People send me stuff. It looks like the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund just blew another wad of money for nothing. A long running court battle to get access to Malcolm Hughes (one of Mann’s hockey-stick MBH98 co-authors) and Jonathan Overpeck’s (paleo tree guy and ranter on Twitter) just came to a head with a decision.
Here is the ruling:
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion requesting disclosure of the withheld emails which were identified in the initial and supplemental logs as prepublication critical analysis, unpublished data, analysis, research, results, drafts, and commentary is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall submit a request for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to ARS §39 – 121.02(B) by July 8, 2016. The request shall include an affidavit and itemized billing statement in compliance with Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., 138 Ariz. 183, 673 P.2d 927 (App. 1983). Defendant shall file any objection/response by no later than July 22, 2016. Plaintiff may file a reply, if desired, by no later than August 3, 2015 [sic].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall submit a proposed form of judgment by July 8, 2016. The form of judgment shall have a blank space for the Court to write in any attorney’s fees and costs it deems are warranted.
Ouch! We’ll post the emails when we have them. These emails go all the way back to 16 years ago, and may solve some of the mysteries and questions surrounding the Climategate emails.
UA-FOIA-ruling (PDF)
ADDED:
For Immediate Release:
June 16, 2016
Contact:
Craig Richardson
AZ Superior Courts Sides with E&E Legal and Orders UofA to Disclose ‘Climate’ Related Public Records Including Correspondence of Longtime Activists Hughes and Overpeck
Washington, DC – On June 14, 2016, the Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona, the Honorable Judge James Marner, ordered the University of Arizona to disclose certain “climate” related public records sought by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), correspondence of two U of A academics, Malcolm Hughes and Jonathon Overpack, who featured prominently in the 2009 and 2011 “ClimateGate” releases of public records.
The University had withheld these records, dating from 11 to 15 years ago, from public view since a 2011 Arizona Public Records Law request. The request deals predominantly with climate change communications and specifically should provide further insight into development of the so-called “hockey stick” graph, activism by university professors using public resources, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The 2009 and 2011 “ClimateGate” releases of public records also were subject to freedom of information laws, and the subject of stonewalled requests prior to being leaked apparently by a whistleblower concerned over those same efforts. One of these U of A employees was a co-author of a particularly controversial paper at the center of these revelations, with his lead co-author, Michael Mann, describing the activist climate agenda in several emails as “the cause”. The other U of A employee has been at the center of this “cause” by his activism relating to and arising out of his work at the University, using University resources.
As such, these records likely include significant overlap with those withheld for years during the University of Virginia’s decade-long efforts to keep its own involvement in climate alarmism from the public.
Commenting on the decision, Dr. David Schnare, E&E Legal’s General Counsel, and lead counsel in the case, stated: “This is a landmark case that address the joint needs to ensure transparency while preventing harassment of academics. Academics have increasingly become a significant part of the policy-making process, requiring significant transparency in their activities. Judge Marner struck a wise balance.”
Schnare continued, “The decision is a straight-forward and clear factual and legal ruling, the result of deep and thoughtful efforts by Judge Marner to sort through this difficult issue, which are plainly evident in the hearing transcripts. Those hearings and the briefing in this case helped refine the arguments central to striking the proper balance of scrutiny that comes with public funding, as well as concerns inherent in the transparency which is essential to research, particularly research that serves as the basis for economically and socially significant policies.”
The Court found that the University did not “specifically identify” any “substantial and/or irreparable private or public harm” that would come from releasing the documents; without such a harm, the legislature’s clear and overriding preference for transparency and public accountability prevailed.
The Court rejected the University’s argument that “release of the requested emails would set a dangerous precedent that would seriously and negatively impact higher education in Arizona and throughout the country.” The Court did not “ignore the repeated ‘chilling effect” concerns” raised by the University, but concluded that “potential harm is speculative at best, and does not overcome the presumption favoring disclosure of public records containing information about a topic as important and far-reaching as global warming and its potential causes.”
The Court also addressed the University’s arguments regarding protection of academic freedom, holding “they go beyond championing academic freedom and, in effect, promote the creation of an academic privilege exception to [state public records law]. This is a proposition more properly made to the legislature rather than the courts.” This finding may be the most critical outcome of this case, regardless of the public education that results on this matter of great public interest.
