Climategate continues: Release of University of Arizona Climate Emails Imminent

Press Release

Nearly seven years ago, on December 7th, 2011, the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic’s (FME Law) sought public records from the University of Arizona related to the Mann-Bradley-Hughes temperature reconstruction that looks like a hockey stick, and development of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.  They refused much of the request and FME Law sued.  Now (on September 18th, 2018) legal counsel for the University informed FME Law that they were done, that they would be withdrawing their appeal of the trial court’s decision, end the case and disclose the records.

Included in the release will be emails that, for example, provide the full context of the discussions between Michael Mann and colleagues and Chick Keller on whether there was a medieval warm period and a little ice age.  Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH) were the authors of the “hockey stick” graph that became the icon of climate alarmism.  Dr. Keller was, at the time, Director of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at the Los Alamos National Lab and affiliated with the University of California at San Diego, and wanted to reconcile data which appeared to refute the MBH papers.  Also within this collection will be the full discussion on events surrounding an effort to remove editors of journals willing to publish peer-reviewed papers that contradicted the MBH and related papers on which climate alarmism was built.  This collection of emails is particularly important in that they will provide the full context of Climategate emails that have been described as “cherry picking.”

The University lost its case in the trial court almost exactly two years ago.  On on September 19th, 2016, the Honorable James Marner ruled

“[the University] 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.

Nearly a year later, on November 30th, 2017 and after a third trip to the Appellate Court, Judge Marner clarified and reaffirmed his decision.  The University again appealed.  FME Law, however, was unwilling to wait further.  Under Arizona law, FME Law was allowed to obtain the climate science emails it sought, despite the appeal.  Nearly seven months ago, on February 26th, 2018, trial Judge Marner ordered the University to release of the documents, giving the University 90 days to disclose the documents in a word-searchable and easily readable form.

Three days before the deadline, the University filed a motion asking the trial court to “stay” the disclosure of the public records while they appealed the case.  In a 13-word decision, the trial court found “the requested relief is not warranted.”  The University again appealed, seeking a stay of the disclosure from the Appellate Court until their appeal of the underlying case was concluded.  Six days after FME filed its response, the Appellate Court issued a seven-word decision: “Motion for Stay Pending Appeal is DENIED.”

Again, the University appealed, asking the Arizona Supreme Court to stay disclosure pending its appeal on the underlying legal issues.  On August 29th, 2018, the Supreme Court rendered its decision: “Motion for Stay of Release of Records Pending Conclusion of Appeal = DENIED.”   Neither appellate court provided a discussion on the basis of their decisions.

The appellate decisions that required disclosure of the climate scientists’ emails signaled that the University was not going to prevail on its arguments before these appellate courts with regard as to whether they should, as a matter of law, be allowed to avoid their duty to disclose these public records.  As Dr. David Schnare, the member-manager of the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, PLLC, who prosecuted this case, explains, “For the University, it was the end of a very long road.  Their legal counsel, Michael Mandig, has informed me they would be withdrawing their notice of appeal and would work with us on completing the disclosure of the records.”

Dr. Schnare also noted, “While this was a long and arduous path through the various courts, I join in the comments of Judge Marner that the professionalism of counsel for the University was exemplary and I have the highest respect for his efforts and legal acumen.”

Others who attempted to intercede in these proceedings have labeled FME Law’s request harassment, an argument the Courts heard and to which they found no need to respond.  Instead, as trial Judge Marner made clear, the subjects of the public records address an important topic at issue in the public forum.  Dr. Schnare explained, “We did not take this case only to obtain the history of a very controversial period of time in the climate wars.  We also took this case to cast sunlight on how public universities work, how they contribute to the formation of public policy, and how professors behave within the policy arena.”

What remains is for the University to hand over the documents they improperly withheld and do so in the manner the Court directed – word searchable and easily readable.  This will not be easy to do.  While Professor Hughes’ emails are in an acceptable form, those of Professor Overpeck are not.  There are over 90,000 pages of Overpeck material yet to be disclosed.  To place this in perspective, the University’s original and voluntary disclosure consisted of 2,438 pages.

Once available, Dr. Schnare and his colleagues will take the first look at those documents.  With a doctorate in environmental management and decades of experience in policy formation, he and others under his supervision will sort these documents, organize them for use by the public and prepare a report on what they contain – so to speak, a chronicle of that historic time, based the full history of that period as available in this public record.  Dr. Schnare has been adamant that, unlike publication and discussion of the Climategate release of documents, FME Law’s examination and report will reflect the full context of the emails and will take careful steps to prevent “cherry picking,” especially for emails that, if not presented in context, would improperly harm the reputation of and proper respect for Professors Hughes and Overpeck, as well as their many correspondents.

FME Law is a 501(c)(3) public charity dedicated as a pro-environmental legal presence that represents clients seeking to hold state and federal governments to the ethical and legal requirements that protects and enhances free market environmentalism.

