By Dr. David Schnare
N.B., Dr. Schnare is the lead attorney in the UVA-Mann email case.
This week Nature Magazine published an editorial suggesting that “access to personal correspondence is a freedom too far” and that Michael Mann, whom they favorably compare to Galileo, should have his emails, written and received while he was a young professor at the University of Virginia, protected from public release on the core basis that to do otherwise would “chill” the work of scientists and academics. I note Galileo was forced to keep his work private. Had he the opportunity, he would have published it far and wide. Mann is quite the opposite. He wants to keep secrets and let no one know what he did and how he did it.
Nature, unfamiliar with the facts, law and both academic and university policy as applies in this case, conflates too many issues and misunderstands the transparency questions we raise.
The facts of the case include that these emails are more than five years old; that they contain none of the email attachments, no computer code, no data, no draft papers, no draft reports; that the university has already released over 2,000 of them, some academic and some not; that when they were written Mann knew there was no expectation of privacy; that all emails sent or received by a federal addressee are subject to the federal FOIA, and many have already been released; and that nearly 200 of the emails the University refuses to release were released by a whistleblower in England.
That latter group of emails, part of the “Climategate” release, do more than merely suggest Mann engaged in academic improprieties. They show he was a willing participant in efforts to “discriminate against or harass colleagues” and a failure to “respect and defend the free inquiry of associates, even when it leads to findings and conclusions that differ from their own.” Other emails document Mann’s communications were not “conducted professionally and with civility.”
Thus, emails already available to the public demonstrate that Michael Mann failed to comply with the University of Virginia Code of Ethics and the American Association of University Professors Statement on Professional Ethics.
A question, not mine, but asked by many who are interested in the history of this period, is not whether Mann failed to live up to the professional code expected of him. It is to what degree he failed to do so and to what lengths the university will go to hide this misbehavior. If we merely sought to expose Mann’s failure to display full academic professionalism, we would not need these emails. Those already in the public eye are more than sufficient for any such purposes.
I want those emails for a very different reason. Our law center seeks to defend good science and proper governmental behavior, and conversely to expose the converse. Without access to those kinds of emails, and, notably, research records themselves, it is not possible for anyone to adequately credit good behavior and expose bad behavior. This is one of two reasons we prosecute this case. It is the core purpose of a freedom of information act. Because the public paid for this work and owns this university, it has not merely a right to determine whether the faculty are doing their jobs properly; it has a duty to do so. This is not about peer review; it is about citizens’ acting as the sovereign and taking any appropriate step necessary to ensure those given stewardship over an arm of the Commonwealth are faithfully performing.
The second reason we bring this case is to defend science and the scientific process. Anyone who has taken a high school science laboratory course knows that the research or experimental process begins with recording what was done and what was observed. As UVA explains in its Research Policy RES-002, “The retention of accurately recorded and retrievable results is of the utmost importance in the conduct of research.” Why? “To enable an investigator to reproduce the steps taken.”
Currently public emails show Mann was unable to provide even his close colleagues data he used in some of his papers and could not remember which data sets he used. A query to UVA shows the university, who owns “the data and notebooks resulting from sponsored research,” had no copy of Mann’s logbooks and never gave him permission to take them with him when he left UVA. The university refused to inquire within Mann’s department as to whether anyone there knew whether he even kept a research logbook, so it’s impossible for me to know whether he stole the logbook or just never prepared one in the first place.
The emails ATI seeks are all that appears to be left of a history of what he did and how. Absent access to those emails, anyone seeking to duplicate his work, using the exact same data and methods, has no way to do so. That is in direct conflict with both good science and the UVA research policy.
Nor should access to these kind of emails “chill” the academic process.
As a former academic scientist, I understand the need and desire to keep close the research work while it is underway. Both I and the university have a proprietary interest in that work, while it is ongoing. Once completed, however, I have a duty to share not only the data and methods with the academic community, I also have a duty to share the mistakes, the blind alleys, the bad guesses and the work and theories abandoned.
Science advances knowledge by demonstrating that a theory is wrong. All the mistakes, blind alleys and bad guesses are valuable, not just to the scientist himself, but to his colleagues. By knowing what did not work, one does more than simply save time. One gains direction. One mistake revealed often opens a vista of other ideas and opportunities. The communications between scientists during a period of research are the grist for the next generation of work. Ask any doctoral candidate or post-doc how important being part of the process is on the direction of their future research. They will tell you that these unpublished communications are as much an important scientific contribution as the final papers themselves. Anyone who wishes to hide those thoughtful discussions hides knowledge.
If anything is “chilling” it is the thought that a neo-Galileo is hiding knowledge.
I think the average Joe is more than capable to spot emails with questionable science similar in context to some of the more egregious climategate emails.
I’m sure Dr. David Schnare is significantly more qualified than the average Joe.
Hasn’t he already been cleared after thorough investigation by Penn State University?
