From the there’s “nothing to see here and my lawyer says so too” department, we have news that Dr. Michael Mann really doesn’t want those UVA emails to get sunlight. From ATI:
‘Hockey Stick’ Creator Michael Mann Seeks Court’s Help to Ensure No Inquiry, No ‘Exoneration’
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Contact: Paul Chesser, Executive Director, paul.chesser@atinstitute.org
Dr. Michael Mann, lead author of the discredited “hockey stick” graph that was once hailed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the “smoking gun” of the catastrophic man-made global warming theory, has asked to intervene in American Tradition Institute’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that seeks certain records produced by Mann and others while he was at the University of Virginia, for the purpose of keeping them hidden from the taxpayer.
Specifically over the weekend ATI’s Environmental Law Center received service from two Pennsylvania attorneys who seek the court’s permission to argue for Dr. Mann to intervene in ATI’s case. The attorneys also filed a motion to stay production of documents still withheld by UVA, which are to be provided to ATI’s lawyers in roughly two weeks under a protective order that UVA voluntarily agreed to in May. Dr. Mann’s lawyers also desire a hearing in mid-September, in an effort to further delay UVA’s scheduled production of records under the order.
Dr. Mann’s argument, distilled, is that the court must bend the rules to allow him to block implementation of a transparency law, so as to shield his sensibilities from offense once the taxpayer – on whose dime he subsists – sees the methods he employed to advance the global warming theory and related policies. ATI’s Environmental Law Center is not sympathetic.
“Dr. Mann’s late-hour tactics offer the spectacle of someone who relies on the media’s repeats of his untrue claims of having been ‘investigated’ and ‘exonerated’ – that is, when he’s not sputtering ad hominem and conspiracy theories to change the subject,” said Christopher Horner, director of litigation for ATI’s Environmental Law Center. “Mann has tried whatever means possible to ensure he remains free of any serious scrutiny, and this just appears to be his last gasp.”
Dr. Mann’s move is therefore gratifying, and ATI will agree to his out-of-state lawyers’ motion to appear. But ATI will ask the court to uphold Virginia’s abundantly clear law, that Dr. Mann has no interest in records that are purely the property of the taxpayer.
ATI will present to the court how Dr. Mann understood, as an unambiguous and agreed-upon condition of his employment, that he had no expectation of privacy when he used UVA’s public email system. ATI therefore looks forward to seeing if, given the opportunity, UVA will defend the idea that any of its own policies be upheld in court. Since Dr. Mann has no property interest in the taxpayer-owned records sought by ATI, he has no standing and therefore should not be entered in the case. Dr. Mann wants, after the fact, for UVA to throw out policies he accepted as a condition of living off of taxpayer dollars, in order to cover up public information and to evade scrutiny.
To the extent Dr. Mann, the university, or their obstructionist backers like Union of Concerned Scientists continue to argue he has been “cleared” or “exonerated,” or that any substantive investigation has taken place, those pleadings are undermined by their persistent efforts to squelch inquiry. As a result, all the public sees is an effort to sweep Climategate revelations under the rug in order to preserve the biggest taxpayer-financed gravy train for science and academia in decades. Hence we see the Rasmussen Reports poll last month that showed a strong majority of the public believes scientists who study climate change have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs.
“Virginia’s courts do not brook conspiracy theories as the basis for intervention in run-of-the-mill Freedom of Information Act litigation,” said Dr. David Schnare, director of ATI’s Environmental Law Center. “Dr. Mann – having failed to prevail in the court of public opinion – cannot now strut into court, soap box in hand, and expect a warm welcome.”
See case documents, press releases, media coverage, commentary, broadcast interviews, etc. pertaining to ATI v. University of Virginia by clicking here: http://bit.ly/mLZLXC
For an interview with Environmental Law Center director Dr. David Schnare or director of litigation Christopher Horner, email paul.chesser@atinstitute.org or call (202)670-2680.
Follow ATI on Twitter: http://twitter.atinstitute.org
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gary Hladik (September 6, 2011 at 1:40 pm) asked:
So Dr. Mann is paying these lawyers out of his own pocket?
In his petition, Mann says that he’s passed the hat for lawyers’ fees: “Recently, through a fundraising effort by the scientific community, Dr. Mann was able to raise sufficient funds to retain counsel…”
If him being represented is part of the FOI legislation, fine, otherwise it seems more like obstruction. If he wrote them, he already knows what’s in them. That’s why we’re suspicious.
The “if you have nothing to hide” argument is an argument for tyranny. Everybody should reject that argument because if you give any government the power to search you for any arbitrary reason just because you have nothing to hide, then we will have lost one of the most important freedoms that we have.
