Chris Horner of the American Tradition Institute writes in with this:
So the American Association for the Advancement of Science, thoroughly rattled by the American Tradition Institute’s FOIA requests of UVa and NASA — and even more so by the litigation forced by the institutions’ respective stonewalling — issued a board statement comparing FOIA requests of climate scientists with death threats. Really.
Naturally this caught the eye of the New York Times, which had a young lady contact us for comment. Right off the bat it was clear she, too, had been rattled by the horrors of our outrageous efforts to …see certain records the taxpayer has paid for and which are expressly covered by transparency laws.
Her stance was sympathetic to AAS’s to the point of temper.
She first reaffirmed a fancy for the apparently absolute truth that a FOIA request for climate scientists’ records is indeed no different than death threats allegedly made in Australia against scientists — sadly, if that’s true, they are now treated to what ‘skeptics’ have experienced for years, as I have detailed.
Well, actually, her disinterest in Greenpeace having created this little cottage practice indicated that this is true only for certain climate scientists’ records. Not the ones whose records Greenpeace is asking her for…that’s just transparency, good-government type stuff.
She continued by wondering, as such, do we condone death threats (really?) and, if not, why would we then also issue a FOIA?
Why that is particularly amusing, as opposed to sad, is that she was shocked by my assertion that Big Science/Big Academia’s objection to having laws that obviously cover their own actually applied to their own was of a part with Hollywood objecting to laws being applied to Roman Polanski. Apparently, by saying this, I was accusing Michael Mann of some heinous crime. Or something.
So see the below as I sent to her and, given the above, I expect you will not see in the story. Surely because it will be too busy explaining the tyranny of Greenpeace broadly filing similar requests. ATI’s statement is here.
—–Original Message—–From: chornerlaw@aol.com
To: fostej@nytimes.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 29, 2011 1:14 pm
Subject: AAAS release citing ATI transparency efforts
Dear Joanna,I’m told you called ATI for comment. Below is my response per an earlier inquiry.Best,Christopher C. Horner Senior Fellow Competitive Enterprise Institute 1899 L St, NW 12th Floor Washington, DC, 20036 +1.202.331.2260 (O)…Several points:I noticed no relation between our initiative and the Board’s rhetoric until they mentioned us somewhat incongruously.The notion that application of laws expressly covering academics [is] an ‘attack’ on academics is substantively identical to Hollywood apologists calling application of other laws to Roman Polanski an attack on Polanski. They rather lost the plot somewhere along the way.The failure to mention the group that invented this series of requests, Greenpeace, informs a conclusion that this attempt at outrage is selective, and therefore either feigned or hypocritical. This is also new; their problem is quite plainly with the law(s), but it is a problem they have, over the decades of transparency and ethics laws applying to scientists subsisting on taxpayer revenue, heretofore forgotten to mention.Opposition to such laws applying to them is rather shocking. But then, maybe not so much when you also note their failure to comment on scientists being outed as advocating the flaunting of transparency laws.Finally, AAUP’s code of professional ethics indicates that efforts to manipulate the peer review process are impermissible. Given the overlap and for other reasons we assume this is something AAAS agrees with or at minimum accepts. But this, too, is insincere if such behavior is permissible — or at least, where just cause indicates further inquiry is warranted, it is to be ignored — if the party at issue is one who for various reasons the AAAS or AAUP et al. elevate or find sympathetic. In Mann’s case, if our review of his documents which belong to the taxpayer also happen to exonerate him from the suspicions that have arisen, we will be the first to do so.
==============================================================
Below is the ATI statement – Anthony
==============================================================
Statement from American Tradition Institute Environmental Law Center in Response to American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Misleading Accusations Against ATI Today
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Contacts:
Christopher Horner, director of litigation, chris.horner@atinstitute.org
Paul Chesser, executive director, paul.chesser@atinstitute.org
Today the board of directors for the American Association for the Advancement of Science issued a statement and press release that denounced “personal attacks,” “harassment,” “death threats,” and “legal challenges” toward climate scientists. AAAS’s press release specifically cited actions taken by American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center in its efforts to obtain records of Climategate scientist Dr. Michael Mann from the University of Virginia, and its efforts to obtain outside employment records of climate activist Dr. James Hansen from the National Aeronautical and Space Administration(NASA).
