The Northern Virginia reporter for the Washington Post discusses the current state of the ATI FOIA case here.
Lat fall, Mann decided that the University of Virginia was not protecting his interests vigorously enough and moved to be added as a party to the case. Subsequently, the university sent the dossier to Mann, who is no longer an employee.
ATI has applied for the documents provided to Mann, arguing that they can’t give the documents out selectively, citing a 1983 precedent. Several leading Virginia FOIA experts told the Washington Post that ATI has a good argument.
UVA lawyers defended the selective disclosure saying that Mann was “not an adverse party essentially” and, using a not entirely apt phrase, explained that they were “sharing information with a teammate as opposed to the other side”. Ironically, Mann originally asked to be a separate party to the litigation because he felt that “his interest is not currently being adequately protected” – a position that seems inconsistent with UVA’s present position that they are “teammates”.
In addition, ATI has applied to depose Mann on his affidavit, a pretty standard aspect to civil cases. Mann has argued that he should not have to be deposed, with his main argument being (more or less) that ATI are bad people, a perspective frequently held by parties in civil litigation, but not relevant to mundane procedures like depositions.
Mann called ATI’s argument “disingenous”. Mann contradicted the FOIA experts interviewed by the Washington Post:
I’m a bit surprised that anyone professing to be familiar with the law would believe that [ATI’s] argument has any merit at all,”
Climate Audit 
102 Comments
So, now Mann is also a legal expert huh? Wonder what else he is we don’t yet know.
>Mann contradicted the FOIA experts
But they were not climate FOIA experts
No Stephen if you read the article you will see:
““I am not a lawyer, but I have legal experts advising me on this matter, and they say the matter is quite clear: There is no waiver where the parties have a common interest in the documents, including a shared copyright interest and a shared proprietary interest in protecting your scholarly works under the scholarly works exemption to FOIA statute. If the records were not my emails it would be a different story. Of course, the records are my emails. ATI’s argument is way off-base and, indeed, quite disingenuous.””
So he’s claiming to NOT be an expert.
Of course he has lawyers and defers to them, and his lawyers will argue their case. But the other side also has lawyers and will argue theirs. And Mann may prefer his lawyers to the opponent’s.
It is however quite a jump to say the other side has no case at all. If that were truly the case, I’d expect a rule 11 motion. But I won’t hold my breath for that.
There is a sadly growing school of thought among certain political advocates, I find it especially noticeable in the green wing, but it’s present elsewhere too, which Mann’s comment seems typical of. According to this school of thought, when encountering a person with a different view, the correct response isn’t just to argue and ultimately persuade or disagree, but to portray any disagreement as dishonesty, lying, baseless, etc., or worse.
I found the following quote from Mann to be somewhat ironic:
Perhaps if he had taken such a ‘not ready for prime time’ approach towards his beloved hockey-stick, the history of climate science would be quite different. Instead, he chose to exercise what I call “Climatic licence” … and that has made all the difference!
My translation of that quote by Mann: If his emails get released, any damning evidence in them is nothing more than ideas that we were just winging around and some of which had no merit…nothing here, move along.
Yes it is odd preemptive denial, almost like he knows there something dubious in there.
Mann has stated that “indiscriminate release of these materials will cause damage to reputations.” Nothing more specific to my knowledge.
In fact, that statement regarding “reputations” is very revealing. It is also a good example of why lawyers really try to muzzle their clients. I suspect that his legal eagles are gritting their teeth each time he opens his mouth.
Yes !!
“Please delete any and all emails” doesn’t really mean “delete any and all emails “!!!
Michael Mann reminds me of Professor Irwin Corey only Corey has better hair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Irwin_Corey
He reminds me of Dr. Bunsen Honeydew, but with attitude.
It seems to me that the UVA’s explanation that they can selectivity release the e-mails to Mann, because he’s a “teammate,” undermines their case. The very reason FOI laws generally do not allow selective disclosure is to prevent the government from releasing information to their friends while withholding it from their opponents.
