Bishop Hill Sceptics' new friends
Mar 17, 2014 Climate: Mann Climate: Sceptics FOI The Columbia Journalism Review takes a look at the ongoing attempts to get hold of Michael Mann's emails and revels in the delicious irony of leftie journalists finding themselves filing an amicus brief that will help the evil right-wing fossil-fuel-funded denier conspirators in their nefarious aims.
Organized by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 17 news organizations, including National Public Radio, Dow Jones, and The Washington Post, submitted an amicus brief in November, supporting the group’s rights to Mann’s emails.
“By defining an exemption to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (‘VFOIA’) as broadly as the lower court has done, this Court Would be, in effect, removing almost all public documents from the ambit of the records law,” reads the brief. By exempting Mann’s emails from public release, the group argues, the court is setting what journalists see as a dangerous precedent—making it much more difficult to gain access to public records.
Even more amusing are the contortions of the Washington Post as it tries to simultaneously demand that Mann's correspondence be kept secret while supporting the amicus brief.
It's all very interesting stuff, marred only by the article's author - one Alexis Sobell Fitts - solemnly issuing one of those fact-free Climategate factoids:
The quotes had been cherry-picked and were taken out of context.
Oh yes, and her promotion of the article using the d-word; ugly stuff for what used to be a respectable publication. But like the alleged cherry picking of Climategate quotes, I don't suppose the mere absence of any actual evidence to support such statements is going to bother her.
Bishop Hill
Reader Comments (20)
Speaking of irony, when do you think these geniuses will wake up to the fact that Mann's SLAPP suit may end up setting a precedent that will make journalists' lives a living hell.
The Fourth Estate struggling to control a self imposed coma.
They've never given up on the old "out of context" story, despite there being no context which could help them.
I tried to post this over at that site, but got an error message:
Mike H---Nor was there any hue and cry when Greenpeace demanded the e-mails of Patrick Michaels from the same University.
But as long as the article mentions "context" and climategate e-mails, perhaps some journalists can put this e-mail exchange related to FOIA requests into some acceptible "context".
Mike [Mann],
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise… Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise.
Cheers, Phil [Jones]
****
Hi Phil,
… I’ll contact Gene [Wahl] about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxx
talk to you later,
mike
I especially like this:
It seems from that "oddly" there she believes Mann has some sort of natural predisposition for a robust free press. It's really remarkable how anybody can really think Mann has any concept of robust debate, let alone has an interest in the press beyond requiring it to never detour from slavishly following his personal standpoint.
Remember this is 'Something Is Rotten at the New York Times' Mann she is talking about, a guy who never loses a chance to harangue anyone in the press if they differ by a millimetre from his righteous views. Mann has shown no inclination to accept debate with anyone in any robust way as far as I have ever seen, but always has a preference for one way editorialising in privileged pulpits like huffpo on any tangential aspect of climate and policy.
I'm not sure about how clued up the author is as a reliable reporter on this subject. From the linked article
OK, I'm not a lawyer, and perhaps "slander" does not require actual speech in some jurisdictions.
But I don't think you can slander data, can you? A person maybe.
And it must be in public, not private, right?
lol, I've just noticed
And I and thought East Anglia was flat and dull.
It's interesting that Alexis Sobel Fitt mentions Mann's book but fails to mention that the material therein pertaining to Dr. Edward Wegman was derived from documents obtained via the VFOIA.
To pinch a phrase from that feisty lady, a crusader for truth and a free press one, Melanie Phillips - we live in a "post-moral world". Strikingly, most of today's press whichever side of the pond they dwell upon, no longer do they know which way is up and what direction is Northwards.
hard cases make bad law
I would argue with our host's characterization that the CJR "revels in the delicious irony of leftie journalists finding themselves filing an amicus brief that will help the evil right-wing fossil-fuel-funded denier conspirators in their nefarious aims."
I think the author is positively distressed by it, as are the principals at CJR. Her hostility toward FOIA claims against climate scientists in which she has apparently bought all the nonsense that it prevents them from doing their all-important work, and her apparent belief that these claims are filed only to allow harassment of climate scientists, suggests she's finding the irony not "delicious," but distasteful.
The Colombia Journalism Review has long been a nesting place for left-wing partisans and this piece is no different.
But thanks to the Bish for finding the piece and publicizing it for discussion. If we divide the press on these issues, maybe we can conquer them in the future.
WaPo forfeited its objectivity on climate matters long ago; right now it's simply fighting for survival like all newspapers.
Off topic, but I have been unable to access Matt Ridley's blog rationaloptimist.com for two days. Does any one know why this might be?
I'm afraid I don't know anything about the background to the introduction of F.O.I. laws in the United States but it would not surprise me in the least if it was similar to what happened in Britain where our F.O.I. law was introduced by Labour when Tony Blair was prime minister. There seemed to be a feeling that the law was for the benefit of left-wing campaigners, e.g. trade unions, environmental activists, "human rights" activists etc. It was never imagined that the law would be used for causes that "progressive" types might disapprove of. Blair seemed to be genuinely surprised when the law turned out to be a two-edged sword.
+1 to Roy
The warmist press and warmists in general have had a very odd relationship with Mann. I'm surprised how long and how vigorously they've all defended the guy and his work, especially since he could be described as one of the main triggers for modern climate change scepticism. They need to learn that their enemy's enemy is not their friend.
Mar 18, 2014 at 8:45 AM | Roy
===============================
His Supreme Vileness, Tony Blair, said after he stepped down that Freedom Of Information and the hunting ban were the two pieces of legislation he regretted enacted. The former because it threatened the likes of him, I guess, the latter as it meant he could never safely visit the English countryside again without being roundly abused.
As I have said elsewhere, if cherries keep being picked at this rate, children won't know what cherries are.
Morley Sutter:
Matt's blog seems OK for me.
Backside covering started in Germany, the Mecca of greenery. We saw it in Spain with drastic subsidy cuts, and now it is EEwide, the discussion being about energy costs. The situation in the Ukraine along with the glut of natural gas in the US is the new undeniable reality.