It looks like Horner and Chesser acting on behalf of The American Tradition Institute (ATI) have succeeded in getting a court order requiring the University of Virginia to release Mann’s emails by August 22, 2011. The total cost ATI will be required to pay appears to remain in dispute. ATI agrees they must pay for costs doing things like locating documents, copying them etc. UVa would like ATI to also pay for internal reviews of various sorts, including a second set of reviews by an attorney who will review the work of law students doing the first round of reviews. If you are interested in additional details, visit ATI’s blog where you can find links to pdf containing the court orders and ATI’s filings.
76 thoughts on “Mann’s email to be released.”
Comments are closed.
I don’t think there is anything in the Freedom of Information Act that says the public shall have access to records only if they are rich enough to pay for a barrage of lawyers to review them first.
Tilo–
That seems to be ATI’s argument. There seems to be two levels of legal review:
1) Law students are reviewing the documents.
2) A supervising attorney is reviewing them after the law students review them.
ATI seems to point to case law that UVa absolutely cannot charge for the two reviews. But they also argue the FOIA act does not list any legal reviews as recoverable costs. They argue that these are simply operating costs which the University must do as a University and so the University just has to assume these costs.
I know I don’t know the law on this. But I’m also not sure about my opinion about what the law should be on this. Certainly, to some extent, the University has to spend its own funds to operate itself, and complying with things like student privacy is an operating cost. On the other hand, ordinary operations don’t require the University to sift through a whole batch of emails to figure out if anyone said anything that might violate student privacy.
Maybe if I were writing the law, I’d go for a 50%-50% split on these sorts of costs. That way the person asking for materials does have some burden of defraying the costs, but the university has a motivation not to start doing things like suggesting double and triple reviews that jack up the cost of complying with an FOI request. (Also, the University should be required to itemize who worked on reviews so as to assure the University didn’t over bill so as to shift excess costs onto the person requesting FOI.)
I doubt that UVa will allow release of substantive emails without much additional fight. They have already spent a fortune to fight the Va AG…. I see no reason to think they will not do the same WRT emails that they think should not be disclosed publicly. If they don’t agree with the judge on his in camera rulings, they will probably appeal his rulings. (This pre-supposes that politicians in Va have not started to pressure the University to comply…or else.)
If you look at the court order ATI is touting, it is not a finding compelling UVa to release something, but rather it states the two parties have agreed to the release of something in the next 90 days. Terms not disclosed.
Seems like the press release touting this as a legal victory may be a little bit of spin, not unlike the claims in their press release that Mann’s e-mails pertain to “leading voices that represent the climate alarmist perspective” and “his now infamous and discredited 1,000-year temperature reconstruction.”
A higher priority than rejiggering the FOI, I would think, should be strengthening our libel laws so scum like ATI & friends can be brought to account for serial defamation.
Robert–
The court order tells the parties to comply with the agreement they came up with. INAL, but I think this similar to a huge number of divorces settlements and child custody settlements. The parties knock out an agreement, present it to the court and then the court orders them to cleave to the agreement.
I think in this case, ATI does have a legal victory. UVA was not giving them anything and now UVA must hand stuff over or be inviolation of a court order. Because whether or not the parties knocked out an agreement, at this point adhering to the agreement is required by court order. It’s no longer an ordinary garden variety contract.
Feel free to write your Congressman and suggest we amend the US Constitution. Let him know you think this is a higher priority than rejiggering FOI.
Maybe. But at that point they really start to look bad even to people who don’t have a dog in the fight.
Plus…. if a judge starts ruling on individual emails, that means Horner and Chesser have already seen them. So, if the judge rules they can be made public, can’t Horner and Chesser just make them public?
Lucia,
In principle, yes, but they could/would ask him to allow them time to appeal his ruling(s). At that point they would probably have a pissed-off judge on their hands… not a good thing. But UVa has been remarkably consistent in their resistance so far, so I will be surprised if they don’t fight to the last email. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Lucia,
If I have read the order correctly, Horner and Chesser get to see all the emails, whether or not a judge must rule on their release. That is why they both signed non-disclosure agreements… they can see all to negotiate with the UVa lawyers if they should be withheld or released, but they can’t release any contested documents without being in contempt of court…. jail time would then seem likely, or at least heavy fines, and maybe a formal action to disbar.
What I don’t know is what qualifies under Va law for exemption from FIO requests.