Are there not more groups like ATI than can start similar cases with other times, other places, other people, to add support to the long-expressed dissatisfaction with the release of climatic data?
A single case of prosecuting a vehicle owner for allowing a monkey to drive while the owner ate a banana presents a few novel aspects and has the capacity to slow legal proceedings. However, A dozen such cases being run at much the same time makes the procedures of prosecution more mundane.
There’s not a shortage of people still holding out on releasing data; but it’s a test of libertarian principles rather than of the person.
I’m not purporting to be a legal expert like Mann, but in all likelihood, if somebody else sues on essentially the same grounds, the court would probably require them to join the ATI in their suit.
You’d think these guys would have better lawyers than they do. Granted, they’ve been doing the stall thing well, but this is a no-brainer.
Mark
Mann’s argument is: “There is no waiver where the parties have a common interest in the documents, including a shared copyright interest and a shared proprietary interest in protecting your scholarly works under the scholarly works exemption to FOIA statute.” ATI has previously argued that Mann no longer is employed by UVA; he works for a competitor, Penn State. Both universities compete for government climate grants, so this so-called “proprietary information” was given by UVA to a competitor. Doesn’t sound like “proprietary information” does it?
Yes, seems to me the public, which funds the state’s university, also has a “proprietary interest,” although that may be stretching the definition.
Did Mann sign over the copyright interest to his employer, as is normal in the US: making the emails a work-for-hire, i.e. fully owned by the employer? In fact, work-for-hire is assumed in the US for employees unless there is a written agreement to the contrary. So I don’t see it as obvious that he has any copyright interest.
Quite aside from that, if the archive contains incoming emails, or parts thereof, not authored at UVa or by Mann, then neither of them having a copyright interest in these third party emails.
“Did Mann sign over the copyright interest to his employer”
Probably not. However, when ever you write a paper you typically have to sign over the copyright for the material to the publisher.
Same when you archive data in repository, such as electron densities of crystal structures, it is theirs not yours.
ATI appears to be the American Traditions Institute, which has been described as a free-market thinktank that has requested Mann-related documents from UVa under FOIA.
“I’m a bit surprised that anyone professing to be familiar with the law”….
Sounds like a flush of four to me.
A Mann for all reasons
But reason escapes him
He’s far out of season
And law practice scrapes him
But Mike Mann deposed!
The notion’s enticing
The falsehoods exposed
Are cake. Truth’s the icing
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
Mann: “I’m a bit surprised that anyone professing to be familiar with the law would believe that [ATI’s] argument has any merit at all,” Mann said Tuesday in an e-mail. “I am not a lawyer, but I have legal experts advising me on this matter, and they say the matter is quite clear: There is no waiver where the parties have a common interest in the documents, including a shared copyright interest and a shared proprietary interest in protecting your scholarly works under the scholarly works exemption to FOIA statute. If the records were not my emails it would be a different story. Of course, the records are my emails. ATI’s argument is way off-base and, indeed, quite disingenuous.”
Did Mann sign over the copyright interest to his employer, as is normal in the US: making the emails a work-for-hire, i.e. fully owned by the employer? In fact, work-for-hire is assumed in the US for employees unless there is a written agreement to the contrary. So I don’t see it as obvious that he has any copyright interest.
Quite aside from that, if the archive contains incoming emails, or parts thereof, not authored at UVa or by Mann, then neither of them having a copyright interest in these third party emails.
I just performed a search of copyrights with the Library of Congress. There are no copyrights filed wholly or shared under Mann’s name. It seems the copyright interest argument is a distraction.
Copyright is an automatic ‘right’ under the Berne Convention; it does not require registration.
The question is who holds the copyright. As copner notes above, the copyright is usually wholly owned by the employer.
The governing body for state institutions of higher education in Virginia (SCHEV) allows the Boards of Vistors of the institutions to make intellectual property policies. I’m not entirely familiar with UVa’s, but I suspect it is similar to my own institution: copyrights are held by the authors, but patents must be assigned to the institution.
