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/
teddycat says:
August 12, 2011 at 3:00 am
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
============================================
I think the word “former”, in this case, refers to his prior place of employment…… UVA.
So, you can read it as thus…”…..provide the records of former (employee) climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann, ……”
RobertL makes an excellent point. I find it hard to imagine exactly what the content of this stuff could be that’s so incriminating.
Maybe they could just publish it on the … I don’t know … maybe the Internet?
All that data is already in computer files somewhere, isn’t it? I’ll bet there is some really good open source software that could be used. Some lowly grad students could be tasked with posting the data, notes and correspondence.
Anthony
Isn’t it time the noble word “liberal” was reclaimed from these leftists whose stance on so many issues is anything but liberal. They have taken positions against openness and in favour of massively increased state intervention and economic controls – in what way are these stances possibly liberal?
It is a fine old word that always used to have connotations of tolerance and freedom but has been horribly hijacked by the left in recent years.
I am awaiting a front page story in the coming weeks.
“Enviromentalist set fire to UVA records department”
I think the important question is not why this rather uninspiring individual scientist resists releasing his info from the time he was at the UoVa. The point of presumptive integrity has long since been passed.
I think the important question is. Why is the UoVa acting like it is? That is the highest priority question to pursue. There appears to be deep lack of fundamental judgment by the UoVa leadership. For that to exist it means to me that there is insurmountable external pressure on the UoVa leadership. A fading scientist’s potential integrity problems are a minor point in the mix. The dominant point is whether the survival of the AR4 credibility and the future of the IPCC at stake?
I am fortunate to witness the historical unfolding first hand in an open venue like WUWT!!
John
Ah, yes – but how concerned are you really?
I don’t think 25 bucks get you very concerned.
$100 probably qualifies as fairly concerned
I think really, really, frothing-at-the-mouth-posting-at-Rea-lClimate concerned must cost at least $1000.
John Whitman, reasonable people would expect there will be emails that are ‘more of the same’ compared to the climategate emails. Despite the brave face that the climate establishment put on the emails (move on, there’s nothing to see here), the emails were shocking and undermined public confidence in the practices of a small but influential group of climate scientists. UVa should take note of the disastrous effect that UEA’s *response* to the emails had on the reputation of that university. Through their actions, UEA established, in the minds of the public, that their administrators are part of the problem.
The #1 job of the rectors of UVa is to protect the reputation of the institution — and not to simply ‘fire back shots’ on behalf of the scientists. I suspect that the UVa lawyers have reminded the rectors of their obligations and that is what led to them to settle with ATI rather than continue to spend outrageous amounts of money fighting FOIA. UVa also need to appear to be above politics. (And taking money from political advocacy groups to fight FOIA did them no favors on this front). If anything, the UVa lawyers have now had a chance to see the emails and (if the ‘more of the same’ theory holds) have likely become very concerned about liability that the university faces if they appear to be part of the problems rather than part of the solution.
————–
mpaul,
Thank you for your comment. I am almost completely persuaded by your legal perspective. Even though it dampens the once bright flame of my idea of “insurmountable external pressure on the UoVa leadership” to a flicker, I still have that little flicker of concern that the UoVa leadership remains incapable of withstanding external pressure, in spite of sound and strongly positioned legal counsel.
Question => Given the current legal FOIA situation that the UoVa is in and given that it is a publically endowed university, would you consider that the recommendations of the legal department of UoVa to be binding on the UoVa leadership? Or is it the case like a privately held US corporation where their legal department’s recommendations are not binding?
If the UoVa’s legal department recommendations were binding on UoVa leadership then that would extinguish the last flicker of my concern about “insurmountable external pressure on the UoVa leadership”.
John
John Whitman says:
August 12, 2011 at 12:09 pm
“Question => Given the current legal FOIA situation that the UoVa is in and given that it is a publically endowed university, would you consider that the recommendations of the legal department of UoVa to be binding on the UoVa leadership? Or is it the case like a privately held US corporation where their legal department’s recommendations are not binding?”
What usually happens in our elite universities is that administrators do exactly what legal counsel advises. This is mainly because the usual run of administrators are just as unworldly as their critics claim they are.
If I cobbled together two different graphs and presented them in a Middle School science class as proof of anything, I would have been ridiculed and given an “F”.
If this same FrankenGraph procedure is done with public money, by PhDs who refuse to subject their theses to independent third-party scrutiny as true scientific inquiry requires, it is called a Hockey Stick and enshrined as “settled science”.
