Phil Jones’ plan to hide from FOIA
Eric Worrall writes:
Anyone shocked by Mann’s broad claims of academic exemption from freedom of information, due to the “proprietary nature” of his work, should consider the following Climategate email.
Climategate Email 1106338806.txt says:
“I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them. … I got a brochure on the FOI Act from UEA. Does this mean that, if someone asks for a computer program we have to give it out?? Can you check this for me (and Sarah)”
Full email here: http://eric.worrall.name/Climategate/FOIA/1106338806.txt
But, there’s hope from Mark Steyn, who writes: Don’t Start Deleting Those Emails Just Yet, Mikey!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rising says:
April 17, 2014 at 10:18 am
Norwegian here. Do I understand this right? Michael Mann, the scientist who warns us that global warming is real and dangerous based on a computer model, refuses to give out the computer code they used to raise the alarm worldwide? Wouldn’t a real scientist want other scientists to verify his findings?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You must be new to the debate.
Yes, you’ve nailed it. Nor is Mann alone in this. They don’t want to share their code, their data, or even their emails discussing the issues. They just want us to Believe.
I love these unfair rulings. These situations always lead to madness. Behold!
So, according to the VASC, if UVA decided to conduct reasearch into weapons of mass destruction by building some, this would meet all the requirements for proprietary scientific research, and need not be disclosed. There is no exemption to the excemption for moral turpitude or crimes against humanity or violating statutes of any state or country. No! Not for you! How very interesting.
UVA scientists can research how to evade VA taxes, and because it’s research of a technical matter, and disclosing it would allow competition (i.e. proprietary), they can simply represent it as such (because it is) and deny everyone access to records that are off-budget. As long as you have the administration on board, nobody can touch you.
With this shield in place, the mafia can safely set up shop at UVA, so long as they keep all their transactions within the state and have blackmail material on some top administrators.
These are no longer hypothetical contrived situations, but are the rule of law in VA as of today.
One has to wonder if they’ve already been doing this sort of thing as a motivating factor behind such an irrational decision on the part of the judiciary. Did UVA participate in torture research? There’s really no way to know at this point.
Cold in Wisconsin says:
What does the research contract language say?
That might well be a fruitful way forward- FOI request to the government bodies who made grants to Mann/UVa for copies of the contract and related paperwork
From my software systems independent audit/assessor days (ISA), access to all contract documentation was via the Customer. The Customers service/product Contractor is obliged at Contract agreement time to allow access by the Customers ISA. The ISA may not be specified at the time of contact agreement. IPR requirements at all times must be respected/guarded.
On periodic assessment of a projects progress by an ISA, both on-site and Commercial-in-Confidence documentation (data/software/publications/meetings) is closely reviewed and reported to the Customer and Contractor by the ISA.
As described above is a closed and secure loop. Or as best as it can be on pain of prosecution.
FOI or ad hoc requests for information depending on Customer interests is difficult – to say the very least. In many Government projects it won’t happen for many years and perhaps a partial release might be considered. Beware the IPR conditions though and that is understandable and could be challenged. Elements of National Security may well appear, and all sorts of reasons for that.
I’d say that if information is required of a Contractor in Contract with a Government Dept then its that Dept that should be approached. Otherwise resources are wasted headbanging.
Any Government Dept receiving ad hoc info/guidance from anywhere without contract should be open to us all. Using such material is dangerous.
Saying all that though might be wasted if the Government Contract is weak as regards any project information access. I suspect its that? I believe that Its certainly the national Interest that should be respected on the CC AGW topic. All of it!
I hope thats not a sucking eggs meander ?
ConfusedPhoton says:
April 17, 2014 at 9:54 am
Someone should remind them that they are being paid by the public!
Why should they have any IPR!
