ATI press release on the Mann UVA emails

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Contacts: Paul Chesser, Executive Director, paul.chesser@atinstitute.org
Chris Horner, Senior Director of Litigation, chris.horner@atinstitute.org

UVA Goes All-in on Climategate FOIA Cover-up

By Christopher C. HornerWashington Examiner, 08/27/11

The University of Virginia has joined a list of institutions claiming that there has been an actual inquiry into, and even ‘exoneration’ of, scientists exposed by the November 2009 “ClimateGate” leak, while simultaneously through its actions making a mockery of the idea.

UVa’s August 23 release under court order of 3,800 pages of emails – records that UVa previously denied existed – was its second since the American Tradition Institute (ATI) sought judicial assistance in bringing the school into compliance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA).

The school has spent approximately $500,000 to date keeping these records from the taxpayer, who paid for their production to begin with.

Read the rest here: http://bit.ly/r6HCs2

For an interview with American Tradition Institute director of litigation Christopher Horner, call (202)670-2680 or email chris.horner@atinstitute.org.

See documents and previous media coverage of ATI Environmental Law Center v. University of Virginia regarding Dr. Michael Mann: http://tinyurl.com/3jy9jlu

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climategate and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

89 Responses to ATI press release on the Mann UVA emails

  1. General P.Malaise says:

    there are serious problems with the state of law enforcement in the USA. these stories sound more and more like they should be coming from Iran, North Korea or the old USSR.

    I really do think the tipping point has been exceeded …but not on global warming but in honesty.

  2. Keith W. says:

    So, UVa did not provide emails that it knew were already in the public domain, even though they were specifically asked for those exact emails!?! How obvious do you want to be that you are trying to hide something? Those would be the first into any filing I would make on the subject, unless I was going to say that those emails already were available, and cite where they could be found. I guess UVa doesn’t want Climategate to actually become a matter of public record, as a court document.

  3. mwhite says:

    The school has spent approximately $500,000 of tax payers money keeping these records from the taxpayer, who paid for their production to begin with.

  4. Dave L. says:

    Actions usually speak louder than words, but in this case, UVA’s actions imply that there are some really damaging revelations hiding in those unreleased e-mails. Perhaps the Climategate e-mails represent only the tip of the iceberg.

  5. Mark Nutley says:

    It was obvious they would withhold all the good stuff, back to court again I suppose.

  6. hunter says:

    Nixon would be proud of UVA.

  7. Andrew Harding says:

    Mr Horner is to be congratulated on his efforts to make these records public. The fact that there are thousands of them which the University of Virginia does not want to make public must surely indicate that there are more skeletons rattling in this academic cupboard.
    I would say that Climategate started some serious debate with regard to the AGW theory and if these e-mails can be made public, I really think it will be the end of this particular bandwagon. The politicians can save face by launching enquiries and blaming the (hate to use this term for these people) scientists, so at least we have a get out clause there. If on the other hand the politicians know what is going on and are covering it up, things can get messy. My guess is that they will delete all the e-mails before they can be made public, but I don’t know enough about US law to know if they can do that legitimately.
    I think that the fact that they do not want to disclose the e-mails is evidence enough that they have lied and exaggerated about AGW.
    What goes around, comes around, I will look forward to the day of reckoning.

  8. Henry chance says:

    CEI can take them to court a few more times to squeeze the documents out.

  9. Leon Brozyna says:

    UVa appears to be trying to see how far they can push the court to keep from releasing anything that’s truly damaging. The tactic of trying the court’s patience has been known to backfire.

  10. stephen richards says:

    Time to send in the FBI. he he. Never happen under the communist regime of Obama.

  11. PJB says:

    Perhaps, within the hallowed halls of that institution, there is an individual with access to and the ability to leak some of the offending information. Just enough to give probable cause so that the legal procedures could be expedited.
    It happened once…

  12. sceptical says:

    It would seem the only thing uncovered by climategate has been how wild the spin from “scaptics” is and how easily a certain group will buy this spin.

  13. Roger Knights says:

    This is the second domino after Climategate (which prompted ATI’s suit against UVA).

  14. Smokey says:

    ‘sceptical” is an apologist for fraud. From Harry_read_me:

    “Here, the expected 1990 – 2003 period is missing so the correlations aren’t so hot!
    Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close).
    What the hell is supposed to happen here?
    Oh, yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have.”

    13 years of fabricated temperature data.

  15. JK says:

    Smokey
    I don’t think you realize what “Harry_read_me” is though.

  16. R. Gates says:

    Nice to see the UVA stand behind their faculty.

  17. RockyRoad says:

    JK says:
    August 27, 2011 at 11:48 am

    Smokey
    I don’t think you realize what “Harry_read_me” is though.

    Then please, enlighten us, JK–tell us exactly what “Harry_read_me” is.

    Be specific. Don’t go slinking in some corner or give us some excuse you’re too busy watching some storm. Out with it.

  18. R. Gates says:

    stephen richards says:
    August 27, 2011 at 10:48 am

    Time to send in the FBI. he he. Never happen under the communist regime of Obama.
    ____
    Wow! You just raised the bar on the definition of “way out there”.

  19. RockyRoad says:

    The Board of Regents at UVa should fire those administrators that spent $500,000 on defending indefensible actions in this case.

    Those administrators should have to pay back every dime then they should be dismissed from their current positions WITHOUT severance pay or retirement. It doesn’t take a $500,000 theft to constitute a felony.

  20. TedK says:

    Quote from Chris Horner’s “Washington Examiner” article:

    “The university again labored to avoid releasing correspondence directly addressing the now discredited “Hockey Stick” graph produced while former assistant research professor Michael Mann worked there.

    At least 126 of those emails were sent to or from Mann at UVa and were central to ClimateGate, which exposed a purported, now disavowed temperature record, as well as the Hockey Stick and related activities by scientists to keep dissenting work from publication. The emails showed scientists circling the wagons to protect their claims, funding and careers.

    Each of these 126 UVa ClimateGate emails, as with other related Mann correspondence with third parties of which we are aware, is covered by our VFOI request. Not one of them made it into UVa’s releases.

    UVa acknowledges withholding between 3,500 and 4,000 more pages. This likely represents around ten times the original number of UVa emails revealed in “ClimateGate.””

