ATI Files Suit to Compel the University of Arizona to Produce Records Related to So-Called “Hockey Stick” Global Warming Research

For Immediate Release – September 10, 2013

On Friday, September 6th, the American Tradition Institute (ATI), a non-profit public policy organization, along with counsel from the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic (FMELC), filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the University of Arizona (U of A) to produce public records relating to what the London Telegraph’s Christopher Booker called “the worst scientific scandal of our generation”. These records are emails relating to the notorious global warming “Hockey Stick”, and the group that made it famous, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC is presently in the news for its latest in a running series of proclamations of looming climate catastrophe, and a now ritual proclamation of even greater certainty that economic activity is to blame.


“The public are increasingly aware that they have funded the effort to impose an all-pain, no-gain energy-scarcity agenda on them, from activists in federal bureaucracies and the green pressure groups they love, down to activists ensconced in state universities,’” says Chris Horner, ATI Senior Fellow, FMELC attorney and author of The Liberal War On Transparency, who managed the initial request and productions. “As such, we continue to seek copies of records the public paid for, to help bring about the oft-promised, yet rarely voluntary governmental transparency. Too often public institutions require that we engage in protracted battles under open records laws to allow the public a glimpse at the enormous apparatus they are underwriting,” he added.

ATI sought these records in December 2011.[1] After the University acknowledged resistance from the professors involved — both of whom, ATI points out to the court, were improperly allowed to decide what emails were responsive to the request, and which ones they would allow the University to produce — U of A ultimately produced several hundred responsive emails.

Included in U of A’s production was a first-ever, 213-page roadmap of several hundred emails the academics insisted could not be released about either the “Hockey Stick” or IPCC. Unfortunately the indexes were also deliberately and uncharacteristically scarce on details, though they do lay out correspondence between the Hockey Stick and IPCC authors (they also identify, e.g., emails about Professor and IPCC coordinating lead author Jonathan Overpeck’s work at the University for the environmentalist pressure group Union of Concerned Scientists, and emails to or from Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, home to ClimateGate).

ATI filed suit under Arizona’s Public Records Law after the University declined ATI’s request to provide sufficient detail in these indexes about withheld records, or produce the responsive records. The Goldwater Institute is serving as ATI’s local counsel.
ATI’s complaint explains how these emails, produced and held on taxpayer time and assets, involve two academics with:

…a history of using University (public) resources — including to send and receive the emails at issue in this case — for work-related participation in related organizations including the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), which was the subject of many of the most controversial emails produced, sent, received and/or held on publicly funded computer assets in the “Climategate” leaks.

Through these leaks, and releases under various freedom of information laws, the public learned of troubling practices by a network of publicly funded academics involving, inter alia, questionable use of statistics, organized efforts to subvert transparency laws in the United States and United Kingdom, campaigns to keep dissenting work from publication, recruiting journalists to target opponents and retaliation against scientists and editors involved in publishing dissenting work.

As part of ATI’s transparency project, it has been requesting and obtaining information held by publicly funded agencies and universities related to the important public policy issue of alleged catastrophic man-made global warming, and related policy demands.
ATI is also involved in litigation seeking related records from the University of Virginia, and has had numerous requests satisfied by, and has other requests pending at, various agencies and universities. The Supreme Court of Virginia recently heard argument from ATI explaining why that court should consider the UVA request.

American Tradition Institute (ATI) is a 501 (c) (3) public policy research and public interest litigation foundation advocating restoration of science and free-market principles on environmental issues, including air and water quality and regulation, responsible land use, natural resource management, energy development, property rights, and principles of stewardship. The organization, through its transparency initiative, obtains public information under open records and freedom of information laws, relating to environmental and energy policy and how policymakers use public resources.

-30-


[1] U of A acknowledges that “The University of Arizona is governed by Arizona public records law. The purpose of the law is to allow the general public, whose tax dollars support the University, to scrutinize the way we do business. Upon request, inspection of or copies of most records must be provided except for two categories which are not open to the public.”http://hoy.r.mailjet.com/redirect/x616hjzo3j67tj1q02wg30/www.hr.arizona.edu/03_hire/AZPSOrientation/main.php?sel=hi, p. 5 (these two categories are student records and personnel records, which are not involved in ATI’s request).
On the same webpage, U of A informs new employees, under “Arizona Public Service Orientation”, “Within your first 30 days of employment, read the information in this orientation. At the conclusion, print the checklist, verifying that you have completed the section, and deliver it to your department representative for placement in your departmental file.”http://hoy.r.mailjet.com/redirect/8sqxhk5kpwbmc9lqwoftlo/www.hr.arizona.edu/03_hire/AZPSOrientation/main.php?sel=hi, p. 4.

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

83 Responses to ATI Files Suit to Compel the University of Arizona to Produce Records Related to So-Called “Hockey Stick” Global Warming Research

  1. tobias says:

    “sea change”?

  2. Hopefully this will be one of the last straws on the hockey-stick’s back!

  3. dp says:

    Mr. FOIA – time to act (again).

  4. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    New addition for Obama’s 9/10 “address to the American people” since he won’t be getting his own brand-new war now that he wore out Bush’s hand-me-downs and needs something else to push up poll numbers:

    Since global warming has now been conclusively demonstrated to be as great a threat to American prosperity and security as chemical weapons, he shall sign an Executive Order to secure and classify select records and research related to global warming, removing them from the view of the general public in the name of National Security.

    ATI, be prepared for the entire release authorized by Homeland Security to be two sheets so heavily redacted you’d swear they were black paper with a few bleached-on white marks.

  5. Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    AN EXTRACT: “American Tradition Institute (ATI) is a 501 (c) (3) public policy research and public interest litigation foundation advocating restoration of science and free-market principles on environmental issues, including air and water quality and regulation, responsible land use, natural resource management, energy development, property rights, and principles of stewardship. The organization, through its transparency initiative, obtains public information under open records and freedom of information laws, relating to environmental and energy policy and how policymakers use public resources.”
    I believe that it is extremely important to have access to the requested information as it underpins the global civilization control agenda about which WUWT and many other blogs, criticize as being basically fraudulent.

    Secrecy is not acceptable and should not be a part of a process that is publicly funded and of far-reaching, extreme consequences.
    One may well ask why opposition to release of information exists unless the particular information reveals proof of fraudulent behaviour? Whatever the reason, it is clearly a cover-up.

  6. Go Home says:

    So what happen to climategate 3 email dump? Was it a hoax or was it real?

  7. Steven Mosher says:

    Go Home says:
    September 9, 2013 at 11:02 pm
    So what happen to climategate 3 email dump? Was it a hoax or was it real?

    its real

  8. Richard111 says:

    So why was it stomped on and by who?

  9. crosspatch says:

    Wait, is this the same University of Arizona that had a Stevenson screen in the middle of a parking lot?