U.Va.’s lawyers, Richard C. Kast and Madelyn F. Wessel, responded that Schnare’s argument was “preposterous,” saying there was “no evidence…that could possibly demonstrate that the University intended to waive its statutory right not to disclose.” They noted that Mann was the author of the e-mails and not an adverse party — essentially, sharing information with a teammate as opposed to the other side.
Whether it “intended to waive” is different from whether it did “waive”.
In court & law it happens all the time that things are waived, sort of by accident or oversight, or because of a bad choice of strategy.
For example, an objection not made at the time, is normally an objection waived which can not be used in appeal. Or a disclosing a document to the public normally waives its confidential or privileged status, even if you didn’t mean to.
In this case UVa chose a strategy which involved sharing material with Mann. Nobody forced them to chose that strategy. The strategy worked for its immediate purpose, which was winning the particular court case. It would be bizarre and unfair, if they can now say “we didn’t really mean that strategy, because we don’t like its unintended side-effects”
Indeed, hence my comment above. A decent lawyer would have predicted that outcome, and should have. What a bunch of maroons. This is why their argument sounds like so much fluff we’ve come to expect from the team: they blew it, know it, and are attempting to marginalize the effect.
Mark
You’d think that UVa, whose law school is ranked seventh in the US behind only the very best like Yale, Harvard and Stanford, would be able to find lawyers who could have formulated a winning strategy.
Regardless, if they lose they still have the right to appeal to the Va Supreme Court, which is seemingly deferential to the University if the Cucinelli case is any indication.
From what I gathered, the VA Supreme Court ruling was actually an own goal given what UVA conceded in its otherwise legitimate argument. One would be hard pressed to argue the court was not aware.
Mark
The attorneys are scrambling to cover their tails. They’ve had one of those “oops” moments.
Shifting things to the realm of “intent” has been a workable strategy in many cases, chief among them being perjury cases. Particularly in cases that dabble into politics, dare I say almost every defendant gets off because the prosecutor can’t “prove” someone ‘intended’ to lie under oath if for no other reason than the defendant simply declared they didn’t. Also, folks in the USA know all too well about how many legal dollars can be spent defining “voter intent”.
“Intent” is a big thing in American court system-speak, where not only do you have to break a law, you have to leave evidence that you ‘intended’ to break the law as well in order to be in trouble. I suspect this line of argumentation will eventually work– even if it does so with a favorable judge on one hand and an unwilling/disinterested higher court on the other.
Actually, the trend in US federal law has been away from the “mens rea” requirement for guilt. Many commentators have decried this trend, especially as it applies to regulatory laws with extremely complex implications that are almost impossible even for a trained professional to parse.
“This case isn’t about FOIA. It’s a partisan witch hunt.”
This brought to mind the witch hunt in the Holy Grail, the one that ends up as a fair cop.
There is nothing inherently inconsistant about Mann intervening in the case to protect his interests, on the one hand, and claiming the joint defense privilege, on the other. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) permits a person to intervene, as a right, in a suit if they:
“claim an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.”
The joint defense privilege, on the other hand, pretty much only requires that they be defending against the same claim. While courts aren’t solicitous of privileges that have, in fact, been breached, they do not encourage attacks on privilege that arise out of the conduct of the litigation. That would encourage all manner of gamesmanship. As for the 1983 precedent, I don’t know what it is, but I’m guessing that if they had to go back to 1983 it’s not particularly strong.
That doesn’t mean that the plaintiffs won’t get to see the docs. That’s a separate question, that the merits of the suit will decide. I’m just saying that showing them to Mann isn’t going to lose the case for them.
But Mann was not arguing a joint defense in his intervention in the previous litigation.
He was an adverse party to UVa. He might be a friendly face as far as UVa is concerned, but in his intervention he was apparently arguing against them on a number of points.
IANAL, and I don’t know that Mann won’t prevail, but…
I’ve read the case more closely, and I see that the allegation is not the joint defense privilege, but, rather, an exemption to FOIA.
