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
We need the Inverted Santer/Trenberth Index.
The degree to which they oppose something is almost always the degree to which that thing is in the public interest.
I had to provide a birth certificate as well to get my driver’s license and my passport. But my birth certificate is still not a public document.
As to why Obama would not show his birth certificate:
1) He doesn’t have one
2) He has one, but doesn’t want something on it to be made public
3) He has one and he’s smarter than Machiavelli, By withholding it he hopes to paint anyone who questions him or his policies as a racist.
It really bothers me that we know more about the former governor of Alaska or the contestants on American Idol than we know about our president. How did he travel to Pakistan when Americans weren’t allowed to travel there? How did he get into Harvard? Did he use student aid intended for foreign students when he attended Occidental University? Why has Obama kept his academic records hidden? What did he produce as president of Harvard Law Review?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=342465
‘Pay no attention to the little mini mann cringing behind the Protective Order curtain….. We Are The Great And Powerful Mann Made Global Warming Climate Scientists!’
Bloody Hell – Get on with it! Send in the FBI information technology forensics specialists and rip this fetid, infected, and festering appearance of fraud wide open!
Mike and Ben,
We’ll get your papers published even if we have to change the peer review process. Delete this email as recommended by Phil. Ray will do the same. FOIA? What, me worry?
Kevin
I get the feeling Mann isn’t paying his own legal bills.
Sonicfrog and Bob B:
Not just Michaels but Greenpeace demanded and received the records of Professor David Legates at the University of Delaware, Dr. Willie Soon and Dr. Sallie Baliunas at Harvard. As a result Greenpeace discovered that Soon had received funding from Koch and a number of oil companies including Exxon much like the Climategate e-mail showed that Jones and the CRU were getting money from Shell. …much like the Suzuki foundation gets money from ATCO Gas, EnCana and OPG (Oh yeah, those were supposedly from employee giving programs. Who set those programs up?)
Michael Mann does a research that massively contradicts the existing research and Mainstream Media and Academia takes it as gold. Lots of people show how terrible Mann’s work is but Mainstream Media and Academia just simply ignore those “INCONVENIENT TRUTHS”.
Mann’s “science” is used to “justify” more outrageous power, control, punishment power and $trillions for the political classes. How surprising!
In the USA the government may take naked photos of you when boarding a plane. But you cannot see a some small amount of data that the political classes uses to “justify” immoral power, control, punishment power and $trillions for the arrogant political classes. It is shocking to see that on 21th century the world is still so. Go Internet! Go on debunking the Mainstream Media and Academia pseudoscience that the political classes uses to “justify” even more oppression! The well deserved discredit of Mainstream Academia is every day nearer
What a timely coincidence:
While Gore’s propaganda engine goes high gear, a nobel price scientist leaves APS, protesting against their dogmatic AGW position and a group of high-level AGW proponents tries to hide, not the decline, but their scientific communication.
I am lovin’ it.
Mann’s argument that “Allowing the indiscriminate release of these materials will cause damage to reputations…” has really got me wondering what the heck is in those emails. What kind of damage is he talking about? Which reputation – personal or professional would be damaged? It appears that by fighting the release of these emails , Mann is only throwing gasoline onto an already roaring fire.
Do these applications have a time-line to acceptance or rejection?
Dr Mann forgot to complete the sentence; …and harm principles of academic freedom to lie, cheat, dissemble and deceive.
Jay Davis at 9/14 @ur momisugly 6.23 pm. I absolutely agree, he has Tim Ball in court too for defamation.
While the 24 hr climate reality show is on,
http;//blip.tv/tba-productions/the-changing-climate-of-global-warming – 5367199
You can download it for free for today.
Much more interesting than why Tonga is eroding and blaming it on climate change.
I sure hope Ben Santer isn’t a character reference for Mann anytime soon. If I were the judge in this case, my verdict would be simple for Prof. Mann, to paraphrase the immortal President Calvin Coolidge: you lose.
Re: Mann being an employee of the great State of Virginia, I’ve always had the impression that UVA is a private school (it sure charges like a private school). Mind you, it wouldn’t change my position either way. As far as I’m concerned, any research done on the public dime is public property, per-i-od, including any correspondence even remotely related to said research, and no matter if your institution is public or private. But it would complicate ATI’s efforts – correspondence would have to be sorted, redacted, etc.
“Allowing the indiscriminate release of these materials will cause damage to reputations . . . ”
Say what you will about politicised science, but this guy, at least, is a complete naif. That has to be one of the best unguarded remarks of the last decade. Not as good as Phil’s “Why should I give you my data . . .”, or Schneider’s scary stories, but def. ridicule-worthy.
The proposed intervention is so very puzzling. Mann and other academics have worked under the umbrella of FOI for YEARS.
Surely they ought to have known that?
The intervention and the pathetic statements in support simply show a world of academic disconnect with the real world and a complete lack of understanding or appreciation of their obligations as tax payer funded employees. They are really just saying – SHIT – we didn’t appreciate that FOI applied. When we found out about it we all thought we could just poo poo the whole thing and that it would go away.
Unfortunately they now realise that the obgligation cannot be avoided and that subject to arguments about exceptions to discosure, the presumption is in favour of access and that this always applied to everything they have done. They now see that their arrogant attempts to dismiss it are unravelling and Mann’s intervention screams that there is stuff in there that he wouldn’t ever have written if he thought it would be released to the public. His reputation might well be damaged by disclosure, but that’s just tough.
The wheels turn slowly, but they do turn.
Mann’s severe “attitude” problem is probably related to the unholy speed with which his mediocre-to-poor PhD research was approved — once he had tapped into a motherlode of grant money for the department. And his swift ascension thereafter to heading said department. The internal and external sneering which he has lived with ever since would make anyone bitter …