 

– 30 –

Advertisements

181 thoughts on “Climategate continues: Release of University of Arizona Climate Emails Imminent

    • There was quite a long fight to keep these from being made public (which raised my interest level in what must be in them…) which to me means, there must be something(s) in them that they don’t want to get out.

      • Seems like the current state where Trump has asked for the “Collusion” documents to be released while the DOJ and FBI fights to prevent. Meanwhile the open and “free” press remains astonished that Trump would undermine national security 🙂

        • I just saw that Trump reversed himself, likely at the request of the inspector general who’s investigating the Justice Department. Frustrating, but I agree with Trump on this one.

      • You are very likely correct. The U of A is just as political as most educational organizations, thankfully our legal system is not! (yet)

        • political as most educational organizations, thankfully our legal system is not!

          Are you kidding? Where have you been the last couple yrs? And political, Surreal-Court judges have been appointed for decades.

          • I was referring to the AZ legal system. And so there is no doubt about which one, it is our Supreme Court and the AG. BTW the legal system is not just the courts! But I am sure you know that!

      • Nobody wants others to see how they make the sausage. It’s a messy job with lots of peripheral components that at the moment seem acceptable but in retrospect are embarrassing. We already know about collusion to do some unseemly things. It’s good we finally will be getting all the information to understand motives and behaviors.

        • “Nobody wants others to see how they make the sausage”.
          ——————-
          My butcher has no problem to show his clients how he makes his sausages and what he put in it. Because like any other competent and honest professional, he has nothing to hide and is proud to show. That can’t be said of the climate profiteers in politics and academia.

      • I recall the Clinton administration fought every request for information. After months of fighting, it would give it up, and there would be nothing to hide.
        Stonewall everything is the smart move.

    • ‘Will this fare any better than Climategate?’

      Well, we have the example of Climategate itself before us now – we know how the press will try to shove it back up inside the horse – so forewarned is forearmed.
      I remember when Climategate broke, I had a buddy who thought, ‘well this is it, then’, and I TOLD him how the press would handle it – he didn’t believe it until he actually watched it. That kind of blatant dishonesty is hard to accept until you’ve lived it.
      BUT… I lot of people have now.
      There’s been a lot of water under the bridge since 2009 – and the press has lost a lot of credibility to the more general public – but we can expect suppression, rationalization, and spin.
      It’s what they do.

  1. How slowly the wheels of the law rotate when delay is in the interests of one of the participants. When the court decision is complied with, I will be interested to see how much coverage it receives in the MSM! Very little, I predict.

    • i think it will get covered like used catfood in the sandbox.
      we’ll get reruns of all the ‘committee exonerations’
      vanna! can i get a disavowel?

    • It will set a precedent. Which should speed up the breaking down of the legal road blocks. The alarmists throw up.

    • Faster than some real and fictional court cases e.g.
      Jarndyce v Jarndyce in Bleak House by Charles Dickens, and this reference is thought to be imaginatively based on at least two real long running cases —
      1. A dispute on the will of Charles Day, the proceeding started around 1837 and ran till just after 1854 (just 17 years)
      and
      2. The dispute over the will of the William Jennens. Jennens v Jennens case started 1798 and was abandoned in 1915 (117 years later) when the legal fees had exhausted the Jennens’ estate of funds. Jennens v Jennens had been ongoing for 55 years when Bleak House was published. (Information from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarndyce_and_Jarndyce )
      There are many outstandingly long cases in America’s legal history e.g.US Government and The Sioux Nation — A legal struggle for the return of the lands started in the early 1920s Sioux Nation argued that the 1877 Act of February was illegal and that the United States never made a legitimate purchase of the land. They won the case in 1980.
      But that is legal chicken feed compared to Spain’s masterly display of court longevity with Crown of Spain versus Christopher Colombus, his descendants, and between his descendants, which ran from 1516 till about 1792 (a staggering 276 years.)
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      So this case has been running for less than a decade, and may soon be settled — that’s fairly swift I’d say 😀.

        • Retired_Engineer_Jim

          That’s a very good point. I see Steyn on Fox News all the time and I had completely forgotten about his lawsuit and I have never heard him mention it.

          One Retired_Engineer_Jim to another.

        • Michael E Mann vs Free Speech by Mark Steyn

          March 30, 2017 In a couple of months, Michael E Mann’s defamation suit against me will enter its sixth year in the constipated bowels of DC justice. Given the proceduralist swamp in which the case is now mired, it is not unreasonable to assume that its ultimate disposition will consume most of my remaining time on earth: as I’ve remarked before, in medieval England trial by jury replaced trial by ordeal; in 21st-century America it’s the other way round.

          • Steyn is a brilliant writer and polemicist. I contributed to his legal defense, for which good deed I’ve been punished by constant dunning emails from National Review, who totally wussed out on the trial.

          • ….in medieval England trial by jury replaced trial by ordeal; in 21st-century America it’s the other way round.
            So true. As is the on going (and seemingly popular) push not for fair, timely, and appropriate punishment but moves to exact vengeance (or even revenge) for past wrongs. Back to an eye for an eye punishment because history shows that it works so well (not!).