  10. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Go Home said on September 9, 2013 at 11:02 pm:

    So what happen to climategate 3 email dump? Was it a hoax or was it real?

    Details/background: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/climategate-3-0-has-occurred-the-password-has-been-released/

    Password that unlocks the big zip file went to select small group, UEA sent out legal notice advising against general release of password, against releasing emails with personal details, etc.

    So somewhere in the background the stockpile is being sorted, personal details redacted, the archive is being prepped for general release.

    As a somewhat-secretive volunteer effort, expect it to take awhile before you and me see it.

    Although since the NSA likely also has the password, after the public FBI prosecution for wire fraud etc begins against certain (C)AGW “scientists”, they might also demand there to be no public release of such sensitive evidence. So it might take awhile longer.

  11. KNR says:

    Its worth remember that if the situation was as urgent , extreme and as settled , as claimed . Far from the massive use of smoke and mirrors they be throwing this information peoples faces .
    If anything give the lie to ‘settled science ‘ its the manner of refusing to share it.

  12. Eliza says:

    My worry is that ATI has failed in every single attempt to get info from previous AGW scammers like Cuccinelli

  13. Eliza says:

    Cucinelli attempted same (He is not an AGW Scammer)

  14. Koba says:

    Presumably there will be sufficient evidence gained to prosecute some warmists on behalf of the impoverished energy consumers.

  15. Thomas says:

    So basically ATI is trying to distract attention from current issues by bringing up a fifteen year old non-scandal. Well, I suppose they have to to what their backers tell them to do, however pointless.

  16. Streetcred says:

    Thomas says: September 10, 2013 at 1:05 am

    Well then, UoA should just stump up these “pointless” records and everybody will be happy and the “fifteen year old non-scandal” will then go away. Or are they hiding the depth of the corruption of science in their watch? Methinks the latter is true. Do us a favour, “Thomas”, and let your buddies know that there is nothing to be afraid of because they’re acting mighty scared about it.

  17. Dr. John M. Ware says:

    Cuccinelli is the Attorney General of Virginia. As such, he has done his best to enforce the law, including prosecuting fraudulent activity at the University of Virginia (UVA) by Michael Mann, now at Penn State, who was at UVA using public money to further the aims of the CAGW crowd. UVA has balked at releasing emails and other documents concerning the case, but that is certainly not Cuccinelli’s fault. He has surely made a major effort to move a recalcitrant bureaucracy (conspiracy?) at UVA. If he is elected Governor, he may have more consistent success. Unfortunately, he is opposed by Terry McAuliffe, the fraudulent and lightweight former Clinton fundraiser, who has much more money than Cuccinelli and the backing of the Washington DC Democrat party elite from Obama on down; a tough battle that I hope Cuccinelli wins.

  18. Thomas says:

    Streetcred, there are many legitimate reasons people might not want all their mail made public. Article and grant reviews are for example anonymous for good reason. Try asking ATI for all of their messages and see how far you get. This “scandal” will not go away as long as there are people profiting from insinuations and others stupid enough to believe them. All ATI is doing is wasting taxpayer money on a frivolous lawsuit after they already lost one.

    Wouldn’t it be easier for ATI to go directly to NSA? It seems they snoop on and archive just about everything.

  19. FerdinandAkin says:

    The root cause of global warming / climate change has been determined to be anthropogenic economic activity. The ‘cure’ is the curtailment of the use of energy, particularly the energy derived from fossil fuel. Success will be defined as the condition when humans have nothing to show for their efforts.

  20. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Thomas on September 10, 2013 at 1:05 am:

    So basically ATI is trying to distract attention from current issues by bringing up a fifteen year old non-scandal.

    Distract attention from global warming going away despite rising atmospheric CO₂ levels, and rising CH₄ levels too, so we don’t notice that statistically it hasn’t existed for 15-20 years?

    Distract attention from confirmation of what has long been suspected, the extent of Arctic sea ice remaining at the end of the melt season has more to do with chance and the phases of natural cycles like the AMO then it does with global warming? And that which was attributed to global warming can be handily accounted for by black carbon (soot) pollution?

    Distract attention from abundant natural gas rendering energy from wind and solar even more worthless for practicality and economical reasons than before?

    You sure of that?

    Well, I suppose they have to to what their backers tell them to do, however pointless.

    You neglected to specify the Big Oil funding from Exxon/Mobil/Shell/BP etc. Oh wait, they support Greenpeace, WWF, and they have Green Energy divisions that benefit from CAGW hype. My mistake.

  21. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Thomas on September 10, 2013 at 2:00 am:

    This “scandal” will not go away as long as there are people profiting from insinuations and others stupid enough to believe them.

    As originally listed here:

    Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann
    Being stalked by #HeartlandInstitute/#Koch-funded climate change denier #AnthonyWatts & his mob: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/requesting-some-assistance/#more-92604 … #CarnivalBarkers
    10:23 AM – 29 Aug 13

    Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley
    @MichaelEMann has he never heard of travel grants? But registration fees for sci meetings are getting ridiculous imho!
    10:27 AM – 29 Aug 13

    Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann
    .@DrMarkBurnley Can’t #AnthonyWatts just go back to #Heartland/#Koch for another 88K? http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts
    10:32 AM – 29 Aug 13

    Steve Bloom ‏@stevebloom55
    @MichaelEMann Completing the analogy: AW is indeed a carnival barker, but he’s also the dog-headed boy.
    11:15 AM – 29 Aug 13

    Watts reply here.

    I agree Thomas. As long as Mann keeps profiting from insinuations like these and others are stupid enough to believe him, this “scandal” ain’t going away.

  22. JimH says:

    “Try asking ATI for all of their messages and see how far you get.”

    Given they are a privately funded organisation that is entirely appropriate. Taxpayers however have a right to see what their tax payments are being spent on.

  23. Barry Woods says:

    cg3 was very very dull.

  24. TonyU says:

    I’m not sure why they’re requesting this. The science is settled. :-D (kidding)
    I doubt they’ll get anything, but I’m glad they’re trying. Things like this sure do shine the light on how “open and transparent” the scientific process is when it comes to AGW.

  25. Gary Pearse says:

    The laws on FOI, you can be sure of this, will be changed soon. The ideologues running governments around the world don’t support transparency. One had better get all they can now because this will be the end of it. Unless a lot of people (voters) see the light before voting itself is remodeled.

  26. Gail Combs says:

    Thomas says:
    September 10, 2013 at 2:00 am

    Streetcred, there are many legitimate reasons people might not want all their mail made public. Article and grant reviews are for example anonymous for good reason….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
    And that is a steaming pile of B.S. Your Work e-mail is NOT PRIVATE. I, a computer challenge little old lady figured that out all by my little lonesome the first time I got access to a corporate provide computer.

