Read this paper:

http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre-heartland_2010.pdf

Ask yourself: is there anything wrong with Mann's "my way or the highway" attitude toward publishing in his niche area of research in Science Magazine? How can you possibly describe this as anything other than "cargo cult science"? To quote Mann's supervisor at the University of Virginia, to a Science Magazine editor, "Excuse me while I puke".

OK, think I found the option... should get email notices now...

Maybe I just don't know how to work this stuff, but I wasn't aware you were replying since you're doing it as AC. I get notifications when a replier is logged in, so you might consider logging in if you want to continue the exchange.

Sorry, which investigations found that no emails were deleted? Please provide the reference, along with the convincing evidence that no emails were deleted. It was my understanding that there was no way to know the answer to that, and that in at least one investigation the investigators deliberately avoided asking if emails were deleted because they didn't want anybody to admit to a potential crime. (To anybody paying attention, the investigations were for the most part an exercise in "friends helping friends out," and not particularly interested in stirring any pot that might turn up scandal and academic disgrace.)

I'm guessing the evidence that no emails were deleted consists of... what... not finding any deleted emails? LOL! Stick around and I'll explain the concept of "deleting" to you.

I weep for you, O Anonymous Coward, at being forced to spend your limited time in conversation with people you regard as stupid. By all means, go away and stop posting on this thread, if that's the way you feel.

The place where they were deleted was from the inbox.

Yes.

Not sure what you're talking about here. Are you talking about your own smears you made earlier, when you used the phrases "kindergarten level thinking" and "absurdly stupid"? I can't see a good reason to smear the likes of Richard Lindzen and Steve McIntyre with such words. So why are you engaging in such smearing tactics, microbox?

Read the PDF I linked to.

You know, you're right. And the one that frantically pleaded with the respondent to "delete all emails" was perfectly innocent, too. Thanks for putting our minds at ease, buddy.

http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre-heartland_2010.pdf

That makes perfect sense to you, because you're looking at it in terms of the AGW denier versus alarmist debate. But that really has nothing to do with the question of whether the FOIA should apply to unpublished research performed using public funds.

But of course the AGW debate is a fun way to look at it, too, and it cuts both ways. "Hide the decline" and all that. That email dump was a convenient (if unwilling) compliance with a bunch of unfulfilled FOIA requests.

You have a weird definition of "private life". This was his work, it's what he was paid public money to do. Why do you consider that his "private life"? Do you really think these are emails about [grand]childcare, restaurant reservations, and romantic interests, or are you just trolling?

This. Thank you. Only cargo cult science finds victory in hiding its underlying thought processes and justifications from public view. Not saying that Mann's beliefs about AGW are wrong, but that his behavior at various points has demonstrated a profound lack of and disregard for scientific openness.

It's not clear to me how the FOIA would apply to the AC's posts. And scientific transparency is a desirable aim, but not the basis of the legal case here. The FOIA is about getting access to stuff the public paid for. Odd to see someone arguing on Slashdot in favor of publicly funded academic research being kept from the public.

You know what they say, have fun but don't quit your day job!

Just publish an app. And monetize it. Problem solved.[1]

[1] Note that for many programmers who try this technique, the universe may opt to substitute an equivalent product, such as gained knowledge about how the world works and reduction of personal naivete.

I wish you were wrong, but am forced to agree with you. Still not an argument for banning guns, though, any more than we should ban antibiotics because they don't cure cancer.

In this context, "go away" is an expression that approximately means "let's mod this down into oblivion", which is exactly what happened (so far).

You are making some decent points (some, not all of which I agree with), but the original poster was just advocating blind deference to academics. In this context, that is the wrong answer, as any doofus in civics class could tell you.