          • unless you are poor, then the wheels of justice will bully you into a plea bargain so you can be set to work in the workhouse, sorry jailed, in short order. the american “justice” system utterly disgusts me.
            two tier “justice” is indeed medieval.

      • For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
        The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
        The pangs of despis’d love, the law’s delay,
        The insolence of office, and the spurns
        That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
        When he himself might his quietus make
        With a bare bodkin? who would these fardels bear,
        To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
        But that the dread of something after death, —
        The undiscover’d country, from whose bourn
        No traveller returns, — puzzles the will,
        And makes us rather bear those ills we have
        Than fly to others that we know naught of?

        William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act III, scene i (c. 1601).

        • Indeed …
          Devoutly to be wish’d. To die; to sleep;—
          To sleep? Perchance to dream! Ay, there ’s the rub;
          For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
          When we have shuffl’d off this mortal coil,
          Must give us pause. There’s the respect
          That makes calamity of so long life.

    • And does anyone living in the Real World actually believe that, after seven years, this chain of potentially incriminating emails will not have been scrubbed squeaky clean by the university in order to preserve their integrity?

      • Perhaps, but if they left forensic fingerprints, a hungry DA could have a field day on the criminal charges of destruction of evidence and contempt of a court order. It would not be a good day to be an administrator at that university. Arizona is not Virginia.

    • Exactly. There seems to be a lot of assumptions in comments here about what will be produced, even if there is anything juicy to be read. I am rather less sanguine.

      The climate-gate crowd have previously demonstrated themselves to be pretty unscrupulous when it comes to curating and doctoring evidence of both the scientific, and administrative/political nature. Many years have passed. Hillary also had some unfortunate disk crashes/accidents/whatever.
      Who thinks any similar such accidents will not happen here? So it may be illegal. So what? That hasn’t troubled many others, and suffering no consequences doesn’t engender much respect for the legal niceties amongst potential ‘white collar’ criminals.

      • And if some incriminating ones have been disappeared – emails that are relevant to logical argument – it will be very hard to deconstruct their fallacious arguments and the arguments will still be considered valid.

      • Churlish of me, perhaps. But maybe it’s the bit about her being an accomplice in so many rapes, murders, thefts, high crimes and misdemeanors, to include bribery and treason.

        • …although no reasonable prosecutor would take any of those cases if James Comey is be believed.

          …which I don’t, naturally.

        • Recently Hillary announced that the woman who has accused a SC nominee of attempted rape, should be given the benefit of the doubt.
          That’s different from what she was saying back when her husband was president.

          • Yeah where was her insistence of “benefit of the doubt” for Paula, Juanita, Kathleen and the rest? Where was the “they must be heard” mantra back then? where was the call for the FBI to investigate those accusations?

          • MarkW: A good point. Here’s another- Anita Hill thought that the accuser must be heard in ’91 and again in 2018, finding a tv camera to jump in front of for this latest; where was she in ’98? I don’t recall hearing from Anita Hill that Juanita Broederick or Paula Jones or Kathleen Wiley should be heard, investigated etc. And (crazy, I know) the “journalist” doing her interview didn’t ask!

        • John, don’t you know we’re to call the “rapes, murders, thefts and high crimes and misdemeanors” as mere “incidents” and any investigation into them are to be referred to as simply a “matter”. Easier to fool people into thinking “there’s nothing to see there” that way.

  2. Wow, that is seven years of using all possible legal ways to prevent the release of the relevant emails…
    Good lawyers at the side of the University, but lawyers with even a lot more patience at the side of FME law.

    Will be very interesting to see the discussion between Dr. Keller and MBH…

  3. They fought hard and spent lots of other people’s money to prevent the release of these e-mails.
    Hopefully that means there is something juicy in them.

    • Yeah, I couldn’t help but wonder how much this cost taxpayers and University students (in the form of higher tuition).

      • Paul Penrose,

        IANAL, but is University of Arizona a public institution (I assume it is)? if they got the emails by FOIA, can’t the legal fees they paid be discoverable by FOIA?

        • We have been awarded modest costs and fees. We will recoup about one fifth what the university paid it’s own attorneys and much less than we asked for.

          • We have been awarded modest costs and fees. We will recoup about one fifth what the university paid it’s own attorneys and much less than we asked for. The cost to the University is discoverable through their public records act. Anyone interested will have to ask for it as they wouldn’t tell me when I asked. I estimate their costs based on our billables.

            [Thank you for the explanation. .mod]

          • Pat Frank

            What happens if the University delivers the 90,000 documents in paper form?

            That is how Hillary Clinton blocked “search and find” examination of her emails – she deleted some 33,000 “after review by her attorney – thereby invoking attorney-client privileged” so the attorney could not be called to testify; then PRINTED SOME 13,000 PAGES of emails. Claimed that those 13,000 were the “emails” that the court ordered released.

            they were not. They were pages of emails => Replies and copy to and addresses of EVERY earlier reference. So the actual number of emails released (after being scrubbed by her attorney) was some 4000.

