People send me stuff. Earlier today, we saw that Ed Maibach himself hired an attorney to file an emergency stay of release of FOIA documents that George Mason University had planned to release, along with the retroactive removal of the previous tranche of GMU documents from last week that were quite damning in their illustration that Maibach and Shukla not only used their position at GMU to pursue and ask for punishment of climate skeptics and corporations, they were trying to cover it up late in the game by asking to switch to private emails once they started getting some serious public blowback.
There actions are so transparent as to their motive, that many WUWT commenters, including Steve McIntyre were able to see that the legal argument presented by Maibach was full of holes. Most importantly, it seems that GMU is not defending Maibach either with legal counsel or by issuing any statement, suggesting to observers that they have cut him loose from their compliance arguments and he is on his own. For that reason, I think he’s going to be toast.
Some of the very same arguments showing why Maibach’s position is untenable seen in comments from our previous story today, are in the legal response from CEI, which I have a few excerpts of below:
The full legal response is here, well worth a read:
CEI-response-to-maibach-FOI-stay
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Would instructing his co-conspirators to start using e-mail systems that aren’t covered by a FOIA search, constitute an attempt to obstruct justice?
Not at all, but it may open an avenue to subjecting all the emails in question to FOI requests as it relates to this case. I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not actually sure on that.
it does create an open for ultimate conspiracy charges though and potentially throws everyone else listed in the e-mail into the Co-Conspirator Bucket for not speaking out about it.
Why would you think voice mails are not FOIA searchable? Some corporations are pulling back on voice mail because of just that kind of liability. If it’s not yet real, certainly some corporate lawyers believe it could be very soon.
In the biz we call that “pulling a Clinton”.
It shows intent to obstruct and to anyone who followed too realized they were breaking the law, or at least ethically skating on the fringes for sure. I wondered who did contact him via the “private” address??? IMHO
He needs time to find his next gig, probably at some nonprofit.
I know a couple places where he can make license plates.
Mmm. I don’t want to get down to their level. I don’t like their level. Exposing all this for what it is is plenty enough to satisfy me. I require no scalps. “Let them go forth and sin no more” works fine for me. And if not, well, they are their own worst enemies, QED.
Don’t know squat about VA law, but now I’m more puzzled than ever as to how the last AG lost the case on Mann’s e-mails. Perhaps a VA lawyer will weigh in on how to distinguish that case from this one because how can there a split? If these matters must be released, how could the earlier one be denied? “Neither” or “both” what justifies a split????
Mann was able to con the judge into believing that the e-mails were regarding legitimate research.
There is an exception in VA law for research.
The contents of these e-mails makes it explicit that they were about political activities.
I suspect it wasn’t so much as a con job as Kangaroo court. I remember the judge who was assigned to the Mann/Steyn was as blatantly corrupt as could possibly be arranged.
What if the research that was claimed in the documents in question was actually fraudulent? Just wondering out-loud. Would the judge still have ruled the same? But then again, in the liberal mindset, fraud may well be akin to science? You know…, it’s OK to lie (or commit fraud,) if the motives are liberal (i.e. Good-LMAO) as many high profile liberals have attested to as of late..
I am so confused by what is considered science and what is considered computer gaming/speculation. You know.., SEMIemperical data?
“The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change” is actually a site that pushes the CEI view (which we all know was fueled by fossil fuel interests).
[There’s nothing untrue about my masthead statement, and despite your hateful views often exponded on here, I don’take any money from CEI, Exxon, or anybody else to publish these news items. If the fact that I do publish factual court documents upsets your one-side world view, then that’s just too bad. As far as I’m concerned, you can take your opinion stated from behind the protection of anonymity and shove it up the bodily orifice of your choice – Anthony Watts]
Tired troll is still tired.
Funny how reporting the news is now “pushing the CEI view”.
PS, you are the only one who knows that CEI is funded by fossil fuel interests. A lie doesn’t smell sweeter just because you keep repeating it.
Yes, it’s interesting to observe their methods though.
‘PS, you are the only one who knows that CEI is funded by fossil fuel interests’
Well, not the ONLY guy – just yesterday, a guy on a yahoo comment board told me the same thing – accompanied, of course, by the typically tolerant pejorative label of ‘slimy, disgusting, denier’.
I’ll say this, these greenie-trolls show us who they really are whenever the opportunity arises, and they never disappoint.
I suppose you would see it as orchestrated views and camps if you have never seen otherwise or wanted fact checking outside the fenced camps. It would be like another dimension outside your own. Group think is a dead end future when the fact checking leads in other directions.