    I can’t think of a better way to inform a judge that UVA is flouting the law and the terms of the agreement. Hmmm. Sure sounds like contempt of court… It makes one wonder; just what is in those emails that UVA is willing to risk fines and perhaps jail time for. Whatever it is, it must be far more damning than the good name and reputation of a top quality state college is worth. Now that is sad. Heads up Penn State!

  21. Chris Edwards says:

    Rocky Road is right, time we stopped molycoddling these fraudsters and perhaps re open a few island high securiy prisons for the huge influx, and yes Obamas communist regeme would not allow the FBI to do their job!

  22. Mac the Knife says:

    General P.Malaise says:
    August 27, 2011 at 9:59 am
    “I really do think the tipping point has been exceeded …but not on global warming but in honesty.”

    You have stated the Root Cause of all such chicanery!

    Corrective Actions: A return to the time tested foundations of human society.
    Thou shalt not murder.
    Thou shalt not bear false witness.
    Thou shalt not steal.
    Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife or wealth.
    Thou shalt not commit adultery.
    Honor thy father and thy mother.

    Teaching of basic morality, as firm guidelines for civilized behavior, has been derided and spurned. The results permeate a rapidly decaying society. It doesn’t really matter whether you are ‘religious’ or not. These are universal rules for civilized behavior. Failure to learn, apply, and adhere to them leads to anarchy…

  23. Claude Harvey says:

    Be cautious about assuming no motive other than “hiding damaging information” could be possible here. Remember that our President vigorously resisted releasing his original birth certificate for at least two years, leading doubters to speculate wildly the he was hiding damaging truth. Only after accusations had reached a fevered pitch did the master politician release that document to the public, thus eviscerating his critics’ credibility.

  24. Smokey says:

    R. Gates says:

    “Nice to see the UVA stand behind their faculty.”

    …And against the taxpayers who funded the work product.

    And Gates says to stephen richards: “Wow! You just raised the bar on the definition of ‘way out there’.”

    Not really. Have you seen the polls? O’s apologists are the ones who are “way out there.”

  25. stephen richards says:

    R. Gates says:

    August 27, 2011 at 11:57 am

    stephen richards says:
    August 27, 2011 at 10:48 am

    Time to send in the FBI. he he. Never happen under the communist regime of Obama.
    ____
    Wow! You just raised the bar on the definition of “way out there”.

    Not really. If a company refuses information that’s exactly what would happen. See Enron for example.

  26. stephen richards says:

    Incidently gates, for me to be way out where you are I would need some pretty unimaginable transport. :)

  27. mpaul says:

    UVA is arguably the best public university in the US. Its tragic to see them East Angliate themselves like this. When these emails eventually come to light, and there’s no doubt that they will, then UVA will be seen by the public as part of the problem. This will have a disastrous effect on their reputation.

  28. Roger Sowell says:

    It would be well to remember that there are many, many exceptions and exclusions to what can be retrieved via a FOIA request. Just because emails exist, doesn’t necessarily mean that UVa must turn them over.

    For example, some of the exclusions can be found at this link:

    http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+TOC02020000037000000000000

    A summary of the VFOIA’s major headings pertaining to exclusions is:

    2.2-3705.1 Exclusions to application of chapter; exclusions of general application to public bodies
    2.2-3705.2 Exclusions to application of chapter; records relating to public safety
    2.2-3705.3 Exclusions to application of chapter; records relating to administrative investigations
    2.2-3705.4 Exclusions to application of chapter; educational records and certain records of educational instit…
    2.2-3705.5 Exclusions to application of chapter; health and social services records
    2.2-3705.6 Exclusions to application of chapter; proprietary records and trade secrets
    2.2-3705.7 Exclusions to application of chapter; records of specific public bodies and certain other limited e…

  29. Nick Stokes says:

    All this press release is saying is that UVa did not immediately bow to their demands. We knew that.

    What is new is that they now been given a large stack of emails from Mann. And they’re reduced to quoting from emails from a different scientist in another country, published long ago.

    Makes you wonder if there’s anything there.

  30. Smokey says:

    Claude Harvey,

    Are you saying the whole Climategate gang are ‘master politicians’, as you believe the President to be? Are you saying the university spent half a million dollars to force the A.G. to ‘speculate wildly’ that they are hiding something innocent? If so, do you think that is the best use for the money? Just wondering.

  31. jjbond says:

    RockyRoad says:
    August 27, 2011 at 11:56 am
    JK says:
    August 27, 2011 at 11:48 am
    Smokey
    I don’t think you realize what “Harry_read_me” is though.
    Then please, enlighten us, JK–tell us exactly what “Harry_read_me” is.
    Be specific. Don’t go slinking in some corner or give us some excuse you’re too busy watching some storm. Out with it.

    I assume you refer to the private working notes of Harry (working long hours under pressure) . Can you put the quote in context? Was it trying out code? Who knows (apart from Harry)
    Here is report:
    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/24129/response/63521/attach/4/Harris%20report%202005.pdf

  32. Michael Larkin says:

    I thought that it had been agreed in camera with the judge which emails would be released. Have some of those not been released? If so, would not UVA be in contempt of court? Or is my memory faulty?

  33. Larry says:

    http://www.newsplex.com/home/headlines/Uvaturnsoverclimatechangedocs_128459493.html

    Found this on a Charlottesville TV station website today…

  34. Kohl says:

    sceptical says:
    It would seem the only thing uncovered by climategate has been how wild the spin from “scaptics” is and how easily a certain group will buy this spin.

    Eh?

  35. D Marshall says:

    @Claude Harvey Considering Obama’s track record against the Teapublicans, he’s not much of a master politician. Also, the long-form certificate was NOT his to release – he had to make a special request, via his attorney to the director of Hawaii’s Dept. of Health. The simple fact is that sane people never doubted where he was born, the release of the short-form plus the attestations of health officials several years ago should have been enough for the mildly disturbed and frankly, nothing short of raising Obama’s birth parents from the dead and torturing them at Guantanamo will convince the diehard lunatics. But at least we were entertained during the worst financial meltdown in 2 generations.

  36. pat says:

    All your lies belong to us.

  37. pat says:

    @D Marshall
    Until the Obama controversy, absolutely no one in Hawaii had difficulty getting his or a family members long form BC or a Death Certificate. $10 and it was yours. Done all the time. Every day. The new policy, because the law never changed, was enunciated only after the Obama hubbub began. I frankly think anyone can still get his long form upon requests. In fact it is often necessary for Hawaiians to do so to take advantage of various set asides based upon strict blood quantum.The BCs that require special treatment are those sealed by law or legal action. Such as those of adoptees.
    And yes Obama was born here. We all know that. But he went to Punahou as Barry Sotero.

  38. wat dabney says:

    It’s a sad day when Hamburger University has a better ethical record and reputation than Virginia. If they don’t want their degrees to fall in worth to the same devalued status as those from the “University” of East Anglia they should stop copying that bankrupt institution’s practises.

  39. TedK says:

    Roger Sowell says:
    August 27, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    Nice links, but you overlooked a critical one:
    2.2-3713 Proceedings for enforcement of chapter
    Which has this subsection;

    E. In any action to enforce the provisions of this chapter, the public body shall bear the burden of proof to establish an exemption by a preponderance of the evidence. Any failure by a public body to follow the procedures established by this chapter shall be presumed to be a violation of this chapter.

    Some established precedents which set the stage for the intent and application of FOIA law.

    Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 792 (3rd Cir. 1994)
    “Reviewing courts should undertake their analysis of FOIA requests by “recognizing the enduring beliefs underlying freedom of information laws: that an informed public is desirable, that access to information prevents governmental abuse and helps secure freedom, and that, ultimately, government must answer to its citizens.”

    ["T]he court … must balance the requesting party’s need for information against the injury that might result if uncontrolled disclosure is compelled. When the risk of harm to the owner of [a] trade secret or confidential information outweighs the need for discovery, disclosure [through discovery] cannot be compelled, but this is an infrequent result…”

  40. Robert of Ottawa says:

    The e-mails that are already in the public domain were not included?!

    Incredibly stupid. Had they been included, all may have passed quietly. Now, ATI has a reason to ask why they were not. Probably the uni received legal advice about opening up the flood-gates or something. Keep pushing!

    Perhaps we should pass the hat around for the Uni’s legal team to keep working for us!

  41. Robert of Ottawa says:

    If I weere a US congressman, I’d want to know if the Feds had given any money to this Group, and demand a ddetailed explanation.

  42. HB says:

    Scaptic? What, or who is a “scaptic”? Did I miss something?

  43. Roger Sowell says:

    @TedK on August 27, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    What is your point? Of course the public body has the burden to claim an exemption.

    The same or similar laws apply to discovery in civil cases in general, that is, confidential information, trade secrets, privileged information, and certain other categories of information are hotly disputed where the one party wants to see it all, and the other party claims the information cannot be disclosed without undue harm. It is almost certain that both parties in this case have competent counsel and know the law quite well. The judge in such cases (or sometimes a special master appointed by the judge) reviews the disputed information, and in some cases the attorneys for both sides are allowed to see the information – but only on the condition that the attorneys cannot divulge what they see, even to their own client. The judge rules on each claim of exclusion or exemption.

    In a civil case (non-FOIA), this is necessary to prevent competitors from suing each other on a pretext, in order to gain access to their confidential information and thereby profit from it. In the area of trade secret law, this is a major litigation issue. The holder of the trade secret does not want his competitor to learn anything about his trade secret and thus claims that it is not discoverable. The holder of the trade secret bears the burden of proving adequately to the court that his information does indeed qualify as a trade secret.

    FOIA is nothing new, it is merely an off-shoot of the time-honored practice of discovery in a civil case.

    My point in providing the links above is that there are literally dozens of exclusions or exemptions that UVa can use, and likely is using, to avoid public disclosure of some of the emails at issue. For skeptics to claim that everything from a public university is in the public domain is not at all accurate.

  44. Packman1 says:

    It is interesting that R Gates is fully behind UVAs actions in defending their former faculty member who has been exposed as having colluded against other scientists to prevent publication of their opposing views. Further, the information sought was not created under confidentiality agreements and was paid for by state and federal tax payers.

    None of the oft-cited exonorations have looked directly at the claims of the opponents. Rather, friendly panels were appointed to white wash the UEA and PSU situations.

    It is also interesting that R Gates and many others have no problem about treatment of opponents and have cheered on attempts to attack them. Scientific integrity relies on open access to information, impartial peer reviews, and demonstration of models via experimentation or measurement. Since none of that appears to pertain to Mann, et. al., it is amazing how strongly the unethical behavior is defended.

    Most here believe that CO2 is associated with warming. But the models have not forcasted well. It is clear that ocean dynamics, the role of incident radiation and cloud effects are poorly understood. If less alarmism and more collaboration and exploration of these key, open issues could advance rapidly.

    Instead, billions and billions are spent on wildlife studies that speculate on the influence of climate change, on inefficient energy resources, on creating regulations that are strangling economies, and potentially on reparations by (now bankrupt) “rich countries” to poor ones rather than on helping them get food, clean water, reliable power and spurring economic development.

  45. D Marshall says:

    @pat “And yes Obama was born here. We all know that”
    Correction: “We all are saying we know that NOW”
    There were a lot of people, including senior Republicans who were openly birthers or hedging their bets.
    “But he went to Punahou as Barry Sotero.” – which has nothing to do with his birth certificate.

  46. R.S.Brown says:

    When you look at the Virginia FOI law at:

    http://www.opengovva.org/virginia-fioa-the-law

    and scroll down to:


    3.3-3705.4 Exclusions to application of chapter, educational record and
    certain records of educational instutions.

    You’ll see

    4. Data, records or information of a proprietary nature produced
    or collected by or for faculty or staff of public institutions of higher education, other
    than the institutions’ finanacial or administrative record, in the conduct of or as a
    result of study or research on medical, scientific, technical or scholarly issues, whether
    sponcered by the institution alone or in conjunction with a governmental body or
    private concern, where such data, records or information has not been publically
    released, published, copyrighted or patented. [Emphasis added]

    However, under

    2.2-3705.6 Exclusions to application of chapter, proprietary records

    and trade secrets.

    Of the 25 or so ways to be “exempt” as “proprietary record” or as as
    anything else “proprietary” as the Virigina law defines it, I don’t see
    a way for Mike Mann’s e-mails and attachments to be exempt.

    Maybe the Prince County Judge will feel differently… or not. It will be his decision
    assuming ATI asks him to rule on the validity of the so called exemption of each
    separate e-mail.

  47. Andrew30 says:

    Robert of Ottawa says: August 27, 2011 at 4:29 pm
    [The e-mails that are already in the public domain were not included?!]

    Of course not, it’s a trick. If they accept the emails that are in the public domain (which everyone has) then they may not be able to use them in court (not legally obtained), and the public domain emails may in fact taint the whole body of information if they were used in the aggregate. So even though they know Exactly what they are missing they must still be then officially handed over by the legal custodian. You see, they cant even use the information in the climategate emails as ’cause’ for further investigation, until they have them legally. One they have them legally the real show starts. UVA knows this.

  48. sceptical says:

    Smokey, you claim fraud but there has been none shown. On the other hand, the incoherent ramblings of many a scaptic have shown that what was actually written in the emails matters not to those who oppose the scientific method.

  49. LazyTeenager says:

    stephen richards says:
    August 27, 2011 at 10:48 am
    Time to send in the FBI. he he. Never happen under the communist regime of Obama.
    ———–
    This would only make sense if you were a member of a lunatic faction of the republican party, who thinks democracy should be redefined to mean a one party state ruled by you.

    Sorry to dishearten you, but at this stage democracy means the other guys gets to play with the marbles.

  50. kramer says:

    Anybody know the direct number to call UVA on this? I would really like to give the right people at UVA a piece of my mind on this matter.

    And don’t they know that by withholding these particular emails, they are only fueling distrust?

  51. Luther Wu says:

    R. Gates says:
    August 27, 2011 at 11:56 am

    Nice to see the UVA stand behind their faculty.
    _______________________________________________
    I’ve seen enough. I’ve read your poisonous postings for months.
    You, R. Gates, have completely exposed yourself and have crossed the line into complete irrelevance.
    If you ever had hopes of convincing anyone to believe anything you had to say, then your hopes are dashed.
    I’m convinced that you are a paid propagandist, fomenting doubt in these pages and likely elsewhere, as well; and probably on the taxpayers’ dime.
    You are a shameless hack.
    Nothing you have to say is worth reading.
    Go Away!

  52. Robert E. Phelan says:

    R. Gates says: August 27, 2011 at 11:56 am
    Nice to see the UVA stand behind their faculty

    I’m sure I don’t have to remind you that Greenpeace attempted to obtain Patrick Michaels’ e-mails from the UofVA and the only thing standing in the way was a $4000 administrative fee. When Cuccinelli filed his demands, Greenpeace withdrew their FOI request. I presume, Gates, that you will demand that UofVA will protect Dr. Michaels rights as assiduously as it has protected Dr. Mann’s? Frankly, it is too late. Lord knows what Greenpeace will find in Dr. Michaels’ e-mails, but I’m now really interested in whatever it is that requires a half-million dollar defense to keep it away from the light of day in Dr. Mann’s e-mails.

    So, Gates, wanna try defending releasing the Michaels e-mails and NOT releasing the Mann e-mails? What? You were against it before you were for it? You want to define the meaning of “is”?

    Tool.

  53. Smokey says:

    sceptical says:

    “Smokey, you claim fraud but there has been none shown.”

    Yo, fool:

    Here, the expected 1990 – 2003 period is missing so the correlations aren’t so hot!
    Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close).
    What the hell is supposed to happen here?
    Oh, yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have.

    Thirteen years of completely fabricated temperature data [!!]. Credulous, “sceptical” fool.

  54. Claude Harvey says:

    Re:Smokey says:
    August 27, 2011 at 2:03 pm
    Re: D Marshall says:
    August 27, 2011 at 2:59 pm
    Re: Everyone driven mad by Obama maneuvers

    Like Obama, the University has been spending taxpayer money one way or another to resist compliance with information requests. When you’re spending other peoples’ money, you don’t really need a good reason. It could be anything from the good reason of covering guilt to the poor reasons of philosophical position, general belligerence or even simple whimsy.

    I don’t know why the University has resisted and neither do you. We can only guess, and guesses should never be confused with certain knowledge.

  55. Smokey says:

    Claude Harvey says:

    “…the University has been spending taxpayer money one way or another to resist compliance with information requests. When you’re spending other peoples’ money, you don’t really need a good reason. It could be anything from the good reason of covering guilt to the poor reasons of philosophical position, general belligerence or even simple whimsy.”

    Wasting $500,000 on ‘simple whimsy’ is inexcusable. We’re talking about the weather here, not nuclear defense secrets! It’s pretty obvious they’re covering their guilt. If not, why the lack of public transparency?

  56. So, under the terms of the agreement this would be the first release, stuff that would clearly not fall under the exemptions. So on the 23rd of September (30 days after the release of the non exempt info) the exempt info will be given to ATI. After than there is 90 days for ATI to challenge the exemptions. That will be more interesting.

    What we have here is “UVA is complying with the terms of the agreement, but look over here Climategate!”. Pretty piss poor in my book, since most of the Climategate emails involving Mann had to do with scientific issues, although he had an obvious animosity towards McI and other people who do not like the conclusions of people looking at the “recent” paleo record. Look! Climategate!

    So here is how I think this will play out. On or before 9/23 UVA will release the exempt info to ATI. At that point ATI will evaluate the exempt info and challenge it (expect that they will challenge everything) and the judge, as provided for in the agreement, will decide. So far they got nothin. Look! Climategate!

  57. RandomThesis says:

    UVa should hire Harold Berger. I’m sure there is still room in his socks.

  58. TedK says:

    Roger Sowell says: August 27, 2011 at 5:56 pm

    @TedK on August 27, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    What is your point? Of course the public body has the burden to claim an exemption.

    What an interesting twist of words. The FOIA law lays a burden of proof on the public body, not just the burden of claim. Specifically “the public body shall bear the burden of proof to establish an exemption by a preponderance of the evidence.”

    What is my point? Well, I guess I’ve just been told off… in a fatuous condescending manner…

    I thought my point obvious and I’m certain it was, to you. You posted a bunch of links with the inference that there are many many exemptions to FOIA law in Virginia, and perhaps the USA. Well, numerically, that is true. What is also true is that many many of those exemptions are rather specific in purpose and not applicable. It is also true that there are only a few exemptions likely applicable to the emails and maybe a software one for any code. Oh, but you probably knew that. It is curious why you didn’t include that info so that your post would provide a more complete picture of Virginia FOIA.

    I do so look forward to the day when the Feds, (I’ll settle for Cuccinelli in the short term), finally march in with subpoenas and cart off all of their drives and data storage so that the Feds can look over every byte. FOIA violations and Climate fraud are one thing, racketeering is another.

    Racketeering… A person who uses an enterprise to engage in a pattern of racketeering may be convicted under the RICO criminal statute (18 U.S.C.A. § 1963). An enterprise is defined as “any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.” A pattern is defined as “at least two acts of racketeering activity… Racketeering activity under federal law includes a number of criminal offenses, including but by no means limited to: Fraud, Extortion, Blackmail, etc… The penalties under racketeering, now they are severe enough to cause people to go to extreme lengths in obstructing FOIA law… We’ve speculated many times, just what drives certain scientists and universities to deny legitimate and reasonable FOIA requests. Twenty years plus in a federal pen just might be a driver, not to mention a complete collapse of whatever the AGW agenda is. Risking time in jail for contempt seems ridiculous if there is not an AGW agenda and the climate studies are legit.

    “…For skeptics to claim that everything from a public university is in the public domain is not at all accurate…”

    Oh, the “us and them” claim and them skeptics have inaccurate expectations? “Skeptics claim everything from a public university is in the public domain”? Sure sounds like one of them alarmists that likes to apply generalizations lumping everyone with AGW concerns and doubts, especially them skeptics into one category and then trivializes their discussions… Or did you somehow mean that there is a nebulous group out there called skeptics who have unrealistic FOIA expectations and you were not really trying to insinuate that us WUWT readers and commenters were included in that rather derisive term “skeptics”?

    From UVA’s IT policies web page: http://its.virginia.edu/policy/filemonitoring.html

    Policy Text
    The Commonwealth of Virginia’s Human Resource Policy 1.75 contains the following statement: “No user should have any expectation of privacy in any message, file, image or data created, sent, retrieved or received by use of the Commonwealth’s equipment and/or access.”…

    Why would anyone, least of all them skeptics, expect UVA to follow it’s own policies let alone the FOIA law. Those “us alarmists” certainly don’t want them to and we “them skeptics” sure wonder why.

  59. TedK says:

    Did I lose a post to the spam filter?

    [? did u?]

  60. Robert M says:

    I have thought all along that the truly incriminating material will never see the light of day. The only question is whether or not the guilty parties will actually be penalized by the system for withholding the stuff that will destroy their careers, AGW, and any future the perpetrators of this massive fraud might have. That information has already been destroyed, the only question is… will they ever get caught and have to face the music…

  61. John B says:

    Smokey at al,

    A bit of context around that quote from “Harry read me”

    —————————–

    Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING – so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet
    the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
    supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have :-)

    If an update station matches a ‘master’ station by WMO code, but the data is unpalatably
    inconsistent, the operator is given three choices:

    You have failed a match despite the WMO codes matching.
    This must be resolved!! Please choose one:

    1. Match them after all.
    2. Leave the existing station alone, and discard the update.
    3. Give existing station a false code, and make the update the new WMO station.

    Enter 1,2 or 3:

    You can’t imagine what this has cost me – to actually allow the operator to assign false
    WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’
    database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be).

    False codes will be obtained by multiplying the legitimate code (5 digits) by 100, then adding
    1 at a time until a number is found with no matches in the database. THIS IS NOT PERFECT but as
    there is no central repository for WMO codes – especially made-up ones – we’ll have to chance
    duplicating one that’s present in one of the other databases. In any case, anyone comparing WMO
    codes between databases – something I’ve studiously avoided doing except for tmin/tmax where I
    had to – will be treating the false codes with suspicion anyway. Hopefully.

    ———————

    All the file shows is a programmer’s efforts to make the best of incomplete data. No fraud, no cover up, nothing of the sort.

    Maybe one day, when you accept that global warming is not one enormous scam, you can join in the serious debate about what best to do about it. The answer may even be “nothing”, but to be taken seriously you first have to accept reality.

  62. Keith says:

    Both my parents and others of my family were UVA graduates. A once solid academic institution sinks to the lowest level. Bad news does not get better with age. Bad news that has to be pried out in court because of deliberate delaying tactics is worse. UVA would be best served by cutting their losses and running, dumping Mann and the entire Climategate gang in the process. Time is not UVA’s friend in this case.

  63. Andrew30 says:

    John B says: August 28, 2011 at 5:23 am
    [No fraud, no cover up, nothing of the sort. ]

    The AGW virus can be recognized by the following signature

    valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
    yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
    densall=densall+yearlyadj

    http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103

  64. Roger Sowell says:

    @TedK, I’m not sure why you are getting so worked up over this. You mention first, the standard of proof. The “preponderance of the evidence” standard is normal in most civil matters. Legally, that means just a tiny bit more than half, or fifty-fifty. Even if you disagree with the standard that was chosen, which one would you prefer? Reasonable suspicion? Probable Cause? You apparently don’t like Preponderance of the Evidence. Next is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, how about that one? Perhaps Conclusive Proof? The fact is that only Preponderance of the Evidence and Conclusive Proof apply in a civil matter. So, yes, the Virginia law follows what other jurisdictions require. Am I missing something? Do you want to require Virginia to prove the exclusion by Overwhelming, Skeptic-Approved, Incontrovertible, Beyond-Any-Doubt, By-God-Iron-Clad proof? Please… this is a legal matter, and will follow the rules of procedure for such matters.

    Next, you mention racketeering and convictions under the RICO statutes. Just a word of caution, there, it can be quite expensive to defend a lawsuit for falsely accusing someone of criminal activity. You may want to seek competent legal advice on this. If you have proof, then I suggest you take it to the FBI and let them evaluate your proof.

    Next, you mention “Fraud, Extortion, Blackmail, etc.” Many people get worked up over the concept of climate scientist defrauding . . . . well, somebody. Fraud is a legal term and very, very difficult to prove. One can also have confidence that the Virginia Attorney General is well aware of the laws on fraud and will bring such a lawsuit if and when there is evidence to support that lawsuit. Notice the word “evidence,” not a mere suspicion or something less. The others, extortion and blackmail, are of course serious crimes and would be prosecuted if any evidence is found.