            Will that subterfuge happen here? Likely.

          • “Judge Marner ordered the University to release of the documents, giving the University 90 days to disclose the documents in a word-searchable and easily readable form.”

            a paper dump might be deemed contempt.

          • I would argue that is not in a “word-searchable and easily readable form” form. That would surely be a breach of the Court’s direction. I would imagine the Judge would take a very dim view of such action.

    • Oh there probably was something juicy in them (you don’t go to that much effort over nothing). But what are the chances they’ve long since been sanitized and the juicy bits conveniently lost/deleted at some point in the past 7 years?

    • The emails would have to contain evidence of criminal activity to be worth the risk of prosecution for destruction of public property.

      AZ looks as if it will reelect its GOP governor. GOP AG Mark Brnovich is running for reelection unopposed.

      Some years ago the late USSC Justice Scalia, appearing on stage with Brnovich at a judicial event, began by saying, “Mark, I’d like to buy you a vowel…”

    • One of their hard drives crashed somewhere at some point. so stuff was lost, just the stuff they’re looking for. And of course they forgot about SOX compliance, oopsie.

      Worked for the IRS.

      • Won’t that excuse diminish, now that stuff is being automatically backed up to the cloud—or run on the cloud in the first place?

  4. For the court to have allowed the University of Arizona to delay disclosure of these publically funded documents for seven years is a disgrace, a gross miscarriage of justice. The motive for Mann, Bradley, and Hughes to resist so desperately can only be to cover up what everyone paying attention knows is their blatant criminality in promoting their absurd, destructive, totalitarian-political Anthropogenic Global Warming fraud. These lying hoaxers have stolen and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars from the U.S. and world economies. They should be fined for everything they own and thrown in jail for life.

  5. … and WE ARE the ones who don’t believe in science when we INSIST that they … “show us the numbers”.

    I should have really liked going through school … never having to show my work. I guarantee you my grades would have all risen by a full letter … making me APPEAR as though I actually understood the subject matter.

    • Mark your own papers, review your friends papers, and give each other awards. That’s how progressives do it. The rest of us don’t have a clue.

      • We do have a clue. We now know how that system works. But does that knowledge actually make the adversary hand over all material? I am a bit skeptical, as always…

  6. But alas, it has been claimed that someone at FME Law uttered the words “pee pee” in preschool 30 years ago, so the University of Arizona is asking for an FBI investigation.

  7. The university seemed very much motivated to prevent disclosure.
    I suspect it’s for a reason. (You can call me Sherlock…)

  8. Does Arizona have anything like the California private attorney general statute whereby successful plaintiffs found to confer a substantial public benefit by their litigation are entitled to their legal fees? I was once a party to litigation (Slayton v. Pomona Unified School District) where our counsel recovered a substantial amount (I think about $90 K) pursuant to that law.

    Ristvan, you out there?

  9. WTF?

    “Once available, Dr. Schnare and his colleagues will take the first look at those documents. With a doctorate in environmental management and decades of experience in policy formation, he and others under his supervision will sort these documents, organize them for use by the public and prepare a report on what they contain – so to speak, a chronicle of that historic time, based the full history of that period as available in this public record. Dr. Schnare has been adamant that, unlike publication and discussion of the Climategate release of documents, FME Law’s examination and report will reflect the full context of the emails and will take careful steps to prevent “cherry picking,” especially for emails that, if not presented in context, would improperly harm the reputation of and proper respect for Professors Hughes and Overpeck, as well as their many correspondents.”

    we dont need Schnare to “interpret” the mails. just publish them

    crowds do better job than experts

    • Mosher, I never used the word “interpret”. I wrote that we would organize them and file a report on the basic content of what they address. The result will be a researchable database the ‘crowd’ can use. The key will be that the entire context will be available, so anyone trying to cherry pick will have to suffer from ‘the next guy’ looking at the database and finding a misrepresentation of the actual record. Now is not the time for the adults in the room to be attacked by the very loud activists who mindlessly defend alarmism by failing to responsibly archive this massive amount of information.

      • “Now is not the time for the adults in the room to be attacked by the very loud activists who mindlessly defend alarmism by failing to responsibly archive this massive amount of information.”

        Mosher hasn’t been an adult for several years, so he’s out.

      • Have you started on this project, and who is on your team? If we have to wait several months for “indexing”, then I’m with Mosher.

        • Precisely,

          I read all the climategate mails in one sitting, and given my background was able to put them in context without trouble or “assistance” or commentary.

          IN PARALLEL other people put together search tools and databases.

          ‘ But lets go to the text”

          With a doctorate in environmental management and decades of experience in policy formation, he and others under his supervision will sort these documents, organize them for use by the public and prepare a report on what they contain – so to speak, a chronicle of that historic time, based the full history of that period as available in this public record.

