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.
Wade says:
September 6, 2011 at 4:41 pm
“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.”
Um, Wade, this is not a “search” as is typical of Fourth Amendment cases. You have missed the point completely. It is a request for public documents (whether in electronic or other form) being made by private individuals who, as members of the general, taxpaying public, have a right to look at those documents. Virginia’s law and policy make it pretty clear (as equally clear as it is here in Texas, by the way) that public information includes electronic information and that anybody who utilizes the state e-mail system to generate documents is subject to those documents being made public. The fact that Mann studiously continues to insist on resisting and delaying compliance with this basic request (and has not publicly indicated what exceptions to Virginia’s act he falls under, if any), gives those of us who have expertise in or are informed about public information laws around the country the right and the reason to question Prof. Mann’s motives here and whether he has something to hide (which to me, he does).
Yours is the argument for tyranny; sunlight and open government is the best disinfectant for folks like Michael Mann.
Roger Sowell says:
September 6, 2011 at 10:12 pm
Roger, having dealt with some of these issues in the past (but not in a university setting, mind you), I can tell you that the arguments related to “academic freedom” are without merit, in my opinion, at best, and spurious at worst.
No one would believe for a minute that if there is nothing of consequence found in these e-mails that anybody’s freedom of speech would be “chilled.” Most public information acts around the country except out the “draft” memo or document, and exclude internal policy development discussions and other similar matters, so that is not an issue. If, in fact, draft papers Mann wrote for internal discussion are exchanged by e-mail, there may be a basis for an exception for some of the e-mails. But that does not seem to be the case here – yet. But what Mann does fails to compare to what policymakers do in terms of whether some exception should either be carved out and implied in the Virginia law, or forms the basis of the First Amendment “trumping” the public’s right to know what goes on in its government.
Nevertheless, UVA and the State of Virginia have made it clear to all of their employees who read and write e-mails that they are subject to public disclosure. The burden is on Mann to be circumspect in what he writes if he doesn’t really want it to be seen. This same kind of argument could have been made by all of my former clients, as well – how is their free speech not “chilled” as a result of what they write in an e-mail? But having to be more circumspect is not the same as “chilling” speech, believe me.
Hiding behind the curtain of academic freedom in order to foil an attempt to discover what goes on in government institutions is a greater threat to freedom, because Mann and his colleagues attempt to use what they supposedly “know” to influence policy makers to create a stringent and economically damaging regulatory scheme worldwide with respect to CO2.
Decline the hide?
Dr. Mann’s house of cards appears to be teetering.
Just one of way too many junk science parasites sucking off the public tit..
The more he squirms the more we know that he has cooked the books.
Little hint for Mann, when in Virginia, hire local lawyers.
Mann is liability to the AGW cause. They should have distanced themselves from his work after Steve Macintyre made his assessment of the hockey stick and rubbished his cherry picking methods. They should have distanced themselves from Pachauri after he made his ill-judged remark about “Voodoo Science”, and after his links to TERI had been exposed. They should have distanced themselves from Phil Jones after they read his climategate emails about knobbling the peer review proces and the Harry Read Me notes.
Now they have to take the consequences for not throwing out the bad apples. No one is going to believe that the whole tub has not been contaminated by the company they choose to keep.
An unusually clear demonstration of the plea for special privileges for academics, who are no more or less worthy of said privileges than refuse collectors or postmen who are also paid from the public purse.
Doug UK says “You cannot fail but come to the conclusion that there is something he (and most likely “The Team”) REALLY do not want the rest of us to see.
It does look like this could be the end game.”
You would think and even hope that. But after all these years I’m forced to float a conclusion that doesn’t involve a conspiracy to cover up the truth: maybe he’s just a prick. Or maybe he, like most other people, sent some personal emails he’d rather not have made public but which aren’t related to work. Never attribute to malice what basic human nature and stupidity can explain. Either way, the law IS clear and we should know soon enough what he’s worried about, unless he gets the most moronic judge on the planet to hear his lawyer’s arguments.
you know, what brought down Capone wasn’t the mob hits, gun running and other juicy mafia stuff… it was tax evasion. Yep, the lowly bookkeeper who provided the evidence for the only crime anyone could pin on him.
likewise, what will bring down the global warming charade will not be failures of models, failure to warm, contradictory studies or observational evidence to the contrary, but rather the drip drip drip of documentation that slowly evidences the games played with the truth. Climategate was an eye opener, especially for those who have actually read the code, and soon we will have the UVA emails. Each one opens the door for another round of bookkeeping (email) trails to follow.
Eventually the lies will be uncovered. Like the Wiley Coyote cartoons… the fuse is lit. The end is now inevitable.
Unless “they” expend every ounce of energy, money, legal maneuvering and media leverage they have to try and put the lid back on the box. This is it. Do or die time for “them.”
So don’t be surprised by ANYthing they do to try and stop this.
