Uh, oh, Mann's MBH98 'hockeystick' emails ruled fair game by judge

From the “all your emails belong to us” department comes this ruling that I’m sure Mikey Mann and company will go ballistic over.

From the Arizona Daily Sun:

PHOENIX — An organization that is questioning the research behind climate change will get another chance to demand to see the emails of two University of Arizona scientists.

The state Court of Appeals has overturned the ruling of a trial judge who said the university need not disclose 1,700 emails and other records from Jonathan Overpeck and Malcolm Hughes. Pima County Superior Court Judge James Marner had said the university did not abuse its discretion in concluding that disclosing the documents would not be in the best interests of the state.

But appellate Judge Joseph Howard, writing for the unanimous court, said it’s legally irrelevant what university officials thought was appropriate to disclose.

Howard said everyone involved in the case acknowledges the emails are public records. And he said state law has a presumption that all public records are subject to disclosure, with certain exceptions.

What that means, Howard wrote, is that trial judges must actually examine the records to determine whether making them public really would harm “the best interests of the state’’ as the university is claiming.

More here

As WUWT readers may know, Mann wrote the original Hockeystick paper in 1998 with Jonathan Overpeck and Malcolm Hughes, hence the MBH98 moniker. AEI and others have tried to get Mann’s emails from Penn State, but were blocked by political interventions claiming science would be harmed, among other things. Damn right it would, but not how they think.

Jonathan Overpeck demonstrates his heavy political bias on his own Twitter feed daily, and does Mann. If the emails are even remotely like the Twitter feeds of these two, it’s going to look very bad for their science indeed. Now comes the next wave of legal arguments.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
104 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 5, 2016 6:06 pm

And I thought it would be the Mark Steyn case that sank Michael Mann et al.

Marcus
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 5, 2016 6:11 pm

..I would love to see the grin on Mark Steyns face right now !

TG
Reply to  Marcus
March 6, 2016 12:39 pm

It goes without saying this could be a fatal blow to blowhard Mann and company – POPCORN AND ICE COLD BREWS ON ME, if this comes to fruition, I’m still keeping my candle wick dry for Mark Steyn!

Editor
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 5, 2016 6:11 pm

One will move at a snail’s pace, the other will move at tortoise’s pace. It’s unclear who will finish first!

David A
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 6, 2016 5:13 am

But what a contradiction in the Daily Sun.
=====================
“But appellate Judge Joseph Howard, writing for the unanimous court, said it’s legally irrelevant what university officials thought was appropriate to disclose.
Howard said everyone involved in the case acknowledges the emails are public records. And he said state law has a presumption that all public records are subject to disclosure, with certain exceptions.
What that means, Howard wrote, is that trial judges must actually examine the records to determine whether making them public really would harm “the best interests of the state’’ as the university is claiming
============================================
If it is irrelevant and public record then what the University considers “the best interests of the state’’ is, well irrelevant.

David A
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 6, 2016 5:26 am

After all, it is not in the best interest of the state to have the University scientific department discredited and to lose funding. It may be in the best interest of the public and of science, but the state may see the loss of funding and reputation as harmful.

Reply to  Ric Werme
March 6, 2016 1:10 pm

Dave A. I don’t see the contradiction. It’s legally irrelevant what the university officials think but it is not irrelevant what the Court thinks. Although, I cannot think of any circumstance where releasing emails between climate scientist about a temperature reconstruction could possibly harm the state. It’s not like they were discussing anything top secret. Maybe the court just wants to be the first to read them! I suppose the law must differentiate between embarrassment and real harm.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 6, 2016 5:22 pm

How thumbscrews do their work! Excruciatingly delicious

David A
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 6, 2016 8:12 pm

Hum? then the argument is that if the judges think the University is harmed, (they agree with the university position) then the public FOI is no longer relevant?

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 5, 2016 6:13 pm

This case is about two Arizona scientists who have worked with Mann. Steyn’s case is the most likely to sink Mann….unless the tubular moron does it himself.

GeologyJim
Reply to  Aphan
March 6, 2016 1:53 pm

The co-authors in MBH98 were Mann, Bradley, and Hughes – Overpeck was not involved in tis particular instance

Chip Javert
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 5, 2016 9:51 pm

Is there a serious chance that any of these target emails are useful to Steyn in his case?