SteveF–
I thought by the judges in camera rulings you meant rulings on disputes about whether something should be withheld or released. So for example: Exhibit A exists. UVA says that can’t be released for reason X but they give it to Horner and Chesser. Horner and Chesser dispute UVa’s ‘reason X’. The judge eventually gets involved, rules in Horner and Chesser’s favor. Then, I would expect UVA might appeal.
But in the meantime, there is a ruling permitting Horner and Chesser to release. So… unless there is some sort of injunction on the judges ruling permitting them to release, they release. Right? (Or not? )
I want to see all the emails they write.
Show no mercy Lucia. Go in all guns blazing.
Its important we can show where you stood.
“UVA was not giving them anything”
Not true. They acknowledged receiving 2,000 pages of documents. The documents are not going to be “released,” as you said in the post, but only reviewed, over the next three months (when originally they had demanded the documents within five days.)
Basically, this is discovery phase stuff. ATI hasn’t won the right to publish anything.
“Feel free to write your Congressman and suggest we amend the US Constitution. ”
Feel free to review the difference between legislation and constitutional law, so that you don’t sound quite so ignorant when you confuse the two.
Robert–
Feel free to learn why our libel laws are the way they are. It’s a constitutional issue. When you know this you might avoid sounding stupid.
dorlomin–
Mercy? No mercy? Huh?
Lucia,
As I understand the consent decree (I am not a lawyer) they can do what they wish with anything they receive unless it is claimed to be exempt from FOI; they do still receive everything for inspection, even what is claimed to be exempt. They then try to negotiate an agreement with the UVa lawyers about the validity of the claimed exemptions (there would likely be no dispute on exempting an email about a family member’s health issues, for example). If the parties can’t agree, then the judge holds an in camera hearing and makes a determination. That’s when one side or the other could appeal the judges ruling. In the end, everything that is not specifically exempted by the court (or a higher court) will become public information.
.
I hope for the sake of UVa that emails already known to exist via ‘Climategate’ have not somehow been ‘lost’ from the collection…. that could be very bad for those involved.
Robert:
They didn’t win the lottery either. Nonetheless this is a victory for them.
A little googling could have saved you from this gaffe.
Third link when googling “1st amedment libel”
http://www.oyez.org/issues/First%20Amendment/Libel
That’s a list of supreme court cases having to do with the 1st amendment and libel. Robert will have to do the additional googling to find the text of many of the cases. I’m pretty sure that whatever changes in legislation would — in Robert’s judgment– be the sort that “[strengthens] our libel laws so scum like ATI & friends can be brought to account for serial defamation’ would require modifying the US constitution.
(Admittedly, I don’t know what precisely he thinks they did that amounts to “serial defamation”. Requesting an FOI is not serial defamation. Saying why they are requesting them is not serial defamation. and so on.)
Man, it’s amazing what you learn reading a climate blog. Now I know more about the US constitution. Robert, if reading case law is a bit challenging, here’s a good primer on how libel and slander interpretation is governed by the consitution:
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/libel-and-slander
Boris’ predictions:
1. Mann called some people some mild names and we’ll get a lecture about how mean and nasty climate scientists are.
2. Mann will have used some word like “trick” or “bodge” or “cromulent” which McIntyre will write many posts about.
3. No papers will be retracted or invalidated.
4. Our understanding of climate change will be unchanged.
5. Climate skeptics will file more FOIA’s to get more emails, because they really really suck at the whole science thing and this is all they got.
Boris–
I also think they aren’t going to find much in the emails. But it’s still interesting to watch the ITA and UVa maneuvers.
Boris (Comment #76335),
Steve’s predictions:
1. The messages will show a long term pattern of communications similar to what was evident in the UEA emails, with political considerations always involved in “the science”.
2. Efforts to ostracize/exclude/pressure any climate scientist who questions the consensus POV of impending doom will be shown to be not uncommon.
3. Behind-the-scenes efforts to control the IPCC message for maximum political impact will be clear.
4. The influence of liberal/left/green political agendas over climate science will become more solidly documented.
Of course, I suspect that you will find none of the above at all inappropriate. That is the nature of politics. It is not the nature of science.
UVa has commented here.
They say there are 34,000 emails!
The University has acknowledged all along that faculty emails are, with certain exemptions, public records under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.
