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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
translation:
They’d rather die than reveal their secret farce
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.”
So Chris, why do these oil companies also fund pro AGW scientists? Why would they fund one group to produce AGW alarmism only to fund another group to debunk it?
Over to you.
Science is not from the heart, but from the head. A lot of things in science would not be considered “nice” if done by a human, yet that is the reality. You are free to believe anyone you want, but it is not science when anyone “speaks from the heart”.
Chris Martin,
“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.”
Chris, do you believe that any of these events you allude to are any worse or more frequent than at other times in history? If so, why? What databases have you consulted to reach that conclusion?
And following on, you say we should do our best to try and stop this. But how do you propose to stop the climate changing or are you simply parroting the squawkings of Hansen and Greenpeace? Do you really believe that tweaking the amount of CO2 we release into the atmosphere will have any measurable impact on globally averaged temperature?
I am interested in your opinions, because I hear this kind of hand wringing from people who generally don’t have any idea of what they are talking about.
I’m not up to date on my science, but I believe James Hansen when he tells us we’re in dire position. He doesn’t hold the position at NASA that he does for no reason. He is an educated man that speaks from his heart, and has been alerting us about Global Warming since the late 80’s.
It’s sad that sites like this one have drug his name into the mud. From what I understand, his models have been current, and we’re currently still warming. Why people say we stopped warming in 1998 I do not know.
The 2005 hurricane season and this past spring are signs of what the future holds for us if we don’t get off fossil fuels.
Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 11:51 am
Really, you can shorten your comment to this:
I’m not up to date on my science, but I believe James Hansen.
It will save you a lot of typing. Meanwhile, feel free to get up to date on your science.
Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 11:51 am
I’m not up to date on my science,
===========================================
You should have stopped right there…………
Nick Stokes says:
June 30, 2011 at 7:18 am
My apologies. You’re correct, you are not a Concern Troll. I should have removed the word “concern” in your case. Thank you.
Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 11:51 am
I’m not up to date on my science, but I believe James Hansen when he tells us we’re in dire position. He doesn’t hold the position at NASA that he does for no reason. He is an educated man that speaks from his heart, and has been alerting us about Global Warming since the late 80′s.
It’s sad that sites like this one have drug his name into the mud. From what I understand, his models have been current, and we’re currently still warming. Why people say we stopped warming in 1998 I do not know.
The 2005 hurricane season and this past spring are signs of what the future holds for us if we don’t get off fossil fuels.
==================================================================
Chris, I’d ask you to get current on the science if you’re going to speak about it. You ignorance(I don’t mean that as an insult, but, rather an observation) is telling.
I’m gobsmacked that anyone choosing to link to his Facebook would so willingly display such ignorance. But, I’m never ceased to be amazed by alarmists. In the 3 short paragraphs, briefly discussing 3 entirely different points, you managed to get absolutely nothing correct about any information you offered.
Hansen’s models are so far off, even he admits they are wrong. Ironically, he blames our aerosol emissions as the reason why he was so far off in his estimates. (We are presently cooler than his best case CO2 emission scenario.) You are free to believe what you want to believe, but regardless of what people say, posterity and history shows that Hansen was entirely wrong. We’ve had 23 years. He’s not ever going to be right.
I really don’t care what he speaks out of,(heart wasn’t what I was thinking, but oh well) he’s wrong. Its proven. Its over. And, sis, no, no we’re not still warming. That’s pure unadulterated fabrication.
Your last fantasy point…… you really have to go back to 2005 to say warming is causing hurricanes? Oh, my. Sorry, hurricane frequency and energy is sharply declining.
Now, you may believe this is just opinion, but it isn’t. Its factual, backed up by real math and real science.
In the order of your assertions.
Hansen’s models to reality. http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/screenhunter_41-jun-17-11-12.gif?w=640&h=454&h=454 (Be sure to read his paper describing the CO2 for his lowest estimate.)
The earth is still warming? Show me. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/plot/gistemp/from:2002/trend/plot/uah/from:2002/plot/uah/from:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/plot/rss/from:2002/trend Two showing a flat line 2 showing cooling.
Hurricane frequency and energy. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/26/global-hurricane-activity-at-historical-record-lows-new-paper/ (Did you catch that in the title?) Historical record lows
Now, I’ve got things to do, but I’ll be back to check to see if you’ve got anything that refutes what I have shown, or if you have any questions, I’m sure some of the other nice folks here would be happy to enlighten you further. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to educate just one of the masses.
James.
Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 11:51 am
I’m not up to date on my science, but I believe James Hansen when he tells us we’re in dire position. He doesn’t hold the position at NASA that he does for no reason. He is an educated man that speaks from his heart, and has been alerting us about Global Warming since the late 80′s.
It’s sad that sites like this one have drug his name into the mud. From what I understand, his models have been current, and we’re currently still warming. Why people say we stopped warming in 1998 I do not know.
The 2005 hurricane season and this past spring are signs of what the future holds for us if we don’t get off fossil fuels.
Ok, so you aren’t a completely lost cause. For example, you know enough to single out the 2005 hurricane season, because as regular readers here know, hurricanes are most definitely on the decrease. See here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/26/global-hurricane-activity-at-historical-record-lows-new-paper/
As regards why people say the temperature has been mostly flat for the past decade or so, it’s probably because rather than listen to pro Global Warming pundits, propagandists, and scaremongers they look to the people who are actually sharing their temperature data, for example the University of Alabama’s Dr Roy Spencer’s satellite records:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
I’m really sorry, Chris, because if you do stick around you are going to encounter a lot of information which will conflict with your cherished beliefs about Global Warming. All being well you’ll be able to cope with it, but the anger you are going to feel over the next days and weeks as you gradually come to realise you’ve been lied to for the past couple of decades is going to be quite uncomfortable, to say the least.
Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 11:51 am
Chris, are you prepared to live in a world without fossil fuels? If so then please turn off your computer now. To save power.
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.
Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 11:51 am
…I believe James Hansen when he tells us we’re in dire position. He doesn’t hold the position at NASA that he does for no reason.
====================================================================
Chris, you can’t have it both ways. First you trash all the oil funded non-science guys (you know who you are!) and then you swing around to defend James Hansen, who because he works for NASA is correct about global warming.
Nice work Chris. /sarc
There are a lot of educated people in the world who are wrong. Maybe a few of them work at NASA. Didn’t they bounce a satellite off the surface of Mars? Or did they do that on purpose?
This looks to be a variation of the Initial Weiner Defense:
“How dare you ask these questions! HOW DARE YOU!”
Also, let’s remember this is the same NYT that exposed the completely legal terrorist-finance-tracking SWIFT program, as well as CIA flights, and numerous other secrets of national security… all in the name of The Public’s Right to Know.
SSam says:
June 29, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Easier solution. Make it illegal for ANY taxpayer money to mingle with an organization that does NOT follow the FOIA rules. Any organization that violates or stonewalls FOIA is subject to the immediate incarceration of it’s board of directors until such time as the violation is remedied.
This ought to be applied to the FED, the CIA, NSA, DIA, etc…heck, applying to congress would be a start.
Why would I do that? From what I see, Hansen is the most qualified person regarding the subject, so why do I need to bother with anyone else? His models and predictions have been ahead of their time… He predicted advanced Global Warming in the 80’s and that’s what we have experienced that time.
Sometimes you have to depend on the experts. That’s why I take my car to an expert to have it fixed instead of screwing it up worse myself. These days everyone tries to pretend they know it all.
Chris, James Hansen hasn’t kept up with the science either. In fact, he hasn’t kept up with time. He’s still lying about regional sensitivity in a hot room in DC in 1988.
=============
Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Why would I do that? From what I see, Hansen is the most qualified person regarding the subject, so why do I need to bother with anyone else? His models and predictions have been ahead of their time… He predicted advanced Global Warming in the 80′s and that’s what we have
experienced that time.
=====================================================================
Good, so you are familiar with Hansen’s three predictions, and conditions for those predictions…
…A, B, and C
Can you explain this please:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/screenhunter_41-jun-17-11-12.gif
Chris Martin seems to be yet another troll who doesn’t want this thread
to look at the AAAS message which tries to misrepresent legitimate FOI requests at
NASA for Hansen’s paperwork supposedly on file by law as a condition of
his employment and which NASA must make available for public inspection.
They imply the legal exercise of a citizen’s right to public information in this instance
must be some sort of character assassination in waiting.
Wrong. If the paperwork isn’t on file as it’s supposed to, it’s NASA’s fault.
In the same breath AAAS decries the FOI request for Mike Mann’s e-mails in the
University of Virginia servers, NOW ordered by the Prince County Circuit Court
judge to be turned over for in camera review with him, ATI, and University of Virginia
representatives as to the appropriatness and applicability of any exemptions the
University (not Mike Mann) might claim. According to AAAS this is not only
harassment, but also an attack on science.
The AAAS message then blends in rumored and spurious “death threats” for
their spin cycle.
