By Chris Horner, ATI
Michael Mann made his way back to the Commonwealth of Virginia yesterday to watch his U.S. lawyer reprise the dark conspiracy theories previously weaved throughout his Canadian lawsuit against Tim Ball for repeating the old joke about “belong[ing] in the State Pen, not Penn State”.
The forum was a hearing in the American Tradition Institute’s Freedom of Information Act (VA) case against the University of Virginia (UVa) for certain records sent to or from Mann accounts while he was at UVa. That period is when the chatter about deleting records to circumvent FOI laws and other wagon-circling took place among the self-appointed “Hockey Team”.
That sort of paranoia sounded even worse in the spoken word that it reads in a brief. The judge gave an almost imperceptible shake of his head when my colleague David Schnare wondered aloud, when his turn came, about responding to all of the ad hominem. Enough already, this gesture seemed to say.
The Court allowed Mann to enter as an intervenor in this dispute, from the bench and without explanation. So there’s little we can offer there except that, when all is considered, this does provide the Court with the path of fewest problems (though hardly none, if Mann’s record in pleadings and argument is any basis to judge by; possibly some allies will try and delay matters yet again when we next proceed).
Given Mann’s argument was almost entirely limited to a vast right-wing conspiracy if one involving some names I’d never even heard of and in an apparently studious avoidance of the applicable law, we can only surmise the rationale for this move was grounded in equities found elsewhere than that curious display.
ATI opposed Mann’s motion to intervene simply because he offered no principled basis to intervene. We will appeal therefore with an eye toward settling the question as to what rights, or other considerations, justify a faculty member’s intervention in a FOIA case. For now we welcome Mann to this case to defend the content of his emails in a public forum. Presumably, just more conspiracy theorizing won’t suffice anymore.
We then proceeded to UVa’s effort to reopen the Protective Order, seeking to substitute themselves for us as the party reviewing and selecting exemplar emails from the cache they now admit to possessing. That it would be reopened was pro forma after Mann was deemed to have interests at stake, if what these interests are was left unstated.
The Court noted the distrust between the parties, particularly ours of UVa after all of what they have done, and so did not allow UVA to assume that role. This was despite that in advance they and Mann had agreed to jointly stipulate to this (his lawyer’s rather odd, earlier argument notwithstanding, see below).
But, as we argued, UVa’s utterly terrible record on this matter does not inspire confidence that a fair review and representative sample is to be had from them. Their ill-fit for the newly adopted pose of independent arbiter is somewhat betrayed by their legal bills fighting the AG’s Civil Investigative Demand now heading toward a million dollars. Then there is the enormous pressure from their faculty and pressure groups — which they finally copped to, after arguing previously in pleadings that this was all in our heads. Speaking of its track record.
And, finally, UVa has essentially the same interest as Mann at stake and is no more a suitable arbiter than Mann himself (per Mann, that’s “embarrassment”). To say UVa is aggressively focused on limiting the damage of what occurred in its program, with still not a finger toward self-policing lifted to date, is also something of an understatement.
So we have until a scheduled December 20 hearing to agree to a third party reviewer, cost and methodology. If we cannot agree the court will impose a process.
Toward that end, Mann’s attorney informed the Court that, well, Mann is the only person on the planet capable of understanding the content and meaning of emails he sent and received, thereby not only raising questions about his correspondents but making his future objections as to reviewers something less than entirely relevant or credible.
Cost is to be split at worst three ways, one presumes. Mann is surely going to be raising money for this. So, we won’t be shy, either. We can’t match the cool million the University of Virginia is pouring into their effort to make the embarrassment the revelations in ClimateGate emails to and from Mann’s UVa accounts has caused them go away. But every little bit helps.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
David Schnare,
Based on some comments above (Jeff Alberts says: November 2, 2011 at 9:07 pm) about concerns of maintaining the integrity of evidence, is all the UVA info in contention held or protected by the court at this time?
John
From Theo Goodwin on November 3, 2011 at 7:03 am:
So Mann sends out messages only he can understand, while receiving messages that even those who sent them can’t understand?
Heh, sounds like passing messages along in a revolutionary/terrorist cell network, as if Mann was part of some sort of conspiracy… Oh wait. Never mind.
Schumpeter
” as you know perfectly well that what you call the ‘hockey stick’ is an accurate representation of the state of the climate, well corroborated by other independent lines of research.”
No it’s not.
Reading the emails. The one from Caspar Ammann about geologists is hilarious.
Hmm, Can’t copy the text.
Toby says:
November 3, 2011 at 1:19 am
Heck no! Release the whole kit and kaboodle. Besides, neither Mann nor the UVa get to select what gets released, so I’d say Mann showing up and getting slapped in the face is no “Great victory” at all!
You’re asserting Mann’s “individual right to privacy’ applies to his work. But NOT when he’s working for a public university paid by taxpayers. Clue: He wasn’t working for a private company or university, and even if he were, if he’s getting government grants he should be completely open about it. He’s certainly open (and forceful) about his “results”.
