Mann hires attorneys to halt FOIA document production

Michael Mann

Image by AAUP via Flickr

From the there’s “nothing to see here and my lawyer says so too” department, we have news that Dr. Michael Mann really doesn’t want those UVA emails to get sunlight. From ATI:

‘Hockey Stick’ Creator Michael Mann Seeks Court’s Help to Ensure No Inquiry, No ‘Exoneration’

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Contact: Paul Chesser, Executive Director, paul.chesser@atinstitute.org

Dr. Michael Mann, lead author of the discredited “hockey stick” graph that was once hailed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the “smoking gun” of the catastrophic man-made global warming theory, has asked to intervene in American Tradition Institute’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that seeks certain records produced by Mann and others while he was at the University of Virginia, for the purpose of keeping them hidden from the taxpayer.

Specifically over the weekend ATI’s Environmental Law Center received service from two Pennsylvania attorneys who seek the court’s permission to argue for Dr. Mann to intervene in ATI’s case. The attorneys also filed a motion to stay production of documents still withheld by UVA, which are to be provided to ATI’s lawyers in roughly two weeks under a protective order that UVA voluntarily agreed to in May. Dr. Mann’s lawyers also desire a hearing in mid-September, in an effort to further delay UVA’s scheduled production of records under the order.

Dr. Mann’s argument, distilled, is that the court must bend the rules to allow him to block implementation of a transparency law, so as to shield his sensibilities from offense once the taxpayer – on whose dime he subsists – sees the methods he employed to advance the global warming theory and related policies. ATI’s Environmental Law Center is not sympathetic.

“Dr. Mann’s late-hour tactics offer the spectacle of someone who relies on the media’s repeats of his untrue claims of having been ‘investigated’ and ‘exonerated’ – that is, when he’s not sputtering ad hominem and conspiracy theories to change the subject,” said Christopher Horner, director of litigation for ATI’s Environmental Law Center. “Mann has tried whatever means possible to ensure he remains free of any serious scrutiny, and this just appears to be his last gasp.”

Dr. Mann’s move is therefore gratifying, and ATI will agree to his out-of-state lawyers’ motion to appear. But ATI will ask the court to uphold Virginia’s abundantly clear law, that Dr. Mann has no interest in records that are purely the property of the taxpayer.

ATI will present to the court how Dr. Mann understood, as an unambiguous and agreed-upon condition of his employment, that he had no expectation of privacy when he used UVA’s public email system. ATI therefore looks forward to seeing if, given the opportunity, UVA will defend the idea that any of its own policies be upheld in court. Since Dr. Mann has no property interest in the taxpayer-owned records sought by ATI, he has no standing and therefore should not be entered in the case. Dr. Mann wants, after the fact, for UVA to throw out policies he accepted as a condition of living off of taxpayer dollars, in order to cover up public information and to evade scrutiny.

To the extent Dr. Mann, the university, or their obstructionist backers like Union of Concerned Scientists continue to argue he has been “cleared” or “exonerated,” or that any substantive investigation has taken place, those pleadings are undermined by their persistent efforts to squelch inquiry. As a result, all the public sees is an effort to sweep Climategate revelations under the rug in order to preserve the biggest taxpayer-financed gravy train for science and academia in decades. Hence we see the Rasmussen Reports poll last month that showed a strong majority of the public believes scientists who study climate change have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs.

“Virginia’s courts do not brook conspiracy theories as the basis for intervention in run-of-the-mill Freedom of Information Act litigation,” said Dr. David Schnare, director of ATI’s Environmental Law Center. “Dr. Mann – having failed to prevail in the court of public opinion – cannot now strut into court, soap box in hand, and expect a warm welcome.”

See case documents, press releases, media coverage, commentary, broadcast interviews, etc. pertaining to ATI v. University of Virginia by clicking here: http://bit.ly/mLZLXC

For an interview with Environmental Law Center director Dr. David Schnare or director of litigation Christopher Horner, email paul.chesser@atinstitute.org or call (202)670-2680.

Follow ATI on Twitter: http://twitter.atinstitute.org

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

120 Responses to Mann hires attorneys to halt FOIA document production

  1. Barbara Skolaut says:

    Oh, fer cryin’ out loud. Wotta loser.

  2. Beesaman says:

    I wonder if he’s worried somethings about to hit the fan?

  3. bill says:

    Entering at this stage has the look of desperation….perhaps there is something very entertaining in those emails after all.

  4. Jim says:

    The Mann doth protest too much, methinks.

  5. Robinson says:

    Me thinks he doth protest too much.

  6. Nuke Nemesis says:

    Nothing to see here, so why bother releasing the data emails?

  7. Let’s flashback to the Washington Post op-ed written by Dr. Mann himself: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100705484.html

    “As a scientist, I shouldn’t have a stake in the upcoming midterm elections, but unfortunately, it seems that I — and indeed all my fellow climate scientists — do.

    Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has threatened that, if he becomes chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he will launch what would be a hostile investigation of climate science. The focus would be on e-mails stolen from scientists at the University of East Anglia in Britain last fall that climate-change deniers have falsely claimed demonstrate wrongdoing by scientists, including me. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) may do the same if he takes over a committee on climate change and energy security. ”

    ——–
    It seems Mann can take some solace in the fact that Darrell Issa has bigger fish to fry, e.g. Operational Fast and Furious and Operation Gun Runner which goes from the ATF to Justice through the Attorney General into the White House. In other words, Issa doesn’t care — and has not launched any hostile investigations of climate science. All of this bluster in the op-ed was just a bunch of political bs.

  8. Garry says:

    I just posted this over at Bishop Hill:

    How is he going to get around this, the Commonwealth of Virginia’s responsible use policy for state employees (his employment at the Univ. of Virginia made Mann a state employee from 1999 to 2005):

    Policy: 1.75 – Use of Electronic Communications And Social Media
    Effective Date: 8/1/01
    Revision Date: 3/17/11

    USE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND
    SOCIAL MEDIA

    Application: All state employees, including employees of agencies exempt from coverage
    of the Virginia Personnel Act.

    NOTE: Agencies may also require consultants, contract personnel, or other non-employees
    such as volunteers or interns to abide by this policy.

    Agencies have the following responsibilities and requirements related to this policy.

