While I was a bit busy with other things (my PBS interview generated quite a lot of interest as well as hate mail) there was other news. Most notable was the ruling against ATI’s FOIA case with the University of Virginia. I don’t have any press release yet from ATI, but I’ll pass it along when it becomes available. Here’s a summary from ClimateScienceWatch, who seemed giddy at the news:
A Virginia court has affirmed the University of Virginia’s right to withhold confidential scholarly communications, thus ruling against the global warming denialist American Tradition Institute’s demand to make public climate scientist Michael Mann’s documents and email correspondence with dozens of other scientists during his time at UVa. This is an important victory in a case that threatened to send a chilling message to university scholars that they could no longer expect to engage in personal communications without having the whole world reading over their shoulders.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A scientist who is certain of his integrity and the soundness of his methods (which should already be confirmed by peer review, n’est-ce pas) need not be concerned about having the whole world looking over his shoulders. Indeed, it should be expected for any scientist on a publicly-funded grant.
This is far from over. Appeals being filed already?
Andy, share some of the hate mail you received as a result of the PBS interview. Your comments appeared far from anything which should have generated such a reaction.
Kurt in Switzerland
The taxpayer pays the salary of the people preparing these emails, on work computers, during work time. covering the topic of their work, and these scholarly communications are somehow confidential and exempt from Freedom of Information Laws?
Why?
The contents of those emails must be extremely disturbing if they believe they would create an even worse impression by releasing them than they do by withholding them.
What were the grounds of the dismissal- the fifth amendment?
18 Sept: WaPo Local: Tom Jackman: U.Va. wins key ruling in Prince William global warming-FOIA case involving Michael Mann
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-state-of-nova/post/uva-wins-key-ruling-in-prince-william-global-warming-foia-case-involving-michael-mann/2012/09/18/6c422d98-0133-11e2-b257-e1c2b3548a4a_blog.html
18 Sept: Nature News Blog: Jeff Tollefson: Judge preserves privacy of climate scientist’s emails
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/09/judge-preserves-privacy-of-climate-scientists-emails.html
Andy, I agree with Kurt. Belly buttons, I know. LOL
Does the same thing apply to published articles and books already in the public domain? I don’t think so? As Kurt mentions if someone is paid money to do research their research should be peer reviewed and made public. You remember that famous case when the doctor who blew the whistle on an anti-prenatal sickness drug that caused deformities, actually did another and he was found his research results were not all what they were supposed to be? C’est la vie.
Interesting. FOI is basically meaningless then…
Is ‘Andy’ Swiss for Anthony?
Just kidding, Kurt! You should see what they do to My name….
But yes. We want to hear the hate!
Corrigendum: s/b “Anthony” not “Andy”! h/t to Otter
Excuse: I sometimes post comments over at Mr. Revkin’s NYT blog.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/academy-finds-mixed-climate-impacts-on-himalayan-glaciers-water-supplies/
Apologies to Mr. Watts, should he be offended by any comparison.
(Personally, I admire both: neither is afraid to challenge the choir nor discredits himself by censoring opposing views. Both appear genuinely interested in understanding the actual data and the underlying science, even if Andy Revkin is overly confident in the ability of “Climate Science” to police itself). Peer Review is in need of an overhaul; politicians, bullies and alarmists will always trump true scientists in any “consensus-building” exercise.
Kurt in Switzerland
When the Faux Democracy government, funds a Faux Science Club, to create a Faux Hypothesis to frame a benign, nearly inert, three atom combustion by-product….then it is in the BEST interest of the Faux Judicary to ignore FREEDOM of Information requests to protect the unscientific and illegal collusion necessary to create and expand the control of the Faux Democracy. Most lawyers and judges enter that, second oldest of prefessions, because they cannot do math or science. Career advancement then rests on reliable service to the Faux Democracy and not simplistic restraints of honesty and fair play. Appeal all you want, the airheads on the Supreme Court have already stated that illegal mandates are unconstitutional, unless viewed as a tax….and all the government wants to do is to tax AIR.
Otter, and Mr. Watts,
No, we don’t need to read the hate mail. These folk are sad enough already, we don’t need to add to their inflated egos by repeating what they say. Just ignore them.
Sticks and stones etc.
Anthony:
Thankyou for this update.
I fail to understand the rejoicing in the link you provide. The judge has done what he said he would do to enable the case to continue.
