"A paltry $250"

Is this justice? Who can explain why Mann's emails need not be released by the University of Virginia, but those of Pat Michaels could be? Does the size of the award make any difference to the principle?

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/virginia-supreme-court-awards-a-paltry-250-dollars-to-michael-mann.html

Comments

[Streetcred]

I read yesterday, but cannot find the source again, that the US$250 is NOT an award of damages but rather a 'statutory fee' for court costs that must be paid in the case of the unsuccessful action. NO award was made in respect of Mann's legal cost nor his ruffled up ego.

[johanna]

Yep, streetcred, it was posted by one of the attorneys at WUWT. It was a minor issue, an appeal on a technicality; the case is far from over; and the $250 is apparently just a symbolic, standard award against the losers of the appeal.

The actual legal costs of this case must already be in the high hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[Peter Stroud]

Mann has lost a great deal of credibility, regardless of the $250 award. Furthermore, the U of V has not come up smelling of roses.

[Mailman]

Peter,

Not in the eyes of his supporters, and at the end of the day that is all that matters to Mann and co.

Mailman

[Jack Cowper]

If I remember correctly - Patrick Michaels had to give over his e-mails to agreen activist group. Seems there maybe a little bit of double standards here. Can anyone shed a bit more light on this perhaps please.

Thanks.

[Bishop Hill]

Jack Cowper-try this
TM

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/11/30/virginia-mann.html#comment19292080

[Jack Cowper]

Thank you.

[cedarhill]

Remember it's all about politics. The Greens and the anti-hydrocarbon folks will take the smidgen of fact, amplify and pronounce not only vindication but claim they have judicially "proven" the validity of the alarmists claims. Actually, they don't really need even a smidgen, just an infintesimal. They even write articles about it.

[hunter]

Leon Uris would find this interesting.
It seems to me that this is evidence by the Court that something much less than justice was achieved with the ruling.

[Robert Thomson]

Mann comes to Bristol Uni in September 2014 with "the hockey stick and climate wars" and so does Cook - "Dogma vs. consensus" [skeptics are in the dogma bucket of course]) Chance to register for the events not to be missed http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/o/cabot-institute-1574380052

[Jack Cowper]

Cook gets to lecture about his now laughable consensus paper. The mind boggles. I wonder if Cook and Mann will be taking questions?.

As it is at the University of Bristol will Tamsin be supporting Cook & Mann?

[jamesp]

Cook's claim to fame rests on the re-tweeting of a remark by whoever controls the US President's Twitter account. Which tells you all you need to know, really.

[TerryS]

From WUWT:

UPDATE: From David Schnare, General Counsel, Energy & Environment Legal Institute

There is a lot of misunderstanding about the $250 “damages” assessed by the Court. Any appellant that loses their appeal in the Virginia Supreme Court has to make this payment to the opposing party. It is generally intended to pay for the costs of printing of briefs. It does not include attorney’s fees or any other costs. Mann won’t get a cent. It all goes to the University who may or may not have to transfer it to the Attorney General’s coffers since that is who represented the University and who had to pay for preparation of their briefs.

More importantly, this is not all over. The court only decided the meaning of the term “of a proprietary nature” and they took our (plaintiffs) definition verbatim. They just refused to admit that which was their way of denying us our costs and fees. (We used over $300,000 worth of our time on this case, and thousands of dollars in costs.) What the court did not do was to discuss the rest of the “research exemptions” and that will come up with the next case that is already in the pipeline. That FOIA is seeking all emails associated with John Daly, Steve McIntyre and the IPCC. As none of those were collected by or for the faculty in pursuit of a research project sponsored by UVA, they should not be subject to being withheld. We will see what slimy games the University next plays to prevent the release of those documents. We’ll keep you informed.