Nick–Yep. Lots. That’s why if FOIA doesn’t currently permit the agency to recover some costs of reviews required to comply with other rules (e.g. student/employee privacy) I think that should be modified. OTOH, I don’t think they should be permitted to jack up the cost by having multiple cascading layers of review. So sharing the cost would be good.
jstults– Yep. Those emails are not ‘private’. This is something employees need to know about email. If you want ‘private’ email, set up an honest to goodness private email account!
lucia:
Legal review fees are expressly not recompensable under the federal or VA state FOIA statute. Ultimately, UVa would lose on a demand for legal fees but it would be a way to tell the judge that the matter is a costly pain for them and thus try to lower sympathy for the FOIA requestors and justify high admin costs.
The University policy is practical and pretty standard– when somebody leaves, deep-six any and all docs and emails that don’t have to be retained by law. Apparently, somebody kept copies of emails on an offline drive. I imagine the university legal dept was less than thrilled about that.
The UVa response that Nick cited above is also about the CID from AG Cuccinelli. It makes sense for UVa lawyers to conflate the two because (a) it makes Cucinelli’s request unnecessary if all covered materials have already been released via FOIA requests; or conversely (b) litigating the CID refusal may be grounds for delaying release of relevant FOI-requested docs whose status is disputed. Lots of billable hours in all that.
My son graduated from UVa this past weekend. (Math and Chemistry double major–not climate science) Hate to see that big tuition going to legal fees.
Re: Robert (May 25 19:34),
Robert, why is your blog called “theidiottracker” where ever you go there you are. what’s to track?
Re: Nick Stokes (May 26 07:19),
wow, 34000 mails. I’ll volunteer to read them
George
My impression is that interpretation is under dispute and the judge is being asked to rule on this.
Yep. I’m sure the legal department and the adminstration is less than thrilled about this. They will likely try be more fastidious about implementing rules. (I say try because this is a university and universities often distribute responsibility for lots of things including IT.)
I’m sure these will be read by many.
Re: lucia (May 26 10:30), I’m not buying the whole “surplus computer story”
I’d depose the guys who said they found it and a bunch of other records.
Boris (Comment #76335) May 26th, 2011 at 6:22 am
Mike’s predictions:
1. Mann called some people some seriously demeaning names and we’ll get a lecture about how mean and nasty climate scientists are.
2. Mann will have used some word like “trick†or “bodge†or “cromulent†and we’ll get a lot of posts about how this is “standard” practice to illustrate data.
3. No papers will be retracted or invalidated, because no journals will be willing to take the heat from the “Team” and their well healed backers if they do.
4. Our understanding of climate change will be unchanged, as belief systems transcend everything.
5. AGW proponents will continue lobbying, PR campaigns, and blog posts, because they really really suck at the whole science thing and this is all they got.
Boris,
The e-mails will reveal what Mann has already proven: that he is a putz.
The e-mails will not change our understanding of climate science: it is rife with insider deals, making studies fit the conclusion and hiding data and processes.
if we are lucky, they might even cause true believers like you to ponder a bit about why you are so gullible for AGW garbage.
steven mosher (Comment #76351)
May 26th, 2011 at 10:06 am
Why doesn’t that surprise me.
bugs,
“Why doesn’t that surprise me.”
I thought Mosher’s comment was funny, even if you don’t see the humor.
SteveF–
I thought it was pretty funny too. Also, obviously, tons of people will be interested in the contents of these emails. The amount of reading, chatter and– lets fact it– chuckling over various contents– is one of the reasons some people are upset at the thought they might or will be released. In 34,000 emails something is bound to be chuckle worthy.
(The fact that lots of people will read them may not be the main reason UVa has been slow in releasing. Screening 34,000 emails is no small task. I think it’s fair to say that they are not exactly enthusiastic about releasing them. But even if they had been, it would take some time to push them all out while complying with laws governing student privacy etc.)
Allow me to suggest titles for the book.
Crying Virginia Woolf: A Climate of One’s Own.
Virginia Baked Mann: From Pork to Proxies.
Cavalier Attitudes: How They Play Climate Ho(c)key in The South.
Inconsequential Quibbles with Science Whose Implications I’m not too Fond Of.
Boris–
He used a CS Lewis title before. I suggest:
Emails in Bondage.
Out of the silent server.
The abolition of Mann.
Thanks Lucia, Out of the silent server.. I loved that book
abolition of mann is good too.
