Monday
Sep172012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Virginia court rules against ATI
Sep 17, 2012 Climate: Mann FOI I've just had word that the Virginia circuit court has ruled against the American Tradition Institute, declaring that the University of Virginia does not have to release Michael Mann's emails. If I understand it correctly, the ruling is that correspondence between academics is in some way proprietary and therefore it is up to the university whether they release the information.
More once the ruling becomes clearer.
Reader Comments (30)
...there must be something truly devastating in there.
Its not the same in Virginia since Judge Garth left Shiloe.
Apologies,utterly off topic.
Over at WUWT ,Mr Watts tells us he`s on the PBS Newshour tonight,
I`m hoping it`s the same news edition as we get here in the uk.
PBS on virgin channel 243,and on Sky it`s channel 166.
fingers crossed.
Nothing at ATI. Nor is there any info about a ruling in the WSJ or Washington Post.
????
...there must be something truly devastating in there.
Sep 17, 2012 at 9:00 PM | JEM
I agree.
Scientist's emails are proprietary? I will bet "denier's" emails aren't. Funny how that works.
The IO9 site used to be firmly in the thermogeddonist's camp.
http://io9.com/5943220/9-global-disasters-that-never-came-to-pass
Testing the water?
Local judge does not want to piss off the local power brokers so kicks to can over to the court of appeals. The judge stated last hearing that he knew this case was going to appeal no matter how he ruled. This way no downside for him with the local politics as he has no dog in this fight.
"Its not the same in Virginia since Judge Garth left Shiloe."
Sorry to be pedantic, but the series was based in Wyoming ...
Perhaps this only applies to "climate science" academics [she says somewhat facetiously]. If your interpretation is correct, then it appears as though there is yet another word that someone has "redefined" in the interest of furthering "the cause".
Although the thought does occur to me that perhaps - in the absence of any "evidence" in support of their declaration that the release of the Climategate emails was "a crime" - perhaps Norfolk's finest depended on such a novel "redefinition" in order to ... uh ... sustain their finding.
graphicconception
You are absolutely right. But how one can take this case seriously with stuff like below as history and judges passing the buck like musical chairs, including one called Gaylord making rulings, what else can one do
http://bearingdrift.com/2011/05/25/judge-orders-uva-to-hand-over-michael-manns-emails/
A god thing. Let the hidden stuff stay hidden. It'll rot the inside.
These days it seems, if an injustice is perceived to be perpetrated, some low down stinkin' bum on the inside leaks it all anyway. I hope
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/antarctic-ice-area-sets-another-record-nsidc-is-silent/
In legal parlance, Michael Mann's desperate to protect his secrets can be treated as an admission against interest. In other words, if there was nothing damaging to his conclusions and methods he would show what he did. If he hides it, preventing any attempt to replicate it, then it must be because he knows his work was shabby and his conclusions were contrary to or not supported by the evidence he used. Michael has been hoisted by his own petard.
AFAIK the ruling is that anything that hasn't been published isn't subject to FOI. OTOH anything that has been published cannot be of any FOI interest (it's out there already, isn't it...)
Unbelievable.
If I remember correctly another American University (or was it the same one) fell over itself to release
"proprietory" correspondence between academics when Greenpeace asked for them.
It stinks.
This seems to have come from Hickman via Mann's Facebook pronouncement of victory. Perhaps before we rush to judgment (so to speak) we should await confirmation from, well, a more reliable source.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time that Mann has, in effect, declared "victory" when even a cursory reading of the report indicates that the actual finding bore little relation to Mann's self-serving "interpretation".
He may get away with doing re-writes for SkS; but one has to live in hope that Mann does not get to dictate the wording of court rulings.
This is not a good age for disclosure, transparency and honesty.
I hope this is appeal-able.
Long way to go yet. Lets wait for the appeal.
Time to pound the table and get the weevils running for shelter methinks!
The final appeal may be with "FOIA". But the courts are not through yet.
Sorry for the OT: I can't get to WUWT, ClimateAudit and the Air Vent. Hope it's just me.
Anyone else?
Ok at my end, Jonas.
Reboot required perhaps.
Video showing U.S. Ambassador Stevens being dragged out of Consulate in Benghazi, Libya:
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com/2012/09/via-breitbart.html
Weird - one by one web sites were disappearing for me. I obviously posted here after I couldn't get to the other climate-related sites, while others were OK. Now all sites are OK. Damn ISP.....
Sorry for the interruption....
There is still no information from any local news sources to Washington DC, Charlottesville, or Prince William County Virginia about any ruing in this case.
When a judge makes a ruling, it is not easily suppressed. Sure, the judge may mandate portions of a ruling to be closed to the public, but the fact of the ruling is known... On any reasonably pertinent case, even if a ruling came after midnight, it's be in the next issue of a paper on the streets, updated immediately online and on every local radio/TV news station.
Somebody posted this in a Facebook page? Some possibillities; fantasy, hallucinations, dreaming, make believe, drugs, scam, mental breakdoen... But a ruling? not likely, unless somebody is claiming he fixed the decision.
I am curious if some people really believe whatever that character puts in writing as gospel...
I got the story from Chris Horner, so it's kosher.
Does it follow that, since apparently no one is allowed to view/monitor such emails themselves to see if they are indeed 'conversation in furtherance of research', that therefore any communication from University email accounts are therefore beyond FOI reach?
(subject to the arbitrary un-reviewable purview of the University)
Does this mean Pat Michaels can sue UVa for offering to sell his emails to Greenpeace for $3000?