    A. Monitor Usage
    No user shall have any expectation of privacy in any message, file, image or data
    created, sent, retrieved, received, or posted in the use of the Commonwealth’s equipment
    and/or access. Agencies have a right to monitor any and all aspects of electronic
    communications and social media usage. Such monitoring may occur at any time,
    without notice, and without the user’s permission.

    In addition, except for exemptions under the Act, electronic records may be subject to
    the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and, therefore, available for public distribution.

    http://www.dhrm.state.va.us/hrpolicy/pol175UseOfInternet.pdf

  9. janets says:

    It just encourages the belief that he’s got something to hide.

  10. KnR says:

    If you have nothing to hide you nothing to fear from public dis-closer , lets hope Mann has plenty to hide and that is why his playing this game because its one his going to lose.

  11. Laurie Bowen says:

    Supreme Court Tells AT&T It Has No Right to Privacy
    http://dataprivacy.foxrothschild.com/2011/03/articles/right-to-privacy/supreme-court-tells-att-it-has-no-right-to-privacy/

    It’s an ongoing issue . . . read more round-about it!

  12. PaulH says:

    I believe Steve McIntyre over a Climate Audit said recently that rather than going after the individuals in the CAGW scare, we should focus instead on the institutions and bodies that enable and protect those individuals. Perhaps we should move away from Mann and focus on his enablers within the University of Virginia.

  13. Shevva says:

    Sorry Michael if your looking for help from your mates there out painting clouds black.

  14. pwoodsvt says:

    When Sarah Palin had her emails released the press and liberal organizations scrambled to find some kind of dirt that might have been in the emails. After extensively searching Palin’s emails the liberals all looked like fools when they could find nothing that would tarnish the reputation of Palin. Now, Michael Mann has the opportunity to do the same thing to the climate skeptic community. If Mann has not falsified any data and he has been completely honest with his work then releasing the emails will make Ken Cuccinelli and the climate skeptics look foolish. It appears to me that Mann is trying to hide something by blocking the release of the emails.

  15. Jeff Alberts says:

    There’s definitely oil under the surface.

  16. Gary Hladik says:

    So Dr. Mann is paying these lawyers out of his own pocket?

  17. PhilJourdan says:

    No one can accuse him of being humble. The arrogance is rank.

  18. Chuck Nolan says:

    It seems it might get harder to “hide the decline”.

  19. matthu says:

    I guess he’s trying to protect his interests in the libel case he has taken out against Tim Ball…

  20. Doug UK says:

    What on earth does he think he will gain by doing this?
    The terms he agreed to state clearly no privacy and subject to FoI requests.

    You cannot fail but come to the conclusion that there is something he (and most likely “The Team”) REALLY do not want the rest of us to see.

    It does look like this could be the end game.

  21. Robert M says:

    I have no doubt that one way or another these emails and the data used by Mann and Co. to perpetuate the AGW fraud will never see the light of day. The only question is, is how much it is going to cost Mann and Co. including the UVA to keep these documents under wraps, or if necessary, destroy them.

  22. jimkress999 says:

    Mann is an embarrassment to Science. He should return to a job better suited to his qualifications, i.e. dog feces collection.

  23. Roger Knights says:

    He ducks like a quack.

  24. JC says:

    Why should he want them released? We’re only going to try and find something wrong with them.

    :-)

  25. keith says:

    The truth shall set you free… ;-)

  26. Roger Knights says:

    Doug UK says:
    September 6, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    It does look like this could be the end game.

    More likely just another arrow in the elephant. But maybe a big one.

  27. mpaul says:

    Hey, I win the I-told-you-so award
    August 12, 2011 at 2:39 pm comment 717857

    The one wild cards here is Mann. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Mann contest the consent order in the coming days. The consent order was between ATI and UVa. Mann can argue that he has standing to challenge the consent order. But Mann would risk looking guilty in the eyes of the public if he did that alone. This could explain the letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

    Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.

  28. 1DandyTroll says:

    I think some people always think before they act and will always act according to an agenda, therefore I they’re mostly trying to shift focus to have people spend time on crap.

    So the tit for tat answer is to just do the same. :p

  29. So?
    There is a god. !

  30. TheGoodLocust says:

    Clearly he is just fighting for academic freedom for scientists everywhere.

    He’s a hero!

    I imagine that will be the spin if he is called out on this. In any case his strategy is either:

    1) Idiotic – nobody this dumb should be in academia.
    2) Necessary since the emails are damning
    3) A safety measure since he doesn’t remember what is in the records
    4) A ploy the play the victim when nothing comes up, which indicates a conniving and manipulative personality – something we already knew from the Climategate emails.

    I can’t think of a valid and moral reason for him to enter the fray like this.

  31. Latitude says:

    Obviously PR out the window…..
    I don’t see any way around it.
    He was an employee of the state….the law’s the law

  32. Jones the Steve says:

    The next few weeks are going to be very enjoyable. It is such a shame that the e-mails won’t be released in time for them to be discussed at Gore’e forthcoming climatefest.

  33. Bulldust says:

    Perhaps he shares Jones’ sentiment… once the emails are out, people will try to find problems in them. Well duh! It is hard to see how these chaps have any credibility remaining in scientific circles. It is much akin to Australia’s Prime Minister who is determined to push through a CO2 tax despite having no mandate for it at the election (quite the reverse in fact) and opinion polls at all time lows. Unfortunately desperate people are inclined to do desperate things…

  34. This action by Mann is indicative of one thing and one thing only. He DOES have something to hide and that ‘something’ will be revealed in his e-mails.
    Both Mann and the University of Virginia will most probably suffer greatly when this ‘something’ emerges, and it is entirely the fault of the University of Virginia that they have become embroiled in this mess. They tried to cover up something which they knew was wrong. How many times must people be told that it is not the original offence which causes the biggest problems, it is the attempted cover-up which causes the destruction.
    I think that Mann is now in the “half-a-crown, tanner” phase of this investigation.
    For those not familiar with this peculiarly English phrase allow me to elucidate. The pre-decimalisation half-a-crown coin (two shillings and sixpence) was a large coin; the tanner, a colloquialism for the sixpenny coin which was a very small coin. The “half-a-crown, tanner” simile is used to reflect the effect of nervousness upon a particularly private sphincter of the human body.

