ATI Files Suit to Compel the University of Arizona to Produce Records Related to So-Called “Hockey Stick” Global Warming Research

Hopefully this will be one of the last straws on the hockey-stick’s back!

New addition for Obama’s 9/10 “address to the American people” since he won’t be getting his own brand-new war now that he wore out Bush’s hand-me-downs and needs something else to push up poll numbers:
Since global warming has now been conclusively demonstrated to be as great a threat to American prosperity and security as chemical weapons, he shall sign an Executive Order to secure and classify select records and research related to global warming, removing them from the view of the general public in the name of National Security.
ATI, be prepared for the entire release authorized by Homeland Security to be two sheets so heavily redacted you’d swear they were black paper with a few bleached-on white marks.

So why was it stomped on and by who?

Go Home said on September 9, 2013 at 11:02 pm:

So what happen to climategate 3 email dump? Was it a hoax or was it real?

Details/background: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/climategate-3-0-has-occurred-the-password-has-been-released/
Password that unlocks the big zip file went to select small group, UEA sent out legal notice advising against general release of password, against releasing emails with personal details, etc.
So somewhere in the background the stockpile is being sorted, personal details redacted, the archive is being prepped for general release.
As a somewhat-secretive volunteer effort, expect it to take awhile before you and me see it.
Although since the NSA likely also has the password, after the public FBI prosecution for wire fraud etc begins against certain (C)AGW “scientists”, they might also demand there to be no public release of such sensitive evidence. So it might take awhile longer.

My worry is that ATI has failed in every single attempt to get info from previous AGW scammers like Cuccinelli

Presumably there will be sufficient evidence gained to prosecute some warmists on behalf of the impoverished energy consumers.

Streetcred, there are many legitimate reasons people might not want all their mail made public. Article and grant reviews are for example anonymous for good reason. Try asking ATI for all of their messages and see how far you get. This “scandal” will not go away as long as there are people profiting from insinuations and others stupid enough to believe them. All ATI is doing is wasting taxpayer money on a frivolous lawsuit after they already lost one.
Wouldn’t it be easier for ATI to go directly to NSA? It seems they snoop on and archive just about everything.

From Thomas on September 10, 2013 at 1:05 am:

So basically ATI is trying to distract attention from current issues by bringing up a fifteen year old non-scandal.

Distract attention from global warming going away despite rising atmospheric CO₂ levels, and rising CH₄ levels too, so we don’t notice that statistically it hasn’t existed for 15-20 years?
Distract attention from confirmation of what has long been suspected, the extent of Arctic sea ice remaining at the end of the melt season has more to do with chance and the phases of natural cycles like the AMO then it does with global warming? And that which was attributed to global warming can be handily accounted for by black carbon (soot) pollution?
Distract attention from abundant natural gas rendering energy from wind and solar even more worthless for practicality and economical reasons than before?
You sure of that?

Well, I suppose they have to to what their backers tell them to do, however pointless.

You neglected to specify the Big Oil funding from Exxon/Mobil/Shell/BP etc. Oh wait, they support Greenpeace, WWF, and they have Green Energy divisions that benefit from CAGW hype. My mistake.

“Try asking ATI for all of their messages and see how far you get.”
Given they are a privately funded organisation that is entirely appropriate. Taxpayers however have a right to see what their tax payments are being spent on.

I’m not sure why they’re requesting this. The science is settled. 😀 (kidding)
I doubt they’ll get anything, but I’m glad they’re trying. Things like this sure do shine the light on how “open and transparent” the scientific process is when it comes to AGW.

Thomas says:
September 10, 2013 at 2:00 am
Streetcred, there are many legitimate reasons people might not want all their mail made public. Article and grant reviews are for example anonymous for good reason….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
And that is a steaming pile of B.S. Your Work e-mail is NOT PRIVATE. I, a computer challenge little old lady figured that out all by my little lonesome the first time I got access to a corporate provide computer.
Now that the US government is trying to tell every one that there is “No expectation of privacy” with e-mails so they can snoop without a warrant it makes even LESS SENSE to block perfectly legal FOIA requests. So get over it.

