ATI press release on the Mann UVA emails

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.
A distinctly simpler explanation is that releasing the material that ATI wants to see will make Michael Mann look bad.
Further, that releasing anything that makes Michael Mann look bad will make the upper administration of UVA look bad, because they (or their predecessors) hired Michael Mann and kept him on the payroll until he decided to leave.
The legal mind has been known, on occasion, to look for complexity where none actually exists.

@Smokey
Same old, same old. It’s cherries all the way down with you, isnt it? And that has got to be the worst linear trend fit I have ever seen. On the graph you show, a linear trend to around 1940 and a steeper linear trend post 1940 would fit better. But, hold on, that’s what AGW would predict, so we can’t have that, can we?

The National Science Foundation’s Inspector General has investigated Penn State’s investigation of Michael Mann, and gone a bit further.

Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed

The NSF decides on funding to science. These are the people that would be most interested to discover malfeasance from scientists applying to them for grants – like Michael Mann.
How many vindicating investigations does this make now? How many would it take before Mann’s critics backed off the rhetoric?
Surely this deserves a post, Anthony. I am curious to see how you will interpret it.

Hello again, Smokey,

the NSF people are extremely interested in sweeping the whole Michael Mann disaster under the carpet in order to protect their gravy train. That is blindingly obvious to anyone with a whit of common sense.

Huh? The NSF don’t get the money. They disburse it. There is no gravy train for them. If it’s ‘blindingly obvious’ you should be able to produce evidence of NSF making money by authorising grants. Something clear and obvious would be nice, rather than highly speculative scenarios relying on conspiracy theories with nothing but imagination to corroborate them.

The NSF gets to disburse immense amounts of public money to its favorite constituents. If you don’t think that is a major motivation, I can’t do anything to help you.

You have just made this argument. “NSF have favourites, and that is their motivation for giving more money to their favourites”
That’s not an argument. It’s an assertion. An empty one. Let me elaborate.
I could say that Charles Monnett has been targeted by the Interior Department to squash scientific argument against drilling in the Arctic. I can provide plenty of circumstantial evidence, but there’s no direct link, and not enough corroborating evidence. But I could also use your argument style and say, with a wise smile, “Smokey, oil companies are in bed with the government. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. You’d have to be stupid to imagine they aren’t squeezing the Interior Department and Fisheries with every ounce they got to get permits to drill in the Arctic. If you don’t think oil profits are a major motivation, I can’t help you.”
And that would make ten times more sense than what you said, because oil profits ARE clear motivation. It’s undeniable.
But I’m more rigorous than you. I refuse to base my opinion on a nod and a wink to ‘home truths’, and assume that they are absolutely, positively applicable in case x. I will not argue that Charles Monnett is definitely the victim of a government smear campaign – but I might say it’s possible, or probable, if I think there are reasonable grounds. And Iwill lay those grounds out, rather than suggesting you are beyond help if you don’t just agree with me, or that you must be dumb not to see what the rest of the world knows.

But everyone else understands that funneling public money to pals has major rewards, and is worthwhile for its own sake.

This assertion becomes plausible when you
1) demonstrate which of the purse string holders are friends with Michael Mann
2) describe exactly what the rewards are for these people to award grants to Michael Mann (how do these bureaucrats profit??)
3) why doing this is worthwhile for its own sake
I’d be very curious to see you satisfy even 2 of those 3 requirements, but you’d need to do a good job on all three to be at all persuasive
Give me the facts, not the facts of life. And don’t bother ornamenting your points with the implication that anyone would be stupid not to share your opinion. It’s a lousy tactic and it doesn’t work on a fellow cynic.