This isn’t “consensus”. This is Strange Days and Orwell’s 1984.
John Whitman says:
August 12, 2011 at 12:09 pm
“I still have that little flicker of concern that the UoVa leadership remains incapable of withstanding external pressure”
We certainly saw a lot of evidence of this in their original response to the CID by Cuccinelli. But then their behavior seemed to change rather abruptly. So its hard to say how they will conduct themselves under mounting pressure from the pressure groups. But my bet is that if the emails are damning in some way, then the lawyers will get a larger say in things.
There’s a point a which UVa risks being part of covering up wrong doing. At this point, they can’t get away from Cuccinelli. So if there are some ugly things in the emails, they are better off coming clean now rather than risking liability.
The one wild cards here is Mann. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Mann contest the consent order in the coming days. The consent order was between ATI and UVa. Mann can argue that he has standing to challenge the consent order. But Mann would risk looking guilty in the eyes of the public if he did that alone. This could explain the letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The strange thing about the letter is that UVa can’t back-out of a consent order just because a pressure group sent them a letter. So the letter had no teeth. What’s its purpose? One answer could be that its just a way of establishing a narrative in the press just prior to Mann disputing the consent order. The way they would structure this would be that the Union of Concerned Scientists would come to Mann’s defense for the ‘noble goal of academic freedom’. Mann would then ‘reluctantly’ agree to join the effort, ‘despite the personal sacrifice required in pursuit of goals that are larger than one’s self’. The press will fall for this hook, line and sinker.
Theo Goodwin @August 12, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Theo – Thanks for your response. If this were a Perry Mason episode then who at ATI would be Perry?
John
******************
mpaul says @August 12, 2011 at 2:39 pm
mpaul,
Intriguing.
If Mann contests the consent order then I assume that would mean he needs to privately hire his own legal counsel? I assume him having a legal counsel provided to him by UoVa to contest the consent order would be a conflict of interest with the UoVa? Any other options for him to get counsel?
Personal Note: The way I read Mann’s personality, he may finally opt for the scorched earth strategy and abandon the ongoing ‘poor Michael’ strategy.
John
I once worked in IT at a well-known government/academic institution (it’s been mentioned many times here on WUWT) and quickly discovered that the internal sensitivity to being “observed” was explicit, institutional, and bordering on paranoid. I was reminded more than once that “academic standards prevail,” meaning academic standards of freedom of expression and freedom *from* even one single iota of oversight by anyone, for any reason, whether incidental, unintended, or anything else. In many cases it was a “get of jail free” card.
The apparent reasoning was “PhDs are smarter than engineers – and of course smarter than lawyers – and double PhDs are ten times smarter than both and we don’t want any of those inferior dummies interfering with our (seemingly) esteemed academic stuff.” This was the attitude and it was explicit, even written (in less inflammatory language).
So I think this is the internal and heartfelt attitude and bearing of all academia toward these “Neanderthals” (ATI, Horner, Schnare, Chesser, Cuccinelli) and toward anyone who thwarts the solipsistic academic mission. IMO they truly do not get it that the law of the land (e.g., FOIA) supersedes all internal academic conventions.
I think maybe UVA has finally “gotten it” that some of these academic conventions do not prevail over the law.
I agree with the other posters: If these climate scientists really had solid proof that the world is in serious jeopardy, it would be criminal to do anything less than disclose every last piece of data; every last e-mail; etc.
fortaleza84ril
So the handwriting is on the wall. Global warming destructions are not real.
Garry, that may have explained UVA’s initial reluctance to give up Mann’s e-mails, but remember they had already given up the e-mails of another scientist in that same department to an advocacy group. Wither the circled wagons then? It’s that dicotomy, freely giving up one man’s e-mails but getting sticking at the other Mann’s e-mails, that smells so bad.
Yes, that’s a most reasonable inference to draw.
Indeed, when CRU emails were released, I expected to see in the emails fear and urgency among scientists as forcefully and frequently expressed as in the mainstream media.
Instead, we got to see climate scientists taking their sweet time discussing how to suppress the skeptics and how to present a ‘nice tidy story’ of an unprecedented and impending climate catastrophe.
The Virginia FOI laws have no provision or room for Mann,
the ACLU, UCS, AAUP or Climate Science Watch to be anything more
than spectators at the Prince County Court level. The FOI law
doesn’t permit 3rd party interventions.