There Is No Such Thing As NSA-Proof Email
Since last June, when Edward Snowden tore the veil off the National Security Agency’s vast data dragnet, Americans have been flocking to ultrasecure email services in the hopes of keeping the government out of their private business. Use of the most popular email encryption software, PGP, tripled between June and July, while revenue for the data-encryption company Silent Circle has shot up 400 percent.
But even these services may not be able to protect your email from government prying. That fact came into stark relief last Thursday, when Lavabit, the secure email service used by Snowden, abruptly shut down. Lavabit’s 32-year-old founder, Ladar Levison, issued a statement saying he pulled the plug because he didn’t want to be “complicit in crimes against the American people.” He has since given up using email entirely, and he urges others to consider doing the same. “I would strongly recommend against entrusting your privacy to a company with physical ties to the United States,” he told Mother Jones. “I honestly don’t think it’s possible to provide a secure service in this country.”
Levison, who is reportedly under federal gag order, declined to elaborate (though he opined, based on his experience, that we’re a “whisper’s breath away” from becoming a society where all electronic communications are recorded and scrutinized by the government). But according to other industry insiders and cybersecurity experts, there’s good reason to be wary of transmitting sensitive information via email—even if your provider claims to have iron-clad safeguards.
Tech giants, such as the Microsoft subsidiary Hotmail, regularly hand over data to the government. In fact, in the last eight months of 2012 (the most recent period for which data is available), Hotmail, Google, Facebook, and Twitter provided law enforcement authorities with information on more than 64,000 users. And that doesn’t include responses to secret national security letters ordered by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, or FISA……

Of course US citizens are unhappy about this news and are now suing Google. The response from Google: Gmail users ‘have no legitimate expectation of privacy’
Private citizens with private correspondence via e-mail might have some ‘legitimate expectation of privacy’ but people using company computer equipment with an in-house IT department certainly DO NOT and companies often make that clear in writing.
This warning was provided in the article as given by the U of A

U of A acknowledges that “The University of Arizona is governed by Arizona public records law. The purpose of the law is to allow the general public, whose tax dollars support the University, to scrutinize the way we do business. Upon request, inspection of or copies of most records must be provided except for two categories which are not open to the public.” (these two categories are student records and personnel records, which are not involved in ATI’s request). http://hoy.r.mailjet.com/redirect/x616hjzo3j67tj1q02wg30/www.hr.arizona.edu/03_hire/AZPSOrientation/main.php?sel=hi, p. 5

There IS no expectation of privacy and ALL the records except the two categories noted, student records and personnel records, should be turned over without a fuss. The fact they are not turning over these records in “The Most Transparent Presidency Evah” certainly makes it look like there is a lot to hide doesn’t it?
More importantly it makes it clear that the USA is no longer a country under the rule of law and that is even more frightening since preferential application of the law is the first signs of Tyranny.

Gail, re:

Lavabit’s 32-year-old founder, Ladar Levison, issued a statement saying he pulled the plug because he didn’t want to be “complicit in crimes against the American people.” He has since given up using email entirely, and he urges others to consider doing the same. “I would strongly recommend against entrusting your privacy to a company with physical ties to the United States,” he told Mother Jones. “I honestly don’t think it’s possible to provide a secure service in this country.”

Ladar is hardly a shining example of anything… and being quoted from Mother Jones took most of his credibility away.
However, his claim about it not being possible to provide a secure service is laughable. What is lacking is the will. We already have some really powerful encryption technology, the only thing missing is a useful infrastructure to replace the current (horrific) email system, a relic from the 70s (or maybe 60s). There was a time I was amazed and amused by having an email discussion with someone in, say, Australia. Now I can’t even set up a functional email notification system for clients (I can set it up, of course, but the delivery rate on legitimate email is very very low)
I seriously wonder how the NSA manages to filter anything useful out of the trillions of spam emails flying around out there. Some are completely pointless gibberish, spammed to billions of addresses simply to clog the system.

Richard,
My statement stands. I don’t blame you for wanting to back away from your statement- we will forgive you for having said it, as you were probagbly caught up in the moment and didn’t realize it’s import. However, protestation crumbles the edge of the precipice…
For me, there is no context for which that statement becomes anything other than a tool to be used to by those who would have power over others, regardless of cause, or need of use.
“And I fail to see why you made your post when it agrees with the point made by Gail and iterated by me when your post says…”I know you don’t get it, but I have faith in you and believe that you will, in time.
“Sure thing, Honey- I’ll have that piece of pie”. (I’ll just break off that bit of crust with the fly speck.)

