Looking through the ClimateGate II emails, I noticed a while back this message from Phil Jones to Osborn, Briffa, and Amman:
date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:00:05 +0100 (BST) from: P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk subject: CA to: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, ammannatXYZxyzr.edu This is a confidential email Have a look at Climate Audit. Holland has put all the responses and letters up. There are three threads - two beginning with Fortress and a third later one. Worth saving the comments on a Jim Edwards - can you do this Tim? Most are just rants, but his seem to imply he knows what he's talking about. Cheers Phil PS - don't think I've forgotten Wengen. The best thing to stuff this lot is the Wengen paper coming out.
This reveals that:
- Phil and colleague read Climate Audit in detail, even in 2008
- Phil parses the responses carefully - concluding that Jim Edwards "knows what he's talking about"
- Phil asks Osborn to save Jim Edwards' comments (can Phil not cut-and-paste for himself?!)
I checked one of the Climate Audit posts in question. It is here. Sure enough, Jim Edwards is helpfully providing arguments to the CRU, as he skeptically picks through the information presented by Steve. No wonder Phil was interested! Did Osborn manage to cut-and-paste any of Edwards' arguments into future FOI responses? These guys can't even evade FOI requests on their own - they needed to plagiarize their legal arguments!