But when you read an email like this in full, it's hard to understand what context would make it anything but completely damning:
Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100>100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all*).
In other words, when we look at temperature variations, we know a fair bit about what has happened north of the Tropic of Cancer in the last 100 years, but south of that we know nothing and before 100 years ago, we also know nothing north of the Tropic either.
Does that really sound like someone who is certain of the scientific basis for AGW?