ATI Responds to Union of Concerned Scientists’, et al, Efforts to Stop Agreement with UVA to Turn Over Michael Mann Records
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Contact: Paul Chesser, Executive Director, paul.chesser@atinstitute.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
This week four groups, whose boards represent a distinctly liberal worldview and who oppose scrutiny of taxpayer-funded science by academics, asked the University of Virginia to disregard its agreement before the court with American Tradition Institute to provide the records of former climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann, which belong to the public. The groups, led by the far-left Union of Concerned Scientists, sent a letter to University president Teresa Sullivan on Tuesday complaining the agreement gives ATI’s in-house lawyers “needless access” to documents its Environmental Law Center requested, and the agreement “threatens the principles of academic freedom protecting scholarly research.”
Response to Union of Concerned Scientists, et al, from ATI Environmental Law Center director Dr. David Schnare:
“The groups seek to have the court find a non-existent ‘academic freedom’ exemption, and also claim there is a so-called ‘balance’ between academic freedom and public accountability, which is similarly imaginary. The court’s, and UVA’s, only fealty is to follow the law, which our agreement reflects.
“The groups appeal to lesser authorities such as a state advisory board and — amazingly — a Washington Post editorial, as opposed to what the FOIA law clearly says, as justification to toss aside our agreement with the university. Their objection to scrutiny is new-found and selective as well, since they seemed to have no problem when Greenpeace sought the records and emails of academics who do not accept the alarmist perspective on global warming.
“The groups also insult our professionalism with the insinuation that we would risk disbarment by violating a gag order that prevents us from disclosing possibly exempt records we review pursuant to the agreement. Such an accusation only reflects poorly on the integrity of UCS and their letter’s co-signers.”
Response to Union of Concerned Scientists, et al, from ATI executive director Paul Chesser:
“Once again these self-interested groups — who hope to protect their billions of dollars in government funding of dubious, unsupportable research — accuse ATI of ‘harassment and intimidation’ of scientists. It shows how blind they are to the fact that ATI has acted in the interest of sound, verifiable science and for the protection of the hard-earned money that taxpayers are forced to relinquish for such research.
“A Rasmussen Reports survey out earlier this week shows that that 69 percent of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists who study climate change have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40 percent who say this is ‘very likely.’ Only 22 percent believe it’s not likely that some scientists have falsified global warming data to fit their theories.
“Considering this is how the public sees them, UCS and their cohorts in academia need to look in the mirror and try to figure out where it all went wrong. Meanwhile, ATI will continue its pursuit to hold them accountable.”
For an interview with Dr. David Schnare or Paul Chesser, email paul.chesser@atinstitute.org or call (202)670-2680.
Source: http://www.atinstitute.org/ati-responds-to-union-of-concern-scientists-et-al-efforts-to-stop-agreement-with-uva-to-turn-over-michael-mann-records/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In all honesty…..
I’ve never seen anyone claim that something – anything – was so robust and certain…..
….and then not want to prove it
Simply put-what are they afraid of ? Guaranteed if this was “denier” the rack and the Iron Maiden
would be brought out….
I’m not clear in what manner that publishing data endangers academic freedom. I think there is some confusion on the part of the UCS regarding the definition of academic freedom.
Thanks for my fix of skeptic porn.
Nothing to see here at all… Move on…
I offered some helpful advice to the Union of Concerned Scientists here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/about/public-information-request.html
:
Why does anyone need a FOIA request in the first place?
Why can’t I just ask a publicly funded scientist for his data?
In regard to UCS – I think they do protest too much ……. there’s no smoke without fire.
Do these Union of Concerned Scientists, et al realise how dangerous they are? The precedants they are likely to set if successful?
If the Union of Concerned Scientists, et al are successful it will only be a generation (or maybe sooner) before we, or some other group in the west, are fighting for very basic freedoms of expression, speech, association, movement, thought and enquiry.
My GGgaaaawwdd, If they’re successful with the arguments they put forward it’s not a time to worry about the science, it’s too late for that, it’s time to load up and get ready for a fight.
They just don’t understand what will happen when they start telling the mainstream population what to think and believe. WOW! they’re in for a shock!
Douglas DC says:
August 11, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Simply put-what are they afraid of ? Guaranteed if this was “denier” the rack and the Iron Maiden
would be brought out….
===========
IMO, “they” want no publicity at all.
Their scam is running, the scammers are making money, nobody is the wiser.
The last thing they want is any kind of scrutiny.
Not to mention “transparency”.
Best let Schnare do the talking.
UCS need to think of ATI as an up front Wikileaks with nothing to hide about its means of accessing sources of public information. After all do the UCS really want a Wikileaks/News Of the World approach to these sorts of fact finding missions in the public interest? Perish the thought eh guys?
Really… did you expect anything less from the Union of Communist Scientologists?
OK – That was an unfair statement, needlessly besmirching scientologists, by comparison to UCS! I apologize.
