McIntyre - the downward spiral into the gutter + more posts that may never make it!

Just so much unsubstantiated crud. Climate AUDIT should audit itself!
Notice how McIntyre never ACTUALLY accuses anyone - innuendo is sufficient for the accolytes to pick it up and embelish it.

"Covert” Operations by East Anglia’s CRU


Steve McIntyre Posted Jul 15, 2011 at 7:47 AM
I wonder how much Outside Organisation contributed to misdirecting the police about international security services, and thus the involvement of Counter-Terrorism officers.

Posted Jul 14, 2011 at 3:47 PM
Remember the apparent disinformation about Russian intelligence agencies. 18 months later, there isn’t (to my knowledge) a shred of evidence for this theory. Nonetheless, this was fed into the press and quickly accepted as gospel by the climate science community. Remember Pierrehumbert’s fulminations at Dot Earth about this. And Andrew Weaver’s talk about international conspiracy. I wonder how much of this stemmed from Outside Organisation’s intervention.


Posted Jul 15, 2011 at 7:02 AM
I agree that the reference to “mobile phone conversations” – of which there isn’t a shred of evidence and was not under discussion at the time = suggests (but doesn’t prove) a connection to Neil Wallis and Outside Organisation, as this surely seems like a specific embellishment that they would have added to the legend being disseminated to the climate science community and to the public.


R.S.Brown Posted Jul 14, 2011 at 7:36 PM
It takes little, if any, imagination to join up the dots between Mr. Willis’s employment by the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU) and the spectacular failure of the East Anglia police in investigating the who, what, when and where of the unauthorized release of the Climategate materials
Steve McIntyre Posted Jul 14, 2011 at 10:10 PM
One of the main elements of the disinformation campaign in early December was what may have been the planting of stories that blamed Climategate on Russian security elements. One of the pieces of “evidence” that supposedly pointed to “sophisticated” hackers was East Anglia’s claims to have had a “sophisticated” security system – a claim that seems to be viewed now as a fabrication. I wonder how much Outside Organisation had to with disseminating the idea of “Russian security services”.

Posted Jul 18, 2011 at 5:12 PM
As I reported last year, I was interviewed by a Counter Terrorism officer who had been seconded to Norfolk Constabulary to work on the East Anglia emails. I wonder if Neil Wallis had any involvement in getting Counter Terrorism officers working on East Anglia emails rather than Al Qaeda or such.


pat Posted Jul 17, 2011 at 6:44 PM
the local norfolk newspaper, Eastern Daily Press, which covered wallis and UEA (only to give cover) is owned by a big media company called Archant. here’s the Board:
Richsrd Jewson, Chairman
He is HM Lord Lieutenant of Norfolk and also Chairs the Council for the University of East Anglia.
Richard chairs the remuneration and nominations committees
Adrian Jeakings Chief Executive
He is a governor of Norwich School and a member of the Audit Committee of the University of East Anglia…
Mike Walsh Director
He has had extensive involvement in the charity sector as Worldwide Board member of WWF, Vice Chairman of the British Red Cross, and completed his six-year term as Chairman of the UK Disasters Emergency Committee in March 2011.
http://www.archant.co.uk/about_board.aspx

mpaul Posted Jul 18, 2011 at 9:49 AM
It would seem that one of Wallis’ singular talents was is knowing how to pay-off the Police http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/07/17/158069.html . This raises important questions about the unusual and unaccounted for payment by UEA to the Norfolk Police Authority http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/22/whats-up-with-norfolk-police.html

. There needs to be a call for a complete explanation of Wallis’ activities while employed by the UEA.

my latest which seems to be in moderation again!!! I'm sure the only blogs to not censor comments (wuwt and ca) cannot be selecting posts!

