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
BillD: “Why not just allow the federal, state and local government and the police to to get a hold of everybodies email? ”
Becasue, under our system of government, law enforcement must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed before they can engage in any sort of search. There is ample reason to believe that Mann might have committed fraud under FATA. Cuccinelli spells it all out in his appeal. The AG has an obligation to investigate, in this case.
JPeden says:
January 6, 2011 at 11:45 am
CodeTech says:
January 6, 2011 at 8:02 am
I keep hearing variations of this “I don’t like Cuccinelli’s actions because they’re political”. Quite frankly, it annoys the hell out of me.
Me too.
======================
Me three!
This “witch hunt”… is completely justified because it involves PUBLIC money on quote unquote “research” that was used internationally to attempt to divert TRILLIONS of dollars into the coffers of special interests the likes of Al Gore were positioned to profit well off of a “calamity”…and it created mass psychological scare and fear and propagate the greatest (worst) scientific scam EVER perpetuated on the planet.
Time to light the torches.
Chris
Norfolk, Virginia, USA
Dear mods – please check your spam for my last post.
Thanks and regards,
Chris
[Rescued & posted. ~dbs]
“They place the desires of the collective over the needs of the individual. They seek to destroy representative democracy and replace it with a totalitarian bureaucracy. They have manipulated our market systems, openly attacked capitalism and admittedly and unabashedly stated they sought to redistribute the worlds wealth. They have sought to replace traditional religious beliefs with their own form of theology.”
((Crickets chirping.)) Is what I thought. Kinda sad.
Kev-in-UK says: “What is the penalty if they don’t deliver? Can the attorney general then ‘seize’ the server? or do they just get a fine? (if it’s the latter, maybe one can expect the likes of Gore to cough up to protect the warmists backs?)”
1) Shut down the entire university and have marshals seize all computers.
2) Fine the university $1,000,000 per day until they turn over the missing materials.
3) Arrest university officials and charge them jointly and severally with contempt of court and conspiracy.
4) All of above.
BillD says:
January 6, 2011 at 5:37 pm
In the instance at hand, this is the wrong question.
Here we have an employee paid with state and federal public
funds supported by University staff paid by public
funds using equiment and buildings maintained by
public funds and making applications for MORE
public funding while purporting to accurately account for the
public funds expended to date and how additional
public funds might be spent.
Your question conflates the average United States citizen’s
constitutional right to protection from unwarrented
searches and seizures and privacy in general with the duties,
legal responsibilities and limited rights held by public employees
and their employer/institutions.
If Mike Mann sent a letter from home on his own stationary,
using his own word processor, paying for the envelope and
stamp out of pocket, telling his Aunt Tillie in some detail he
was working on climate related studies… that letter would
not be subject to FOI requests under
Virginia or Federal law.
Whatever happens with this U of V debacle, just know that having ALL OF YOU submit these comments of yours – some profound – some ‘borderline’ profane – some complete with anger or wit… just KNOW that you are showing THE WORLD what Real Scientists and REAL Scholars are ‘about’.
I have suggested to over 50 folks (the potentially brainwashed) thus far – to surf through Watts Up, so they can sample the articles and ‘dig into’ these comments.
There are too many excellent posts to ‘high five’ you all…but, each was ‘just enough’ to lift my spirits at the end of a long day in the paddocks.
Oh, and CodeTech was right once again… I’d never heard of this guy – Cuccinelli –
until I read this post. I suppose he’s yet another in the ‘unsung hero’ category. Can’t wait to see WHEN Justice truly will prevail…once in 50 years would indeed be ‘nice’.
C.L. Thorpe
cedarhill @ur momisugly 11:04 AM yesterday.
Libby didn’t lie. Russert did. Time to open FitzgeraldGate.
The FBI on morning
Lost its notes suborning
Eckenrode,
Where is that toad?
He’s wanted at a harrowing.
==============
It is surprising that even though everyone here seems to have an opinion, neither in this post, nor anyone commenting here, shows the actual FOIA request.
In a separate article, I found that this FOIA request was filed by Christopher C. Horner of the American Tradition Institute’s law center, David W. Schnare, a federal attorney and Bob Marshall (a Virginia Republican delegate).
However, the exact request seems painfully absent….
What is really requested under this FOIA ?
And how does that differ from the Greenpeace request ?
And where is that Greenpeace request any way ?
And where is the answer that UVA gave to Greenpeace ?
Wouldn’t anyone like to share that with us here at WUWT ?