  35. gator69 says:

    The Anthony Weiner of clinate science!

  36. RockyRoad says:

    PaulH says:
    September 6, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    I believe Steve McIntyre over a Climate Audit said recently that rather than going after the individuals in the CAGW scare, we should focus instead on the institutions and bodies that enable and protect those individuals. Perhaps we should move away from Mann and focus on his enablers within the University of Virginia.

    Yes! UVa admin has already spent at least $500,000 taxpayer dollars in this effort. They should all be summarily dismissed and be required to repay. Idiots and thieves, the lot of ‘em.

    Of course, this could easily be the other end of Climategate.

  37. Ed Caryl says:

    Gary Hladik says:
    September 6, 2011 at 1:40 pm
    So Dr. Mann is paying these lawyers out of his own pocket?

    I seriously doubt it. Follow the money.

  38. kramer says:

    To me, if there is nothing in those emails damaging to Mann, he’d want them to be released to show he did nothing wrong. Seems to me this would be what most normal humans would do under the same circumstances (assuming no wrong-doing).

  39. Brian H says:

    Yes, the Tim Ball case is relevant. IIRC, one of the quips he objected to was that he should be in State Penn rather than Penn State. Or SLT.

  40. Frank says:

    How deep does this go beyond the climate change religion? Are all grant seeking scientists any different from Dr. Mann?

  41. Douglas DC says:

    What is he afraid of? Truth? Misunderstanding? Deception?
    Be a Mann sir.
    Not a mouse..

  42. Andrew30 says:

    PaulH says: September 6, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    [Perhaps we should move away from Mann and focus on his enablers within the University of Virginia.]
    No, absolutely not. Doing this will ultimately prove that it is in fact all your fault, this is the path that would occur, and it is exactly what people in fear of individual responsibility always try to accomplish.

    It was Manns doing it is his fault.
    But, Mann is part of the department, so it is the departments fault.
    But, the department is part of the university, so it is the universities fault.
    But, the university receives funding and some over site from the government, so it is the governments fault.
    But the government is chosen by the votes of society, so it is society fault.
    And since you are part of society…
    It is Your Fault.

    Keep the spotlight on the PERSON that did the thing or else you will end up with a mirror in from of them that reflects to spotlight on to you while hiding them in the shadow.

  43. temp says:

    PaulH says:
    September 6, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    I believe Steve McIntyre over a Climate Audit said recently that rather than going after the individuals in the CAGW scare, we should focus instead on the institutions and bodies that enable and protect those individuals. Perhaps we should move away from Mann and focus on his enablers within the University of Virginia.”

    I don’t disagree with this as a long term move however short term putting 1 or 2 high profile heads on pikes is both far easier and far more effective.

    If you start going after whole colleges on “little proof” you will cause the media to have a real story to twist, colleges will band together even some that have nothing to do with the issue because they don’t bother to review the real info instead just use the propaganda produced by the media.

    You also have the problem of them using state money and dragging things outs for decades along with being able to create all kinds of excuses.

    By going after a handful of “stars” you both send a msg that “yes we will come after you for “following orders””, Its also far easier and more straight forward. Much as the piece writes,

    “ATI therefore looks forward to seeing if, given the opportunity, UVA will defend the idea that any of its own policies be upheld in court.”

    colleges have a long history of abusive rules and regs that they know are blatantly unconstitutional on their face and they defend them to the death spending millions. It will be fun watching them try to balance how suddenly they have to choose between “we are above all laws and write our own and if you don’t like it were going to abuse you until the courts say we can’t and then even after” vs “we have to choose between our need to be gods and our need to push our agenda”.

    This also will keep other colleges out because the last thing they want to push is that “we colleges aren’t above the law” motto.

    Once you get a few heads then you can roll into college town and simply state “look we both know your not going to win this and this is what your going to do”. This saves the taxpayer millions if not billions and should at least get the process started of getting rid of the worst offenders.

    Plus lets not forget the failure to pike hansen and other global cooling nutters has directly resulted in them being able to bring about the next cultist craze in global warming/etc.
    Even if they don’t get sent to jail, discrediting them publicly will help prevent future cultist crazes from being pushed.

  44. Scarface says:

    Mann:
    Might add non-existing numbers
    May ask new name

  45. It would seem like mann-made global warming is catastrophic, after all! ;-)

  46. eyesonu says:

    What is Mann thinking? From a reasonable person’s viewpoint, his actions, as well as some others related to his work, suggest a desperate attempt at a cover up.

    It most certainly appears the he has gone ‘all in’ to stop something from being revealed.

    Will the impact be as great as his efforts to conceal? This saga is already very interesting. I’m beginning to think the conclusion may be a block buster.

  47. Nick Stokes says:

    Mann wrote the emails they are trawling through. He is seeking to be represented in the discussions, which seems reasonable. They have asked for a two-week stay to let his lawyers study the material. It seems ATI has agreed, which is also reasonable. The rest is posturing.

  48. Ken Hall says:

    IF Michael Mann has really been properly and fully cleared and exonerated of any and all wrongdoing with regards to his publicly funded research, then surely he has absolutely nothing whatsoever to fear from full disclosure and publication of these public property emails?

    For him to act in such bad faith shows the action of a man who is desperately trying to hide something. One has to ask, what and why?

    Surely if he takes the prior behaviour of his acolytes in the climate “science” community as an example, he could have been stealing phrases from Chinese fortune cookies and passing those off as computer projections, and his supporters would STILL claim that he has practising rigorous science. I am not sure at this point what Mann would have to do for his loyal and faithful followers to lose faith in him. Certainly his utter abandonment of any pretence of sticking to the scientific method has not dented their faith in him.

    So what has he to fear at this point from full disclosure?

  49. Latitude says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    September 6, 2011 at 3:31 pm
    ================================
    Thanks Nick….where there’s smoke….there’s fire

  50. pat says:

    i suspect all obviously incriminating emails etc have been long purged. But there is the possibility of comparisons and replies from other sources proving that emails have indeed been deleted on a selective basis. And that could be a real problem.

  51. HaroldW says:

    Gary Hladik (September 6, 2011 at 1:40 pm) asked:
    So Dr. Mann is paying these lawyers out of his own pocket?