    Now that the US government is trying to tell every one that there is “No expectation of privacy” with e-mails so they can snoop without a warrant it makes even LESS SENSE to block perfectly legal FOIA requests. So get over it.

    There Is No Such Thing As NSA-Proof Email
    Since last June, when Edward Snowden tore the veil off the National Security Agency’s vast data dragnet, Americans have been flocking to ultrasecure email services in the hopes of keeping the government out of their private business. Use of the most popular email encryption software, PGP, tripled between June and July, while revenue for the data-encryption company Silent Circle has shot up 400 percent.

    But even these services may not be able to protect your email from government prying. That fact came into stark relief last Thursday, when Lavabit, the secure email service used by Snowden, abruptly shut down. Lavabit’s 32-year-old founder, Ladar Levison, issued a statement saying he pulled the plug because he didn’t want to be “complicit in crimes against the American people.” He has since given up using email entirely, and he urges others to consider doing the same. “I would strongly recommend against entrusting your privacy to a company with physical ties to the United States,” he told Mother Jones. “I honestly don’t think it’s possible to provide a secure service in this country.”

    Levison, who is reportedly under federal gag order, declined to elaborate (though he opined, based on his experience, that we’re a “whisper’s breath away” from becoming a society where all electronic communications are recorded and scrutinized by the government). But according to other industry insiders and cybersecurity experts, there’s good reason to be wary of transmitting sensitive information via email—even if your provider claims to have iron-clad safeguards.

    Tech giants, such as the Microsoft subsidiary Hotmail, regularly hand over data to the government. In fact, in the last eight months of 2012 (the most recent period for which data is available), Hotmail, Google, Facebook, and Twitter provided law enforcement authorities with information on more than 64,000 users. And that doesn’t include responses to secret national security letters ordered by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, or FISA……

    Of course US citizens are unhappy about this news and are now suing Google. The response from Google: Gmail users ‘have no legitimate expectation of privacy’

    Private citizens with private correspondence via e-mail might have some ‘legitimate expectation of privacy’ but people using company computer equipment with an in-house IT department certainly DO NOT and companies often make that clear in writing.

    This warning was provided in the article as given by the U of A

    U of A acknowledges that “The University of Arizona is governed by Arizona public records law. The purpose of the law is to allow the general public, whose tax dollars support the University, to scrutinize the way we do business. Upon request, inspection of or copies of most records must be provided except for two categories which are not open to the public.” (these two categories are student records and personnel records, which are not involved in ATI’s request). http://hoy.r.mailjet.com/redirect/x616hjzo3j67tj1q02wg30/www.hr.arizona.edu/03_hire/AZPSOrientation/main.php?sel=hi, p. 5

    There IS no expectation of privacy and ALL the records except the two categories noted, student records and personnel records, should be turned over without a fuss. The fact they are not turning over these records in “The Most Transparent Presidency Evah” certainly makes it look like there is a lot to hide doesn’t it?

    More importantly it makes it clear that the USA is no longer a country under the rule of law and that is even more frightening since preferential application of the law is the first signs of Tyranny.

  27. Thomas says:

    Gail, your employer can read your workplace mail if he wants to, and apparently the NSA can do it too, even if you aren’t in USA in the first place. That isn’t the same as everyone having the right to read your mail just because they wish. The legality of the FOIA request has already been determined, and the mail that falls under FOIA handed over. The rest is NOT public. Going to court again for the same documents is just a waste of money.

    As for your rants against Obama and the US government, that’s a totally different subject, and you probably don’t want to hear what a foreigner has to say about your country and it’s bloody foreign policy.

  28. CodeTech says:

    Gail, re:

    Lavabit’s 32-year-old founder, Ladar Levison, issued a statement saying he pulled the plug because he didn’t want to be “complicit in crimes against the American people.” He has since given up using email entirely, and he urges others to consider doing the same. “I would strongly recommend against entrusting your privacy to a company with physical ties to the United States,” he told Mother Jones. “I honestly don’t think it’s possible to provide a secure service in this country.”

    Ladar is hardly a shining example of anything… and being quoted from Mother Jones took most of his credibility away.

    However, his claim about it not being possible to provide a secure service is laughable. What is lacking is the will. We already have some really powerful encryption technology, the only thing missing is a useful infrastructure to replace the current (horrific) email system, a relic from the 70s (or maybe 60s). There was a time I was amazed and amused by having an email discussion with someone in, say, Australia. Now I can’t even set up a functional email notification system for clients (I can set it up, of course, but the delivery rate on legitimate email is very very low)

    I seriously wonder how the NSA manages to filter anything useful out of the trillions of spam emails flying around out there. Some are completely pointless gibberish, spammed to billions of addresses simply to clog the system.

  29. Thomas:

    re your post at September 10, 2013 at 4:59 am.

    It seems you missed this in Gail’s post although she did bold it.

    This warning was provided in the article as given by the U of A

    U of A acknowledges that “The University of Arizona is governed by Arizona public records law. The purpose of the law is to allow the general public, whose tax dollars support the University, to scrutinize the way we do business. Upon request, inspection of or copies of most records must be provided except for two categories which are not open to the public.” (these two categories are student records and personnel records, which are not involved in ATI’s request). http://hoy.r.mailjet.com/redirect/x616hjzo3j67tj1q02wg30/www.hr.arizona.edu/03_hire/AZPSOrientation/main.php?sel=hi, p. 5

    She followed that quotation by asking you

    There IS no expectation of privacy and ALL the records except the two categories noted, student records and personnel records, should be turned over without a fuss. The fact they are not turning over these records in “The Most Transparent Presidency Evah” certainly makes it look like there is a lot to hide doesn’t it?

    Your reply avoids the question.

    So, let me be explicit.
    Why do you think the uni. is attempting to conceal information from the US public when their own rules and US Law both say they should reveal it?
    And
    Why do you think anybody attempts to hide information if they have nothing to fear from revealing that information?

    Richard

  30. Go Home says:

    Thanks for the replies on climategate3 email release. Glad to hear it is a redaction/archiving effort that is holding it up. When might we see this, say around the time IPCC comes out with AR5? Can someone state whether there were any juicy tidbits remaining for CG3 or were they picked real well in CG/CG2?

  31. Luther Wu says:

    richardscourtney says:
    September 10, 2013 at 5:24 am

    Why do you think anybody attempts to hide information if they have nothing to fear from revealing that information?
    _____________________________
    Richard,
    That statement stands on wet ice and is leaning over the edge of a deep, dark hole.
    As example, suppose a city in the U.S. were to require local police to begin inspecting, while armed and without cause or warrant, the homes, businesses and properties of its citizenry…
    “If you have nothing to hide, you won’t mind if we come in and look around, would you Mr. Courtney”?
    The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution exists for a reason.

    U of A should immediately comply with local and state law regarding this matter.