Cynthia Lauren Thorpe says:
January 7, 2011 at 12:55 am
Whatever happens with this U of V debacle, just know that having ALL OF YOU submit these comments of yours – some profound – some ‘borderline’ profane – some complete with anger or wit… just KNOW that you are showing THE WORLD what Real Scientists and REAL Scholars are ‘about’.
Yes, Cynthia,
Science is too important to be left to people with PhD’s who actually conduct experiments, analyze data and write articles that are accepted by scientific journals. The real scholars and scientists are the ones who write on blogs to critique the work of the so-called scholars and scientists. Science is best done by people with no formal university training in a field of study, as that clearly biases and clouds the point of view.
Rob:
At January 7, 2011 at 2:32 am you complain that the actual FOIA request is not puplished on WUWT.
You can read it at
http://cei.org/outreach-legal-briefs/university-virginia-freedom-information-act-request
I found it in less than 60 seconds by googleing ‘Horner Virginia FOIA request’ which took much less time and effort than would be required to make your post. It was the first item returned by Google.
If that was all you wanted and finding it was beyond you, then perhaps it would have been shorter, simpler and more polite to have posted:
“Would somebody please provide a link to the actual FOIA request because it is not included in the above article? This seems to be an oversight.”
Richard
[And we who can now use that link thank you for providing it. 8<) Robt]
BillD says;
January 7, 2011 at 4:04 am
“Science is too important to be left to people with PhD’s who actually conduct experiments, analyze data and write articles that are accepted by scientific journals. The real scholars and scientists are the ones who write on blogs to critique the work of the so-called scholars
and scientists. Science is best done by people with no formal university training in a field of study, as that clearly biases and clouds the point of view.”
ROTFLMAO!!!! (and I’m a published PhD in the physical sciences)
BillD:
Your post at January 7, 2011 at 4:04 am is silly.
“He who pays the piper calls the tune”. The ‘piper’ is answerable to his paymaster and not the other way around.
Scientists (including me) have no right to expect our work to be unaccountable to those who pay pay for it, and we should not have that right. But those who pay for our work have a right to examine what they have payed for so they can assess whether or not they have been swindled. The public payed for the science conducted the Virginia Uni., and they each have a right to determine that they have not been swindled. Honest and competent scientists have nothing to fear from this.
Consider that you were talking about another purchase which was not ‘science’, for example, a car. A person lacks the ability to design and build a car but buys one. He agreed to purchase a Rolls Royce but he receives what looks suspiciously like a Honda. According to your assertion the purchaser should have no right to demand proof that he got a Rolls Royce unless the purchaser could manufacture a car himself.
Silly? Your assertion is plain daft!
Richard
******
Moliterno says:
January 6, 2011 at 3:13 pm
My second son is about to head off to Virginia Tech (no fancy nicknames for that engineer cow college). That is where the engineers who have to build stuff that works go to learn hard sciences like physics and thermodynamics.
******
That’s my mechanical-engineering alma mater! And, and least in the late 70’s, their engineering schools had kept out Political Correctness, tho PCism was already there in most other “schools”. Not sure I want to know what the situation is now, as PCism has infiltrated just about every university school/discipline in the country.
PS. In the late 70’s, even tho I was an out-of-state student (more expensive), the total tuition was still less than $1500 a yr.
The link for the FOIA is not the one we submitted yesterday. You can read the press release here: http://www.atinstitute.org/blog_post/show/58
At the bottom of the press release are links to the two FOIA’s we have sent UVA.
David Schnare
dear latitude,
Half a million dollars spent by UVA to keep people from getting data that you (and your pals) have no idea what to do with, while all of the data that is being used or has been used is readily available?
This makes no sense whatsoever.
Here’s a simpler explanation:
Cuccinelli is showboating…wasting taxpayer and UVA money over politically motivated legal filings.
Note:
“Mr. Cuccinelli’s legal case against Mr. Mann seems unrelated to any of the controversial research the attorney general spends so much time attacking. Mr. Cuccinelli is supposedly investigating whether Mr. Mann committed fraud when the scientist applied for and received a state-funded research grant — to study what Mr. Mann describes as “the interaction of the land, atmosphere and vegetation in the African savannah.” The topic “has nothing to do with climate change or paleoclimate,” Mann says. The attorney general appears to argue that, since Mr. Mann listed his controversial papers on his curriculum vitae when he and two other scientists applied for the savannah research grant, he may have committed some kind of fraud.”