    In his petition, Mann says that he’s passed the hat for lawyers’ fees: “Recently, through a fundraising effort by the scientific community, Dr. Mann was able to raise sufficient funds to retain counsel…”

  52. Jeff Alberts says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    September 6, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    Mann wrote the emails they are trawling through. He is seeking to be represented in the discussions, which seems reasonable. They have asked for a two-week stay to let his lawyers study the material. It seems ATI has agreed, which is also reasonable. The rest is posturing.

    If him being represented is part of the FOI legislation, fine, otherwise it seems more like obstruction. If he wrote them, he already knows what’s in them. That’s why we’re suspicious.

  53. Wade says:

    The “if you have nothing to hide” argument is an argument for tyranny. Everybody should reject that argument because if you give any government the power to search you for any arbitrary reason just because you have nothing to hide, then we will have lost one of the most important freedoms that we have.

    What you should be arguing about is why is it so hard to enforce a federal law? The FOIA is clear, those emails are the property of the taxpaying people of Virginia. They do not belong to Michael Mann, they belong to the people. How hard is it to understand this? It is like having your car stolen and when the police found the car, the thief was never forced to return the stolen car. Stop lollygagging and return our property to us now! Give us the emails! They belong to the taxpayers, not to you!

  54. Andrew Harding says:

    The similarity of Mann’s reluctance to publicise his taxpayer funded data and the UK’s Members of Parliament’s reluctance to publicise their taxpayer funded “expenses” says it all.
    Does he really need to grow hair around his mouth to talk like a …….. Lady’s private bits or does that just come with the job?

  55. EJ says:

    It is no longer national defence controlling the science/industrial complex, with the end of the cold war, it is now the environmental regulationions controlling the science/governmental complex.

    Very recent events are beautiful examples of the corruption and utterly unscientific practices exhibited by key players of the ‘team’.

    If one has had to deal with a ‘wetland’ (navigable water per the Clean Water Act) or fishing regulations or had to get a permit to put in a septic system or on and on and on.

    The engineers are forced to satisfy infinitne unnecessary environmental requirements to get permits.

    It is a racket now.

  56. Tim Minchin says:

    Once the emails are out it’s all over for CAGW

  57. Max Hugoson says:

    Can “we” sue under “equal protection” and ask for as much $$$$ as Mann has, from institutional resources? Or insist that he pay for this HIMSELF?

    Here’s an interesting thought…Mano-a-mano, one professor on the Skeptic side, sponsoring the case on our side, Mann on his side. The winner is the one left with $1 in the bank. No, come to think of it, THEY’D BOTH LOSE, but the Lawyers would all win.

  58. Interstellar Bill says:

    The warmista’s emotional level over the threatened exposure of UVA e-mails is about the same as their high dudgeon over the ClimateGate e-mails. (HeyMM, they were ‘leaked’, not ‘stolen’.)
    Therefore you can expect at least as much revelatory dirt in the UVA emails as in ClimateGate.

    Ever since Oliver North’s futile deleting of e-mails, it is well known the e-mails are forever. If it was that easy to delete the incriminatoria, they would be long gone and UVA would not resist at all.

    The climate-sane eagerly await this latest scandal to break fully, perhaps in time for Nov 2012.

    Sooner or later we will get those e-mails, their exposure will be played to a chorus of renewed doomsday-wailing and gnashing of warmista fangs.

  59. Jeff Alberts says:

    Wade says:
    September 6, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    The “if you have nothing to hide” argument is an argument for tyranny. Everybody should reject that argument because if you give any government the power to search you for any arbitrary reason just because you have nothing to hide, then we will have lost one of the most important freedoms that we have.

    Well said.

  60. Dickens Goes Metro says:

    It boggles the mind that an institution founded by Jefferson would have spent half a million trying to dodge one of their prime directives. It is also profoundly disturbing.

    But hey this is Climate Science ™.

  61. 2kevin says:

    Mann gets at a minimum the ‘Douche of the Week’ award. (Let us not dwell on the fact that a douche actually has a useful purpose…)

    How can he personally stop the release of emails that are not his own personal property. Maybe his next step will be to switch all the emails for new ones at the last minute and then submit them to the public for inspection, much like Bush did at the last minute with the Patriot Act; after all, one authoritarian can learn from another.

  62. danj says:

    Mann feels like he is being hindered in his efforts to save the world and laws don’t apply to someone like him who is in the midst of a sacred mission. Hopefully the Virginia courts will wake him from his delusions…

  63. RiHo08 says:

    Is it possible there are other issues in the emails that Mann does not want ATI lawyers to see? even if they do not bear upon climate change but….ah… personnel and explicit? Enquiring minds want to know. However, in all fairness, making sure any investigation stays focused, not straying into personal muckraking is a good idea even if it takes a few extra bucks to hire an attorney to be sure the process retains integrity; something I agree should happen.

  64. Ockham says:

    “Maybe his next step will be to switch all the emails for new ones at the last minute and then submit them to the public for inspection,”

    You mean, in an uncharacteristic reversal he will splice in proxy emails for the actual ones? Hiding his decline?

  65. But ATI will ask the court to uphold Virginia’s abundantly clear law, that Dr. Mann has no interest in records that are purely the property of the taxpayer.

    ==================

    Well for all of the other peccadilloes of my state….it is good to know that we are at least attempting to do something right.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  66. ferd berple says:

    matthu says:
    September 6, 2011 at 2:12 pm
    “I guess he’s trying to protect his interests in the libel case he has taken out against Tim Ball…”

    Wouldn’t all of Mann’s documents and mails related to climate science would be available to Ball, his lawyers and any hired investigators under discovery?

    Perhaps Ball could hire a large online subset of the readership of WUWT to review Mann’s documents, produced under discovery, for the sum of say 1 cent and valuable consideration, to discover if there is a connection between Pen State and State Pen.

  67. Rob Z. says:

    An open comment to the President Teresa A. Sullivan of UVA regarding the Mann emails: You have the opportunity to take a stand for scientific integrity and call off the lawyers assigned by your predecessor to protect possible malfeasance. You also have the opportunity to clarify the previous University of Virginia President’s position. Here’s a handy phrase to save face, “New Evidence has come to light…” and it’s free to you for your future use. Review the emails yourself and before they harm the University issue the appropriate statement of findings. These legal delays are rightfully concluded by the general public as willful attempts by the University to cover up wrong doing. You have already lost that media battle. You can’t control the media spin from your current position. Better to get ahead of the upcoming storm. Begin work with your State’s AG now.