AAAS wrote, in part,
“we are concerned that establishing a practice of aggressive inquiry into the professional histories of scientists whose findings may bear on policy in ways that some find unpalatable could well have a chilling effect on the willingness of scientists to conduct research that intersects with policy-relevant scientific questions.”
Response to AAAS from ATI Environmental Law Center director of litigation Christopher Horner:
“I noticed no relation between our initiative and the AAAS Board’s rhetoric until they mentioned us somewhat incongruously.
“The notion that application of laws that expressly cover academics is an ‘attack’ on them is substantively identical to Hollywood apologists who call application of other laws to Roman Polanski an attack on Polanski. They lost the plot somewhere along the way.
“AAAS’s failure to mention the group that invented this series of requests, Greenpeace, informs our conclusion that this outrage is selective, and is therefore either feigned or hypocritical. Their problem is plainly with the laws, but it is a problem they have had over the decades: That transparency and ethics laws also apply to scientists who subsist on taxpayer revenue. This they also forgot to mention.
“Finally, the American Association of University Professors’ code of professional ethics indicates that efforts to manipulate the peer review process are impermissible. Given the overlap, and for other reasons, we assume AAAS agrees with these principles or at a minimum accepts them. But this, too, is insincere if such behavior is permitted or ignored where just cause indicates further inquiry is warranted, as long as the parties at issue are those whose views the AAAS or AAUP sympathize with. In Mann’s case, if our review of his documents which belong to the taxpayer also happen to exonerate him from the suspicions that have arisen, we will be the first to do so.”
For an interview with Christopher Horner, email chris.horner@atinstitute.org or paul.chesser@atinstitute.org or call (202)670-2680.
================================================================
Reaction is now coming in. Alana Goodman of Commentray Magazine writes in a piece titled
Contentions – Climate Change Skepticism Now Considered ‘Harassment’?
…
Of course, what the AAAS calls “personal information” actually appears to be public data. The group’s statement comes on the heels of a lawsuit filed against NASA by the conservative American Traditional Institute earlier this month, which is trying to force the agency to release information about scientist James Hansen.
And after years of watching climate change advocates demonizing global warming skeptics, it’s hard to have any sympathy for the AAAS on this issue. Not to mention, previously leaked emails have shown climate change scientists behaving in ways abusive to the public trust. Skeptics should absolutely work to expose any potential corruption in the global warming advocacy community — and the fact AAAS is so terrified of legal challenges is good reason to believe these skeptics might be onto something.
David Appell says:
June 29, 2011 at 11:23 pm
And even more evidence: several responses to my original comment are examples of what I’m talking about: excuses for the death threats, or jokes, or comments that include include the word “but” This is exactly my point — there is no BUT. The threats are inexcusable no matter what, regardless of what any scientist or journalist or blogger or filmmaker has ever said (or didn’t say). They are inexcusable and unacceptable, period. Examples:………..
________________________________
To illustrate the point of why we all do not find it necessary to repeat the obvious, that death threats are highly offensive, I will ask you a question.
Why has David Appell not condemned the pedophilia alluded to in the Polanski reference?
Nuf said?
Folks, Appell’s MO is to feign concern, then provoke responses, then use those responses to write a post with those responses feigning his “outrage” on his blog that only gets a few reads. There’s little chance he’ll respond with anything substantive nor will he cite actual death threats as has been requested. He’ll just churn out an article critical of WUWT and everybody here while at the same time believing what he’s complaining in about. He’s done this again and again, in my experience he’s not reachable.
For the record, I don’t condone death threats or threats of violence, but I’ve yet to see any that have been substantiated. Smokey makes a good point, where was Appell when 10:10 was exploding children? I don’t recall him condemning it or any of the other stupid and hateful things that have been done in the pursuit of the cause. Goose, gander and all that.
An entirely self-consistent position as I see it:
Climate data is for climatologists eyes only, the rest of us can rely on their expert opinion.
Freedom of information is for journalists eyes only, ditto the above.
