Press Release
November 30, 2018
On January 6th, 2011, the University of Virginia was asked to disgorge the emails of Dr. Michael Mann that were associated with his work on global warming. The University refused some, but not all of that request. They did, however, give all the requested public records to Dr. Mann who also refused to make them public. On December 7, 2011, the University of Arizona was asked to disgorge the emails of Dr. Malcolm Hughes on which Dr. Mann was an addressee and the emails of Dr. Jonathan Overpeck for which six individuals were addressees, as well as emails associated with various global warming subjects and publications. On November 19th, 2018, the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic (FME Law) and counsel for the University of Arizona’s Board of Regents appeared before Judge Marner in the Pima County Superior Court to give the court notice that the university would comply with the Court’s previous order and would deliver all Dr. Hughes withheld emails by today, November 30th, 2018 and all of Dr. Overpeck’s withheld emails by January 15th, 2019. The Court’s Minute Entry of that hearing is attached. (see PDF below)
Facing the fact that all the emails Dr. Mann did not want released would now be released, today Dr. Mann made his version of these emails available to the public, but in a form that does not allow them to be downloaded. Because they have now been made public, any Virginia citizen seeking those emails can obtain copies from the University of Virginia, if the University has not destroyed them in the meantime. Otherwise, they will be made available by FME Law.
FME Law will make all the Hughes and Overpeck emails available to the public once it completes its voluntary commitment to the court to assess them and document the professionalism and academic honest of Drs. Hughes and Overpeck which it fully expects will be demonstrated therein. FME Law made this voluntary commitment for two reasons.
First, during the litigation, accusations had been made that the purpose of the request was harassment and no value could come from their release other than to use them to tarnish the reputations of Drs. Hughes and Overpeck. FME Law does not harbor such a purpose and has no reason to believe either Hughes or Overpeck behaved beyond the bounds of proper academic ethics, and stated repeatedly to the court that the release of these emails would allow that to be demonstrated.
Secondly, FME Law is fully cognizant of the bitter and unwholesome nature of divisiveness with regard to global warming and the professionals within that small academic community. FME Law knew that Dr. Mann and his fellow travelers would accuse FME Law of engaging in cherry picking and attempts to use the emails to embarrass these two faculty members. FME Law has no such intent, nor does its client, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute. FME Law cautions anyone who accesses these emails to do so with respect to the context within which they are written, and for reasons other than ad hominem attacks on Drs. Hughes and Overpeck.
Dr. Schnare, Member-Manager of FME Law and lead attorney on these cases, described the importance of this case. “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. Core legal issues not addressed in this litigation remain – particularly about how to effectively protect the research process while still allowing the public to learn how this sector of the government works.”
FME Law is committed to engaging this question of academic behavior within the policy arena. The academy itself admits it is rife with research pathologies and only transparency within the ivy-covered walls will expose and allow for corrections of those problems. As Dr. Phillip W. Magness explained this week, with regard to “academic hoax papers that have revealed the crisis of rigor afflicting academic publishing[, t]he fabricated articles only advanced to publication because decades of lax standards have made academically fashionable nonsense—including other forms of fraudulent work—the norm for celebrated scholarship in several of the humanities and social sciences.“
Based on what is found in these emails, the results of a major investigation on public records requests to universities, and intensive review of the law of academic freedom and the notion of a scholar’s privilege, Dr. Schnare will discuss transparency and the academy in a forthcoming major law journal article.
FME Law is a 501(c)(3) public charity dedicated to be an honest, pro-environmental legal presence that represents clients seeking to hold state and federal governments to the ethical and legal requirements that protect and enhance free market environmentalism.
PDF of press release plus court document:
FME Law Press Release Nov 30, 2018
Dr. Mann’s version of the released emails:
https://climateincontext.cruelclimate.net/
Note that the user name and password are both “mail_guest”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Whilst it is obvious the Mann was one of the first to commence the Great Global Warming Scam, he was not alone.
