From JunkScience.com
WashPost: Freedom of Information Act not for skeptics’ use
In a bizarre Memorial Day editorial, the Washington Post criticized climate skeptics for using the Freedom of Information Act to pry documents concerning Climategater Michael Mann from the University of Virginia.
The Post labeled the skeptics’ FOIA efforts as “harrassing” and “nuisance tactics.”
The Post, however, has been entirely silent on Greenpeace’s efforts to FOIA documents from the University of Virginia concerning Pat Michaels, University of Delaware concerning David Legates and from Harvard University concerning Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas — efforts that are truly “harrassing” and “nuisance” in nature as Greenpeace acted entirely in retaliation to the FOIA request concerning Mann.
The editorial is especially gross coming on the day when America commemorates those who died to preserve everyone’s freedoms — not just those of the politically correct.
==============================================================
And I’ll add the post has been entirely silent on the fact the George Mason University, when asked by USA Today reporter Dan Vergano to produce documents related to the whole vindictive DeepClimate (Dave Clarke) and John Mashey assault on Wegman and Said at GMU. Vergano asked for “expedited service” and requests that “fees be waived”.
Not only did GMU comply, they did so quickly, without complaint, waived fees, and provided everything on a USB flash drive they sent to USA Today’s Vergano.
That is the starkest contrast to the whining , wailing, and gnashing of teeth surrounding the FOIA requests for other universities like UEA and UVA . It vividly illustrates the elitism and bigotry of the organizations and the people who believe themselves to be above the law as well as the organizations who fan the flames by coming to their defense citing “academic freedom”. Bottom line – use of public money makes the process and results open to public scrutiny to all who request the information, no matter who they are. Don’t like the scrutiny? Then don’t take the public money.
Steve McIntyre writes:
The difference in how academic institutions have responded to the seemingly similar requests in respect to Wegman and Mann is quite startling. George Mason gave expedited service to a request for Wegman’s emails; the U of Virginia has done the opposite. George Mason turned over Wegman’s correspondence with an academic journal without litigation; the University of Virginia has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on litigation. Multiple academic lobby groups protested the production of Mann’s emails as a matter of principle; the same organizations were and remain silent in respect to Wegman.
What is doubly bizarre is that apparently this FOIA request has led to the discovery that Dr. Ray Bradley, Mann co-author with the hockey stick paper “MBH98”, apparently committed academic misconduct in his zeal to smear Wegman.
From Climate Audit:
…the README included by George Mason stated the “documents may not be forwarded to a third party”. It also included the GMU policy on academic misconduct, stating Bradley had violated the confidentiality terms – a point not reported by USA Today:
The materials in this USB are being provided in compliance with the Virginia FOIA. Many of the documents are published research papers that are copyrighted by their respective publishers. All other documents are copyrighted by Edward J. Wegman and Yasmin H. Said or by their respective authors. All rights are reserved. These documents may not be forwarded to a third party. Also included in this USB is the George Mason University policy document 4007 on academic misconduct. This policy requires confidentiality for all parties including complainants, in this case Professor Raymond Bradley. This confidentiality requirement was violated by Professor Bradley.
Also, last week, I sent an email to WaPo’s ombudsman, requesting space to rebut Bill McKibben’s senseless bloviation about tornadoes and climate change. No response.
In light of their non-acknowledgement of a similar process by Greenpeace using FOIA laws to get records on climate skeptics Michaels, Legates, Soon, and Baliunas, plus their non-acknowledgement of my request, WaPo’s editorial gist comes across like this:
One rule of use for AGW proponents, another for skeptics.
To me, it smacks of this sort of ugly thinking.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The double sided face of today’s scientific climate.
So are we just supposed to accept, “Trust Me” for an answer? IF science is to be trusted , it must be open for friend and foe to review ALL the data. IF the money came from tax dollars, there is no justification for witholding any data. IF the scientist wants to keep their data hidden, use private funds.
In the words of Ronald Reagan, “Trust, but verify!!!”
They forget that as a tax payer I am paying for the crap that Mann produced, and by law I am allowed to look at it. Now if they actually did what the law required it would not be “harrassing” and “nuisance” since they would already be released and in the public domain where they rightly belong.
Just one question for the Washington Post editorialist’s. How many FOIA requests has the Washington Post submitted in the last 10 years? Just a count, no detail required. Just looking for a simple answer to a simple question.
You doone git it. Lib-progs are fer the undermutt, so are inhairuntly always ethical an’ soopearyor. So they cudn’t care less ’bout no FOI laws applied to thimselfs.
1. Bizarre for a newspaper to be for withholding information.
2. I hope recipients of any FOIAs from the Washington Post and its journalists cite this editorial when they get them.
3. In any case, this makes it abundantly clear that the Post’s editor’s are clueless about the scientific method, and that its bedrock is openness and sunshine. Shame on the Post!
“Put another way, the company that owns The Washington Post is almost entirely at the mercy of the Federal Government and the Obama administration — the entities which its newspaper ostensibly checks and holds accountable. “By the end of 2010, more than 90 percent of revenue at Kaplan’s biggest division and nearly a third of The Post Co.’s revenue overall came from the U.S. government.” The Post Co.’s reliance on the Federal Government extends beyond the source of its revenue; because the industry is so heavily regulated, any animosity from the Government could single-handedly doom the Post Co.’s business — a reality of which they are well aware:”
========================================================
….follow the money first
Doesn’t matter much, their readers are trashing them in the comments………….