So, David Appell, and Nick Stokes are Concern Trolls trying to drum up readers for their blogs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#Concern_troll
David, you pointed out some rebuttals, but no death threats. So how can one condemn what is not there? Until you can show us where there are any death threats (not allegations of “there are death threats” but actual death threats), I see no reason to condemn nothing. for that is what you are asking. You want us to condemn nothing?
They are simply covering their AAAS with ever more spurious & childish excuses…
Mr. Horner needs to spend more time composing his emails. The one quoted is almost incomprehensible.
Out of curiosity, I wandered into the strange world of David Appell’s blog. He is making the same illogical noises there that he is making here. He probably wonders why there are no comments, but there is no way I for one would bother after seeing his weird sample laid out for inspection here.
Woodward and Bertstein must be shaking their heads in bemusement and shame at the standard of journalism these days.
Some common sense never hurts. If I worked in a university in which death threats were suddenly showing up in my emails or as phone messages I would immediately contact my department head and they would immediately contact the police. The police can easily trace emails and phone messages.
Is this happening? If not, there are no death threats, because not even AGW scientists are that stupid (to not pursue real death threats through proper channels).
No person should ever have to live under the threat of death in a free country. And if anyone should ever feign death threats simply to draw sympathy to themselves? That is unforgivable.
Anthony Watts says:
June 30, 2011 at 5:03 am
Folks, Appell’s MO is to feign concern, then provoke responses, then use those responses to write a post with those responses feigning his “outrage” on his blog that only gets a few reads.
Yes, he even has a degree in “Creative Writing”, so there’s that to explain whatever he produces, perhaps along with George Soros and the like? Speaking of money, it’s waaay past my time to contribute here!
chris b says: June 30, 2011 at 5:26 am
“So, David Appell, and Nick Stokes are Concern Trolls”
Huh? From your link:
“A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user claims to hold.”
Derek Sorensen says:
June 30, 2011 at 12:56 am
David Appell says:
June 29, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
==================================================
Nailed it. As Anthony points out, this is what he does…… as do most alarmists. Create a strawman, and then set out to show how wrong people are by inadequately responding to the strawman. Which, to me is hilarious, because of his inability to appropriately respond to our comments. Witness his inability to properly context the comments from,
Smokey @ur momisugly June 29, 2011 at 7:16 pm ,James Sexton @ur momisugly June 29, 2011 at 7:27 pm, Amino Acids in Meteorites @ur momisugly June 29, 2011 at 8:06 pm, and R.S.Brown @ur momisugly June 29, 2011 at 8:20 pm
As Anthony states, he’ll probably write something nasty about us all here, but, the fun part about this game that he and others play here, is the traffic! While David may get high-fives from both of his readers, hundreds if not thousands, have been able to witness the flaws and weaknesses of an alarmist perspective. They have been able to witness the intellectual void, moral vacancy and the hypocrisy of the alarmists. Better, they get to witness the strengths of the skeptical perspective. (I actually enjoy it when they come to play this game.) Its a win-win for the skeptical camp. 🙂
Agreed. English should not be tortured like that, especially by an American who values the US Constitutional Amendment against “cruel and unusual punishment”
You people are crazy. All of these non science guys are funded by oil companies. This is a serious situation where kids future’s are at stake.
How can anyone not see what Climate Change is doing right now? Look at the droughts, heat and flooding in the mid west. We need to try our best to stop this. Stop listening to people that were hired by Oil companies to mislead you.
I disagree. Appell doesn’t try to pretend he is in agreement with blogs like WUWT, nor does he post anonymously (which means he can afford to, lucky him)
Appell’s basic MO is to stir things up by making specious claims to motive, then he gets replies which he puts on his own blog with his own tornado-like spin. On his own blog, his comments are an extension of his inflated ego and desperate need for importance – comments are heavily censored, Appell rarely apologises for clear mistakes, flattery gets you everywhere.
The correct term for Appell would be “seagull”. Flies in without notice, sh*ts over everything, flies away.
With all due respect, Mr. Horner needs to take a writing class and learn to write clearly. The language he uses in his email is so confusing that few would actually bother to try to interpret all that he’s trying to say, and even fewer would bother to take him seriously.
