Here’s something out of left field (literally) and almost too good to be true, but it really is. Get this: 17 news organizations, including NPR, WaPo, AP, now have grown a spine and filed an amicus brief (see download below) to OPPOSE in court Michael Mann’s effort to keep his UVa CLIMATEGATE-related e-mails secret.
Basically, Mann’s attempt at hiding his emails of work done on public funds and time from public view has backfired, and now is a story that has “legs” in reporter parlance. From Columbia Journalism Review:
Strange bedfellows: ‘Climate change deniers, newspapers partner in a FOIA fight’
Public information laws have forged an unlikely team in Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann’s quest to keep his emails private
‘Organized by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 17 news organizations, including National Public Radio, Dow Jones, and The Washington Post, submitted an amicus brief in November, supporting the group’s rights to Mann’s emails.
A verdict is expected soon in one of Mann’s cases, a trial winding through the Virginia courts that, oddly, pits him against the interests of the press. Mann is challenging the American Traditions Institute in court—it has since changed its name to the less charged “Energy & Environment Legal Institute”—after the group attempted to obtain access to his email through a FOIA request. Mann argues that his emails constitute “proprietary information,” a special exemption granted to research institutions under Virginia state law. But after an appellate court issued a strong finding, broadly defining “proprietary information” in a way that would make almost any university document—and potentially government documents—exempt from public release, the press took notice.
“By defining an exemption to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (‘VFOIA’) as broadly as the lower court has done, this Court Would be, in effect, removing almost all public documents from the ambit of the records law,” reads the brief. By exempting Mann’s emails from public release, the group argues, the court is setting what journalists see as a dangerous precedent—making it much more difficult to gain access to public records.’
See more at: http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/michael_mann_versus_the_press.php?page=1
Here is the page that defines the interest, note the list of heavy hitters.
Basically what has happened is that journalists are afraid that if Mann wins, it will set a legal precedent that will be used to restrict the ability of the press in future issues where work products and emails discussing research are needed for journalist investigations, but will be made off limits. So, they are going to throw Mann under the bus to keep their FOIA ability intact.
IMHO, the Mann’s days are numbered as a hero of the climate movement.
Read the amicus brief for yourself: ATI-v-UVA-RCFP-amicus (PDF)
ADDED: And it’s a strange place now for some news outlets to find themselves in, particularly the Washington Post. This (absurdly detached) blast from the past below reminds us how these outlets may act out with their editorial positions, but these aren’t always harmonious with their lesser-advertised legal postures. (h/t to Chris Horner of ATI who’s been fighting this fight for a very long time.)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here we go, here we go, here we go…
“Proprietary information?”
What’s he selling?
A man with nothing to hide never tries this hard to hide it.
pottereaton says:
March 17, 2014 at 7:58 pm
BINGO! It most certainly is a product, complete with customers and a secret sauce so proprietary it may surpass legendary Coca-Cola’s recipe. Now if we could just figure out what the hell is in it.
Let’s say, just for the sake of arguement, that MM’s Emails contained, shall we say, “blue toned” (profane) comments about other researchers, or (heavens, could we imagine) the “skeptics”…Let’s say he might consider them “embarrasing”. Would ANYONE argue that is a good reason to “shield” them?
Can I give you a HINT? FOR almost 30 years now (reaching back to an Early Email I had access to through the DARPA Net)…EVERY knowledgeable person in the PRIVATE sector, PRESUMED the Email could be (eventually) seen by ANYONE. And, with “private” employers, the WRONG useage could lead to a “justification for termination”.
Now, as such, MY communications for more than 30 years have always been ABOVE BOARD, civil, and without blemish. NO EMOTION ALLOWED! Would I cut MM any slack? No, if found to contain “offensive” material, personal attacks, “vitrol” of any sort, I’d say that TERMINATION would be appropriate. AND, indeed, questioning past “payments” might even be in order.
Tsk! As my recently departed Mother would say—a harsh judgement indeed.
This is a national deal. Here in North Carolina, Gene R. Nichol of the UNC School of Law is trying to keep his email under wraps too. He’s the guy who tried to be head dude at William and Mary and in so doing tried to remove the cross from the chapel, remember? Anyway, he’s back, using this post at UNC to do lots of political work, or so it alleged, and there is a battle to get his email released BEFORE they are deleted.
A mann with his head in the sand, and a wart on science, may he be swept away by the strong tides of freedom.
Hide the decline. Hide the asinine.
The wheels that grind finely are turning again. What an interesting coalition. I would not want to be on the wrong side of that. Or Steyn.
Perhaps there is hope for mankind and sanity.
Anthony and WUWT have a lot to do with this.
If relentless pressure was not kept up, Mann might have skated…
Kudos to Anthony and all the contributors who helped bring this about.
Everyone deserves credit. With sunshine, the truth will emerge.