  32. Luther Wu:

    Your post at September 10, 2013 at 7:19 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/ati-files-suit-to-compel-the-university-of-arizona-to-produce-records-related-to-so-called-hockey-stick-global-warming-research/#comment-1413278
    quotes me out of context and raises a ‘red herring’.

    What I actually said was a paraphrase for clarity of a question from Gail Combs. Anyone can see the truth of that by reading my post at September 10, 2013 at 5:24 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/ati-files-suit-to-compel-the-university-of-arizona-to-produce-records-related-to-so-called-hockey-stick-global-warming-research/#comment-1413202

    And I fail to see why you made your post when it agrees with the point made by Gail and iterated by me when your post says

    U of A should immediately comply with local and state law regarding this matter.

    Whatever the purpose of your post, I have answered it but I have not – and I will not – bite on your ‘red herring’.

    Richard

  33. Luther Wu says:

    CodeTech says:
    September 10, 2013 at 5:18 am

    “However, his claim about it not being possible to provide a secure service is laughable. What is lacking is the will. We already have some really powerful encryption technology… I seriously wonder how the NSA manages to filter anything useful …
    __________________________________
    Oh, they manage. The real problem is, everyone on the planet has their personal stash of secrets with which those of a tyrannical bent could easily gain manipulative power over the individual. Again, the Fourth Amendment exists for very good reasons.

  34. Luther Wu says:

    Richard,
    My statement stands. I don’t blame you for wanting to back away from your statement- we will forgive you for having said it, as you were probagbly caught up in the moment and didn’t realize it’s import. However, protestation crumbles the edge of the precipice…

    For me, there is no context for which that statement becomes anything other than a tool to be used to by those who would have power over others, regardless of cause, or need of use.

    And I fail to see why you made your post when it agrees with the point made by Gail and iterated by me when your post says…”I know you don’t get it, but I have faith in you and believe that you will, in time.

    “Sure thing, Honey- I’ll have that piece of pie”. (I’ll just break off that bit of crust with the fly speck.)

  35. Gail Combs says:

    CodeTech says: @ September 10, 2013 at 5:18 am

    Gail, re:

    “Ladar is hardly a shining example of anything… and being quoted from Mother Jones took most of his credibility away. “ – I used Mother Jones on purpose because of the audience I was aiming at.

    “However, his claim about it not being possible to provide a secure service is laughable. What is lacking is the will. “ – Actually what is lacking is the knowledge residing in ordinary citizens. Many of us can use a computer but we do not have an in-depth knowledge of computers so we are stuck with commercial products (or hope we have a friend who can help set up ubuntu linux system)

  36. Gail Combs says:

    Luther Wu says:
    September 10, 2013 at 7:38 am
    …. Oh, they manage. The real problem is, everyone on the planet has their personal stash of secrets with which those of a tyrannical bent could easily gain manipulative power over the individual. Again, the Fourth Amendment exists for very good reasons.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You don’t put personal information/secrets on a PUBLICLY OWNED computer.

    Everyone keeps confusing a WORK PLACE computer that is NOT covered by ‘Privacy’ and your home computer.

    Lets leave that for a second and look at what the Supreme Court says about privacy.

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    466 U.S. 170
    Oliver v. United States
    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
    No. 82-15 Argued: November 9, 1983 — Decided: April 17, 1984 [*]

    ….(b) Since Katz v. United States, supra, the touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis has been whether a person has a “constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy.” Id. at 360. The Amendment does not protect the merely subjective expectation of privacy, but only those “expectation[s] that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” Id. at 361. Because open fields are accessible to the public and the police in ways that a home, office, or commercial structure would not be, and because fences or “No Trespassing” signs do not effectively bar the public from viewing open fields, the asserted expectation of privacy in open fields is not one that society recognizes as reasonable. Moreover, the common law, by implying that only the land immediately surrounding and associated with the home warrants the Fourth Amendment protections that attach to the home, conversely implies that no expectation of privacy legitimately attaches to open fields. Pp. 177-181.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0466_0170_ZS.html

    The key is “expectation[s] that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” That is why this information from University of Arizona is so important.

    U of A acknowledges that “The University of Arizona is governed by Arizona public records law. The purpose of the law is to allow the general public, whose tax dollars support the University, to scrutinize the way we do business. Upon request, inspection of or copies of most records must be provided except for two categories which are not open to the public.”</i? http://hoy.r.mailjet.com/redirect/x616hjzo3j67tj1q02wg30/www.hr.arizona.edu/03_hire/AZPSOrientation/main.php?sel=hi, p. 5 (these two categories are student records and personnel records, which are not involved in ATI’s request).

    On the same webpage, U of A informs new employees, under “Arizona Public Service Orientation”, “Within your first 30 days of employment, read the information in this orientation. At the conclusion, print the checklist, verifying that you have completed the section, and deliver it to your department representative for placement in your departmental file.” http://hoy.r.mailjet.com/redirect/8sqxhk5kpwbmc9lqwoftlo/www.hr.arizona.edu/03_hire/AZPSOrientation/main.php?sel=hi, p. 4.

    The University of Arizona served notice to its employees that they were subject to FOIA and therefore had no “constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy.”

    You can wiggle and squirm all you want but those are the legal facts and the U of A does not have a legitimate leg to stand on. Whether the courts will actually uphold the letter of the law is a different matter entirely.

  37. Luther Wu says:

    Gail Combs says:
    September 10, 2013 at 7:59 am

    CodeTech says: @ September 10, 2013 at 5:18 am

    Gail, re:

    “Ladar is hardly a shining example of anything… and being quoted from Mother Jones took most of his credibility away. “ – I used Mother Jones on purpose because of the audience I was aiming at.

    “However, his claim about it not being possible to provide a secure service is laughable. What is lacking is the will. “ – Actually what is lacking is the knowledge residing in ordinary citizens. Many of us can use a computer but we do not have an in-depth knowledge of computers so we are stuck with commercial products (or hope we have a friend who can help set up ubuntu linux system)
    ______________________
    Amidst recent revelations that various Gov’t entities have “worked with” (read: blackmailed into compliance) the creators of all publicly deployed email and encryption technologies to provide back door access to the Gov’t, it is doubtful that even a Linux box could save you.

    Don’t be afraid. The knowledge that if they want you, they can and will have you should harden your resolve, rather than force you to bended knee.

  38. Luther Wu says:

    For Gail and Richard…
    It should be becoming obvious to you that I am not defending the U of A. The only statement I have made in re this matter makes that clear: “U of A should immediately comply with local and state law regarding this matter.

    I am addressing a deeper philosophical root, which actually gets to the bottom of our multi- year discussion of all things AGW, as well as this specific instance of power of Gov’t vs power of the people.

  39. Gail Combs says:

    There is one other concept people are missing. If I am idiotic enough to use my employers computer to send out resumes to competitors or to try to steal and sell company secrets, the employer can use any of that information in a court of law without worrying about a warrant or privacy issues.