True and here is a transcript of that review:
PS review “Dr Mann your really, really nice and you bring in lots of money, did you do anything naughty? ”
Dr Mann ‘NO”
PS review “well, that’s good enough for us, no problem found here “
As to Mann’s personal content in his UVa emails, it can be redacted. I do not care to hear about his stockbroker communications or discussions with his family or medical communications with his health providers or dealings with his lawyers or reminisces with old acquaintances, et cetera . . .
But UVa, you shall give us all the UVa emails as is your duty to the citizens of Va and, if federal money is involved, then also to citizens of the USA.
Dr. Schnare . . . . persistence by you is appreciated. Good legal eagling to you sir!
John
List of organizations supporting Martin’s Southern Studies link include the Tides foundation and Soros’ Open Society Foundation. It’s many of the very same groups that support most of the environmental activists. Do you think they have no agenda? Think again.
Why I want Mike Mann’s Emails
Because I have successfully completed development of a computerized model of a puppy, and I am looking for material worthy of use for electronic paper training.
I want them because they are totally and completely paid for with MY tax dollars. Forget the fact that every time his mouth opens lies vomit forth. I, the tax payer of Pennsylvania, own everything Mikee is trying desperately to hide from public access.
Martin says:
November 14, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Hi Jae
You might think differently about this issue if you looked behind the curtain…
Dr. David Schnare and the American Tradition Institute…
http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/10/special-investigation-whos-behind-the-information-attacks-on-climate-scientists.html
…
Martin, science is science. You cannot dismiss something because the oil companies are behind it. Neither can I dismiss something because the Greens are behind it. I simply want the truth and if scientists produce results that their paymasters/beliefs want them to produce, then they are not scientists, they are intellectual prostitutes or lying bigots; take your pick. Mann has publicised his hockey stick graph and refuses to publicise the data behind it. Why? If his science is sound, then publicising the data shouldn’t be a problem, if the data is flawed, then maybe the whole AGW theory needs to be looked at more closely, and that is what Mann wants to avoid at all costs.
My guess is that the data is long gone, the HDD has been deleted, fomatted then destroyed, before an equally damaging charge of “Contempt of Court” could be brought.
I’m going to expand my earlier point. It was a real moment of clarity, to reflect why it’s Climate Science that has become so corrupted – and to see the key remedies needed.
Gail Combs comes from a scientific environment in which log books are de rigeur, and is gobsmacked that Leif casually says he has never kept a log book.
There’s a world of difference between scientific work that can affect the life and health of others, where engineering standards are the norm, and scientific work where engineering standards aren’t even considered because they don’t matter. Yet they have enough similarities that both are called Science.
Climate Science crossed over this [first] divide, from harmless exploration to predictions with huge financial consequences, without anyone noticing that the engineering standards that should have been instituted, were missing. This change happened with the creation of IPCC.
But IPCC also crossed a second divide, and a third divide, resulting in something that still looks enough like science to fool most of the gatekeepers of scientific integrity (science institutions, university departments, publications). But it is governed by entirely different principles.
The second divide: With IPCC, Climate Science was “promoted” to a global standards organization that, in clear break with scientific tradition, is accountable to nobody. So instead of the standards being upped, they were rendered vulnerable to lowering.
The third divide that IPCC crossed was politicization, in the form of the pre-production of a “Summary for Policymakers” with pre-determined goals to which the science had to be fitted, with the help of “data” from climate models, rather like the Ugly Sisters’ toes.
IPCC is Mann’s real employer and promoter, of course.
Martin says:
November 14, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Hi Jae
You might think differently about this issue if you looked behind the curtain…
Dr. David Schnare and the American Tradition Institute…
http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/10/special-investigation-whos-behind-the-information-attacks-on-climate-scientists.html
Yeah, but they forgot to mention the Standards of Real Science, the Constitution, the FOIA, People’s Lives, and me!
Andrew Harding says:
Really? Is that so?
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/research/old/mbh99.html
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/
Of course, this won’t stop many people from complaining…because it is really the results that they don’t like and then they come up with some “cover story” excuse. If they get access to the data, then they want the code; if they get access to the code, then they want every e-mail that he has written.
That is how you launch smear campaigns on someone who is telling you things that you don’t want to hear.
R. Shearer says:
November 14, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Hasn’t he already been cleared after thorough investigation by Penn State University?
Given that everyone surely must be aware of Football, I’m taking R.’s rejoinder as being right-on witty!
A poster is claiming that Dr. Mann’s data has been kept secret or is long gone. Actually, the Internet link to the data can be found in his published papers.
I don’t know exactly what data you are asking about, but here are many links to Mann’s data.
http://search.usa.gov/search/?affiliate=NCDC&query=mann
Joel Shore, surely you jest linking to the same university where everyone from the President to the Trustees to the coaching staff covered up multiple child rapes because football brought them lots of money.