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 6, 2016 9:03 pm

Mark is going to fill in for Rush on Monday. It should be good.

Kenny
Reply to  alvinwas
March 7, 2016 4:49 am

@alvinwas…Thanks for the heads up…..I’ve quit listening to Rush for a bit to let the political junk drain from my veins.

March 5, 2016 6:11 pm

Oh scientists who claim there’s almost no time left to save the planet and then waste time going through the courts to prevent public records from being seen in public, I thank you scientists, you’re the best proof there is no incoming climate change catastrophe!!

clipe
Reply to  Maurizio Morabito (@omnologos)
March 5, 2016 6:45 pm

UPDATE 6: Maurizo asked to add this –
I have not “given” the 28Gate list any importance. In fact, not one of the bloggers and journalists and commenters has “given” the 28Gate list any importance. It has been the BBC that GAVE IMPORTANCE TO 28GATE by spending so much money on lawyers. Therefore, 28Gate is important.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/breaking-the-secret-list-of-the-bbc-28-is-now-public/
Thanks, Maurizio!

clipe
March 5, 2016 6:11 pm

this ru[l]ing?
and[as] does Mann?

Editor
Reply to  clipe
March 5, 2016 6:13 pm

I rather like ruing. Makes my day. 🙂

clipe
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 5, 2016 6:25 pm

And Overpeck doing Mann? Spoil your breakfast, first meal of the day, with that image.

AnonyMoose
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 5, 2016 7:49 pm

This is yet too preliminary for there to be ruing.

Doug
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 5, 2016 9:18 pm

This is the crew which blocked Steve McIntyre personally from U of Ariz online data. I wrote them as an Arizona alumni in protest, and they denied it. When I forwarded proof from Steve M, our correspondence ceased. Could not happen to a nicer bunch

March 5, 2016 6:27 pm

Yes, the main point of this post is trouble for the science represented by MBH98. But there’s an equally important point that has been ignored for too long in this country…

Pima County Superior Court Judge James Marner had said the university did not abuse its discretion in concluding that disclosing the documents would not be in the best interests of the state.

…appellate Judge Joseph Howard, writing for the unanimous court, said it’s legally irrelevant what university officials thought was appropriate to disclose.

How does someone ascend to the level of a County Superior Court Judge and not know the law (Pima County has a population of 1 million including the city of Tucson). My suspicion, is that Marner knew very well what the law says and chose not to apply it fairly, equally and blindly. Welcome to the new America where the judicial system has gone the way of most local governments, the public schools, every agency of the federal government and more. Yes, an appellate court overturned this travesty, but this is just a small speed bump on the highway to third world status if we keep standing around waiting for things to get better.
Thanks, AW, for creating this forum. I hope you realize how important this is to give all us little people a voice and some motivation to step up and start making a difference.
Pima County residents, step up and recall Judge Marner. Let’s set some examples.
Elections matter. Judge appointments matter.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
March 5, 2016 7:31 pm

It is amazing.
Not a single email of a professor or researcher at a public university be free from FOIA. They are told from the start that all of their emails are public record. “Potentially damaging to state interests” is a reason to keep emails hidden? Huh? Like releasing these emails is going to end tourism, close businesses, or something else? If researchers or professors at State U have emails that contain info that is “potentially damaging to state interests,” then they should be out on their butts for putting state interests at risk.

commieBob
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
March 5, 2016 8:14 pm

Not a single email of a professor or researcher at a public university be free from FOIA.

A great many emails should remain private, anything to do with individual students for instance.

Chip Javert
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
March 5, 2016 10:05 pm

commieBob
You’ve missed the entire point of this thread & Michael’s statement is absolutely accurate.
The Court of Appeals has just ruled state law has a presumption that all public records are subject to disclosure, with certain exceptions.
Presumably a judge would find emails dealing with individual students meet the law’s exception (or at least redact student-specific material).

TerryS
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
March 6, 2016 2:54 am

Re: commieBob
> A great many emails should remain private, anything to do with individual students for instance.
In the case of emails to do with individual students then they can redact personally identifiable information (names).