    In this case the U of A has acknowledge that the PUBLIC has employer status and therefore every right to the information on the computers they paid for.

    U of A acknowledges that ““The University of Arizona is governed by Arizona public records law. The purpose of the law is to allow the general public, whose tax dollars support the University, to scrutinize the way we do business….”

  40. BBould says:

    The U of A is doing this because they can, and like many public orgs today will continue this behavior for as long as they can. I’m not sure when somebody will put a solution into effect to stop all of this madness. Public means public!

  41. Steven Hill from Ky (the welfare state) says:

    bout a million more square miles of ocean are covered in ice in 2013 than in 2012, a whopping 60 percent increase — and a dramatic deviation from predictions of an “ice-free Arctic in 2013,”

  42. Gail Combs says:

    Luther Wu says: @ September 10, 2013 at 8:20 am
    ….Don’t be afraid. The knowledge that if they want you, they can and will have you should harden your resolve, rather than force you to bended knee
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I am out here posting stuff I am sure the government does not like. I am also informing the public in person and as a result got a nasty visit from the government goon squad. It has not stopped me yet.

    By the way I seriously hate the ‘open field’ and ‘Commerce Clause’ decisions by the Supreme Court but at this point we are stuck with them and it is foolish not to know as much of the law as possible.

    If you really want to get steamed up how about this New Law.

  43. Luther Wu:

    re your post at September 10, 2013 at 7:50 am

    I do NOT “back down” from anything. Never. Not ever.

    When shown to be wrong then I admit it (as e.g. I often have on WUWT).
    Otherwise, I ‘fight my corner’.

    You misrepresented my question by quoting it out of context so I explained that was the case. And you attempted to pretend I had asserted something about the US Constitution when I never discuss the politics of a foreign land so I said I would not ‘bite’ that ‘red herring’.

    Your apology for pretending I had “backed down” would be accepted.

    Richard

  44. Luther Wu says:

    Richard,
    You have publicly stated that I misrepresented what you said. How could that be? I quoted a direct statement by you- a whole complete sentence.
    You’ve repeatedly stated that the quoted statement was taken out of context.
    There is no appropriate context for your statement.

    I have no idea what country you are from. Are your people steeped in the ideas of liberty and individual freedom? Your statement leads down a long dark road. We understand that in the US, or at least, we once did.
    It has become apparent to many of us here in these United States that the concepts of liberty and individual freedom have been subverted by those who concern themselves with power over others and who would keep us under their yoke.
    I will uproot the thinnest seedling of tyranny wherever I find it. Your words, out of context or not, will not be allowed to flourish within my sight.

  45. Luther Wu says:

    Gail Combs says:
    September 10, 2013 at 8:39 am

    I am out here posting stuff I am sure the government does not like. I am also informing the public in person and as a result got a nasty visit from the government goon squad. It has not stopped me yet.”
    ____________________________
    Bless You.

  46. Jtom says:

    Wu: most people are sufficiently intelligent as to make a distiction between refusing to submit to a random search with no legal basis, in which case such refusal signifies nothing, and refusing to submit to an authorized legal search. One would presumably only do that if they had something to hide. Context is everything.

  47. Jtom:

    re your post at September 10, 2013 at 10:43 am.

    Indeed so. Thankyou.

    Richard

  48. Luther Wu says:

    Jtom says:
    September 10, 2013 at 10:43 am

    Wu: most people are sufficiently intelligent as to make a distiction between refusing to submit to a random search with no legal basis, in which case such refusal signifies nothing, and refusing to submit to an authorized legal search. One would presumably only do that if they had something to hide. Context is everything.
    _________________________
    Like you and most here, I understand Richard’s major point and agree with most of his efforts. However, I tried to point out that his (question) statement can be used as basis for all sorts of mischief and that the statement represents a nefarious logical fallacy which must be pointed out, regardless of context. You can think it’s ok to make that statement in certain context- we will continue to disagree.
    I think that gov’t entities have become habituated to the unrestrained use of power and that they often refuse such requests (as this to U of A,) simply as an exercise in power, regardless of whether they are trying to hide anything, or not.

    Gov’t entities within the US are now actively, routinely and blatantly refusing compliance with laws meant to protect the citizenry from abuses of power. This is nothing new, save for the extreme and widespread practice of abuse and reflects the very human nature that our founding fathers tried to warn us against. Those withi9n government charged with the curtailment of such abuses have abrogated their responsibilities. Those members of the press who are charged with being a last- ditch brake against government tyranny have become complicit in that tyranny. Gov’t- employed public servants who actively refuse to comply with laws specifically designed to curtail gov’t power, should at minimum, lose their jobs. The fact that there is no visible or successful effort to curtail such abuses from any institution, could mean that we are approaching the time when nothing will serve as cure, but heads in a basket.

  49. John Whitman says:

    From ATI’s press statement ‘For Immediate Release – September 10, 2013′,

    ATI sought these records in December 2011.[1] After the University acknowledged resistance from the professors involved — both of whom, ATI points out to the court, were improperly allowed to decide what emails were responsive to the request, and which ones they would allow the University to produce — U of A ultimately produced several hundred responsive emails.

    - – - – - – - -

    ATI, congratulations that you got some emails.

    Persistence, persistence . . . . keep the pursuit of the rest of the emails highly visible to the public.

    The successful pursuit of public funded freedom of info is a potentially wonderful opportunity to assess whether there is some basis for CG1 & CG2 climate scientist change.

    John

  50. Luther Wu:

    I read your excuses at September 10, 2013 at 12:56 pm.

    I understand the oversight because it was a long diatribe and, therefore, it was easy to forget the only thing you needed to write. However, I point out that you forgot to include the apology.

    Richard

  51. Luther Wu says:

    richardscourtney says:
    September 10, 2013 at 1:05 pm

    Luther Wu:

    I read your excuses at September 10, 2013 at 12:56 pm.

    I understand the oversight because it was a long diatribe and, therefore, it was easy to forget the only thing you needed to write. However, I point out that you forgot to include the apology.

    Richard
    ________________
    Ok, you asked for it.
    Excuse? WTH are you talking about?
    This whole thing has been about your employment of a statement which is a logical fallacy, which remains a logical fallacy , regardless of context. I was hoping you would be smart enough to see that.
    I gave you the benefit of the doubt, earlier in the thread, and now see that my efforts were futile. you aren’t the sharpest pencil in the box, are you? Not only are your reading comprehension skills at considerably less than a sophomore level, you have contradicted your own words, several times.
    Apologize, to you? FOAD

  52. Luther Wu:

    Your silly rant at September 10, 2013 at 1:40 pm still omits the apology. And it says much about you and nothing about anyone or anything else.

    I await the apology.

    Richard

  53. Luther Wu says:

    You’re owed none and you’ll get no apology.