Walt Man Posted Jul 20, 2011 at 12:48 PM
How do you KNOW that Neil Wallis was requested explicitly by UEA as you IMPLY in your header.
As far as any information is available UEA Employed Outside Organisation to get their point of view to the press.
Wallis was surely provided by Outside Organisation as a suitable person from OO to do the requested work. NOBODY KNEW that he was implicated in hacking at THAT TIME. Can you prove differently?
When your “mineral” prospecting company requires an accountant, do you check the future to see if the accountant provided by an accounting firm will be or has been (but not discovered yet) fiddling the books of another organisation?
Your talents must be amazing, or you are making unsubstantiated accusations!
----
Eric Posted Jul 20, 2011 at 1:19 PM
I read no such implication in the header. Wallis is toxic and we now have evidence that he was hired, through OO, as UEA’s reputation manager. That is all that the header says, and that is enough to merit further investigation.
----
thefordprefect Posted Jul 20, 2011 at 4:40 PM
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Eric Posted Jul 20, 2011 at 1:19 PM I read no such implication in the header. Wallis is toxic and we now have evidence that he was hired, through OO, as UEA’s reputation
University of East Anglia had used Neil Wallis”
“The University of East Anglia was not the only UK institution that employed Wallis”
“That their first instinct was to seek counsel from a former News of the World editor”
“reputation management” problem and the sort of advice that they needed could be obtained from a former News of the World editor (let alone one with Wallis’ baggage).”
Only the first statement has an ounce of truth. The rest are just wrong – the UEA employed OO, OO provided their consultant Wallis. As said above “When your “mineral” prospecting company requires an accountant, do you check the future to see if the accountant provided by an accounting firm will be or has been (but not discovered yet) fiddling the books of another organisation?”
=======
Another never to emerge from moderation perhaps!!!
-Walt Man Posted Jul 22, 2011 at 7:49 AM

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Martin Brumby Posted Jul 22, 2011 at 7:10 AM
Blimey Mate, you are now accusing the notw as a bunch of dishonest hacks before they were even KNOWN to be such.
My company has employed a firm of accoiuntants. I do not KNOW who is actually doing my accounts – it varies from year to year. They certainly do not send me the CVs of this person. The CV is not even likely to say “I have worked in phone hacking” is it? I put my trust in the accountants company. Not the tea boy who probably presses the button on the computer to roll out the 2 accounts documents and the submission to HMRC. I even managed to do it last year (saved £900!!)
UEA employed an agency to get their view to the press. OO has/had plenty of famous names on the books. Why should they not trust the person OO allocates to do this simple job? What is so difficult to understand about this?
===============
That one made it - how about this:
thefordprefect Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 4:29 AM | Permalink | Reply
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Richard Drake Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 2:21 AM | Permalink | Reply
What if the person ‘recruiting’ him for UEA knew some of the darker parts of his past, and that this would guarantee he wouldn’t step out of line? That’s the hunch I’ve had.

ZT Posted Jul 22, 2011 at 10:54 PM | Permalink | Reply
It appears that British officials are selected exclusively for blackmail potential these days. (Similar to the system employed at the UN).

hro001 Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 2:02 AM | Permalink | Reply
It seems that Wallis was … hmmm … not home alone.

“What if”
“Hunch”
“It appears”
“It seems”

Where’ the EVIDENCE for any of this.

I know for a fact Elvis may be alive
It is absolutely certain that area 51 possibly houses alien artifacts
There is incontrovertible evidence that the moon landings were possibly staged!

=====
Off moderation so posted but how long will it last before deletion!?

walt man
Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 5:27 AM | Permalink | Reply

How times change:

Steve McIntyre, posted on Jan 12, 2010 at 11:35 PM
You get to watch somebody named phil jones say that John daly’s death is good news.. or words to that effect.

This leads to indignation that such a comment can be made (no mention that it was presumed a private email.

Now you plaster all over the web comments where it is stated that Jones brush with suicide was a put up job to get the sympathy vote. Did no one see him present his case to parliament – was he shown by Wallis how to starve himself. Did Wallis show him how to dye his hair just the right side of grey to match his pallid complection. Did Wallis give him acting lessons to get just the right amount of quaver in his voice?

YOU PEOPLE AMAZE ME
and just recently
YOU PEOPLE DISGUST ME.
========
Well this got posted then everything got deleted and the whole thread now in disarray. Well done McIntyre!

walt man
Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 7:52 AM | Permalink | Reply
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Run???? It took almost 3 months for this to surface. Wouldn’t it have been better to say this after perhaps 1 month for maximum impact?

From The Sunday Times February 7, 2010
Professor Phil Jones said in an exclusive interview with The Sunday Times that he had thought about killing himself “several times”. He acknowledged similarities to Dr David Kelly, the scientist who committed suicide after being exposed as the source for a BBC report that alleged the government had “sexed up” evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Richard Drake Posted Jul 23, 2011 at 6:18 AM | Permalink | Reply
The very fact you equate someone’s death with a threat of suicide if someone asks someone too many awkward questions shows the moral vacuum in which you are operating.

