Re: Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-12, 1:49 pm

jmundie wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:
snowdog wrote:The article below describes and shows why many people believe that AGW could be a hoax. Why the secrecy? Why is UVa spending a million dollars to hide this mans emails? Why didn't UVa spend a million dollars to hide "skeptics" emails? The whole thing stinks and AGW proponents have tried their hardest to diminish the fallout of Climategate.

If there is nothing to hide then why hide it? If Global Warming is a slam dunk then why are scientists fabricating and manipulating data? Why, if the government is so inclined to be slow to come around to climate change as the AGW movement suggests, is a government institution going to such great lengths to keep these emails from public record?

In 1999, Mann joined the U. of Virginia faculty as an assistant professor and left for Penn State six years later after failing to gain tenure. In fact, he was a member of my Department of Environmental Sciences, although we did not overlap.

In 2010, Virginia's newly elected Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, following Virginia FATA (Fraud Against Taxpayer Act) law, issued a Civil Investigative Demand on the university for Mann's e-mails, work notes, and other documentation. The university, a state-supported institution, has resisted this demand, citing "academic freedom" and similar excuses. They have employed a private law firm and spent about $1 million so far.

I am quite disappointed by my university's opposition to releasing Mann's e-mails to Virginia's AG. Those e-mails could clear up the mystery of "Mike's Nature trick" and reveal hidden data. I am told that no objection was raised by UVa when Greenpeace requested the e-mails of skeptical faculty -- including mine -- under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). So much for the university's "principled defense" of academic freedom.

Virginia's Supreme Court has now turned down AG Cuccinelli's demand, based on a technicality in the interpretation of the Virginia law. But the American Tradition Institute is trying to extract Mann's e-mails from UVa, using the FOIA. Their chance for success is good -- particularly since not only does the university now admits that some 12,000 e-mails exist (previously claimed to have been deleted) -- but it has also released these e-mails to Michael Mann, even though he is no longer a faculty member.

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE

I fail to see how one man's emails have anything whatsoever to do with climate science as a whole. If people believe that there is some big hidden secret and widespread data fabrication/manipulation based on this then they'll believe anything.

Plenty of people apparently believe that big oil is behind the entire skeptic movement. Is that not just as much of a conspiracy? It appears that Greenpeace obtained emails of skeptic professors because they believe there is a conspiracy... why the double standard stove?

Huh? It's no secret that Big Oil has been funding skeptic research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

The Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".[5][38] In 2006, the Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw funding for climate change denial. The letter, which was leaked to the media, drew criticism, notably from Timothy Ball and others, who argued the society attempted to "politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate."[39]

And "Climategate" was a non-issue. There was no wrong doing whatsoever there.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing

Focusing on such things and attempting to spin them in a way that discredits the science is plain silly.

by **snowdog** 2012-04-12, 1:55 pm

Stovepipe wrote:Focusing on such things and attempting to spin them in a way that discredits the science is plain silly.

Then UVa should have no problem releasing the emails.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-12, 2:04 pm

snowdog wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:Focusing on such things and attempting to spin them in a way that discredits the science is plain silly.

Then UVa should have no problem releasing the emails.

Still don't get the paranoia from you guys but don't really care much either. If you honestly believe that "secrets" are being hidden from view that somehow show that the science behind this is fraudulent then you're just going to have to go through life being paranoid. The data and methods are available for all to see. To bring up "Climategate" multiple times in this thread just shows that either you've not read about what those emails were actually discussing, or you're just looking for whatever you can find that puts AGW in a bad light. Doesn't bother me either way.

by **snowdog** 2012-04-12, 2:32 pm

Stovepipe wrote:Still don't get the paranoia from you guys but don't really care much either. If you honestly believe that "secrets" are being hidden from view that somehow show that the science behind this is fraudulent then you're just going to have to go through life being paranoid. The data and methods are available for all to see. To bring up "Climategate" multiple times in this thread just shows that either you've not read about what those emails were actually discussing, or you're just looking for whatever you can find that puts AGW in a bad light. Doesn't bother me either way.

So what is your thought on UVa fighting so hard to not release Mann's emails?

by **jmundie** 2012-04-12, 3:21 pm

Stovepipe wrote:
jmundie wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:
snowdog wrote:The article below describes and shows why many people believe that AGW could be a hoax. Why the secrecy? Why is UVa spending a million dollars to hide this mans emails? Why didn't UVa spend a million dollars to hide "skeptics" emails? The whole thing stinks and AGW proponents have tried their hardest to diminish the fallout of Climategate.