          1. what do you mean by SORT? do you intend to publish all of them?
          sort by author? by key word? by time? by topic? by what?
          2. Organize by use by the public. If so then this “public” only needs the corpus.
          3. Report on what they contain? report how? by mail? by topic? Is a report
          merely a summary of the mails, or since they are documents and subject to interpretation
          will you interpret them. Explaining what they MEAN is an act of interpretation, not
          mere “reporting”
          4. A Full history? That’s gunna be fun, what counts as public documents?

          “Dr. Schnare has been adamant that, unlike publication and discussion of the Climategate release of documents, FME Law’s examination and report will reflect the full context of the emails and will take careful steps to prevent “cherry picking,” especially for emails that, if not presented in context, would improperly harm the reputation of and proper respect for Professors Hughes and Overpeck, as well as their many correspondents.””

          Nothing Schnare can do will prevent people from “cherry picking” And of course people will refer to Schanres report as a cherry picking excercise because there are always parts of the public record that he will leave out.. either that or we will wait 7 years for his report.

          The mails are to be released.

          1. The public doesnt need any help in sorting, orgnaizing them, or putting them in context.
          release the mails. All of them.
          2. SOME in the public will appreciate Schares efforts to organize things. Nothing stops him
          from doing a report, doing a data base, etc etc.
          3. He is setting yourself as just another gatekeeper to data. will he put all the mails
          in the database? how will we know unless he also releases the full dump.

          • Much ado about nothing, Mosher.

            They have spent their own time and money fighting this. Where was your money? I trust that we will see all of the emails.

            On the other hand, where are the CG3 emails?

          • How many white wash committees, media and Climate Scientists tried to dismiss the corruption exposed in the Climategate emails?

            Never saw you protesting against that, Mosh.

          • Mosh, if you don’t like the way they are handling it, issue your own FOIA to the university for the same documents and release them to the public however you like. Put your money where your loud mouth is.

          • Actually Mosh is right on, those emails are for ME TO SEE, I do not need Dr. Schares help in anything, but I do thank him for sticking this out.
            That our courts of law are this freaking crappy is beyond me. Fire all of them.

          • I’m fully on Mosher’s side here. Its bad enough that the university may somehow exclude particularly inflammatory or derogatory emails on the basis of personal information or something. We dont need anyone else making arbitrary decisions on what the public gets to see.

          • Steven Mosher, take a deep breath. Type slowly, proofread, take a walk, proofread again, then hit “Post Comment”. The impression you leave is one of being beleaguered and harried.

        • It too 7 years to get the emails, I think it’s no unreasonable to wait a little bit longer for them to be indexed to make it easier for those delving into them to be able to follow what’s going on rather then throwing hissy-fits like little children because people that paid all those legal fees to get those emails aren’t doing things the way those you sat on their hands and did nothing want them to do things.

        • scrout you are welcome to submit your own FOIA in order to see them at any time should you be dissatisfied with how Dr Schnare is handling their dissemination.

        • We dont need anyone else making arbitrary decisions on what the public gets to see.

          TimTheTool, Dr. Schnare has said “If I get it, it will be made available in the data base.” what part of that makes you think he’ll arbitrarily leave things out? If you don’t like how he is doing things, by all means send your own FOIA to the university to get a copy of the emails to disseminate how you see fit. Put your money where your loud mouth is.

    • Mosh,

      I generally agree with you on this comment, but I also agree with Dr. Schnare’s comment below. Given your background in particular , I’m surprised that you would misquote or misinterpret the paragraph that you quoted. I may have overlooked it, but I don’t see the word “interpret” in there anywhere. and although it’s been quite a few years, I do believe that after the release of the first Climategate emails, one or more people tried to organize those into a readable format. One difference is, Climategate was released in the open and unexpected. This is the result of a long court process, of which I didn’t notice you taking a part in. I do believe Dr. Schnare has earned the privilege of organizing them how he sees fit, as long as it doesn’t take another seven years.

    • Mosh,

      You clearly needed someone to “interpret” the paragraph that you quoted. It doesn’t contain any mention or semblance of “interpretation,” nor should there be any reason to be perplexed as such to the level of “WTF.”

    • Mosher
      Crowds do better than experts.

      That is particularly appropriate when it comes to analysing data related to so called global warming, or the lack of it. Models versus reality.

      Or are your AGW experts beyond reproach.

    • I think Mosh has been studying statistical unicorns too long and now see things that don’t exist and weren’t said everywhere.

    • “we dont need Schnare to “interpret” the mails. just publish them”

      Well apparently you need someone to help you comprehend what Schnare wrote as nowhere in what he wrote did he ever say he was going to “interpret” them. But perhaps you do need someone to interpret them for you because your own abilities in the comprehension department have demonstrably failed.

      • “nowhere in what he wrote did he ever say he was going to “interpret” them. ”

        How else could they be contextualised if they’re not being “interpreted” ?

        • By being put into an indexed database that makes them easier to see the timeline of the emails. That he is “interpreting them” is *your* unfounded interpretation. Again if you don’t like the way he’s doing things issue your own damn FOIA and get the emails from the university yourself. He’s already did the hard work for you by going through the court systems, all you need do is issue a FOIA to benefit from the ground work of the past seven years.