Luther Wu says:
September 10, 2013 at 7:38 am
…. Oh, they manage. The real problem is, everyone on the planet has their personal stash of secrets with which those of a tyrannical bent could easily gain manipulative power over the individual. Again, the Fourth Amendment exists for very good reasons.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You don’t put personal information/secrets on a PUBLICLY OWNED computer.
Everyone keeps confusing a WORK PLACE computer that is NOT covered by ‘Privacy’ and your home computer.
Lets leave that for a second and look at what the Supreme Court says about privacy.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
466 U.S. 170
Oliver v. United States
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 82-15 Argued: November 9, 1983 — Decided: April 17, 1984 [*]
….(b) Since Katz v. United States, supra, the touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis has been whether a person has a “constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy.” Id. at 360. The Amendment does not protect the merely subjective expectation of privacy, but only those “expectation[s] that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.'” Id. at 361. Because open fields are accessible to the public and the police in ways that a home, office, or commercial structure would not be, and because fences or “No Trespassing” signs do not effectively bar the public from viewing open fields, the asserted expectation of privacy in open fields is not one that society recognizes as reasonable. Moreover, the common law, by implying that only the land immediately surrounding and associated with the home warrants the Fourth Amendment protections that attach to the home, conversely implies that no expectation of privacy legitimately attaches to open fields. Pp. 177-181.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0466_0170_ZS.html

The key is “expectation[s] that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.'” That is why this information from University of Arizona is so important.

U of A acknowledges that “The University of Arizona is governed by Arizona public records law. The purpose of the law is to allow the general public, whose tax dollars support the University, to scrutinize the way we do business. Upon request, inspection of or copies of most records must be provided except for two categories which are not open to the public.”</i? http://hoy.r.mailjet.com/redirect/x616hjzo3j67tj1q02wg30/www.hr.arizona.edu/03_hire/AZPSOrientation/main.php?sel=hi, p. 5 (these two categories are student records and personnel records, which are not involved in ATI’s request).
On the same webpage, U of A informs new employees, under “Arizona Public Service Orientation”, “Within your first 30 days of employment, read the information in this orientation. At the conclusion, print the checklist, verifying that you have completed the section, and deliver it to your department representative for placement in your departmental file.” http://hoy.r.mailjet.com/redirect/8sqxhk5kpwbmc9lqwoftlo/www.hr.arizona.edu/03_hire/AZPSOrientation/main.php?sel=hi, p. 4.

The University of Arizona served notice to its employees that they were subject to FOIA and therefore had no “constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy.”
You can wiggle and squirm all you want but those are the legal facts and the U of A does not have a legitimate leg to stand on. Whether the courts will actually uphold the letter of the law is a different matter entirely.

For Gail and Richard…
It should be becoming obvious to you that I am not defending the U of A. The only statement I have made in re this matter makes that clear: “U of A should immediately comply with local and state law regarding this matter.”
I am addressing a deeper philosophical root, which actually gets to the bottom of our multi- year discussion of all things AGW, as well as this specific instance of power of Gov’t vs power of the people.

The U of A is doing this because they can, and like many public orgs today will continue this behavior for as long as they can. I’m not sure when somebody will put a solution into effect to stop all of this madness. Public means public!

Luther Wu says: @ September 10, 2013 at 8:20 am
….Don’t be afraid. The knowledge that if they want you, they can and will have you should harden your resolve, rather than force you to bended knee
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am out here posting stuff I am sure the government does not like. I am also informing the public in person and as a result got a nasty visit from the government goon squad. It has not stopped me yet.
By the way I seriously hate the ‘open field’ and ‘Commerce Clause’ decisions by the Supreme Court but at this point we are stuck with them and it is foolish not to know as much of the law as possible.
If you really want to get steamed up how about this New Law.

Richard,
You have publicly stated that I misrepresented what you said. How could that be? I quoted a direct statement by you- a whole complete sentence.
You’ve repeatedly stated that the quoted statement was taken out of context.
There is no appropriate context for your statement.
I have no idea what country you are from. Are your people steeped in the ideas of liberty and individual freedom? Your statement leads down a long dark road. We understand that in the US, or at least, we once did.
It has become apparent to many of us here in these United States that the concepts of liberty and individual freedom have been subverted by those who concern themselves with power over others and who would keep us under their yoke.
I will uproot the thinnest seedling of tyranny wherever I find it. Your words, out of context or not, will not be allowed to flourish within my sight.

