‘Climategate 4’ email dump about to happen – Mann’s cohorts lose in court

Court ruling requires Regents to turn over climate emails by UA researchers

By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services

PHOENIX — An organization that questions the role of humans in climate change is going to get access to the emails and records of work done by two scientists at the University of Arizona in its bid to argue that their research is flawed.

The Arizona Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a last-ditch effort by the Arizona Board of Regents to overturn lower court rulings that ordered the documents immediately released. While the justices did not comment on their decision, they effectively rejected arguments by the Board of Regents that release would be “contrary to the best interests of the state.”

David Schnare, attorney for the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, said the only question that remains is how quickly the university will surrender the documents his organization first sought seven years ago.

At the heart of the legal battle are emails and other documents from Jonathan Overpeck and Malcolm Hughes who both specialize in research on climate change.

Schnare said E & E is particularly interested in their work since it became a crucial part of a report that linked human activity to global warming. And that report, in turn, has become the basis for policy changes that have sought to move away from the use of fossil fuels for energy generation because of the production of “greenhouse” gases like carbon dioxide.

What E & E wants to see, Schnare said, is the interaction the pair had with other scientists as the report was being prepared. He said that should reveal were comments from others “that were never included or never seriously considered.”

“How these reports are put together and how these comments are dealt with is a valid question with regards to reliance on this report,” Schnare said. “One has to ask, just because they claim they had a lot of experts involved, was it an honest piece of work or not.”

Messages left with Hughes, who is still at the UA, and Overpeck who is now with the University of Michigan, were not immediately returned.

Schnare said he is not saying that either scientists did anything wrong or even that their research is erroneous. But he said the only way questions can be answered is through full release of all the documents that were being considered.

In filing the original lawsuit, Schnare said Overpeck was prominent in the “cause” of global warming, including “activism for environmental pressure groups.”

Schnare also said the pair came to his group’s attention after a server at a British university was hacked, disclosing thousands of email exchanges between academics and others involved in climate research.

Some of what was found was labeled “climategate” and is being used by groups to show that global warming is just a conspiracy.

Full story at tucson.com

h/t to WUWT reader “Ed”

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
223 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Albert
August 30, 2018 8:44 am

Unfortunately, the full story cannot be accessed “for legal reasons”:
451: Unavailable due to legal reasons
“We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact jspitz@tucson.com or call 800-695-4492. ”

Any suggestions to get this info? Is the whole EU being kept in the dark about this? Another good reason for Brexit 😉

Eclectikus
Reply to  Albert
August 30, 2018 1:58 pm

Use a VPN. If you use Opera browser then you can activate / deactivate it easely in one click.

MarkW
Reply to  Albert
August 30, 2018 3:57 pm

Many sites don’t have the resources to keep up with all the new EU regulations, so to keep out of trouble they block any views from EU countries.

August 30, 2018 9:11 am

The link to the full story begged me to turn off my ad blocker or pay money before I could read it. My reaction, which is my customary reaction, was “F you!”, and I immediately clicked out of the site, adding another increment to their (I suspect) ample bounce rate.

I should be used to this by now, but it still seems to get me.

/end-rant

Joel Snider
August 30, 2018 9:37 am

Anybody care to make a bet on what’s in ’em?

And anybody care to make a bet on how the press will spin it?

knr
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 30, 2018 12:44 pm

Easy the press will simply not cover this ‘old news ‘

Reg Nelson
August 30, 2018 9:47 am

For people having trouble accessing the article, here’s an archived copy of the web page:

https://tinyurl.com/UAFOIA

ResourceGuy
August 30, 2018 10:37 am

Keep pecking the Overpecks of the world.

Dave Fair
Reply to  ResourceGuy
August 30, 2018 11:35 am

My wife’s chickens’ pecking makes more sense.

Anonymoose
August 30, 2018 12:16 pm

There probably is a typo somewhere around “reveal were comments”.

K. Kilty
August 30, 2018 1:47 pm

Seven years? Goodness. Surely there has been a hard drive crash at some point in this time interval.

Alan Watt, Cliamate Denialist Level 7
August 30, 2018 4:31 pm

Finally decided in seven years? The Arizona courts are a model of efficiency. Mark Steyn has been waiting over six years to even get his case heard in the DC courts. Maybe he should petition for a change of venue so the case could could be finished before rising sea levels submerge the District Court building and all those distinguished justices have to be evacuated to the Climate Change Refugee Redoubt in Pikes Peak, CO.

richard
August 31, 2018 3:52 am

I’m sure the emails have been washed to rinse out any horrors.

John Goetz
August 31, 2018 4:57 am

Was the password for the Climategate 3 emails ever released?

moi
August 31, 2018 8:31 am

RE: “He said that should reveal were comments from others “that were never included or never seriously considered.”
Who are these scientists?
Without knowing exactly who we’re talking about here how can any of you have any idea whether or not their comments should have been included or seriously considered?

Odds are they’re as full of poop as the general ilk here at WUWT. In that case, their input wouldn’t be helpful in any way.

Edwin
August 31, 2018 9:57 am

Coming from a state where we have a Sunshine law such behavior by government, and universities are government, is one reason I became a skeptic. If indeed the “scientists” involved truly believe that CAGW is as bad as they claimed then one might believe in an honest world that they would happily want to demonstrate they were part of clear and unambiguous debate and discussion. Yet we have seen time again that is not the case. Instead they protect all their research, data and methdology as if they were working on the Manhattan Project. That is not how good science is done.

simple-touriste
Reply to  Edwin
September 1, 2018 5:30 am

Leftist always mention how Hollywood abused copyright law. (They are right.)
They say the DMCA contains an abusive anti free speech clause to protect DRM. (They are right.)

What do they say about abuses of “copyright” claims by climate scientists?

simple-touriste
September 2, 2018 11:59 pm

Transparency champion (for some research) Sheldon Whitehouse has not weighted on this?