          • John says

            That he is “interpreting them” is *your* unfounded interpretation.

            No. The fact he will be interpreting them to contextualize them is precisely what he’ll be doing and blindingly obvious. What wasn’t obvious is whether all of them will be released. It wasn’t mentioned either way in the article.

            From the article its entirely possible that an email might be interpreted as having nothing to do with anything relevant to the debate and then left out.

            I asked directly further down the thread and he responded they wouldn’t be removing any so that’s all good. Perhaps others had asked the same thing and I’d not seen it at the time but you’d not understood the issue or you might have pointed to a confirmation post that everything would be released.

  10. All I can say is “What a Waste of University Resources” No wonder “education”, for what it is anymore, costs so much but delivers so little. We have a generation of collage grads that could only pass Underwater Basket Weaving and never took a science class in their life. These losers are now getting $10/hr as Greenpeace activists on the Denver 16th street mall recruiting new members. And they will never repay their $100K loans they took to get their useless education. But Barry will forgive the loans if he ever gets in charge again.

    • Denver is devolving into a wasteland of homeless, drug addicts, and leftists hell bent on destroying what was great about western society. I heard Colorado was incredible back in the 80’s before these turds moved in from Kalifornia and New York.

      I can’t wait to get out of Denver. 14 more years. 14 more years.

  11. The left are very good at ignoring any legal decision that goes against them, but crowing like a million roosters any decision in their favour. Court systems should refuse to accept such obviously baseless, & endless, appeals.

    • Mosh is advising them not to do something they never said they were going to do.

      It’s just a thinly veiled attempt to change the subject.

      • “Mosh is advising them not to do something they never said they were going to do.”

        In other words, strawman.

      • No its an effort to clarify

        Will they release the FULL SET of mails in the EXACT form they get them Immediately OR
        Not.

        I dont trust anyone to read mails for me and create a report or a database where I dont have access to THE RAW FUCKING SOURCE DATA.

        I dont trust climate scientists to do this
        I dont trust lawyers to do this.

        Engineers, maybe.
        data scientists, maybe

        You trust lawyers? some fricking sceptic you are.

        There is a reaosn why Anthony Shared the orginal climategate mails with me.

        because despite our disagreement on climate science we DO AGREE on sharing data.
        all of it.
        freely
        without spin

        people can make sense of it as they see fit.
        we dont need experts or lawyers to sort and organize
        dump the mails
        all of them

        • Apparently English isn’t your first language. They said they would release the “full context”. You explain how that doesn’t mean everything.

          Again, they spent their time and money in court. Did you?

          • I speak English well, and I too would like some assurance that “full context” means all the emails, not just a relevant selection of emails.

          • If I get it, it will be made available in the data base. The problem is that the material is coming in multiple files that are disorganized. Some of the first released material contain gaps in the email strings that can only be fixed by getting them indexed, probably by date. As for my report, I’ve given little thought to what that will be. It is simply something I owe my original client. I am, however, preparing several journal articles on transparency and the academy, and reference to this suit will be a part of that. Like any serious academic, I’d like to be able to be the first to report on this material, but I realize that I won’t be the last and won’t go into it in the depth others may. As for Mr. Mosher’s concerns, he doesn’t know me and if he did, he would not have any concerns about honesty, fairness and integrity. Since he doesn’t, however, he is free to spew his invective. It’s his First Amendment right.

          • Just make sure you get the original emails in electronic format. In original internet email format. DKIM signature & all …

        • “There is a reaosn why Anthony Shared the orginal climategate mails with me.”

          I don’t think he would do that again. You’ve just become a self-important troll.

        • Mosh .
          Why all the swearing because you can’t get your own way ..
          Mann and co are con artists why else fight tooth and nail to hide their scam
          Did you pay for any of the legal costs?
          Those who pay the piper call the tune ..
          Get over it Mosh .
          These emails will become public property one day .
          Just get over it Mosh some one will pick up your toys .

        • I dont trust anyone to read mails for me and create a report or a database where I dont have access to THE RAW FUCKING SOURCE DATA.

          You really do take the prize here. When will you finally get around to publishing Climategate III?

          You are a complete hypocrite.

          Unbelievable.

        • “There is a reaosn why Anthony Shared the orginal climategate mails with me”

          Because he didn’t know you well enough to know what kind of drive-by troll you’d one day become.

        • You trust lawyers? some fricking sceptic you are.

          As long as they are on my side, they deserve, even as lawyers, a higher degree of trustworthiness than these mystery-mongers hiding under the cloak of ‘pure science’.

        • You trust lawyers?

          More than I trust a drive-by troll. Don’t like the way he’s doing it, put your money where you mouth is an issue your own damn FOIA for the emails. You won’t even have to spend 7 years in the courts thanks to his efforts.

    • Mann’s status exist because of the ‘value’ of his hockey stick to the IPCC , not because of its validity has it has none .

