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
R. Gates says:
August 27, 2011 at 11:56 am
Nice to see the UVA stand behind their faculty.
_______________________________________________
I’ve seen enough. I’ve read your poisonous postings for months.
You, R. Gates, have completely exposed yourself and have crossed the line into complete irrelevance.
If you ever had hopes of convincing anyone to believe anything you had to say, then your hopes are dashed.
I’m convinced that you are a paid propagandist, fomenting doubt in these pages and likely elsewhere, as well; and probably on the taxpayers’ dime.
You are a shameless hack.
Nothing you have to say is worth reading.
Go Away!
R. Gates says: August 27, 2011 at 11:56 am
Nice to see the UVA stand behind their faculty
I’m sure I don’t have to remind you that Greenpeace attempted to obtain Patrick Michaels’ e-mails from the UofVA and the only thing standing in the way was a $4000 administrative fee. When Cuccinelli filed his demands, Greenpeace withdrew their FOI request. I presume, Gates, that you will demand that UofVA will protect Dr. Michaels rights as assiduously as it has protected Dr. Mann’s? Frankly, it is too late. Lord knows what Greenpeace will find in Dr. Michaels’ e-mails, but I’m now really interested in whatever it is that requires a half-million dollar defense to keep it away from the light of day in Dr. Mann’s e-mails.
So, Gates, wanna try defending releasing the Michaels e-mails and NOT releasing the Mann e-mails? What? You were against it before you were for it? You want to define the meaning of “is”?
Tool.
sceptical says:
“Smokey, you claim fraud but there has been none shown.”
Yo, fool:
Thirteen years of completely fabricated temperature data [!!]. Credulous, “sceptical” fool.
Re:Smokey says:
August 27, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Re: D Marshall says:
August 27, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Re: Everyone driven mad by Obama maneuvers
Like Obama, the University has been spending taxpayer money one way or another to resist compliance with information requests. When you’re spending other peoples’ money, you don’t really need a good reason. It could be anything from the good reason of covering guilt to the poor reasons of philosophical position, general belligerence or even simple whimsy.
I don’t know why the University has resisted and neither do you. We can only guess, and guesses should never be confused with certain knowledge.
Claude Harvey says:
“…the University has been spending taxpayer money one way or another to resist compliance with information requests. When you’re spending other peoples’ money, you don’t really need a good reason. It could be anything from the good reason of covering guilt to the poor reasons of philosophical position, general belligerence or even simple whimsy.”
Wasting $500,000 on ‘simple whimsy’ is inexcusable. We’re talking about the weather here, not nuclear defense secrets! It’s pretty obvious they’re covering their guilt. If not, why the lack of public transparency?
So, under the terms of the agreement this would be the first release, stuff that would clearly not fall under the exemptions. So on the 23rd of September (30 days after the release of the non exempt info) the exempt info will be given to ATI. After than there is 90 days for ATI to challenge the exemptions. That will be more interesting.
What we have here is “UVA is complying with the terms of the agreement, but look over here Climategate!”. Pretty piss poor in my book, since most of the Climategate emails involving Mann had to do with scientific issues, although he had an obvious animosity towards McI and other people who do not like the conclusions of people looking at the “recent” paleo record. Look! Climategate!
So here is how I think this will play out. On or before 9/23 UVA will release the exempt info to ATI. At that point ATI will evaluate the exempt info and challenge it (expect that they will challenge everything) and the judge, as provided for in the agreement, will decide. So far they got nothin. Look! Climategate!
UVa should hire Harold Berger. I’m sure there is still room in his socks.
What an interesting twist of words. The FOIA law lays a burden of proof on the public body, not just the burden of claim. Specifically “the public body shall bear the burden of proof to establish an exemption by a preponderance of the evidence.”
What is my point? Well, I guess I’ve just been told off… in a fatuous condescending manner…
I thought my point obvious and I’m certain it was, to you. You posted a bunch of links with the inference that there are many many exemptions to FOIA law in Virginia, and perhaps the USA. Well, numerically, that is true. What is also true is that many many of those exemptions are rather specific in purpose and not applicable. It is also true that there are only a few exemptions likely applicable to the emails and maybe a software one for any code. Oh, but you probably knew that. It is curious why you didn’t include that info so that your post would provide a more complete picture of Virginia FOIA.
