For Immediate Release – September 10, 2013
On Friday, September 6th, the American Tradition Institute (ATI), a non-profit public policy organization, along with counsel from the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic (FMELC), filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the University of Arizona (U of A) to produce public records relating to what the London Telegraph’s Christopher Booker called “the worst scientific scandal of our generation”. These records are emails relating to the notorious global warming “Hockey Stick”, and the group that made it famous, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC is presently in the news for its latest in a running series of proclamations of looming climate catastrophe, and a now ritual proclamation of even greater certainty that economic activity is to blame.
“The public are increasingly aware that they have funded the effort to impose an all-pain, no-gain energy-scarcity agenda on them, from activists in federal bureaucracies and the green pressure groups they love, down to activists ensconced in state universities,’” says Chris Horner, ATI Senior Fellow, FMELC attorney and author of The Liberal War On Transparency, who managed the initial request and productions. “As such, we continue to seek copies of records the public paid for, to help bring about the oft-promised, yet rarely voluntary governmental transparency. Too often public institutions require that we engage in protracted battles under open records laws to allow the public a glimpse at the enormous apparatus they are underwriting,” he added.
ATI sought these records in December 2011.[1] After the University acknowledged resistance from the professors involved — both of whom, ATI points out to the court, were improperly allowed to decide what emails were responsive to the request, and which ones they would allow the University to produce — U of A ultimately produced several hundred responsive emails.
Included in U of A’s production was a first-ever, 213-page roadmap of several hundred emails the academics insisted could not be released about either the “Hockey Stick” or IPCC. Unfortunately the indexes were also deliberately and uncharacteristically scarce on details, though they do lay out correspondence between the Hockey Stick and IPCC authors (they also identify, e.g., emails about Professor and IPCC coordinating lead author Jonathan Overpeck’s work at the University for the environmentalist pressure group Union of Concerned Scientists, and emails to or from Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, home to ClimateGate).
ATI filed suit under Arizona’s Public Records Law after the University declined ATI’s request to provide sufficient detail in these indexes about withheld records, or produce the responsive records. The Goldwater Institute is serving as ATI’s local counsel.
ATI’s complaint explains how these emails, produced and held on taxpayer time and assets, involve two academics with:
…a history of using University (public) resources — including to send and receive the emails at issue in this case — for work-related participation in related organizations including the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), which was the subject of many of the most controversial emails produced, sent, received and/or held on publicly funded computer assets in the “Climategate” leaks.
Through these leaks, and releases under various freedom of information laws, the public learned of troubling practices by a network of publicly funded academics involving, inter alia, questionable use of statistics, organized efforts to subvert transparency laws in the United States and United Kingdom, campaigns to keep dissenting work from publication, recruiting journalists to target opponents and retaliation against scientists and editors involved in publishing dissenting work.
As part of ATI’s transparency project, it has been requesting and obtaining information held by publicly funded agencies and universities related to the important public policy issue of alleged catastrophic man-made global warming, and related policy demands.
ATI is also involved in litigation seeking related records from the University of Virginia, and has had numerous requests satisfied by, and has other requests pending at, various agencies and universities. The Supreme Court of Virginia recently heard argument from ATI explaining why that court should consider the UVA request.
American Tradition Institute (ATI) is a 501 (c) (3) public policy research and public interest litigation foundation advocating restoration of science and free-market principles on environmental issues, including air and water quality and regulation, responsible land use, natural resource management, energy development, property rights, and principles of stewardship. The organization, through its transparency initiative, obtains public information under open records and freedom of information laws, relating to environmental and energy policy and how policymakers use public resources.
-30-
[1] 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.”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.
richardscourtney says:
September 10, 2013 at 1:05 pm
Luther Wu:
I read your excuses at September 10, 2013 at 12:56 pm.
I understand the oversight because it was a long diatribe and, therefore, it was easy to forget the only thing you needed to write. However, I point out that you forgot to include the apology.
Richard
________________
Ok, you asked for it.
Excuse? WTH are you talking about?
This whole thing has been about your employment of a statement which is a logical fallacy, which remains a logical fallacy , regardless of context. I was hoping you would be smart enough to see that.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, earlier in the thread, and now see that my efforts were futile. you aren’t the sharpest pencil in the box, are you? Not only are your reading comprehension skills at considerably less than a sophomore level, you have contradicted your own words, several times.
Apologize, to you? FOAD
Luther Wu:
Your silly rant at September 10, 2013 at 1:40 pm still omits the apology. And it says much about you and nothing about anyone or anything else.
I await the apology.
Richard
You’re owed none and you’ll get no apology.
You tried to say that your use of that statement should only be taken in context… really?
That’s a CYA excuse, and you made it. My statement stands. Wrong is wrong and your statement is wrong, no matter the context. I’ll stand against your statement even though we are on the same side regarding this matter with U of A.
It’s a pity that your national traditions haven’t prepared you to see the fallacy of your statement- It won’t (shouldn’t) fly in the US, but you don’t discuss the politics of another nation… right?
Luther Wu:
I hope this experience will deter you from mistreating others on WUWT as you have attempted to mistreat me on this thread.
Having run out of excuses insults and fabrications, in your post at September 10, 2013 at 2:31 pm you try to change the subject.
Let me remind you of the apology which you now pretend you don’t owe me. I explained it to you in my post at September 10, 2013 at 8:43 am. To save you needing to find it, I copy it to here.
Luther Wu, even with your obviously limited intellect, you are surely capable of recognising that onlookers can see none of your bluster, falsehoods and insults have made me “back down”.
I await your apology.
Richard
Hey,
“I do NOT “back down” from anything. Never. Not ever.