    You tried to say that your use of that statement should only be taken in context… really?
    That’s a CYA excuse, and you made it. My statement stands. Wrong is wrong and your statement is wrong, no matter the context. I’ll stand against your statement even though we are on the same side regarding this matter with U of A.

    It’s a pity that your national traditions haven’t prepared you to see the fallacy of your statement- It won’t (shouldn’t) fly in the US, but you don’t discuss the politics of another nation… right?

  54. Luther Wu:

    I hope this experience will deter you from mistreating others on WUWT as you have attempted to mistreat me on this thread.

    Having run out of excuses insults and fabrications, in your post at September 10, 2013 at 2:31 pm you try to change the subject.

    Let me remind you of the apology which you now pretend you don’t owe me. I explained it to you in my post at September 10, 2013 at 8:43 am. To save you needing to find it, I copy it to here.

    Luther Wu:

    re your post at September 10, 2013 at 7:50 am

    I do NOT “back down” from anything. Never. Not ever.

    When shown to be wrong then I admit it (as e.g. I often have on WUWT).
    Otherwise, I ‘fight my corner’.

    You misrepresented my question by quoting it out of context so I explained that was the case. And you attempted to pretend I had asserted something about the US Constitution when I never discuss the politics of a foreign land so I said I would not ‘bite’ that ‘red herring’.

    Your apology for pretending I had “backed down” would be accepted.

    Richard

    Luther Wu, even with your obviously limited intellect, you are surely capable of recognising that onlookers can see none of your bluster, falsehoods and insults have made me “back down”.

    I await your apology.

    Richard

  55. Luther Wu says:

    Hey,

    “I do NOT “back down” from anything. Never. Not ever.

    When shown to be wrong then I admit it (as e.g. I often have on WUWT).”
    ________________________
    Bit of a contradiction, eh?
    Bluster? Insults?
    Pot, kettle, black.

    You have been wrong from the start and won’t admit it. You’ve done everything you can to avoid addressing my initial point, because you know you are wrong. The best you’ve been able to do is to try to walk back your statement by claiming it is “out of context” and a few other attempts at misdirection. You still haven’t addressed the central point and you won’t admit you are wrong. Go ahead and fight your corner…
    You aren’t worth talking to.
    Shove off.

  56. John Whitman says:

    Luther Wu,

    Regarding the following blockquoted comment, see my views below it.

    richardscourtney on September 10, 2013 at 5:24 am @Thomas said,

    [. . .]

    She [Gail] followed that [apparent U of A] quotation by asking you

    There IS no expectation of privacy and ALL the records except the two categories noted, student records and personnel records, should be turned over without a fuss. The fact they are not turning over these records in “The Most Transparent Presidency Evah” certainly makes it look like there is a lot to hide doesn’t it?

    Your reply avoids the [Gail's] question.

    So, let me be explicit.

    Why do you think the uni. is attempting to conceal information from the US public when their own rules and US Law both say they should reveal it?

    And

    Why do you think anybody attempts to hide information if they have nothing to fear from revealing that information?

    Richard

    Luther, your uncompromising position wrt that comment has some reasonable basis. One I have some agreement with in this case.

    One of the best articulations of what I think that reasonable basis is comes from a science fiction TV series; Star Trek the Next Generation.

    Here is a pertinent clip:
    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ9SUbEPrhk&feature=related

    Here is a different and appropriate passage:

    “With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.” — Captain Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie (The Drumhead)

    Thank you for highlighting an important aspect of fundamental rights for freedom.

    John

  57. Luther Wu says:

    John Whitman says:
    September 10, 2013 at 3:22 pm

    ____________________
    John,
    I appreciate your bringing those bits of wisdom from Star Trek to our attention.
    Gene Roddenberry used his creation as a series of moral plays, thus giving a couple of generations of children a glimpse into the workings of the minds of such men as those who have brought about such codes of conduct as the US Constitution, without which, the modern world would be a very much more cruel and dangerous place.

    Well, worse than it is now, anyhow.

  58. Pippen Kool says:

    I am a little disappointed with the stratagy of only going after the authors of the Mann paper. Because there are over 20 papers that have some aspect of the hockey stick in them (even studies funded by Kock $$ ie theBEST study). Doesn’t it make more sense to save time and go after all of them at once?

    Going at this rate there will still be surviving hockey stick papers into the 22 or 23 Century. And we really need to get rid of all of them what with no papers without a hockey stick.

    You would think we could get some scientist to fudge the data bit so that it conformed to reality.

  59. Luther Wu says:

    Pippen Kool says:
    September 10, 2013 at 5:27 pm
    ” Doesn’t it make more sense to save time and go after all of them at once?”
    +++++++++++++++++
    It will not help the snake to cut off its head.
    +++++
    @ John Whitman…
    Oh my, it seems that I implied that Star Trek was created for children…

  60. John Whitman says:

    Luther Wu on September 10, 2013 at 5:02 pm

    - – - – - – -

    Luther Wu,

    I appreciate your return comment.

    My comment to you was a long winded Whitman way of saying you are not entirely a lone wolf. There are at least two lone wolves. : )

    John

  61. John Whitman says:

    Luther Wu on September 10, 2013 at 5:51 pm

    @ John Whitman…
    Oh my, it seems that I implied that Star Trek was created for children…

    - – - – - – - -

    Luther Wu,

    Your reference to children was actually a nice touch.

    I think that because my recent experience with babysitting my 13 month grandson reminded me of how much pure genius there is in such young human beings. I had forgotten the same observations in my daughter 30 years ago. If adults retain that, they are extraordinary geniuses. Roddenberry inspired a lot of that in human adults. : )

    John

  62. Luther Wu says:

    John Whitman says:
    September 10, 2013 at 6:02 pm

    ” My comment to you was a long winded Whitman way of saying you are not entirely a lone wolf. There are at least two lone wolves.”
    ___________________________
    John,
    One could get the idea that WUWT is a virtual den and a very large one, at that.

  63. Mike Wryley says:

    Code Tech, Gail,
    Maybe my reccomembering is misfiring, but
    I believe that if you start using an encryption method that the Feds can’t break, you and the folks at the other end of the conversation will get a visit from the black Suburban crowd, as such an activity has been a crime for quite some time.

  64. Luther Wu:

    Another day has dawned and I still await your apology.

    This matters because if you have success with your attempt to bully me then it can be expected that you will bully others on WUWT.

    John Whitman has not reduced the need for your apology by adding his logically challenged support of your distortions and misrepresentations.

    Please note that at no time have I mentioned anything pertinent to any scriptures to which you apply religious adherence. I was talking about the subject of the thread. And I remind you of the accurate and factual post from Jtom at September 10, 2013 at 10:43 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/ati-files-suit-to-compel-the-university-of-arizona-to-produce-records-related-to-so-called-hockey-stick-global-warming-research/#comment-1413467

    Apologise.

