I saw that my name popped up in a few places in the emails. I don’t
have much to say about them (which is neither a confirmation or a
denial of whatever was claimed) except I do not at all recall ever
threatening Sonia Boehmer-Christiansen (editor of Energy &
Environment) with “litigation” (mail file 1068239573.txt) I can’t
imagine doing that as a journalist, and even if I wanted to I don’t
know what I’d threaten, unless it was to tell her I was going to file
a FOIA, which I certainly did not do in this case since (a) I didn’t
think that that any of her internal journal correspondence was subject
to a FOIA, as it was unrelated any government function, and (b) I
don’t even know if an American can file whatever the equivalent of a
FOIA is in Britain. I do, though, plead guilty to having called her
multiple times, whether it annoyed her or not. That’s my job.
David Appel:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2009/11/cru-hack.html
Here is the text of what Sonya said in that email:
From: Tim Osborn <t.os...@uea.ac.uk>
To: "Phil Jones" <p.j...@uea.ac.uk>,"Keith Briffa"
<k.br...@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: Fwd: Re: McIntyre-McKitrick and Mann-Bradley-Hughes
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:12:53 +0000
<x-flowed>
>From: "Sonja.B-C" <Sonj...@hull.ac.uk>
>Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:58:06 +0000
>To: Steve McIntyre <smci...@cgxenergy.com>
>Subject: Re: McIntyre-McKitrick and Mann-Bradley-Hughes
>Cc: L.A....@hull.ac.uk, Tim Osborn <t.os...@uea.ac.uk>,
> Ross McKitrick <rmck...@uoguelph.ca>
>Priority: NORMAL
>X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 5.1.1 Build (10)
>
>Dear Steve
>Please send your material for comment direct to Tim, Osborne.I
>would like to publish the whole debate early next year, but
>'respectful' comments in the meantime can only help and the CRU people
>seem genuinely interested and have integrity. I have never heard of
>such bad behaviour here as appears to have been the case between
>Sallie and Soon and the rest..the US adversarial system and too many
>egos??
>As you know ,the contact is Tim Osborn <t.os...@uea.ac.uk> and I take
>the liberty to forward this to him now. You seem to suggest that this
>is welcome and are making make direct comments on his remarks to me
>concerning your paper.
>
>We shall get the printed proof, as a single electronic file today, and
>shall look through it early next week. I am sure you do not want to see
>your paper again? I think that adding anymore now (the exchanges
>between you and Mann/Bradley and perhaps now Tim as well) is premature
>and we shall wait until the next issue. Mann is said to be writing
>something, but he has not yet contacted me, though I just hang up on
>that journalist Appell who keeps on ringing. I told him that I will
>deal only directly with Mann. What cheek, after threatening me with
>litigation...Just keep me in the loop. Thanks.
>
>Sonja
Whatever the relevance and whatever Appell says, it really doesn't
make any difference to anything. Who the hell knows why she mentioned
him if he has no recollection of the calls? And how do we know that
Appell is being honest.
In the end, if this is all you've got, you ain't got much. Go back to
your "see no evil" mode. At least you make a lesser a fool of yourself.
> First indication they may not all be:
Since the "University" of East Anglia and Jones himself admitted that
they are real, it would have been wiser to say that you didn't know
rather than that they aren't.
Now you look bad, and I don't even know who you are. :-)
He did.
>
> Now you look bad, and I don't even know who you are. :-)
Learn basic english.
He said "may not" and English is capitalized.
Idiot.
> First indication they may not all be:
>[garbage flushed]
We are waaay past the "First indication", you insipid fucktard.
First indication is: they are very real, asspacker.
What compels you fucktards to make shit up?
Money. Trillions of dollars of it. And a insane hate of the United
States, which would be the biggest victim of this damned fraud.
When they pull the grammar/spelling schick you know they have no answer