[Caroline K]

I just posted the following on one of the discussion threads, but I see that you are discussing it here:

This seemed the best thread to say that I have booked my tickets for the Cook/Mann talk and the Mann talk at Bristol on 19th and 23rd Sept, and it looks as though Anthony Watts is also coming for it. We definitely need to organize a pre-meeting/follow-up get together (and I hope I'll be a bit luckier in meeting people than for the Lew talk in June!). Any thoughts anyone? I live very near the Victoria Rooms, so it's very handy for me. However I'm off to Australia on Monday till 27th Aug.

Any interest from BHers for these events?

And have just read on Anthony's post in the comments that Lucia Liljegren is coming to it. Should be a very interesting time.

[MikeN]

Any comments about the shakeup in the Cabinet?

[unknownknowns]

@Caroline:

...And have just read on Anthony's post in the comments that Lucia Liljegren is coming to it. Should be a very interesting time.

Are these virtual or the actual presence of Cook/Mann?

[geronimo]

As per Pat Michael my understanding is that Greenpeace, as they do for all sceptical scientists, asked for his emails. The UVa were prepared to hand them over for a fee of $1000, so no academic integrity there, but Greenpeace, I believe didn't want to stump up the money.

What I can't understand is why the CEI didn't provide the evidence that the UVa were prepared to hand over emails when it suited them.

[Caroline K]

It definitely looks like all 4 - Mann, Cook, Watts and Liljegren are going to be real, not virtual presences!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/16/calling-all-uk-skeptics-free-talk-with-97-bias/

lucia liljegren (@lucialiljegren) says:
July 16, 2014 at 6:04 am
Tickets are going to go fast. I reserved mine. I’m hunting for cheap flights to Bristol now.

[Jack Cowper]

Bishop, I think you should join Mann, Cook, Watts and Liljegren. I wonder if McIntyre could make it as well. That would be well worth a viewing.

[RB]

The payment is in fact in the nature of a disbursement, to cover the printing costs associated with the filing of briefs to the court.

So it doesn't stem from any assessment of liability or the merits of any party's case at appeal. (If it was to reflect the merit then it is practically indistinguishable from an award of $1.00 - i.e. entirely nominal).

And yet Mann in his upside down world can't help himself, "twitting" as he did:

“What is important is not the $250 itself but the recognition by the court of the frivolous and pernicious nature of the (institute’s) suit.”

Does this guy ever connect, even briefly, with reality or the truth?

[clovis marcus]

@Caroline K

Funnily enough I have just suggested at WUWT a 'UK Denier-up' while Anthony is over.

[Caroline K]

@ Jack Cowper:
Anthony and Lucia are going to be in the audience, not on the platform; but I do think that something needs to be organized for sceptics, with such a gathering at the talk. I don't have any contacts that are useful, and will be on the other side of the world for 5+ weeks, but if anyone can organize something, it would be great. (It could even be that same evening, as it finishes at 7.30pm, and we know that people are available then).

[Bishop Hill]

Perhaps someone would like to start a discussion page on the potential Bristol meet so the arrangements don't get mislaid, should any materialise. TM.

[Tim Osborn]

Andrew, Jack Cowper, Geronimo -- re. your comments contrasting the UVa response to the FOI requests for Michaels and Mann emails, also try this:

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/5/25/court-orders-release-of-manns-emails.html#comment12982363

and especially my reply to "Oxbridge Prat". As far as I can tell, UVa never agreed to hand over Michaels' emails even if Greenpeace paid up. Rather they asked for the ~$4000 to begin the process of deciding what might or might not be relevant, might or might not be exempt.

"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."

The documents aren't at the original URLs, though they're preserved at the Internet Archive:

http://web.archive.org/web/20131026152733/http://www.virginia.edu/foia/climatechange/

http://web.archive.org/web/20131026164244/http://www.virginia.edu/foia/climatechange/timeline.html

The quote above is from this archived document:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130530164736/http://www.virginia.edu/foia/climatechange/pdf/2010-6-11-Davies-response-cost%20estimate-no%20further%20correspondence.pdf