
Reprinted with permission from the authors.
Yes, Virginia, you do have to produce those ‘Global Warming’ documents
Today, Virginia taxpayers, a state lawmaker and a public interest law firm are asking the University of Virginia to produce important “global warming” records under that state’s Freedom of Information Act. These are records the school no longer denies possessing but nonetheless refuses to release, even to Commonwealth Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. They address one of the most high-profile claims used to advance massive economic-intervention policies in the name of “global warming.”
In response to a previous FOIA request, U.Va. denied these records existed. However, during Cuccinelli’s pre-investigation under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (“FATA”), a 2007 law passed unanimously by Virginia’s legislature, which clearly covers the work of taxpayer-funded academics, U.Va. stunningly dropped this stance. For this reversal, the taxpayers of Virginia owe Cuccinelli a debt of gratitude.
Still, the school has spent upward of half a million dollars to date fighting Cuccinelli’s pursuit, now before the Virginia Supreme Court. However, Virginia’s transparency statute FOIA gives the school one week to produce the documents, and offers no exemption for claims U.Va. is using to block Cuccinelli’s inquiry.
These e-mails and other documents relate to claims made by Michael Mann to obtain, and claim payment under, certain taxpayer-funded grants. Mann worked at the university’s department of environmental sciences when he produced what was hailed at the time as the “smoking gun” affirming the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming.
Despite that lofty honorific, persistent controversy led promoters of this notorious “Hockey Stick” graph (principally, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC) to stop advancing it as serious work.
Leaked “ClimateGate” e-mails discussing these same controversies prompted Cuccinelli’s pre-investigation. Sadly, in order to keep the taxpayers’ advocate from examining the evidence, U.Va. has offered a series of twists on a novel defense of “academic freedom.”
Now we with the American Tradition Institute’s environmental law center have requested these documents under FOIA and will presumably put an end to these tactics of denial followed by delay.
Importantly, also under FOIA in late 2009, the pressure group Greenpeace sought, and was promised, e-mails and other materials of Patrick Michaels, who also formerly worked in the same university department.
While the university proceeded to compile the material for Greenpeace, one of us, Virginia Del. Bob Marshall, R-Prince William, thought to ask for records relating to Michaels’ former colleague, Mann. Oddly, the university informed Marshall that such records no longer existed because Mann had left the department.
Michaels has stated that the university, in explaining to him these disparate responses, asserted that some people’s records are treated differently than others. Mann’s were allegedly destroyed; Michaels’ were being packaged for delivery to Greenpeace.
One disparity possibly helping to explain the other was that Mann had been an active participant in the IPCC, obtaining many research grants for his work at U.Va. But Michaels had been a very politically incorrect, high-profile “skeptic” of catastrophist claims such as those represented by the IPCC, and particularly Mann’s Hockey Stick.
In court in August, U.Va. opted against robustly defending, as a legal argument, its academic-freedom rationale for refusing to produce the records. Yet even this week, it is asking the Virginia Supreme Court to deny Cuccinelli’s request for documents possibly showing whether the dense Hockey Stick smoke indeed indicates fire. This does Virginia taxpayers a disservice.
Other records obtained under FOIA reveal that U.Va. has been paying Washington lawyers several thousand dollars per day to deny the requested transparency. As such, in a separate request, we also seek information about this privately underwritten effort to avoid complying with Cuccinelli’s inquiry.
The university has previously demanded taxpayers pay thousands of dollars for a FOIA search for Mann’s records, on the grounds that it maintains a broadly dispersed record-keeping system. Therefore, we have specifically directed the school to only search the backup server it claimed to the attorney general’s office that it finally located as the likely home of the Mann records. As such, demands for huge search fees should not be an obstacle.
We hope for prompt university compliance with FOIA, although we are prepared to fully protect our appellate rights. As Virginia taxpayers, we also hope to see U.Va. rise to its reputation and reflect the highest fidelity toward its statutory and other obligations.
We can then, finally, determine what it is that so many have gone to such great lengths to keep the public from knowing about that for which the public has paid.