Upon receipt, E&E Legal will begin review of the more than 1,700 emails and other documents, after which it will make them publicly available to all interested in the history of this important period during which academics demonstrated significant influence on the public discussion on global warming and the human influence thereon, and the often highly political “cause” being undertaken by academics, the IPCC and others.
The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) is a 501(c)(3) organization engaged in strategic litigation, policy research, and public education on important energy and environmental issues. Primarily through its petition litigation and transparency practice areas, E&E Legal seeks to correct onerous federal and state policies that hinder the economy, increase the cost of energy, eliminate jobs, and do little or nothing to improve the environment.
-30-
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
OUTSTANDING
… and they are MILD
~Pall Mall
… and they are WILD
– Something Else
SHINE A LIGHT ON THOSE BILGE RATS
What ? Transparency? But … but .. this is SCIENCE ! That’s different.
When the light flicks on
Shining in dark spaces
We see hidden truth
Oh drat I missed a syllable…
When the light flicks on
Shining bright in dark spaces
We see hidden truth
which one? Looks like 5-7-5 to me…
We also see the cockroaches heading for cover…
Get ready for the show. This should be good…
http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/George-Costanza-Eating-Popcorn.gif
Maybe we will see the origins and evolution of the treemometer theory. I.e., the misinterpretation of strip bark as caused by increased CO2, later changed to caused by increased temperature because such interpretation was more lucrative. Following, dendros around the world fell into a money-fed mania measuring treeline tree rings as temperature proxies.
holy cow
No not a cow, Honorable Judge James Marner.
With emphasis on the word Honorable. But yes it’s simply amazing.
I suppose he couldn’t be seconded to the Mann v Steyn trial? At least a decision might be made then.
The situation with regard to emails is a bit <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfareasymmetric. The alarmist scientists’ emails are subject to FOI because they are public servants. Exxon’s emails aren’t subject to FOI. It is what it is.
Sigh! Second time today that I’ve messed up a link.
They aren’t subject to FOIA, but are to subpoena – which can be much worse. However, in both cases you generally have to be specific – in this (FOIA) case, they were. In the Exxon case, it was a 40 year fishing expedition, with no evidence of a crime a priori. That’s not allowed in either situation.
Yes it is allowed. FOIA is FOIA. No crime has to be even implied!
Scott, you are incorrect – FOIA does not apply to private companies or individuals, just government entiies, including universities, etc. No crime has to be invoked for FOIA, but it does for subpoena – which is why the Exxon situation makes no sense. See this:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/About-The-Freedom-Of-Information-Act.htm
Scott pay attention to what you are reading. Exxon’s internal communications are not subject ot an FOIA request, especially one that simply hopes to find evidence of wrong doing somewhere, some time. There’s very likely at least some mildly dingy laundry related to climate issues, but probably very early and focused on very specific issues. Public institutions (operated by tax money) in contrast are. The MBH hockey stick was poor practice from start to finish and the Climategate emails reveal clear confirmation biases in the investigators. More to the point, a scientific discussion should always be open, regardless of funding. That leaves you wondering what the investigators might want to conceal.
Did e-mail even exist in 1975?
If you use tax payer grants, we have oversight. Always. Academics think think they are exempt. Bottom line!
Indeed. The notorious Dr. Phil Jones noted in one of the Climategate emails that he didn’t see himself as a “civil servant”. Which is exactly what he is.
Jeremy. Don’t confuse USA and UK. Two different nations each with their own laws.
Research in the UK even when publicly funded is not in automatically in the public domain. When it is actually a govt. body ( like UK met office ) it is usually it is crown property.
This is why actual data is so hard to get hold of in UK and you are likely to have to pay an exorbitant “extraction fee” for the most banal climate data if you want the original records or daily data.
Phil Jones is not a civil servant. Those working for Met Office are ( it is part of the UK ministry of defence ).
There would never have been a problem if they had kept climate research to the rather arcane theoretical (though no doubt interesting) subject that it was for decades.
As soon as the environmental activists got their hands on it and saw an opportunity to further their anti-human, anti-modernist, (dare I say “anti-science”?!) agenda and the researchers saw a goose laying a lifelong stream of golden eggs and the UN activists saw a tailor-made opportunity to enhance their own prestige then this was always going to be the outcome, no matter how long delayed.
