Wednesday
May252011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Court orders release of Mann's emails
May 25, 2011 Climate: Mann FOI The American Tradition Institute has issued a press release explanining that the University of Virginia has now released some 20% of the emails requested under Virginia FOI laws. This was prompted by an imminent court case which ATI had filed in the face of the UVA's intransigence. The court has issued an order compelling the release of all non-exempt emails and ATI has also won the right to examine the documents that UVA wants to withhold.
Most of what was released so far is apparently largely irrelevant, but by the autumn we should start to get some more interesting disclosures.
Reader Comments (14)
An interesting developmnent, I bet the squawks of outrage are already starting.
Will they delete their expletives?
Hey ATI! Put the emails online in a searchable database so the public can help sift through the data, similar to the climategate files.
these are not the emails you're looking for, move along.
"20% of the emails requested"
They're still working on the other 80%, presumably...
And don't forget the Virginia Attorney General has an open case covering much of the same data. It may be interesting to see how UVA argues withholding information that has been released to the public under an FOIA action.
"Dear Phil,
We have got some FOI emails and data to publish. I hear UEA are a dab hand and making sure these are packaged and made available for download.
Any advice you could give would be greatly appreciated. See you at the next jolly...
BR, UVA"
Gavin to team: "...we're going to need a bigger inquiry..."
It's pleasing to see the process of law, in all it's ponderous majesty, grinding on. No doubt the screams of wounded self-righteous souls protesting the vile intrusion of bullies into things academic, thus denying academic freedom. Poor dears. They can take that tack only if the pay their own bills.
"No doubt the screams of wounded self-righteous souls protesting the vile intrusion of bullies into things academic, thus denying academic freedom."
Alexander they have already provided Pat Michael's emails to Greenpeace without the necessity of a FOI request, so it's difficult to see how they could take the stance on Mann, unless he's a valuable asset in terms of bringing in sponsorship, or there's something really naughty in the emails. Can foreign nationals ask for information under the US FOIA I wonder, because it's pretty certain there's nothing in the Michael's emails that is anything like climategate else we'd have seen it by now. It would be nice to have an example of the emails of an ordinary scientist going about his business to compare with what we've seen from the Hockey Team. Then we'd be able to challenge the meme that these were just ordinary scientists chatting the way scientists do.
geronimo: "...they have already provided Pat Michael's emails to Greenpeace without the necessity of a FOI request..."
This is directly contradicted by the University of Virginia:
"Q. Did U.Va. give Michaels' emails to Greenpeace?
A. No."
http://www.virginia.edu/foia/climatechange/
Unless there is evidence to the contrary, it would be useful if (using the University of Viriginia's characterisation) this persistent misstatement is not perpetuated further.
Tim, that's an interesting piece of selective quotation. If we add a single sentence of context:
"Q: Did U.Va. give Michaels' emails to Greenpeace?
A. No. After a series of emails and narrowing of the group's request to reduce its costs, and a letter confirming what the amount of those costs would be, U.Va. heard nothing more from Greenpeace."
it seems that U. Va. didn't ship the emails to Greenpeace only because they didn't pay the fee demanded.
A case of hiding U. Va.'s failure to decline the request perhaps?
Oxbridge Prat,
on the webpage I linked to there are around 1300 words, and the full article is relevant to the issue that geronimo raised. Contrary to what you seem to imply, my intention in selecting a quotation was not to mislead but simply to extract the part that was most directly related to geronimo's comment. Had I been trying to portray a false impression by selective quotation, I would not have given the link to the webpage where it could be read in full.
Turning now to the additional context.
First, even if your interpretation is correct (but see below), it doesn't alter the validity of my comment to geronimo. He/she said the emails had been released; U. Va. state that they haven't. The additional sentence doesn't alter this.
Second, I'm not sure that your interpretation is correct. The additional sentence does not state that the emails would have been released to Greenpeace if only they would pay. It simply states where the process had stalled.
The webpage links to a further page where much correspondence relating to the Mann and Michaels FOI requests is provided:
http://www.virginia.edu/foia/climatechange/timeline.html
I haven't read much of this correspondence, but I have read some. The one dated 06/11/10 is relevant here. It states (and again I am selecting a quote that seems relevant rather than to mislead):
"we still will have to review individually a large volume of e-mail to determine whether: 1) the e-mail is responsive to your request; and 2) the e-mail is subject to an exemption under FOIA or otherwise; and 3) the University is prohibited from disclosing the e-mail by state or federal law. Please understand that the University will not release records that are protected from disclosure by law or for which a FOIA or other lawful exemption applies."
I think this confirms my interpretation that release of Michaels' emails would not have automatically followed if Greenpeace had paid up (something over $4000). Exemptions and other laws might apply. I would expect these to be the same exemptions and laws that they apply to other requests, including those for Mann's emails. I do not see any indication that they have taken inconsistent approaches between the two cases, though -- as I said above -- I have not read all of the correspondence.
Tim, the court actions will grind and time will tell who is right and what has occurred. As the ATI has won the right to examine the documents that UVA wants to withhold it will also be interesting to hear the murmurs of disquiet! .