Christopher C. Horner is senior director of litigation for the American Tradition Institute’s law center and a Virginia resident; David W. Schnare, Ph.D is a Virginia resident and a federal attorney, Del. Bob Marshall is a Virginia Republican delegate representing Prince William County.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/01/yes-virginia-you-do-have-produce-those-global-warming-documents#ixzz1AEpTl1dZ
http://www.atinstitute.org/blog_post/show/58
Sorry for posting here … I got very confused trying to put it on tips and notes and I am not sure if it went on there… Spoof Climate sketch from BBC Armstrong and Miller show:
getting a bit too close to being true!!
Go Get ‘Em, Commonwealth Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli!
Regardless of any surmised ‘political motivations’ alleged by others, I wholeheartedly support every effort to re-establish open disclosure of tax payer funded research! If these sneaky little U. of VA rats fail to fully disclose the entire package of original documents, strip them of their funding, academic standings, and put their lying butts in jail!
Is Thomas Jefferson spinning in his grave?
Simon Hopkinson said.
“I never could get behind Cuccinelli’s action because it’s always seemed politically motivated.”
—————————————————————————–
When dealing with pigs it sometime nesscesary to get a little dirty.
Is not the whole AGW scam politically motivated now,we the tax payers are paying to be lied to.
We don’t have to escalate this into a battle of good vs evil, with both sides claiming to be the good guys. It is quite enough to say that the University officials haven’t yet come to grips with their emerging responsibilities under FOIA in a world where the evidence has to be producible as well as reproducible. They are still hoping there is some easier way. And hoping …
I don’t like a lot about Cucinelli’s crusade of potential criminal penalties. But producing evidence so we can discuss it isn’t really optional. And if it takes a suit and moderate penalties to get it, well there it is.
Actions like University of Virginia’s really do stink and show how little has really changed post the ‘reviews’ , that they were willing to release records to Greenpeace on another person makes they claims of ‘academic freedom’ ring rather hallow. That that change their mind on if the records even existed makes it look like a cover-up and does all the effort they clearly put into not allow these records to be seen in public. Ironical if they get out into the public realm, there may be nothing really in them. But who now would believe that the University of Virginia had actual honest in releasing these records given its past actions? And so conspiracy theories are born.
I knew it was important that the University revealed possession of previously denied document, I just didn’t make the obvious next move to renewing the FOI request. Nice move tactically. Nice moot to Cooch.
Sic semper Tyrannis. Yeah, that sort of virgin.
===========
It would be pretty foolhardy to try to fiddle with the content of e-mails and similar documents. The FOIA requester can simply follow the trail.
For example if they turn over an e-mail to “Bill Smith” at another institution that reads: “The sky is blue”, you simply request Bill Smith’s e-mails and ensure that it reads the same as the U 0f V one. It can be a bit time-consuming for the requester but necessary and anyone caught making such blatant alterations would serve prison time.
Simon Hopkinson says:
January 6, 2011 at 4:45 am
I never could get behind Cuccinelli’s action because it’s always seemed politically motivated.
========================================================
That’s funny, that’s the same reason I favor Cuccinelli’s actions, because the CAGW hoax is politically motivated, as was the hockey stick.
“What would stop them from manufacturing the documents, or redacting embarrassing bits? Without the originals, how will the lawyers know if they’ve got the real documents or something made up to satisfy the request?”
The FOIA request, (as I understand it), is for electronic records, which will have dated metadata which would allow people to know when any record was accessed or edited.
Being academic data, it should also have edit history to show who altered what and when for full traceability.
it would be highly suspicious if the data had been amended after the FOIA request was made.
Pull my Finger- been there myself years ago. worked for a Dept. Head. as a student/workstudy/ drone. Filing many papers of a small mammal study-which undoubtedly are still available, I agree…
“What is the penalty if they don’t deliver? ”
Well once the court finds them in contempt, an officer of the court can arrest and jail those found in contempt.
I’d start with the President of the University, but that is just me 😉 .
