Prince William climate case judge already anticipating the appeal
By Tom Jackman Washington Post
The e-mails of climate researcher Michael E. Mann are at the heart of a Freedom of Information Act case that will almost certainly wind up in the Virginia Supreme Court. (Tom Jackman – The Washington Post) If you’re into predicting the outcome of a legal case based on the comments made by the judge, retired Arlington Circuit Court Judge Paul Sheridan’s questions to the lawyers in the climate change/Freedom of Information case Monday were pretty interesting.
When the lawyer for renowned climate scientist Michael Mann said that the FOIA request for his e-mails by Rep. Robert Marshall (R-Prince William) and the American Tradition Institute was calculated to annoy and harass Mann, Sheridan interjected: “How does that affect their legal right to FOIA production? Do we have a ‘purity of heart test’ before we apply the FOIA acts?”
Later, when Mann’s lawyer said that the process of peer review for research was “the bedrock of science,” Sheridan responded, “But is it the bedrock of open government? …Why does the general public have to trust scientists? Citizens wonder about open government. Why don’t we have access to the process? … FOIA is saying citizens have a right to see what government is doing.”
But at the end of four hours of argument, the judge did not grant ATI’s immediate request for 12,000 withheld e-mails written while Mann was a professor at U.Va., and did not rule that the school had waived its right to withhold the e-mails by providing them to Mann last fall. Instead, Sheridan acknowledged that however he rules, the case is headed to the Virginia Supreme Court to resolve several key FOIA issues the case raises:
Read more here:
Dr. David Schnare writes in with this:
Chris Horner and I will do a write up on the hearing after we get the transcript and can use actual quotes. In the mean time, you may wish to point interested readers to the Washington Post article. It gives some useful insights.
There were some block buster things that came out of the hearing, as you’ll see when we get our write up done. For example, the court forced UVA to admit on the record that the climate change debate is by no means settled. Just one example.
I just hope the emails are stored where warmist sympathizers can’t “accidently” erase them.
Misuse of the term “renowned”! What a way to prop up Dr. Smirk.
“…the court forced UVA to admit on the record that the climate change debate is by no means settled.”
What a strange world we live in when it takes a court of law to force a major university to agree with the extraordinarily obvious. Sounds like UVA was in denial!
I can’t be the only one wondering why Mann is so desperate to suppress those emails!
Sensible questions from the judge, it seems to me.
beesaman says:
April 17, 2012 at 9:00 am
Cards. House. Etc…
What is he “renowned” for? His ability to cause public concern and anger? Nothing scientific I think!
Richard: At this stage in the litigation process, I can pretty much guarantee you the emails won’t be destroyed. There are probably multiple copies being held.
beesaman says:
April 17, 2012 at 9:00 am
I can’t be the only one wondering why Mann is so desperate to suppress those emails!
Nah, there’s got to be at least one more person.
Maybe he or she will post here?
I mean, you aren’t suggesting that other than the decline, Mann might have something else to hide, are you?
judges have a way of producing opportunity and money for…..other lawyers! No ethics in law practice… unless you want to be a poor lawyer. Judges are attorneys that could not make it on their own practice. just my opinion, stricly low of the profession.
climate-gate 3 anybody ?
every time I read about this, I think of Henry Stimson: “Gentlemen don’t read each other’s mail.”
mud sticks, the longer this drags out the more suspicious Mann looks,
“beesaman says:April 17, 2012 at 9:00 am
I can’t be the only one wondering why Mann is so desperate to suppress those emails!”
You, me and half of creation would be my guess. I’m thinking something career ending like he admits it is all BS. Can’t wait to see.
And if they’re not released, there’s a certain person that goes under the nom de plume of “FOIA” that may see it as the right time to release the password for all the still-encrypted emails in the last Climategate zip file. I’m willing to be there’s some overlap…
I agree with
Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:
April 17, 2012 at 8:38 am
“Misuse of the term “renowned”! What a way to prop up Dr. Smirk.”
Perhaps notorious climate scientist Michael Mann would have been better. Isn’t he more widely known for what he corrupted, hid and covered up than any scientific achievements? If so, notorious is appropriate.
“every time I read about this, I think of Henry Stimson: ‘Gentlemen don’t read each other’s mail.'”
every time I read that, I think of Pearl Harbor. Can’t recall who the Secretary of War was at the time…
beesaman says:
April 17, 2012 at 9:00 am
I can’t be the only one wondering why Mann is so desperate to suppress those emails!
Actually, I think you really are the only one. The thought hadn’t even occured to the other multiple thousands of visitors to WUWT.
Beclowned climate scientist?
In a post yesterday about Mann ‘twitting’ against Booker, it was mentioned that Mann might be returning to UVa.
Perhaps I’m overly suspicious but could this be an attempt to claim that in effect UVa did not pass the Emails out to a third party(Mann), but to a faculty member ‘elect’ to all intents and purposes: thereby countering ATI’s valid objection?
Hmm. Advanced, untreated paranoia. Extreme persecution complex. Deep self-pity. This guy isn’t an undiagnosed alcoholic or addict, is he?
The absurd drama continues.
This man has all the hallmark of being in love with himself and thinks his research is above needing to be critically examined in the full.Yet in all this time we have never been allow to see all of his data that supposedly back up his research claims.But he is never in error and never accepts the possibility that he might not have all the facts lined up correctly.
His “Hockey Stick” paper was obviously junk from day one because it contradicted decades of research on several scientific disclipines including history.The moment I saw that chart erasing the well known LIA and MWP climatic periods I knew his paper was propagandist junk.
Yet he is considered a he he… ha ha……… a … “renowned” climate scientist…..
bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Poor Mann
[snip -over the top – Anthony]
Forgive me for reposting this from “Weather Cows” but seemed to fit here also:
All this talk of cows and weather predictions got me curious about something. So, to satisfy my curiosity, I checked out some old emails on the UVa server. Lo and behold, I discovered that the lesser known but very first “Hockey Stick” wasn’t based on tree rings at all! It seems a certain someone studied a series of preserved hoof prints. Not being a farm boy, he could only tell which direction they faced by noting the location of any associated cow pies. After discarding those that didn’t have a cow pie, he determined the direction of the remainder. Assuming any wind coming from the direction of Tennessee would be warmer (for some unknown reason), he plotted his proxies and the very first “Hockey Stick” was born! But … alas … someone saw his raw data and it was discovered that he wasn’t looking at cow prints and cow pies at all but rather bull prints and bull … scat. But he liked the “Hockey Stick”! Rather than admit what it was really based on, he looked for something else to plot that would produce the same results as the original bull-based plot. When he noticed the first rise of his stick seemed to correspond to Al Gore’s winning his first election, he turned to something wooden. This is how the second, but better known, “Hockey Stick” was born. And now you know the rest of the story!
On a more serious note, I can see someone not wanted to release their emails if they contained very personal information. But such information shouldn’t be put on a government computer. (I know, I work for the government.) These emails deal with “the fate of the planet” and, at least, the fate of national economies. Why not release voluntarily? If his work is so solid, he could then laugh at his critics.
If I can add a PS, I DO work for the government … but not as a typist or proof reader!