In the previous transcript of the court hearing the judge told both ‘sides’ in the case to provide documents suitable for provision to the Supreme Court because he assumed an Appeal whatever decision he made.
Now the judge has decided to sustain the status quo until the Appeal he anticipates. Clearly, he could not have made any other decision when he anticipated that the case would continue to Appeal. And his decision means nothing except the judge is expecting the case to be passed to the Supreme Court: he had already written into the Court’s record that he expected that.
Richard
Kurt, speaking of bullying, it’s come out today (officially) that the CSIRO over here in Australia is in big trouble. A group of sacked CSIRO scientists have come out “alleging mismanagement and bullying are rife”. http://www.smh.com.au/national/scientists-bullied-or-forced-out-of-csiro-20120917-262yb.html
A Govt inquiry found 60 cases of complaints from sacked scientists accusing bullying within CSIRO. One, Maarten Stapper (agriculturist specialising in healthy soils) was sacked for speaking out against GM crops and advocating a healthier soils program. The Australian Govt receives massive cheques from Bayer and Monsanto to keep pushing GM via CSIRO.
Another, Trevor McDougall (arguably one of the world’s top oceanographers publishing highly regarded papers on ocean circulation and thermodynamics) spoke out against the IPCC models of ocean circulation and was sacked shortly after.
So it’s true what you say that politics and alarmists will trump true scientists.
“Scientists” may be the only class of public employ exempt from FOIA
Some comments at other sites speculate the judge decided the case on self-interest. The circuit judge stated the case was going up on appeal. He lives in the community around UVA. Their conclusion was “Doh? Why not keep the friends and family happy”. Sounds about right. This may or may not be appealed to SCOTUS, eventually. Perhaps a Federal suit later. It’s all about delay by UVA and proponents of continuing the money train. Transparency, to most on the Left and Greenies seem to be a point of deception and not illumination.
Tax payer funded???
Can’t understand why Mann is such a big climate ‘hockey stick’. He made his name as the AMO descriptor and reconstructor. Was that a scientific breakthrough?
I wouldn’t say so. Even I got results which are more accurate (1860-2010) :
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-recon.htm
As someone over at BH pointed out this is just the judge chickening out and handing it to the appeals court.
And reading through above Richard has said as well.
Can ATI appeal the decision?
As this ruling goes against the generally understood law in this area I’d say an appeal has a very good chance of success. It seems judges are not immune to noble cause corruption.
Oh well shrug your shoulders and wait for the appeal or next FOIA request .. (Mr Mann – It won’t go away!)
richardscourtney says:
September 18, 2012 at 3:27 am
Thank you for that dose of reality – it does somewhat dent the claims of “victory” from ClimateScienceWatch.
Seriously, if you can’t keep work and play in separate e-mail addresses, you’ve already failed as a scientist.
prjindigo said on September 18, 2012 at 5:12 am:
So slandering and crushing those who are dissatisfied with your work, find fault with your work, and doing the same to anyone doing anything resembling agreeing with those people, isn’t part of work suitable for work email, but it’s “play” instead? At least for scientists?
Kurt in Switzerland- you say
“Personally, I admire both: neither is afraid to challenge the choir nor discredits himself by censoring opposing views.”
I enjoy your comments over at DotEarth, as well as the responses from the alarmist/Malthusian camp. I had one comment censored by DotEarth (not sure if Andy was involved, since he does not work for NYT). I quoted some gems from Michael Tobis to highlight his methods, in response to a post Andy made advertising Tobis’s new website, something 3.0 or other.
Ironically, the Tobis quotes I included ‘did not meet the standards’ of The Grey Lady.
“Seriously, if you can’t keep work and play in separate e-mail addresses, you’ve already failed as a scientist.”
I think that’s the important point here that these people are at work in our employ as taxpayers and when they are involved in a controversy of such importance then the rules of condfidentiality no longer apply. If it’s good enough to call for directors and execs of private companies to come clean when there is controversy surrounding the effects of tobacco, an Erin Brokovich expose’, a thalidomide, etc, then it’s certainly good enough in this case after the Climategate emails and the various Exaggerationgates, etc came to the fore.
There is considerable billowing smoke to indicate a dangerous public fire behind it and there is community right to know here that overrides the normal need for privacy in academic and professional discourse. It is that very academis rigour and professionalism that has been called into public question now.