There are quite a few comment on the WAPO article, obvious Greenpeace flunkies, making drags to Koch. They are so obsessed with the oil and mining industries they don’t comprehend that professional scientists are hired to perform studies all the time. As long as the findings are clean and based on truth, what is the big deal? The irony is that we are seeing the other side of the coin with publicly funded science. What a shame. Now these soiled findings are used in every school system in america, and law is being legislated. Contact your state’s department of education and ask to see their science standards. Ours in SC were change in 2005 under the last Secreatary of Education. It says they have to teach AGW and how to decrease your carbon footprint.
Did I say “the scientific method”? Mea culpa — I meant “scientific integrity”. See Feynman on “scientific integrity” here: http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm.
It would be interesting to know how many FOIA applications would have been made by sceptics, if the “Team” had put all their data in an accessible archive in the first place.
As allegedly required by the publication policies of many of their favoured journals.
Isn’t the Washington Post famous for uncovering Watergate?
If so, then aren’t they contradicting their own existence?
My experience with journalists is that they place great stock in their own ability to unilaterally *decide* what is right, wrong, true, and false.
Not finding or ferreting out the truth- *deciding* what is true. On the most basic, near-spiritual level.
In case you haven’t heard, it has been *decided* that man-made CO2 is causing CAGW. There is no more debate necessary. Whomever wants to look at Mann’s email is engaging in sour grapes at best, and may well have nefarious ulterior motives.
I get it: If skeptics can’t use the FOIA and believers have no reason, then there’s little use for the mechanism. Good ol’ Washington Post–as usual when their ox is getting gored, coming out looking lame, lazy, licentious, and Luciferian. Or just the capital “L” for LOSER!
Still, about the only things the AGW has going for it are idiots trying to generate fiction, hiding information, and putting out all sorts of excuses.
This post brings to mind the following exchange from the movie “The Professional”:
Tony: Check it. Make sure it’s the right thing.
Léon: I trust you.
Tony: One thing has nothin’ to do with the other – remember that Léon.
Léon: I will.
The FOI applications to GMU and UVa are not comparable. Vergano asked GMU for maybe half a dozen or so specific official emails on paper submission and grants.
The ATI request can be seen here. UVa has tabled the correspondence here, with discussion here.
The ATI request, unlike Vergano’s, was extremely broad. UVa identified 34,000 potentially responsive documents. But it asked, not only for what they had, but a full accounting for what they didn’t have. For example:
“2. If any responsive document requested was, but is no longer in the University’s possession, subject to the University’s control, or in existence, state for each such document:
(a) the type of document;
(b) whether it is missing, lost, has been destroyed, or has been transferred to the possession, custody, or control of other persons;
(c) the circumstances surrounding, and the authorization for, the disposition described in (b) above;
(d) the date or approximate date of the disposition described in (b) above;
(e) the identity of all persons having knowledge of the circumstances described in (c)above; and
(f) the identity of all persons having knowledge of the document’s contents.”
That includes everything he took to UVa, every bit of code, (“Any and all computer algorithms, programs, source code or the like created or edited by Dr. Michael Mann, in the time period from January 1, 1999,”), and “responsive” email that he ever deleted. Even other peoples emails that might have referred to Mann’s correspondence. Imagine filling out that form. And look at the quesations – that can’t be automated.
And if you think “responsive” narrows it down, it includes not only 50 or so named correspondents, but also any emails to “All research assistants, secretaries or administrative staff with whom Dr. Mann worked while he was at the University of Virginia.”.
That’s harassment. WaPO got it right.
You tried that Nick on Climate Audit and almost everyone took you to task on it. If a scientist is paid public money for his work it should be available for public scrutiny period.
Mighty bold words for the newspaper of Woodward and Bernstein….
How did I know the king of all hypocrites would come in defense. You are pathetic.
Mark
Bob says: May 30, 2011 at 2:20 pm
So Bob, do you think every scientist should have to jump through those hoops for just anyone who demands. Over and over?
What avtually do we pay scientists to do?
I don’t think the cover up efforts are just elitist. I think they must be trying to cover up something very serious.
If you are paid by public money then you should be prepared for the public to inspect your work. Obviously you think only scientists like Wegman and Michaels should have FOI’s on their work. Bottom line any work of this nature that has far reaching implications and paid for by public money should be open to investigation. Show the data or get out of public research.
@Bob 220
There are a lot of people who are paid by public money to do their work. Should the public have access to every email, document, code etc. that they ever produce?
What about banks that got bailed out? I’m sure they have lots of interesting documents.
So, Nick, do you think the scientists we (I am a US taxpayer) pay for this research are not actually obliged to document their work/correspondence, and that we are not actually authorized to see it? If so, then it’s OK, but I want my money back….
All FOIA requests are equal. But some requests are more equal than others.
Good to see Nick Stokes desperately trying to rationalise all of this in his own mind. Leon Festinger would have a field day if he was still alive.
Nick Stokes says:
I’ll be sure to pass that along to Big Pharma.