I do so look forward to the day when the Feds, (I’ll settle for Cuccinelli in the short term), finally march in with subpoenas and cart off all of their drives and data storage so that the Feds can look over every byte. FOIA violations and Climate fraud are one thing, racketeering is another.
Racketeering… A person who uses an enterprise to engage in a pattern of racketeering may be convicted under the RICO criminal statute (18 U.S.C.A. § 1963). An enterprise is defined as “any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.” A pattern is defined as “at least two acts of racketeering activity… Racketeering activity under federal law includes a number of criminal offenses, including but by no means limited to: Fraud, Extortion, Blackmail, etc… The penalties under racketeering, now they are severe enough to cause people to go to extreme lengths in obstructing FOIA law… We’ve speculated many times, just what drives certain scientists and universities to deny legitimate and reasonable FOIA requests. Twenty years plus in a federal pen just might be a driver, not to mention a complete collapse of whatever the AGW agenda is. Risking time in jail for contempt seems ridiculous if there is not an AGW agenda and the climate studies are legit.
Oh, the “us and them” claim and them skeptics have inaccurate expectations? “Skeptics claim everything from a public university is in the public domain”? Sure sounds like one of them alarmists that likes to apply generalizations lumping everyone with AGW concerns and doubts, especially them skeptics into one category and then trivializes their discussions… Or did you somehow mean that there is a nebulous group out there called skeptics who have unrealistic FOIA expectations and you were not really trying to insinuate that us WUWT readers and commenters were included in that rather derisive term “skeptics”?
From UVA’s IT policies web page: http://its.virginia.edu/policy/filemonitoring.html
Why would anyone, least of all them skeptics, expect UVA to follow it’s own policies let alone the FOIA law. Those “us alarmists” certainly don’t want them to and we “them skeptics” sure wonder why.
Did I lose a post to the spam filter?
[? did u?]
I have thought all along that the truly incriminating material will never see the light of day. The only question is whether or not the guilty parties will actually be penalized by the system for withholding the stuff that will destroy their careers, AGW, and any future the perpetrators of this massive fraud might have. That information has already been destroyed, the only question is… will they ever get caught and have to face the music…
Smokey at al,
A bit of context around that quote from “Harry read me”
—————————–
Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING – so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have 🙂
If an update station matches a ‘master’ station by WMO code, but the data is unpalatably
inconsistent, the operator is given three choices:
You have failed a match despite the WMO codes matching.
This must be resolved!! Please choose one:
1. Match them after all.
2. Leave the existing station alone, and discard the update.
3. Give existing station a false code, and make the update the new WMO station.
Enter 1,2 or 3:
You can’t imagine what this has cost me – to actually allow the operator to assign false
WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’
database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be).
False codes will be obtained by multiplying the legitimate code (5 digits) by 100, then adding
1 at a time until a number is found with no matches in the database. THIS IS NOT PERFECT but as
there is no central repository for WMO codes – especially made-up ones – we’ll have to chance
duplicating one that’s present in one of the other databases. In any case, anyone comparing WMO
codes between databases – something I’ve studiously avoided doing except for tmin/tmax where I
had to – will be treating the false codes with suspicion anyway. Hopefully.
———————
All the file shows is a programmer’s efforts to make the best of incomplete data. No fraud, no cover up, nothing of the sort.
Maybe one day, when you accept that global warming is not one enormous scam, you can join in the serious debate about what best to do about it. The answer may even be “nothing”, but to be taken seriously you first have to accept reality.
Both my parents and others of my family were UVA graduates. A once solid academic institution sinks to the lowest level. Bad news does not get better with age. Bad news that has to be pried out in court because of deliberate delaying tactics is worse. UVA would be best served by cutting their losses and running, dumping Mann and the entire Climategate gang in the process. Time is not UVA’s friend in this case.