What is so interesting (or is it sickening?) is that some on the other side want to paint those
that disagree with them as some kinds of conspiracy theorists. All they while, they themselves
believe in a massive conspiracy by the oil companies and capitalists and libertarians and anyone
else they disagree with. They also seem to really like the idea of prosecuting people for having
different beliefs than they do and shutting down freedom of speech and academic discourse.
After these displays of illiberalism, they then want to call themselves “liberals”. Sadly, they are
nothing of the sort – just authoritarian progressives/leftists who can’t tolerate civil debate.
Guess I should not hit return at the end of a line, hey?
There’s an old saying. When you want to know what a leftist is up to, just look at what he is accusing others of doing.
Projection, the only mental skill most leftists have mastered.
Wagen, isn’t it interesting how everyone who disagrees with your holy cause is a vendido?
Wagen,
The timing of your visits here, as well as your poisonous viewpoints, lead this viewer to the conclusion that you are paid to side with the totalitarian mindset of those who brought this case about. You may even be one of the principals
In any case, you have zero credibility with me… and I am using my real name, so sue me, you lying “communicator” traitor to mankind.
Wegen,
Ignorant trolls, and you meet the definition of ignorant troll perfectly, are boring. At least offer more entertainment value. You are more of a wanabee troll. Scoot along and come back when you are a grown up troll.
Hi Wagen.
Still able to post I see. Didn’t Portland Or. just ban Skeptic,, Oops Den?er material from the schools? There is something very very wrong with your side of the argument. Instead of making false and dishonest statements here, you may wish to reexamine your viewpoints. You are on the wrong side.
michael
Oh ya, I read about that. It was ironically hilarious.The Climate Faithful were up in arms over the tentacles of skepticism that had desecrated their noble school. How dare their children be subjected to doubt in the purity of their beliefs.
And what dire example of anti-science had wormed it’s way into those hallowed halls? Apparently some of the textbooks said that burning fossil fuels MAY lead to thermagedon, not that it was already happening OMG it’s worse then we thought.
Imagine, subjecting all those young impressionable minds to so much uncertainty in the Holy Faith. Why, next someone may tell them the ocean hasn’t already turned to acid.
“Fuelled by fossil fuel interests.”
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could get independently audited just who finances alarmist and sceptic viewpoints. Apart from the +1000:1 amount in favour of the alarmists, mostly from government or dodgy sources, the amount funded for sceptics by fossil fuel interests could probably be found this evening in my trouser/pants pockets.
Well at least “fossil fuel interests” are indeed a real source of readily available energy; unlike the free clean green renewable energy wannabees, that seem to ultimately be traceable back to natural gas or coal as their real source of free clean green renewable energy; a la Ivanpah and Tonopah.
G
independently audited just who finances alarmist and sceptic viewpoints. You asked . Senate provides
http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/EDF-EPA-NRDC/2016/05/23/id/730176/
A 2014 U.S. Senate Committee ‘ Established by about a dozen prominent foundations, the elite group channels huge sums of money through a close knit network of hundreds of nonprofit organizations to churn out propaganda disguised as science and news.’
Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/EDF-EPA-NRDC/2016/05/23/id/730176/#ixzz49XhUMsVL
Great response Anthony.
I guess I don’t understand how trolls like you think, but it seems this post is a really, really stupid choice to bring up funding of skeptic sites that have little to no funding by fossil fuels.
Are you aware of any of the evidence that Shukla and his family have skimmed millions of dollars from his NSF grants? Lamar Smith notes:
How much money have WUWT and CEI stolen from US tax payers, and what do you have to back that up?
Or are you just one of those trolls who is jealous that people like Anthony can change the world on a shoestring budget whereas all you can do is hide behind a screen name and whine loudly enough so someone like me is dumb enough to reply?
1. Apparently trolls don’t read many articles here.
2. What does “fossil fuel interests” mean, and who are they?
Well, from all the whining the Climate Faithful do about Exxon and the other petroleum companies you’d think it was them. But most of them have made statements supporting ‘climate science’ and the AGW meme. Several have even jumped on the Renewables gravy train with
subsidywind farms andgrantsolar projects.That leaves the gas and coal industries, but you don’t hear much about them. Mostly that’s because they aren’t as dominated by large multinational companies like petroleum. And it’s harder to convince people of a huge conspiracy being paid for by a whole lot of little companies they’ve never heard of. Ironically, just like with CAGW itself, you have to accept the existence of the Koch funded denial machine on faith.