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
March 6, 2016 6:05 am

“…A great many emails should remain private, anything to do with individual students for instance…”
Names can be redacted for privacy. “Anything to do with individual students”…really? So for example, a prof can have a quid pro quo relationship with a student, and any emails pertaining to that are automatically private?

bh2
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
March 6, 2016 8:39 pm

“Potentially damaging to state interests”
This this phrase suggest the state interest differs from the public interest. And that’s the crux of the problem.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
March 5, 2016 9:46 pm

Bolder, please consider why the judges in Pima County do not follow the law. Tucson, in Pima County, sided with the Confederates against the Union. The Confederate sympathizers were defeated by Union Troops is a small skirmish on he road between Phoenix and Tucson.
Pima County and Tucson have been in Democrat, with only an occasional RINO, hands since then. The time between the mid 1860s and now is more than enough for a one party system to be inbred and corrupt.

emsnews
Reply to  Leonard Lane
March 6, 2016 3:37 am

My great granddaddy was one of the US troops back then. My great grandmother, in Tucson, was anti-saloon and an activist.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Leonard Lane
March 6, 2016 9:47 am

emsnews
Your great grandmother was anti-saloon? Well, I guess every family has one embarrassing ancestor.
My grandfather on my mother’s side had a still doing prohibition. Now that is an ancestor of which to be proud!
Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
March 5, 2016 9:50 pm

” give all us little people ” that is part of the problem, there are no little people. Some people have set themselves up as knowing what’s best for the planet, like a reduction of 5 or 6 billion people. Who says that? They don’t know. Who would have a problem mining an asteroid? Until further spiritual or cosmic knowledge is acquired, nothing is above human consciencesness. And if they have such knowledge, they should share it with us and from whence it came. It’s a throwback to earth centered thinking. Just this solar system is capable of supporting trillions. The further out we expand, getting off this rock, the more stable life becomes. A disaster here would not mean the end of life for us or all the currently endangered species.

Reply to  rishrac
March 6, 2016 12:50 am

I guess I should have used the /irony tag on the phrase “all us little people”. Looks like that didn’t come across.

Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
March 7, 2016 11:05 am

I did get it. I just used it as an excuse to expand on it because climate scientists and those pushing to send us back into the dark ages have that tude.

Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
March 6, 2016 7:58 am

Ah Boulder Skeptic…the corruption of the judicial system is old hat…including your fair state I would wager. A judge retires, a governor appoints a replacement to confer on him or her the mantel of ‘incumbent’, which in the race for judgeship is everything. Lots of payola in real dollars and political favors involved everywhere anybody has ever looked into it. Federal judgeships are also not “free”. So while your fiestyness is to be admired recalling a pima county judge don’t fix what’s broke.

Reply to  fossilsage
March 6, 2016 10:52 am

…recalling a pima county judge don’t fix what’s broke.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. How many single steps could be made by the readers of this blog alone?
Enviro-bullies were raised to be activists. It’s a nice start to become aware of issues like the corruption of science, stealing of liberties, etc, by activists. If those of us who care about these things don’t start thinking like activists, I fear the future will be bleak.

Reply to  fossilsage
March 6, 2016 1:49 pm

Boulder Skeptic…I’m not suggesting that one shouldn’t do something. It’s more a matter of directing energy at a critical area. Right now I think more important than any local judge recall is the battle to rein in the EPA and the “Clean Air Act” which includes legal corruption a’ plenty. Typically that battle comes down to local battles at the state legislative level as in Oregon where legislation was recently passed to limit Utilities purchases of electricity to exclude coal generated and ‘encourage’ renewables (read add to the subsidies from local tax revenues) I presume that these things are going on where ever “Agenda 21” democrats are in power as part of the UN sponsored recommendations that the political action to combat climate change needs to happen at all levels of government. No I’d have to say that having a major element of one of our political parties in this country being convinced to pursue political action on behalf of a supranational agency and agents of foreign governments and institutions is bigger deal than a local corrupt judge. And that is not to say ignore the corrupt judges just that that isn’t the main deal right now.

Louis LeBlanc
Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
March 6, 2016 8:42 am

I thought that the “State” is the people. You know, like in “We the People.” The legislature is the will of the People, and the bureaucracy (including the University) is the tool of the Governor who is the executor of the will of the People. The question is will it be detrimental to the People, not the bureaucracy.

