The e-mails were available from the set uploaded to the RC servers on the 17th (a link to which was posted on ClimateAudit). Even if they were never made available anywhere else after that point, Mann’s statement would still be justified. It doesn’t matter when the files were available through WUWT or Jeff Id’s blog.
If that’s the only other error you can point to, you have no significant basis for saying Mann was wrong.
Brandon, we only have Gavin Schmidt’s unsubstantiated – and ever-changing – story about this alleged “upload” to RC on the 17th – and no evidence of which I’m aware that anyone had even noticed the link on Climate Audit (let alone “downloaded” from RC via that link) until after the emails became public knowledge.
Apart from the fact that such an alleged “upload” made (and still makes) absolutely no sense – and could well have jeopardized the “mission” of “The Saint” (as I prefer to call “FOIA”) – it was completely unnecessary.
And does it not seem in the least bit odd that Schmidt (and/or Mann) did not report this alleged “hack” for the purpose of “uploading” to the appropriate authorities? Or that despite their known willing media “partners”, they maintained “radio silence” – instead of trumpeting to the world this “evidence” of such a dastardly deed by the evil skeptics. complete with great and glorious “graphics” from the RC (and/or their ISP)’s server logs? Talk about a “hockey-stick” with indisputable data to support it!
Surely if events had transpired as Mann now claims, this would amount to the Greatest (and, for once, “true”) Story Never Told about the Evil Skeptics. It was a perfect PR opportunity missed, was it not?
If one accepts Mann’s “reconstruction” of the details of Nov. 17/09, then one can only conclude that Schmidt must have been utterly dishonest in his E-mail to Lucia on Nov. 19. Unless it was Mann who discovered the alleged “upload” on the 17th – and he failed to advise Schmidt. In which case, neither Schmidt’s Nov. 20 “official story” nor his Nov. 23 “reconstruction” can be believed.
YMMV, but in light of their respective words – which is the only “evidence” we have – I fail to see how their accounts can both be correct. Not to mention that Mann’s claim of “thousands” of emails is far from accurate.
Perhaps “wrong” may have been a poor choice of words on Mosher’s part; but at the very least, Mann’s opening paragraph is a deliberately deceptive conflation. And that, IMHO, is probably far worse than “wrong”, It does, however, put him well on the way to becoming the David Irving of climate science!