Hubris rules!
Of course, the main question is: Why does Climate Science need a Legal Defense Fund?
Why, oh why, oh why, oh why?
Climate Science isn’t criminal, is it?
Interesting isnt it?
that emails created pursuant to employment by the federal government, or use of federal grants is covered by FOIA, when private emails aren’t?
Perhaps thats because FOIA is meant to address federal documents and information. you think?
Exxon’s emails aren’t subject to FOI.
=============
Did the taxpayers provide the $$ to fund the Exxon research? That is really the crux of the matter. If you take public money you are accountable to the public to show what you did with it. If you use your own money, then it is your own business.
Ferd-
There is a Federal level FOIA, and individual state ones, as well as individual university ones, but in all cases the FOIA only covers “government owned/run” entities-organizations that “belong” to the State or Federal Government, and even then, only certain types of information can be requested, and not all requests must be granted. This particular case was with regard in particular to the State of Arizona and the University of Arizona’s FOIA policies.
Since EXXON is a privately owned/held company, it doesn’t matter if it received federal or state taxpayer money for anything, it is not defined as “a government owned/run entity”, and the FOIA does not apply to private organizations/companies. The Act was designed to allow citizens to inspect workings within their government run agencies, period.
Juicy!
Outstanding news. Hope Mann’s are the next to be made public.
“Why should [he]make the [emails] available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with [them].”
*GRIN*
Because here is strong evidence that there IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THEM,
I was hoping the subtle reference was clearer…:)
“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”-Phil Jones-response to Warwick Hughes when he asked for Jone’s data.
Mark Steyn also hopes that Dr. Mann has to produce his emails. Mann has sued Steyn and has delayed producing discovery for four years.
I wonder if Mann has any way to appeal the ruling that he has to comply with FOI.
I also hope this will help Dr. Tim Ball. What is happening with his case? This link says Mann’s case was dismissed because he didn’t produce discovery as required. Why, then, do I see no mention of it on Dr. Ball’s site?
commieBob-
I found this dated 2-15-2016- not sure if it’s factual or not-
http://morningmail.org/down-goes-the-hockey-stick/
Wow, good stuff in Alphan’s link. Lines like “Pinto the Wonder Horse” and (my personal favorite) “[Mann being intoxicated]… by the smell of his own bulls**it,…”.
Your link to “Mann’s case was dismissed …” only links back to this article, not the one you referenced. I would be interested in seeing that.
I have no idea why but I had a series of brain farts. I was trying to link to the site that Aphan found above. I find it ‘interesting’ that Dr. Ball’s site isn’t trumpeting the victory.
Civil suits often end on terms that require non-disclosure. Dr. Ball’s silence doesn’t automatically mean that he didn’t win.
Anyway, Dr. Ball commented on the case in a WUWT story back in February. link
commieBob … Thanks for the February 2016 link to Tim Ball’s WUWT article. His comment on the case states …
So, the court dismissed the case BEFORE it came to trial … because Mann refused to produce his (Hockey Stick) data for expert examination??? That surprises me … I would have thought that would be an issue for the trial itself.
Tim Ball wrote his article on 2/13/16.
Bret Harte wrote his article just 2 days later, on 2/15/16.
Are we sure that the Bret Harte article is credible?
I wouldn’t bet the farm on it. 😉
Dr. Ball says it’s bogus.
Thanks for the follow-up, commieBob. Gee, we have to be so careful not to fall for bogus stories like this.
….Oopsy !
I work in the private sector, I understand I would not want my emails made public. There is always a little fudge factor to get through the daily grind which could be construed as dismissive but definitely not fraud or endangerment. Would I go to court over them and spend many thousands to prevent releasing them, absolutely not. When it is public money, I guess the purse is limitless. As well, my emails are not driving policy of governments to spend billions of tax payer money.
I’m a lecturer at a public University in my country, which has an FOIA. There is nothing in my e-mail that the world couldn’t see with my good will. If I wanted to keep mail secret these days, I’d put it on the back of a postcard.
Exactly so. The list of people who have been tripped up by their email and text messages is long. My favorite is David Petraeus who, as Director of the CIA, should have known better.
Or post it on your front door !