John C
Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
March 6, 2016 10:16 am

As a 30 year Pima County and Tucson resident, I can tell you our politics are very far left as is the UofA. If the University basketball wasn’t fun to watch, there is little other than the astronomical departments that are worthy of interest.

David Schnare
Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
March 6, 2016 5:14 pm

You don’t have a clue what happens at law. The standard of review was not simple to determine. None of the attorneys got it right either, and I was the one that won at the appellate level. So, don’t blame Judge Marner. He is a very good judge dealing with a difficult legal and factual set of issues.
David Schnare
Petitioner’s Counsel

commieBob
Reply to  David Schnare
March 7, 2016 3:55 am

Thanks for bringing some reality into this discussion. The thread is quite long but I assume you are replying to

Boulder Skeptic says: March 5, 2016 at 6:27 pm

You are probably right that Boulder Skeptic doesn’t have much of a clue about the legal system. On the other hand there is a bit of a clue there. Boulder Skeptic’s cynicism is not unfounded.
There are places where the American legal system is a festering cesspool. If I had to make the case, I might start with the critique of the system written by Justice John F. Molloy.

Sceptical Sam
Reply to  David Schnare
March 7, 2016 6:14 am

David Schnare sounds like he’s in Judge Marner’s pocket. Very cozie. Is that a brown nose I smell?
Enschnared by his own words.

timg56
Reply to  David Schnare
March 7, 2016 8:19 am

Sceptical Sam,
Piece of advice – think before you comment. In this instance you might start with learning what Petitioner means.

commieBob
Reply to  David Schnare
March 7, 2016 9:08 am

timg56 says: March 7, 2016 at 8:19 am

My keyboard survived. 🙂

Sceptical Sam
Reply to  David Schnare
March 8, 2016 12:56 am

Thanks timg56.
I understand what a Petitioner is.
It’s time you understood what a brown- nose is.
Schnare sucks up to Marner (Handy for the next time he appears in front of him)
You suck up to Schnare. (What’s he to you?)
You’re both brown- nosing.
Does that help?

Steve Oregon
March 5, 2016 6:28 pm

Gosh how interesting. Their noble cause would be disrupted if their corruption were revealed.
They really do feel their mission is so lofty that they must remain insulated from ethics and laws that apply to lesser folk.
Let’s hope this new ruling pushes humpty climate dumpty off of the wall.

Reply to  Steve Oregon
March 5, 2016 7:42 pm

No- starving and freezing poor folks is not lofty- just insanely lucrative. No honest, sane & informed individual would suggest diverting funds from sanitation, refrigeration, etc. for the billion+ in poverty to destructive labor unions, corrupt bundlers and political cronies… Sorry, don’t by the noble cause crap anymore…

Reply to  JRPort
March 5, 2016 7:43 pm

buy…

Analitik
March 5, 2016 7:10 pm

But won’t this transparency lead to the harassment of the scientists involved with the MBH98 as warned by Dr Stephan Lewandowsky?

clipe
Reply to  Analitik
March 5, 2016 7:16 pm

“transparency” is the last thing I want with loo lew paper

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Analitik
March 5, 2016 7:27 pm

Yeah, if you call jail time harassment.

Chip Javert
Reply to  Analitik
March 5, 2016 9:44 pm

Analitic
Frankly, Lewandowsky’s opinion is irrelevant.
Lewandowsky is a psychologist, not a scientist. He should just stay on Fantasy Island where the ability to repeat foundational psychological “experiments” is considered unimportant (could be they suspect foundational stuff is really quicksand, but nobody has the guts to test it…).
Physics (of which climate is a sub-set) historically has been conducted under more rigorous rues of engagement.

JimB
Reply to  Analitik
March 6, 2016 9:48 am

When “scientists” engage in moving public policy, they are subject to the same harassment as other activists. Particularly when their activism is based on their “scientific work”. Put it out there in the open and let us all follow the old scientific dictum: Try to invalidate a theorem. Let that be the proof.

Steve Egbert
March 5, 2016 7:17 pm

A small note: the B in MBH98 was Raymond Bradley, not Jonathan Overpeck, right?