    Richard

  65. Luther Wu says:

    John Whitman says:
    September 10, 2013 at 3:22 pm
    ______________________
    Hello John,
    History holds many examples of tyrants of every stripe. To succeed, tyrants must mask their intent to control others. However, those tyrants often betray themselves… they can’t help it. We come here to WUWT, in part, to shine a light on tyrants operating under the guise of science, both in and out of public service. We see that such persons are responsible for the climate madness we eschew, and much of the evil we see entrenched in the world. To our good fortune, we have been given a glimpse into the nature of a little petty tyrant, here on WUWT.

    When it was pointed out in this thread that a certain phrase could (and often has) been used to justify malevolent action, our little tyrant denied his intent, claiming his words were out of context (which was/is an attempt to distance himself from the words.) At that point, he was still in shadow and his true nature wasn’t yet clear. I pointed out that his words were improper under any context and did not blame him for moving away from the true malice hidden within those words- I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

    Since that time, our little petty tyrant has doubled down. He not only tries to hide and deflect attention away from the words, but also demands apology for highlighting his actions, claiming that he never backs down (implying that he can’t afford to be seen as weak…) He has claimed his own ground as one who always, always dominates and triumphs over others, and has set about showing us that he means it.

    By his own words, our little petty tyrant has displayed his true nature, providing us a glimpse into the mind of one who concerns himself with dominance and control of others. Such is the world.

  66. Gail Combs says:

    Luther Wu says: @ September 10, 2013 at 8:28 am
    ….I am addressing a deeper philosophical root, which actually gets to the bottom of our multi- year discussion of all things AGW, as well as this specific instance of power of Gov’t vs power of the people.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I do not think you have made that clear to Richard. (I have the same problem in clarity at times.)

    First we have the matter of US Law as it stands and is implemented. That is the Freedom of Information Act and the Supreme Court’s Ruling on what ‘Privacy’ and “expectation of privacy is”
    Within those standards U of A is DEAD WRONG. This is the stand I and Richard are making.

    Then you have the more ‘Rigid?’ interpretation of the Constitution

    Amendment IV
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    If you use a literal translation then “probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation” and a court order is needed and the U of A has every right to protect ‘privacy’ without a court order. This is the stand you are making and from the long range view you are correct. The politically expedient of course use which ever interpretation suits their needs at the time.

    Unfortunately for the American public the Supreme Court has been slicing and dicing the US Constitution in accordance with the whims of the Politicial Class for years. I already gave two examples, the Commerce Clause and the Anti-Occupy Wall Street Law.

    Here is another one just as nasty and just as anti-freedom.
    The 6th and 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 3 Section 2 give US citizens the right to a trial. As Joan Biskupic stated:

    “Anyone accused of a crime in this country is entitled to a jury trial.”

    The Constitution may say so but, in fact, this is simply not the case — and becoming less so as politicians fiddle with legal definitions and sentencing standards in order specifically to reduce the number of persons entitled to a trial….

    ….As Thomas Jefferson put it to Tom Paine in a 1789 letter, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” ….
    http://prorev.com/juries.htm

    Here is how the politicians have gotten around the US Constitution to make sure citizens are denied their right to a trial. A jury BTW has the RIGHT to judge not only the defendant but also the law. (Think Case Law and Precedences)

    The Seventh Amendment, passed by the First Congress without debate, cured the omission by declaring that the right to a jury trial shall be preserved in common-law cases… The Supreme Court has, however, arrived at a more limited interpretation. It applies the amendment’s guarantee to the kinds of cases that “existed under the English common law when the amendment was adopted,” …

    The right to trial by jury is not constitutionally guaranteed in certain classes of civil cases that are concededly “suits at common law,” particularly when “public” or governmental rights are at issue and if one cannot find eighteenth-century precedent for jury participation in those cases. Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (1977). Thus, Congress can lodge personal and property claims against the United States in non-Article III courts with no jury component. In addition, where practice as it existed in 1791 “provides no clear answer,” the rule is that “[o]nly those incidents which are regarded as fundamental, as inherent in and of the essence of the system of trial by jury, are placed beyond the reach of the legislature.” Markman v. Westview Instruments (1996). In those situations, too, the Seventh Amendment does not restrain congressional choice.

    In contrast to the near-universal support for the civil jury trial in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, modern jurists consider civil jury trial neither “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” Palko v. State of Connecticut (1937), nor “fundamental to the American scheme of justice,” Duncan v. Louisiana (1968).
    http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/7/essays/159/right-to-jury-in-civil-cases

  67. Luther Wu says:

    Gail Combs says:
    September 11, 2013 at 8:20 am

    Hello Gail,
    It appears that my words are still not clear to others.
    ———————————————————-

    “First we have the matter of US Law as it stands and is implemented. That is the Freedom of Information Act and the Supreme Court’s Ruling on what ‘Privacy’ and “expectation of privacy is”
    Within those standards U of A is DEAD WRONG. This is the stand I and Richard are making.”
    ________________
    Thanks for such clear commentary. I have no argument with your position and have stated that I am of the same view.
    —————————————
    “If you use a literal translation then “probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation” and a court order is needed and the U of A has every right to protect ‘privacy’ without a court order. This is the stand you are making and from the long range view you are correct.
    ______________________
    While your presentation makes a good deal of sense, that is neither the stand I am taking nor the point I am making. My whole effort has not been to highlight any sort of cover under law to the U of A. I’ve simply taken exception to the (question) statement; “Why do you think anybody attempts to hide information if they have nothing to fear from revealing that information?“.

    I’ve pointed out that the statement is not only a logical fallacy, but that the sentiment encapsulated the4rin has been used for all kinds of abuse by government entities.
    As recent example, look what happened in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing. Boston area police were yanking people from their homes at gunpoint and searching those homes without warrant. They knew better, but proceeded and to date, no one has held them to account. Boston area spokesmen publicly used the sentiment expressed in ‘the statement’ to justify their illegal and unconstitutional actions. Such egregious examples of government abuse are becoming the norm nationwide and as such, I stand against such sentiment wherever it is found.
    My simple attempt to highlight the fallacy and danger to personal liberty inherent in ‘the statement,’ regardless of my stand with you in re the U of A, has led to this at times, ugly discourse, far removed from either the point of the initial thread, or my point regarding ‘the statement’.

  68. Luther Wu:

    You have still not apologised and you have added more fabrications and insults. Your lunacy becomes more grotesque with each post you make.

    Apologise.

    Richard

  69. John Whitman says:

    richardscourtney on September 11, 2013 at 3:55 am

    Luther Wu on September 11, 2013 at 8:16 am

    - – - – - – -

    richardscourtney & Luther Wu,

    Guys, I do like to engage, thanks for your comments. Your comments are on important topics and you are serious commenters. It takes time to answer. Wait for a couple of days . . . because . . . I started reading Donna Laframboise’s ‘Dustbin’. As my wife can attest to, I am compulsively focused on a book once I start.