This story needs more drama. I can suggest a huge plot twist
steven mosher (Comment #76375) May 26th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
“This story needs more drama. I can suggest a huge plot twist”
It turns out, in the end, that Michael Mann and Stephen McIntyre are the same person.
http://images.newstatesman.com/articles/2010//20100924_6a00d83451e28a69e20120a74c6107970b-320wi_w.jpg
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4BUgObd35SswfeCsrc-PzECJY5W1T7WHS5Zx9css9D1PDHCibFg&t=1
(yeah all bald guys with beards are basically the same guy – explains a lot things…)
Re: lucia (May 26 16:18),
“Screening 34,000 emails is no small task.”
Indeed. But if UVa claims exemptions on a large fraction of them, then ATI’s lawyers (“up to two”) will have to read those. And they can’t show anyone else.
At, say, $5000 per day?
Nick–
If ATI’s lawyers charge ATI $5000 per day, what do you or I care? I doubt ATI is paying them that, but if so, it not taxpayer funded, so I don’t see how that would concern anyone other than ATI and ATI’s attorneys.
Nick
I think Chris Horner from the ATI is signed up to review the docs so he might be on Salary. Not sure but it looks from my reading of the court Docs that a significant portion is in electronic form. I am sure a search program could cut the man hours down. I won’t be rushing out to buy popcorn anytime soon.
Lucia,
Yes, if ATI wants to spend it’s money that way, it’s fine by me. I can’t imagine anything more harmless.
“Yes, if ATI wants to spend it’s money that way, it’s fine by me. I can’t imagine anything more harmless.”
Nick Stokes, you seem to be oddly interested in this “harmless” proceeding. What’s your take on kittens? 😉
Andrew
Andrew,
I think kittens will be safer when ATI is spending its money paying lawyers to read Mann’s emails 🙂
UVa legal expenses defending Mann – hundreds of thousands.
Total legal costs for all concerned parties – over a million.
Robert showing how little he knows about law, and making a fool of himself in the process….. priceless.
Re: Nyq Only (May 26 17:23),
no, imagine that ATI has the mails on a server somewhere.
Re: SteveF (May 26 20:47), roberts off tracking idiots. err which he can do by chasing his own tail.
steven mosher (Comment #76394) May 27th, 2011 at 3:52 am “no, imagine that ATI has the mails on a server somewhere.”
Do you mean, for example, they have the emails already (from a leak or a hack) and so already know what their content is – but are using an FOI request to acquire the emails legitimately? That would be a twist.
My understanding is that the emails that ATI have access to are those pertaining to Mann’s publicly funded studies at UVA (i.e. the same ones requested by the AG). Should be rather boring.
does anyone know if Attachments to emails count under this FOI request?
Would one be able to observe the evolution of a paper, as it travels from author to author, throughout the drafting process?
Doc–
I don’t know how they worded the FOI so I don’t know if attachments count. I’m also not quite sure why anyone would want to know everything about the evolution of a paper. If 34,000 emails get released, we are going to have lots of stuff to read. Some will be interesting, some not so much.
ATI wants everything.
steven mosher (Comment #76401) May 27th, 2011 at 11:37 am
“roberts off tracking idiots. err which he can do by chasing his own tail.”
I think you are exaggerating a bit. He is clearly not an idiot. But he is lots less smart (about many, many subjects) than he imagines he is. I think ‘foolish’ or ‘unaware of his limitations’ may be more accurate descriptions. Of course, being endlessly arrogant does make some folks just want to call him an idiot.
Experience from my institute would say 32,000 of those emails will be notifications of seminars, new H&S rules, new Green policies, announcement of Margarets retirement, lost cycle hemet found in mens bathroom etc etc etc etc etc. I wouldn’t pay a $5000/day lawyer to sort through those.
HR–
Not to mention announcements someone brought donuts for a Friday morning gathering, friends suggesting they get together for lunch and some honest to goodness spam from young ladies in Russia hoping they can get together sometime.
steven mosher (Comment #76394)
Steven. Are you suggesting something along the lines of the ATI server getting (cough) “hacked” and ALL the emails released BEFORE the adjudication? Oooh. Now that would be a twist 🙂
LC-
That would be a twist. But also, an awful lot of suspicion would fall on Horner and Chesser. Given the court order to keep material confindential, they would have to be pretty stupid to keep files on a server. I would assume their responsibilities would require them to keep store any electronic files on systems that are not on line, and, more in fairly secure locations. Example– If I had the material and had the responsibility to keep it private, I wouldn’t store it on my laptop, read files at the cafe and leave the laptop in the company of a third party while I went to to the powder room.
lucia (Comment #76431)
Lucia. I was only responding to Mosh’s “imagine that ATI has the mails on a server somewhere”. I don’t really believe such a thing would happen 😉 As for your analogy, I can only say one thing – spoilsport 🙂
Re: LC (May 28 21:23), Ya, that’s what I was thinking.