John B says: August 28, 2011 at 5:23 am
[No fraud, no cover up, nothing of the sort. ]
—
The AGW virus can be recognized by the following signature
–
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
–
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103
@TedK, I’m not sure why you are getting so worked up over this. You mention first, the standard of proof. The “preponderance of the evidence” standard is normal in most civil matters. Legally, that means just a tiny bit more than half, or fifty-fifty. Even if you disagree with the standard that was chosen, which one would you prefer? Reasonable suspicion? Probable Cause? You apparently don’t like Preponderance of the Evidence. Next is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, how about that one? Perhaps Conclusive Proof? The fact is that only Preponderance of the Evidence and Conclusive Proof apply in a civil matter. So, yes, the Virginia law follows what other jurisdictions require. Am I missing something? Do you want to require Virginia to prove the exclusion by Overwhelming, Skeptic-Approved, Incontrovertible, Beyond-Any-Doubt, By-God-Iron-Clad proof? Please… this is a legal matter, and will follow the rules of procedure for such matters.
Next, you mention racketeering and convictions under the RICO statutes. Just a word of caution, there, it can be quite expensive to defend a lawsuit for falsely accusing someone of criminal activity. You may want to seek competent legal advice on this. If you have proof, then I suggest you take it to the FBI and let them evaluate your proof.
Next, you mention “Fraud, Extortion, Blackmail, etc.” Many people get worked up over the concept of climate scientist defrauding . . . . well, somebody. Fraud is a legal term and very, very difficult to prove. One can also have confidence that the Virginia Attorney General is well aware of the laws on fraud and will bring such a lawsuit if and when there is evidence to support that lawsuit. Notice the word “evidence,” not a mere suspicion or something less. The others, extortion and blackmail, are of course serious crimes and would be prosecuted if any evidence is found.
You mention that people speculate on what drives scientists and universities to refuse reasonable FOIA requests. I gave you a long list of reasons above. Perhaps the scientist is not happy with the quality of his data, or has entered into contractual agreements with others who preclude him from sharing. Perhaps there are valuable secrets involved, including trade secrets or patentable ideas from the methods used to obtain the data. Perhaps there is a novel method of data analysis that could be valuable if a patent is issued. Or, perhaps there are simply issues that fall squarely in another of the exclusions from above. The only people who will know are the scientists, their university management, their attorneys, the judge, and possibly the attorneys for the FOIA plaintiffs.
Next, you run on about skeptics, derogatory terms, WUWT readers and commenters. You evidently don’t know that I’m a professed skeptic, WUWT reader and commenter, and have several guest posts on WUWT. I also have my own blog with many of my AGW-skeptical views published. Furthermore, I prepare and deliver speeches and multi-media presentations on these matters across the country. I’m also an attorney and try in my own small way to help guide the discussion on legal matters involved in FOIA, climate change laws, carbon dioxide regulation, renewable energy, nuclear power plants, and others. Anthony has graciously afforded me much “blog-space” here at WUWT.
Finally, you mention the UVa’s policy on expectation of privacy for various forms of communications sent via the university’s equipment. The implication is that any messages sent via the university’s computers are not private but are in the public domain. Again, the attorneys at the Virginia Attorney General’s office, and attorneys for ATI are surely aware of the laws and would simply demand the handover of all communications if that Human Resources Policy 1.75 was controlling. Perhaps you should write to them and tell them of your discovery, and let them know they have been wasting their time with all that FOIA law, the lawsuits, and just point to Policy 1.75.
I do realize how frustrating it can be to watch what is happening and wonder why the data and messages aren’t simply produced all at once and in their entirety. However, the laws exist and must be followed. In any event, time is on the side of the skeptics. The quiet sun and colder oceans have killed the AGW cause. Each day, each month, each year that passes provide silent testimony that CO2 is innocent. CO2 rises, and the Earth cools.
Robert E. Phelan says:
August 27, 2011 at 8:44 pm
R. Gates says: August 27, 2011 at 11:56 am
Nice to see the UVA stand behind their faculty
I’m sure I don’t have to remind you that Greenpeace attempted to obtain Patrick Michaels’ e-mails from the UofVA and the only thing standing in the way was a $4000 administrative fee. When Cuccinelli filed his demands, Greenpeace withdrew their FOI request. I presume, Gates, that you will demand that UofVA will protect Dr. Michaels rights as assiduously as it has protected Dr. Mann’s? Frankly, it is too late. Lord knows what Greenpeace will find in Dr. Michaels’ e-mails, but I’m now really interested in whatever it is that requires a half-million dollar defense to keep it away from the light of day in Dr. Mann’s e-mails.
So, Gates, wanna try defending releasing the Michaels e-mails and NOT releasing the Mann e-mails? What? You were against it before you were for it? You want to define the meaning of “is”?