Fred Berple: in the US, yes, Tim Ball would have discovery rights. Mann sued him in Canada, however, and (apparently) discovery only applies for suits over a certain judgement amount (someone said $50000.)
Mark
“Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study, and to evaluate.”
This does not extend to “lie, cheat and defraud.”
You’re arguing the professional (not personal) conduct of a government employee need to be protected from the government? Or are you arguing that the professional conduct of a government employee need to be shielded from public oversight?
Anthony,
Now you really have done it! Mann will put you on his most detested list. You gave him second billing behind Trenberth/Wagner/S&B!!!! Second billing? How dare you?
You will never be forgiven by Mikey for that.
Note: remember that cereal commercial with the phrase “Mikey likes it!” Now we may see editorial/op-ed pieces with “Mikey doesn’t like it!”.
: )
John
The New Scientific Method– showing some “data” while hiding and shredding the rest!
Science!
I figured he already had a “team” of lawyers from the beginning….
The fundamental freedom is:
academicfreedomsocialfreedomeconomicfreedompoliticalfreedom–
–
–
religiousfreedomSo, you can deduce that the most fundamental freedom is simply freedom.
There is no academic freedom. Just freedom. Academic freedom is just a red herring.
Mann’s situation at UofV was not free from his obligations to UofV policy nor free from the FOIA obligations wrt work funded by taxpayer’s money. Now, also, he can possibly also learn that he is not free to intervene in the Va court agreement between Uof V and ATI.
Mann just, like a 3 year old, thinks he is special. He needs to grow up; especially if he wants to do the correct thing finally and save the world from the pseudo-science he is being questioned about.
John
Alexander K says: September 7, 2011 at 4:04 am
An unusually clear demonstration of the plea for special privileges for academics, who are no more or less worthy of said privileges than refuse collectors or postmen who are also paid from the public purse.
Whilst I’d agree with almost everything said about Mann, I have to stand up for academics. Academic research is progressive, competitive and may take years to come to fruition. I can see that some academic research should be free from FOI for perhaps a decade or at least long enough to bring that research to a point where patents could be applied for.
Another concern is that private companies may just poach off publicly funded research – in effect they get all the benefits and none of the cost. That isn’t a good deal for the tax payer (arguable!).
So, all other things being equal I would have different rules for academics. But all things are not equal and Mann, Jones, etc. have shown that they cannot be trusted even under the present rules. Worse other academics have defended their clear breach of the law and clear attempt to pervert the course of science. So, in the present climate, academics simply do not deserve enhanced protection – they blew that right when they supported the corruption exposed in Climategate.
Mann’s actions certainly appear obstructionist, in line with his other attempts to keep the requested information away from the public. Still, that does not mean guilt. If he really believes he is the subject of a witch hunt, his actions are very understandable.
If nothing else, Mann seems to sincerely believe he has done nothing wrong and stands by his research. Remember, it’s not necessarily criminal, unethical or fraudulent to produce poorly done work.
@savethesharks says September 6, 2011 at 8:24 pm: “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.”
As a fellow Commonwealth taxpayer and citizen, I hope that Mann and his Pennsylvania lawyers are ejected on their butts from the Virginia courts.
Mann is at essence demanding that the court invalidate the Commonwealth of Virginia’s computer use policy strictly for Mann’s personal convenience, and by extension the computer use policies of every business entity in the state. Surely his lawyers must understand this.
Yes!
Climate research is just the worst! Because it is the worst, it occupies the illuminated spot at the tip of the iceberg. As you know the visible tip of an iceberg is very tiny compared to what is submerged. Research funding(s) are the transfer of very large sums of money to real human beings. Most gets doled out for political reasons, a lot gets doled out for commercial reasons.
All of it is very corrupting on human beings. This is the well from which all scientists must drink, in order to fund their projects.
There are many scientists, who can drink from the well AND resist its corrupting influence, by maintaining an absolute standard of integrity and adherence to the scientific method. Many others cannot. Unfortunately, those that CANNOT are rewarded by funding advancement BECAUSE it serves political and commercial agenda.
What is sad, is there is no real efforts, on the horizon that will change anything. The peer review is part and parcel, of this compounding process also. In the end everything comes down to the individual integrity of each and every scientist/researcher. The heads of large public projects must always be subject to scrutiny, by those that have integrity, and those that pay the bill. GK
Weasel Stew with a dash of gall.
If the UVA is going to go private, then it needs no more funding from the public. UVA may get caught in the crossfire here, a juicy target for budgeteers looking for hanging chad to lop off.
Mann, however, operated under public funds, and his work/emails are not private.
Mann, like a cockroach fleeing from the light of day.
Wade makes a great point that I think was not entirely understood. What needs to be enforced here is a simple contract Mann entered into. All other arguments are justification of means.
Perhaps that’s my libertarian bias in the way I read Wade’s comment.
I ain’t got nuffin to hide, honest guv. Would I lie to you?