  68. ferd berple says:

    Wade says:
    September 6, 2011 at 4:41 pm
    The “if you have nothing to hide” argument is an argument for tyranny.

    And Freedom of Information is the mechanism to overcome tyranny. Information paid for by the public for the exclusive use of the elite is how universities, politicians and public bureaucrats have operated for years, until systemic corruption now threatens the future of the nation and the world.

  69. Rhoda Ramirez says:

    Ok, I’m going into conspiracy territory here: The team, including Mann, have weathered numerous assaults that have shown the utter lack of scientific justification for their positions, so I don’t think that Mann is really worried about that. I see only three viable explanations for Mann’s actions: 1) He’s just stirring the pot to make life miserable for anyone who would dare to question His Greatness; 2) He knows there is some scientific weakness highlighted in his e-mails and he’s enough of a pathological nutcase that he can’t stand to have it exposed; or 3) there is something that might (could) result in criminal conspiracy charges that include his precious hide. UVA might have been stonewalling all along because they fear scenario 3 and are worried that they might be embroiled as well.

  70. KevinK says:

    Wade wrote;

    “The “if you have nothing to hide” argument is an argument for tyranny. Everybody should reject that argument because if you give any government the power to search you for any arbitrary reason just because you have nothing to hide, then we will have lost one of the most important freedoms that we have.”

    With respect, I fully agree when the communications in question are PERSONAL. However every email/phone call/fax/etc. that I produce with my employers equipment while being paid by them for services rendered (ok, admittedly a bit of a stretch when applied to climate science) belongs to them. The “them” in this case is the taxpayer (State of Virginia and the good old USA).

    Yes indeed we all send some emails with “personal” data inside to spouses, friends, etc. My employer allows for a reasonable amount of this as a bit of a “perk” of the job. However I (and I’m sure others) are careful not to abuse this privilege. So indeed if somebody wants to go back through my emails to/from my office and determine that indeed the spouse requested (7 years ago on a Tuesday in October at 4:45 pm) that I bring home a dozen eggs and 1 quart of 1% milk on my way home from work I say; knock yourself out.

    I believe the the original agreement with the court was a way to avoid disclosing these non-germane emails from being disclosed (as if anybody was really interested in those anyway).

    It does indeed seem that Dr. (I use the term with a grain of salt in this case) Mann does indeed “protest too much”.

    Cheers, Kevin.

  71. Roger Sowell says:

    This request to intervene by Dr. Mann has much more substance than at first appears. His attorneys are invoking a First Amendment right of professors to have academic freedom. The attorneys quoted a 1957 Supreme Court case, Sweezy v. New Hampshire (354 U.S. 234, 250) where the Court wrote, “To impose any straight jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. . . Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study, and to evaluate.”

    Mann also claims that UVa has agreed to hand over emails that it knows are exempt from such disclosure under the Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act.

    Mann also claims that forced disclosure of his emails would have a chilling effect on other academic scientists and force them to be much more careful in what they write in their communications with other scientists. Mann extends this to not only US academics but around the world, presumably because climate science is engaged in by academics in many countries.

    If the court allows the intervention, this case could get very complicated, and require a very long time for resolution. No matter who prevails, and if the losing party has the funds, this could be appealed through the various appellate courts and ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court.

  72. Policyguy says:

    I suspect its more of who else will be revealed than the substance he may want to hide.

  73. Pete H says:

    savethesharks says:
    September 6, 2011 at 8:24 pm
    “But ATI will ask the court to uphold Virginia’s abundantly clear law, that Dr. Mann has no interest in records that are purely the property of the taxpayer.”

    ATI seem to be laughing up their sleeves over that fact. Where on earth does Mann get the time to do any real science when he is posturing like this? …. Oh that’s right, he is fund raising with the libitards to spend even more time in court!

  74. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From RiHo08 on September 6, 2011 at 7:15 pm:

    Is it possible there are other issues in the emails that Mann does not want ATI lawyers to see? even if they do not bear upon climate change but….ah… personnel and explicit?

    Dang, what do you think is in there? Mann requesting hot monkey love with Trenberth and Hansen? Would Mann be stupid enough to put that in a “company” email? Maybe with some pics of his favorite “hardwood tree core”?

  75. Laurie says:

    Wade,
    “…’if you have nothing to hide’ argument is an argument for tyranny.”

    My thoughts exactly.

    However, Dr. Mann signed a paper for HR stating he read his Employee Handbook/memo. If he didn’t understand it and used his employer’s equipment to write personal emails, and expected privacy, that’s his problem and mistake. They don’t belong to him. Therefore, the “nothing to hide” comments are not only dangerous and foolish but irrelevant.

  76. Larry in Texas says:

    Wade says:
    September 6, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    “The “if you have nothing to hide” argument is an argument for tyranny. Everybody should reject that argument because if you give any government the power to search you for any arbitrary reason just because you have nothing to hide, then we will have lost one of the most important freedoms that we have.”

    Um, Wade, this is not a “search” as is typical of Fourth Amendment cases. You have missed the point completely. It is a request for public documents (whether in electronic or other form) being made by private individuals who, as members of the general, taxpaying public, have a right to look at those documents. Virginia’s law and policy make it pretty clear (as equally clear as it is here in Texas, by the way) that public information includes electronic information and that anybody who utilizes the state e-mail system to generate documents is subject to those documents being made public. The fact that Mann studiously continues to insist on resisting and delaying compliance with this basic request (and has not publicly indicated what exceptions to Virginia’s act he falls under, if any), gives those of us who have expertise in or are informed about public information laws around the country the right and the reason to question Prof. Mann’s motives here and whether he has something to hide (which to me, he does).

    Yours is the argument for tyranny; sunlight and open government is the best disinfectant for folks like Michael Mann.

  77. Larry in Texas says:

    Roger Sowell says:
    September 6, 2011 at 10:12 pm

    Roger, having dealt with some of these issues in the past (but not in a university setting, mind you), I can tell you that the arguments related to “academic freedom” are without merit, in my opinion, at best, and spurious at worst.

