Chris Horner writes in with this news, I had to chuckle at some of the language UofA used in the reply, seen below, as if Malcolm Hughes and Jonathan Overpeck had to sit in the scribe room on hard wooden stools for days painstakingly reviewing each email with a magnifying glass. That’s what FOIA compliance officers are for, and even my own little local University has one. – Anthony
Horner writes:
Attached please find our request and invitation to the University of Arizona to satisfy its statutory obligations, and provide sufficient information about certain records they are refusing to disclose under that state’s Open Records Act. Our request was simple, and that was for them to allow us to make reasoned judgement about the propriety of each refusal. This is in our continuing quest to assist the Hockey Team solve the Mystery of the Missing ‘Context’ that, we are assured, would establish the ClimateGate leaks as a big misunderstanding, with no there there.
Also attached is U of A’s reply received yesterday. (see links below)
I am particularly intrigued to learn WUWT readers’ thoughts on the notion that disclosing public-record emails to and from fellow IPCC participants, whether or not an assessment report process has yet kicked off and indeed even just “involving” the IPCC process, “would also be against the best interests of the State”. That being a standard in Arizona law invoked by U of A, in which it would seem the IPCC and the state are at some level interchangeable (in certain dreams, no doubt).
Alternately, I’m curious about this learned crowd’s input as to the notion that emails mentioning or otherwise somehow relating to IPCC are “Composed of unpublished research data, manuscripts, preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research and prepublication peer reviews.” As we note, the IPCC still acknowledges that it performs no scientific research and it rises to no definition of peer review that withstands a moment’s scrutiny, as certain of your peers have established.
Such lines of argument only add to the mystery surrounding our efforts to solve the Mystery. Like U of A’s assurance yesterday that, e.g., a “UCS [Union of Concerned Scientists] Summary” written by a faculty member rises to the same, described level. Which, if true, would mean that everything does, so long as you slap the word “science” on it. In this last instance we see in stark relief the sacrifices involved, how science has to lower itself to proclaim that nothing isn’t science in order to establish its lofty, privileged status, free from those nagging if agreed to “strings” that come with living off the taxpayer.
Of course, this is as much to update and inform as solicit input. It represents the state of play of the academic and scientific establishments’ efforts to slip out from under conditions they agreed to when living off the taxpayer. How broadly can they claim that they didn’t mean it or anyway, aren’t amused by the prospect of being held to it, debate over which will surely continue apace so long as the IPCC and its players continue to try and use their taxpayer-funded perches to so manifestly influence public policy and our economic well-being.
Christopher_Horner,_ATI,_Follow_up_Response (PDF)
ATI Reply to U of A Production Indexes (PDF)
What does the 2 paragraph description of the IPCC in the UofA reply have to do with the FOIA? Is this some sort of appeal to authority?
Oh, I’m sure ATI recognizes and abides to many limits to government power. What is the issue here are UofA’s belief’s that UofA is obligated to no limits of power, Federal, State or local.
The issues identified in the climategate debacle, for the colluding anti-climatec ‘science violators (in the biblical sense)’, include a number of one-ended partial email discussions. When quieting (in PR known as spinning) the ugly shenanigans it was widely claimed by all directly involved that the few emails exposed were “…out of context…” and that the innocence of those involved would be obvious if ‘we’ the public knew the entirety of the communications…
Well we, including and fortunately often led by ATI and Chris Horner, are attempting to fill in that total context.
Can you pronounce s-t-o-n-e-w-a-l-l? How about o-b-f-u-s-c-a-t-i-o-n? Every organization involved in climategate emails and queried so far has refused to answer, answered after serious entire page redacting, denied the existance, hid the existance, deleted requested emails; and fought in court to avoid releasing the requested emails.
Personally, I think the FBI (In the United States) should march in and confiscate all hardware used; both in the original communications and in the followup compliance avoidance series. The outward exposure of avoidance actions to date, combined with the climategate emails, indicate sufficient evidence exists that some level of fraud is occurring. here may not be much of a penalty series for FOIA avoidance, but there are significant penalties for covering up bad behavior (fraud) and especially if collusion is evident and third parties are injured/damaged (RICO). A RICO conviction would send an educator, researcher, board member, publisher to a prison for quite a while.
