Hughes, M sci

<font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">see overpeck</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</font><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Court-Forces-University-Arizona-Release-Climate-Scientists-Traditionally-Confidential-Emails" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Court-Forces-University-Arizona-Release-Climate-Scientists-Traditionally-Confidential-Emails</font></a></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h1 ngcontent-c2="" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; line-height: 1.4;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Court Forces University of Arizona to Release Climate Scientists’ Traditionally Confidential Emails</font></h1><p _ngcontent-c2="" style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span _ngcontent-c2="" class="article-author" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><span _ngcontent-c2="" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><a _ngcontent-c2="" class="article-author-link" href="https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/author/jeff.masters" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">Dr. Jeff Masters</a> </span> ·  </span><span _ngcontent-c2="" class="article-created-date" style="box-sizing: inherit; white-space: nowrap; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">December 1, 2018</span></font></p><p _ngcontent-c2="" style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span _ngcontent-c2="" class="article-created-date" style="box-sizing: inherit; white-space: nowrap;">S</span>cience has suffered an unfortunate loss in a legal battle in Arizona, where the courts have ordered the public release of 13 years of email correspondence of two climate scientists who worked at the University of Arizona, Jonathan Overpeck and Malcolm Hughes. The plaintiff was a coal industry-funded group called <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/energy-environment-legal-institute" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">Energy & Environment Legal Institute</a> (<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Energy%26_Environment_Legal_Institute" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">E&E Legal</a>). The group is led by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/climate/climate-emails-group-lawsuit.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">David Schnare</a>, who has made a career of suing and harassing climate scientists by abusing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and state open record laws to demand masses of scientists’ emails.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">E&E’s victory was obtained <a href="https://www.csldf.org/resources/50-state-report/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">via State of Arizona open records laws</a>. </span>These laws, which allow taxpayers to request copies of government records, have been misused by anti-science groups to target scientific research. In response to this abuse by both conservative and liberal groups that have economic, political, or ideological reasons for seeking to suppress particular types of scientific inquiry, most states where the issue has arisen have sought to make it clear by statute, regulation, or judicial decision that their public records or freedom of information laws do not destroy traditional areas of confidentiality that protect the scientific endeavor. Unfortunately, not all states have enacted such reforms.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The emails provide an opportunity for hostile groups to take phrases, including scientific jargon, out of context in order to mislead and confuse the public, and divert time, energy, and resources of the scientists involved away from science. A classic example of this occurred in 2009, with the public release of stolen climate scientists’ emails from the UK: the so-called “Climategate” incident. In an attempt to mislead the public regarding the existence and severity of the climate change problem, climate science deniers published misleading excerpts from the stolen materials to attack the integrity of the scientists who had published seminal studies demonstrating the high probability of human-caused climate change. Numerous investigations found no merit in the criticisms, and no evidence of any wrongdoing by the scientists whose emails had been exposed and distorted.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the current University of Arizona case, Malcolm Hughes' emails were released on November 30, and Jonathan Overpeck will have his emails released on January 15. Dr. Hughes testified it took him ten weeks to go through all the emails to respond to the court order, and he lost an entire research summer to reviewing old emails as well as losing a grant that expired. Dr. Overpeck testified it took him six weeks to go through everything and he was unable to use his sabbatical. Climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann, whose email correspondence to the Arizona scientists involved has now been released to E&E Legal, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/11/29/michael-mann-statement-arizona-emails-released-eeli" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">posted all of his emails involved online</a> on Friday, complete with commentary explaining their content.</font></p><table cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" border="1" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; border: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; box-sizing: inherit; border-spacing: 0px; width: 835px; border-radius: 3px;"><tbody style="box-sizing: inherit; border: 1px solid rgb(242, 242, 242);"><tr style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit;"><td style="padding: 0.5rem 0.625rem 0.625rem; margin: 0px; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit;">
</td></tr><tr style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);"><td style="padding: 0.5rem 0.625rem 0.625rem; margin: 0px; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-weight: 700;">Figure 1.</span> Dr. Michael Mann addresses an audience at a fund raiser on behalf of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) in 2014.</font></td></tr></tbody></table><h2 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5rem; padding: 0px; font-weight: 400; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; line-height: 1.4;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-weight: 700;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enter the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund</font></span></h2><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This latest release of climate scientists’ emails, combined with the actions of the Trump Administration to sideline climate scientists and prevent them from doing their important work, underscores the urgent need for legal protection so that climate scientists may continue their critical research in the face of threats like this. The nonprofit <u style="box-sizing: inherit;"><a href="http://csldf.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF)</a></u> was created seven years ago to help climate scientists fight back against politically-motivated and industry-funded harassment, and has been heavily involved in the Arizona open records case. CSLDF provides support and resources to the scientific community by offering free legal aid to scientists who are harassed, threatened or attacked for doing their jobs; educating researchers about their legal rights and responsibilities; sharing strategies and information about cases with attorneys; and publicizing attacks on science.