What!!!
A natural death. A private comment to others:

“Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news !”

That’s it, all of IT, how on earth do you misinterpret this comment? The moral vacuum that I work in is that I at least believe that my grandchildren deserve a better world to live in. That those equatorial dwellers deserve a homeland that is inhabitable.
I unfortunately also believe that it is probable that Man can destroy the environment!

How FOIs are used

Climate Audit seem to be removing my posts as fast as I write them!
So here is stuff I posted about FOIs and requests for Draft Documents

Posted May 30, 2011 at 6:55 PM | Permalink | Reply
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
No but Holland has in no uncertain terms:

I understand that the Met Office acted as the Technical Support
Unit for Working Group I of the IPCC Third Assessment Report
published in 2001. Please can you tell me what electronic records
the Met office retain? As this is self-evidently environmental
information, this request is made under the Environmental
Information Regulations of 2004.

I order to minimise any effort required I am willing to restrict my
request to Chapter 2, entitled “Observed Climate Variability and
Change”. I am particularly interested in the first and second order
drafts of the chapter and the comments of the Expert and Government
Reviewers together with the annotated responses of the Lead Authors
and all email correspondence in connection with the chapter or
relating generally to the official assessment process.

While I will be happy to receive any information by email if, as I
expect, it is in electronic form, I would prefer it and would be
willing to wait a reasonable time, if you propose to promptly
publish all your TAR information it in its entirety on your website
as I understand to be a legal requirement of the Environmental
Information Regulations 2004, assuming that you possess the
information in electronic form.

Yours sincerely,

David Holland

Dear Department for Business, Innovation and Skills,

I refer to our previous correspondence (EIR 10/2038).

1. In your response dated 29 October 2010, you say that draft
information and internal communications have been withheld. Could
you please provide a full list of information that has been
withheld.

2. You have disclosed several letters/emails to Prof Beddington
that appear to have no responses. Could you please check to see if
you have missed the replies to these messages.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Montford

So apart from Holland, Cuccinelli, ATI, Montford, other FOIs not on the web there OBVIOUSLY have been no requests for drafts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


=======

And of course McIntyre also requests pre-publication stuff:
From UEA refusal:

Regulation 12(4)(d) is cited because the 1,001 composite data sets and the lists of sites from which the data is drawn was created in 2006 as a first ‘draft’ of work that was meant to be carried forward and refined with a view to future publication. Whilst there has been the passage of some time since the creation of the first set of 1,001 composite records, staff at the CRU have returned to this data recently as part of a project funded by NERC, which commenced in May 2010, that encapsulates this NW Eurasian tree-ring study, and which will be completed no later than October 2012. The data will be revised in the near future as the project moves towards publication of papers based on the work in constructing the composites

=======
Further uses of FOIs fom this site:
John Brown

26 November 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,

I am making a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I
would like to know about any funds provided to the University of
East Anglia for climate-related research. For Financial Years
1999/00 to 2008/09 please provide the following information:

(a) a list of all grants/awards from the Met Office that were made
to the University for climate-related research, advice or
consultancy;

(b) For each of the items listed in response to (a), please
identify the total amount spent by financial year;

(c) For each of the listed in response to (a) & (b), please
identify the University Department, Unit, Team or researcher
responsible for undertaking the work.

Please provide the above information in electronic form.

Yours faithfully,

John Brown
==========
Was the info used or useful?
==========
James Snowdome

24 July 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to request, under the Freedom of Information Act, any
agreements between the Met Office and Peter Webster regarding the
use and/or release of climate date held by the Met Office
(including data that originally came from Phil Jones).

Best regards

Yours faithfully,

James Snowdome
==========
Was the info used or useful?
==========
James Snowdome

24 July 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,

I request, under the Environmental Information Act, a copy of all
raw weather station data currently held by Phil Jones,

Where data is not able to be disclosed due to agreements
restricting access to the data I would like to receive a copy of
each agreement detailing which weather stations are restricted.

I would like data for all unrestricted weather stations regardless
of the above.