So instead we get nonsense like #exxonknows, which to anyone with half a brain proved that if exxon WAS paying for ‘climate skepticism’ there is apparently no proof of it.
waggin’
So what’s wrong with “fossil fuel interests”?
Beats me.
Why should a person with income and career based on the climate orthodoxy be less biased than all others?
Why should government grants foster more noble ideas than other grants, or virtually no grants at all – as is the case for Anthony Watts running WUWT?
@Wagen,
ALL major scientific and medical research before 1950 (it might have been 1949) was funded by industry interests. Had to do with the tax laws. All of it.
Salk’s vaccine for polio, Tesla’s work,the computer, all of the US 20th C inventions before the mid-century were funded by private industry money. This Miss Tidybowl horsesh**t about funding is devoid of historical reality. The government only got involved because of (1) military interests and a desire to restrict the rest of the world from gaining access to our tech, and (2) going off the gold standard in 1933.
Well, I certainly confess to having “fossil fuel interests”, and rather a lot of them, actually.
That’s because much of the the modern world I live in requires fossil fuels to function. Unlike yours, apparently.
So which planet did you say you are from?
Why would “fossil fuel interests” bother financing sceptical opinion, they know their products are irreplaceable; Climate Change™ so-called ‘mitigation’ measures only increase the price.
It’s ordinary people, particularly the relatively poor, who are the targets of the alarmists’ campaigns; they are the ones who will bear heaviest burden of a government imposed carbon (dioxide) tax and the like.
@ur momisugly Christopher Hanley. Thank you Sir. You hit the nail on the head. + many!
A wheel’s come off your wagen mate. You are all lopsided.
Just one?
Wagen was originally a non-English word from the Germanic root Vanken and has been transliterated to Gaelic through to modern English as WANKER.
Fossil fuels have enhanced human life on this planet. Fossil fuel technology has improved life expectancy and our ability to adapt to an ever changing climate. If CEI is supported by parts of the fossil fuel industry, it is another example of the industry helping human beings thrive.
Anthony,
any possibility a Moderator could leave a little information on “Wagen” be interesting to find out more
Anthony,
Even when you chewing a new “orifce” into troll you are the most polite guy on the internet.
Thanks,
Craig
Well, in Wagen’s defense, this site is actively pushing the CEI’s case, and has never pretended otherwise.
The problem with is argument is that he does not acknowledge that there can be legitimate disagreement, and he pushes the tired old conspiracy theory about us being funded by fossil fuels.
Ben,
WHICH case? That CEI is correct on the merits (which says he has not argued) or that their freedom of speech is being chilled – – which IMHO every honest person of goodwill ought to see. In fact, even the AGW zealots in the first release tranche refused to co-sign his pogrom. Good for them!
Are they “pushing CEI’s case” or defending a principle?
I thought they were defending the principle that government should not be used to criminalize scientific disagreements.
I didn’t say or imply that it’s a bad thing. However, Anthony Watts is clearly not a neutral party. Just because you take a side doesn’t mean you aren’t right. It just means that you have taken a side.
Thank You Anthony! That is why I speak out about this one-sided world view. Luckily there are many who are much more verbose and learned then I am. But I am getting better every day thanks to you Anthony!!!
Nobody beats the Rev.
(Try, though they may.)
Damn, Anthony, don’t hold back. Tell him what you really think. 😀
You go, guy!
+ 9,000,000,000,000,000, Anthony.
I hear there are job openings at the Ivanpah solar CSP plant in fire control, bird removal, and financial engineering.
Love it!
Also a need for competent Natural Gas supply negotiator, to fuel that free clean green renewable energy machine.
According to a recent report, they finally succeeded in getting that world’s largest mirror to set fire to some combustible material.
Any Boy Scout can easily do that with the simple stamp magnifier that he uses to examine his Scout Stamp Collection exhibits.
G
george e. smith May 23, 2016 at 5:55 pm
Any Boy Scout can easily do that with the simple stamp magnifier that he uses to examine his Scout Stamp Collection exhibits.
Oh phooey In Tech school (conn) I just used my eye glasses.
mchael
Oh, Snap!
Anyone who is aware of the Nixon presidency should be aware that the coverup will get you in far greater trouble that the original deed most of the time. Unless they conspired to murder someone, I think all 20 would be better off to release everything the courts ask for.
@markstoval, rolling over quickly would be the sensible thing to do, but if they were that sensible they wouldn’t have written the letter in the first place.
The thing that struck me was this “communicator” intending to teach others to use the same bullying tactics. Can we hope that he will now be teaching his students *not* to do that? Oh, silly me.
and, law schools will cite the precedent…
He should be mandated to take some ethics course like all the other DOJ “Liaryers.”
