sorry that I mentioned Andrew Bolt, I used to read his blog quite a bit but in my opinion he seem to have a bit of a blind spot in certain areas, so maybe my opinion of him and what he says is a little bit coloured by that.

    • No need to apologize Colin,not everyone will think the same on every issue in the public domain,but it is the issue at the end of the day that cannot be avoided no matter who’s talking or what they’re saying.

  5. I don’t know why they deleted the emails, but I do know that Climategate was really the turning point in the whole ACC AGW hoax. Climategate opened the eyes of the public as well as many journalists, and now the hoax is dead. Rest in peace climate hoax.

%d bloggers like this: