ATI press release on the Mann UVA emails

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.

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.

Nixon would be proud of UVA.

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

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

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.

Nice to see the UVA stand behind their faculty.

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”.

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…

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

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…

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?

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?

All your lies belong to us.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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…

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

@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?

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.

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.

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.