And ATI isn’t planning on “leaking” anything–they’re not some Climategate thug delving into the secret nooks and crannies of the e-mail server. I say let’s see the entire record and determine whether Mann’s communications are supposedly so incomprehensible the content is known only to him! Sound similar to his “hokey stick” statistics? (Spelled “hokey” on purpose.)
Absolutely laughable!
TG, k, and others: “Mann has introduced in court the claim that only he can understand…”
I presume that is based on “Toward that end, Mann’s attorney informed the Court that, well, Mann is the only person on the planet capable of understanding the content and meaning of emails he sent and received”.
Those aren’t Mann’s words, those are by Chris Horner. What did Mann *actually say* that is being interpreted by CH?
UVa responded to Greenpeace exactly as they responded to ATI, in other words, send us a check to cover our costs and we will send you what we think is FOIA responsive. Eli thoroughly approved of this both then and now. ATI sued for the kit an kaboodle.
John McManus says: November 3, 2011 at 7:43 am
John, I’m having the same problem. Barry, If you were able to read the documents, which were apparently posted to SCRIBD, what browser are you using?
WOW there is some wriggling being done on FOIA hook here, I cannot understand with the legal system is so slow on this, application approved, not conformed with, someone goes to the State Penn (sarc) put the (sarc) in because I do not want to be sued.
schumpeter says:
“This is, of course, all displacement activity, as you know perfectly well that what you call the ‘hockey stick’ is an accurate representation of the state of the climate, well corroborated by other independent lines of research.”
Then explain to us why Mann’s MBH98 hokey stick can no longer be published by the IPCC.
The IPCC loved Mann’s alarming hockey stick chart. It scared plenty of people and generated huge amounts of grant money. The IPCC would gladly continue using it, if it had not been completely debunked as fraudulent for cherry-picking only proxies that supported it, and hiding proxies that falisified it in an ftp file labeled “censored“. When the censored data is included, this is the result.
Mann continued his climate alarmist misinformation campaign in Mann08, when he used a known corrupted proxy – Tiljander – to produce another fraudulent paper. The Tiljander proxy was found to be upside down sediments due to road work and other construction activity that had overturned the formerly pristine lake sediments. Mann was informed of this before he published. But he published anyway, because the Tiljander proxy gave him the hockey stick chart he wanted.
schumpeter, you really need to get up to speed on Michael Mann’s scientific misconduct. Even Nature was forced to issue a Correction to MBH98. And they’re on Mann’s side.
> Mann’s MBH98 hokey stick can no longer be published by the IPCC…
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-20.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-10.html
William M. Connolley says:
November 3, 2011 at 9:12 am
“What did Mann *actually say*
Dono… why don’t you or Mr Mann tell us?
However, if it came from Mr Mann’s attorney….that IS his [ Mr Mann’s ] “Mouth piece.”
Frankly, I have no sympathy for any of you involved with any sort of censorship issues… BUT especially Mr Mann and Mr Jones.
William M. Connolley is being devious as always. The confusing spaghetti graphs he linked to are poor substitutes for the very effective and alarming [but completely bogus] MBH98 graph that I specifically linked to above. The IPCC uses them because it can no longer publish Mann’s MBH98 chart, because that chart has been repeatedly and thoroughly falsified.
I’ll apologize to Connolley if he can produce an official, current IPCC document that contains Mann’s repeatedly falsified chart. Otherwise, Connolley is disseminating false climate alarmist propaganda – something he has always done, AFAIK.
> “What did Mann *actually say*… Dono… why don’t you or Mr Mann tell us?
Well, if people don’t know what Mann actually said (mwhite, Louis Hooffstetter, Robert of Ottawa, etc.), wouldn’t it be a good idea to find out before discussing it? CH is the one who brought it up, perhaps he knows exactly what Mann said. If he doesn’t know, how can he paraphrase it accurately?
> However, if it came from Mr Mann’s attorney…
The quotes here didn’t. They are from the opposing side. It is just possible that they may not have been exactly what Mann said.
> The IPCC uses them because it can no longer publish Mann’s MBH98 chart
I’ve just linked you to two graphs from the IPCC AR4 that use MBH99 (which is just an extension of MBH98). If you’re capable of seeing a pic using MBH99, but then denying that IPCC uses it, you’re lost. AR4, of course, is the current IPCC assessment report.
Smokey:
Mann produced lots of charts and lots of papers with hockey sticks rampant. So did lots of other authors. Papers and charts were published contemporaneously and republished since. That new papers appeared as data banks were added to and methods refined is surprising to no-one although alarming the anti-science crowd.
It is surprising however to see you acknowledge the spagetti graph. Don’t you see that you are admitting that hockey sticks emerge no matter what data is used or what method is employed.
Funney eh.
John McManus ( the earliest hockey sticks made here by the Miqmaq are not like the ones made in China today but they are definitly hockey stick).
