
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
James Sexton says:
January 7, 2011 at 3:37 pm
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.
James:
Do you really think that articles in scientific journals are “political misue” while attacks on scientists by politicians are what(?) I do agree that some social scientists impinge on politics, but having spent most of the last 30 years reading, editing, reviewing and writing scientific studies (I’m a biologist), I never saw any political content and believe that political content would not be acceptable in scientific studies and publications. Why not quote a few sentences of a primary scientific study that even mentions politics? Did I miss something?
BillD says:
January 7, 2011 at 4:22 pm
“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.”
Bill, you know that it’s not about disagreeing with conclusions. The CG emails gave cause to suspect that there was egregious cooking of the science for activist or grant grabbing motivations, coercion of journals to prevent just the very debate you are suggesting as the forum for settling questions about conclusions. If this did not happen, then the emails will show this and the case is dismissed. Surely one should be suspicious with the withholding of data, and frustration of legitimate FOI requests by other scientists and by government officials who have a fiduciary duty to the electorate to ensure that the grants were legitimately applied for and the work was done in an honest manner. The conclusions of the scientific work can be controversial as long as the data and arguments are not deliberately tailored to give a foregone result. The conclusions can even be demonstrably wrong ones if the errors are honest errors. Please tell me that you are not a tad suspicious that the funds weren’t applied in a wholly acceptable way (whitewashes aside). I agree that honest scientists should be free to err without fear of the dragoons being sent in. But if there is sufficient smoke, it is the fire departments job to chop the door down if there is no other way.
BillD,
You are conflating “scientists answering to politicians” with misappropriation of public funds.
Michael Mann and UoP are fighting the Attorney General’s investigation tooth and nail because they have plenty to hide — not because they have to answer to politicians. Every scientist feeding at the public trough has to answer to politicians.
The line is being drawn at suspected fraud. Cuccinelli has the obligation as AG to gather evidence. That’s his job.
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.
===============================
Your arguments are essentially smoke and mirrors. Silly, really.
And contrary to your last diversion, the scientific method should indeed ALWAYS be able to stand up in a court of law.
Truth is truth.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Whoops posted too fast. Last post was addressed to BillD
Mann et als have attempted to influence public policy with thier “studies”. As such, they cannot claim that they are disinterested scientists. They should be treated as partisans who live at the public trough.
David W. Schnare :
Thank you for providing us with the link to the correct actual FOIA request(s).
I have a few questions regarding this FOIA request :
(1) You mention in your article that you are a “federal attorney”. In this FOIA request, are you representing the federal government ? If not, who exactly do you represent in this FOIA request ? If so, under whos authority does the federal government seek to obtain information (emails etc) from Michael Mann or any other employee at UVA ?
(2) You already mention that you believe that “taxpayer-funded academics” fall under your wide interpretation of the Virginia FOIA, and that thus you have the right to obtain the emails they wrote since 1999. However, is there any ruling in the FOIA that specifically excludes legislature, military or other government personnel or even government paid contractors and companies ?
For example : Can I file a FOIA with the state of Virginia and obtain all emails that Cuccinelli (as a state paid employee) has sent out since he obtained office ?
If not, why do you think that state-paid legislature is somehow excluded from the Virginia FOIA, and why should academics be singled out for coughing up everything they ever wrote ?
Rob, regarding your last point: it has nothing to do with academcis being singled out to cough up everything they ever wrote. This is part and parcel for all employees of publicly funded institutions. Standard operating procedure… when you work for the government or other public institution, the public owns your work.
Mark
Mark said :
“when you work for the government or other public institution, the public owns your work.”
That’s not true.
Under your definition, the recent (governmental and military) correspondence released by Wikileaks should have been available to the public under FOIA requests.
If so, why was wikileaks taken down, leaders arrested and incarcerated without bail, and exact legal procecution being prepared as we speak ?
Hello Anthony,
well I just wanted to check if you have an update on that story . .
If I understood you correctly UVa was supposed to hand over the emails/data
last Friday, did that happen? Or what are the next likely steps here?
Thanks a lot,
LoN
Rob says:
January 10, 2011 at 1:25 am
…
Under your definition, the recent (governmental and military) correspondence released by Wikileaks should have been available to the public under FOIA requests.
If so, why was wikileaks taken down, leaders arrested and incarcerated without bail, and exact legal procecution being prepared as we speak ?
Uh, duh, does “classified documents” convey anything to you?
I thought not.
You are conflating “public institution” with military (and national security.)
And, for the record, there have not been any formal charges related to the leaks, so your basic premise is flawed if that is your example.
Mark
I should point out that the reason those cables exist in the first place is the same reason UVA saves its communications: they are owned by the public. The only difference is security which means the former’s information gets held in limbo for some lenght of time.
Of course, Bob, if you had ever worked for the public, government, or even a contractor to the same, you would know this. Instead you somehow feel justified talking nonsense about something you clearly have no experience with. Hardly a surprise from defenders of the faith. Pathetic.
Mark
MarkT:
Not sure what your agenda is and why you resort to ad hominem arguments and intimidation to make your point. Surely you know that these are fallacies in debate.
I don’t think you actually understood what I was asking in my point (2).
The question I had was regarding emails and to which and whom the VFOIA applies.
First of all, I am not sure if emails between scientists fall under the Viginia FOIA. The definition of “public records” used therein :
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+2.2-3701
seems to include only tangible recordings, and one could make an argument that emails between public state/federal employees (without a print-out, or without actually addressing “public business” would be excluded from the VFOIA.
Second, if emails ARE considered part of VFOIA, my question was if that also applies to legislative employees (like Cuccinelli). If so, then you answered my question “can I obtain all email correspondence from Cuccinelli under VFOIA?” with a resounding YES.
Third, (and this also applies to BrianH’s answer), what makes a document “classified”, and where in the VFOIA does it state which documents are explicitly excluded from releases under the FOIA ? Are military documents are by default “classified” ? How about Cuccinelli’s personal emails ? Are they “classified” as well ?
Finally, I still did not get an answer from about David W. Schnare. Who does he represent in this FOIA request ? If he just represents himself, then the designation of “state lawmaker” would be considered misleading at best.