Andrew Revkin reports today on the engagement of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) to the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund created by Professor Scott Mandia, aka “Supermandia” as he sees himself in the photo below.
I was really rather surprised that Revkin covered this nonsense, particularly since the “fund” is primarily about Mandia’s adoration of Dr. Michael Mann, and his desire that his public emails from the University of Virgina not be exposed to scrutiny by the State Attorney General of Virginia to determine if he used research funds properly or not. PEER has made a number of public pronouncements defending Mann and claims that scientific integrity would be damaged if the attorney general is allowed to view those emails written on the public dime.
This probably explains why Mandia needs to wear hip waders as part of his costume.
The University of Virginia reportedly has spent upwards of a million dollars keeping those emails on double secret probation, so it would seem the old adage of “where there’s smoke there’s fire” might truly apply here.
In Revkin’s Q&A e-mail interview with Jeff Ruch (video interview), the longtime executive director of PEER, it emerges that they have some pretty odd thinking on FOI as it applies to universities:
Q: Finally, when the issue is the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), there’s a murky line between what is fishing and what isn’t. Many FOIA requests of green groups over the years could be cast as such. This is one reason the Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, has walked a fine line in its statements on abuse of FOIA. Should a researcher using a state university e-mail address and working under federal grants be entitled to presume his/her correspondence is “private” (as described below)?A: The central issue is whether the subject of the inquiry is public business. Generally, scientific articles submitted in the author’s name with a disclaimer that the work does not represent the institution falls outside what is official business. Our main concern is that industry-funded groups and law firms are seeking to criminalize the peer review process by obtaining internal editorial comments of reviewers as a means to impeach or impugn scientists.The grants themselves and the grant reports are public but a federal grant does not transform a university lab into an executive branch agency – which is the ambit of FOIA.
By the way, as an adjunct to our whistleblower practice, PEER makes extensive use of FOIA to force disclosure of matters other wise buried in agency cubicles. A good example of one our science-based FOIA [requesets] is this.
Bishop Hill writes of this passage:
“…seeking to criminalize the peer review process by obtaining internal editorial comments of reviewers as a means to impeach or impugn scientists”? Huh?
It can’t be said often enough. If you want public money you have to accept public oversight.
I agree. It seems the issue here is simple; they want the money, but they don’t want to answer any questions about how that money is used.
This is part of the “entitlement mindset” that has pervaded public employees in recent years, and it is becoming tiresome. Sunlight on the process is the only way accountability can be maintained.
A funny thought. Has anyone estimated the cost per sent email?
“It seems the issue here is simple; they want the money, but they don’t want to answer any questions about how that money is used.”
Nothing new here. Climate “science” has ALWAYS been about the Climate Ca$h ™. Isn’t billions in government stimulus and grant money enough for these people???
Q: Finally, when the issue is the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), there’s a murky line between what is fishing and what isn’t.
Doesn’t matter. If the people want to go fishing in publicly owned waters (i.e. publically funded work), that is their perogative. That is one of the things that FOIA is for, not a valid reason to break the law and obstruct FOIA.
A: The central issue is whether the subject of the inquiry is public business. Generally, scientific articles submitted in the author’s name with a disclaimer that the work does not represent the institution falls outside what is official business.
Then communicating about it using public communication systems and/or on public time is wrong, and probably illegal. These guys want to sit in their publically funded offices, talking on their publically funded phones and publically funded computer systems, doing work that is not within the purview of their public funding? That is prima facie evidence in favor of investigating those communications!
The “logic” these clowns employ is astounding.
If my taxes help pay for some research then I am entitled to scrutinize that research, or get it scrutinized for me. This should be part of the grant process. Fair’s fair.
Criminalize the peer review process? Criminalize a process? What does that even mean? The mind boggles at trying to understand what was going through the brains of whoever came up with this paragraph. I can accept that they don’t want Mann’s e-mails to become public. But I can’t accept that they don’t know exactly why this is bad for them. I’m forced to conclude that deep down they know exactly why Mann’s emails might be bad for them. The know they might have to face the fact that some of his conclusions must be abandoned, and the meme of settled science and their whole belief system might come to represent illegitimate scientific shortcuts in the public eye.
These people are now behaving as sheer religious fanatics, intent on twisting their own lifelong logic and reason before abandoning a cherished saint.
A modest proposal-
Any work that is exempt from FOIA cannot be used in the scientific argument for policy choices, laws or regulations.
Forget the legal questions, If “scientific” models OF AGW predict global catastrophe requiring global response, one would think that a complete public review of the science would be in order.
Too rational, I guess…
I think I read about this thing where people can share information with anybody. I think it’s called “The Information Superhighway,” or “AOL,” or something like that.
Anyhoo, they have it on computer now, which seems like it would make it really easy to make that information available.
~More Soylent Green!
It’s not like these guys are working with national secrets, like how to build an ICBM guidance system, or how to build a smaller, more reliable nuclear weapon. There are no national security concerns, or industrial secrets (intellectual property) concerns here. They just don’t want to be accountable.
“This probably explains why Mandia needs to wear hip waders as part of his costume.” — Thanks, this one has kept me chuckling most of the morning.