Which means that the issue turns on the question of whether Mann, in fact, already had access to the data. If so, then having the lawyers give him a copy obviously doesn’t implicate the selective disclosure problem. In that case, giving him copies was just a convenience. I predict Mann will win this motion.
That’s assuming that these emails were “proprietary.” I see reason to doubt that. Alleging that everything we do is proprietary because we have copyrights on it isn’t going to be very persuasive. So still come down in the same place. The plaintiff may get to see the docs–the merits of the case will decide. Showing them to Mann isn’t going to be the deciding issue.
I think an important point is when was Mann given the emails before or after he left their employment?
If after, he is just a member of the public, if before, he is just an employee and his works still belongs to his employer?
I’m not sure about the second part.
I believe it was after the ATI suit was filed… implying after he was no longer an emploee.
Mark
The “Top Comment” on the Washington Post article is from Michael Halpern,
Union of Concerned Scientists http://blog.ucsusa.org/author/michael-halpern
His rather lengthy post lists various points he feels the public should be aware of…his fourth point:
4. The American Tradition Institute and other like-minded organizations have exploited the theft of scientists’ emails in the past by misrepresenting their content.
Theft huh? Did the Union ever make a public comment about Gleick? Was Gleick a Concerned Scientist?
You got to love the Union…
I was considering registering at the Post so that I offer my 2 cents, however when I took the time to craft a few witty comments for the New York Times on their puff piece about the Karma (post flame out) I was ‘screened’…so I shall preach to the choir…grrr
Wonder if he is any relation to Josh Halpern (Eli Rabbett)
Andrew,
Do register – the Post does not screen.
Preaching to the quire?
The article is pretty clear about the disagreement and Mann summarises why he thinks ATI is wrong:
““I am not a lawyer, but I have legal experts advising me on this matter, and they say the matter is quite clear: There is no waiver where the parties have a common interest in the documents, including a shared copyright interest and a shared proprietary interest in protecting your scholarly works under the scholarly works exemption to FOIA statute. If the records were not my emails it would be a different story. Of course, the records are my emails. ATI’s argument is way off-base and, indeed, quite disingenuous.””
Why didn’t this get into the original post?
Steve’s original post did not contain any extensive quotes. However, it did quote M.Mann stating his disagreement with ATI’s position. This was in fact the longest quote in the original post. Steve also provided a link where anyone could go and read the words you quoted, so it is not clear to me why you are complaining Nathan.
Re: Nathan (Mar 22 07:05),
Nathan, you accuse me of not expounding Mann’s legal theory. However, in this post, I did not attempt to assess the legal arguments of either party. ATI also have a legal theory. I didn’t review their theory in this post.
As you observe, Mann’s lawyers have presented an argument as to why there was no waiver. However, ATI has presented a lengthy argument to the contrary. In order to form an opinion on the relative of merits of the two arguments, an interested observer would have to familiarize themselves with the briefs of both parties and the applicable law. I haven’t had the time or inclination to do so. (Plus I’ve been sick this week.)
However, I am virtually certain that you haven’t reviewed the briefs of the respective parties or applicable case law (both of which I’ve browsed.)
The FOIA experts interviewed by the Washington Post obviously did not reject ATI’s argument out of hand. To the contrary, they seemed to think that the UVA had a bit of an uphill fight. While ATI may end up losing this motion, that doesn’t support Mann’s allegation that their “argument has [no] merit at all”.
Mann’s all-too-typical wild extrapolation from his lawyers having an argument to his opponents’ case having no merit was worth highlighting (and was not selective quotation):
Get well soon – or any time prior to that.
Indeed, Mann seems rather fond of that phrasing. Who can forget his reply to M&M’s comment on his flawed PNAS paper? (“In summary, their criticisms have no merit.”) And this was in response to M&M pointing out his basic error of using a time series upside down! Mann’s use of the same wording here bodes poorly for the strength of his legal position.
You mentioned being sick. It has been 16 days of “quiet” on the blog. That is the longest period in over a year.