“…there is a so-called ‘balance’ between academic freedom and public accountability,…”
Indeed, there is. If your research is privately funded, you have all of the academic freedom your contract allows, to disclose, withhold, publish, or secure as ‘trade secrets’. If your research is taxpayer funded, you will disclose all data and documentations requested under FOIA auspices. You are free to refuse. You are free to have your funding stripped, your public offices and private residences searched, and all of your records and communications confiscated. Please feel free to consider and balance your options, before felony charges and imprisonment become your new reality. …….And Have a Rainbow Day!
Me thinks they doth protest too much !
if I remember correctly:
1. All of the public documents must be surrendered by Aug 22 2011.
2. All of the documents must be surrendered by Sept 21 2011.
It is obvious to the casual observer that the UoV and others desperately do not want these documents to fall into the hands of anyone not under the AGW team thumb.
It is clear to me that the documents in question will never see the light of day. The only question is whether or not the UoV and the other perps in question will pay for whatever crimes they are trying to conceal, and if enouph information can be extracted from what the good guys get to slay the AGW dragon…
Ha Ha!
Useful idiots – witness the effectiveness of decades of conditioning:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32cxf_yuri-bezmenov_news#from=embed
From the UCS website:
“Scientific Integrity”
“Political interference in federal government science is weakening our nation’s ability to respond to the complex challenges we face. Because policy makers depend on impartial research to make informed decisions, we are mobilizing scientists and citizens alike to push for reforms that will enable our leaders to fully protect our health, safety, and environment.”
I am getting really curious about what are in Mann’s e-mails.
Put yourself in Mann’s shoes.
He has made a discovery that humankind are destroying the planet. He has data and algorithms to prove it. Let’s assume good intent: his natural course of action is to share his discovery with the world. When people are sceptical, as people often are, the most obvious thing to do is to show the working’s out: here is the data; here are the algorithms; here is the proof.
Why would he not do that?
Union of Concerned Liars?
What’s that Texting abbreviation, WTF? (World Trade Federation) PLEASE, please…do NOT GIVE THESE YO-YO’s ANY credance what s0-ever. In the 1980’s a (now gone, alas) journal called “Opinion Magazine” sent out 3000 surveys on Nuclear Power to 3000 people listed in the Who’s Who’ in American Science and Engineering. They recieved an ASTOUNDING return of 1800 of the surveys. (Hand filled out in those days.) One of the questions they asked was: “Have you ever been, or are you now a member of the UCS.” They got ONE positive response. They said on that basis, of the 150,000 listed in the WW, statistically less than 300 of those people would be members of the UCS. The UCS is a RADICAL LEFTIST ANTI-NUCLEAR (and now morphed in to a general “enviromental” and “anti-hard industry” advocacy group. )
And, let’s face it, Henry Kendall, their long time “Head”, (President, self apointed gardian of the left’s sacred duties), was given a Noble Prize in physics for his work in “Quarks” from 25 years before. The actual “discovery”, dubious at best. However, the LEFTIST Noble committee (alas, even the Science decisions have a political slant to them) knew that they wanted to give the UCS more “credibility”, so magically, Kendall’s work became Nobel Prize worthy.
Sorry, old nuclear industry background coming out here. Names like Kendall, Amory Lovins, Ralph Nader, all in the same group. They never die..they just change their protest targets. (Remember Ralph? His first target was Government Motors. Then suddenly (maybe after seatbelts and airbags became standard) he’s “anti-Nuclear”.
That’s how the USSR and the DDR were run…
WaPo defends Mann:
11 Aug: WaPo blog: Anita Kumar: Groups concerned U.Va. will turn over documents in global warming case
Mann, who left the university in 2005 and now works at Pennsylvania State University, has been cleared of wrongdoing by several previous inquiries into his work. His research findings have also been upheld by other scientists…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/groups-concerned-uva-will-turn-over-documents-in-global-warming-case/2011/08/11/gIQAUXeu8I_blog.html
‘Our History’ from UCS site:
“Our calling card has always been rigorous independent analysis that is relevant to current security and environmental challenges”
Uh huh.
You can tell these are public-sector employees, used to running their own little fiefdoms, bristling at any thought of oversight or transparency, thinking that they “own” what they work on and that they should get special treatment because they’re in academia. People in the private sector usually have no such illusions (unless we’re bankrolling ourselves). We sign contracts that assign all IP rights to our employers, we’re told relentlessly that our e-mails, PCs, data, code, and everything else we do at work is not ours, and is not private. In 25+ years of product development, I’ve written exactly *zero* e-mails that I’d be embarrassed to have come to light in a public investigation, and not because I’m a saint – but because my employers have made sure I know who I answer to, and who will be responsible if my actions do damage to the company.
Once a scientist on public funds produces a theory from data all the data and supporting information behind it should be public records. FOIA requests if held up politically are a sign someone in charge has been in their position too long.