What about all of the Senators in that very hot room, with the air conditioning turned off and the windows open. How come they did not say Ïts too hot, fix the air conditioning and we will meet again later on
Its a bit like Stalin saying of the people of Russia, ” Useful idiots” people who did not understand what was going on, but felt that he Stalin was probably right, so they followed him.
The blame such as it is must be , is the likes of both politicians who just wanted more power, and especially the likes of the United Nations, the two third black and brown membership, who just want a way of getting more money out of the better off nations of the Western countries.
Of course many in the UN also want a form of World Government t with themselves as the rulers.
MJE
It goes back to the Endangered Atmosphere Conference of Margaret Mead in the 1970’s. Mann is a model version. Objective: massive population reduction, put into words by another modeller Dr. Schellnhuber CBE. World Government is estimated to be possible with a population between 1 and 2 billion.
5 billion are estimated to be useless eaters, CO2’ers, by these honorable gentlemen.
Anthony –
I know you hate censorship, but is there anyway the moderators could cut some of this ranting stuff which defaces the thread here. It doesn’t win WUWT any points anywhere, and strengthens its critics. Especially near the top of the thread there is so much irrelevant crap that it makes reading the important material not much fun at all.
Can we have a tightening of policy in this area? Ad hominems definitely have to go, but also some of the childish word-battles between certain ‘usual suspects’ are frustratingly repetitive and tedious and add nothing.
Charles and I are working on it.
mothcatcher-
I agree with you that “this ranting stuff” and “irrelevant crap” have distracted from this thread. However I appreciate Anthony’s lack of censorship. And he and CTM have their hands full.
I suggest you do what I did in this thread, and use a little individual censorship by using the indentions. Whenever I encounter a personal argument like ones from honest liberty and Mosher above, I just scroll down to a comment on the left-most margin and start reading again.
Good point Moth. The Steve Bannon concept of “flooding the zone with sh*t” springs to mind. It would be a good idea to delete entire thread in here.
I’m disappointed in this Mann figure, I’ve written on twitter to him, but he’s unresponsive to me a fellow scientist on his seemingly crusade to demonise CO2; albeit I’m using a pseudo name as I’ve been threatened on social media to much for may liking. I was prompted to do this not only for his outspoken opinions on all matters climate that he thinks he knows the whole process about, nut by his Ad Hominems against President Trump that I feel are un justified criticising his intelligence.
Fell free any one to join me, please?
(a few typos sorry ‘too’ & ‘but’ – wish there was a timed edit facility Anthony).
The crocodile tears of “ad hominem” gushing here are a crying scandal.
The entire AGW scam is ad hominems. plural , an attack on mankind itself.
Not to forget a few other homines such as Dr. Schellnhuber CBE make no bones about optimal population of 2 billion, with total decarbonization.
Considering Mr Joe Public:
Cameras appear on street corners, up lampposts, in shops & pubs, in car windscreens, on policemen, behind bushes every everywhere everywhere. Recording time, place, speed, driving & non-driving behaviour.
Doncha just love it:
A New Super Duper Mega Camera is invented.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/22/interlude/
And Skeptix go All Swoony and use it to look at clouds. Clouds. In the sky.
Meanwhile, our elders and betters do what with it?
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/long-range-camera-takes-aim-at-dangerous-drivers/
Criminalise the very people that keep them in their Ivory Towers.
Bear in mind that ‘dangerous & reckless driving now includes such things as:
…..Smoking any sort of cigarette (apart from cannabis of course nowadays)
…. Drinking soda pop
…..Driving through puddles
…..Not driving through puddles
…..Eating anything
…..Dodging round pot-holes
…..Glancing at pretty women
…..Picking your nose
…..Going at 0.001mph above the Speed Limit
All in the name of ‘Safety’ of course but patently a method of raising revenue and criminalising people.
Then, phone calls, emails, texts, blog posts etc etc are absolutely recorded and stored by myriad agencies both known and unknown.
The terrorists have won.
But but but, we are relentlessly told that
‘If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about’
Yet all these ‘Safety Measures’ give the impression that we are all under suspicion, that we are all constantly doing, or planning to do, ‘something wrong’
Our leaders are totally paranoid, both in the usual ‘urban’ meaning of the word but also in their epic over-reactions to trivial pieces of normal everyday living.