I did that once. Posted a note in plain English, where to find the key, so my MIL and FIL could get in. They were on their way by car, so I couldn’t phone them to tell them where the key was.
It’s a real problem, cleaning up the bones that my dog didn’t eat. Yes, only eats live prey !
G
You could set up your own e-mail server in your basement.
Exactly, never put anything in emails, texts or phone calls that you would not want the world to see/hear.
Ah yes – but in South Africa, the chance that the Post Office would actually DELIVER it is rather less than 50%!
Great news, they are not above the law. ANy update on Lord Monckton and his group?
I liked this part in particular- (bold mine)
“Here, upon de novo review, the Court finds that AzBOR has not met its burden justifying its decision to
withhold the subject emails. In making this finding, the Court does not ignore the repeated “chilling effect” concerns raised in the affidavits and in the pleadings. However, the Court concludes that this potential harm is speculative at best, and does not overcome the presumption favoring disclosure of public records containing information about a topic as important and far-reaching as global warming and its potential causes.
As noted in the previous ruling, the affidavits/arguments of AzBOR are compelling. However, they go
beyond championing academic freedom and, in effect, promote the creation of an academic privilege
exception to ARS §39 –121. This is a proposition more properly made to the legislature rather than the courts.”
Subject matter should have no bearing on FOIA.
Michael, never said it did.
I was just adding to your post since the mention of it is right between your bolded sections…sorry if that wasn’t clear.
Ah. 🙂
It edited funny when I posted it-incomplete paragraphs etc. I just liked how the judge basically said “You know…your concerns that making public documents available TO the public, as per the well established and well known laws, might cause someone potential harm, are pure speculation, and have zero effect on those well established and well known laws. Academics are just like everyone else, they don’t get special treatment or exceptions to that law either. So cough up the emails.”
Subject matter should have no bearing. And neither should academic standing or whatever the public employees consider to be “chilling”. 🙂
Well, when I win the great big lottery, the The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) is going to be on my “here’s a big pile of money” list.
Then you will be thus be named…” Big Oil” !!
Chris Horner has been immense on these matters for several years now. http://eelegal.org/2015/12/08/wanted-posters-featuring-chris-horner-and-others-welcome-climate-realists-to-paris/
Something tells me that hard drives are crashing all over the place right now and we’ll see next to nothing.
Nigelf-Hard drives crash all the time. Data is retrievable, and neither one of this guys was even smart enough to NOT write such emails using University email addresses. We’re not dealing with geniuses here. 🙂
Well we are dealing with geniuses here but obviously not the ones who’ve read Asimov’s “Thinking About Thinking” or Rosner’s “Dumbass Genius” which list funny and completely stupid things that those 2 very bright fellows did. At least those 2 have a good time poking fun at themselves over it.
Warnings unheeded will now be paid for.
Check out what happened to the computers in the office of Premier Dalton McGinty of Ontario after he had a billion dollar shady goof.
Apahn
I hope your correct but remember when the East Anglia University CRU all of a sudden “lost” their original temperature data when after years of dodging and legal wrangling with Steve McIntyre they were finally ordered to release it. As far as I know there were no legal or punitive repercussions for that at all. But this is the US and not the UK so I guess we shall see.
Well, technically it wasn’t “lost” so much as abandoned, thrown out, discarded etc according to East Anglia-
“We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”
There is a big difference between data that you choose to get rid of “due to storage space issues in the 1980’s” and the digital data already written on a hard drive today. And while you CAN “crash” a hard drive on individual computers, or attempt to delete all of the “emails” from a specific account, copies of those emails sent to and from the University are stored on the University’s server backups somewhere as well, not to mention in the computers and servers of everyone those emails were exchanged with. And emails deleted from one place and not all of the others would be proof that someone was trying (stupidly) to hide something that cannot actually be hidden that way.
The judge even mentions that “At the time the emails were generated, Professors Hughes and Overpeck were aware that, because they were state employees using their employee email addresses, the emails were subject to public records requests.” AND “Alternative methods of communication have been and remain available to Professors Hughes and Overpeck and any other similarly situated person should they desire to correspond in confidence regarding research projects and like endevours.”