Jtom says:
September 10, 2013 at 10:43 am
Wu: most people are sufficiently intelligent as to make a distiction between refusing to submit to a random search with no legal basis, in which case such refusal signifies nothing, and refusing to submit to an authorized legal search. One would presumably only do that if they had something to hide. Context is everything.
_________________________
Like you and most here, I understand Richard’s major point and agree with most of his efforts. However, I tried to point out that his (question) statement can be used as basis for all sorts of mischief and that the statement represents a nefarious logical fallacy which must be pointed out, regardless of context. You can think it’s ok to make that statement in certain context- we will continue to disagree.
I think that gov’t entities have become habituated to the unrestrained use of power and that they often refuse such requests (as this to U of A,) simply as an exercise in power, regardless of whether they are trying to hide anything, or not.
Gov’t entities within the US are now actively, routinely and blatantly refusing compliance with laws meant to protect the citizenry from abuses of power. This is nothing new, save for the extreme and widespread practice of abuse and reflects the very human nature that our founding fathers tried to warn us against. Those withi9n government charged with the curtailment of such abuses have abrogated their responsibilities. Those members of the press who are charged with being a last- ditch brake against government tyranny have become complicit in that tyranny. Gov’t- employed public servants who actively refuse to comply with laws specifically designed to curtail gov’t power, should at minimum, lose their jobs. The fact that there is no visible or successful effort to curtail such abuses from any institution, could mean that we are approaching the time when nothing will serve as cure, but heads in a basket.

Luther Wu,
Regarding the following blockquoted comment, see my views below it.

richardscourtney on September 10, 2013 at 5:24 am @Thomas said,
[. . .]
She [Gail] followed that [apparent U of A] quotation by asking you

There IS no expectation of privacy and ALL the records except the two categories noted, student records and personnel records, should be turned over without a fuss. The fact they are not turning over these records in “The Most Transparent Presidency Evah” certainly makes it look like there is a lot to hide doesn’t it?

Your reply avoids the [Gail’s] question.
So, let me be explicit.
Why do you think the uni. is attempting to conceal information from the US public when their own rules and US Law both say they should reveal it?
And
Why do you think anybody attempts to hide information if they have nothing to fear from revealing that information?
Richard

Luther, your uncompromising position wrt that comment has some reasonable basis. One I have some agreement with in this case.
One of the best articulations of what I think that reasonable basis is comes from a science fiction TV series; Star Trek the Next Generation.
Here is a pertinent clip:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ9SUbEPrhk&feature=related
Here is a different and appropriate passage:
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.” — Captain Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie (The Drumhead)
Thank you for highlighting an important aspect of fundamental rights for freedom.
John

I am a little disappointed with the stratagy of only going after the authors of the Mann paper. Because there are over 20 papers that have some aspect of the hockey stick in them (even studies funded by Kock $$ ie theBEST study). Doesn’t it make more sense to save time and go after all of them at once?
Going at this rate there will still be surviving hockey stick papers into the 22 or 23 Century. And we really need to get rid of all of them what with no papers without a hockey stick.
You would think we could get some scientist to fudge the data bit so that it conformed to reality.

Luther Wu on September 10, 2013 at 5:02 pm

– – – – – – –
Luther Wu,
I appreciate your return comment.
My comment to you was a long winded Whitman way of saying you are not entirely a lone wolf. There are at least two lone wolves. : )
John

John Whitman says:
September 10, 2013 at 6:02 pm
” My comment to you was a long winded Whitman way of saying you are not entirely a lone wolf. There are at least two lone wolves.”
___________________________
John,
One could get the idea that WUWT is a virtual den and a very large one, at that.

Great work i must say.http://highflyersarena.wordpress.com

John Whitman says:
September 10, 2013 at 3:22 pm
______________________
Hello John,
History holds many examples of tyrants of every stripe. To succeed, tyrants must mask their intent to control others. However, those tyrants often betray themselves… they can’t help it. We come here to WUWT, in part, to shine a light on tyrants operating under the guise of science, both in and out of public service. We see that such persons are responsible for the climate madness we eschew, and much of the evil we see entrenched in the world. To our good fortune, we have been given a glimpse into the nature of a little petty tyrant, here on WUWT.
When it was pointed out in this thread that a certain phrase could (and often has) been used to justify malevolent action, our little tyrant denied his intent, claiming his words were out of context (which was/is an attempt to distance himself from the words.) At that point, he was still in shadow and his true nature wasn’t yet clear. I pointed out that his words were improper under any context and did not blame him for moving away from the true malice hidden within those words- I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Since that time, our little petty tyrant has doubled down. He not only tries to hide and deflect attention away from the words, but also demands apology for highlighting his actions, claiming that he never backs down (implying that he can’t afford to be seen as weak…) He has claimed his own ground as one who always, always dominates and triumphs over others, and has set about showing us that he means it.
By his own words, our little petty tyrant has displayed his true nature, providing us a glimpse into the mind of one who concerns himself with dominance and control of others. Such is the world.

