3. Keith Briffa Phil Jones Tim Osborn Climatic Research Unit staff

4. Climategate

5. The allegations – hiding uncertainty “I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years…to hide the decline.”

6. The allegations – gatekeeping “If you think that [journal editor] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then…we could go through official…channels to get him ousted.” …must get rid of [editor in chief] von Storch too…

7. The allegations – deleting data and email “[McIntyre and McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act … I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” “Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re [the IPCC report]? Keith will do likewise…Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? …We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. ”

8. And… Cherrypicking data Ad-hoc adjustments to data Fabrication

9. Lawson calls for an inquiry

10. Phil Willis

12. Hiding the decline: WMO report, 1999

13. Hiding the decline 1999-2007

14. Journal bullying No attempt was made to find out what scientists had said to journal editors The Saiers affair was not examined The committee accepted Jones’ word that he had done nothing wrong.

15. The report Committee issued complete “exoneration” of CRU McIntyre’s evidence barely mentioned Allegations of fraud and fabrication not examined.

16. Lord Oxburgh

17. Biased panel

18. Trevor Davies (UEA) to Lord Rees (Royal Society): Out of these 13 [candidates] we would hope to get…a range of 'attitudes' towards recent warming… from those who already see it as a problem…to those [who] will come to it with a questioning objectivity

19. The report

20. Which papers were looked at? Controversial paleoclimate papers were not examined Many papers examined were obscure and had not been criticised

21. Oxburgh said Royal Society had advised on choice of papers Who chose the papers? In fact they were chosen by the university itself

22. The scope of the inquiry

23. Doug Keenan

24. Michael Kelly

25. Sir Muir Russell

26. Philip Campbell

27. Geoffrey Boulton

28. Perversion of the peer review process Failure to investigate the allegations Didn’t find out what scientists had said to journals Accepted Jones’ word

29. Hiding the decline “Misleading”

30. Were emails deleted? Russell: “seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already made”

31. Were emails deleted? “For example Keith Briffa took home emails that were subject to FOI to ensure their safekeeping “

32. The second parliamentary inquiry

33. Oxburgh was unaware of Keenan’s fraud allegation

34. The second parliamentary inquiry Oxburgh was unaware of Keenan’s fraud allegation Oxburgh’s team only interviewed CRU scientists for around two hours

35. The second parliamentary inquiry Russell didn’t ask if emails had been deleted

36. The second parliamentary inquiry Russell didn’t ask if emails had been deleted Russell admitted no investigation of serious FOI allegations

37. Climategate 2 5000 new emails published

38. Climategate 2 5000 new emails published. 200,000 still to come. Themes of: Politicisation of science Hiding uncertainty Media corruption Scientific incompetence

39. Climategate 2 Peter Thorne (UK Met Office): “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

40. Climategate 2 Peter Thorne (UK Met Office): “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.” von Storch: “..discussion [of a critique] of the hockey stick was unwisely limited by IPCC… (Stupid, politicized action by IPCC, not [Mann et al’s responsibility] “

41. Climategate 2 Mann: “I have been talking [with people in the USA] about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre”

42. ...a rattling good detective story and a detailed and brilliant piece of science writing." Spectator The Hockey Stick Illusion is one of the best science books in years…This book deserves to win prizes. Prospect Andrew Montford tells this detective story in exhilarating style. Geoscientist …a code-breaking adventure, an intriguing detective story, an exposé of a scientific and political travesty… Quadrant