Max Hugoson says:
March 17, 2014 at 8:09 pm
“Let’s say, just for the sake of arguement, that MM’s Emails contained, shall we say, “blue toned” (profane) comments about other researchers, or (heavens, could we imagine) the “skeptics”…Let’s say he might consider them “embarrasing””
“Now, as such, MY communications for more than 30 years have always been ABOVE BOARD, civil, and without blemish.”
Well said Max. Only a fool would say anything in an email that they would not want on the front page.
I can see the hockey team falling apart and stabbing each other in the back when the emails come out.
I can’t take the obsessive MSM 24/7 conspiracy theories about the disappearance of the Malaysian 777 airplane anymore. So I turn on The Weather Channel to watch the pretty snow storms. They’re up to the letter X now. I wish MSM would deviate from the current distraction and talk about Michael Mann CLIMATEGATE-related e-mails secrets? Like that will happen.
The original FOIA requests by Steve McIntyre and others received the high hat from Jones and Mann and these were the first shots fired in this battle for the truth. Much of the skeptical momentum arose from the disgusting behavior of the climate community in response to legitimate scientific inquiries. MSM was happy to look the other way while their heroes dissembled and evaded. Now that their ox is being gore They Are Offended and Insulted.
Could it possibly be true that the MSM are turning on these FOIA avoiding creeps?
………… color me doubtful. 🙁 (unfortunately)
I wonder if Mann is trying to hide derogatory remarks he made about his supporters?
Things got quite bitchy sometimes in the Climategate archive – could be there is a lot more where that came from.
Didn’t those same news organizations vilify the Republican AG for going after the same records?
Keep a close eye on the players in this one. Since they do support Mann, they’re very likely to seek some kind of “consent decree” that lets him keep the e-mails secret while avoiding setting the precedent the reporters don’t want.
Jean Parisot wrote:
Indeed they did. And kept well hid
That during the election
They hadn’t shared that they’d prepared
This brief. Such misdirection!
Please note the date. When they, irate,
Attacked Ken Cuccinelli
They had to hide they’d joined his side —
Those folks of yellow belly.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
Oh the irony.
So now the presstitutes have clued in, no access for the bill paying public, also means no access for the fawning media. Oopes, after all the natter about evil citizens harassing those nice government employees over what they did on tax payers time.
If you demand privacy, get a Private Job.
Parasites all seem blind to their dilemma, the desire to do as they please, sate every whim, while being on the public payroll.
Must be some other reason all public employees have all those regulations, codes of conduct and detailed responsibilities.
Over on Michael Mann’s Facebook page he has posted this story – presumably he knew this already. It is a puzzle to me why he posted this story. Perhaps Mike feels he needs support and sympathy.
I have kept the commenters’ names private.
J (A 350.org organizer) We already knew the press had done more harm than good when it came to their non-reporting of climate change as they play the useless stenographers role of “he said, she said,” but now we know that deep down at the top dog level they are also part of the problem and not part of the solution. I guess if Pearl Harbor happened in 2014 the headline would be “Some Say Japanese Hawaiian Visit Good For US Economy – Media Files Suit To Request FDR’s Secret Memos”
Michael E. Mann Thanks J, thanks E bold added
E (A nurse) So many rights are being chipped away at this time by those with their own greedy agendas. AFP, CU, PBS partial takeover by Koch’s; multiple others including gas and oil industry; corrupt politicians. Unfortunately, they have so much more money than we have so we depend on ourselves and strong professional scientists ( looking at you Mike, and the others who are willing to step up.) We know we can depend on you and please know that we are working hard to share the load. Right now,we are fighting the DEP here in PA but you won’t see it in the news. So we will just keep getting louder. This fight you are involved with regarding privacy rights needs to be widely published. Finding owners of media who allow it is a little difficult right now.
Endorsing these odd comments will not endear him to journalists.
There is far more at stake here than climate science emails and Mann’s long-ago discredited work. Mann has been an employee of government, first in Virginia and now in Pennsylvania, for a long time. And a secretive one, as Steve McIntyre found out. He’s used his position and access to government funding to build a career largely funded by taxpayers. If he is granted privileges that excuse him from government oversight of his work, then what is to stop any employee of government anywhere to demand the same thing? We’ve already seen that government employees (ever since the Clinton Administration) are finding ways to hide their email contacts, the prime example being the head of the EPA who emailed VIPs (Very Ideological People) in her address book by use of a bogus account named after her dog.
So the upcoming decision is an important one, and if goes in favor of Mann, I would hope it gets appealed all the way to SCOTUS.
This is not new. The Reporters Committee and news organizations’ brief was filed last November and reported at the time.
REPLY: No dispute there, but it is just now being talked about in the climate blogosphere. Somehow, it didn’t get noticed then – Anthony
Eric Worrall says:
March 17, 2014 at 8:39 pm
I wonder if Mann is trying to hide derogatory remarks he made about his supporters?
———————————–
I would guess that that is the least of it. His friends will forgive him. The law, the public, and his enemies will not if he’s 1. broken the law; 2. deceived the public: and 3. attempted to damage his enemies in substantive ways.
I hope the media don’t already have a ‘judge’ to handle this. If they don’t, happiness abounds.