Tool.
_____
Again, nice to see an institution stand behind their faculty.
Rather than these never ending witch hunts, which really grow quite tiresome, perhaps AGW skeptics would do better to debate the science. Maybe start with the Hansen-Sato paper from earlier this year:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf
John B,
Thank you for explaining that 13 years of temperature data was fabricated.
TedK says:
August 27, 2011 at 12:02 pm
I wonder if UVA’s fultime legal counsel was ever involved in this? My guess is no. Legal counsel would have turned over these documents immediately. Most likely, UVA hired outside counsel to handle this case. Most likely there is a huge fight within the university administration.
From R. Gates on August 28, 2011 at 10:11 am:
You know Gates, when your big-headed alien masters take you away for a routine recharge and tune-up, I would think they would be smart enough to load your memory unit with recent WUWT posts you missed during the absence.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/21/another-giss-miss-tisdale-calls-out-hansen-and-sato-on-failed-predictions/
Guess those aliens really aren’t that smart after all. Of course this was demonstrated by their not immediately destroying humanity as a threat to other civilizations after they were tipped off to the fact by our global warming signal.
So you know, you were missed when Hansen-Sato was discussed, check the comments. You were also missed during the “Aliens will kill us!” discussion. Of which your complete lack of comments there currently seems… strangely curious.
@kadaka
The thread you linked to does not address the paper R. Gates linked to. Same people, different issue.
Smokey says:
August 28, 2011 at 11:18 am
John B,
Thank you for explaining that 13 years of temperature data was fabricated.
—————
What a ridiculous assertion! Even if it were true, what would have been the point? Just replace the “fabricated” data with an interpolation on any temperature graph of your choice and the conclusions would be unchanged.
You are clutching at ever thinner straws.
Mr. Gates,
You haven’t answered the question.
Why would UVA ‘stand up for faculty’ by refusing to release Dr. Mann’s emails to the Attorney General’s request, yet not ‘stand up for faculty’ by agreeing to expeditiously release Dr. Michaels’ emails to the Greenpease request?
As a proud graduate of UVa (Ken Cuccinelli and I were classmates), I am disgusted by the response to this request. I have already told the University that they will not receive any more contributions from me until they comply fully with the FOI request. I look forward to their next request for donations so I can reiterate my position.
John B,
I’m amazed that you keep digging your completely indefensible hole deeper:
No matter how you try to spin it, Harry is openly admitting that he invented thirteen years of temperature data.
And I have lots of charts by various government funded agencies showing that all their “adjustments” to the temperature record are either adjusted higher for recent temperatures, or historical temperatures have been adjusted lower, in order to show a sharply rising trend. There are no “adjustments” that reduce the [natural] temperature rise. Just ask, and I’ll post the charts for you.
From John B on August 28, 2011 at 2:55 pm:
Sir, you are correct about the paper. The paper Gates mentioned is a non-peer-reviewed unpublished draft paper. By R. Gates’ usual professed standards that means it essentially does not exist, which makes it surprising that he bothered to note it at all. The “skeptics” addressed it long ago here on WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/24/commentary-hansen-draft-paper-paleoclimate-implications-for-human-made-climate-change/
But one hardly has to get past the first page to see it’s the same old issue as always:
Still guano. New and different packaging, another attempt at convincing others it’s not guano by adding other ingredients to alter the texture and taste. Yet amazingly enough, it remains guano, still the same old issue we expect from this federally-funded activist with or without additional cohorts.
So what about this un-published un-peer-reviewed essentially un-existing paper deserves addressing?
Only after accusations had reached a fevered pitch did the master politician release that document to the public, thus eviscerating his critics’ credibility.
Barack Obama would have much preferred not to release the long form birth certificate when he did. He and his inner circle thought they could discredit all Republicans as “birthers,” using the issue to help him coast to a second term no matter who the Republican nominee might be.
Instead, Obama’s hand was forced by Donald Trump, a non-candidate doing his turn in front of the TV cameras, a year and a half before the election.
It is unlikely that the upper administration of the University of Virginia thinks anything like Barack Obama.
They’re just doing what comes naturally. The first impulse of any university administration is to cover up. Look at Duke University after the false accusations against the lacrosse players.