And Climate Science is just one more ‘Safety Measure’
A typical Government over-reaction to a trivial non-event and an even worse bit of science than the ongoing ‘Fat is Bad’ fiasco/disaster.
(Over 40% of all deaths nowadays are from things virtually unknown prior to 1950
Thanks Ancell)
But when the spotlight is turned on them…….
Yeah. Right.
Silence. Hiding. Lying by omission.
Then Mrs May, UK Prime Minister is wondering if we, The Plebs, are ‘Anxious’
Yes Mrs May, we are anxious.
And YOU (representing modern/current Government) are the source of that anxiety.
You are dangerous through:
……your obvious nervousness about almost everything
…..obsession with trivia
…..paralysed by dull minds & poor (school playground) science
…..belligerence coming from your own self-importance
….personal insecurity leading to empire building not only of the bureaucracy itself but of fawning cronies.
Alert readers will now realise why rules surrounding cannabis are being relaxed, certainly in the Western World….
(Look for a ‘sort of secret’ eavesdrop on Macron talking to a senior Arab gentleman at the current G20 – if *anyone* is in need of a Big Phatt Spliff right now, it is Macron)
Mann and friends are 97% activist, 3% scientist.
Let us make sure we keep the goal in mind! Make sure Climate Science is using the Scientific Method.
Primarily reproducibility requiring transparency, mostly in data.
And I pray that people, who feel they’ve been wronged for years, snipping here doesn’t mean that we lose future transparency.
I know what to get my wife for Christmas now, THANK YOU so much dr Mann. A scent called ‘Sophistication’
And if i cant buy it, i will concoct it myself
Judging by the amount of time it took my innocuous play on words to appear, it would appear that Anthony and Charles (and others?) have switched to full ‘gatekeeper’ mode, to keep the replies within bounds.
The time and effort required is massive, do not underestimate it. The integrity and judgement required is recognised by most here as well. If Anthony would be so kind to let me know the shop where he buys his time, I want to buy some there.
If he would also be so kind to tell where he gets his integrity – I know some high profile egotistical blowhards who might like to shop there.
Well said.
Being very thin skinned and having a massive ego as Mann does , is often a poor combination .
I hope he lives long enough to see his life work held up as joke it always was , the only real question is what colour will the bus be his fellows will throw him under in an attempt to save themselves.
What ever colour , it cannot come soon enough .
Surely we know about the two-tier justice system by now.
Evidence and facts are immaterial.
It’s Level 1 for us – level 2 for elites. [It’s a club, and you ain’t in it.]
I cannot see justice being done here or with any other high-profilers.
Perhaps someone could name one?
History will not treat Mann kindly.
Well, I was going to comment that he kinda/sorta looks like a pig, and talks with the intelligence of a pig, but then I realized that I would probably be insulting pigs…..
Nice one!
In what sense us it true, Steve?
Certainly not in the sense that matters:
An excuse to spend untold amounts of money on things that either don’t work or are not very serious.
The bottom line is that once again skeptics are proven correct:
There is much less fact than hype when it comes to the climate consensus.
Perhaps when you consider that putting even a small fraction of the energy you put into policing skeptics into critical analysis vof the consensus would be highly productive.
hunter
“In what sense us it true, Steve?
Certainly not in the sense that matters:
An excuse to spend untold amounts of money on things that either don’t work or are not very serious.
The bottom line is that once again skeptics are proven correct:
There is much less fact than hype when it comes to the climate consensus.
Perhaps when you consider that putting even a small fraction of the energy you put into policing skeptics into critical analysis vof the consensus would be highly productive.”
“In what sense us it true, Steve?
First off thank you for using my first name. I appreciate it. The sense in which it is true is the scientific sense. The argument is really simple. We have know since 1896 that C02 and other GHGs contribute to warming the planet. We have known that H2O, C02, CH4 and other GHGs make the planet warmer than it would be otherwise. We know this independent of any of the work on global temperature series and we know this independent of anything that Mann may or may not have done. We know that no mails, no shoddy statistics, can change this fundamental fact of physics.