Yours faithfully,

James Snowdome

==========
How many people asked for this
==========
John Walker

25 November 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,

Please supply a copy of the dataset that was used to create the
Climate Research Unit's temperature record.

Or failing that, details of where a copy of the dataset may be
obtained.

Yours faithfully,

John Walker

=========
that's another one
=========
John Walker

5 December 2009
Dear University of East Anglia,

Please supply copies of the accounts for the Climatic Research Unit
for each of the last five years.

Yours faithfully,

John Walker

==========
another financial prod
==========
John Walker

2 December 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,

In view of Mr Jones's decision to step down:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

please supply copies of all correspondence relating to this
decision between Mr Jones and any other person.

Yours faithfully,

John Walker

==========
Why!!!???
==========
John Walker

21 November 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,

Please supply copies of all correspondence (including emails)
between Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU),
and Michael Mann from 1st January 2008 to the present date.

Yours faithfully,

John Walker

==========
one of how many requests??
==========

John Walker

27 November 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,

Please supply copies of all correspondence (including emails)
between the UEA Chief Librarian and Phil Jones, Director of the
Climatic Research Unit (CRU), from 1st January 2008 to the present
date.

Yours faithfully,

John Walker

===========
Its surprising Mr Walker does not request the time spent by Jones at the urinals!
===========
John Walker

26 December 2009
Dear University of East Anglia,

Reference:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cl...

The CRU receives money in the form of grants etc.

Please explain how this money is accounted for and give details of
the checks and balances that are in place to ensure that this money
is properly spent.

How is this money audited?

Yours faithfully,

John Walker

==========
was this useful?
==========

Dear University of East Anglia,

Please supply copies of all emails (addresses, subject lines and
main body) from or to members of the UEA council since 1st October
2009 that
include one, or more than one, of the following words/phrases:

'Common Purpose', 'PwC', 'KPMG', 'Charles Clarke', 'Climatic
Research Unit', 'Penn State', 'Jones', 'Mann', 'CRU', 'police',
'Norfolk Constabulary', 'Chief Constable', 'special branch', 'Julia
Middleton', 'David Bell', 'climategate', 'Monckton', 'cpexposed',
'stopcp', 'Oxburgh', 'Nurse'.

Yours faithfully,

John Walker

=========
yet another "show me all"
=========
Andrew Montford

24 May 2010
Dear Imperial College London,

Professor David Hand of the Department of Mathematics served on
Lord Oxburgh's inquiry into the Climatic Research Unit of the
University of East Anglia. I would like to receive copies of all
correspondence or other documents held by Imperial related to the
Oxburgh inquiry.

Yours faithfully,

Andrew Montford
=========
yet another "show me all" trying to incriminate someone other than Jones!
=========
Andrew Montford

29 May 2010
Dear University of Reading,

I understand that Sir Brian Hoskins was involved in providing
advice to the University of East Anglia and others on the setting
up of Lord Oxburgh's inquiry into the Climatic Research Unit at UEA
in the wake of the release of emails from the unit last November.

I would like to receive copies of Sir Brian's emails in relation to
the East Anglia emails affair, including, but not restricted to:
the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee inquiry, Lord
Oxburgh's inquiry and Sir Muir Russell's Climate Change Emails
Review.

Yours faithfully,

Andrew Montford

==========
Yet another try to incriminate people
==========

OK I'm bored with this so some numbers

ONLLY FROM THE SITE http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/
How many private FOIs have been sent?

Andrew Montford 48 FOIs
David Holland 28 FOIs
John Walker 311 FOIs (not all climate related)
John Brown 24 FOIs (not all climate related)
trevor cooper 2 FOIs

Met Office 50 FOIs found
University of East Anglia 50 FOIs found
UEA 121 FOIs found (Included: some from University of East Anglia)
CRU 98 FOIs found (Included UEA etc)
climategate 28 FOIs found (Included UEA etc)


============


UVA David Schnare and ATI
Thanks for the belated response. David Schnare Posted Jun 3, 2011 at 10:20
PM | Permalink | Reply
... We have asked for the Mann documents because we want to know what was
going on at that point in time. McIntyre is a private citizen, so he is not
subject to FOIA.
Your request to UVA is not limiting itself to just Mann and co-workers - indeed
I should like to point out this inconsistency in your comment and your FOI