    No one would believe for a minute that if there is nothing of consequence found in these e-mails that anybody’s freedom of speech would be “chilled.” Most public information acts around the country except out the “draft” memo or document, and exclude internal policy development discussions and other similar matters, so that is not an issue. If, in fact, draft papers Mann wrote for internal discussion are exchanged by e-mail, there may be a basis for an exception for some of the e-mails. But that does not seem to be the case here – yet. But what Mann does fails to compare to what policymakers do in terms of whether some exception should either be carved out and implied in the Virginia law, or forms the basis of the First Amendment “trumping” the public’s right to know what goes on in its government.

    Nevertheless, UVA and the State of Virginia have made it clear to all of their employees who read and write e-mails that they are subject to public disclosure. The burden is on Mann to be circumspect in what he writes if he doesn’t really want it to be seen. This same kind of argument could have been made by all of my former clients, as well – how is their free speech not “chilled” as a result of what they write in an e-mail? But having to be more circumspect is not the same as “chilling” speech, believe me.

    Hiding behind the curtain of academic freedom in order to foil an attempt to discover what goes on in government institutions is a greater threat to freedom, because Mann and his colleagues attempt to use what they supposedly “know” to influence policy makers to create a stringent and economically damaging regulatory scheme worldwide with respect to CO2.

  78. jeef says:

    Decline the hide?

  79. Gary Pate says:

    Dr. Mann’s house of cards appears to be teetering.
    Just one of way too many junk science parasites sucking off the public tit..

  80. John Marshall says:

    The more he squirms the more we know that he has cooked the books.

  81. Jean says:

    Little hint for Mann, when in Virginia, hire local lawyers.

  82. Julian in Wales says:

    Mann is liability to the AGW cause. They should have distanced themselves from his work after Steve Macintyre made his assessment of the hockey stick and rubbished his cherry picking methods. They should have distanced themselves from Pachauri after he made his ill-judged remark about “Voodoo Science”, and after his links to TERI had been exposed. They should have distanced themselves from Phil Jones after they read his climategate emails about knobbling the peer review proces and the Harry Read Me notes.

    Now they have to take the consequences for not throwing out the bad apples. No one is going to believe that the whole tub has not been contaminated by the company they choose to keep.

  83. Alexander K says:

    An unusually clear demonstration of the plea for special privileges for academics, who are no more or less worthy of said privileges than refuse collectors or postmen who are also paid from the public purse.

  84. Richard A. says:

    Doug UK says “You cannot fail but come to the conclusion that there is something he (and most likely “The Team”) REALLY do not want the rest of us to see.

    It does look like this could be the end game.”

    You would think and even hope that. But after all these years I’m forced to float a conclusion that doesn’t involve a conspiracy to cover up the truth: maybe he’s just a prick. Or maybe he, like most other people, sent some personal emails he’d rather not have made public but which aren’t related to work. Never attribute to malice what basic human nature and stupidity can explain. Either way, the law IS clear and we should know soon enough what he’s worried about, unless he gets the most moronic judge on the planet to hear his lawyer’s arguments.

  85. mark wagner says:

    you know, what brought down Capone wasn’t the mob hits, gun running and other juicy mafia stuff… it was tax evasion. Yep, the lowly bookkeeper who provided the evidence for the only crime anyone could pin on him.

    likewise, what will bring down the global warming charade will not be failures of models, failure to warm, contradictory studies or observational evidence to the contrary, but rather the drip drip drip of documentation that slowly evidences the games played with the truth. Climategate was an eye opener, especially for those who have actually read the code, and soon we will have the UVA emails. Each one opens the door for another round of bookkeeping (email) trails to follow.

    Eventually the lies will be uncovered. Like the Wiley Coyote cartoons… the fuse is lit. The end is now inevitable.

    Unless “they” expend every ounce of energy, money, legal maneuvering and media leverage they have to try and put the lid back on the box. This is it. Do or die time for “them.”

    So don’t be surprised by ANYthing they do to try and stop this.

  86. mark t says:

    Fred Berple: in the US, yes, Tim Ball would have discovery rights. Mann sued him in Canada, however, and (apparently) discovery only applies for suits over a certain judgement amount (someone said $50000.)

    Mark

  87. mark wagner says:

    “Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study, and to evaluate.”

    This does not extend to “lie, cheat and defraud.”

  88. Nuke Nemesis says:

    Wade says:
    September 6, 2011 at 4:41 pm
    The “if you have nothing to hide” argument is an argument for tyranny. Everybody should reject that argument because if you give any government the power to search you for any arbitrary reason just because you have nothing to hide, then we will have lost one of the most important freedoms that we have.

    You’re arguing the professional (not personal) conduct of a government employee need to be protected from the government? Or are you arguing that the professional conduct of a government employee need to be shielded from public oversight?

  89. John Whitman says:

    Anthony,

    Now you really have done it! Mann will put you on his most detested list. You gave him second billing behind Trenberth/Wagner/S&B!!!! Second billing? How dare you?

    You will never be forgiven by Mikey for that.

    Note: remember that cereal commercial with the phrase “Mikey likes it!” Now we may see editorial/op-ed pieces with “Mikey doesn’t like it!”.

    : )

    John

  90. The New Scientific Method– showing some “data” while hiding and shredding the rest!

    Science!

  91. beng says:

    I figured he already had a “team” of lawyers from the beginning….

  92. John Whitman says:

    The fundamental freedom is:

    academic freedom
    social freedom
    economic freedom
    political freedom
    -
    -
    -
    religious freedom

    So, you can deduce that the most fundamental freedom is simply freedom.

    There is no academic freedom. Just freedom. Academic freedom is just a red herring.

    Mann’s situation at UofV was not free from his obligations to UofV policy nor free from the FOIA obligations wrt work funded by taxpayer’s money. Now, also, he can possibly also learn that he is not free to intervene in the Va court agreement between Uof V and ATI.

    Mann just, like a 3 year old, thinks he is special. He needs to grow up; especially if he wants to do the correct thing finally and save the world from the pseudo-science he is being questioned about.

    John

  93. Alexander K says: September 7, 2011 at 4:04 am

    An unusually clear demonstration of the plea for special privileges for academics, who are no more or less worthy of said privileges than refuse collectors or postmen who are also paid from the public purse.

