FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Contacts: Paul Chesser, Executive Director, paul.chesser@atinstitute.org
Chris Horner, Senior Director of Litigation, chris.horner@atinstitute.org
UVA Goes All-in on Climategate FOIA Cover-up
By Christopher C. Horner, Washington Examiner, 08/27/11
The University of Virginia has joined a list of institutions claiming that there has been an actual inquiry into, and even ‘exoneration’ of, scientists exposed by the November 2009 “ClimateGate” leak, while simultaneously through its actions making a mockery of the idea.
UVa’s August 23 release under court order of 3,800 pages of emails – records that UVa previously denied existed – was its second since the American Tradition Institute (ATI) sought judicial assistance in bringing the school into compliance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA).
The school has spent approximately $500,000 to date keeping these records from the taxpayer, who paid for their production to begin with.
Read the rest here: http://bit.ly/r6HCs2
For an interview with American Tradition Institute director of litigation Christopher Horner, call (202)670-2680 or email chris.horner@atinstitute.org.
See documents and previous media coverage of ATI Environmental Law Center v. University of Virginia regarding Dr. Michael Mann: http://tinyurl.com/3jy9jlu
Incidently gates, for me to be way out where you are I would need some pretty unimaginable transport. 🙂
UVA is arguably the best public university in the US. Its tragic to see them East Angliate themselves like this. When these emails eventually come to light, and there’s no doubt that they will, then UVA will be seen by the public as part of the problem. This will have a disastrous effect on their reputation.
It would be well to remember that there are many, many exceptions and exclusions to what can be retrieved via a FOIA request. Just because emails exist, doesn’t necessarily mean that UVa must turn them over.
For example, some of the exclusions can be found at this link:
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+TOC02020000037000000000000
A summary of the VFOIA’s major headings pertaining to exclusions is:
2.2-3705.1 Exclusions to application of chapter; exclusions of general application to public bodies
2.2-3705.2 Exclusions to application of chapter; records relating to public safety
2.2-3705.3 Exclusions to application of chapter; records relating to administrative investigations
2.2-3705.4 Exclusions to application of chapter; educational records and certain records of educational instit…
2.2-3705.5 Exclusions to application of chapter; health and social services records
2.2-3705.6 Exclusions to application of chapter; proprietary records and trade secrets
2.2-3705.7 Exclusions to application of chapter; records of specific public bodies and certain other limited e…
All this press release is saying is that UVa did not immediately bow to their demands. We knew that.
What is new is that they now been given a large stack of emails from Mann. And they’re reduced to quoting from emails from a different scientist in another country, published long ago.
Makes you wonder if there’s anything there.
Claude Harvey,
Are you saying the whole Climategate gang are ‘master politicians’, as you believe the President to be? Are you saying the university spent half a million dollars to force the A.G. to ‘speculate wildly’ that they are hiding something innocent? If so, do you think that is the best use for the money? Just wondering.
RockyRoad says:
August 27, 2011 at 11:56 am
JK says:
August 27, 2011 at 11:48 am
Smokey
I don’t think you realize what “Harry_read_me” is though.
Then please, enlighten us, JK–tell us exactly what “Harry_read_me” is.
Be specific. Don’t go slinking in some corner or give us some excuse you’re too busy watching some storm. Out with it.
I assume you refer to the private working notes of Harry (working long hours under pressure) . Can you put the quote in context? Was it trying out code? Who knows (apart from Harry)
Here is report:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/24129/response/63521/attach/4/Harris%20report%202005.pdf
I thought that it had been agreed in camera with the judge which emails would be released. Have some of those not been released? If so, would not UVA be in contempt of court? Or is my memory faulty?
http://www.newsplex.com/home/headlines/Uvaturnsoverclimatechangedocs_128459493.html
Found this on a Charlottesville TV station website today…
sceptical says:
It would seem the only thing uncovered by climategate has been how wild the spin from “scaptics” is and how easily a certain group will buy this spin.
Eh?
@Claude Harvey Considering Obama’s track record against the Teapublicans, he’s not much of a master politician. Also, the long-form certificate was NOT his to release – he had to make a special request, via his attorney to the director of Hawaii’s Dept. of Health. The simple fact is that sane people never doubted where he was born, the release of the short-form plus the attestations of health officials several years ago should have been enough for the mildly disturbed and frankly, nothing short of raising Obama’s birth parents from the dead and torturing them at Guantanamo will convince the diehard lunatics. But at least we were entertained during the worst financial meltdown in 2 generations.
All your lies belong to us.
@D Marshall
Until the Obama controversy, absolutely no one in Hawaii had difficulty getting his or a family members long form BC or a Death Certificate. $10 and it was yours. Done all the time. Every day. The new policy, because the law never changed, was enunciated only after the Obama hubbub began. I frankly think anyone can still get his long form upon requests. In fact it is often necessary for Hawaiians to do so to take advantage of various set asides based upon strict blood quantum.The BCs that require special treatment are those sealed by law or legal action. Such as those of adoptees.
And yes Obama was born here. We all know that. But he went to Punahou as Barry Sotero.
It’s a sad day when Hamburger University has a better ethical record and reputation than Virginia. If they don’t want their degrees to fall in worth to the same devalued status as those from the “University” of East Anglia they should stop copying that bankrupt institution’s practises.
