In the second one in particular, read the following emails:
1228330629.txt seems like it has some stuff about FOIA and wanting to quit if the management at Lawrence Livermore doesn't back him up on NOT responding to inquiries for raw data and methods to back up his papers. (!!)
1228412429.txt looks like it is talking about persuading the managment not to force one to abide by FOI requests; and also deleting emails (just in time) which likely *would* have been subject to such a request.
1254258663.txt explicitly snarks about The Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and their ilk; and compares them unfavorably to "the prestige press". Also possible reference McIntyre being shut out of real journals, then derided as a kook because he's not getting published...
1254259645.txt continues in this vein.
Hey dipsh*ts.
Release the RAW data, and the RAW computer codes used to generate the plots and estimates in your published papers.
Then we can see if they are *truly* reproducible or if you fudged them, or out-and-out lied.
Of particular interest are the data sets related to Mike's "tricks" in Nature.
Oh, and the ones related to the Yamal tree-rings; and the funding for that, including Briffa's June 5 email which is missing.
Oh, and the ones relating to trying to massage away the Medieval Warm period.
Oh, and the ones related to the infamous hockey stick.
Oh, and the ones related to your proofs mentioned in the letter of Dec.4, 2008. (60 corrections!)
Oh, and the ones related to 1196795844.txt "hi, >>>>for moment please do not distribute or discuss. >>>>trying to get a sense of whether singer / christy can get any traction >>>>with this at all. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>*_ ANDREW C. REVKIN >>>>_*"
Oh, and the ones related to the following quote which appears to be from an honest scientist, Dr. Fred Singer:
"Reliability of the IPCC's reports: I understand that the IPCC's 2007 draft does not contain an apology for the defective "hockey-stick" graph, which the US National Academy of Sciences has described as having "a validation skill not significantly different from zero". In plain English, this means the graph was rubbish. It is difficult to have confidence in a body which, after its principal conclusion is demonstrated in the peer-reviewed, scientific literature and in numerous independent reports as having been useless, fails to make the appropriate withdrawal and apology. Worse, the UN continues to use the defective graph. This failure of basic academic honesty on the IPCC's part was the main reason why I began my investigation of the supposed climate-change "consensus".The supposed scientific "consensus": Your correspondent seems unaware of the letter written by 61 Canadian and other scientists in climate and related fields to the Canadian Prime Minister. At the end of the attached commentary on Al Gore's recent attempt to rebut my articles on climate change in the Sunday Telegraph, beneath the references, I have appended the full text of the letter and the names, qualifications and then-current affiliations of all 61 scientists. Al gore and others tend to lean rather more heavily than is wise upon a single, rather bad one-page essay in Science for their contention that there is a scientific consensus to the effect that most of the warming in the past half-century was anthropogenic. The essay was by Oreskes (2004), who said that she had analyzed 928 abstracts mentioning "climate change" published in peer-reviewed journals on the Thomson ISI database between 1993 and 2003, and that none of the 928 had expressed dissent from the "consensus". Dr. Benny Peiser of Liverpool John Moores University subsequently made a more careful enquiry. Science had been compelled to publish an erratum to the effect that the search term used by Oreskes had not been the neutral "climate change" - which returned some 12,000 articles, but the more loaded "global climate change", which returned 1,117 articles. Of these, Dr. Peiser found that only 1% had explicitly endorsed the "consensus" as defined by Oreskes"; that almost three times as many had explicitly expressed doubt or outright disagreement; and that less than one-third had expressed explicit or implicit agreement with the "consensus". He wrote a paper for Science pointing out these serious defects, which pointed to a conclusion diametrically opposite to that of Oreskes. Science at first asked him to shorten his paper, and then said that, because conclusions like his had been widely reported on the internet, his paper would not be published. As far as I can discover, Science has not published any corrigendum to this day, providing further confirmation of what I have long suspected: that the leading peer-reviewed journals, having unwisely taken strongly-political editorial positions on the question of climate change, are no longer objective. "
Oh, and the ones related to 1096382684.txt where the Global-Warming Shills admit:again, takeaway msg is that mann method can only work if past variability same as variability during period used to calibrate your method. so it could be correct, but could be very wrong as well. by the way, von storch doesn't concur with osborn/briffa on the idea that higher past variability would mean there'd likley be high future variability as well (bigger response to ghg forcing). he simply says it's time to toss hockeystick and start again, doesn't take it further than that.
How's that for starters?
P4L