Why would a university go to so much trouble? To hide some embarrassing language? Perhaps to cover up threats or requests for illegal actions? Hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to hide these issues when only the educator/researcher involved would feel the career impact?
I guess it is possible; but darned unlikely. What the involved universities are trying to do from a broad perspective is to prevent that leak in the dike that becomes a full fledged flood drowning everyone involved. From the actions UofA describes, they believe no effort is too great when plugging the tiniest of leaks.
Yup! This needs the FBI. Once they discover why so much effort is used, then they can discover just how large the body of people involved in that effort is and proceed accordingly.
There is that other possible alternative best supplied by as quotes:
“Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.” ‘Robert A. Heinlein’
“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” – Albert Einstein
“The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.” – Albert Einstein
Those involved could be just plain dumb hacks who should’ve known better and acted for the best interests of the students and citizens.
This is an all too common attitude this is reflected in many universities. The University is really trying to obfuscate the truth. I would suggest that Mr. Horner contact the state Attorney General.
Chris, have you taken a look at where government is on truth and honesty, and being of and for the people? Do you seriously think any government agency or agent now believes that “law” has anything to do with the way it chooses to operate? You will probably get your information as soon as the American public takes back control of government through accountable balloting, which would require giving up the convenience of touch screen voting machines. In other words, as long as the American public is too lazy to do ITS job, you can expect the government to see fit not to do ITS job as well. Sorry, but you are probably going to end up coming up basically empty on this one.
Basically their argument seems to be “When we’re doing political work, you have no right to know because it may undermine our mission.”
“Yup! This needs the FBI. Once they discover why so much effort is used, then they can discover just how large the body of people involved in that effort is and proceed accordingly.”
Yeah, unfortunately the FBI is under the pervue of the Dept. of Justice. No way, no how, is Holder going to get involved in anything of this nature when the behavior serves the purposes of his master.
The reluctance by anyone to see their correspondence handed over to those whose primary objective is to discredit you is understandable. Some might suggest that they have nothing to fear if they haven’t done anything wrong, but witch hunts always manage to find witches.
It is sad to see freedom of information laws used in this manner.
The public is still under the impression, wrongly, that the IPCC is an august, esteemed research body. Rather it is a propaganda machine with the mission to promote a false crisis to be used as the excuse to pursue a reorganization of the world to a New World Order as designed by the UN’s Agenda 21, a world governed by a totalitarian/communist cadre and the peoples of the world enslaved to the state. Think of the world conditions indicated in Hunger Games. It’s what they want. The games, in the story, were created to remind the people that the state had life or death control over everybody. Nice place to live?????
Leo Geiger says….
In most cases I would agree. However, in this case a clear pattern of stonewalling has been repeatedly demonstrated. We’re not talking about one or two universities and a handful of researchers; this behavior is endemic to the ‘team’ and the institutions that employ them. It smacks of a conspiracy, a massive coordinated cover up to prevent the truth from being exposed. As a taxpayer who helped subsidize this research, and someone who values truth, I have the right and a very strong desire to know if fraudulent researchers wasted our money and perpetuated one of the biggest hoaxes the world has ever seen. Chris Horner and ATI have every right to pursue this. I applaud them and hope they pursue it to the bitter end.
Leo Geiger:
Your post at February 7, 2013 at 5:24 am says
The duty of those employed from the public purse is clear: they are required by law to disclose – except for a few stipulated reasons – any and all of their information pertinent to their work. This legal duty provides an important protection of the public: the duty acts to ensure that any improper use of public monies is exposed to the public.
It is not relevant what anybody thinks is or may be the motivation of persons asking for such pertinent information from people employed from the public purse. Failure to abide by the law is crime. And if people want to be exempt from that law then all they need do is not undertake employment from the public purse.
The law is the law and if you don’t like it then try to change it. Those who deliberately flaunt the law can – and should – expect the consequences.
It is sad to see freedom of information laws flaunted in the manner demonstrated by the U of A.
Richard
Injunct their funding and watch them quickly jump through those hoops.
“Excessively burdensome”!, more likely that it was “excessively embarrassing”!
Is it just me, or in their definitions are the U of A just saying that ‘authors’ and ‘colleagues’ are all ‘collaborators’?
As for defining ‘collaborators’, no need, we know what it means : > )
Two words: Fifth amendment.