Rather than ethics classes, they should take general science classes. Then scientific method classes because they sure don’t follow standard practices for anything except computer games.
Did I say that out loud?
Coverups only get someone in trouble if the media, courts and law enforcement care to cause trouble about it. Obama, Clinton and Climategate are all good examples of coverups *not* getting anyone in trouble.
We are going to have a new President and a new Justice department come January, so anyone who thinks they are in the clear may find they are wrong.
Maybe they really believe they are right.
Oh, they do. Most sincerely. They have driven themselves crazy over this, and it has caused their principles to fade into the background — this is one aspect of history that actually does repeat itself; it is part of the human condition. Their conclusions have little resemblance to either evidence or, for that matter, fact. And, this whole madcap thing being daylight madness, sanity is not to be presumed. Very poor judgment, all in all, to say the least.
*snip* [Over the top, I think. ~ Evan]
*snip* [Bad Morlock, yes ~ Evan]
I know bad Morlock.
michael
*snip* {Sigh. ~ Evan]
*Snip* [Urgh. ~ Evan]
*snip* [Oh, great. I just broke my own record for snips.]
*snip [ouch]
Let’s see a list of the degree programs at GMU that do not require at least one ethics course to graduate. I know business schools added this requirement at least 20 years ago. Let’s see the rest.
Let’s see a list of GMU science degree programs that actually require knowing the scientific method.
How can a “class” on ethics really be effective? Once you graduate, you shouldn’t walk into a business meeting and think “for the next hour I will act ethically.” Ethics must permeate all your classes, or it really does not exist.
To answer my own question: a class on ethics makes sense if it is taught is a way of dissection in biology. The principles of biology that be honored each and every day would be enhanced by intensive dissection into how it works.
I think most people are born with parents, so there is no need to go to school to learn ethics. Ethics training is free.
G
Mr. Smith, recently the Superintendent of the Naval Academy said that young people coming into the Academy recently are less ethical than previous students were. He said this while explaining why the Academy’s honor system was being reviewed. And these are supposed to be among the best students in America.
George, too many parents leave all training to the public school system these days. And themselves set bad examples for their children in ethical behavior. Not that I think ethics classes at the university level are a substitute. It should be taking place in the home. But in many cases it is not.
Basil
I teach one lecture on professional ethics to second year students. What I am able to do in that time is to point out that our national body has a code of ethics, where to find it, what it says, and that they WILL be expected to follow it and won’t be able to claim ignorance. Then they have to write an essay figuring out what the code requires in a topical ethical dilemma. ( every year there’s a new one.). So they have to have read the code. After that it is up to them.
You underestimate the bureaucratic method and professional license-based economy.
What is the point of doing an “ethics” course, when you have distinguished “ethics” professors such as the bloke from Yale who preys on students from developing countries? – see buzzfeed
Ethics as in Gleick kind of ethics?
A.D. Everard on May 23, 2016 at 6:53 pm
– – – – – – – –
A.D. Everhart,
exactly
John
Starting to get the feeling that another cold and frozen winter or two and the whole pathetic circus is toast. Too many people now realise it’s a scam and the cork just won’t go back in the bottle. The drift in opinion is a one-way street as no sceptic ever becomes an alarmist – unless it’s for hard cash – but plenty of alarmists become sceptics. The desperate attempts at ‘legal’ silencing of dissent and clubbing honest scientists into submission only accelerates the process of collapse. Only a matter of time before the media turn on those they lionise today, like they inevitably do, and then the rats will begin to pour out of the sinking CAGW ship biting at each other as they go.
No. Paris gave blank checks to anyone wanting to wield power in their favorite act of corruption. Watch the new regulations with Paris as the justification.
As for the Australian election, it is the same shell game as the US 2012 election. Climate change played no part in the election: Obama knew it would be disastrous to run on it (and so did his fawning press). Romney was too preoccupied with other issues (or just too stupid) to make it an issue. So the Democrats put climate change on ice until after the election. It will happen to Australia, too. There is too much money and power at stake for it to wither away.
They’ll cling on until the F+raud is uncovered for all to see. I’ve already had someone tell me weeks ago now that it would have to cool for at least 20 years before it could be considered a trend. They’re sticking to their “cause” no matter what. Might have to be pried out with a crowbar – or law enforcement officials.
It will take nothing less than collapse of the electrical grid during a stormy, cold, icy week across the eastern US.