It’s a huge WAKEUP call to academics at least here in the US, that if they work for state/federal run schools and assume/pretend/are misinformed that their “academic” emails and communications with others are “private” or somehow protected as their own “intellectual property”, they are SADLY mistaken. What they do and say while acting in the capacity of employees of “the people” belongs to those people and that those people have the RIGHT, by law, to request to examine those things whenever they choose to.
A case in point about intellectual property is the invention of the laser. It was a long drawn out affair in court. Bell claimed that he invented it when he worked for them and he claimed he invented in college. Just because you invent something doesn’t mean it’s yours.
I have a lot of ideas too. I wouldn’t even bother.
My, my! A university opposed to transparency. Who would have thought of such a thing? 🙂
My school, good ol’ U of A. Lived in Tucson many years long ago…
Still here, it hasn’t changed all that much. Interesting to me, though, is that the AZ AG actually had the guts to sign the letter telling the extortionists in other States that, OK, you pulled out the lawfare – so will we.
Overpeck may just have to change his name to “OverPeckOTrouble” – he would be a fine target for a fraud trial.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch.
Science is on the verge of a nervous breakdown
Liberals are psychos, if you believe the science (but you shouldn’t)</a.
Maybe a way into Mann’s emails via a back door.
Sorry for the possibly ineradicable image that might conjure.
It is a big step on the road to truth, no matter where it will lead us. I think some one else asked about where Moncton’s case is at . Can he elaborate ( anybody) without jeopardizing his case?
More chickens coming home to roost. About time.
Oh this is gonna be good. It’s better than any soap opera I’ve ever seen.
Looking forward to reading them. Although if there are any big smoking guns related to the Hockey Schtick, I doubt the media will cover it.
If the MSM have any sense, they’ll recognise the tide is turning. This will mean a subtle shift away from outright advocacy to the “other scientists suggest” meme, but without any admission they were wrong, and ‘forgetting’ to interview alarmists such as Gore, etc.. Question is, do the MSM have any sense?
ilma630:
If you’re not the lead dog, the view never changes. FYI, the MSM are no longer the lead dogs.
Blogs rule! ABCNNBCBS drool.
“If the MSM have any sense, they’ll recognise the tide is turning.”
The MSM are for the most part Leftwing ideologues who are not too influenced by public opinion.
The MSM often hold views that are not held by the majority of Americans. Such as climate change danger. The MSM thinks climate change (CAGW) is a danger, most of the American public do not.
This rejection of the CAGW theory by Americans has not caused the MSM to reexamine their position on CAGW. They think they are right, and the American public is wrong. They will continue this theme as long as there is doubt as to the future direction of the Earth’s temperature.
Overpeck must be having a bad day …maybe he has pecked off more than he can chew ?
Maybe he just got debeaked ? Karma ……8>))
Well, I bet his feathers are ruffled but hopefully he won’t chicken out and run afowl of the court. The fox is in the henhouse now.
Get it? Poultry Puns?!
/Norm MacDonald
Overpeck has a pool also…the pump is a big energy hog
If he was in the pool when this news was announced, I’ll bet he’s going to have to check the filters…
+1
Is there any difference between “academic freedom” and freedom of speech. I think not!
Ah, but Freedom of Speech is not “academic”, it’s a fundamental right. Sorry, had to have my little play on words…
As a retired professor, I can clearly tell you there is a difference. Academic freedom makes it difficult to fire people for exercising their freedom of speech. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is much less effective against attempts to get people fired for what they say.
Uh oh. Get ready for the weeping, wailing, gnashing of teeth, and cries of “this is a monstrous attack on science and on all scientists everywhere who are only trying to do what they’ve been trained to do – science, by the oil-funded D-word-ist Industry”.
Nope – they know if they make that much noise, the MSM can’t just ignore it as a “local” story. If they keep it quiet, he lofos will never hear about it, and the Climate Change racket will continue to be a cash cow for thousands of amateur and professional hustlers, and continue to siphon funds away from real science..
Excellent! When will we get to see them?
and what did he win, johnny?
maybe wait to see the contents to decide if the struggle was a win or just a trip down the garden path.
Hard to believe they didn’t have something to hide considering their legal battle to keep them hidden in response to a FOIA request.
But surely it will have set a precedent?
No chance those E mails get released . The dog ate them or someone broke into the office have already been used .