If there is nothing to hide then why hide it? If Global Warming is a slam dunk then why are scientists fabricating and manipulating data? Why, if the government is so inclined to be slow to come around to climate change as the AGW movement suggests, is a government institution going to such great lengths to keep these emails from public record?

In 1999, Mann joined the U. of Virginia faculty as an assistant professor and left for Penn State six years later after failing to gain tenure. In fact, he was a member of my Department of Environmental Sciences, although we did not overlap.

In 2010, Virginia's newly elected Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, following Virginia FATA (Fraud Against Taxpayer Act) law, issued a Civil Investigative Demand on the university for Mann's e-mails, work notes, and other documentation. The university, a state-supported institution, has resisted this demand, citing "academic freedom" and similar excuses. They have employed a private law firm and spent about $1 million so far.

I am quite disappointed by my university's opposition to releasing Mann's e-mails to Virginia's AG. Those e-mails could clear up the mystery of "Mike's Nature trick" and reveal hidden data. I am told that no objection was raised by UVa when Greenpeace requested the e-mails of skeptical faculty -- including mine -- under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). So much for the university's "principled defense" of academic freedom.

Virginia's Supreme Court has now turned down AG Cuccinelli's demand, based on a technicality in the interpretation of the Virginia law. But the American Tradition Institute is trying to extract Mann's e-mails from UVa, using the FOIA. Their chance for success is good -- particularly since not only does the university now admits that some 12,000 e-mails exist (previously claimed to have been deleted) -- but it has also released these e-mails to Michael Mann, even though he is no longer a faculty member.

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE

I fail to see how one man's emails have anything whatsoever to do with climate science as a whole. If people believe that there is some big hidden secret and widespread data fabrication/manipulation based on this then they'll believe anything.

Plenty of people apparently believe that big oil is behind the entire skeptic movement. Is that not just as much of a conspiracy? It appears that Greenpeace obtained emails of skeptic professors because they believe there is a conspiracy... why the double standard stove?

Huh? It's no secret that Big Oil has been funding skeptic research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

The Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".[5][38] In 2006, the Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw funding for climate change denial. The letter, which was leaked to the media, drew criticism, notably from Timothy Ball and others, who argued the society attempted to "politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate."[39]

And "Climategate" was a non-issue. There was no wrong doing whatsoever there.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing

Focusing on such things and attempting to spin them in a way that discredits the science is plain silly.

And the government - who stands to gain tremendous amount of power over its consituents if carbon becomes taxable and further regulated, is funding climate change, AGW, research.

Science is all funded by parties who are interested in certain outcomes. And again, the funding of AGW related science far outdoes anything being spent by oil companies.

And wow - exxon mobil gave away 2.9 Million? with an M? dollars? to multiple groups? Shame!

Did we not just discuss that Hansen made over 750K from speaking and promoting AGW?

Both groups are trying to establish a narrative inorderto further their agendas. Let people study what they want to study. If its about science, and not about promoting a political agenda, then it shouldn't matter if people are promoting misinformation. The truth always comes out... unless one group tries to associate people who disagree with people who hate jews...

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-12, 3:44 pm

jmundie wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:
jmundie wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:
snowdog wrote:The article below describes and shows why many people believe that AGW could be a hoax. Why the secrecy? Why is UVa spending a million dollars to hide this mans emails? Why didn't UVa spend a million dollars to hide "skeptics" emails? The whole thing stinks and AGW proponents have tried their hardest to diminish the fallout of Climategate.

If there is nothing to hide then why hide it? If Global Warming is a slam dunk then why are scientists fabricating and manipulating data? Why, if the government is so inclined to be slow to come around to climate change as the AGW movement suggests, is a government institution going to such great lengths to keep these emails from public record?

In 1999, Mann joined the U. of Virginia faculty as an assistant professor and left for Penn State six years later after failing to gain tenure. In fact, he was a member of my Department of Environmental Sciences, although we did not overlap.

In 2010, Virginia's newly elected Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, following Virginia FATA (Fraud Against Taxpayer Act) law, issued a Civil Investigative Demand on the university for Mann's e-mails, work notes, and other documentation. The university, a state-supported institution, has resisted this demand, citing "academic freedom" and similar excuses. They have employed a private law firm and spent about $1 million so far.

I am quite disappointed by my university's opposition to releasing Mann's e-mails to Virginia's AG. Those e-mails could clear up the mystery of "Mike's Nature trick" and reveal hidden data. I am told that no objection was raised by UVa when Greenpeace requested the e-mails of skeptical faculty -- including mine -- under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). So much for the university's "principled defense" of academic freedom.