Well, Mann brings in boatloads of money too, and we witnessed a complete whitewash that was risibly labeled an “investigation” in which Mann was “exonerated”. If raping boys as young as ten years old is A-OK by PSU’s standards, then excusing Mann’s climate fraud is a no-brainer. Mann even got to huddle with the so-called investigators, and was allowed to frame the questions!
I will accept that Mann has complied with the transparency required by the scientific method when Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick state that he has fully cooperated with their requests for his data, methodologies, metadata, code, and anything else necessary to replicate – or falsify – Mann’s results. Until then, you’re just being Mann’s water boy.
From Joel Shore on November 15, 2011 at 5:34 pm:
That may be how you launch a smear campaign. I’ve been here long enough to recognize the oft-debunked “Mann hasn’t hid anything!” non-defense on sight. Got any new material?
Joel Shore says:
November 15, 2011 at 5:34 pm
That is how you launch smear campaigns on someone who is telling you things that you don’t want to hear, [Mann and his Hockey Stick]
Say it ain’t so, Joel! Someone would really want to disparage The Religion of The Hockey Stick and its Holy “tenets”? The Prophet cries….
Apparently Mann was just involved in a little “horseplay” with the data.
Of interest:
http://www.nature.com/news/the-road-to-fraud-starts-with-a-single-step-1.9321
Smokey says:
So…Now you refuse to look at any links that go to data if it is kept at Penn State?!? Surely this is a new low even for you in making excuses to continue your deceptions in the face of contrary evidence.
Well, that is convenient, to listen only to people who will tell you exactly what you want to hear! Although that being said, I believe that even Steve has grudgingly admitted that Mann has given all the necessary information for his 2008 PNAS paper, apparently not even being able to find one molehill to make a mountain out of.
Nice cherry-pick: “…Mann has given all the necessary information for his 2008 PNAS paper…”
Now make the same claim about Mann08, MBH98 and MBH99.
Cathy Henry says:
November 15, 2011 at 5:54 pm
I don’t know exactly what data you are asking about, but here are many links to Mann’s data.
Now, yes, thank’s to Steve McIntyre. But no thanks to the ipcc and its “peer review” by billions and billions of scientists – that is, only by Steve, who even as an ipcc Reviewer was obstructed by the ipcc itself and actually even threatened to the effect that his attempts to get Mann’s data and methods constituted ~”professional misconduct”; no thanks to Nature or its peer reviewers which published Mann’s Hockey Sticks without Mann’s data and methods; no thanks to the “mainstream” Climate Scientists who did not seek to replicate Mann’s Hockey Sticks; not much thanks to Mann himself – except perhaps that he forgot to not release his “censored” file to McIntyre when McIntyre finally did get Mann’s stripbark bristlecone and foxtail data and his infamous methods.
JPeden says:
So, even assuming your version of the truth is correct, does that make it justifiable for people to continue to deny that the data is now freely available?
In actual fact, the level of data and code sharing for Mann’s 2008 PNAS paper goes well beyond the norms of what I am familiar with in the areas of physics and applied physics that I have worked in.
Joel Shore says:
November 15, 2011 at 6:20 pm
I believe that even Steve has grudgingly admitted that Mann has given all the necessary information for his 2008 PNAS paper, apparently not even being able to find one molehill to make a mountain out of.
You mean the paper where Mann used the Tiljander sediment proxies upside down so his algorithm could find a Hockey Stick blade pointing the “correct” direction, against Tiljander’s statement herself that the sediments should not be used at all for temp. reconstructions, especially because the last ~ 70-90 years of sediment was “contaminated” by civilization’s effect and could therefore not even be calibrated to temps to begin with?
Joel, your “I believe” appears to be the operative term here. But at least you made a real “leap of faith”!
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 14, 2011 at 9:56 pm
RockyRoad says:
November 14, 2011 at 8:54 pm
go back to basics and determine if Mann left or took his log book with him
In 46 years of research I have never kept a ‘log book’ nor have I known anybody who has.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thank goodness engineers are not so sloppy. I can go back and get design notes from the 1960’s for projects my company did and see what the design basis was when doing updates and upgrades of structures and facilities, I guess the fact that engineers have a duty of care to the public makes a huge difference in their thinking and record keeping as compared to researchers. I can go back in my files and tell you what I did nearly every day for 40 years. It is what I was trained to do starting in University: “What isn’t written down hasn’t been said.”
oops – Should read ” … HAVE a duty of care …”
“not much thanks to Mann himself – except perhaps that he forgot to not release his “censored” file to McIntyre when McIntyre finally did get Mann’s stripbark bristlecone and foxtail data and his infamous methods.”
Mann’s “censored” file showed that the Hockey Stick was not “robust” to leaving out the independently discredited stripbark data. And counting. Sripbarks are trees which have only a striip of bark left going vertically up the tree. The cross cut section is radically inhomogeneous because the rest of the tree has progressively died, leaving absent rings indicating “temperatures” of, er, Absolute Zero on the same tree.