1) Actively subverting FOIA intent
2) Admitting a) Hockey stick flawed & Steve is right, b) hide decline was dishonest, c) climate models are pretty bad, and d) cherry picking results like Japan hurricanes to emphasize a pre-ordained message
3) Trying to manipulate (and probably succeeding) who gets to be IPCC author
4) Trying to manage the message (PR concern)
5) Viewing science results as helping or hurting “the cause” — Mann especially