FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Contact: Paul Chesser, paul.chesser@atinstitute.org
On September 2, lawyers for Dr. Michael Mann filed requests to allow them to intervene in American Tradition Institute’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against University of Virginia, citing Dr. Mann’s alleged personal interest in the disclosure of the records that he created or received as part of his employment there. Among the legal filings are a letter from Dr. Mann to UVA, as well as letters from four of his scientist colleagues to UVA president Teresa Sullivan, which urge the university not to provide the records sought by ATI.
Despite talking points designed to distract, ATI seeks no “personal” records or records that discuss private information such as students’ statuses, grades, etc.
Nevertheless, Dr. Mann and his fellow scientists — as part of his lawyers’ filing with the court — attempt to make the case that their research discussions should be withheld from the taxpaying public who funded them because their correspondence is “personal.” But in their letters to UVA, the scientists make statements that inarguably illustrate how the nature of their messages are of public interest.
The four scientists who wrote to Dr. Sullivan are: Rosanne D’Arrigo, senior research scientist at The Earth Institute at Columbia University; Dr. Benjamin Santer, climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Kevin Trenberth, climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and Raymond Bradley, director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts.
Following are comments made by each scientist to Dr. Sullivan which highlight the public nature of their scientific work, implicated in discussions with then-UVA Professor Mann:
D’Arrigo: “My research over the past three decades includes the use of tree-ring reconstructions for the past millenium to infer past temperature trends and the magnitude of recent anthropogenic impacts on climate.”
Santer: “Professor Mann’s only ‘transgression’ is that he has performed cutting-edge research in the public and national interest. His research has given scientists and policymakers an invaluable long-term context for the late 20th-century changes in Earth’s surface temperature.”
Trenberth: “The moral is that even innocent emails can be taken out of context and distorted. This has also happened with Dr. Mann in an even more pronounced way—not because he did anything wrong but simply because he did high profile and important research, that has implications for political actions.”
Bradley: “This is part of a larger campaign to confuse the public about the important issues of climate change, and intimidate climate scientists who have been at the cutting edge of this research.”
Finally, Dr. Mann’s own letter to UVA shows why his work and correspondence while employed there are of national public interest, writing, ”Allowing the indiscriminate release of these materials will cause damage to reputations and harm principles of academic freedom.” But Dr. Mann is not challenging “indiscriminate release” of the records, but release under seal of a Protective Order — one agreed to by University of Virginia more than three months ago, to no legal response by Mann until the records were due for production.
Considering how Dr. Mann’s colleagues clearly identify how their collaborative work fed into “cutting edge research in the public and national interest,” which “has implications for political actions,” it is vitally important that the public see and understand how the scientists collectively arrived at their conclusions — and as Dr. Mann curiously hints, why the revelation of those public records would “damage” their reputations.
“How far out on — or perhaps off — the ‘edge’ was Dr. Mann’s research?” wondered ATI executive director Paul Chesser. “That’s what we want to find out.”
For more information and perspective, read ATI executive director Paul Chesser’s column in today’s American Spectator: http://ow.ly/6u1Rh
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 ATI executive director Paul Chesser, 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
Facebook: http://facebook.atinstitute.org
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Now that’s chutzpah. Openness is bad for academic freedom. Just wow.
What are you hiding, Dr. Mann?
That word “infer” reads to me like cherry picking to achieve a preconceived result.
Those so called scientists are over the edge, off the deep end, in the gutter. I do not believe a word any of them says at any time. Let real science proceed and get rid of the clowns promoting AGW! By the way, the peaches have finally ripened but it has been a small poor quality crop thanks to the cold spring and summer. Looks like we will get some decent early and mid season apples although I don’t know if the late apples will have time to ripen.
So the ‘usual suspects’ are rallying round Mann … how very unexpected!
I’m still not a big fan of all this – I would be equally uncomfortable if the “warmistas” went after Spencer’s and Christy’s mail for little more than a fishing expedition. That said, the reaction by the Team does make it harder not to change my opinion of this.
Let me try and see it form his point of view … he’s got to have a good reason to do this which is perfectly legitimate … there’s got to be a legitimate reason for preventing scrutiny of his work.
Were any of the trees minors? Nope? I give up!
It is about as obvious as anybody can get that Mann is hiding something. There can be no other conclusion. Red flags should be going off everywhere.
Unfortunately, this is no different than having a President who hides his birth certificate and academic records. If he is a natural born citizen and his grades were as brilliant as some think he is, then what’s the problem. I have to submit more documents than he did when I get a driver’s license. AND I have had to present by academic transcripts for every job I have ever applied to.