March 5, 2016 7:18 pm

I hope that we get to see those emails because scientific truth and integrity is good for science. Getting access to Mann’s would also be good for science.

Chip Javert
Reply to  kramer
March 5, 2016 9:45 pm

not to mention popcorn sales.

Reply to  Chip Javert
March 6, 2016 4:10 pm

I’m already stocking up. 🙂

Michael Jankowski
March 5, 2016 7:20 pm

“..Mann wrote the original Hockeystick paper in 1998 with Jonathan Overpeck and Malcolm Hughes, hence the MBH98 moniker…”
Huh? Jonathan Overpeck isn’t the “B” in MBH…

AnonyMoose
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
March 5, 2016 7:53 pm

Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley & Malcolm K. Hughes

Hugs
Reply to  AnonyMoose
March 6, 2016 10:10 am

Anthony, put the bottle away.

Gary Pearse
March 5, 2016 8:26 pm

Don’t we have to wait for a dozen other levels of courts to rule?

commieBob
March 5, 2016 8:44 pm

Exactly so.
On the other hand:

… writing for the unanimous court …

No support whatsoever for the trial judge. It makes it less likely that an appeal to a higher court would succeed.

[Appellate Judge Joseph] Howard said everyone involved in the case acknowledges the emails are public records. And he said state law has a presumption that all public records are subject to disclosure, with certain exceptions.

The trial judge is going to have to give reasons why each individual email might be an exception to the rule that all public records are subject to disclosure. Those reasons could be subject to appeal. This could drag on for a while.

Chip Javert
Reply to  commieBob
March 5, 2016 9:47 pm

So the pause (on releasing emails) will continue…

ossqss
March 5, 2016 9:24 pm

The real Discovery phase is upon us, Legally.
Just sayin, finally.

ben
March 5, 2016 9:35 pm

“From the “all your emails ARE belong to us” department…”
FTFY.

Evan Jones
Editor
Reply to  ben
March 6, 2016 3:41 am

(Email should be singular.)

garymount
Reply to  Evan Jones
March 6, 2016 5:54 am

Remember when email used to be hyphenated?

cuzLorne
Reply to  Evan Jones
March 11, 2016 10:14 am

And ‘eMails’ should be ‘eLetters’,
but that battle was lost aeons ago when ‘eMail’ was a corporate method of Internal communication and paragraphs, grammar, spelling & vocabulary were abandoned in favour of …?
When ‘eMail’ graduated to the Internet and became External, methinks the name should have changed to ‘iMail’.

dp
March 5, 2016 11:46 pm

Which means a court clerk is now in charge of climate law.

March 6, 2016 1:11 am

As WUWT readers may know, Mann wrote the original Hockeystick paper in 1998 with Jonathan Overpeck and Malcolm Hughes, hence the MBH98 moniker.

Uhhh.. hello? It’s MBH98, not MOH98. Bradley?

Proud Skeptic
March 6, 2016 3:41 am

Public money = Public records

emsnews
March 6, 2016 3:41 am

The main thing here is, all these email conspirator’s plans will be revealed. We don’t even need the courts for what happens next. We need the information and then the ability to disseminate this information to the public.

toorightmate
March 6, 2016 3:51 am

The need for “emails to be confidential” has gained an enormous boost of late thanks to Mrs Clinton (Monica’s lover’s wife.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  toorightmate
March 6, 2016 6:06 am

[snip – over the top -mod]

Alx
March 6, 2016 5:04 am

So this goes back to the trial judge who made the faulty and arguably biased ruling.
Which means after “reviewing” the emails he can just rule the university was correct. I do not how much argument or details the trial judge has to provide to make that ruling. Regardless, the judge could take his sweet time in performing the reviews and then make another faulty unsupported ruling in the university favor, which then provokes another appeal.
On principle this is good news, the university and judge are again exposed as disingenuous and sleazy.
As a practical matter it is the same old cow manure in a different package. In other words it may not be until the next ice age before we see these emails at which point the emails become moot.

