Chris Horner of the American Tradition Institute writes in with this:
So the American Association for the Advancement of Science, thoroughly rattled by the American Tradition Institute’s FOIA requests of UVa and NASA — and even more so by the litigation forced by the institutions’ respective stonewalling — issued a board statement comparing FOIA requests of climate scientists with death threats. Really.
Naturally this caught the eye of the New York Times, which had a young lady contact us for comment. Right off the bat it was clear she, too, had been rattled by the horrors of our outrageous efforts to …see certain records the taxpayer has paid for and which are expressly covered by transparency laws.
Her stance was sympathetic to AAS’s to the point of temper.
She first reaffirmed a fancy for the apparently absolute truth that a FOIA request for climate scientists’ records is indeed no different than death threats allegedly made in Australia against scientists — sadly, if that’s true, they are now treated to what ‘skeptics’ have experienced for years, as I have detailed.
Well, actually, her disinterest in Greenpeace having created this little cottage practice indicated that this is true only for certain climate scientists’ records. Not the ones whose records Greenpeace is asking her for…that’s just transparency, good-government type stuff.
She continued by wondering, as such, do we condone death threats (really?) and, if not, why would we then also issue a FOIA?
Why that is particularly amusing, as opposed to sad, is that she was shocked by my assertion that Big Science/Big Academia’s objection to having laws that obviously cover their own actually applied to their own was of a part with Hollywood objecting to laws being applied to Roman Polanski. Apparently, by saying this, I was accusing Michael Mann of some heinous crime. Or something.
So see the below as I sent to her and, given the above, I expect you will not see in the story. Surely because it will be too busy explaining the tyranny of Greenpeace broadly filing similar requests. ATI’s statement is here.
—–Original Message—–From: chornerlaw@aol.com
To: fostej@nytimes.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 29, 2011 1:14 pm
Subject: AAAS release citing ATI transparency efforts
Dear Joanna,I’m told you called ATI for comment. Below is my response per an earlier inquiry.Best,Christopher C. Horner Senior Fellow Competitive Enterprise Institute 1899 L St, NW 12th Floor Washington, DC, 20036 +1.202.331.2260 (O)…Several points:I noticed no relation between our initiative and the Board’s rhetoric until they mentioned us somewhat incongruously.The notion that application of laws expressly covering academics [is] an ‘attack’ on academics is substantively identical to Hollywood apologists calling application of other laws to Roman Polanski an attack on Polanski. They rather lost the plot somewhere along the way.The failure to mention the group that invented this series of requests, Greenpeace, informs a conclusion that this attempt at outrage is selective, and therefore either feigned or hypocritical. This is also new; their problem is quite plainly with the law(s), but it is a problem they have, over the decades of transparency and ethics laws applying to scientists subsisting on taxpayer revenue, heretofore forgotten to mention.Opposition to such laws applying to them is rather shocking. But then, maybe not so much when you also note their failure to comment on scientists being outed as advocating the flaunting of transparency laws.Finally, AAUP’s code of professional ethics indicates that efforts to manipulate the peer review process are impermissible. Given the overlap and for other reasons we assume this is something AAAS agrees with or at minimum accepts. But this, too, is insincere if such behavior is permissible — or at least, where just cause indicates further inquiry is warranted, it is to be ignored — if the party at issue is one who for various reasons the AAAS or AAUP et al. elevate or find sympathetic. In Mann’s case, if our review of his documents which belong to the taxpayer also happen to exonerate him from the suspicions that have arisen, we will be the first to do so.
==============================================================
Below is the ATI statement – Anthony
==============================================================
Statement from American Tradition Institute Environmental Law Center in Response to American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Misleading Accusations Against ATI Today
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Contacts:
Christopher Horner, director of litigation, chris.horner@atinstitute.org
Paul Chesser, executive director, paul.chesser@atinstitute.org
Today the board of directors for the American Association for the Advancement of Science issued a statement and press release that denounced “personal attacks,” “harassment,” “death threats,” and “legal challenges” toward climate scientists. AAAS’s press release specifically cited actions taken by American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center in its efforts to obtain records of Climategate scientist Dr. Michael Mann from the University of Virginia, and its efforts to obtain outside employment records of climate activist Dr. James Hansen from the National Aeronautical and Space Administration(NASA).