The last line is probably one of the clearest: “In Mann’s case, if our review of his documents which belong to the taxpayer also happen to exonerate him from the suspicions that have arisen, we will be the first to do so,” and it’s still a mess. “We will be the first to do so” means what, exactly? Exonerate him? The documents would be doing that. Drop the “suspicions” perhaps? Not quite what he says though. Admit that the “suspicions” are baseless? Probably what he means, but who can really tell from such a mixed up sentence?
He’s been in DC too long I suspect.
Why not: “If, in our view, Mann’s taxpayer-funded documents fail to confirm our suspicions, we will be the first to say so.” (Unless of course, that’s not what he meant.)
And the rest is far worse. DC gobbledygook. Yes, I can read and understand what he wrote, but why speak in tongues when you’re trying to make a case?
Nick Stokes,
“If I say that the US suffers from tornadoes and traffic jams, that doesn’t mean I’m equating tornadoes and traffic jams. But that’s the logic of this headline.”
It’s amusing watching you tie yourself into knots. Your analogy is incomplete. The article does not just say the climate scientists receive FOI requests and death threats. It says specifically that both lead to the same result – a hostile environment. To continue with your facile analogy, you would have to say that both tornadoes and traffic jams result in the same outcome, which is clearly false. It is also false that FOI requests should lead to the same outcome as death threats. But when you consider in addition, that juxtaposition of an innocent term with a toxic term is a well used rhetorical device, the only conclusion to be drawn is that such equivalence of meaning was deliberate and intentional.
Frankly, I am disturbed that anyone would try and defend this.
The AAAS should be giving more information to the public if they perceive some kind of atmospheric threat to the Earth that needs to be corrected by science.
Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 7:44 am
You people are crazy. …….
============================================
You forgot the /sarc
Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 7:44 am
You people are crazy. All of these non science guys are funded by oil companies. This is a serious situation where kids future’s are at stake.
That’s interesting, Chris. Who are these oil-funded non-science guys? I’m highly sceptical about CAGW, but sadly I’m not funded by anyone to hold my views, much less the Oil industry. I’m not a scientist, but that doesn’t make me (if I interpret what you mean correctly) anti-science. I probably have a better grasp of science than 95% of the population, better on the topic of CAGW than 99%, and that latter almost certainly more than everyone I know personally, most of whom don’t think about it at all but just parrot what their daily newspaper or the man on the TV told them to think.
The real debate isn’t easy to follow. There is a lot of information, and there is a lot of boillocks spoken by all sides of the debate, but sorting the wheat from the chaff is only the start. If you really want to know what’s going on, rather than just standing on the sidelines cheering on your “team”, you have to get down and dirty reading scientific papers, even those which disagree with your preconceptions. *Especially* those which disagree with your preconceptions. That’s what I did, and that’s how I went from true-believer to almost complete disbelief in a handful of years – accelerated recently by Climategate and the aftermath.
But as an aside, what would be wrong with accepting Oil industry money, provided it doesn’t change the outcome of your research? Greenpeace certainly don’t mind taking it – what was it at last count? $650 million to Greenpeace from BP alone, if I remember correctly? It might have been more than that. Oh, but that’s probably OK, because greenpeace are “nice” people, whereas those sceptics are evil because … because … well, just because. Yeah, right.
In any case, sources of funding are compeletely irrelevant. The science either stands or falls on it’s own merit.
But please don’;t take this as discouragement. Stick around, keep asking questions, and be prepared to listen – and give proper consideration to the answers you get.
[Please don’t use “denier” or anything similar. ~dbs, mod.]
Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 7:44 am
If you are serious you need some therapy.
@chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 7:44 am
“You people are crazy. All of these non science guys are funded by oil companies. This is a serious situation where kids future’s are at stake.
How can anyone not see what Climate Change is doing right now? Look at the droughts, heat and flooding in the mid west. We need to try our best to stop this. Stop listening to people that were hired by Oil companies to mislead you.”
First read this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/29/the-log-in-the-eye-of-greenpeace/
Secondly, ponder the rationale of your logic about fearing climate change only to claim you have to actually change the climate so that it literally wont change.
Now, who’s crazy again?
If you want a static climate get a greenhouse and an automatic AC unit.
Every artificial rise in the price of energy means death to the poor. And that’s not just a threat, David.
=========