    Whilst I’d agree with almost everything said about Mann, I have to stand up for academics. Academic research is progressive, competitive and may take years to come to fruition. I can see that some academic research should be free from FOI for perhaps a decade or at least long enough to bring that research to a point where patents could be applied for.

    Another concern is that private companies may just poach off publicly funded research – in effect they get all the benefits and none of the cost. That isn’t a good deal for the tax payer (arguable!).

    So, all other things being equal I would have different rules for academics. But all things are not equal and Mann, Jones, etc. have shown that they cannot be trusted even under the present rules. Worse other academics have defended their clear breach of the law and clear attempt to pervert the course of science. So, in the present climate, academics simply do not deserve enhanced protection – they blew that right when they supported the corruption exposed in Climategate.

  94. Nuke Nemesis says:

    Mann’s actions certainly appear obstructionist, in line with his other attempts to keep the requested information away from the public. Still, that does not mean guilt. If he really believes he is the subject of a witch hunt, his actions are very understandable.

    If nothing else, Mann seems to sincerely believe he has done nothing wrong and stands by his research. Remember, it’s not necessarily criminal, unethical or fraudulent to produce poorly done work.

  95. Garry says:

    @savethesharks says September 6, 2011 at 8:24 pm: “Well for all of the other peccadilloes of my state….it is good to know that we are at least attempting to do something right.”

    As a fellow Commonwealth taxpayer and citizen, I hope that Mann and his Pennsylvania lawyers are ejected on their butts from the Virginia courts.

    Mann is at essence demanding that the court invalidate the Commonwealth of Virginia’s computer use policy strictly for Mann’s personal convenience, and by extension the computer use policies of every business entity in the state. Surely his lawyers must understand this.

  96. G. Karst says:

    Frank says:
    September 6, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    How deep does this go beyond the climate change religion? Are all grant seeking scientists any different from Dr. Mann?

    Yes!

    Climate research is just the worst! Because it is the worst, it occupies the illuminated spot at the tip of the iceberg. As you know the visible tip of an iceberg is very tiny compared to what is submerged. Research funding(s) are the transfer of very large sums of money to real human beings. Most gets doled out for political reasons, a lot gets doled out for commercial reasons.

    All of it is very corrupting on human beings. This is the well from which all scientists must drink, in order to fund their projects.

    There are many scientists, who can drink from the well AND resist its corrupting influence, by maintaining an absolute standard of integrity and adherence to the scientific method. Many others cannot. Unfortunately, those that CANNOT are rewarded by funding advancement BECAUSE it serves political and commercial agenda.

    What is sad, is there is no real efforts, on the horizon that will change anything. The peer review is part and parcel, of this compounding process also. In the end everything comes down to the individual integrity of each and every scientist/researcher. The heads of large public projects must always be subject to scrutiny, by those that have integrity, and those that pay the bill. GK

  97. rbateman says:

    Weasel Stew with a dash of gall.
    If the UVA is going to go private, then it needs no more funding from the public. UVA may get caught in the crossfire here, a juicy target for budgeteers looking for hanging chad to lop off.
    Mann, however, operated under public funds, and his work/emails are not private.

  98. Colin in BC says:

    Mann, like a cockroach fleeing from the light of day.

  99. Dave in Canmore says:

    Wade makes a great point that I think was not entirely understood. What needs to be enforced here is a simple contract Mann entered into. All other arguments are justification of means.

    Perhaps that’s my libertarian bias in the way I read Wade’s comment.

  100. sunderlandsteve says:

    I ain’t got nuffin to hide, honest guv. Would I lie to you?

  101. mwhite says:

    Who’s paying for these attorneys?

  102. Brandon says:

    The “if you have nothing to hide” crowd is wrong. You never talk to the police. Never never never. Innocent as a new born babe, you still never consent to a search. You don’t volunteer any information that could possibly implicate you. You cannot “vidicate” yourself. You can only dig for yourself a deeper hole.

    Now, Mann has done work with taxpayer funds… IMHO that’s public property so he is not entitled to any sort of protection. It’s not “his” to begin with. I just don’t like the pretentious attitude of the above and all it’s liberty-destroying innuendos.

  103. Greg, Spokane WA says:

    Wade says:
    September 6, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    The “if you have nothing to hide” argument is an argument for tyranny.
    ===========
    /signed

  104. John Whitman says:

    A comment I just posted on BH.

    ——————

    A little parody, strictly a parody and nothing but a parody, really/

    Scene: a US federal courtroom

    Judge says – “How does the defendant plead?”

    Defense Attorney – “Mr. Mannikin pleads not guilty, your honor.”

    Judge – “Prosecution, are you ready to proceed with the trial?”

    Prosecutor – “Yes, your honor. We would like to call forth . . . . . ”

    There is an altercation and interruption from the defense table.

    The defendant stands up indignantly.

    The defendant shouts – “Wait a minute! I said I wasn’t guilty. That’s it. There shouldn’t be a trial. I said I am not guilty. That worked in all the other investigations I was exposed to. My word is the final truth in all these matters.”

    The scene fades as the MSM rush out of the courtroom saying over their cellphones in urgent tones that the defendant is not guilty . . . .

    End of the parody, which I swear is just a parody . . . . honestly, on my ancestor’s graves it is./

    : )

    John

  105. Jay Davis says:

    Maybe Mann has something else to hide, like comments about his wife, girlfriend or whatever. There may be some revealing, deeply personal and embarrassing tidbits in some of his emails. Or maybe not.

  106. Brandon Caswell says:

    Why doesn’t he take out a huge billboard or full page add in papers saying….”I’m hiding something”. Okay, I guess he has pretty much done that now anyway.

  107. R.S.Brown says:

    Another factor in Mike Mann’s attemped insinuation into Virginia’s FOI
    law and disclosure process is those other “institutions” and “investigatory
    bodies” that have issued “exonerations” to the Climategate Team members
    like grocery coupons.

    Undoubtedly Mann’s e-mail collection will also involve correspondents
    like Phil Jones, Ray Bradley, Kevin Trenberth, Tom Karl, Ben Santer, etc.

    These folks have their respective personal reputations, professional
    affiliations and institutional standings to protect.

    MPaul:

    As I predicted a couple weeks ago, Mann will try to get a declaration
    of his standing in the ATI/UofV agreement. When he’s ruled to not have
    any legal standing, he’ll try to take that ruling to an appeals court… and maybe
    get an injunction to stop the FOI process while the question flutters around the
    court system.