The strange New York Times report of the AAAS Board of Directors letter, the
letter itself, the ATI response, and the general facts of the FOI requests that are
now in court are the topic of the thread. Don’t forget those twin rulings from the
ICO in Great Britian slapping down UEA and the Phil Jones crowd for FOI
request violations in withholding the CRUTEM3 data.
As for David Appell and Chris Martin… don’t feed these trolls !
Chris Martin says:
Sometimes you have to depend on the experts. That’s why I take my car to an expert to have it fixed instead of screwing it up worse myself. These days everyone tries to pretend they know it all.
And we all know that the experts are never wrong, isn’t that right, Chris?
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/university-witchdoctors-speak-out-and-the-frightened-are-fleeing/
Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Why would I do that? From what I see, Hansen is the most qualified person regarding the subject, so why do I need to bother with anyone else? His models and predictions have been ahead of their time… He predicted advanced Global Warming in the 80′s and that’s what we have experienced that time.
Sometimes you have to depend on the experts. That’s why I take my car to an expert to have it fixed instead of screwing it up worse myself. These days everyone tries to pretend they know it all.
==================================================================
Chris, I have, and other people have shown you direct proof that Hansen was wrong. It doesn’t really matter how qualified one is, it matters if they are correct. But, if you insist on qualifications, I’d put Richard Lindzen’s against Hansen’s any day.
But, then, I’d put Dr.’s Spencer and Christy up against Hansen any day, too.
However, if one wishes to speak of hurricanes, typhoons and the like, there is no one superior to Dr. Maue. But, again, it isn’t about qualifications, it is about being correct.
Chris, just so you know, there are plenty of people here who hold very high qualifications themselves.
Also, I want to congratulate you, you are a first for me. I’ve never anyone that argued from the strength of their ignorance.
Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Why would I do that?
Sorry, Chris, I don’t know what you mean by “that”.
From what I see, Hansen is the most qualified person regarding the subject, so why do I need to bother with anyone else?
Well, sure. Have you ever heard of logical fallacies? One of them is called “Appeal to authority”. As I said earlier, you have to look at what people actually *say*, and whether it stands up to analysis. Think about your own area of expertise – and I have no idea what that might be, but let’s say, for the sake of the discussion, you are a mechanical engineer. Are you always correct? Infallibly? every decision you make; every idea you have; always spot on?
His models and predictions have been ahead of their time… He predicted advanced Global Warming in the 80′s and that’s what we have experienced that time.
And he predicted “advanced Global Cooling” in the 1970s, and we had that too.
Haven’t you noticed, by the way, that those who are so attached to Global Warming theory have stopped using the phrase “Global Warming”? They now say “Climate Change”, or talk about “Extreme waeather events”. Know why that is? It’s because Earth isn’t, actually, warming. It’s a classic bait-and-switch (google is your friend).
Oh, and regarding climate “models”, google “texas sharpshooter fallacy” (with or without quotes).
Sometimes you have to depend on the experts. That’s why I take my car to an expert to have it fixed instead of screwing it up worse myself. These days everyone tries to pretend they know it all.
I know nothing. I have some opinions – they are considered opinions, but experience tells me I will change those opinions in the light of better information. I’m never more than 99% confident of anything. But I am 99% confident that CAGW is a scam, possibly the biggest scientific fraud ever perpetrated on humanity.
On the bright side, it’s big money for those in the game, so anyone who wants to can make a packet just by saying their business is somehow green.
But Chris; don’t listen to me. Really. But – if you aren’t prepared to spend the time looking at the science – well, STFU.
Chris, I support your efforts 100% but I think your language is a bit legalese-obtuse for getting the stuff across to journalists, AAAS folks and environmentalists – remember they are trying hard to misunderstand you and to misrepresent your thoughts.
James Sexton wrote:
> Chris, I have, and other people have shown you direct proof that Hansen was wrong.
How is Hansen’s 1988 paper so wrong? His scenario B, the closest to reality, overshot an observed warming of 0.4 C by about current warming by about 0.3 C. But that scenario wasn’t the exact history of the last 23 years, either.
Besides, the calculation was done 23 yrs ago — computer power, modeling, and the science have all advanced since then. Part of the reason it has advanced is because people learn why models like Hansen’s overshot, and what new features and considerations need to be included.
And, how accurate does a model need to be, anyway? Even simple models predict significant warming. Has any model *ever* shown anything other than warming? If it did, could it be trusted, given that 275 ppm of CO2 creates about a 7 C greenhouse effect? Given that basic greenhouse effect, even with a logarithmic dependence, why shouldn’t it be expected that another 35% of CO2 would create a degree or so more warming? Why shouldn’t a doubling of CO2 be even more significant?