I was very glad to see this editorial in the WaPo, which I excerpt below:
FREEDOM OF information laws are critical tools that allow Americans to see what their leaders do on their behalf. But some global warming skeptics in Virginia are showing that even the best tools can be misused.
Lawyers from the Environmental Law Center at the American Tradition Institute (ATI) have asked the University of Virginia to turn over thousands of e-mails and other documents written by Michael E. Mann, a former U-Va. professor and a prominent climate scientist. Another warming skeptic, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R), recently demanded many of the same documents to determine whether Mr. Mann somehow defrauded taxpayers when he obtained research grants to study global temperatures.
A judge quashed Mr. Cuccinelli’s chilling “civil investigative demand.” But even though Mr. Mann wasn’t an agent of the commonwealth in any practical sense when he worked at U-Va., the university hasn’t been able to dismiss ATI’s requests, since Mr. Mann’s e-mails are public records in a technical sense. U-Va. agreed last week that it will hand over all the material that state law obliges it to release by Aug. 22.
ATI’s motives are clear enough. The group’s Web site boasts about its challenges to environmental regulations across the country. Christopher Horner, its director of litigation, wrote a book called “Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed.” (We wonder whether the “alarmists” who wrote the National Research Council’s latest report on climate change are threatening, fraudulent or merely deceptive.) And ATI declares that Mr. Mann’s U-Va. e-mails contain material similar to that which inspired the trumped-up “Climategate” scandal, in which warming skeptics misrepresented lines from e-mails stored at a British climate science center.
I was also pleased to see the concluding paragraph:
Teresa A. Sullivan, U-Va.’s president, said that the university will use “all available exemptions” from the state’s public records law to shield Mr. Mann. And a university spokesperson said that U-Va. anticipates that most of the documents at issue will be exempt under a statute that “excludes from disclosure unpublished proprietary information produced or collected by faculty in the conduct of, or as a result of, study or research on scientific or scholarly issues.” The university is right to make full use of such exemptions.
Of course, so-called skeptic WUWT posts this headline about the editorial opinion: The Washington Post produces a bigoted editorial against the public right to know and article written by none-other than Steve Milloy who has reveived funding from both big tobacco and big oil.
No need to comment on that.
But feel free to do so.
David Schnare
Posted May 30, 2011 at 8:48 AM | Permalink | Reply
Rob,
We had several reasons, but the main one was to examine the history of this important period of time. Mann is an iconic figure and his work from this period had a large influence on what are becoming massive changes in social and economic policy. The debate over his conclusions continues. The process through which he reached his conclusions are as important as the conclusions themselves. If he demonstrated less than full intellectual honesty, the foundation of the new social policy will not support that policy. The size of the economic implications of climate change alarmism justify an investigation into the process.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/05/28/the-vergano-foi-request/#comment-280372
From the horsie’s mouth. Stop harassing UVA! It’s our turn!
It appears like another climategate on the horizon. Meanwhile the world drowns…
I forgot to add this one:
David Schnare
Posted May 29, 2011 at 10:33 PM | Permalink | Reply
Mosh and Steve:
Stop already. Let the ATI process work. There is no benefit to asking for more than what we agreed to in terms of a slightly narrower request. Horner and I will get to look at everything. If UVA is obstructionist, we will make our arguments to the court. None of what you folks are suggesting is going to change UVA’s mind. Something we have in the works might, so be a little patient. This ain’t our first rodeo, you know.
Had to correct McI on something he says there:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Steve McIntyre Jun 3, 2011 at 6:48 AM — “Jones had claimed that the confidentiality agreements prohibited CRU from sending the data to a “non-academic”. Quite aside from whether there were any confidentiality agreements at all, there were no confidentiality agreements that contained this language. It was a total fabrication by CRU and the University of East Anglia.”
http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/surface/met-nerc_agreement.html
American Traditional Institue – How is rejecting science traditional?
It’s not rejecting science, it’s raping the environment that’s an old American tradition.
A selection of emails recieved by Australian scientists
http://www.readfearn.com/2011/06/emails-reveal-nature-of-attacks-on-climate-scientists/
For an example of trying really hard to not understand the facts, check here:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/25/freedom-of-information/#comment-73672
Quite telling in that thread is this quote from Curry herself:
“I am staying on top of this, I am trying to figure out how to put Robert’s comments into moderation so I can approve before they are posted. But I would like to ask the other generally responsible denizens who have taken Robert’s more extreme bait to resist from engaging in content free exchanges.”
http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/25/freedom-of-information/#comment-72225
Apparently it is Robert who’s the problem there. Punksta or Latimer Alder and their fact-free accusations? Just fine. Oliver K Manuel and his repeated self-promotion? Just fine.
This comment?
http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/25/freedom-of-information/#comment-70599
Just great.
A personal attack?
http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/25/freedom-of-information/#comment-70447 (and there are a few more by Bruce)
Well, why complain about that?
Curry is a disgrace.
The WaPo didn’t have the half of it:
Click to access ATI-NASA-Hansen-Appeal-Exs-3-6.pdf
This is a disgusting attempt to shut people up. I am offended.