“Certainly not in the sense that matters:”
The scientifica sense is is the only sense that really matters, if your goal is understanding.
“An excuse to spend untold amounts of money on things that either don’t work or are not very serious.”
It doesn’t make much sense to say that the HS was used as the “excuse” to spend a small fraction of our wealth on mitigation. The case for AGW is bigger than Mann’s work and the motivation to
do something about the problem predates Mann’s work
Here from 1990, can you guess the leftist author?
Margret Thatcher
Hunter one thing that usually signals a weak position is the attempt to refree your own fights. Secondly, you should excerise more care when discussing what the cosnensus is. It’s actually pretty narrow and nothing to do with Mann. Lastly, I thank you for your concerns about how I use my time, and your attempts to serve as my nanny. I give a tiny fraction of my time to policing skeptics. Sometimes they only merit a single word “wrong”. Of course when I do that they seem to take an opposite position to the one you take and demand more of my time. They demand debates; they demand that their questions all be answered; they demand that I answer questions outside my very narrow field of expertise. I would appreciate it if you could coordinate with others and make consistent time demands. Do you want less Steve or more Steve? As for the fraction of my free time I spend doing critical analysis of the “consensus”. We could do an accouting. From 2007 to roughly 2013 I worked on nearly fulltime basis, free of charge except for publishing royalties, on a few things: Climategate and land temperature series. The focus was critical. Today I spend 98% percent of my volunteer time on critical analysis of my prior work, specifically on UHI and microsite. Comes the question again, if me spending 2% of my time “policing” skeptics is too much in your opinion, then perhaps you could take over the role of criticizing those skeptics who are uncritical of their own views.
Re Steve:
**First off thank you for using my first name. I appreciate it. The sense in which it is true is the scientific sense. The argument is really simple. We have know since 1896 that C02 and other GHGs contribute to warming the planet. We have known that H2O, C02, CH4 and other GHGs make the planet warmer than it would be otherwise. We know this independent of any of the work on global temperature series and we know this independent of anything that Mann may or may not have done. We know that no mails, no shoddy statistics, can change this fundamental fact of physics.**
The gases you list make the planet warmer, but there is a cap to that.
I would give this a 5 percent truth for the following reasons: Arhenius corrected his original statements which most people are not aware of or ignore. Yes, we hear everyday about these greenhouse gases, but everyone fails to tell us how little of the atmosphere they comprise. Also even if the gas amount increases by 30 percent, it is still a very small percentage of the atmosphere. Also take note of some of the work of Willis E, who showed how the heating and cooling balance out. Some have claimed that feedbacks are significant, but nobody has shown this conclusively, so it is nothing but an assumption. Again, there is also a theory that feedbacks can be negative as more moisture can increase cloud which will reflect solar radiation.
Then, one of the real knockout punches to all that greenhouse gas effect is that the effect is logarithmic. NASA/NOAA knows this as I also found it at their site. The first 20 ppm of CO2 has the most warming effect, then it decreases logarithmicly. I will list it here:
7. David Archibald shows how the effect of increasing CO2 decreases logarithmically as CO2 increases in the following:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-effectiveness-of-co2-as-a-greenhouse-gas-becomes-ever-more-marginal-with-greater-concentration/
There is also another article on the Logarithmic heating effect of CO2:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
An important item to note is that the first 20 ppm accounts for over half of the heating effect to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, by which time carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas.
8. Tony Heller has shown on his weblog that NASA/NOAA is adjusting the raw temperatures to show a warming when there is none or very little:
https://realclimatescience.com/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/
Anthony & Charles,
May I suggest that a parallel read-only thread is put out after say 200 posts, containing what you consider to be germane contributions to-date, and carrying on until you close the main thread. In this way, everybody can still contribute and can be read, but for those who want to follow the argument in retrospect such an edited precis would be invaluable.
PS: any news on the Moncton paper?