I hope all is well. If not GBWY!
If Mann’s legal opinions are as trustworthy as his models, he is in serious trouble.
In the background, let us not forget that UVA had no quams about releasing Pat Michaels’ e-mails to a Greenpeace FOIA request after Michaels departed UVA. Surely ATI will submit this fact in its argument.
Dave L.,
Did not know that, do you have any details or links?
Matt,
My error. I read that they “reportedly” released Michaels’ e-mails, but when I checked at SPPI, I found out that UVA had agreed to release Michaels’ e-mails, but for a fee — Greenpeace then placed it’s request “on hold”.
http://sppiblog.org/news/uva-fights-requests-for-michael-manns-emails
Odd…in following that link, I came across
this article which seems to indicate that UVa is willing to release the documents, but for a sum of $8K. So it would seem that at least in some contexts, UVa doesn’t have a principled opposition to releasing the material. Or perhaps these aren’t the same documents, does anyone know?
An intelligent client leaves all comment to his legal counsel.
Re: JCM (Mar 22 13:23), Unless he’s an arrogant know-it-all who loves to hear himself talk and/or read his own quotes…
Without taking any sides in this issue, I was just wondering who is paying all of Dr. Mann’s legal bills. I doubt that the suit against Tim Ball is on contingency, nor this intervention either. It seems to me that for a university professor he has an awful lot of discretionary income.
Discretionary income …. How simpler it would have been if temperature recording stations had had two or 3 thermometers, greatly reducing the errors found in one alone. (Like many aircraft have several Intertial Navigation and/or GPS systems).
Would it not have been better to spend money not on legal proceedings, but on instrument improvements? Or other elementary prudently precautionary science?
No, both statements are wrong. The Act in Virginia allows the responding institution to recover costs from the applicant. The $8000, and the similar process for Greenpeace, was an upfront fee to gather the documents and examine them to see if exemptions (in the UVa view) applied. ATI has already paid that, I presume; they certainly haggled over it. Once the documents are gathered and facts are established, the argument over exemptions begins. That’s what is happening now with ATI.
The upfront cost implies no guarantee that UVa won’t oppose release of the documents. That’s what scared Greenpeace off.
Thanks for the clarification, Nick.
Nick: Did they impose the same financial burden on former employee Mann when they released the documents to him? If not, why not?
Well, they are emails that he wrote. In any case, as UVa sharply reminded Horner when he asked that Mann share the cost, it is ATI that is pressing the case, not Mann.
Isn’t it not just email that Mann wrote, but also emails that were sent to him and his inbox as a direct result of his position at the University? It’s not like 100% of the emails are just what he wrote and saved in his ‘sent box’ chain-free.
(There’s got to be some component here that is University fostered…It’s not like he was a transcendent being and an established ‘get’ by the college when they first hired him on as an associate professor. He had to have grown into the position he merited at the IPCC or eventually at PSU by virtue of the material and immaterial benefits and property provided by the University)
Just about every employer on the planet has stipulations on email coming into a company email account as being company property first.
Nick,
Mann may have written them but who owned them?
I’ve perhaps over stated the case in my first paragraph above. Here’s the relevant section of law: Excluded from FOIA requests are:
Mann and the University have a duty to uphold this exclusion. I see the efficacy of the argument that Mann is working in tandem with UVa in upholding the meaning of this section and a judge might find that compelling. Or not.
Regardless, the last two paragraphs above still stand. People wouldn’t be interested in the emails if the science was laid bare.
theduke,
You only have to focus on the last bit
The emails in question, and the information within them, as far as I know, have all been published on in the literature. So this exemption does not hold water, unless they haven’t been published. Or am I reading that bit wrong?
My first post referred to above was not posted, it was in moderation when I commented on it and it has disappeared.
CoreyS, below. I think you might be reading that a bit wrong. But I’m as clueless as anyone else. The emails themselves may contain some information previously published, but it may be that most of the information or discussion in them has not been.