AAAS wrote, in part,
“we are concerned that establishing a practice of aggressive inquiry into the professional histories of scientists whose findings may bear on policy in ways that some find unpalatable could well have a chilling effect on the willingness of scientists to conduct research that intersects with policy-relevant scientific questions.”
Response to AAAS from ATI Environmental Law Center director of litigation Christopher Horner:
“I noticed no relation between our initiative and the AAAS Board’s rhetoric until they mentioned us somewhat incongruously.
“The notion that application of laws that expressly cover academics is an ‘attack’ on them is substantively identical to Hollywood apologists who call application of other laws to Roman Polanski an attack on Polanski. They lost the plot somewhere along the way.
“AAAS’s failure to mention the group that invented this series of requests, Greenpeace, informs our conclusion that this outrage is selective, and is therefore either feigned or hypocritical. Their problem is plainly with the laws, but it is a problem they have had over the decades: That transparency and ethics laws also apply to scientists who subsist on taxpayer revenue. This they also forgot to mention.
“Finally, the American Association of University Professors’ code of professional ethics indicates that efforts to manipulate the peer review process are impermissible. Given the overlap, and for other reasons, we assume AAAS agrees with these principles or at a minimum accepts them. But this, too, is insincere if such behavior is permitted or ignored where just cause indicates further inquiry is warranted, as long as the parties at issue are those whose views the AAAS or AAUP sympathize with. In Mann’s case, if our review of his documents which belong to the taxpayer also happen to exonerate him from the suspicions that have arisen, we will be the first to do so.”
For an interview with Christopher Horner, email chris.horner@atinstitute.org or paul.chesser@atinstitute.org or call (202)670-2680.
================================================================
Reaction is now coming in. Alana Goodman of Commentray Magazine writes in a piece titled
Contentions – Climate Change Skepticism Now Considered ‘Harassment’?
…
Of course, what the AAAS calls “personal information” actually appears to be public data. The group’s statement comes on the heels of a lawsuit filed against NASA by the conservative American Traditional Institute earlier this month, which is trying to force the agency to release information about scientist James Hansen.
And after years of watching climate change advocates demonizing global warming skeptics, it’s hard to have any sympathy for the AAAS on this issue. Not to mention, previously leaked emails have shown climate change scientists behaving in ways abusive to the public trust. Skeptics should absolutely work to expose any potential corruption in the global warming advocacy community — and the fact AAAS is so terrified of legal challenges is good reason to believe these skeptics might be onto something.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Words fail me.
Sounds to me like the AAAS has something to hide. They are running scared.
The alarmists are getting more desperate. Attacking in all directions like a trapped animal. It is petty, stupid and insane, but do not expect it to stop any time soon. They had a plan – a bad plan – but a plan. They see it slipping away now and they are unwilling to start over.
The New York Times, which doesn’t hesitate to publish state secrets and put lives in danger, is now concerned about the dangers of FOIA requests? That’s choice. “Transparency for me but not for thee.”
More on this here… “Personal attacks — including legal challenges and even death threats — on climate scientists have created a “hostile environment” that could result in a “chilling effect” on much-needed research…”
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/168975-leading-science-group-blasts-attacks-on-climate-scientists?page=1#comments
Commenters just not buying this ‘play victim’ act. Some hopes that this “chilling effect” could solve the AGW problem.
Ah, yes, I remember AAAS’s vigorous response to the Freedom of Information request that UVA honored immediately in the John Christy case. Also, their intervention in the abuse of peer review in for Lindsen, Soon and others. Some Fellows are just better than other fellows. But, I guess consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
….when the law is against you, bang the table…etc
New York Times has turned into a rag. I’m not sure when it happened, they used to be respected.
“Her stance was sympathetic to AAS’s to the point of temper.” Its pretty pitiful when a reporter believes the FOIA is anything other than a positive.
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75Q1ZO20110628?sp=true
As usual, the degree of hypocrisy is simply staggering.
Easier solution. Make it illegal for ANY taxpayer money to mingle with an organization that does NOT follow the FOIA rules. Any organization that violates or stonewalls FOIA is subject to the immediate incarceration of it’s board of directors until such time as the violation is remedied.
