ATI Responds to Union of Concerned Scientists’, et al, Efforts to Stop Agreement with UVA to Turn Over Michael Mann Records
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Contact: Paul Chesser, Executive Director, paul.chesser@atinstitute.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
This week four groups, whose boards represent a distinctly liberal worldview and who oppose scrutiny of taxpayer-funded science by academics, asked the University of Virginia to disregard its agreement before the court with American Tradition Institute to provide the records of former climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann, which belong to the public. The groups, led by the far-left Union of Concerned Scientists, sent a letter to University president Teresa Sullivan on Tuesday complaining the agreement gives ATI’s in-house lawyers “needless access” to documents its Environmental Law Center requested, and the agreement “threatens the principles of academic freedom protecting scholarly research.”
Response to Union of Concerned Scientists, et al, from ATI Environmental Law Center director Dr. David Schnare:
“The groups seek to have the court find a non-existent ‘academic freedom’ exemption, and also claim there is a so-called ‘balance’ between academic freedom and public accountability, which is similarly imaginary. The court’s, and UVA’s, only fealty is to follow the law, which our agreement reflects.
“The groups appeal to lesser authorities such as a state advisory board and — amazingly — a Washington Post editorial, as opposed to what the FOIA law clearly says, as justification to toss aside our agreement with the university. Their objection to scrutiny is new-found and selective as well, since they seemed to have no problem when Greenpeace sought the records and emails of academics who do not accept the alarmist perspective on global warming.
“The groups also insult our professionalism with the insinuation that we would risk disbarment by violating a gag order that prevents us from disclosing possibly exempt records we review pursuant to the agreement. Such an accusation only reflects poorly on the integrity of UCS and their letter’s co-signers.”
Response to Union of Concerned Scientists, et al, from ATI executive director Paul Chesser:
“Once again these self-interested groups — who hope to protect their billions of dollars in government funding of dubious, unsupportable research — accuse ATI of ‘harassment and intimidation’ of scientists. It shows how blind they are to the fact that ATI has acted in the interest of sound, verifiable science and for the protection of the hard-earned money that taxpayers are forced to relinquish for such research.
“A Rasmussen Reports survey out earlier this week shows that that 69 percent of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists who study climate change have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40 percent who say this is ‘very likely.’ Only 22 percent believe it’s not likely that some scientists have falsified global warming data to fit their theories.
“Considering this is how the public sees them, UCS and their cohorts in academia need to look in the mirror and try to figure out where it all went wrong. Meanwhile, ATI will continue its pursuit to hold them accountable.”
For an interview with Dr. David Schnare or Paul Chesser, email paul.chesser@atinstitute.org or call (202)670-2680.
Source: http://www.atinstitute.org/ati-responds-to-union-of-concern-scientists-et-al-efforts-to-stop-agreement-with-uva-to-turn-over-michael-mann-records/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Union of Concerned Scientists?
American Tradition Institute?
Whats with the weird names?
“Our
calling cardstandard practice has always beenrigorous independentpre-cooked analysis that isrelevantprejudicial to current security and environmental challenges.”There, all fixed.
Why is UVA putting its very good reputation through the meat grinder to protect Mann who no longer works there? My guess is that they are protecting someone who does work there. Anyone have a clue who that might be? That person or persons must be really important; otherwise, UVA would not threaten its good reputation.
The statements offered in defense of UVA’s resistance to turning over the documents are just plain dumb and have nothing to do with academic freedom. UVA knows that it has not a leg to stand on.
The potential for embarrassment to UVA must be huge.
Who needs the Union anyway? If you are a member, please decide whether you are with them and Mann or whether you should resign.
The Union of CS will find that academic freedom is more narrow and restricted than what they pretend here. Court rulings have shown it so. Generally it is used to defend inquiry or speech that is under attack or censorship, but here they are using it to make a case for some type of privacy right. Of course, courts find rights to privacy all over in the emanations and penumbras of the Constitution. WUWT readers at least know what those are.
There may or may not be something incriminating in the e-mails. The hysteria of the academic left in this case might reflect that they see this as a camel’s nose under the tent sort of thing. No politically driven research will ever be safe.
It has been asked before but it can not be asked too often.
Why would Mann, or any of those who believe they have “robust” science showing a danger to all our futures, not want their data and methods widely published so that everyone else could see the truth in it?
If they have truly found that there is an urgency to the situation then what quicker way to provoke action than a full revelation of the raw facts and the processes enacted upon them that led them to that conclusion?
If the world is in peril as they claim, can they not see that they have a duty to make any and all supporting evidence for their claims as widely available as possible; a duty that goes far beyond the personal benefits of a perceived “academic freedom”?
If they are right, if their data and algorithms show that they are right, then keeping it to themselves is nothing short of a crime against humanity.
“Principles of Academic freedom and scholarly research”: Sounds positively noble doesn’t it? Then you read some of the documents inadvertently released and you find your tax dollars being spent on utterly unprincipled and ignoble activities under a cloak of “scholarly research”. It’s past time to open up the academic windows and doors in accordance with the laws of the land in order to distinguish “scholarly research” from something suspected to be a far different activity.
As a defense about academic freedom, would it not be better to protest the intrusion of beligerents, reveal what was requested, insist on demonstrating what was requested was a) harmless, 2) irrelevant and 3) nothing buy a ploy to create a chill in non-skeptical science?