As for them being previously and publicly released, I’m guessing that the judge is going to rule against the argument that giving Mann the dossier waives the exclusion.
Manniac,
It appears that U.Va. owns the emails, or the Commenwealth. According to the University, they are the public record, too.
“U.Va. Copyright/Disclaimer Statement
All text, images, logos and information contained on official University of Virginia Web sites are the intellectual property of U.Va.”
http://www.virginia.edu/copyright.html#2
“II. Who Owns What?
We often use the possessive word “your” but this does not always mean “ownership.” In some cases, it means “exclusive use.” We also assign ownership of computers or files or data to the University when in reality some of these items may be officially the property of the Commonwealth of Virginia, a research sponsor, or some other entity.”
http://its.virginia.edu/pubs/docs/RespComp/resp-comp-facstf.html
“Email Guidelines
Most University employees would agree that email has changed the way in which we communicate and conduct business. As a business tool, email is used to rapidly exchange information, collaborate on projects, and make announcements. Many campus units utilize email to transmit reports, meeting minutes, drafts of policies, official memorandums, and other information without realizing that their email correspondence is a public record, according to the Virginia Public Records Act.”
http://www.virginia.edu/recordsmanagement/email.html
Well they would also be emails that others wrote to him. Not necessarily only emails that mann wrote. You forget that one of the arguments is that student information /records might be in the mails. Now, the university may have released student info to Mann. That gives me an idea
Hope this is not too far off-topic, but Mann has now given his opinion on the Gleick case, and I think it’s an interesting insight into his views on both Gleick & on climategate.
Miller: Gleick says he succumbed to frustration over the corporate disinformation campaign to undermine climate science. What’s your reaction to that, and to Heartland’s campaign to bring down Gleick and the Pacific Institute since?
Mann: Peter is the first to admit he showed poor judgement here. And as someone who has had [my] own emails stolen and words twisted and misrepresent, I feel for the Heartland Institute folks—to a point. But I think we have to recognize that there isn’t quite a moral equivalency to what Gleick did and what the criminals who hacked the CRU emails did.
In the latter case, there was no impropriety revealed, just a cynical attempt to misrepresent and smear honest scientists, and it was used as part of a coordinated effort by vested interests to derail any progress in Copenhagen toward reaching a meaningful agreement to reduce global carbon emissions. In the former case, with Heartland, what was revealed…simply amplified what we had already known, that Heartland was part of an industry-funded effort to mislead the public about climate change. What was particularly revolting was the campaign afoot, revealed by the stolen documents — that is, the numerous documents whose authenticity Heartland has not denied — to mislead our children by inserting anti-scientific climate change denial propaganda into K-12 classrooms around the country. This is especially pernicious given that it is our children — and grandchildren — who will see the most damaging impacts of climate change if we do not choose to act now.
So Mann has his 12,000 emails now. That gives him lots of time to go through them and find the ones with the ideas that weren’t ‘ready for prime time’ and come up with answers to all of them in advance.
How convenient.
Hence the sabbatical? There are obviously some things here that are worth a great deal of money to keep out of the Inconvenient Light. The Socialist Gravy Train is clearly deeply vested here and it looks like there may be something they cannot spin. Why else go to all of this effort when you have a lap dog media that prints any and all press releases without question?
Woodward and Bernstein had the advantage of working for an emotionally and ideologically sympathetic megaphone. Rationalist don’t have that luxury.
Re: kramer (Mar 28 19:58), I’ve always figured the damaging stuff were derogatory comments he may have made about colleagues, especially those that are now in a position of influence. He/They can spin any of the bad science in the emails, but he would have a very hard time explaining to his associates if he disparages their work. He seems to have an outsized ego, in my experience folks like that tend to diminish everyone else, even if their work has no impact on his own. He is basically more concerned about concealing what a jerk he is than how poor a scientist. Just my opinion of course.
Steve,
I read your stuff but don’t comment much as most of it is way beyond my pay grade. Nevertheless, I love what you do.
Scott Mandia is not as dumb as Anthony Watts portrays him but I could not help myself when that “Super Mandia” image was published. Mandia is even crazier than I am!