LC–
Mind you, I could easily imagine a randomly selected university professor having files on his laptop and unthinkingly leaving the laptop in the company of a third party temporarily. Faculty members are rarely deal with lots of confidential documents that members of the public might want to filch. Attorneys often do have to deal with lots of confidential documents that specific people might want to filch. (eg. business competitors, court documents they are permitted access but ordered not to share etc.)
So the former is unlikely the have special training; the later is likely to have a lot.
(Yes. Faculty might have student grades for one class or a paper they are reviewing. But rarely does anyone have a strong incentive to try to steal such. In contrast, business materials, and court materials can be newsworthy or give a company a business edge. )
Above, DocMartyn asked if the FOI request would cover attachments, as well as the body of the e-mails. It’s almost certain the answer to this would be “yes.” Unless the FOI request specifically excluded attachments, they would be covered by the request. Attachments are part of an e-mail, just like header information is.
Of course, it’s possible the request would cover attachments, but they’d not get released anyway.
Read the order.
The material will be provided in electronic form
Horner and Schnare are responsible for keeping any material secret that UVa holds as being exempt until adjucated. They have signed documents stating that they “understand that my failure to abide by the terms of the Proteclivc Order entered in the above-captioned action will subject me, without limitation, to civil and criminal penalties for contempt of Court.”
That is fairly serious.
Rabett:
Ever properly filled out a method and materials section in a peer reviewed paper so that everyone who reads it can go to their lab and verify both the conclusions and how they were arrived at?
Seems not. Because that is what this issue is about. No more no less. You publish but I can’t verify either your data or your methods? That’s not science. That’s either religion or fraud.
Those allowed to see the underlying data and correspondence ordered to keep their findings secret? You say “That is fairly serious”. Sure is, Rabett. Sure is. No kidding… But not the way you see it.
Tetris, you’re not a careful reader. It says “secret … until adjudicated.”
Brandon, read the original FOI request. It was not restricted to Emails, in fact it demanded EVERYTHING. Given that, the recent jumping up and down at Climate Audit and WUWT on Paul Nurse looks silly. People were/are demanding everything.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/05/25/is-this-a-nursery-story/
Eli Rabett, your response is strange. Nothing in it actually responds to anything I said. If your intention was just to provide me information, it could make sense, but there is no indication of such in it. As it stands, it sounds like you are trying to force me to argue for some position I have never advanced.
That said, your response is wrong. The link you provided referred to a specific quote, and that quote is not supported by any FOI request. For example, the FOI request in question never mentions anything about “annotations, explaining why changes were made between successive versions” of papers. That’s not the only issue with Paul Nurse’s remarks, but it does provide an example to show why he deserves the criticism he is getting. Another example is the FOI request was directed at an institution, but Nurse referred to researchers.
There is absolutely no support for Paul Nurse’s remarks. Perhaps he has been told what he says he was told, but there is no evidence of such, much less that such hearsay is true. As it stands, it is nothing but accusations based on hearsay.
I have no idea why you are dragging me into this, but if you’re going to do so, I should warn you I do read what I discuss. This means you won’t be able to simply make things up and get away with it, as you have attempted here. This warning is especially relevant as the blog post you linked to (and commented on) clearly demonstrates the fallacious nature of your position.
brandon, welcome to the rabbett hole.
As a matter of practice, there is nothing sinister or unusual about demanding “all” docs with broad search criteria. That way the side served with the demand does not get to parse their way out of producing any relevant documents and at worst, a seemingly overbroad request opens a negotiation regarding cost, privilege and relevance.
Obviously, If you already know what docs exist and what docs you want, “all” is unnecessary. For example, Pat Michaels and Edward Wegman probably did not cc everybody when each secretly conspired with the CEO of Exxon so you would not expect a large volume of emails therefore the request can be pretty focused.
In contrast, Prof. Mann, as a “Team” member is required to issue and respond to multiple snarky cc’s to all the other leaders of The Consensus whenever any climate-related issue arises, so the email and general doc volume would naturally be exponentially larger and more diffuse in nature.