    But, when I do answer the thrust will be no gov’t shall initiate physical force against its citizen or any other person.

    NOTE: so far I am a ‘Dustbin’ junkie.

    ; )

    John

  70. Luther Wu says:

    richardscourtney says:
    September 11, 2013 at 11:01 am

    __________________
    As long as you keep digging, I’ll keep handing you shovels.

  71. Luther Wu:

    re your post at September 11, 2013 at 11:29 am.

    LOL

    You are in the hole of your own making by taking my words out of context, pretending those words said other than they did, and falsely claiming those words relate to a document which you revere and I don’t value.

    When your misdemeanours were pointed out you tried to pretend I had “backed down” and resorted to bullying.

    You are in the hole of having removed any credibility you may have had for veracity, decency and common sense. And every post you make increases the depth of the hole.

    I am merely shouting down into your hole at you, “Stop digging!”.

    And you can climb out of the hole by apologising.

    Richard

  72. Luther Wu says:

    Richard,
    You continue to make my points so eloquently. By all means, carry on.

  73. Luther Wu:

    Your recent – and silly – post again forgot to present your apology.

    You don’t have any “points”. Your bullying has consisted of insults, irrelevance, falsehoods and misrepresentations, but no points.

    Your childish refusal to man-up and apologise is amusing, but it increasingly exposes you for what you are. Your behavior is rather sad.

    Richard

  74. Gail Combs says:

    Luther Wu says:
    September 11, 2013 at 10:47 am

    Gail Combs says:
    September 11, 2013 at 8:20 am

    Hello Gail,
    It appears that my words are still not clear to others…..

    While your presentation makes a good deal of sense, that is neither the stand I am taking nor the point I am making. My whole effort has not been to highlight any sort of cover under law to the U of A. I’ve simply taken exception to the (question) statement; “Why do you think anybody attempts to hide information if they have nothing to fear from revealing that information?“
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The problem with your stand is that the University of Virginia was quite willing to hand Dr. Pat Michael’s e-mails to Greenpeace without a murmur as long as they paid for it but raised a real dust-up when asked to hand over Dr Mann’s e-mails to the ‘Enemy’ (The story is in one of the old WUWT articles on the Mann dust-up) SEE: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/02/yes-virginia-there-is-an-foia/#comment-693275

    I think there is something about a goose and sauce….

    The fact that two different sets of criteria are being used by Universities DOES indicate there is not only something to hide but that they are willing to play favorites to discredit scientists who are not ‘Team Players’

  75. Luther Wu says:

    Gail Combs says:
    September 11, 2013 at 4:44 pm
    ________________
    We do not disagree. I read your words and ask myself- am I missing something? I have not made a single argument against the fact that the U of A is acting as if they have something to hide, yet people seem willing to take me to task for what they think is a defense of the U of A… I’m repeating myself.
    Are you not interested in addressing the points which I actually made?

  76. Luther Wu says:

    Ps Gail,
    I don’t understand your ‘goose and sauce’ reference… kindly catch me up on what that means, ok?

  77. Gail Combs says:

    Luther Wu says:….
    OK, back to the start the actual comment from Richard was:

    So, let me be explicit.
    Why do you think the uni. is attempting to conceal information from the US public when their own rules and US Law both say they should reveal it?
    And
    Why do you think anybody attempts to hide information if they have nothing to fear from revealing that information?

    That is an AND statement. You have someone who BY LAW is required to turn over information AND then goes to a great deal of effort to hide it.
    ……
    Your reply is

    Richard,
    That statement stands on wet ice and is leaning over the edge of a deep, dark hole.
    As example, suppose a city in the U.S. were to require local police to begin inspecting, while armed and without cause or warrant, the homes, businesses and properties of its citizenry…
    “If you have nothing to hide, you won’t mind if we come in and look around, would you Mr. Courtney”?
    The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution exists for a reason.

    You are only considering 1/2 of the actual thought/statement.
    A suspect who BY LAW has his house searched and is found shoving papers into a furnace/shredder can not be compared to an ordinary citizen who finds his house broken into by the police his dog shot all WITHOUT a lawful warrant. (actually in one case it was the Mayor )

    Given recent news I can understand why warrants and searches are a ‘HOT BUTTON’ at least for Americans (Richard BTW is not American)

    The Goose/ sauce is a short hand for the old saying: What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander (I prefer raspberry sauce for my Christmas goose) :>)

  78. Gail Combs says:

    Darn I messed up the block quote again. I really want the preview back!

  79. Luther Wu says:

    Gail says…”You are only considering 1/2 of the actual thought/statement.”
    ________________
    I know that and said that and acknowledged Richard’s saying that it was out of context and that he didn’t mean the implications of what the statement can lead to.
    I’ve heard too many people use that statement as excuse and wanted to make my point, which I did, at the start of this kerfluffle and repeatedly throughout the thread.

  80. Luther Wu says:

    Gail- i hit the post button too soon- I miss the preview, also. Thanks for goose/gander reference, never heard it in that manner.
    I have atttempted to separate the two statements and address the one, on its own, separate and distinct from anything to do with U of A. Do you see, now? The statement is a dangerous logical fallacy which has reached prevalent use in our time. People have pointed out the need to understand context, and I say that context doesn’t matter. From my point of view, the statement is wrong, no matter what… nothing good can flow from its use. While some have taken my point to be a personal attack against them, my intent was to alert others to the dangers of such wrongful use of those words… again, I was speaking entirely separate from anything to do with U of A and had hoped my initial post made that clear, which it seems didn’t happen.

  81. Gail Combs says:

    Lu,
    Hopefully we now have everything straightened out.

  82. John Whitman says:

    John Whitman on September 11, 2013 at 11:12 am

    richardscourtney & Luther Wu,

    Guys, I do like to engage, thanks for your comments. Your comments are on important topics and you are serious commenters. It takes time to answer. Wait for a couple of days . . . because . . . I started reading Donna Laframboise’s ‘Dustbin’. As my wife can attest to, I am compulsively focused on a book once I start.

    But, when I do answer the thrust will be no gov’t shall initiate physical force against its citizen or any other person.

    NOTE: so far I am a ‘Dustbin’ junkie. ; )

    John

    - – - – - – - – -

    richardscourtney & Luther Wu,

    I just finished Donna Laframboise’s new book, so I have time to re-engage.

    Is further dialog to continue? Or has this thread pretty much run its course?

    My basis for continued discussion is the concept that no gov’t shall initiate physical force against its citizen or any other person. It is why I agreed with Luther Wu’s uncompromising position, but I do not assume it to be Luther’s basis.

    John

Comments are closed.