WaPo on Climate E-mails (and More)

The Washington Post covers the disclosure of e-mails from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit — e-mails that appear to have been subject to an FOI request and that were either hacked by an outsider or stolen and released by an insider.

In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes. . . .

Other e-mails detail an innovative approach to FOI requests for data: “When In Doubt, Delete.” More from Charles Martin — and Bishop Hill suggests there could be still more to come.

My prior posts in the CRU e-mail controversy are here and here.

UPDATE: At this point there is signfiicant speculation that the e-mails (and other files) were released by an inside whistleblower, not hacked by an outsider.  If so, it may have been due to the CRU’s denial of legitimate FOI requests. More here.