    The more people (law firms, court employees, etc.) involved with those e-mails,
    the more likely someone not directly affiliated with either the University
    of Virginia’s or ATI’s legal teams will let out an e-mail or two so Mann can yell,
    “I told you so ! It’s persecution ! It’s a political witch hunt ! It’s… “

  108. DavidG says:

    Fighting a subpoena Duces Tucem ( document production) is very hard, and if the lawyers (not Mann’s) do their job, cross their t’s and dot their i’s, it should all work out well as to getting those documents, as a matter of law.
    I have had some experience in this area and Mann’s side can delay but not deny the documents sought as long as the other side can prove compelling need, good cause and not ask for every piece of paper in the universe! A slow slam dunk is my prediction.

  109. mpaul says:

    R.S.Brown, over at Bishophill I’ve been musing on the idea that Mann might be planning a constitutional challenge to FOIA. This would allow Mann to assert standing by arguing that his individual constitutional rights are infringed by ATI’s action. I doubt that the court will see much merit in his argument, but never the less, it gives him a way to slow things down with a very long avenue for appeal. Since this issue is, no doubt, a fund raising bonanza for Mann’s underwriters, money should not be a problem on Mann’s side.

    In their Motion of Notice to Intervene, they write:

    “20. Dr. Mann’s First Amendment constitution right to academic freedom is at severe risk in this case. See Sweezy vs. New Hampshire, 354 U.S.234, 250 (1959)”

    Their citation of Sweezy v New Hampshire is a bit odd, but at this point I think they are merely looking to hang their hat on any available hook.

  110. Brian Macker says:

    I love science and I hate how jerks like Mann are ruining its reputation. Live by the credo of science or find some other job. He doesn’t work for the secret police.

  111. Robert M says:

    Julian in Wales says:
    September 7, 2011 at 3:55 am

    Mann is liability to the AGW cause. They should have distanced themselves from his work after Steve Macintyre made his assessment of the hockey stick and rubbished his cherry picking methods. They should have distanced themselves from Pachauri after he made his ill-judged remark about “Voodoo Science”, and after his links to TERI had been exposed. They should have distanced themselves from Phil Jones after they read his climategate emails about knobbling the peer review proces and the Harry Read Me notes.

    Now they have to take the consequences for not throwing out the bad apples. No one is going to believe that the whole tub has not been contaminated by the company they choose to keep.
    ——————————————————————————————————————————–

    Great Idea, everyone knows that the consensus is in…
    (Goes over to the AGW barrel of apples)

    Ok, Micheal Mann bad apple, lots more in here…
    Hmmm James Hansen bad apple.
    Keith Briffa bad apple.
    Phil Jones bad apple.
    Kevin Trenberth bad apple.
    Eric Steig bad apple.
    Gavin Schmidt bad apple.

    Wow, a whole barrel of apples that were bad.

    Tell me that doesn’t make AGW bad as well.

  112. David L says:

    What in the world are in those e-mails that Mann so desperately wants to keep hidden???? Makes one wonder. Who’s paying for his lawyers by the way?

  113. John littlehale says:

    I suspect he may have a civil or criminal liability concern hence the need to lawyer up.

  114. David L says:

    Wouldn’t it be much simpler and more effective to contact Julian Assange and have him upload all that information to wikileaks? No lawyers required. And the radical liberals will stand behind him and applaud the action. A win-win for everyone!

  115. George Lawson says:

    If, as his defence claim, that all enquiries have exonorated him from any malfeasance in the creation of his Hockey Stick on AGW, then why would he wish to go to such lengths to keep details of his research under wraps?

  116. Smokey says:

    Results of a recent Scientific American poll: click

  117. dan says:

    I suspect there’s some dirt in the emails but nothing that disproves AGW. I think Mann doesn’t want anyone to see that he abused the email system. Maybe it would be best that they clean the emails (i think this would be illegal, but so what), otherwise hte deniers will just use this to smear one of the big players. It’s unnecessary. Seems like someone could make some software to go through the emails and look for keywords and then have those emails looked through by some eyes to remove portions that don’t belong.

  118. Nuke Nemesis says:

    Scottish Sceptic says:
    September 7, 2011 at 7:03 am
    Alexander K says: September 7, 2011 at 4:04 am

    An unusually clear demonstration of the plea for special privileges for academics, who are no more or less worthy of said privileges than refuse collectors or postmen who are also paid from the public purse.

    Whilst I’d agree with almost everything said about Mann, I have to stand up for academics. Academic research is progressive, competitive and may take years to come to fruition. I can see that some academic research should be free from FOI for perhaps a decade or at least long enough to bring that research to a point where patents could be applied for.

    Another concern is that private companies may just poach off publicly funded research – in effect they get all the benefits and none of the cost. That isn’t a good deal for the tax payer (arguable!).

    So, all other things being equal I would have different rules for academics. But all things are not equal and Mann, Jones, etc. have shown that they cannot be trusted even under the present rules. Worse other academics have defended their clear breach of the law and clear attempt to pervert the course of science. So, in the present climate, academics simply do not deserve enhanced protection – they blew that right when they supported the corruption exposed in Climategate.

    In the USA, taxpayers don’t get any share of anything patented from public research funds. Under current laws, a private company could not get an uncontested patent from poaching that research. The problem is with countries like China, where our patent laws are not respected.

    The patent-reform being pushed in the USA would change this. It appears we want to move from a “first to invent” patent system to a “first to file” system, in which case your concerns about patent poached would likely be warranted. Don’t ask me how this proposed reform is actually an improvement.

  119. Steve Keohane says:

    Smokey says: September 8, 2011 at 6:25 am
    Results of a recent Scientific American poll: click

    Amazing Smokey. Considering the crap they publish and write erroneous hysterical headlines about,
    I am surprised that they still have something of a thinking readership. I gave up on SciAm about 15 years ago.

  120. Andrew Harding says:

    Smokey says:

    September 8, 2011 at 6:25 am

    Results of a recent Scientific American poll: click

    Nice one Smokey, presumably the readers of Scientific American are scientifically literate which would not make a poll like this a nail in the coffin for the IPCC, but several nails, with the lid thrown in for good measure!

Comments are closed.