Poet laureate I am not:
http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/support-climate-scientists-look-cool-doing-so/#comment-2986
Predictably, Scott Mandia removed my little song from his website. Sing this to the tune of “Good King Wenceslas”:
Michael Mann looked out
On the feast of Stephen
But doubt lay round about
Deep and harsh unbeaten
Dimly shone his light that night
Thanks to MacIntyre
When Briffa came in sight
He could not douse the pyre
High water mark,
Flood is out from the plain
Unvarnished truth and Mann;
Ever the twain
================
Help! It’s been 20 days without a new Climate Audit post.
I hear the whimpering through the frosty air, and feel the trembling through the ice.
=========
Steve, I haven’t seen or heard from you for a few weeks and I am worried. I come here everyday and I know it is unusual that you haven’t posted recently, so I pray an hope you are well. Let us know what’s up if you can.
God Bless,
TA
Who presented Mann with the Pharaohs gold sceptre?
Steve, I expect you are working harder than ever. I wish you success. I’m glad you know the key to it. Please do remember to take it easy some time when you get a chance.
Could someone please tell us that Steve is alright. Roman, Anthony? As Tom said there are many lurkers out here that are concerned. Maybe I missed it. And maybe I’m out of line. If so I apologize.
Re: chuckr (Apr 15 22:37),
I’ve been away but will follow my various channels to check up on him. Last I heard he had been sick but he may just be busy. It does happen…
I don’t have personal knowledge of this, but Anthony posted a comment on WUWT several days ago that, according to Mrs. McI, Steve has been working on a project which has kept him busy. I got the sense that health did not seem to be the issue.
Great.
Good, I was actually getting worried too… I hope steve comes back and can tell us about what his project was (I assume it was mining related rather than climate related, but it would be interesting to hear about nonetheless!).
Re: chuckr (Apr 15 22:37),
Steve and I connected this morning. He’s fine, just busy with other things.
He too has a Real Life. There really is no Evil Corporation that funds his climate activities… just his own work. 🙂
Thanks
Looks like the judge punted today (April 16th). He seems a bit out of his depth related to FOIA cases. But he is progressing conservatively and seems to be wanting to settle the case in a way that makes it hard to appeal.
Do you have a link?
Yes, sorry should have put it in the first time:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/16/conservative-group-sees-glimmer-of-hope-in-climate/
Thanks
This is OT but Judith Curry has a post up on assessing Climate model software quality. The post itself is very good and the comments include many from commenters with deep knowledge of model verification, validation and Q&A.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/04/15/assessing-climate-model-software-quality/#more-8023
Steve, I haven’t read anything about an extended vacation or work assignment. I hope any pray all is well.
Read up this thread a bit…. MrPete
Where is Steve?
I had dinner with Steve last night. He was in a suit and tie. I hardly recognized him. Steve has been working very hard helping some colleagues on a small mining company startup, and that plus a bout of minor illness has kept him away from blogging for a while.
Thanks Ross.
Mann is correct. The “American Tradition Institute” is not a legitimate source of scientific inquiry, which this is supposed to be about.
Instead, ATI is yet another right wing organization seeking to ferret through 12,000 emails in order to mine a statement that can be used to attack a scientist whose conclusions they do not agree with. Many of the emails were personal in nature, and written under an assumption of confidentiality.
The courts may indeed rule that since they were released to one party that they are no longer confidential, but that’s beside the point in the bigger picture. This is nothing but scurrilous harassment to protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry.
Mike Roddy –
Use of the word scurrilous and accusation against the fossil fuel industry. Nice! Original too!
Re: Mike Roddy (Apr 21 10:22),
So Mike, are you suggesting that freedom of information requests should be evaluated based on the purpose of the request? Where did you find something supporting this novel interpretation of FOIA law?
One Trackback
[…] and the Corruption of Science’ by Andrew W. Montford. A more technical discussion has been ongoing in McIntyre’s blog […]