    You mention that people speculate on what drives scientists and universities to refuse reasonable FOIA requests. I gave you a long list of reasons above. Perhaps the scientist is not happy with the quality of his data, or has entered into contractual agreements with others who preclude him from sharing. Perhaps there are valuable secrets involved, including trade secrets or patentable ideas from the methods used to obtain the data. Perhaps there is a novel method of data analysis that could be valuable if a patent is issued. Or, perhaps there are simply issues that fall squarely in another of the exclusions from above. The only people who will know are the scientists, their university management, their attorneys, the judge, and possibly the attorneys for the FOIA plaintiffs.

    Next, you run on about skeptics, derogatory terms, WUWT readers and commenters. You evidently don’t know that I’m a professed skeptic, WUWT reader and commenter, and have several guest posts on WUWT. I also have my own blog with many of my AGW-skeptical views published. Furthermore, I prepare and deliver speeches and multi-media presentations on these matters across the country. I’m also an attorney and try in my own small way to help guide the discussion on legal matters involved in FOIA, climate change laws, carbon dioxide regulation, renewable energy, nuclear power plants, and others. Anthony has graciously afforded me much “blog-space” here at WUWT.

    Finally, you mention the UVa’s policy on expectation of privacy for various forms of communications sent via the university’s equipment. The implication is that any messages sent via the university’s computers are not private but are in the public domain. Again, the attorneys at the Virginia Attorney General’s office, and attorneys for ATI are surely aware of the laws and would simply demand the handover of all communications if that Human Resources Policy 1.75 was controlling. Perhaps you should write to them and tell them of your discovery, and let them know they have been wasting their time with all that FOIA law, the lawsuits, and just point to Policy 1.75.

    I do realize how frustrating it can be to watch what is happening and wonder why the data and messages aren’t simply produced all at once and in their entirety. However, the laws exist and must be followed. In any event, time is on the side of the skeptics. The quiet sun and colder oceans have killed the AGW cause. Each day, each month, each year that passes provide silent testimony that CO2 is innocent. CO2 rises, and the Earth cools.

  65. R. Gates says:

    Robert E. Phelan says:
    August 27, 2011 at 8:44 pm

    R. Gates says: August 27, 2011 at 11:56 am
    Nice to see the UVA stand behind their faculty

    I’m sure I don’t have to remind you that Greenpeace attempted to obtain Patrick Michaels’ e-mails from the UofVA and the only thing standing in the way was a $4000 administrative fee. When Cuccinelli filed his demands, Greenpeace withdrew their FOI request. I presume, Gates, that you will demand that UofVA will protect Dr. Michaels rights as assiduously as it has protected Dr. Mann’s? Frankly, it is too late. Lord knows what Greenpeace will find in Dr. Michaels’ e-mails, but I’m now really interested in whatever it is that requires a half-million dollar defense to keep it away from the light of day in Dr. Mann’s e-mails.

    So, Gates, wanna try defending releasing the Michaels e-mails and NOT releasing the Mann e-mails? What? You were against it before you were for it? You want to define the meaning of “is”?

    Tool.
    _____
    Again, nice to see an institution stand behind their faculty.

    Rather than these never ending witch hunts, which really grow quite tiresome, perhaps AGW skeptics would do better to debate the science. Maybe start with the Hansen-Sato paper from earlier this year:

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf

  66. Smokey says:

    John B,

    Thank you for explaining that 13 years of temperature data was fabricated.

  67. Theo Goodwin says:

    TedK says:
    August 27, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    I wonder if UVA’s fultime legal counsel was ever involved in this? My guess is no. Legal counsel would have turned over these documents immediately. Most likely, UVA hired outside counsel to handle this case. Most likely there is a huge fight within the university administration.

  68. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From R. Gates on August 28, 2011 at 10:11 am:

    Rather than these never ending witch hunts, which really grow quite tiresome, perhaps AGW skeptics would do better to debate the science. Maybe start with the Hansen-Sato paper from earlier this year:

    You know Gates, when your big-headed alien masters take you away for a routine recharge and tune-up, I would think they would be smart enough to load your memory unit with recent WUWT posts you missed during the absence.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/21/another-giss-miss-tisdale-calls-out-hansen-and-sato-on-failed-predictions/

    Guess those aliens really aren’t that smart after all. Of course this was demonstrated by their not immediately destroying humanity as a threat to other civilizations after they were tipped off to the fact by our global warming signal.

    So you know, you were missed when Hansen-Sato was discussed, check the comments. You were also missed during the “Aliens will kill us!” discussion. Of which your complete lack of comments there currently seems… strangely curious.

  69. John B says:

    @kadaka

    The thread you linked to does not address the paper R. Gates linked to. Same people, different issue.

  70. John B says:

    Smokey says:
    August 28, 2011 at 11:18 am

    John B,

    Thank you for explaining that 13 years of temperature data was fabricated.

    —————

    What a ridiculous assertion! Even if it were true, what would have been the point? Just replace the “fabricated” data with an interpolation on any temperature graph of your choice and the conclusions would be unchanged.

    You are clutching at ever thinner straws.

  71. neill says:

    Mr. Gates,

    You haven’t answered the question.

    Why would UVA ‘stand up for faculty’ by refusing to release Dr. Mann’s emails to the Attorney General’s request, yet not ‘stand up for faculty’ by agreeing to expeditiously release Dr. Michaels’ emails to the Greenpease request?

  72. PatK says:

    As a proud graduate of UVa (Ken Cuccinelli and I were classmates), I am disgusted by the response to this request. I have already told the University that they will not receive any more contributions from me until they comply fully with the FOI request. I look forward to their next request for donations so I can reiterate my position.

  73. Smokey says:

    John B,

    I’m amazed that you keep digging your completely indefensible hole deeper:

    “Here, the expected 1990 – 2003 period is missing… What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh, yeah – there is no ‘supposed’,
    I can make it up. So I have.”

    No matter how you try to spin it, Harry is openly admitting that he invented thirteen years of temperature data.

    And I have lots of charts by various government funded agencies showing that all their “adjustments” to the temperature record are either adjusted higher for recent temperatures, or historical temperatures have been adjusted lower, in order to show a sharply rising trend. There are no “adjustments” that reduce the [natural] temperature rise. Just ask, and I’ll post the charts for you.