They will not have any IPR.. For everything that was purchased or created with the funding from the government ownership is ‘vested’ entirely in the government. That means Phil Jones’ desk and biro if purchased with the funds are not his or UEA’s but belong to the government. Similarly everything created written drafts, reports computer programs etc etc all belong to the government. The FOIA request should be sent not to the University but to the funding government agency who own the data.
The same applies to all work done for government funding UNLESS there is a specific term in the contract detailing precisely pre-existing IPR or pre-existing ownership.
Pay no attention to the Great and Mighty Mann behind the curtain!
I would have been shocked if the courts actually put the rights and interests of the people above the power of the state.
Time to rewrite the Freedom of Information Act. Thanks, Virginia Supreme Court.
As much as I dislike Mann and like Steyn (and love Delingpole – in a totally professional way), this will never happen (access to his emails). He is a little fish in a very big, corrupt pond (and not just scientists). If the public are allowed to see Mann’s emails, then anything is possible. Therefore, we will never see his emails through FOI. Wish it weren’t so, but that is the way things are.
I imagine the Mann child has numb fingers from deleting emails already, what has he got to hide?
Mark- I just order your Steyn VS Hockey Stick T-shirt and coffee mug. When you win, I’m going to track you down and have them autographed. I’ll even chip in for a party in your honor.
If he were important to a powerful conspiracy they’d have disappeared him by now.
Michael Mann, the ‘tree’ rain gauge scientist, is fighting for his tattered scientific position. He knows full well that he was a hand picked guinea pig, right out of PHD, a useful village idiot to create the Hokey Stick. He must be very angry at his former dog handlers.
My little old grandma used to say ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide you have nothing to fear’ unless you have something to hide. Heck, if you can play tricks and ‘hide the decline’ you can hide everything else. Hiding behind something is the name of the game, just ask Dr. Paul Jones (Nature Trick TM, MM FOI). Exposure would end this Climastrological Voodoo trickery.
Would not any proprietary intellectual property be necessarily covered by copyright or patent?
Did not Jim Salinger claim his adjustment algorithms which boosted New Zealand’s 7 Station warming trend were “proprietary”?
What does it matter? The climategate emails were not enough. With the help of a complicit media and low information voters they were easily able to explain away “Mikes Nature Trick” to “Hide the decline” as a clever solution to a scientific problem. Even if emails were released and they included Mann saying that “global warming is a scam and he is just in it for the money” the leftist media would dutifully report that it was taken out of context and not important anyway because Climate “Change” is even worse than they thought!
Quick headsup, it has been pointed out to me that some people might not be aware that when I use the word “Climategate Email”, I mean one of the files in the Climategate archive.
Many of the Climategate archive files contain more than one actual email, including the one I quoted. The quote in this post comes from two different emails which are part of the same message thread, in that archive file.
There is one thing about Mann he must be resilient in his protests for a reason. It’s almost like parliamentary comments, can be exempt from legal prosecution, as if what is said in parliament can be libelous or just plain old slander especially if it is televised live.
ClimateGate -The gift that keeps on giving.
“The quote in this post comes from two different emails which are part of the same message thread, in that archive file.”
So which part is from which e-mail? Some of the context would be helpful, and an indication of which part came first.
jimmi_the_dalek, chronologically the second part came first, but it was further down in the file.
I recommend you click the link I provided if you want more contextual background. There is other interesting material in that file.
Nothing intellectual about mann’s ravings.
It would be interesting to see the emails just before and after Mann got his PHD.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5700&linkbox=true&position=1
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/john-osullivan-puts-his-house-on-the-line-more-than-any-skeptic-ought-to-be-asked-to-do/
This decision finally renders climate science officially a religion: “YOU MUST BELIEVE!”
So will the US public see 100,000 of publicly funded scientists effectively say you can’t see any of my research which you’ve paid for! and any research that “may” be commercially valuable, I get to keep the rights and any income generated??Wow! blows the need for publicly funded universities/research right out of the water??should we be demanding that our governments stop funding all the above?