      • It must be real, it has a wiki entry.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalism

        While I don’t know the background to this subject, it occurs to me that the majority of rural and semi-rural blocks practice this sort of environmental management by default, without any force by law. People like a natural environment. But you’ve still got to manage it; weeds, wildlife, erosion and storm/fire damage naturally occur. So you’ve got to manage that at your (the land owner’s) expense. Most people do this because they like what they have and bought the property for that reason. Myself included.

      • Free market environmentalism is called ‘LOGGING’ and ‘MINING’ and ‘GRAZING’ and ‘DRILLING’ and it’s tenets are that with a profit motive involved, individual property owners (ie. the lease holders and claim holders) will take better care of public lands than government paid bureaucrats ever will, while returning value to the public by way of lease payments.

        It is NOT forcing compulsory regulations and taxes on the public, and then setting up some bogus trading scheme in regulatory BS like carbon offset credits. That’s called dressing up a punative tax in free-market sounding bogosity.

    • After some brief research “free market environmentalism” does exist and it seems like a very unpleasant joke. It seems like a rather pernicious extension of ‘property rights’ that could easily go bad quickly.
      Aren’t SLAPP suits an expression of such ‘free market’ mix of litigation and special interest? Pick any special interest. This one’s picked ‘environmental”

    • Well I’m glad you admit that modern environmentalism hates free markets, as their belief system is nothing more than thinly veiled communism.

    • reallyskeptical September 19, 2018 at 4:54 pm
      [“free market environmentalism”

      ha ha. What a joke.]

      – Oh how I love the smell of douchebag drive-bys’ in the morning

  12. Imagine what the cover arguments will be since they’ve had years to marinate and ferment their evasions.

  13. The spin in response to ClimateGate was thinly disguised nonsense clearly assembled in haste. Despite which it stood up.

    With a 7 year head start, the spin on this one ought to be breathtaking.

  14. I dunno, color me suspicious… after 7 years of delay and obfuscation the university abruptly drops their appeal and promises to release the responsive emails forthwith. Now I agree with the assessment it was clear the appellate judge(s) would deny the appeal if it ever got in front of them, but that was obvious as far back as November 17. This smells to me like they needed the time to make sure anything incriminating just magically disappeared. I’m not expecting any bombshells. Or even firecrackers. Probably not caps, either.

    • While I would not be surprised if they try, in practice this is very tough to do.

      For an email thread that was confined to the university, yes, you could disappear it. Of course if anyone on the cc list had their own copy and turns into a whistle blower, the jig is up. Now consider a cc list that includes people from other institutions. Can’t disappear those without the cooperation of those institutions AND the email users themselves. Again, a single whistle blower and things go kablooyie. Now consider they don’t know who forwarded what email threads to who else after that. That’s an even wider circle. Even if you could plug that hole, you’ve got other holes. Like person A and person B exchanged 10 or so emails a day for two years, then zero for two weeks… Huh, what happened there? Streisand effect. With crowd sourcing things like that are going to pop out.

      Popcorn…lotsa popcorn…

      • Like person A and person B exchanged 10 or so emails a day for two years, then zero for two weeks… Huh, what happened there?
        Vacation?

        • I agree that it can be very difficult to cover up things like this given the structure of the email network as you say David. Some years ago I was involved in an investigation into someone I had collaborated with for fraud. The first question I was asked related to an email between us, this was about 15 years ago when memory dedicated to email was limited and would fill up in a few weeks and you’d have to erase old emails to keep going. The investigators had found it on one of his computers. Fortunately I recognized the email and knew what it referred to! I had always adopted the principle of not saying something in an email that I wouldn’t say openly and was glad I had done so.

          • True dat.
            Plus, in the time frame we’re talking, erasing emails from end user computers wouldn’t come even close to doing the job. In a large organization, email is retained on the email servers, which are copies subject to search just like the ones on the desk tops themselves. The e-mail server in turn is backed up. In that time frame, the most likely backup target would have been tape cartridges that were then sent off site. Weekly full copies of the data. Depending on retention policy, there could be dozens upon dozens of copies of any given email on tape backup. To delete them, you’d have to have the co-operation of the IT department. Again, a single whistle blower in IT and the jig is up. Could IT be pressured? Absolutely. Now, their problem is that selectively deleting data from tape leaves gaps on the tape. Which makes it obvious that something was deleted from them. So you have to delete the whole tape. Sure you could just throw all the cartridges in the garbage, too bad your backup log now has tapes in it that don’t exist, so now you have to get into the backup logs and selectively edit them… and any IT person you can pressure into that is thinking to themselves… Am I going to go to jail if I get caught?

            Point being that there are a LOT of ways to get caught provided the forensic investigator has enough knowledge to know where to look.

          • “So you have to delete the whole tape. ”

            NASA managed to get away with doing so with its moon landing tapes. (It requested them back from a museam that was holding them and then lost or overwrote them.)