But… this isn’t a perfect world. One can dream.
Just in case anyone thinks that AAAS is not a political association:
At the AAAS Annual Meeting in 2009 none other than Al Gore urged scientists to get involved politically about climate change. According to an AAAS press release, “An estimated 3000 people greeted Gore with a standing ovation….”
and
“In introducing Gore, AAAS President James J. McCarthy cited the impact of his work: ‘No single individual deserves more credit…for our public acceptance of climate science – public acceptance that has emboldened growing numbers of mayors, governors, senators, and presidential candidates to embrace the urgency of addressing anthropogenic climate change’.”
and
“During the next 50 minutes, the audience gave him rapt attention.”
and
“The audience responded with a standing ovation that lasted over a minute, until Gore left the room.”
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/0215am_gore.shtml
She continued by wondering, as such, do we condone death threats (really?) and, if not, why would we then also issue a FOIA?
====================================
Four million years of evolution, 70 thousand years out of Africa, 10,000 years of culture and still the world is full of hopelessly stupid people.
Let me see. FOIA means: Freedom Of Information Act. So are the New York Times people against freedom to be informed? If this is so, than Chris Horner et al are Information Freedom Fighters fighting against journalistic Tyranny. I just wonder what the founding fathers would say to all this if they were still alive.
She’s a journalist, probably has a Minor or Undergraduate degree in Globalization of Victim Whining and Post Feminist Mumbo-Jumbo Economics.
Journalism is appealing to her and her ilk . . . because math is tough
If the climate scientists were not so involved with a political agenda to keep their feeders, the politicians, happy, they would not have much to fear from a FOIA request. I have begun to question if there really is anything such as a “climate scientist”, or are they merely political operatives pumping out junk. I say this because their main objective seems to be the global control of societies by restricting everyone to a politically correct “energy diet” and carbon emissions ration. Totally evil in nature and intent.
Interestingly, the AAAS in its statement says “Science advances through a self-correcting system in which research results are shared and critically evaluated by peers and experiments are repeated when necessary.” This would suggest that “experiments” are carried out in the first place. Has anyone out there spotted any climate change experiments that have been performed?
The question then becomes: Why then would a woman from New York Times make death threats by asking for the information the law entitles her to ask for?
The Alana Goodman article is very well expressed and worth reading:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/06/29/climate-change-skepticism-considered-harassment/
The American Association for the Advancement of Science receives funding, indirectly of course, from George Soros’ Open Society Institute. Their goal is to bring down western society, by destroying western economies, through “climate change” legislation in order to pave the way for a One World Government or as Soros named it, a World Open Society.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?comment_status=moderated#comments-form
I am currently working on a paper that ties George Soros to the AAAS through the New America Foundation.
If the Australian “death threats” had been real, there would have been police action. It was simply a political stunt. “Death threats”, “phones being tapped”, “being spied upon” are hallmarks of scammers and nut cases.
In a situation of dealing with hostile journalist you need to be a neutral as possible , give them nothing and they less to lie or be selective about.
Silly me.
There I was, thinking that scientists were mere mortals, subject to the same human shortcomings of fallibility we all seem to experience once or twice in our lifetimes.
Just goes to show you how much I know.
Seems that climate scientists, who have embraced the hypothesis of global warming, are to be considered infallible, somewhat akin to high priests, to be treated with reverential awe for their superior knowledge and intellect which transcends the simple thought processes of us mere mortals, led by the great and powerful Al Gore, bringer of wisdom for the ages.
Excuse me while I use my barf bag.
Steve from Rockwood:
In modern times, consumers are being absolved of responsibility, and are being able to pay less attention to detail; that’s why many are becoming “stupider”. Why else would there be a sign on a hairdryer saying “do not use while sleeping”, or one on a car sunshade saying “do not have shade in place while driving”?
When did the “S” come to stand for “Socialism?”
Don’t be too hard on her, after years of being lied to, reality is quite a shock.
Joanna, only 5 minutes of your time.
This is what has happened to you. I hope you can see through it!
How can a little FOIA request hurt you, or anyone else for that matter?