"All documents that constitute or that are in any way related to correspondence,
messages or emails sent by Dr. Michael Mann to, or received from, any of the
following persons:
(x) Stephen McIntyre"

More significantly, he has made all his work about as public as possible.
He is also helping build the history. He is part of it too, but not in the same
way as Mann.
Your UVA FOI is not just requesting data,code documents it is requesting emails
and things - why. One can only assume this is to create another misinterpretation
the email type of scandal c.f. LEA. If not then why request such things? If
it is genuinely requesting the information for background then emails MUST be
requested from all others involved in the climate debate. Otherwise it is one
sided.
McKitrick, like McIntyre, is pretty much an open book. If someone had found
that he appeared to refuse to play nice in the sandbox, we’d take a look at
his work, but that doesn’t seem to have happened yet.
How do you know that McKitrick and others did no conspire to discredit invalidly
other's documents ?
Wegman is one for which we have requested his work. GMU gave it to us in
an extremely timely manner
"Timely manner"!!! the 2 fois are completely different kettles of
fish. One you demand a life history including any doodles made on the way. Wegman
you ask for very little (and get it!)
Singer is a colleague, but is an elder statesman as well. (That’s a nice
way to say he’s been retired a long time.) No one has questioned his work, and
his recent efforts are very public.
Mann's data had been deleted from their system. It was not until a disused
server was found could any data be retrieved. Being OLD does not make you honest!.
Indeed being old makes it more likely that you do not care what happens in the
future - you'll be dead! How can you say "no one has questioned his work"
that is just not true.
Lindzen is subject to FOIA, but who wants to take him on.
No one wants to take on the Mafia but that does not make it right to allow
them to escape punishment!
You didn’t mention Pat Michaels, also from UVA. ... he is an open
book and no one has seriously suggested any of his work or efforts reflect “political”
science or bad science or anything else.
I did not mention many people who disagree with AGW. That is what the ETC.
is for. He's an open book - yes he admitted to being funded 40% by the oil industry.
Do you not think that perhaps his emails may be of some slight interest (of
course he would have to be pretty dumb to have used UVA email system - but you
never know unless you request)
We believe that when the public pays a scientist to do science at a public
academic institution, they should not only have the opportunity to see all of
what they bought, but have a legal right to see how that work was done.
Fine, but do you not just purchase the final report and the data and calculation.
Do you really purchase his life?
Because Mann has been accused of less than honorable behavior, the public
has a right to know whether his papers reflect such behavior or exonerate him.
Is this accusation a legal one? Or is it a blogging one? Can I accuse all the
anti-AGW scientists similarly and cause you to then FOI their lives?
To me, sir, it appears you are going after one man for the purpose of discrediting
climate science.

Will you publicly state that you are honestly requesting the information solely
to understand the history?
Will you also publicly state that you have not been financed by parties (possibly
energy related) interested in disproving AGW?

Jones interview in Nature

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101115/pdf/468362a.pdf

How "much" data must UEA retain - about 4 cu metres! and 3 tonnes

Assumptions:
Most early records would have been on paper. Perhaps one sheet/month?
1000 stations (out of perhaps 5000)for 50 years to 1980s (i.e. the first record produced in the 1930s on average)
Making no allowance for dividers for filing or shelves etc. Just the paper:

50 years
12 months/y
1 A4 sheet/month
1000 Stations
5 cm/ream (measured)
500 sheets/ream
21 width A4
29.5 height A4

sheets total 600000
reams 1200
height 60 metres
volume 3.717 cu metres

Taking this a step further
using 80 gsm paper
total area 37170.00 sq metres
total weight 2.97 tonnes

I do rather wonder where McIntyre would have kept all that paper!

So to preserve raw data would take a storage space of a lot more than 4cu metres.
These sheets would have been transcribed into computer format, possibly with errors added and errors corrected so the first computer record is NOT the raw data.
If you had to move office and you thought that you would never go back to your 4 metres^3 of raw data because your computer data was correct. And you had admin complaining that there was not room for your tatty bits of paper,. And it needed sorting and indexing to be useful. I think binning it would be a sensible option.

