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/
If confirmation is needed that AGW is the crap that anyone with an ounce of common sense realises, then I think we now have it!
If there is an agreement in court that the the University of Virginia hand over the documents etc to the American Tradition Institute, is not attempt by Union of Concerned Scientists for UoV to disregard its agreement not a case of contempt of the courts authority by the UofCS?
By the time Mann started his research, it was clear to any competent scientist or engineer who cared to investigate that the climate models were based on junk science with imaginary ‘back radiation’ and imaginary ‘global dimming’ cancelling each other out, so no null hypothesis.
Presumably to to delay the inevitable, a programme was set up to find if there was any evidence of ‘global dimming’ by man-made aerosols. I remember the propaganda: ‘if the Chinese install precipitators and desulphurisation, the World will fry’. Hansen et. al. are apparently trying the same trick again, a holding pattern until Gore’s 24 hours of climate action propaganda kicks in?
The reality is that by 2004 NASA knew ‘back radiation’ was a mathematical mistake and there was no experimental evidence of ‘cloud albedo effect’ cooling, the only justification for the high feedback hypothesis. So, it seems to me that the ‘Hockey stick’ was always a propaganda ploy to supplement the modelling in case that was outed. The evidence, if any, will be in the files. QED.
Yup, and the really great news is – anyone can become a “concerned scientist” for only $25.
https://secure3.convio.net/ucs/site/Donation2?df_id=1420&1420.donation=form1&s_src=tasknavJ
So, if you’re struggling for Xmas present ideas for your slightly dotty hippie aunty or college drop-out nephew, give them something that’ll give them a brief, illusionary, moment of self importance – make ’em a “concerned scientist” for only $25!
Someone at the Uni found out what Maan was doing with his research and instead of reporting him for mis-conduct just let it slide, now there trying to cover it up.
Either that or they like wasting everyones time and money for a load of data that will reinforce what they have been saying all along, ‘move along nothing to see here.’
WaPo defends Mann:
’11 Aug: WaPo blog: Anita Kumar: Groups concerned U.Va. will turn over documents in global warming case
Mann, who left the university in 2005 and now works at Pennsylvania State University, has been cleared of wrongdoing by several previous inquiries into his work. His research findings have also been upheld by other scientists…’
In which case he has nothing to wory about in disclosing the details for scrutiny.
I thought that ATI had received the emails and that there was nothing to them and that this story had died. So now I’m reading that they haven’t gotten the emails yet? Is somebody kidding?
This just makes me more suspicious of what is in Mann’s emails, and if I had the capability and knowhow, I’d hack into UVA’s server and download them for myself.
It all just plane stupid by fighting this all the way they just makes things a lot worse , who now would believe that all the papers will be released even if they are actual all publicly available in practice. If there is nothing to see they could not have picked a better way to give the impression that there is and their hiding it .
In Australia, Getup is the web organisation backed by George Soros and the unions that supports CAGW.
Recently, they claimed they had 250,000 or 500,000 members. The truth was they had 18,000. The rest were people who had responded to some nonsense or other on their website.
Very, very little these people say is true.
Meanwhile in a parallel development in the UK, the Union of Concerned Rioters maintained its stance that its quite OK for UK rioters to continue as they started.
Yes folks, you read that right. Its OK to carry on claiming jobseeker’s allowance and other benefits while running wild, smashing the place up and generally having everything your own way. What’s more, ‘Concerned Rioters’ can now entirely ignore what the police, magistrates and judges tell them to do.
/sarc but is it really that much different?
Am I Missing something Here?
“American Tradition Institute to provide the records of [B]former[/B] climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann,
What is he now?
A Concerned Sceptic
If anybody wants information on my perpetual motion experiments, they certainly cannot have it. I am entitled to absolute academic freedom. My freedom stems entirely from the fact that I pay for all of my ball bearings and paper clips myself.
Jack Simmons says:
August 11, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Why does anyone need a FOIA request in the first place?
Why can’t I just ask a publicly funded scientist for his data?
————-
What if it’s not his data to give you though?
This Michael Mann person looking from the outside in seems to me to behave like a little Napolion with his following of groupies. A little emperor sadly lacking in the niceties or good humour, what a sad and pathetic creature.
If it hits the fan for him he will be of ill health too sick to face court, I have seen his ilk before, no pity from me.
Follow the money…….?
Plus ca change……..
I notice that the UofCS website is littered with the word ‘activist’ and exhorts people to become ‘activists’.
Since when did truly dispassionate and skeptical science become activism (unless you’re Hansen)?
The UCS are no more scientists than my local post-man, and that is doing him a dis-service.
BTW I notice they have charitable status. Surely they don’t qualify for such status as they’re a political advocacy group (just like Greenfleece recently having their charitable status removed by a judge in NZ)? Can someone report them for this in some way?
Nick says:
“it will only be a generation (or maybe sooner) before we … are fighting for very basic freedoms of expression, speech, association, movement, thought and enquiry.” … “They just don’t understand what will happen when they start telling the mainstream population what to think and believe.”
————————-
I would respectfully suggest that we are already there. The warmers still have their point of view supported by most celebrities and the press, reinforcing their view of their ever-shrinking world. There was a recent report about how 10% of a population can drive societal belief. They desperately need to hold onto the 10% who grabbed the political and financial highground, because the unwashed crowd climbing the hill is getting bigger.
BOW DOWN TO ME!
I am now a proud member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
I have proof, in the form of an email, after sending my verified credentials, which were in fact a valid credit card.
Pretty high standards, this group!!!! Now, I can say something to them as a member. Sure, I’m out 25 bucks, but now I’m a Scientist! … with a credit card receipt to prove it.
Union of Concerned Spongers…?
… and who provided the “grants” for this research ?
The “Golden Rule” always prevails .. “He who has the gold makes the rules”
The UCS continues to damage the waning respect that people have for scientists. Everyone else in our society is held accountable and often audited when no reason for doing so is evident. If you travel you are subjected to a search (audit) when you fly. We little people are audited on our taxes even though we may be the most honest people in the world. It is pure hubris for the UCS to expect to be exempt from scrutiny in a society where they are lucky to receive money from the public. I’m fine with scientists hiding information/communication when no public funds are involved but if public funding is involved your academic freedom is not the main concern anymore. Why don’t they get this? These scientists have the freedom to not accept public funds if they don’t like it. They need to become adults like the rest of us whom are subject to random audits in life and accept it rather than throw fits and act like crybabies about it. I’d love to be given public funds to use as I see fit without ever being held accountable. Who wouldn’t?
It is the expectation that scientists should be treated better than everybody else in society, that is at the heart of this issue, and until the UCS figures out that being a scientist doesn’t elevate you to some privileged class that exempts you from being scrutinized when you receive public funds, they will continue to damage their credibility with the public.
Those who have nothing to hide, do not fear exposure.
As for ‘academic freedom’: why does that “protection” only apply to those trying to prove AGW?
DJ says:
August 11, 2011 at 9:29 pm
What they are saying is that they agree that all data should be shared, but only to those who already agree with you. Anyone who disagrees with you gets nothing.
Ha! A bit like my experiments with Cold Fusion Ken!
They are our employees. Their work belongs to us. Any activity and or materials used in the completion of that work belongs to us. There is no expectation of privacy. None. These people have had it their way for so long that they forget that the law applies.
“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.”