“Core legal issues not addressed in this litigation remain – particularly about how to effectively protect the research process while still allowing the public to learn how this sector of the government works.”
What are we talking about here, some new advanced weapon system? Some new material that will revolutionize the world? A new energy source worth $trillions? No, we’re talking about paleoclimatology research, which somehow the charlatans have convinced some of the public that publically funded pure academic work is proprietary. I can’t imagine needing to hide any of my academic emails, and the fact that they have tried desperately to keep these emails under wraps suggests something hinky is going on.
Too bad we never saw Karl’s emails which were claimed to be essentially private due to their “proprietary” nature. So, I guess there’s a lot of money to be made in publishing climate research after all?
Transparency? I’m not sure you’re there yet. For one thing, never trust delay in response and this is decades old delay. But yes, Dwight Eisenhower would favor transparency on the real issue here.
There is a dark motive for the Defendants in these university email FOIAs to resist their release so strongly. If you believe otherwise, I have a nice bridge to sell you.
Simple embarrassment will likely be the least of their problems.
The extra time involved for the release of Dr. Overpeck’s withheld emails (another 6 weeks) is likely the time needed for environmental-paid (probably Steyer’s and Bloomberg’s paid groups) legal and PR-reputation firms to work through and build a mitigation of damage strategy with press releases and interviews planned in favorable forums. Strategizing damage control spin and PR is now the main task at hand for them. No doubt they are reviewing all the original UEA-CRU damage control efforts from 2009 2010 see how to proceed with the best spin deceptions. They will still have at least another 30 days beyond the January 15th turn-over date before any public release is available from Dr Schnare’s FME Law.
No, Joel. They need the time to remove personal information such as phone numbers and the like. It is being done by both their outside counsel and their FOIA coordinator, neither of which is familiar with the technical aspects of the emails. Further, they have pdfs that are repleate with formatting code, making them incredibly hard to read. And finally, they are looking at over 95,000 pages of material.
I also note the our friends who read WUWT and who want the emails asap, I have agreed to accept the emails with all the formatting code in them and will have to take all that out before they are readable. That will take me some time, certainly no less than 20 hours. So, patience please.
David,
Hopefully some the “attachments” that didn’t show up in the original
Climategate I & II email releases are included in this batch.
I have those (I & II) on disc from those “hacked” releases, but a lot of
the data that went out as “attachments” were never made available to
us unwashed heathens.
I don’t need or want the email addresses or phone numbers of those
sending or receiving (cc or bcc) those missives.
David,
If Overpeck and his collaborators were beacons of scientific integrity, they would have handed all the emails over at the first request. So of course they can’t say, “Hey we need another 6 weeks to get our PR damage control strategy lined up and in place.”
And do you mean to say there isn’t a mitigation of damage PR strategy being formulated by paid Legal/Reputation firms when the contents of Dr Overpeck’s emails surrounding his role in IPCC AR4 are released? The shine of that Nobel Peace Prize won’t be so bright if the actions of lead coordinating authors of AR4 become a cringeworthy embarrassment.
Be ready for an Ad Hom PR counter-attack in forums favorable to the climate change hustle. Roger Pielke, Jr Judith Curry, Willie Soon, even Freeman Dyson have all been targets of professional character attacks by the climate machine. As such, Mark Morano would be a good counter-point man to have on your side to handle interviews if it spins up to that level next year.
Anthony , any idea why this post (#Climategate continues) is always above the newer posts on your Homepage ?
Kinda like the “Paradise” fire post …Just curious..
Anthony or CTM probably made the Mann post a “sticky.” Stickies stay at the top.
For a long time, Mann has been working on a special condemnation:
Professional Infamy.
At last, it will be widely recognized.
Maybe he’ll get a plaque. He can hang it next to his “Nobel”.
Whilst the above is very interesting, can we get back to what I consider to be far more important in the the short term, the very high cost of electricity, especially here in Australia. We are well on our way to wreaking g our economy, all in the name of following the dictates of Paris.