From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/05/AR2010100504908.html
S –t–r–e–t–c–h–i–n–g to find no crime. What an utter waste of time and money.
Publishing in Nature is the highest goal of many scientists. I bet that Mann is surprised that his state government thinks that his publication in Nature is a crime (or evidence of fraud), as is listing such a publication in his list of publications on a grant application.
I’ve had a number of grants from the National Science Foundation which resulted in scientific publications, although none in Nature. Should I now be concerned that a lawyer employed by the state or federal goverment might try to prosecute me for fraud if the lawyer doesn’t like the methods, analysis or conclusions of my research?
Generally, accounting departments are responsible for insuring that grant funds are spent for their intended purposes. The validity of scientific results and conclusions are mainly judged by other scientists in peer review, not by lawyers who don’t know squat about science. The main quality control is that scientists who don’t translate grants into publications in good journals are likely to be rated poorly and declined on their next grant application. If if a scientific study is later show to be mistaken, this is not usually taken as evidence of a crime or fraud. There are many cases where a scientist’s more recent results show that the same scientists earlier conclusions were incorrect or insufficient. This is often called the “self correcting nature of science.”
Does the Virginnia AG have evidence that Mann’s grant money was spent for something outside of research expenses? If that’s the case, he should look for evidence in the U of V’s accounting department, not in Mann’s email account. Frankly, I think that U of V faculty and admistration have the right to be concerned if politically motivated lawyers can use the power of their office to attack academics with whom they disagree. Fortunately, most AG’s, Republican or Democrat, realize that the State’s power should not be for political attacks.
fuddy man:
You make a silly suggestion when you say;
“Here’s a simpler explanation:
Cuccinelli is showboating…wasting taxpayer and UVA money over politically motivated legal filings.”
When Cuccinelli first asked for the info. the Uni. said they did not have the data but when Cuccinelli subsequently pressed the matter the Uni. admitted to having it but has yet to provide it.
I have a tip for you: when you know nothing about a subject it is best not to prove you know nothing by making a comment.
Richard
Mr fuddy troll man said:
Rather like Mann, really.
Go away troll.
BillD,
I still await your letter of complaint to Greenpeace.
BillD:
Not content with presenting nonsense at January 7, 2011 at 4:04 am
that I refuted at January 7, 2011 at 5:11 am,
you have presented the same twaddle again at January 7, 2011 at 12:58 pm.
Clearly, you are not capable of understanding the practical and ethical explanations in my refutation of your nonsense, so I will be blunt. You need to understand the following.
If you do not want to allow the public to assess your work then do not work for the public.
If you work for industry then you will experience much more severe scrutiny of your work and be held to much greater account for it than if you work for the public.
If you are afraid of scrutiny and accountability then work for yourself and pay the costs of doing your work yourself.
And stop moaning that accountability to those who pay for your salary is somehow unfair. It is not.
I hope that is clear.
Richard
BillD says:
January 7, 2011 at 12:58 pm
“Frankly, I think that U of V faculty and admistration have the right to be concerned if politically motivated lawyers can use the power of their office to attack academics with whom they disagree. Fortunately, most AG’s, Republican or Democrat, realize that the State’s power should not be for political attacks.”
========================================================
Frankly, I think the people of Virginia have the right to be concerned if politically motivated academics use the people’s money to further political causes under questionable circumstances. Sadly, most academics don’t realize their charge is should be only to educate in an apolitical manner. To use their position in a political manner is a misuse of the people’s money and breach of the public trust.
Richard S Courtney says:
January 7, 2011 at 3:24 pm
“……
If you do not want to allow the public to assess your work then do not work for the public.
If you work for industry then you will experience much more severe scrutiny of your work and be held to much greater account for it than if you work for the public.
If you are afraid of scrutiny and accountability then work for yourself and pay the costs of doing your work yourself.
And stop moaning that accountability to those who pay for your salary is somehow unfair. It is not.
I hope that is clear.
Richard
======================================================
It was Richard, and well stated. It isn’t academic freedom people like BillD seek, rather it is license they seek.
This brings to mind a wonderful quote that I believe is apt.
“None can love freedom heartily but good men, the rest love not freedom, but license.”—–John Milton
I still maintain that the quality, realiability and significance of scientific studies should be evaluated by scientists from around the world, not by government lawyers who know squat about science or even government bureaucrats with some training in science. If scientists have to answer to politicians who disagree with our conclusions our credibility and the competitiveness of American science will go to zero. I also claim that scientific debates should occur in scientific journals, not in the court of law.