Virginia's Supreme Court has now turned down AG Cuccinelli's demand, based on a technicality in the interpretation of the Virginia law. But the American Tradition Institute is trying to extract Mann's e-mails from UVa, using the FOIA. Their chance for success is good -- particularly since not only does the university now admits that some 12,000 e-mails exist (previously claimed to have been deleted) -- but it has also released these e-mails to Michael Mann, even though he is no longer a faculty member.

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE

I fail to see how one man's emails have anything whatsoever to do with climate science as a whole. If people believe that there is some big hidden secret and widespread data fabrication/manipulation based on this then they'll believe anything.

Plenty of people apparently believe that big oil is behind the entire skeptic movement. Is that not just as much of a conspiracy? It appears that Greenpeace obtained emails of skeptic professors because they believe there is a conspiracy... why the double standard stove?

Huh? It's no secret that Big Oil has been funding skeptic research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

The Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".[5][38] In 2006, the Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw funding for climate change denial. The letter, which was leaked to the media, drew criticism, notably from Timothy Ball and others, who argued the society attempted to "politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate."[39]

And "Climategate" was a non-issue. There was no wrong doing whatsoever there.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing

Focusing on such things and attempting to spin them in a way that discredits the science is plain silly.

And the government - who stands to gain tremendous amount of power over its consituents if carbon becomes taxable and further regulated, is funding climate change, AGW, research.

Science is all funded by parties who are interested in certain outcomes. And again, the funding of AGW related science far outdoes anything being spent by oil companies.

And wow - exxon mobil gave away 2.9 Million? with an M? dollars? to multiple groups? Shame!

Did we not just discuss that Hansen made over 750K from speaking and promoting AGW?

Both groups are trying to establish a narrative inorderto further their agendas. Let people study what they want to study. If its about science, and not about promoting a political agenda, then it shouldn't matter if people are promoting misinformation. The truth always comes out... unless one group tries to associate people who disagree with people who hate jews...

As long as the money is going to legitimate research (for or against AGW), I honestly don't care where it comes from. And again, who the fark cares how much money Hansen is making? That is an ad hominem argument if I've ever heard one.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-12, 3:51 pm

snowdog wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:Still don't get the paranoia from you guys but don't really care much either. If you honestly believe that "secrets" are being hidden from view that somehow show that the science behind this is fraudulent then you're just going to have to go through life being paranoid. The data and methods are available for all to see. To bring up "Climategate" multiple times in this thread just shows that either you've not read about what those emails were actually discussing, or you're just looking for whatever you can find that puts AGW in a bad light. Doesn't bother me either way.

So what is your thought on UVa fighting so hard to not release Mann's emails?

Like most of the stuff you're paranoid about, this seems like a non-issue to me. His personal emails are nobody's business and the court agrees. End of story.

The Virginia Supreme Court today sided with the University of Virginia in its fight against the state attorney general’s investigation of former U.Va. climate scientist Michael Mann.

The court upheld the Albemarle Circuit Court ruling setting aside Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s civil investigative demands for documents related to grants Mann receive to study global warming.

Cuccinell sought the information under the state’s Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.

But the high court ruled today that the university is not “a person” under the act, and the term “corporation” as used in the statute does not include state agencies such as public universities. …

“Certainly, I do think that it’s important for the university to be able to protect the privacy of its researchers and the ability of scientists to ask tough questions,” said Michael Halpern of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy group. “This is a victory for science in Virginia.” …

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/02/436701/virginia-supreme-court-tosses-out-ag-cuccinelli-inquisition-on-michael-mann/

by **snowdog** 2012-04-12, 4:12 pm

Stovepipe wrote:Like most of the stuff you're paranoid about, this seems like a non-issue to me. His personal emails are nobody's business and the court agrees. End of story.

What stuff am I paranoid about? Why did the UVa not protect the "skeptic" professors emails? You consider this a non-issue because of the side of the debate you are on.

by **Toot** 2012-04-12, 6:28 pm

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-12, 8:39 pm

snowdog wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:Like most of the stuff you're paranoid about, this seems like a non-issue to me. His personal emails are nobody's business and the court agrees. End of story.

What stuff am I paranoid about? Why did the UVa not protect the "skeptic" professors emails? You consider this a non-issue because of the side of the debate you are on.