See:
http://www.opengovva.org/virginia-foia-the-law
That’s why they’re tyring to sham/shame President Sullivan and the UofV
into reneging on the court-ordered agreement.
If either ATI or the University of Virginia appeals the Court’s
decision(s), then Mann and the various alphabet troop of warmist science
supporters can try to file a flock of amici curiae briefs, and then appeal
to an even higher court if they’re not granted “standing”.
Without the fig leaf of “standing” they can’t do squat.
They don’t really give a good white Nowegian lab rat’s tail about
academic freedom. They’re trying to bully the courts into making
FOI laws not apply to public academic institutions all
over the country.
Rhoda Ramirez says August 12, 2011 at 10:21 pm: “Garry, that may have explained UVA’s initial reluctance to give up Mann’s e-mails.”
Just to be clear, I think the “academic convention” of privacy and noninterference that I described above is simply juvenile at the institutional level, and especially when that institution and its members receive public tax monies to subsidize their research. And it never, ever, under any circumstances supersedes the law of the land. It’s not even a question, it’s just a preposterous conceit of academia. UVa and its administrators should be slapped and cuffed if this proceeds much further.
—————
R.S.Brown,
Thank you. Both mpaul and you give much to consider.
Both your analysis and mpaul’s have the element of outside forces trying to manipulate either public opinion and/or UoVa’s position on the current legal process involving the court-ordered agreement.
Your comment would re-ignite my initial concern (my comment at August 12, 2011 at 12:09 pm) “that the UoVa leadership remains incapable of withstanding external pressure”.
Both mpaul’s and your analysis allows for the gullible/fawning media eagerly waiting to uncritically support ‘poor Mann’.
QUESTION => Can UoVa really back out of the court ordered agreement? Or even appeal it? Is that possible?
Personal Note: I still think this is going to evolve into a scorched earth scenario by Mann.
John
R.S.Brown says:
August 13, 2011 at 1:47 am
“The Virginia FOI laws have no provision or room for Mann,
the ACLU, UCS, AAUP or Climate Science Watch to be anything more
than spectators at the Prince County Court level. The FOI law
doesn’t permit 3rd party interventions.”
I agree but there are two important elements to consider here. Mann will likely argue that the materials requested contain information that is personal and private to Mann and as such, he has standing in the matter before the court. Second, the parties (specifically ATI and UVa) entered into a voluntary agreement that was certified by the court. Mann would be (in my hypothetical scenario) contesting that agreement and not challenging FOIA law. He might also argue that the consent order represents tortuous interference with his employment agreement (if he had one),
UVa could not appeal a voluntary agreement that they entered into. What would be the basis of the appeal?
Now, I’m not saying that Mann could be successful with any of these approaches, what I am saying is that the court might feel compelled to hear the matter. This would give Mann (hypothetically) a opportunity to drag this thing out for years.
My hope would be that, if this happens, the judge would be wise enough to brush the challenge aside on the basis that Mann has no property rights whatsoever to the materials.
John Whitman says:
August 12, 2011 at 3:47 pm
“If Mann contests the consent order then I assume that would mean he needs to privately hire his own legal counsel?”
Pressure groups tend to use these sorts of things as fund raising opportunities. The Union of Concerned Scientists could pay for Mann’s legal and PR fees. They would then go to their big-time donors to raise the money. In all likelihood, donations would exceed expenses. These cause-oriented non-profits have invented a very lucrative business model.
mpaul says August 13, 2011 at 11:25 am: “Mann will likely argue that the materials requested contain information that is personal and private to Mann.”
This is called Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and there are several state (Virginia) and federal statutes which deal with this topic.
Until 2005, Mann was a state employee under the auspices of state (Virginia) and federal (grant) authorities. He has zero standing outside of PII statutes, which in Mann’s case happen to be exactly zero.
mpaul, R.S.Brown and Garry;
Your individual insights and dialog have been invaluable to me in my attempt at comprehension of the strange behavior of the University of Virginia. At least I think it is strange.
Thank you for kindly answering my Qs.
To me, in the mix of the circumstances, Mann is not the most important issue and it is expected that an UN body like the IPCC is corruptible. I find of upmost importance is the possibility that an elite USA university might be insurmountably influenced by external forces to the point of resisting investigation of potential faculty corruption.
Is there a fourth estate? Is its existence just ephemeral?
John