We have to get the message to the Politicians that what happens to them at the next election regarding the fact that we have two sets of generation of electricity, renewables plus fossall fuel as a back up, means twice the cost to us. And that its now not what may happen in 100 years time which should be first and foremost on their mind .
MJE
The Chinese are greatful foy your sacrifice.
None of this is going to make a bit of difference to the world at large.
An astute observation. That’s why voluntary global socialism might prevail.
Everybody knows they fix the models
Everybody knows of Climategate
Everybody knows they want more taxes
Everybody knows they’re on the take
Everybody knows it’s all concocted
And the data’s all been doctored
That’s how it goes.
Everybody knows.
We have ample evidence that those on the left will lie by omission or commission as necessary to prevent the truth from being discovered. Being under oath means nothing. They have no scruples or principles that they cannot overcome…they seem congenitally unable and unwilling to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
With regard to “climate change”, this results in ordinary people mistrusting so-called “science”, which once upon a time had healthy and more or less open debate, and with proof and evidence and experiments required to show the correctness of a falsifiable hypothesis. I don’t know how computer models became the be-all and end-all of “science”…
But Mann did tell the truth, in the email quoted above.
He told the truth to the ‘inner circle’ ,
But lied to everyone else including his other colleagues
Ipcc
His students
Various inquiries
Journals
‘Antis’
The whole world basically. Apart from his confidantes
Thank you Not Chicken Little, I was about to express the exact same sentiment, but I was not going to be quite so……polite ? You have saved me from the dreaded..”Moderation Box” ! (which I only deserve 97% of the time, + or – 10% )…. ; )
What strikes me about these “voluntary” emails from Mann is how the “tone” and the goals are the same as the Climategate emails, “How do we get the results we want and put down those who don’t agree?”.
I admit I skimmed a lot of the back and forth here…
Going on the post itself: UofA is releasing the emails. Mann is getting ahead of what he believes will show him in a bad light given that he has claimed his is exonerated. NOW…what does that say to you?
Let’s put this in a different scenario of relevance. Chicken Little gets lumped in with the others that perpetuated his, “sky is falling”, in examination of the their statements, it is determined that Chicken Little only reported what he observed. The “mob” (for lack of a better term), “should have” independently viewed and tested Little’s observations, thereby saying that while Little made the observation and called it out, he is not responsible for what the “mob” did afterwards….basically making Little think he is exonerated from responsibility for mobs said actions. “The old claim of, I just gave the information, how they interpreted it or used it has nothing to do with me” argument.
So Little’s claim of, “just my observation, I didn’t do anything but what htey wanted with it afterwards” is now up for public scrutiny–so what does he do? He releases HIS version, “heavy on the innocence” before the official release in order to maintain the illusion that he is just a victim of the entire thing. He may have made a mistake or two(cuz let’s face it, that plays well in the public), but it was up to the MOB to prove him wrong.
Sounds to me like Mann’s first strike is going to have the mob show up at his door with pitchforks and torches. He just hung his entire community out to dry.
I wouldn’t be surprised one bit if he comes out and admits that he’s no “expert” but just part of the “community of scientific minds on the verge of discovery and like any discovery, it “should have” been flushed out more by better minds than his”.
Just my take on it.
Emails are just emails…I would hope there would be actual science discussed in those emails–you know MATH based as all of their models are–but I won’t hold my breath.
I do find this email interesting, Mann was simply showing warming *does* persist…contradicting proxies that are easily explained away due to calibration/density. “skeptics will always mis-represent what we’ve done”, why does anything need to be “done”, just *show* the proxies as they are and give explanation for weighting, calibration and accuracy. How could skeptics misrepresent Mann if the data is just the data?
From the email “The Nature Letter”
To add, the bottom half of the email is interesting stuff too, it very clearly indicates Mann is using the peer -review process as a defence mechanism. Instead of addressing criticism, ‘they’ can use peer-review as a shield to silence critics. The ‘Serengeti Strategy’ in effect….?
“yet another case where we will be able to prevent them”….prevent them? In fairness to Mann, he is not here to place context around this email but words like “show” would seem more appropriate.