When shown to be wrong then I admit it (as e.g. I often have on WUWT).”
________________________
Bit of a contradiction, eh?
Bluster? Insults?
Pot, kettle, black.
You have been wrong from the start and won’t admit it. You’ve done everything you can to avoid addressing my initial point, because you know you are wrong. The best you’ve been able to do is to try to walk back your statement by claiming it is “out of context” and a few other attempts at misdirection. You still haven’t addressed the central point and you won’t admit you are wrong. Go ahead and fight your corner…
You aren’t worth talking to.
Shove off.
Luther Wu,
Regarding the following blockquoted comment, see my views below it.
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
John Whitman says:
September 10, 2013 at 3:22 pm
____________________
John,
I appreciate your bringing those bits of wisdom from Star Trek to our attention.
Gene Roddenberry used his creation as a series of moral plays, thus giving a couple of generations of children a glimpse into the workings of the minds of such men as those who have brought about such codes of conduct as the US Constitution, without which, the modern world would be a very much more cruel and dangerous place.
Well, worse than it is now, anyhow.
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.
Pippen Kool says:
September 10, 2013 at 5:27 pm
” Doesn’t it make more sense to save time and go after all of them at once?”
+++++++++++++++++
It will not help the snake to cut off its head.
+++++
@ur momisugly John Whitman…
Oh my, it seems that I implied that Star Trek was created for children…
– – – – – – –
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
– – – – – – – –
Luther Wu,
Your reference to children was actually a nice touch.
I think that because my recent experience with babysitting my 13 month grandson reminded me of how much pure genius there is in such young human beings. I had forgotten the same observations in my daughter 30 years ago. If adults retain that, they are extraordinary geniuses. Roddenberry inspired a lot of that in human adults. : )
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.
Code Tech, Gail,
Maybe my reccomembering is misfiring, but
I believe that if you start using an encryption method that the Feds can’t break, you and the folks at the other end of the conversation will get a visit from the black Suburban crowd, as such an activity has been a crime for quite some time.
Great work i must say.http://highflyersarena.wordpress.com
Luther Wu:
Another day has dawned and I still await your apology.
This matters because if you have success with your attempt to bully me then it can be expected that you will bully others on WUWT.
John Whitman has not reduced the need for your apology by adding his logically challenged support of your distortions and misrepresentations.
Please note that at no time have I mentioned anything pertinent to any scriptures to which you apply religious adherence. I was talking about the subject of the thread. And I remind you of the accurate and factual post from Jtom at September 10, 2013 at 10:43 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/ati-files-suit-to-compel-the-university-of-arizona-to-produce-records-related-to-so-called-hockey-stick-global-warming-research/#comment-1413467
Apologise.
Richard
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.
Luther Wu says: @ur momisugly September 10, 2013 at 8:28 am
….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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I do not think you have made that clear to Richard. (I have the same problem in clarity at times.)
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.
Then you have the more ‘Rigid?’ interpretation of the Constitution
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. The politically expedient of course use which ever interpretation suits their needs at the time.
Unfortunately for the American public the Supreme Court has been slicing and dicing the US Constitution in accordance with the whims of the Politicial Class for years. I already gave two examples, the Commerce Clause and the Anti-Occupy Wall Street Law.
Here is another one just as nasty and just as anti-freedom.
The 6th and 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 3 Section 2 give US citizens the right to a trial. As Joan Biskupic stated:
Here is how the politicians have gotten around the US Constitution to make sure citizens are denied their right to a trial. A jury BTW has the RIGHT to judge not only the defendant but also the law. (Think Case Law and Precedences)
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’.
Luther Wu:
You have still not apologised and you have added more fabrications and insults. Your lunacy becomes more grotesque with each post you make.
Apologise.
Richard
– – – – – – –
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
richardscourtney says:
September 11, 2013 at 11:01 am
__________________
As long as you keep digging, I’ll keep handing you shovels.
Luther Wu:
re your post at September 11, 2013 at 11:29 am.
LOL
You are in the hole of your own making by taking my words out of context, pretending those words said other than they did, and falsely claiming those words relate to a document which you revere and I don’t value.
When your misdemeanours were pointed out you tried to pretend I had “backed down” and resorted to bullying.
You are in the hole of having removed any credibility you may have had for veracity, decency and common sense. And every post you make increases the depth of the hole.
I am merely shouting down into your hole at you, “Stop digging!”.
And you can climb out of the hole by apologising.
Richard
Richard,
You continue to make my points so eloquently. By all means, carry on.
Luther Wu:
Your recent – and silly – post again forgot to present your apology.
You don’t have any “points”. Your bullying has consisted of insults, irrelevance, falsehoods and misrepresentations, but no points.
Your childish refusal to man-up and apologise is amusing, but it increasingly exposes you for what you are. Your behavior is rather sad.
Richard
Luther Wu says:
September 11, 2013 at 10:47 am
Gail Combs says:
September 11, 2013 at 8:20 am
Hello Gail,
It appears that my words are still not clear to others…..
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?“
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem with your stand is that the University of Virginia was quite willing to hand Dr. Pat Michael’s e-mails to Greenpeace without a murmur as long as they paid for it but raised a real dust-up when asked to hand over Dr Mann’s e-mails to the ‘Enemy’ (The story is in one of the old WUWT articles on the Mann dust-up) SEE: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/02/yes-virginia-there-is-an-foia/#comment-693275
I think there is something about a goose and sauce….
The fact that two different sets of criteria are being used by Universities DOES indicate there is not only something to hide but that they are willing to play favorites to discredit scientists who are not ‘Team Players’