What you should be arguing about is why is it so hard to enforce a federal law? The FOIA is clear, those emails are the property of the taxpaying people of Virginia. They do not belong to Michael Mann, they belong to the people. How hard is it to understand this? It is like having your car stolen and when the police found the car, the thief was never forced to return the stolen car. Stop lollygagging and return our property to us now! Give us the emails! They belong to the taxpayers, not to you!
The similarity of Mann’s reluctance to publicise his taxpayer funded data and the UK’s Members of Parliament’s reluctance to publicise their taxpayer funded “expenses” says it all.
Does he really need to grow hair around his mouth to talk like a …….. Lady’s private bits or does that just come with the job?
It is no longer national defence controlling the science/industrial complex, with the end of the cold war, it is now the environmental regulationions controlling the science/governmental complex.
Very recent events are beautiful examples of the corruption and utterly unscientific practices exhibited by key players of the ‘team’.
If one has had to deal with a ‘wetland’ (navigable water per the Clean Water Act) or fishing regulations or had to get a permit to put in a septic system or on and on and on.
The engineers are forced to satisfy infinitne unnecessary environmental requirements to get permits.
It is a racket now.
Once the emails are out it’s all over for CAGW
Can “we” sue under “equal protection” and ask for as much $$$$ as Mann has, from institutional resources? Or insist that he pay for this HIMSELF?
Here’s an interesting thought…Mano-a-mano, one professor on the Skeptic side, sponsoring the case on our side, Mann on his side. The winner is the one left with $1 in the bank. No, come to think of it, THEY’D BOTH LOSE, but the Lawyers would all win.
The warmista’s emotional level over the threatened exposure of UVA e-mails is about the same as their high dudgeon over the ClimateGate e-mails. (HeyMM, they were ‘leaked’, not ‘stolen’.)
Therefore you can expect at least as much revelatory dirt in the UVA emails as in ClimateGate.
Ever since Oliver North’s futile deleting of e-mails, it is well known the e-mails are forever. If it was that easy to delete the incriminatoria, they would be long gone and UVA would not resist at all.
The climate-sane eagerly await this latest scandal to break fully, perhaps in time for Nov 2012.
Sooner or later we will get those e-mails, their exposure will be played to a chorus of renewed doomsday-wailing and gnashing of warmista fangs.
Well said.
It boggles the mind that an institution founded by Jefferson would have spent half a million trying to dodge one of their prime directives. It is also profoundly disturbing.
But hey this is Climate Science ™.
Mann gets at a minimum the ‘Douche of the Week’ award. (Let us not dwell on the fact that a douche actually has a useful purpose…)
How can he personally stop the release of emails that are not his own personal property. Maybe his next step will be to switch all the emails for new ones at the last minute and then submit them to the public for inspection, much like Bush did at the last minute with the Patriot Act; after all, one authoritarian can learn from another.
Mann feels like he is being hindered in his efforts to save the world and laws don’t apply to someone like him who is in the midst of a sacred mission. Hopefully the Virginia courts will wake him from his delusions…
Is it possible there are other issues in the emails that Mann does not want ATI lawyers to see? even if they do not bear upon climate change but….ah… personnel and explicit? Enquiring minds want to know. However, in all fairness, making sure any investigation stays focused, not straying into personal muckraking is a good idea even if it takes a few extra bucks to hire an attorney to be sure the process retains integrity; something I agree should happen.
“Maybe his next step will be to switch all the emails for new ones at the last minute and then submit them to the public for inspection,”
You mean, in an uncharacteristic reversal he will splice in proxy emails for the actual ones? Hiding his decline?
But ATI will ask the court to uphold Virginia’s abundantly clear law, that Dr. Mann has no interest in records that are purely the property of the taxpayer.
==================
Well for all of the other peccadilloes of my state….it is good to know that we are at least attempting to do something right.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
matthu says:
September 6, 2011 at 2:12 pm
“I guess he’s trying to protect his interests in the libel case he has taken out against Tim Ball…”
Wouldn’t all of Mann’s documents and mails related to climate science would be available to Ball, his lawyers and any hired investigators under discovery?
Perhaps Ball could hire a large online subset of the readership of WUWT to review Mann’s documents, produced under discovery, for the sum of say 1 cent and valuable consideration, to discover if there is a connection between Pen State and State Pen.