Ironic that PEER lists this as one of their accomplishments:
“9) Repeatedly vindicated the public’s right to know through scores of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits. In just the past few months, our FOIA lawsuits have exposed unsafe dams and levees on the Rio Grande, a corrupt investigation swept under the rug that destroyed the last authentic Indian trader, and OSHA whistleblowers blowing the whistle on the agency?s own whistleblower program. Guided by insider sources, PEER now has the most robust FOIA practice in the country with a new FOIA lawsuit filed on an average of once a month”
FOIA; good when we use it, bad when the skeptics use it. Go figure.
“A: The central issue is whether the subject of the inquiry is public business. ”
Nope. The central issue is that *only* public business should be conducted on government computers in government offices by government employees. Period. “Peer review” discussions about the weather don’t get special exemptions.
I think these degenerates have discovered that the arrogant presumption called “academic freedom” no longer gets a free pass from the public, and so now they are posturing with the equally deceptive lie called “peer review.”
I love the “peer review” revealed in Climategate 2, such as when Wigley and Jones plot how to stuff the ballot box so that they can get free trips to lux tropical conventions, or scheme how to evade FOIA by putting their email files on thumb drives.
In case there is any doubt about the motives of this PEER group, we have their news item here where EPA was muzzling two of its own employees who griped that President Obama’s cap-and-trade plan “will not accomplish its goals, let alone effectively curb climate change.” http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1277
Lovely. EPA didn’t want it known how biased its own people are, and PEER apparently wants such government employees to be AGW activists.
He should spend his time fighting the global temperature drop
http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/1/23/what-the-greens-spend-their-money-on.html
As I understand it GWPF are a registered educational charity, so they are bound in law by the Charities Act and regulated by the Charities Commission:
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/About_us/default.aspx
As such they will have to publish Annual Reports and keep auditable records:
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/About_us/default.aspx
I might accord Revkin some respect if he also shone his spotlight on unregulated grey bodies such as this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/
(AFAIKT they exist with no public accountability – unless a sign in page to Science magazine counts as “clear to anyone who asks”)
…or if his article(s) included any evidence of critical thinking of any kind…
“The University of Virginia reportedly has spent upwards of a million dollars keeping those emails on double secret probation”
If even remotely close to true, how can this Michael Mann live with himself? Money that could have gone to, I don’t know, maybe educating kids, but obfuscating is more important.
Apologies – Above comment should have started with this link:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/1/23/what-the-greens-spend-their-money-on.html
As Bastardi points out the ONLY relevant issue concerning AGW is that temps are NOW below anomaly so again there is no global warming trend, aka no global waming no AGW etc…
One more bit to show how PEER embraces AGW: This page http://www.peer.org/campaigns/obama/issue.php has them saying, “Obama has embraced a watered-down climate change bill that Dr. Jim Hansen and other experts warn will do too little too late” and the latter part of the sentence links to an NY Times article where Greenpeace attached its infamous anti-Obama / Stop Global Warming banner on Mt Rushmore.
PEER is all for defending a pair of EPA people who were muzzled by the EPA for protesting that Obama’s cap-and-trade plan didn’t go far enough, but drop the name “Carlin” – as in Alan Carlin, the man who complained EPA needed to re-think its AGW position and who subsequently got muzzled by EPA – and you get no results.
“The central issue is whether the subject of the inquiry is public business. ”
No it’s not !!!
It’s a tax funded activity.
We most certainly have the right to review ANY of their activity if we are paying for it.
…Mandia needs to wear hip waders as part of his costume.
Priceless!!
After many years now of dealing directly and indirectly with tax funded entities, the vast majority of people therein DO NOT care, rationalize, understand, know, etc. where the money comes from that pays their way. They “believe” it to be THEIR money! And they are accountable (for it) ONLY to themselves – – and maybe their immediate supervisor. They are blind beyond it coming from the “University” or the “Government.” So why should they be accountable to anyone for what they do or share what they produce? Especially when the source (the government, unversity or wherever) of that money seldom cares enough to follow-up on how it was spent! OR side with the public, (taxpayer, victim) when it is clear to all that something is amiss!
JJ qotes:
January 25, 2012 at 7:14 am
“A: The central issue is whether the subject of the inquiry is public business. Generally, scientific articles submitted in the author’s name with a disclaimer that the work does not represent the institution falls outside what is official business.”
Spot on, JJ. Supermandia and friends should ask people who are employed by government if they get to declare some of their emails as private. The law today is clear as a bell. Your employer owns all of your communications that were made while you were on the job or using employer equipment. Salaried employees are always on the job. Your employer can erase all of your saved emails including any that you declare private. Your employer can automatically reinstall the operating system on your employer owned portable. It happens daily. Employees might be very unhappy but they have no legal recourse.
Supermandia’s thinking has its source in the traditional privileges of academia. If Supermandia would visit his university’s attorney he could learn just how limited those privileges have become in the electronic age.
Sounds like progress to me – they realize the process is criminal.
The next step is for them to realize that the crime isn’t justified (i.e. “post-normal”).
Hey, even fishermen have to show their catch to the game warden when asked. FOIA does not apply when there is a question of whether the caught fish are in season or large enough…
“Faster than global T rise”
That does not exactly set the bar very high! For almost 15 years, HadCrut3 and RSS have shown no global T rise.
AW and Milwaukee Bob – !! 🙂 – brown hip waders too!