Robert (Comment #76299) May 25th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
A higher priority than rejiggering the FOI, I would think, should be strengthening our libel laws so scum like ATI & friends can be brought to account for serial defamation.
Dr Mann is certainly a ‘limited purpose’ public figure.
I feel I should point out Robert’s call for strengthening libel laws could actually be a good thing for people on the skeptic side. As a general rule, something can’t be libel if it is true. This means skeptics like Steve McIntyre wouldn’t be affected if libel laws were strengthened. On the other hand, there are many examples of climate scientists, global warming advocates and newspapers publishing untrue things which could be covered by strengthened libel laws.
More importantly, libel suits would require an examination of what was communicated and what was actually true. This sort of examination would be part of the legal process, and it would not be subjected to a number of the biases currently running rampant in discussions. Most skeptics are pushing for more examination of issues, so this sort of thing would favor them.
I can’t think of any way in which people like Michael Mann would be helped by strengthening libel laws. If anything, it seems it would have the exact opposite effect.
This is an interesting discussion. Robert has clearly embarrassed himself, but he is not quite as wrong as everyone supposes. Unfortunately, the link between the constitution and legislation as regards libel is not completely clear cut.
We have the recent (2009) surprising decision by the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Noonan v. Staples which looked to Massachusetts law to override the “truth is an absolute defense” interpretation of the first amendment. Interestingly, the court did not even consider constitutional issues, likely because they were not raised in the defendant’s briefs (very odd).
When Staples appealed, the court held that it was too late to raise constitutional issues and (rather ominously) stated that Staples “still does not cite a case for the proposition that the First Amendment does not permit liability for true statements concerning matters of private concern.â€
Unless this is heard and overruled by the Supremes, it appears that at least in Massachusetts, even truthful comments can be libelous if there is malice. (Other states have similar legislation).
Of course, this is moot to the discussions here because, as others have already pointed out, Mann et al would almost certainly be limited purpose public figures, so it is the constitution that governs as supported by a substantial body of case law. So, to close the circle, Robert is still wrong.
brid,
Well, at least that part is not surprising, since the frequency of that event looks to be >75% of the time on every subject. 😉
FWIW, no matter the outcome in Staples, it is almost bizarre to imagine the truth is not an absolute defense against libel. My prediction: the Supremes will set this right. The truth should always set one free. Speaking the truth never has shame, malice, or guilt. If not, then IMO it is time for a constitutional amendment.
@ Eli Rabett (Comment #76471) ,
The Rabett should get used to broad requests for documents and communications as the tax payers let the implications of the Fall, et al paper sink in.
When the tax payers figure out they’ve been had, they tend to get annoyed.
How does it feel to have been part of a bona fide social mania and debacle, btw?
@Robert
“Seems like the press release touting this as a legal victory may be a little bit of spin, not unlike the claims in their press release that Mann’s e-mails pertain to “leading voices that represent the climate alarmist perspective†and “his now infamous and discredited 1,000-year temperature reconstruction.â€
Seems like you’re in denial. Mann put the heat in “cheat” and it completely blew apart your worldview.
Let’s review everything Robert ignores.
1988 James Hansen gives bogus testimony in hearing room where the windows were open to make the room hotter. Furthermore, they also strategically scheduled the meeting on the average hottest day of the year.
Al Gore fires Will Happer during the Clinton presidency.
Thousands of surface stations closed and many of them are poorly located. Nobody seems to know the range the things cover anyway.
Jay Overpeck tells Deming that “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”.
Michael Mann attempts to rewrite history and alter the original MWP graph which appeared in the 1990 IPCC report.
Years of disputes ensue, including William Connolley being fired from wikipedia for repeatedly deleting the Medieval Warm Period.
Go back to realclimate Robert and ask Gavin for a bandaid. Your boys cheated and they got caught, now deal with it.
@Eli Rabbet
Listen I know your big on the global warming issue but honestly what do you expect me to think when I see that they opened the rooms in the hearing room to make it seem much hotter? If their going to do stuff like that I am not going to take them seriously. Same thing with the graph. I still pee my pants just thinking that some goof made a fake graph to make current temperatures more dramatic.
@Tetris
When we are discussing temperature, why is it not based off of the GAT? For example, it is a blatant lie to say that the world is warming because it is below historic GAT. But people just say it anyway and get away with it.