An open comment to the President Teresa A. Sullivan of UVA regarding the Mann emails: You have the opportunity to take a stand for scientific integrity and call off the lawyers assigned by your predecessor to protect possible malfeasance. You also have the opportunity to clarify the previous University of Virginia President’s position. Here’s a handy phrase to save face, “New Evidence has come to light…” and it’s free to you for your future use. Review the emails yourself and before they harm the University issue the appropriate statement of findings. These legal delays are rightfully concluded by the general public as willful attempts by the University to cover up wrong doing. You have already lost that media battle. You can’t control the media spin from your current position. Better to get ahead of the upcoming storm. Begin work with your State’s AG now.
Wade says:
September 6, 2011 at 4:41 pm
The “if you have nothing to hide” argument is an argument for tyranny.
And Freedom of Information is the mechanism to overcome tyranny. Information paid for by the public for the exclusive use of the elite is how universities, politicians and public bureaucrats have operated for years, until systemic corruption now threatens the future of the nation and the world.
Ok, I’m going into conspiracy territory here: The team, including Mann, have weathered numerous assaults that have shown the utter lack of scientific justification for their positions, so I don’t think that Mann is really worried about that. I see only three viable explanations for Mann’s actions: 1) He’s just stirring the pot to make life miserable for anyone who would dare to question His Greatness; 2) He knows there is some scientific weakness highlighted in his e-mails and he’s enough of a pathological nutcase that he can’t stand to have it exposed; or 3) there is something that might (could) result in criminal conspiracy charges that include his precious hide. UVA might have been stonewalling all along because they fear scenario 3 and are worried that they might be embroiled as well.
Wade wrote;
“The “if you have nothing to hide” argument is an argument for tyranny. Everybody should reject that argument because if you give any government the power to search you for any arbitrary reason just because you have nothing to hide, then we will have lost one of the most important freedoms that we have.”
With respect, I fully agree when the communications in question are PERSONAL. However every email/phone call/fax/etc. that I produce with my employers equipment while being paid by them for services rendered (ok, admittedly a bit of a stretch when applied to climate science) belongs to them. The “them” in this case is the taxpayer (State of Virginia and the good old USA).
Yes indeed we all send some emails with “personal” data inside to spouses, friends, etc. My employer allows for a reasonable amount of this as a bit of a “perk” of the job. However I (and I’m sure others) are careful not to abuse this privilege. So indeed if somebody wants to go back through my emails to/from my office and determine that indeed the spouse requested (7 years ago on a Tuesday in October at 4:45 pm) that I bring home a dozen eggs and 1 quart of 1% milk on my way home from work I say; knock yourself out.
I believe the the original agreement with the court was a way to avoid disclosing these non-germane emails from being disclosed (as if anybody was really interested in those anyway).
It does indeed seem that Dr. (I use the term with a grain of salt in this case) Mann does indeed “protest too much”.
Cheers, Kevin.
This request to intervene by Dr. Mann has much more substance than at first appears. His attorneys are invoking a First Amendment right of professors to have academic freedom. The attorneys quoted a 1957 Supreme Court case, Sweezy v. New Hampshire (354 U.S. 234, 250) where the Court wrote, “To impose any straight jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. . . Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study, and to evaluate.”
Mann also claims that UVa has agreed to hand over emails that it knows are exempt from such disclosure under the Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act.
Mann also claims that forced disclosure of his emails would have a chilling effect on other academic scientists and force them to be much more careful in what they write in their communications with other scientists. Mann extends this to not only US academics but around the world, presumably because climate science is engaged in by academics in many countries.
If the court allows the intervention, this case could get very complicated, and require a very long time for resolution. No matter who prevails, and if the losing party has the funds, this could be appealed through the various appellate courts and ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I suspect its more of who else will be revealed than the substance he may want to hide.
savethesharks says:
September 6, 2011 at 8:24 pm
“But ATI will ask the court to uphold Virginia’s abundantly clear law, that Dr. Mann has no interest in records that are purely the property of the taxpayer.”
ATI seem to be laughing up their sleeves over that fact. Where on earth does Mann get the time to do any real science when he is posturing like this? …. Oh that’s right, he is fund raising with the libitards to spend even more time in court!
From RiHo08 on September 6, 2011 at 7:15 pm:
Dang, what do you think is in there? Mann requesting hot monkey love with Trenberth and Hansen? Would Mann be stupid enough to put that in a “company” email? Maybe with some pics of his favorite “hardwood tree core”?
Wade,
“…’if you have nothing to hide’ argument is an argument for tyranny.”
My thoughts exactly.
However, Dr. Mann signed a paper for HR stating he read his Employee Handbook/memo. If he didn’t understand it and used his employer’s equipment to write personal emails, and expected privacy, that’s his problem and mistake. They don’t belong to him. Therefore, the “nothing to hide” comments are not only dangerous and foolish but irrelevant.