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.)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!MM
The press should be backing Mark Steyn as well.
Maybe the lawyers representing the press can get another check if they convince the press that Mark Steyn ,a member of the press, is being censored by a fat ugly pompous ass accused fraud.
It won’t stop the media from going to bat for mann if there’s anything damaging to him in the emails. I won’t be surprised if mann gives them a heads up on what that might be so they can get an early start on the spinning if it looks like he’ll lose.
Also media could be just putting on a pretense so they don’t look like hypocrites in the future when they want to FOI in the future in a similar arena.
Gunga Din:
Thankypu for your comment at March 18, 2014 at 3:36 pm which says to me.
Clearly, I need to explain why something on this thread was so misleading that it poses a risk which moved me to interrupt my withdrawal from posting on WUWT.
At March 17, 2014 at 9:52 pm nicholas tesdorf asked
The WW2 analogy is good, but was applied to the wrong part of that war possibly because the true importance of the Stalingrad defence was being misunderstood.
So, at March 18, 2014 at 12:45 am, I replied saying
It is also clear that my explanation –in that same post – of the answer was inadequate. So, I now write to clarify it.
WUWT has fulfilled the role of the ‘Stalingrad defence’ in the ‘war’ to defeat the AGW-scare. And the host of WUWT (i.e. AW) has excellently fulfilled the role of Kruschev in deciding how that defence will be conducted day-to-day. The ‘defence’ provided a slow but sure defeat of the limited resources possessed by the AGW-scare-mongers while nature exhausted those resources (i.e. public acceptance of the scare).
The AGW-scare is beaten. Now even the MSM is backing-off from unlimited defence of Michael Mann.
The main need now is a Churchill to assess future risks and the means to stop them.
The AGW-scare is no longer a threat to the future of the world. (After Stalingrad H1tler could not establish an empire which would spread eastward to reach the Baltic Sea). After the Copenhagen CoP the AGW-scare is certain to not establish a global Treaty..
After the Battle of Stalingrad it was essential to conduct the Normandy Invasion. Without this Second Front the Red Army would have chased the Wermacht westward and kept going until Stalin had an empire which stretched westward to reach the Atlantic Ocean. It required a Churchill to understand how an existing ally was the next great threat which needed to be prevented.
What is the threat which is to supplant the defeated AGW-scare, and how can we prevent it?
Richard
Talking of WW2 tanks etc. One of the most expensive bits of kit the Germans had in their fleet of machines was not the Tiger tank. Sure it was the most expensive to bring in to service. What was more expensive, and IMO, more interesting was the FAMO 18ton tractor. In WW2, from memory, it cost 20k-50k German Marks more to make than a Tiger tank. And it was a facinating machine.
They needed very-very-very long to wake up these “MSM”s, I just wonder where was their brain in the past decade.
Is the MSM now concerned enough to try to save the earth from being destroyed by the irrational / unscientific views of the ‘save-the-earth-from-CAGW’ cults?
You see, the MSM always needs to go on crusades for its ethical justification for existing. Now they should have a new and righteous crusade to pursue. They should have an earth saving crusade to fight against the un-scientifically based ideological crusade to ‘save-the-earth-from-CAGW’.
MSM, it is your moment of glory to fulfill your crusading destiny. MSM get to work!
John
Actually, Anthony, I have to take issue with the title: “Wow, even MSM reporters want to see Michael Mann’s UVa emails now”.
The MSM certainly want to have access as per the amicus brief, and the motivations you ascribe make sense. Even if the emails turn out to be as juicy as Climategate I, I think that the MSM would be about as unenthusiastic as they have been in the past regarding seeing (or publishing) them. I realise it’s a trivial point in editorial terms, but the end result in terms of damaging publicity for their ’cause’ would be important.
I hope I’m wrong.
Patrick says:
March 19, 2014 at 4:27 am
The US equivalent to the FAMO tractor was the 40-Ton Tank Transporter “Dragon Wagon”.
richardscourtney says:
March 19, 2014 at 3:00 am
Sorry to read that you have withdrawn from regular commenting here.
IMO the next scare has already begun, with “sustainability” as the key buzzword. IOW, it’s a blast from the past, when we were supposed to be running out of everything in the early ’70s.
===============================================================
True. I remembered reading once, after seeing your comment, that after the T34 first appeared, Germans tankers demanded a response. Some just wanted a copy of the T34 put into production. Instead the Panther was the response.
====================================================================
I don’t know. We’re some talk about the ozone “hole” pop up again. And, of course, “sustainability”.
I think right now “they” are back in “throw it against the wall and see what sticks” mode. But they haven’t quite given up on CAGW yet. “It’s cold because it’s hot” is still being bandied about. But maybe only to buy time?
Here in the US I think we can look forward to a “goal line stand” from Obama before the next election.
(So are saying the Democrats might lose control of the Senate this time just like they lost control of the House last time…though not in veto-proof numbers.)
Gunga Din says:
March 19, 2014 at 1:09 pm
If Mods will permit continued OT comments, the tank production numbers tell the story:
Panzer IV: ~8600 (worse than T-34)
Panther: ~6000 (better once teething problems overcome)
Tiger I/II: ~1800 (prone to breakdown & turret traverse too slow in King Tiger II)
T-34: ~84,000 (tanks alone, not counting thousands of SP howitzers & assault guns built on T-34 chassis)
Sherman: 49,234 (plus many more armored vehicle variants using Sherman chassis or hull)
“I don’t know. We’re some talk about the ozone “hole” pop up again.”
That should be”
“I don’t know. We’ve heard some talk about the ozone “hole” pop up again.”
(Spell-checker is great. It make’s me sound like less of an illiterate than I really am. But it doesn’t help when I spell the wrong word correctly or skip a word.8-)
Looks like Herr Mann is about to get hoisted on his own petard.
The guy is long overdue in State Penn!
http://washingtonexaminer.com/most-transparent-white-house-ever-rewrote-the-foia-to-suppress-politically-sensitive-docs/article/2545824
The rewrite came in an April 15, 2009, memo from then-White House Counsel Greg Craig instructing the executive branch to let White House officials review any documents sought by FOIA requestors that involved “White House equities.”
That phrase is nowhere to be found in the FOIA, yet the Obama White House effectively amended the law to create a new exception to justify keeping public documents locked away from the public.
I wouldn’t be betting on this White House ever letting Mann’s Virginia emails see the light of day, regardless of which lapdog media stomps it’s foot.
We should demand transparency with all research and documents. I have a take on this no one else seems to consider–if taxpayers fund research, what are the intellectual property issues regarding that research? Don’t we have a vested (by force) interest in such research?
And when I saw that CJR header, I was furious. A once respected magazine completely debased by a twit who has absolutely no background in any science (even statistics) whatsoever. She is a freaking freelance writer, as am I.