About those new Climaquiddick e-mails,

which I've been assured by someone will be just like the last ones and 'prove AGW', etc.:
From David Palmer to Phil Jones, regarding my FOI request, email #1184, April 2007 (emphasis mine):

Gents,

My head is beginning to spin here but I read this as meaning that he wants the raw station data; we don’t know which data belongs to which station, correct? Our letter stated:

“We can, however, send a list of all stations used, but without sources. This would include locations, names and lengths of record, although the latter are no guide as to the completeness of the series.”

Can we put this on the web? Perhaps I am being really thick here but I’m not sure if putting this on the web will actually satisfy Mr. Eschenbach - we’ve said we don’t have data sources, he says the external websites don’t have them, so who does? Are we back to the NMS’s? [National Meteorological Services -w.] I am happy to give this one more go, stating exactly what we are putting on the web and seeing if that suffices. Should Mr. Eschenbach still insist that we actually possess the information in the form he requests, I can then only give the file to Kitty Inglis for review and then we move on formally….

Cheers, Dave

Dave is right, there’s yer problem. “We don’t know which data belongs to which station, correct?”. That’s staggering, it’s gotta be in the running for some kind of truth in advertising award. Shame he wasn’t that honest with me. Instead, he worked hard to obscure that fact.

One of the things that's bothered me- a LOT- about this crap is the number of people I know who're willing to dismiss things like this because "AGW is REAL, and Things Must Be Done!" They'll overlook severe violations of scientific method and ethics, they're quite happy to see people smeared for simply asking inconvenient questions. Disturbing, at the least.

And they're apparently not bothered in the least by these clowns treating data from publicly-funded research as personal property:
<2440> Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process
Isn't THAT a wonderful thing to read from a scientist?