U.Va. wins key ruling in Prince William global warming-FOIA case involving Michael Mann
Michael E. Mann (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The battle over global warming in Prince William County Circuit Court, focused on renowned climate scientist Michael E. Mann, was either an assault on science or a search for the truth, depending on whose briefs you were reading. But after reading all the briefs, a judge ruled Monday that Mann’s e-mail correspondence was exempt from the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and did not have to be provided to the American Tradition Institute, which was trying to delve into the discussions and data behind Mann’s conclusions that humans are causing the Earth to grow hotter.
The ruling is almost certain to be appealed, and retired Arlington Circuit Court Judge Paul Sheridan had told both sides he wanted the case properly briefed and argued so that the record would be in order for the Virginia Supreme Court. But then Sheridan ruled orally from the bench Monday, rather than issue a written opinion, and both sides were awaiting the hearing transcript before plotting their next step.
Mann issued a statement declaring, “A victory for science!” Now working at Penn State, Mann was doing climate research at U.Va. from 1999 to 2005 when he had voluminous correspondence with other climate researchers.
“This finding is a potentially important precedent,” Mann said, “as ATI and other industry-backed front groups continue to press their attacks on climate scientists through the abuse of public records and FOIA laws and the issuing of frivolous and vexatious demands for internal scholarly deliberations and personal correspondences.”
Sheridan ruled that Mann’s correspondence while a professor at U.Va. qualified as public records, but they were exempt from disclosure under one particular exclusion listed in the Freedom of Information law: “Data, records or information of a proprietary nature produced or collected by or for faculty or staff of public institutions of higher education...in the conduct of or as a result of study or research on medical, scientific, technical or scholarly issues...where such data, records or information has not been publicly released, published, copyrighted or patented.”
David Schnare, the former EPA lawyer now representing ATI, said that while research was in process, the creative process should be protected. But once the research is published, the public should be entitled to see the process and data behind it.
Sheridan ruled that the FOIA exemption “is critical to protect the academic process,” Schnare said. “We agree that it is but we believe the judge went too far and prevented all transparency. And we believe that’s improper.”
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.
Comments
First Mitt Rob-me shoots himself in foot with hidden video and now sCeptics shoot themselves in the head.
Life is good.
But what else can we expect, it is after all his only skill.
It was Socialist in Chief Obama who shot himself in the foot( Which was firmly planted in his mouth).
Wherever Obama has his foot, we can now be confident his ass will stay in the White House.
Yippidee doodah yippidee day.
Everything you have ever accused anyone here of you are guilty of yourself. Seeing as all you do is spam and thread bomb here to disrupt things how about you remain silent until you learn some manners and can converse like an adult?
Then again you never have been smart enough to see that your own arrogance and childish behavior does more to turn people away from you than anything anyone else could say about you. You never were very bright.
Regarding manners Robert, just read any post on this site from any blogger on any subject and you will see a never-ending thread of abuse.
Oh and BTW Robert, for your information, I am so bright that my mother calls me "son".
I know, maybe he would submit to an inquiry or two or five. Oh hold on, he has done that too.
Maybe independent teams of scientists can prove his methods and conclusions were wrong? Hmmm, seems that has also happended but all it did was reinforce his conclusions.
How about this? Maybe he should ignore ignorant buffoons like you?
Therefore,like we have been saying, his hockey stick is wrong.
As for teams of climate scientists that agree with his hockey stick just demonstrates their lack of grasp of the subject.
On the subject of ignorant buffoons: It is a fair description of someone who would post that the UK subsidises the fossil fuel industry, because in fact it takes over 50 Billion pounds a year in taxes from it.
And that someone is Drewski
14 of the 15 hottest years ever recorded -- globally -- happened during this "steady" period of yours. And allow me to point out how intellectually bankrupt sCeptics are by choosing the year with the hottest anomaly ever recorded (1998) as the starting point.
The last 15 years also had the greatest amount of industrial pollutants ever created added to the atmosphere and even this screening effect didn't cool the planet.
I made this prediction before and I will make it again -- 2013 and 2014 will be in the top 5 hottest land and sea years on record. I will also make this prediction, unless there is a huge volcanic eruption or another cataclysmic event, none of us will ever live to see a year cooler than the 20th century average.
Climate scientists don't grasp climate science but you do? I see. Do you also understand medicine better than doctors?
Apparently, however, you don't know muych about energy subsidies: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/27/wind-power-subsidy-fossil-fuels
"Public subsidies for the development of wind power in the UK are dwarfed by the tax breaks enjoyed by fossil fuels, a new Guardian analysis has revealed. Financial support for fledgling renewable energy industries has increasingly come under attack in recent months, but the new data shows that the older industries benefit to a far greater extent.
Gas, oil and coal prices were subsidised by £3.63bn in 2010, according to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development , whereas offshore and onshore wind received £0.7bn in the year from April 2010. All renewables in the UK benefited from £1.4bn over the same period, according to data from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc).
The government argues that investing in wind, marine, solar and other renewable energy sources will help meet the nation's legally binding cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as providing economic opportunities for the UK and a more diversified and less volatile energy supply. It points to rising global gas prices as the major reason for the sharp rise in home energy bills in recent years."
One Tree Briffa and the rest of the Rent Seeking, Hockey Shtick Team.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/26/on-the-vikings-and-greenland/
Duplicity much?
OT - Has anyone heard if Obama's nephew has recovered from his critical health issue? I only heard because Dinesh D'Souza said that the boy had been gravely ill, and that Barry's brother George called him asking for money to save Obama's nephew's life. Odd that George could not rely on the leader of the free world, Mr Charity, Mr Millionaire, the Nobel Peace prize winner, Mr Healthcare to care enough to pay even $1000 for desperately needed medical care for his own family.
But I hear Mitt's dog is doing just fine!
Despite the odd helmet and voice his shifty smile and stilted body launguage shine through when he's asked questions about re-distrabution he doesn't want to answer.