Stephen Rasey, that wouldn’t surprise me at all. I’ve thought for awhile now that large-scale anger and backlash will be needed to get some serious public examination happening across the board.
I do so enjoy watching academic activists venturing outside after years of study and trying to impose their theoretical viewpoint on the real world.They do seem to have this extraordinary ability to get themselves into trouble when they do.
When the bright lights get turned on, the roaches scurry for cover.
Reminds me of Jay Leno’s Stupid Criminals bit.
Stupid, but not Penn State stupid. Up there though.
Let’s see what happens.
We might just see the Court get compromised on this and cave in to the climate insiders.- it has happened before. Climate obsessed groups have operated with effective impunity for many years.
And then there’s this ….
http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/EDF-EPA-NRDC/2016/05/23/id/730176/
Sorry, forgot the key quote:
“As I reported in my May 2 column, RBF hosted a secret January 2016 meeting which brought together about a dozen influential anti-fossil fuel activists including 350.org founder Bill McKibben to refine strategies “to establish in public’s mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution that has pushed humanity (and all creation) toward climate chaos and grave harm.”
The Rockefeller Family Fund reportedly offered to help fund the campaign through 350.org.
Two months later on March 29, New York AG Eric Schneiderman headlined a press conference of 16 state attorneys general announcing intentions to prosecute organizations who were “committing fraud” by “knowingly deceiving” the public about the threat of manmade climate change. Days later he launched a RICO action against ExxonMobil through legislation originally directed at Mafia figures.”
Personally, I think it’s remarkable I’ve seen none of this in the mass media and it isn’t showing up on any of the popular news aggregators (Google, Yahoo) I track.
Do I smell the distinct odor of funds from the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) behind the emergency stay submitted by a Maibach’s private attorney?
Need to research that.
John
No, CSLDF is essentially a non-entity. Near as I can tell, they couldn’t fund a junket to the other side of the GMU campus. But Scott would appreciate it if you thought he could.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/02/supermandia-doesnt-seem-to-like-questions-about-shukla-rico20-and-the-climate-science-legal-defense-fund/#comment-2040371
If it was a Michelle Obama junket, very few could afford it
Ric Werme on May 23, 2016 at 5:30 pm
– – – – – – –
Ric Werme,
That post was at the beginning of October 2015, almost eight months ago and there has been a lot of legal maneuvering gone under the court action bridge since then.
CSLDF organized the junket to fund some of Mann’s litigations . . . . just saying.
I am researching the possible association of CSLDF and Maibach’s private lawyer fees for the emergency stay. Appreciate any help from anyone.
John
Anthony: ‘There actions’. Second Para. It should be, ‘Their actions’.
C’mon, gang. You don’t want people doubting your literacy. jsuther2013 is right: “Their actions.”
It’s what happens when you piss into the wind.
get that first head on a post and it’ll break the floodgates.
draw blood!
it’s the moment i’ve all been waiting for.
Inappropriate, gnomish. Threats of physical assault are not acceptable.
gnomish on May 23, 2016 at 5:44 pm,
– – – – – –
gnomish,
I took that figuratively not literally . . . because of my benign poetical nature . . . : )
John
So did I. But it is pretty close to the line.
It’s not just institutions. HuffPo banned my E-mail account 2 years ago. Facebook has suspended my commenting abilities until 6/11. Disqus has blocked my commenting. Some moderators flat out tell you, others don’t. I get the impression that my climate comments on LinkedIn are blocked. WordPress also has strange “problems.” I appear to be locked out of realscience. I suppose I violated community “standards” although I suspect it’s complaints.
A recent WUWT post asked, (ironically?) “Why don’t we put Climate Scientists in Charge of the Country?”
And this is one more reason why not. Scientists, including myself, are generally much worse than not very good at politics. Homer Simpson is better at bare-knuckle politics than most scientists.
Off topic. Driving home today CBC was promoting this nauseating piece of propaganda. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/programs/onthecoast/filmmaker-says-addressing-climate-change-means-addressing-emotions-good-and-bad-1.3596974 Truly stomach churning. Then I get home and find the latest from WUWT and regain my balance. This one brings a deep and profound joy to my heart. I was just at the tip jar but will go again. Anth*ny, take a vacation if you must, but not too long.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/programs/onthecoast/filmmaker-says-addressing-climate-change-means-addressing-emotions-good-and-bad-1.3596974
Let’s just get them into court first. No need to jump straight for the extreme penalty. Your comment might count as a d-e-a-t-h threat.
A person I once knew said: “anything you do during a debacle will only make it worse.””
This appears to be the case here.