  74. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From John B on August 28, 2011 at 2:55 pm:

    The thread you linked to does not address the paper R. Gates linked to. Same people, different issue.

    Sir, you are correct about the paper. The paper Gates mentioned is a non-peer-reviewed unpublished draft paper. By R. Gates’ usual professed standards that means it essentially does not exist, which makes it surprising that he bothered to note it at all. The “skeptics” addressed it long ago here on WUWT:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/24/commentary-hansen-draft-paper-paleoclimate-implications-for-human-made-climate-change/

    But one hardly has to get past the first page to see it’s the same old issue as always:

    We conclude that Earth in the warmest interglacial periods was less than 1°C warmer than in the Holocene and that goals of limiting human-made warming to 2°C and CO2 to 450 ppm are prescriptions for disaster.

    The emerging shift to accelerating ice sheet mass loss supports our conclusion that Earth’s temperature has returned to at least the Holocene maximum. Rapid reduction of fossil fuel emissions is required for humanity to succeed in preserving a planet resembling the one on which civilization developed.

    Climate change is likely to be the predominant scientific, economic, political and moral issue of the 21st century. The fate of humanity and nature may depend upon early recognition and understanding of human-made effects on Earth’s climate (Hansen, 2009).

    Still guano. New and different packaging, another attempt at convincing others it’s not guano by adding other ingredients to alter the texture and taste. Yet amazingly enough, it remains guano, still the same old issue we expect from this federally-funded activist with or without additional cohorts.

    So what about this un-published un-peer-reviewed essentially un-existing paper deserves addressing?

  75. sorepaw says:

    Only after accusations had reached a fevered pitch did the master politician release that document to the public, thus eviscerating his critics’ credibility.

    Barack Obama would have much preferred not to release the long form birth certificate when he did. He and his inner circle thought they could discredit all Republicans as “birthers,” using the issue to help him coast to a second term no matter who the Republican nominee might be.

    Instead, Obama’s hand was forced by Donald Trump, a non-candidate doing his turn in front of the TV cameras, a year and a half before the election.

    It is unlikely that the upper administration of the University of Virginia thinks anything like Barack Obama.

    They’re just doing what comes naturally. The first impulse of any university administration is to cover up. Look at Duke University after the false accusations against the lacrosse players.

  76. sorepaw says:

    You mention that people speculate on what drives scientists and universities to refuse reasonable FOIA requests. I gave you a long list of reasons above. Perhaps the scientist is not happy with the quality of his data, or has entered into contractual agreements with others who preclude him from sharing. Perhaps there are valuable secrets involved, including trade secrets or patentable ideas from the methods used to obtain the data. Perhaps there is a novel method of data analysis that could be valuable if a patent is issued. Or, perhaps there are simply issues that fall squarely in another of the exclusions from above. The only people who will know are the scientists, their university management, their attorneys, the judge, and possibly the attorneys for the FOIA plaintiffs.

    A distinctly simpler explanation is that releasing the material that ATI wants to see will make Michael Mann look bad.

    Further, that releasing anything that makes Michael Mann look bad will make the upper administration of UVA look bad, because they (or their predecessors) hired Michael Mann and kept him on the payroll until he decided to leave.

    The legal mind has been known, on occasion, to look for complexity where none actually exists.

  77. John B says:

    @Kadaka

    I just read the whole thread you linked to. It hardly discusses Hansen’s paper at all. Rather, it mainly criticises Dr. Martin Hertzberg’s article, with a nice aside on the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    Yes, you are right in saying that Hansen’s paper is unpublished and unreviewed (as it is currently a draft). When (if) it gets reviewed and published, it will “exist” in your terms, but this blog will continue not to exist. Is that right?

  78. John B says:

    @Smokey

    Same old, same old. It’s cherries all the way down with you, isnt it? And that has got to be the worst linear trend fit I have ever seen. On the graph you show, a linear trend to around 1940 and a steeper linear trend post 1940 would fit better. But, hold on, that’s what AGW would predict, so we can’t have that, can we?

  79. Roger Knights says:

    UVA isn’t paying for the lawyer who is arguing their side of the case. Some outside pro-warmist organization is doing so, because UVA was about to fold and comply.

  80. MorinMoss says:

    It doesn’t look like UVA just rolls over on FOIA requests regardless of who the subject might be.
    Here’s their timeline with links to PDFs of the requests and replies:
    http://www.virginia.edu/foia/climatechange/timeline.html
    (They do claim that Mann’s e-mails from ’99-’05 were deleted but what about backups?)
    It’s clear that they didn’t serve up Pat Michaels to Greenpeace – who were stymied by UVA demanding $4000 upfront and not due to Cuccinelli’s request. And paying the upfront fees doesn’t mean you get with you want, only that UVA will start processing your request. If you want docs that they say are excluded from FOIA, get a court order.

  81. mandas says:

    Hurts doesn’t it Anthony?
    Mann has been totally and completely vindicated of all the dirt you disgusting trolls have thrown at him, and you don’t even have the integrity to admit that you were wrong.
    To be expected I suppose. When you are just a pack of disingenuous liars, you never accept that your views might be based on nothing more than twisted ideology, completely lacking in any evidence.
    How is the surface station project going by the way?

    REPLY: No doesn’t hurt at all, because none of these “investigations” have asked any tough questions. Time is on our side. As for surfacestations, see the front page of WUWT for phase 2 – Anthony

  82. barry says:

    The National Science Foundation’s Inspector General has investigated Penn State’s investigation of Michael Mann, and gone a bit further.

    Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed

    The NSF decides on funding to science. These are the people that would be most interested to discover malfeasance from scientists applying to them for grants – like Michael Mann.

    How many vindicating investigations does this make now? How many would it take before Mann’s critics backed off the rhetoric?

    Surely this deserves a post, Anthony. I am curious to see how you will interpret it.

  83. barry says:

    Oh, my apologies, you made a brief mention of the NSF finding in a post about ATI’s receiving a collection of Mann’s emails, describing the release of the findings as suspiciously timed. How about a post on the actual findings? (Or did I miss that?)

  84. Smokey says:

    barry says:

    “The NSF decides on funding to science. These are the people that would be most interested to discover malfeasance from scientists applying to them for grants – like Michael Mann.”

    Barry’s conclusion is exactly backward, and totally wrong. For the ‘funding’ reason barry mentioned, the NSF people are extremely interested in sweeping the whole Michael Mann disaster under the carpet in order to protect their gravy train. That is blindingly obvious to anyone with a whit of common sense.

    barry continues:

    “How many vindicating investigations does this make now? How many would it take before Mann’s critics backed off the rhetoric?”

    Answer: there have been zero “vindicating” investigations. Not a single one; none of them were legitimate. All it would take for this Mann critic to be satisfied is an adversarial investigation, in which both sides – prosecution and defense – are allowed to review evidence such as emails and computer hard drives, to ask questions under oath, and to cross-examine the other side’s witnesses. That is how the process operates in most countries. Mann’s “investigations” were such a set-up that he was informed beforehand of what questions would be asked, and he had a personal hand in directing the investigations, as reported by Steve McIntyre. Defend those shenanigans, barry. Is that how an investigation is supposed to work?

    Neither Mann nor Jones have ever faced an honest investigation, nor have any of their other climate charlatan pals. Every Potemkin Village “investigation” has been nothing but an orchestrated cover-up and a whitewash. When a prosecutor representing the defrauded public is allowed to ask these liars questions under oath in an adversarial setting, then just one investigation is all that will be necessary.

  85. barry says:

    Asked what ATI plans to do with the documents, Chesser said that depends on what’s in them. The institute may decide to post them on its Web site, he said. “We’ll have to see what we’ve got first.”

    http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/08/university-turns-over-some-mater.html?ref=ra

    Do I believe my eyes? ATI has immediately posted the emails etc online?

    This is hilarious. ATI has railed against UVA for denying the US taxpayer access to this information – and now has decided to become the keeper of such information. So after they’ve vetted the package, they “may” decide to post some/all/none on its website, presumably with accompanying commentary to *help* the uneducated masses form their opinions.

    If they meant what they’ve been saying they would post all the information, unedited, immediately, and let the taxpayers of America, for whom they have sued for access to this material, decide for themselves. Hypocrites.

  86. barry says:

    Hello again, Smokey,

    the NSF people are extremely interested in sweeping the whole Michael Mann disaster under the carpet in order to protect their gravy train. That is blindingly obvious to anyone with a whit of common sense.

    Huh? The NSF don’t get the money. They disburse it. There is no gravy train for them. If it’s ‘blindingly obvious’ you should be able to produce evidence of NSF making money by authorising grants. Something clear and obvious would be nice, rather than highly speculative scenarios relying on conspiracy theories with nothing but imagination to corroborate them.

  87. Smokey says:

    barry,

    There is an intense desire among humans to possesss the cookie jar from whence handouts can be made. This benefits both parties [while screwing the taxpayers], and is currently practiced in all government organizations, including the NSF.

    The NSF gets to disburse immense amounts of public money to its favorite constituents. If you don’t think that is a major motivation, I can’t do anything to help you. But everyone else understands that funneling public money to pals has major rewards, and is worthwhile for its own sake. Just look at Congress, with its earmarked bridges to nowhere, etc. Congress doesn’t get paid extra to dole out taxpayer loot, but they fight like ravenous hyenas to do it.

    The NSF has been corrupted by money. No surprise there. But no ethics, either. They’re not about to risk public backlash by exposing Michael Mann’s shenanigans and risking their ability to hand out public funds to cronies. They’re corrupt, see?

  88. barry says:

    The NSF gets to disburse immense amounts of public money to its favorite constituents. If you don’t think that is a major motivation, I can’t do anything to help you.

    You have just made this argument. “NSF have favourites, and that is their motivation for giving more money to their favourites”

    That’s not an argument. It’s an assertion. An empty one. Let me elaborate.

    I could say that Charles Monnett has been targeted by the Interior Department to squash scientific argument against drilling in the Arctic. I can provide plenty of circumstantial evidence, but there’s no direct link, and not enough corroborating evidence. But I could also use your argument style and say, with a wise smile, “Smokey, oil companies are in bed with the government. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. You’d have to be stupid to imagine they aren’t squeezing the Interior Department and Fisheries with every ounce they got to get permits to drill in the Arctic. If you don’t think oil profits are a major motivation, I can’t help you.”

    And that would make ten times more sense than what you said, because oil profits ARE clear motivation. It’s undeniable.

    But I’m more rigorous than you. I refuse to base my opinion on a nod and a wink to ‘home truths’, and assume that they are absolutely, positively applicable in case x. I will not argue that Charles Monnett is definitely the victim of a government smear campaign – but I might say it’s possible, or probable, if I think there are reasonable grounds. And Iwill lay those grounds out, rather than suggesting you are beyond help if you don’t just agree with me, or that you must be dumb not to see what the rest of the world knows.

    But everyone else understands that funneling public money to pals has major rewards, and is worthwhile for its own sake.

    This assertion becomes plausible when you

    1) demonstrate which of the purse string holders are friends with Michael Mann

    2) describe exactly what the rewards are for these people to award grants to Michael Mann (how do these bureaucrats profit??)

    3) why doing this is worthwhile for its own sake

    I’d be very curious to see you satisfy even 2 of those 3 requirements, but you’d need to do a good job on all three to be at all persuasive

    Give me the facts, not the facts of life. And don’t bother ornamenting your points with the implication that anyone would be stupid not to share your opinion. It’s a lousy tactic and it doesn’t work on a fellow cynic.

  89. Brian H says:

    Claude Harvey says:
    August 27, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    Be cautious about assuming no motive other than “hiding damaging information” could be possible here. Remember that our President vigorously resisted releasing his original birth certificate for at least two years, leading doubters to speculate wildly the he was hiding damaging truth. Only after accusations had reached a fevered pitch did the master politician release that document to the public, thus eviscerating his critics’ credibility.

    Har-de-har! You do mean that clumsy PDF with the 10 “overlays” visible in Adobe Illustrator, don’t you? What a hack job.
    News: a scan or photocopy of a real paper document has 0 (zero) overlays, and consists of 1 (one) layer, not 10 or more.

    I GUARANTEE there will never be an actual paper original produced.

    Oh, btw, that birth hospital it names? Somehow the 1961 document refers to an institution that wasn’t created (out of two smaller facilities) until 1978. Oops!

Comments are closed.