Under protest let it all hang out and THEN demonstrate the lack of good faith that the FOIA represents. And shut it down.
Unless, of course, what comes out is not harmless, irrelevant or “good” science in the public interest but frightening evidence of the manipulation of public, political policy for the reasons of financial, career and personal self-interest as well as socio-political beliefs.
Maybe it is a difficult call.
What’s it like in your neck of the woods? You know how it is, despite the best attempts of the great levellers to dumb down rigorous education and instilling the lessons of scientific giants, it still manages to throw up the odd rigorous questioner or natural skeptic. What would you do with such an undesirable aberration? Well wouldn’t a ‘Fifth Element’ be a good start-
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/embracing-the-fifth-element-of-study/story-e6frea6u-1226113364947
“Today, marks are being handed out for the new subject that allows students a go at self-directed study of a topic of their choosing.
The high pass rate of 94 per cent for Year 12’s fifth element has come as a welcome relief to most students who must pass the subject to complete their SACE and has been applauded by educators as proof students have embraced the new form of study.”
Just read between their lines.
Speaking of attempts to mislead……
The Union of Concerned Scientists is a misleading name for that organization. It is NOT a union of scientists. But its name gives the impression it is. It is an activists organization, “an alliance of more than 250,000 citizens and scientists. UCS members are people from all walks of life: parents and businesspeople, biologists and physicists, teachers and students”. There has to be laws in the United States that protect people from being mislead in this manner.
http://www.ucsusa.org/about/
R. de Haan says:
August 11, 2011 at 5:59 pm
“That’s how the USSR and the DDR were run…”
You forgot the “E” before USSR.
EU climate propaganda video collection.
http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/video.cfm?sitelang=en&page=main&type=0&th=30&langs=
Quite funny really…. they can see that their previous projections were wrong, and the Arctic is not thawing as their old models showed, .. so suddenly their new models are projecting “we don’t know” for the next decade, then more thawing away in the future when it can’t be proven until we get there.
So, they have covered their assets for another decade, then they will refresh their models again.
Mills and Boone, anyone ?
whoops.. mods, can you move the previous comment to the “From NCAR an – unexpected new result” thread, if possible. !
[Reply: I can delete it, but you will have to move it. I can’t. ~dbs, mod.]
Phil’s Dad
Your comment here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/11/multi-tentacled-mann-o-war-raging-over-uva-emails/#comment-717258
is something I also wanted to say.
This striving to hide what they are doing shows that they are not telling the truth. Who in the world strives to hide truth! They demonstrate they are afraid for the real truth of what they are really doing to come out. I think they are not striving for scientific truth but are striving to protect the billions of dollars involved in their global warming farrago.
Hey mack the knife, that last paragraph was great.
Indeed. What’s up with all those weird names.
In my view, the weirdest name of all is People for the American Way.
What is ‘American Way’?
Is it a history of institutionalised racism, unbridled capitalism and god and gun worship?
Or is it civil liberties, the New Deal and Apollo 11?
I don’t understand. It seems the letter of concerned scientists is bogus. The only reason for the additional scrutiny is on account of UVA’s intransigence.
Concerned scientists should be more concerned with scientific integrity, than trying to cover up activities of one of their own.
Scientists’ unions? Next, is the discovery politically correct? Did the scientists pay his fees? If not, it’ll be scrapped. That’s the way of doing science…
Nowadays, it is very clear that you do not hold unique control of your federally funded research. For NIH proposals, if the proposal is for $500,000 or more in a year, you need to submit a “data sharing plan;” this is the plan of how you intend to eventually make all results available to other researchers, once you have gotten first pass at it all. You can google “data sharing plan” to see that the precendent of public access to publicly-funded research is getting stronger.
Direct from the Union of Concerned Scientiists’ website:
What is the best way to ensure scientific integrity?
The climate change research community has gone to great lengths to synthesize and communicate its findings to the public and policy makers, but climate scientists finds their credibility questioned as a result of a few minor errors and potential unprofessional acts by a few researchers. On the scientific side, solutions include full and transparent compliance with all FOIA laws and a renewed emphasis on public engagement and education. However, in this case, full-throated attacks from those unwilling to accept the scientific consensus on climate change dominated media coverage and confused the public. Scientists and their scientific societies and universities must also be better prepared to respond to these sorts of attacks in the future.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/climate-change-researchers.html
——Having read that, now I’m really confused as to what their REAL agenda is.
So lets get this right. The court enforces an order between UVA and ATI and these other groups are telling UVA not to abide by it. Who the hell do they think they are?
Haven’t they seen what has happened to other unions this year? Or maybe that’s the reason for this hysterical attempt at stretching the law.
I think you can read this as “they suspect it’s bad, some may know it’s bad, and they’re worried about the fallout”
“WaPo blog: Anita Kumar: Groups concerned U.Va. will turn over documents in global warming case”
I’m glad the Pat (at 6PM) posted a link to that noxious, tendentious, utterly shameful this agit prop here. Expose them to ridicule!
MikeU @6.11pm – I can’t agree less. I’m a public sector employee and we know that everything that we do is open to scrutiny by the public and our political masters. We have it drilled in us that everything we do is FOI-able and/or may end up being questioned in Parliament.
For me, that makes it even more inconceivable that these guys are trying to hide their data.