Chip Javert
Reply to  Alx
March 6, 2016 4:45 pm

All
re: As a practical matter it is the same old cow manure in a different package.
Kinda depends on if you’re a glass-half-empty guy (or irredeemably paranoid). I’m pretty cynical, but I’m more of a glass-half-full guy: let’s give the judge the benefit of the doubt and see (factually) what happens. Nobody is perfect; as long as he didn’t blow up the world, t think it’s better to judge the guy by how he respond to a mistake as opposed to condemning him because he made a mistake.

Pat Paulsen
March 6, 2016 5:34 am

Almost snuck that one in – didn’t they?

commieBob
March 6, 2016 5:59 am

How long can Michael Mann’s legal cases continue?
An example is SCO vs. the whole world in which a smallish company (SCO) sued several bigger companies. Some people think SCO was a sock puppet for Microsoft and the intention was to destroy, damage, or at least slow down Linux. The story started in 2003 and we just heard the last whimper.
SCO never had a case. IBM’s legal defense was first rate. The lawyer fees went way beyond a hundred million bucks. SCO’s lawyers engaged in a brilliant scorched earth campaign. They managed to spin nothing out for more than a decade against determined and highly competent opponents.
Could Michael Mann’s lawyers achieve the same effect? If he has some behind-the-scenes support, they could. The problem for Dr. Mann is that he is a real person (as opposed to SCO which could just evaporate). He has a tiger by the tail. He can’t let go but you know that the tiger will eventually have its lunch.

George Daddis
Reply to  commieBob
March 6, 2016 9:50 am

Mann is a real person; but HE is not funding the attorneys for his side, but rather by the ironically named “Climate Science Legal Defense Fund”. And good luck determining who funds THEM!
This could go on until the last “consensus” scientist, alarmist politician, NGO and compliant “scientific” society disappears from the scene.

Editor
Reply to  George Daddis
March 6, 2016 7:06 pm

I did fairly well finding out what sized organization the CSLDF is, see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/02/supermandia-doesnt-seem-to-like-questions-about-shukla-rico20-and-the-climate-science-legal-defense-fund/#comment-2040371 and concluded that they’re more face and no body. And not much in the way of resources. That may be able to change quickly, but the CSLDF was vapor then and probably is now.

Editor
Reply to  George Daddis
March 6, 2016 7:26 pm

What is your evidence that the CSLDF is involved? And that they’re funding the entire case? All I know of is the CSLDF claim “CSLDF helped Dr. Mann raise over $100,000 to pay for his legal bills.” They could have raised $100 themselves.
http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/about/dr-manns-foia-litigation-and-csldf-involvement/

Taphonomic
Reply to  commieBob
March 6, 2016 2:36 pm

SCO is not as bad as the fictional Jarndyce and Jarndyce which was based on real cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarndyce_and_Jarndyce

March 6, 2016 7:43 am

Pardon this question but how does this ruling apply to Mann? I don’t see his name anywhere in the article linked nor the ruling.

George Daddis
Reply to  harkin1
March 6, 2016 9:53 am

Mann is a real person; but HE is not funding the attorneys for his side, but rather by the ironically named “Climate Science Legal Defense Fund”. And good luck determining who funds THEM!
This could go on until the last “consensus” scientist, alarmist politician, NGO and compliant “scientific” society disappears from the scene.

FTOP_T
March 6, 2016 7:50 am

It seems this climate cabal is not so large to achieve “too big to fail” status. While it has some powerful support, it is at best 30-40 key influencers that pop up throughout the “science is settled” peer reviewed mis-information
If the truth can get some executive support, this could unravel quickly. Of course, it has to be a POTUS willing to lay bare the duplicity of our government and its Faustian deal with the one government promoters at the U.N., IMF and the rest of the socialists (wolf) cloaked in “save the world” (sheep’s) clothing.
People don’t realize how critical Ted Cruz can be in some important government role (Pres or AG come to mind)

knr
March 6, 2016 7:57 am

You have to wonder if there is no time to lose , has claimed , and if the science is ‘settled ‘ has the public are told time and again. Why you see the use of approaches that both waste time and prevent the public who are the ones that will enable the change form seeing what they need to in making the choice .
But there is long way to go yet, Mann’s court cases having been going on for years , oddly he seems to never keen to get them to trial no matter how keen he is to lurch them in the first place.
The real question is should it occur how much actually press coverage and public notice will it get ?