To me your main thesis throughout this thread of fraudulent science, agendas, "secrets" being hidden, people getting rich, all of that smells like paranoia. Then when you consider Mundie's various stream of conscience rants about the government using this to exert power on the people and all sorts of other theories on why the science is illegitimate, it sure seems like you guys have a lot of bottled up fear.

As far as the UVa thing, it's a non-issue to me because in the context of this thread it means very little. The bottom line is that barring a criminal investigation, nobody's personal emails should be made public, and the court agreed. I don't know the full story of the other guy who had his emails revealed. On the surface that sounds bad, yes. Not sure the blog you linked had all the facts. Regardless, my position on that has nothing to do with taking sides, it's just a matter of keeping the dude's stuff private. You being such a fervent supporter of individual liberties I'd think we'd be in agreement here. But, I'm sure you're bringing this to our attention because you think he has something to hide, something that if revealed would result in the whole foundation of AGW crumbling apart. Correct me if I'm wrong. Smile

by **jmundie** 2012-04-13, 10:20 am

Stovepipe wrote:
snowdog wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:Like most of the stuff you're paranoid about, this seems like a non-issue to me. His personal emails are nobody's business and the court agrees. End of story.

What stuff am I paranoid about? Why did the UVa not protect the "skeptic" professors emails? You consider this a non-issue because of the side of the debate you are on.

To me your main thesis throughout this thread of fraudulent science, agendas, "secrets" being hidden, people getting rich, all of that smells like paranoia. Then when you consider Mundie's various stream of conscience rants about the government using this to exert power on the people and all sorts of other theories on why the science is illegitimate, it sure seems like you guys have a lot of bottled up fear.

As far as the UVa thing, it's a non-issue to me because in the context of this thread it means very little. The bottom line is that barring a criminal investigation, nobody's personal emails should be made public, and the court agreed. I don't know the full story of the other guy who had his emails revealed. On the surface that sounds bad, yes. Not sure the blog you linked had all the facts. Regardless, my position on that has nothing to do with taking sides, it's just a matter of keeping the dude's stuff private. You being such a fervent supporter of individual liberties I'd think we'd be in agreement here. But, I'm sure you're bringing this to our attention because you think he has something to hide, something that if revealed would result in the whole foundation of AGW crumbling apart. Correct me if I'm wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information_in_the_United_States

by **jmundie** 2012-04-13, 10:28 am

If you aren't concerned about encroaching federal government into your life,you aren't paying attention stove. But for whatever reason, the left, who was all over broadening federal powers during the Bush admin, completely stopped giving a shit after Obama was elected.

I don't disagree with environmentalism as such. But I don't think its the place of the federal government to enforce lifestyle changes on the people. Ithink those broad powers further the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" situation we've got going on, because the rich and powerful and connected make sure laws are written to benefit themselves. Regular folks get lectured about the cars they drive, while the limosine liberals fly around on private jets, and pay for them with carbon credits.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-13, 10:33 am

jmundie wrote:If you aren't concerned about encroaching federal government into your life,you aren't paying attention stove. But for whatever reason, the left, who was all over broadening federal powers during the Bush admin, completely stopped giving a shit after Obama was elected.

I don't disagree with environmentalism as such. But I don't think its the place of the federal government to enforce lifestyle changes on the people. Ithink those broad powers further the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" situation we've got going on, because the rich and powerful and connected make sure laws are written to benefit themselves. Regular folks get lectured about the cars they drive, while the limosine liberals fly around on private jets, and pay for them with carbon credits.

Funny stuff man. Your rants are always entertaining.

lmao

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-13, 10:35 am

jmundie wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:
snowdog wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:Like most of the stuff you're paranoid about, this seems like a non-issue to me. His personal emails are nobody's business and the court agrees. End of story.

What stuff am I paranoid about? Why did the UVa not protect the "skeptic" professors emails? You consider this a non-issue because of the side of the debate you are on.

To me your main thesis throughout this thread of fraudulent science, agendas, "secrets" being hidden, people getting rich, all of that smells like paranoia. Then when you consider Mundie's various stream of conscience rants about the government using this to exert power on the people and all sorts of other theories on why the science is illegitimate, it sure seems like you guys have a lot of bottled up fear.

As far as the UVa thing, it's a non-issue to me because in the context of this thread it means very little. The bottom line is that barring a criminal investigation, nobody's personal emails should be made public, and the court agreed. I don't know the full story of the other guy who had his emails revealed. On the surface that sounds bad, yes. Not sure the blog you linked had all the facts. Regardless, my position on that has nothing to do with taking sides, it's just a matter of keeping the dude's stuff private. You being such a fervent supporter of individual liberties I'd think we'd be in agreement here. But, I'm sure you're bringing this to our attention because you think he has something to hide, something that if revealed would result in the whole foundation of AGW crumbling apart. Correct me if I'm wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information_in_the_United_States

And that is relevant to a university research scientist how?

by **jmundie** 2012-04-13, 10:49 am

Its a state university? He's a government employee? His research is part of policy making at the federal level?

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-13, 10:57 am

jmundie wrote:Its a state university? He's a government employee? His research is part of policy making at the federal level?

Nothing in your wiki link mentions anything at all about state universities. It does have links to individual states FOI legislation but nothing is listed for Virginia. You have a problem with it then take it up with the courts. Lots of research is used to make policy decisions at the federal level. Again, what is your point?

That makes about as much sense as this picture.

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 11 Nq38lv

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 11 Nq38lv

by **jmundie** 2012-04-13, 11:02 am

Stovepipe wrote:
jmundie wrote:If you aren't concerned about encroaching federal government into your life,you aren't paying attention stove. But for whatever reason, the left, who was all over broadening federal powers during the Bush admin, completely stopped giving a shit after Obama was elected.

I don't disagree with environmentalism as such. But I don't think its the place of the federal government to enforce lifestyle changes on the people. Ithink those broad powers further the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" situation we've got going on, because the rich and powerful and connected make sure laws are written to benefit themselves. Regular folks get lectured about the cars they drive, while the limosine liberals fly around on private jets, and pay for them with carbon credits.

Funny stuff man. Your rants are always entertaining.

Most dismissive thing you've said yet. When someone mentions something you don't want to respond to, just call it "paranoid" or a "rant" as if it shouldn't be addressed in any way.

Are you disputing that it seems disengenous that wealthy environmentalists use private jets while telling poorpeople they need to pay 5 dollars for a lightbulb instead of 25 cents? Or that they need to get rid of their pick up truck and buy a prius?

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-13, 11:08 am

jmundie wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:
jmundie wrote:If you aren't concerned about encroaching federal government into your life,you aren't paying attention stove. But for whatever reason, the left, who was all over broadening federal powers during the Bush admin, completely stopped giving a shit after Obama was elected.

I don't disagree with environmentalism as such. But I don't think its the place of the federal government to enforce lifestyle changes on the people. Ithink those broad powers further the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" situation we've got going on, because the rich and powerful and connected make sure laws are written to benefit themselves. Regular folks get lectured about the cars they drive, while the limosine liberals fly around on private jets, and pay for them with carbon credits.

Funny stuff man. Your rants are always entertaining.

Most dismissive thing you've said yet. When someone mentions something you don't want to respond to, just call it "paranoid" or a "rant" as if it shouldn't be addressed in any way.

Are you disputing that it seems disengenous that wealthy environmentalists use private jets while telling poorpeople they need to pay 5 dollars for a lightbulb instead of 25 cents? Or that they need to get rid of their pick up truck and buy a prius?

I tend to dismiss arm chair postulating, especially when the person doing it paints with a very broad brush and has a slippery grip on reality.

You might want to read up on the light bulb thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs

And of all the problems in the world, I have a hard time mustering up much rage over rich people's transportation choices.

by **snowdog** 2012-04-13, 11:32 am

I don't know the full story of the other guy who had his emails revealed. On the surface that sounds bad, yes.

That is all you needed to say. All the other stuff about paranoia and personal liberty is just fluff. One side had their emails exposed and one side did not. To any rational person it looks bad and you being a rational person agree.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-13, 11:51 am

snowdog wrote:
I don't know the full story of the other guy who had his emails revealed. On the surface that sounds bad, yes.

That is all you needed to say. All the other stuff about paranoia and personal liberty is just fluff. One side had their emails exposed and one side did not. To any rational person it looks bad and you being a rational person agree.

*sigh*

I guess I have to do all of the leg work around here. So getting off my ass to actually do some reading of the facts on the story, this is what your blog failed to report.

- Greenpeace made a request to UVa for Pat Michaels' (the skeptic) information
- UVa told them it would cost X amount of money to go through and see what they could and couldn't release
- Greenpeace said "we ain't gonna pay that"
- UVa said "well here is some publicly available information you are welcome to have, good luck"

http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/10/special-investigation-whos-behind-the-information-attacks-on-climate-scientists.html

So you had the story wrong. It almost always pays to dig a little deeper before drawing conspiracy conclusions.

Edit: The actual letters that were sent:

http://www.virginia.edu/foia/climatechange/timeline.html

by **jmundie** 2012-04-13, 12:17 pm

Wow - that's clearly an unbiased source.

Conspiracy called, and wants its left wing blog back. That shit reads like a left wing version of this guy

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 11 1256136589-glennbitch

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 11 1256136589-glennbitch

by **jmundie** 2012-04-13, 12:20 pm

Why is it a problem when big oil funds studies in their interests and environmental and government groups do the same thing, yet it's not suspicious?

That article seriously tried to claim that heartland receiving 600k over a span of nearly ten years is a big deal. O my god.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-13, 12:57 pm

jmundie wrote:Wow - that's clearly an unbiased source.

Conspiracy called, and wants its left wing blog back. That shit reads like a left wing version of this guy

jmundie wrote:Why is it a problem when big oil funds studies in their interests and environmental and government groups do the same thing, yet it's not suspicious?

That article seriously tried to claim that heartland receiving 600k over a span of nearly ten years is a big deal. O my god.

LMFAO please, give me a farking break. I linked the actual University of Virginia Freedom of Information Act page with a timeline of the entire series of events. That "biased" blog was simply a jumping off point. Snowdog's blog didn't even have the name of the skeptic professor in question.

Are you disputing the facts of the case? Then provide your own more credible links. And where have I said that I have a problem with big oil or anyone else funding scientific research? I expect at least two more multi-paragraph rants from you today before the afternoon is over. Any less and I'm going to be disappointed. I need entertainment dammit!

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-13, 1:06 pm

More on the information requests:

http://climscifoi.blogspot.com/2011/04/uva-responses-to-vfoia-requests.html

Before Mundie graces us with more Glen Beck pics..

This is a blog entitled 'Climate Science FOI report'

"A clearing-house for climate science-related Freedom of Information Requests and links to background information on FOI legislation in the US (federal and state) and UK."

The University of Virginia has collated a timeline of requests and responses to multiple requests under Virginia FOIA. Since the full exchanges between requesters and the university are provided, it is a good way to see the issues that can arise.

First note, that while anything can be requested, the response depends on multiple issues - whether the records exist, whether they are 'public records', whether they fall under any exemptions in the FOIA law, and whether they are protected from disclosure under any other relevant laws (such as FERPA, which protects students personal information). Note that Virginia FOIA requires the requester to be a Virginia resident (which is why Chris Horner of CEI is now using ATI as a vehicle for these requests).

For any specific request, particularly for broad categories like 'all emails', it is not a priori obvious that a specific individual email that meets the search criteria is releasable. That generally needs to be decided on an email-by-email case. In response to Greenpeace (who requested records related to Pat Michaels), UVa rightly made it clear that no 'unfiltered' release of records would be possible.

Given then that extremely broad requests of emails will likely result in thousands of potentially responsive documents, someone needs to go through each of those records to assess the releasability. Federal and Virginia FOIA allow for the charging of fees to cover the cost of searching, redacting and reviewing documents, though this is sometimes waived in federal cases where agency staff are permanently assigned as FOIA support etc. Note that ATI initially challenged the application of fee for reviewing the documents, but UVa insisted that this was in fact permitted under guidelines from the VFOIA Advisory Council.

UVa therefore has requested deposits of fees prior to commencing any individual email review process, based on the reasonable estimate that one person can review roughly 90 emails an hour. (Other estimates from similar situations might give 70 to 100 emails/hour, but it depends clearly on the complexity of the material). UVa appears to be using law students to perform the reviews and are charging $25/hour for that. In cases referred to here, the number of documents is on the order of 35,000 individual records - implying eventual costs of review at $8000 or more (final costs to be decided once review is complete).

by **snowdog** 2012-04-13, 2:32 pm

Stovepipe wrote:So you had the story wrong. It almost always pays to dig a little deeper before drawing conspiracy conclusions.

What part of the story is wrong? Singer is saying he himself had emails leaked by UVa. He doesn't say when or to whom. He also makes no specific claims about Michaels. I'm guessing he isn't lying about it though as the AGW side would love to pop him at any chance.

Also I've found that UVa had spent about $600,000 in defense of Mann and that was a year or so ago. Actually a private group has spent that money in defense of Mann through UVa, not taxpayer money. I'd be interested know who is privately pumping in the money to protect those emails.

Again, if what Singer is saying is incorrect about the ongoing case, it will quickly show up on a AGW blog.

by Sponsored content