And if you wanted raw data the NMCs (National Meteorological Centres) would still have a copy so nothing is lost

Now if someone comes along and demands that you provide the raw data. What do you give them - your modified computer data, or the raw data?
Well they asked for the raw so how much will that cost:
£1800 @ £1.5 per ream.
+time+photocopy cost

and how long will that take:

600000 sheets of perhaps dog-eared paper (would require manual feeding)
5 seconds per sheet
6.5 working hours per day
is about 128 days photocopying

Probably manageable but would the recipients be happy with your 4 cu metres and 3 tonnes of data???????????

It is also interesting that with all these £1000000s being paid to UEA for climate research that they JUST purchased a new scanner in 2008 for a project and they were going to use it to ILLEGALLY(?) scan a document to satisfy McIntyre:

. This email came to CRU last night.
From: Steve McIntyre [[1] mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 5:09 PM
To: [2]alan.xxxxxx@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Farmer et al 1989
Dear Sir, Can you please send me a pdf of the Farmer et al 1989, cited in Folland
andPArker 1995, which, in turn is cited in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Thanks,
Steve McIntyre...
CRU has just the one copy of this! We've just got a new scanner for a project, so someone here is going to try this out - and scan the ~150pp. I'm doing this as this is one of the project reports that I wished I'd written up. It's got all the bucket equations,

-----------------------------
A reply!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jeff Alberts
Posted Mar 14, 2010 at 9:25 PM | Permalink | Reply
Something a few grad students could knock out. What’s the big deal?

Attack on Jones

A dump of a post I made at CA in case it gets deleted

thefordprefect
Posted Mar 5, 2010 at 7:15 AM | Permalink | Reply“I have no pity for him. His situation is his own fault.”

What!!!!!
The noise generated by an email from jones where he quipped about someones (natural) death (“In an odd way this is cheering news !” Jones did not wish him ill) and now you say Jones deserves what he gets.

His research results are comparable to 2 others. How can you suggest it has been falsified? Where’s your evidence? Where’s your justification for wishing him ill?

Do you honestly think that 10s of thousands of scientists are colluding in a gigantic fraud, and not one of them, their co-workers, their secretaries, etc. etc. (perhaps 100,000s people) has seen the light and shown a single statement that confirms this conspiracy to defraud?

Remember, Some of the death threats Jones (and others presumably) get will be from readers of this and watts blog.

It disgusts me that someone who has been researching climate for 30 years should be treated this way. His mental suffering was evident from the hearing video.

How can YOU justify hounding a human being to the point that he contemplates suicide?

Global Warming will not destroy the human race, but the vilification of climate researchers makes me wonder if it is worth saving any way.

A very saddened and disgusted, Mike

“We’re getting a handful of nasty emails coming and requests for comments on other
blog sites. One email has gone to the University Registrar because of the language used.
Keith had one that said he was responsible for millions of deaths! Even one reading far
too much into his off ill message.
Even though I’ve had loads of FOIs and nasty emails, a few in the last 2 days have
been the worst yet. I’m realizing more what those working on animal experiments must
have gone through.
Cheers
Phil”

Makes you proud to be human doesn’t it.
--------------
RomanM
Posted Mar 5, 2010 at 8:36 AM | Permalink | ReplyRemember, Some of the death threats Jones (and others presumably) get will be from readers of this and watts blog.
I see this as a very serious allegation against myself and other regular commentators at this site. I would suggest that you either provide some evidence to support this or withdraw the statement.

Sending threats of causing harm to someone is a vile and despicable act. Making an unfounded accusation that I am part of a group of individuals that will do that is irresponsible at best

--------------
Please note I did not mean contributors here as McIntyre usually reigns comments in. In fact there are probably millions of readers at these sites and only a few contribute. I'm sure you will admit that they will have gaioned information from these blogs and some will consequently have written "strong" messages to AGW researchers.

However:
Why was a whole thread pulled at CA a year(?) ago?

From Watts

Lemon (11:01:28) :
I have no more sympathy for these fools than I had for Siegried & Roy after the lion attacked. Play with fire…
Their death might save trillions of dollars and millions of lives
Chemist (16:48:18) :
I’ll be the one to say it: I hope they die so that their deaths will draw attention to the truth of this issue. If they succeed, then it will be just another propaganda piece. With their deaths, they can bring actual change by allowing the world to industrialize

There are others But these are still on the web site.

-------------
Rachelle Young (20:52:54) :

I would be content to see all three of them freeze to death or be eaten by ‘endangered’ polar bears. That would teach the world something.