Connolley can’t produce a current IPCC publication that uses Mann’s extremely effective chart. Instead, confusing spaghetti imitations are used that do not have nearly the visual impact of Mann’s bogus MBH98 chart, which the IPCC can no longer use because it has been debunked.
Connolley can game the system on Wikipedia and make it his personal climate propaganda blog. But he is impotent here on the internet’s “Best Science” site which, unlike Wikipedia, does not censor opposing points of view.
rumleyfips,
You’re deliberately evading the point: the IPCC can no longer publish Mann’s highly effective [but bogus] chart.
The spaghetti graphs are pale imitations. They are confusing and much less effective than Mann’s falsified MBH98 chart. You say:
“Don’t you see that you are admitting that hockey sticks emerge no matter what data is used or what method is employed.” FYI, hockey sticks emerge from random red noise using Mann’s algorithm. You can input baseball scores or addresses from the phone book, and a hockey stick pattern will emerge. Therefore, Mann’s algorithm is totally worthless, except as alarmist propaganda.
You and Connolley need some education:
The planet has been emerging naturally from the LIA along the same trend line [the green line]. The predictions of an alarming rise in temperature have been falsified. Global temperatures have not been accelerating.
And this hypothesis remains unfalsified: CO2 is harmless and beneficial. At current and projected concentrations, more CO2 is better.
The catastrophic AGW conjecture has been debunked by the ultimate authority: planet earth.
Smokie:
Ever play hockey? Players have taped their sticks, carved rocker into the blades, added curve etc. None of these things changed the legitimacy of the original stick.
Mann and many ( too many for some sensitive personalities) have taken Mann’s stick and rethought it. Different procedures, different information but always a hockey stick.
Just like the one Mann used to score the winning goal in 1998.
Maybe you should go the Gordie Howe’s house and tell him his career was a sham because he didn’t use a carbon fiber stick.
As ol Red Green says” Keep your stick on the ice”.
John McManus
Mann’s 1998 graph has not been “debunked” by scientists, although better temperature reconstructions have since been published by Mann as well as other teams. The newer reconstructions, especially Mann’s, are the ones cited in most current research. That’s how science works.
There are many studies now that are more detailed and accurate than one published in 1998, it would be strange if there weren’t. Mann’s basic conclusion, that recent warming exceeds that of the MCA, has held up pretty well.
As for the “spaghetti graphs” that confuse Smokey, that’s just one way to put a number of different data sets that are now available into one graph, so you see where they agree and differ. You could graph any one of them individually if you think that one is the “truth,” but it’s informative to show the variation.
“if he’s getting government grants he should be completely open about it”
That’s one aspect nobody seems to ask about, but I’ve been curious about. I get much of my funding through the National Institute of Health. In order to receive that funding, I have to sign an agreement stating who owns my work (they do), and what information and even materials I’m obligated to share with others if asked. If I don’t, and somebody complains to the NIH, I could lose my funding. It could also pose a potential problem for the University regarding funding to others, since the University is a party to that agreement.
So when it comes to transparency, I’m bound not just by federal and state law, but University policy and agreements I’ve signed with the NIH (as well as other funding organizations).
The agreements Mann has signed with government funded agencies should be available. I’ve often been curious as to what they say regarding the data he’s accumulated and who is to be provided access.
Smokie:
Please see BEST. The latest research shows more warming than CRU etc. I don’t know if getting warmer over ever diminishing time periods means deacceleration or not. Probably not.
I am confused by your repeated use of “can’t”. Why not? Are they prohibited by copywrite, has Mann asked for royalties? What. If you think they are not using it by choice then where is the compulsion implied in the word can’t?
Just to make something clear, do you think Time magazine prints a new cover every week just because they “can’t” print a picture of Junior Bush again. Do you think it may be because other stuff is interesting too?
Keep your stick on the ice:
John McManus
William M. Connolley says:
November 3, 2011 at 11:05 am
It is just possible that they may not have been exactly what Mann said.
Sorry, you are missing the point:
In open court “his [ Mr Mann’s ] attorney stated in open court that the only person “in the universe” qualified to select example emails was Mann himself. The court rejected that notion by simply ignoring it.”
http://www.atinstitute.org/press-release-ati-welcomes-michael-mann-to-the-case/
IMO, you make a Great spokesman for Mr Mann….censorship is not a big issue with either of you.
A rat, a stoat and a rabbit walk into a bar …
rumleyfips,
Did you not click on the links I provided? The WFT graph specifically falsifies the MBH98 hockey stick graph.
Mann preposterously tried to erase the MWP and the LIA, and today, thirteen years after his debunked hokey stick chart, Mann still refuses to disclose all of his data, methodologies, metadata and code [if and when Steve McIntyre says he’s satisfied with Mann’s transparency, that will be good enough for me].
The scientific method requires total transparency, so that other scientists can replicate or falsify Mann’s results. The fact that Mann hides his methods, data and code is enough to call into question every paper he has produced. Michael Mann is simply a scientific charlatan, and he will remain a charlatan until he provides full transparency regarding his taxpayer-funded work.