          • Plus, in the time frame we’re talking, erasing emails from end user computers wouldn’t come even close to doing the job. In a large organization, email is retained on the email servers, which are copies subject to search just like the ones on the desk tops themselves. The e-mail server in turn is backed up. In that time frame, the most likely backup target would have been tape cartridges that were then sent off site. Weekly full copies of the data. Depending on retention policy, there could be dozens upon dozens of copies of any given email on tape backup.

            Back in the early days of email that I recall it wasn’t so organized. Those of us who had email accounts were a distinct minority and I’m not sure how well backed things were, also memory was much more restricted. About twelve years ago a colleague of mine showing me the 1 terabyte drive he had just bought for saving his research images, cost something like $10,000 and was huge, the 2 Tb backup I have now fits into my pocket! It’s hard to believe back when the Megabyte was a lot. I had a data backup policy in my lab that data was backed up on streaming tapes, the best system at the time. With the advent of better disks the tapes became obsolete but I kept a filing cabinet full of tapes and an old computer which could read them. One day when I came back from a trip the computer was missing, someone who didn’t understand its significance had disposed of it! So a cabinet full of data and no way to read it.

          • “I hope you are not pushing the ridiculous and completely debunked “Moon Landing Conspiracy””

            Nope; my suspicion is the those tapes contained some evidence of an alien presence.

            As for the moon landing was a hoax theory, some of the points proponents make are strong (I forget them now and don’t want to revisit them). I suspect that NASA’s PR department had made films and photos of moon landing simulations on earth and released them as part of the real photos and films. When caught, they couldn’t admit it without bef subject to worldwide jeering plus a discrediting of future NASA claims, so they stonewalled.

            The proponents AFAIK never pushed the mixed-in images theory, because they were mostly extremist / conspiratorial types who whole-hog into their “Fake!” dogma.

        • Vacation?

          A very likely possibility. Provided that they were actually on vacation. Which ought to be easy to check. If not with HR, there ought to be vacation alert emails… so many ways to get caught.

        • Possibility, but if those two people are still emailing other people during those gap weeks that becomes less likely.

  15. We will have to wait and see, but I think they have had plenty of time to sanitise all this. And, the way things have worked out in the past (Climategate, Gleick, 28gate, etc etc) it strains my powers of imagination just how blatant, just how egregious their wrongdoing would have to be for it to change anything.
    I bet our Beloved Future King Charles is already on his way to commiserate with Hughes and Overpeck in this, their hour of need. And to assure them they will walk away without blemish. Again.

    • Sad but true.

      Hillary Clinton was the most corrupt mainstream Presidential candidate to run for office. She committed multiple felonies– including obstructing justice and lying under oath. Her husband was caught having a secret meeting with the corrupt DOJ Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, on a tarmac of the Phoenix airport. In addition to this, HRC was caught on tape laughing about how she got a man who raped a teenage girl off on a technicality.

      Despite all of this, she still managed to win the popular vote in the election.

      The modern Left seems to care nothing about morals or ethics. The ends justify the means.

  16. Of course, were there to be a single email which made a weak joke about ‘falling in love with a girl scientist and if you criticised her, she would cry…’ , then as Professor Tim Hunt (a REAL scientist and GENUINE Nobel prize winner) found out, Hughes and Overpeck’s careers will be toast.
    Blatant fraud, destroying data, making stuff up? No. That’s just standard CliSci practice.

    • you mistakes it to think their areas has ‘standards ‘ in the first place , when in practice we seen even outright lying as not just acceptable but ‘celebrated ‘ when it furthers the cause ‘

  17. If you had proof of something that could ‘save the world ‘ from doom , would you do a: employ endless smoke and mirrors to hide it , or b: do all you can to get the most people to view it ?

    That the former is the natural and first approach of those working in climate ‘science is very telling given their claims of ‘settled science ‘ indeed as their actions reduced the possibility of changes you could suggest this shows ‘evil intent ‘ or you could accept that the claims of ‘settled science ‘ are BS and they need to hide information because of this in the first place .

    • knr:
      You are totally spot on. Repeatedly ask the thermageddonist scientists, “what have you got to hide?” and see what their answer could be.

  18. There is something quite dirty and nasty in this Green Movement you will never see on the news or read in their daily news rags about the underhandedness of the Climate Change Advocates

  19. Am I justified in being concerned that there’s still a gatekeeper of these emails once they’ve been released, especially when there are many very competent independent analysts and commentators out there?

    • No. Once I get them indexed, I’ll put them up for all to see and access. There will be no gatekeeper.

        • Take YES for an answer. Everything I get will be put up on a site to which anyone could gain access. The problem is that it is a messy bunch of emails. Email chains have been broken. Date groupings are rare, and in a large number of cases, the email formatting gets in the way of simple word searches (something I’m currently in discussions about with the University and hope to avoid.)

          FWIW, the university immediately archived the emails five years ago. They are in the hands of a professional archivist at the university – one who is unfamiliar with the content and who has no reason to make any of them “disappear”. There is no foundation for concern about “disappearing” emails.

  20. It seems that the alarmists will stall FOIA requests until the next ice age hits. Jarndyce vs Jarndyce pales by comparison.

Comments are closed.