Nice links, but you overlooked a critical one:
2.2-3713 Proceedings for enforcement of chapter
Which has this subsection;
Some established precedents which set the stage for the intent and application of FOIA law.
The e-mails that are already in the public domain were not included?!
Incredibly stupid. Had they been included, all may have passed quietly. Now, ATI has a reason to ask why they were not. Probably the uni received legal advice about opening up the flood-gates or something. Keep pushing!
Perhaps we should pass the hat around for the Uni’s legal team to keep working for us!
If I weere a US congressman, I’d want to know if the Feds had given any money to this Group, and demand a ddetailed explanation.
Scaptic? What, or who is a “scaptic”? Did I miss something?
@TedK on August 27, 2011 at 4:28 pm
What is your point? Of course the public body has the burden to claim an exemption.
The same or similar laws apply to discovery in civil cases in general, that is, confidential information, trade secrets, privileged information, and certain other categories of information are hotly disputed where the one party wants to see it all, and the other party claims the information cannot be disclosed without undue harm. It is almost certain that both parties in this case have competent counsel and know the law quite well. The judge in such cases (or sometimes a special master appointed by the judge) reviews the disputed information, and in some cases the attorneys for both sides are allowed to see the information – but only on the condition that the attorneys cannot divulge what they see, even to their own client. The judge rules on each claim of exclusion or exemption.
In a civil case (non-FOIA), this is necessary to prevent competitors from suing each other on a pretext, in order to gain access to their confidential information and thereby profit from it. In the area of trade secret law, this is a major litigation issue. The holder of the trade secret does not want his competitor to learn anything about his trade secret and thus claims that it is not discoverable. The holder of the trade secret bears the burden of proving adequately to the court that his information does indeed qualify as a trade secret.
FOIA is nothing new, it is merely an off-shoot of the time-honored practice of discovery in a civil case.
My point in providing the links above is that there are literally dozens of exclusions or exemptions that UVa can use, and likely is using, to avoid public disclosure of some of the emails at issue. For skeptics to claim that everything from a public university is in the public domain is not at all accurate.
It is interesting that R Gates is fully behind UVAs actions in defending their former faculty member who has been exposed as having colluded against other scientists to prevent publication of their opposing views. Further, the information sought was not created under confidentiality agreements and was paid for by state and federal tax payers.
None of the oft-cited exonorations have looked directly at the claims of the opponents. Rather, friendly panels were appointed to white wash the UEA and PSU situations.
It is also interesting that R Gates and many others have no problem about treatment of opponents and have cheered on attempts to attack them. Scientific integrity relies on open access to information, impartial peer reviews, and demonstration of models via experimentation or measurement. Since none of that appears to pertain to Mann, et. al., it is amazing how strongly the unethical behavior is defended.
Most here believe that CO2 is associated with warming. But the models have not forcasted well. It is clear that ocean dynamics, the role of incident radiation and cloud effects are poorly understood. If less alarmism and more collaboration and exploration of these key, open issues could advance rapidly.
Instead, billions and billions are spent on wildlife studies that speculate on the influence of climate change, on inefficient energy resources, on creating regulations that are strangling economies, and potentially on reparations by (now bankrupt) “rich countries” to poor ones rather than on helping them get food, clean water, reliable power and spurring economic development.
@Patrick Guinness “And yes Obama was born here. We all know that”
Correction: “We all are saying we know that NOW”
There were a lot of people, including senior Republicans who were openly birthers or hedging their bets.
“But he went to Punahou as Barry Sotero.” – which has nothing to do with his birth certificate.
When you look at the Virginia FOI law at:
http://www.opengovva.org/virginia-fioa-the-law
and scroll down to:
3.3-3705.4 Exclusions to application of chapter, educational record and
certain records of educational instutions.
You’ll see
However, under
2.2-3705.6 Exclusions to application of chapter, proprietary records
and trade secrets.
Of the 25 or so ways to be “exempt” as “proprietary record” or as as
anything else “proprietary” as the Virigina law defines it, I don’t see
a way for Mike Mann’s e-mails and attachments to be exempt.
Maybe the Prince County Judge will feel differently… or not. It will be his decision
assuming ATI asks him to rule on the validity of the so called exemption of each
separate e-mail.
Robert of Ottawa says: August 27, 2011 at 4:29 pm
[The e-mails that are already in the public domain were not included?!]
Of course not, it’s a trick. If they accept the emails that are in the public domain (which everyone has) then they may not be able to use them in court (not legally obtained), and the public domain emails may in fact taint the whole body of information if they were used in the aggregate. So even though they know Exactly what they are missing they must still be then officially handed over by the legal custodian. You see, they cant even use the information in the climategate emails as ’cause’ for further investigation, until they have them legally. One they have them legally the real show starts. UVA knows this.
Smokey, you claim fraud but there has been none shown. On the other hand, the incoherent ramblings of many a scaptic have shown that what was actually written in the emails matters not to those who oppose the scientific method.
stephen richards says:
August 27, 2011 at 10:48 am
Time to send in the FBI. he he. Never happen under the communist regime of Obama.
———–
This would only make sense if you were a member of a lunatic faction of the republican party, who thinks democracy should be redefined to mean a one party state ruled by you.
Sorry to dishearten you, but at this stage democracy means the other guys gets to play with the marbles.
Anybody know the direct number to call UVA on this? I would really like to give the right people at UVA a piece of my mind on this matter.
And don’t they know that by withholding these particular emails, they are only fueling distrust?