Gail Combs says:
September 11, 2013 at 8:20 am
Hello Gail,
It appears that my words are still not clear to others.
———————————————————-
“First we have the matter of US Law as it stands and is implemented. That is the Freedom of Information Act and the Supreme Court’s Ruling on what ‘Privacy’ and “expectation of privacy is”
Within those standards U of A is DEAD WRONG. This is the stand I and Richard are making.”
________________
Thanks for such clear commentary. I have no argument with your position and have stated that I am of the same view.
—————————————
“If you use a literal translation then “probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation” and a court order is needed and the U of A has every right to protect ‘privacy’ without a court order. This is the stand you are making and from the long range view you are correct. ”
______________________
While your presentation makes a good deal of sense, that is neither the stand I am taking nor the point I am making. My whole effort has not been to highlight any sort of cover under law to the U of A. I’ve simply taken exception to the (question) statement; “Why do you think anybody attempts to hide information if they have nothing to fear from revealing that information?“.
I’ve pointed out that the statement is not only a logical fallacy, but that the sentiment encapsulated the4rin has been used for all kinds of abuse by government entities.
As recent example, look what happened in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing. Boston area police were yanking people from their homes at gunpoint and searching those homes without warrant. They knew better, but proceeded and to date, no one has held them to account. Boston area spokesmen publicly used the sentiment expressed in ‘the statement’ to justify their illegal and unconstitutional actions. Such egregious examples of government abuse are becoming the norm nationwide and as such, I stand against such sentiment wherever it is found.
My simple attempt to highlight the fallacy and danger to personal liberty inherent in ‘the statement,’ regardless of my stand with you in re the U of A, has led to this at times, ugly discourse, far removed from either the point of the initial thread, or my point regarding ‘the statement’.

richardscourtney on September 11, 2013 at 3:55 am
Luther Wu on September 11, 2013 at 8:16 am

– – – – – – –
richardscourtney & Luther Wu,
Guys, I do like to engage, thanks for your comments. Your comments are on important topics and you are serious commenters. It takes time to answer. Wait for a couple of days . . . because . . . I started reading Donna Laframboise’s ‘Dustbin’. As my wife can attest to, I am compulsively focused on a book once I start.
But, when I do answer the thrust will be no gov’t shall initiate physical force against its citizen or any other person.
NOTE: so far I am a ‘Dustbin’ junkie.
; )
John

Gail Combs says:
September 11, 2013 at 4:44 pm
________________
We do not disagree. I read your words and ask myself- am I missing something? I have not made a single argument against the fact that the U of A is acting as if they have something to hide, yet people seem willing to take me to task for what they think is a defense of the U of A… I’m repeating myself.
Are you not interested in addressing the points which I actually made?

Luther Wu says:….
OK, back to the start the actual comment from Richard was:

So, let me be explicit.
Why do you think the uni. is attempting to conceal information from the US public when their own rules and US Law both say they should reveal it?
And
Why do you think anybody attempts to hide information if they have nothing to fear from revealing that information?

That is an AND statement. You have someone who BY LAW is required to turn over information AND then goes to a great deal of effort to hide it.
……
Your reply is

Richard,
That statement stands on wet ice and is leaning over the edge of a deep, dark hole.
As example, suppose a city in the U.S. were to require local police to begin inspecting, while armed and without cause or warrant, the homes, businesses and properties of its citizenry…
“If you have nothing to hide, you won’t mind if we come in and look around, would you Mr. Courtney”?
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution exists for a reason.

You are only considering 1/2 of the actual thought/statement.
A suspect who BY LAW has his house searched and is found shoving papers into a furnace/shredder can not be compared to an ordinary citizen who finds his house broken into by the police his dog shot all WITHOUT a lawful warrant. (actually in one case it was the Mayor )
Given recent news I can understand why warrants and searches are a ‘HOT BUTTON’ at least for Americans (Richard BTW is not American)
The Goose/ sauce is a short hand for the old saying: What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander (I prefer raspberry sauce for my Christmas goose) :>)

Gail says…”You are only considering 1/2 of the actual thought/statement.”
________________
I know that and said that and acknowledged Richard’s saying that it was out of context and that he didn’t mean the implications of what the statement can lead to.
I’ve heard too many people use that statement as excuse and wanted to make my point, which I did, at the start of this kerfluffle and repeatedly throughout the thread.

Lu,
Hopefully we now have everything straightened out.