However, both Mann and or Fearful Leader claim simply personal privacy, all the while holding posts that are effectively public and owned by the public.
Remind me again how much money has been spent avoiding the inevitable?
So, essentially, now we all can decide that we’re on the cutting edge of science research because it are we ourself who decides what’s what and all that.
Pseudo-science is in, because it’s cutting edge. Just ask any pseudo-scientist, they just need more funding to actually prove it, like always, then repeat, again and again: next year we promise results, just send more money, after all we’re doing something new and cutting edge. :p()
Jesus Christ syndrome in two dimensions. I am persecuted. I am God.
Mann was employed by the Commonwealth of Virginia through UVA, and the Commonwealth makes starkly clear in its official computer use policy that there is no such thing as “private” or “personal” correspondence on any workstation or server owned and operated by the state and used by a state employee (which Mann was at UVA). The University also makes this clear in its own local policies. I’m not sure that the press release above really hammers enough on that matter of law. Should there be a separate court-adjudicated computer use policy and law for academics at state universities?
I didn’t think much of this at first, but all the recent reactions are starting to show signs of smoke, and where there’s smoke, there’s fire. What I don’t understand is really just the delay. If there’s nothing damaging, then a quick release would stop the bleeding caused by false accusations. If there is anything seriously damaging, then a quick release now would allow time between now and the next election for people to forget about it. There’s no way they can delay it beyond the next election, is there?
Garry says: “Should there be a separate court-adjudicated computer use policy and law for academics at state universities?”
Well the ivory tower elites thik so.
Given the insults that Trenberth and Santer hurl in public, I can only imagine they might be embarrassed about what they say in their “private” correspondence with a state employee such as Mann.
Trenberth? Isn’t this the guy who’s always missing something? First it was his heat, now it’s his morals; what’s next? His marbles?
Let’s hope it’s his grant money.
“Santer: “Professor Mann’s only ‘transgression’ is that he has performed cutting-edge research in the public and national interest. His research has given scientists and policymakers an invaluable long-term context for the late 20th-century changes in Earth’s surface temperature.”
So you already have a complete copy of all the emails? How could you possibly back up that statement without them? How could anyone ever backup a statement like that given all the information even the thoughts in Mann’s head?
You are so completely full of balogona you should make a dagwood sandwitch.
The key difference is Obama’s private records are not subject to FOIA.
Unless you’re using a private email in the privacy of your own home or private office, EVERYTHING you do when employed by somebody else is theirs–your time, your publications, your communications, etc. etc.
Get used to it Mann. You’re not going to weasel out of this, you carpet-bagger.
The question will be if there are emails regarding investment opportunities related to the global warming issue. Are those private conversations about Mann’s personal wealth that do not need public scrutiny or are they potential conflicts of interest that need to be addressed by the University, the State of Virginia, and scientific community?
Is it just me, or is Bradley admitting they’re part of a larger campaign to confuse the public about the important issues of climate change, and intimidate climate scientists who have been at the cutting edge of this research. The Team seemed to have tried that with Spencer recently.
Sonicfrog–they have already done that forcing the release of I believe Pat Michels emails from UVA
Hmmmm….
Of the “thousands” of scientists I’ve been told support the AGW theory, I’m surprised only 4 wrote in to protest. I wonder what motivated those four particular scientists to write in… … …
Nuke Nemesis says:
September 14, 2011 at 10:55 am
The key difference is Obama’s private records are not subject to FOIA.
True expect much like applying for a driver’s license one is REQUIRED to prove they meet the requires not the government must disprove that your not 18…
The reality is that much like global warming obama’s birth cert doesn’t meet the smell test when using the most basic of the scientific process.
Do we know why he’s hiding the truth on it… no… could be one of thousands of reasons that are strictly personal to him to things that may not be so personal such as that he shouldn’t be president. Its impossible to know because he has done every legal trick and loophole to hide everything and the media has does everything to help… once again just like global warming.
Believing obama isn’t purposely hiding his birth cert because it has something on it that could badly damage him is like believing Mann mail’s contain all flowers and love for the ppl who don’t believe in him. Reality says otherwise and most sane ppl should pick reality.
“I would not give them *anything*. I would not respond or even acknowledge receipt of their emails. There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do so at our own peril!”
Michael E. Mann to Phil Jones
E-mail 1076359809.txt
Sounds innocent enough to me.
/sarc