March 6, 2016 7:57 am

Howard, writing for the court, said Arizona law expresses an “open access policy toward public records’’ and exists “to allow citizens to be informed about what their government is up to.’’
What’s important, Howard said, is that while the agency with the records has the initial discretion to deny access, “under no circumstances should that determination be final,’’ calling that “inconsistent with all principles of democratic government.’’

Yes, citizens have a right to know what their government is up to on climate focused research.
I am a citizen so give me the emails.
John

March 6, 2016 8:17 am

‘Entia non sunt multiplicana praeter necessitatim. ‘.
Occam’s Razor.
‘Only disclose things on a need to know basis.’
Brad Keyes – translator.

Dave in Canmore
March 6, 2016 8:27 am

Welcome news! But it is still disconcerting that a lower court could have ever ruled that that university emails were not public property. We are just barely a free society… when we are at all.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
March 6, 2016 8:49 am

Now comes the next wave of legal arguments.

And coming up next: dramatic new video which shows paint actually drying.
As Mark Steyn has observed regarding his own case: we are more than 3 years into the legal process of deciding whether a 270 word article he wrote in 2012 is defamatory. So far there hasn’t been a single hearing on the substance of the Mann’s complaint; it’s all been procedural.
The legal profession is a bigger disgrace than climate science.

MarkW
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
March 7, 2016 6:38 am

The primary purpose of the legal system is to keep lawyers employed.
Everything else is just incidental.

Eugene WR Gallun
March 6, 2016 9:33 am

Michael Mann — The Hockey Stick
There was a crooked Mann
Who played a crooked trick
And had a crooked plan
To make a crooked stick
By using crooked math
That favored crooked lines
Lysenko’s crooked path
Led through the crooked pines
And all his crooked friends
Applaud what crooked seems
But all that crooked ends
Derives from crooked means
Eugene WR Gallun

Gunga Din
March 6, 2016 12:40 pm

AEI and others have tried to get Mann’s emails from Penn State, but were blocked by political interventions claiming science would be harmed, among other things.

The only justification, for me, to not release the emails was that personal information might be included along with the “science stuff”. (Easy enough to resolve. Have impartial people review them before public release.)
Now the claim is “science would be harmed”!?!?
Only if they have harmed science.
Why would political interventions seek to prevent the release of the “science” that justify their policies?

Neo
March 6, 2016 12:49 pm

“… be in the best interests of the state.”
Now, that’s a pretty loose requirement.
Suppose, “the state” has a vested interest in advancing an agenda.

David A
Reply to  Neo
March 6, 2016 8:23 pm

Yes, a legal definition of what is harmful to the state or university would be required.

York
March 6, 2016 12:55 pm

I know it’s a play on words, but the correct play would be “all your emails are belong to us” which is reference to a really terrible Japanese to English translation of the game 80s game, Zero Wing. =]

Editor
Reply to  York
March 6, 2016 7:28 pm

Go back and read the comments from March 5th again….

jorgekafkazar
March 6, 2016 11:48 pm

“…Hitler’s first move was to issue the February 5 ‘Decree for the Protection of the German People,’ which gave the Gestapo, a state police force, the power to suppress activities deemed harmful to the state….”
http://teacherweb.ftl.pinecrest.edu/SNYDERD/MWH/Webquests/9-Dep&Tot/9-NaziRule.htm

Mark
March 7, 2016 2:32 am

Ahhh state security, just like national security, is a mechanism for hiding wrong doing nothing more

MarkW
March 7, 2016 6:25 am

“Best interests of the state”
A dangerous phrase indeed.

March 7, 2016 7:14 am

Maybe we should all refuse the IRS access to our financial records because it would not be in our best interests to divulge such information. See how that works out for you. So the “state” has different rules they play from those of us who pay to support such “state”.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
March 7, 2016 7:15 pm

I believe this is a misquote/misparody:
“all your emails belong to us”
I believe it is “all your emails are belong to us” in keeping with the tradition of repeating, uncorrected, the original.

Ashby
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
March 8, 2016 6:36 am

No, should be “all your email are belong to us” to preserve the broken singular plural relationship.

%d bloggers like this: