By Debra Cassens Weiss –
The Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that a climate scientist’s emails are exempt from disclosure under the state’s Freedom of Information Act.
The state supreme court decision (PDF) said emails by researcher Michael Mann while he was a professor at the University of Virginia don’t have to be disclosed because the Virginia law shielded work “of a proprietary nature.” The Washington Post, the Associated Press and the Richmond Times-Dispatch have stories.
The state supreme court also upheld a ruling requiring the plaintiffs to pay the university’s costs of searching through documents to determine what should be exempted from disclosure.
If everything was honest and factual there wold be no need for a cover up. A true scientist would welcome discussion and criticism.
Vic.
I think that is exactly right Vic. If I were a scientist I would welcome other scientists checking my findings. I would willingly give them any data they wanted to see. And if they found something wrong I would thank them. But that’s just me, I guess.
Discussion is one thing. Harassment and a politically motivated witch hunt is something else entirely. The attorney general went way out of bounds on this one and was rightly put in his place.
While we are at it, why do we have a piece of derogatory artwork in place of the man’s face? There are plenty of photos of Michael Mann.
Ummmm…. This story says absolutely nothing about an attorney general. As far as I can tell there is no attorney general involved in this case. Do you know what this case is about? This is civil litigation. Mann is suing Mark Styne for libel, and Styne is counter-suing. Perhaps you should inform yourself about the facts of the case before you make comments.
As far as the artwork, it’s called parody. Google that.
That is why this is such a big scam. Global Tax payers should demand the data, methods, email, etc. If there is nothing to hide, you don’t hide anything..
The movement that gave populism its name swept out of the Plains states in the late 19th century as small farmers and steelworkers, day laborers and sharecroppers came together to take on the trusts, the railroads, the distant banks that were impoverishing them.
They railed against a government that handed public lands to the railroads, kept interest rates high, coddled monopolies and cracked the heads of workers trying to organize.
But in challenging the corrupted government, they came to a profound realization: that in the emerging industrial economy, simply cutting back government and limiting its powers would only free monopolies and banks to gouge even more from workaday Americans.
They concluded that they had to take back the government, turning it from the arm of the privileged to the people’s ally.
And this has what to do with global warming? This site is for comments and discussions about AGW and related topics. Not a forum for you to expound your Leftist/Socialist propaganda. Stick to the issues, or at least tie them in to the issues, or I’m just going to start deleting posts like this. Got it?
The state ruled that the information was proprietary, however, the information is the product of publicly-funded research. It would seem that the taxpayer, a research sponsor, has a right to verify that the methods used were correct and the research was directed towards an honest end. Some would call this decision a victory for academic freedom. However, academics should not be granted the freedom to tell lies anymore than Joe the Plumber does if he is defaming anyone.