Mann UVA emails released

Via email I’m getting reports that the American Tradition Institute has a CD ROM of the Mann University of Virginia emails in hand and are evaluating them.

They are in a 4.3 Megabyte file consisting of 3,827 pages.

Given the suspicious timing of the recent Mann “vindication” report (PDF) from an investigation by the National Science Foundation, I think the effort will be likely to be focused on “what wasn’t released”. Clearly there’s some PR game playing going on with timing to get a “vindication” press release out before anyone in the public has a chance to look at the emails. 

ATI promises a press release later today once they have a better handle on the email release.

Given all the roadblocks that have been thrown in front of this FOIA request, IMHO. I expect them to be selected, sanitized, and possibly full of redactions. We’ll know soon.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

72 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Robinson
August 24, 2011 9:19 am

Is that legal? The redactions I mean. And “sanitizing” or selecting them, unless there’s some loophole in the judgement forcing their release, would also not be in compliance with the order. So I’m wondering just how they are able to do that without legal consequences, specifically for the individuals involved.

Scottish Sceptic
August 24, 2011 9:27 am

I’m sceptical of what they contain.

John
August 24, 2011 9:30 am

Was that the forth or fifth vindication. Gee! maybe the hockey stick is real.

PhilJourdan
August 24, 2011 9:30 am

I doubt Cuccinelli will stand for any shenanigans. This is just the opening move in the game. The court stuff was setting the rules.

Wil
August 24, 2011 9:37 am

MY first impression – when you MAKE a CD of your music you get to choose what songs you WANT to put on the CD. I see no different here with this CD – this is a Mike Mann produced list of his best songs. Nothing more.

ZT
August 24, 2011 9:38 am

Getting your vindication in early is standard procedure in climatology – the only ‘science’ (so far) that has found it necessary to employ the services of a tabloid hacker to manage its PR.
I hope that these publicly funded (if laundered) messages will be posted on the web so that any and all email threads can be cross referenced.

FredT
August 24, 2011 9:42 am

Actually the legal consequences might be for ATI since they consent decree they signed made them promise not to reveal anything they learned from sealed documents pre-justified redactions. They break that and they could be disbarred.

TheGoodLocust
August 24, 2011 9:44 am

I want to know where they got them. My understanding from reading the NSF report was that Mann himself provided the emails.
I do not understand the logic of allowing a person investigated for falsification to provide the emails himself since it’d be trivial to throw in a few forged emails to vindicate himself while leaving out or altering the damning ones.

FerdinandAkin
August 24, 2011 9:45 am

Nothing to see here folks – just move along
OH LOOK! Over there, an earthquake …

John W
August 24, 2011 10:08 am

From the report:
“The subject did not directly receive NSF research funding as a Principal Investigator until late
2001 or 2002.”
Does that mean they didn’t investigate the making of the 1998 hockey stick?

Dr. Dave
August 24, 2011 10:08 am

When I was a kid I worked at the local hospital in the Housekeeping & Laundry Department. One of the worst jobs (and one that I routinely avoided) was loading 400 lbs per load of soiled hospital laundry into the extractors. I vividly remember one guy who was performing this function vocally complaining about the odor. He said, “Damn! I bet Nixon’s laundry don’t stink this bad!”
I suspect that if we ever got a good, open and objective look at all of Mann’s email we all proclaim that it stinks “worse than Nixon’s laundry”.

Mike86
August 24, 2011 10:14 am
ZT
August 24, 2011 10:20 am

Mann to Team: “I’m going to need another two or three full exonerations.”
Team to Mann: “Ok, we can call in a favor from, …., uh, uh, Al – no, uh, uh, how about Colonel Gadaafi?’
Background: The Libyan dictator proudly announced the establishment of the world’s first sustainable region a few years back, no doubt profoundly influence by Mann’s ‘research’, http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-news/2569-gaddafis-useful-idiots.html
(Funnily enough – various organization who thought that this Gadaafi greenness was wonderful news are busily removing their news reports from the web today).

August 24, 2011 10:22 am

Should be fun cross referencing them against UEA

Fred from Canuckistan
August 24, 2011 10:31 am

Sanitized . . . I can smell the bleach from here . . .

August 24, 2011 10:32 am

I question what it is that the CD ROM discussed in the lead post is supposed to contain. Is it the UVa info that was never considered to be subject to FOI exemptions? Or is it UVa info that is the result of the ‘in camera’ review and a court final decision that the info isn’t exempt from FOI (as UVa claimed)?
Has the ‘in camera’ review ended or even started?
If the CD ROM doesn’t have the contested ‘exempt for FOI’ info then I wouldn’t expect there to be much in it.
Does anyone have clarification of the content of the CD ROM being just UVa info that is not considered to be subject to FOI exemptions?
John

DJ
August 24, 2011 10:36 am

Couldn’t an in camera review bypass the redactions?
We may not be able to see the secret passages, but the court could, and that’s at least a step in the right direction.

Gary Krause
August 24, 2011 10:37 am

The truth has been revealed, the liars exposed; no number of vindications will save them from disgrace. We can laugh at them for their continued efforts to keep from drowning in their own sewage. Next, we mightl see them on TWC with more sewage.

Tim Huls
August 24, 2011 10:39 am

The crime is always in the cover up. If there are emails to others that they kept, that should be in this list and are not, then where does that leave our intrepid researcher?

dp
August 24, 2011 10:50 am

The 5th amendment means there will be no incriminating posts in the collection. Regardless, presumed innocent prevails, even for der schtickmaester.

PhilJourdan
August 24, 2011 11:05 am

dp says:
August 24, 2011 at 10:50 am
The 5th amendment means there will be no incriminating posts in the collection. Regardless, presumed innocent prevails, even for der schtickmaester.

The 5th amendment does not come into play. His emails are not inadmissible any more than a confession to a 3rd party is inadmissible.

Editor
August 24, 2011 11:08 am

Andrew Revkin at the NY Times has already tipped the liberals’ hand on how to deal with the email release. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/24/wheres-fox-followup-on-climate-inquiry/?src=tp
Blame FOX NEWS

August 24, 2011 11:10 am

“4.3 Megabyte file consisting of 3,827 pages”
Obviously all attachments have been removed from the emails.

Gary Swift
August 24, 2011 11:12 am

What is the time period of the emails in question? Did they release his Inbox, Outbox, everything?

Mann Bearpig
August 24, 2011 11:13 am

4.3 MEGABYTES ?
Last time I checked my email folder there was about 6 GB of emails in there.. Obviously Mann does not get many emails. If each one is avg 10 kb then there are about 440 emails in that file … Not many for such a busy person.

1 2 3