Steve says:
January 6, 2011 at 5:03 am
This isn’t science. You don’t hide your methods and data.
_______________________________
Yes it is. Wake up! It’s climate science!
jk
…but I do think it is horrible how climate science has become so politicized. It’s a discussion resembeling a fight between football supporters. I think “team AGW” brought this on when they had the bad idea to run the “Gore campaign” combined with the Bush tactic (you’re either with us or with the terrorist; i.e. natural disaster of biblical proportion). From that point on they created an atmosphere in which it was about winning the “war on climate change(skepticism)”. Just like the war on drugs it is doomed to fail. I sincerely hope this war ends soon, because I’m not joining any team. I’m not joining the “skeptics” or the “AGWers”, but I am sincerely curious about what is going on with climate and the environment. Unless we can take an open, humble and intelligent approach to the questions, we will never have any meaningful answers.
I do find it disturbing that the debate here on WUWT is MORE civilized and open than on realclimate.org. They do claim to be the scientists, but they give me an uneasy feeling by over-censoring and by being extremely passive aggressive in their replies to q’s that are merely skeptical.
Sorry for the OT rant.
Ah, I get to recycle one that took off with great expectations, but landed kind of flat:
The University of Virginia is hoist on its own retard.
====================
Irrespective of the substance of the Mann material, the actions of the UnV to prevent its release give the appearance if impropriety. This alone may be more damning in the eyes of the public than the actual material itself.
Grain by grain the sugar sand base of the lies and fraud slip, slip slides away.
They need to amend their FOIA request and find out how much UVA demanded of Greenpeace to fulfill thier request. I’d hazzard a guess that they just provided the info without any demand for ‘reasonable fee’ whatsoever.
Seriously, with the fact that both Michaels and Mann worked in the same department and would have had their communications and other work stored on the very same computers, could you devise a more blatant example of obvious bias?
If they claim, next week, that it was all accidentally destroyed in a freak accident I hope the court will have theballs to imprison everybody involved for decades for contempt of court.
Re the concerns about whether the documents are manufactured or not–I would think a state AG would have the power to “request” (subpoena?) any other documents from any other parties, once those parties’ names were revealed as correspondents, co-authors, etc. The other parties’ versions could be used to compare with those obtained from the U of VA.
Also, I can well imagine the U of VA folks would squawk about having to produce the documents at a time when so many of their faculty/staff were absent for the holidays. Indeed, our local university does not resume regular classes until next Monday. Lots of people are still out of town until this weekend. It’s probably the same there.
We can’t give this to you, you’ll just find fault with it…………
Cuccinelli’s pursuit off this investigation/case makes some people uneasy because it could be portrayed as “politically motivated”. Get over it. Anything that involves the collection or distribution of tax money is fundamentally political in nature.
Of course, major media will portray it this way (if they mention it all). The fourth estate no longer functions as an independent watchdog guarding the people’s right to know what their government is doing. With this administration, they are willing hand-maidens.
Cuccinelli’s motivations may be attacked, but the underlying facts of the case (and the facts of climate science) will not be altered. Because of the extremely high stakes, extraordinary courage is required to investigate the claim of “fraud” against powerful interests. I salute him.
This will be fascinating to watch.
It all sounds a bit third worldly.
Yes to that data request because it helps our side, no to that one because it helps their side. That’s how our vote counting is done among other things.
I rather thought America was better than that.
What I would like to see is a persecution for obstruction of justice for saying that they did not have the documents.
I never could get behind Cuccinelli’s action because it’s always seemed politically motivated.
I can totally get behind a straight-forward FOI request, though. The public gets what the public wants, because the public owns it. Simple.
+ 1. Part of me loathes the action taken by Cuccinelli, but releasing info under the FOIA does not strike me as unreasonable.
I was waiting for the truth to come out
I hope this is it
if the university spends $500000 to suppress it
it must tell us something
but how would we know if they did not already start to “doctor” it before releasing it?
If they spent that much money to suppress it, they might go further still…..
I am hoping that Cuccinelli already knows more or less what is in it?