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I'm proud to say that I'm a founding board member of the charity, which has helped over one hundred and fifty researchers since 2011. This past year, we've advised and defended scientists on issues ranging from defamation to death threats, and produced a number of educational resources to <u style="box-sizing: inherit;"><a href="https://www.csldf.org/resources/for-scientists/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">help researchers understand their legal rights</a></u>. Check out our website at <u style="box-sizing: inherit;"><a href="http://csldf.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">csldf.org</a></u><u style="box-sizing: inherit;"><a href="http://csldf.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">,</a></u> and please consider <u style="box-sizing: inherit;"><a href="http://csldf.org/donate/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">making a tax-deductible donation</a></u> to this worthy cause.  An anonymous donor is currently matching all gifts to CSLDF up to a total of $20,000, so when you make a gift between now and the end of the year, your gift will be doubled.</font></p><h2 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5rem; padding: 0px; font-weight: 400; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; line-height: 1.4;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-weight: 700;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CSLDF at the AGU Meeting in Washington D.C., December 10 – 14</font></span></h2><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CSLDF will have a significant presence at the <a href="https://fallmeeting.agu.org/2018/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">AGU Fall Meeting</a> in D.C., including a booth in the Exhibit Hall (Booth 1047) where scientists can pick up copies of CSLDF's educational materials and sign-up for updates on its work.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CSLDF will also offer free and confidential one-on-one consultations with attorneys for any scientist attending the conference. To schedule a consultation, please e-mail <u style="box-sizing: inherit;"><a href="mailto:lawyer@csldf.org" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">lawyer@csldf.org.</a></u>  Consultations will be held December 10-13 from 8:00 a.m-3:30 p.m. in the Marriott Marquis: Anacostia Room.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In addition, the organization will host two sessions on legal issues pertaining to scientists: </font></p><ul style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1rem 1.25rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; list-style-position: outside;"><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">How to Get Involved in the Rulemaking Process on Tuesday, December 11, from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. </font></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Science in Court: Becoming an Expert Witness and Climate Litigation on Thursday, December 13, from 12:30 to 1:30 p.m.  </font></li></ul><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Both sessions will be held in Room 208A/B at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center.  More information about these sessions is available <u style="box-sizing: inherit;"><a href="https://www.csldf.org/events/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">online here</a></u>.</font></p><h2 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5rem; padding: 0px; font-weight: 400; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; line-height: 1.4;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-weight: 700;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Links</font></span></h2><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.6; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dr. Michael Mann’s November 30 on-line release of his emails, along with a more detailed explanation of the legal case, is <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/11/29/michael-mann-statement-arizona-emails-released-eeli" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">here</a>.<br style="box-sizing: inherit;" />Desmogblog took a detailed look at David Schnare and E&E Legal in a <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/11/27/david-schnare-forced-to-disgorge-dark-money-from-fmelc-piggy-bank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">November 27 piece.</a><br style="box-sizing: inherit;" />My 2009 blog post, <a href="https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/the-manufactured-doubt-industry-and-the-hacked-email-controversy.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">The Manufactured Doubt industry and the hacked email controversy</a>.<br style="box-sizing: inherit;" />My fellow CSLDF board member, Naomi Oreskes, has co-authored an excellent book on the industry-funded attacks on science, <u style="box-sizing: inherit;"><a href="http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; cursor: pointer;">Merchants of Doubt</a></u>, which has also been made into a fascinating documentary (available on Netflix.)</font></p></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font><div><h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">End of the cases — Schnare forced to give back his piggy bank</font></h3><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">On August 27, 2018, a Virginia state judge entered an order <span style="font-weight: 700;">(<a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2780437%20Court%20Docs.Excerpts_Redacted.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">view excerpts</a>)</span> declaring that the “Parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement” under which Schnare and his co-defendant Chaim Mandelbaum, another attorney who joined <span class="caps">FMELC</span>, would return $630,000.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The judge dismissed the three related cases “with prejudice,” meaning do not come back, but it is worth examining the cases to get more insight into Schnare's behavior.</font></p><h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Schnare wastes scientists’ time, but calls requests to him “burdensome”</font></h3><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In the University of Arizona case mentioned above, Schnare sought to use open records laws to obtain 13 years of emails from two climate scientists at the University of Arizona. The case has been cited by legal scholars as <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3140154" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">a prime example of legal abuse</a>, and it has been a massive time suck for the university and its scientists.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>Dr. Hughes testified it took him ten weeks to go through all the emails,</b> and he lost an entire research summer to reviewing old emails as well as losing a grant that expired. Dr. Overpeck testified it took him six weeks to go through everything and he was unable to use his sabbatical. Recent Arizona court filings in this case show that document review is still ongoing; a court has ordered that the university produce the first set of emails by November 30. </font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">(In the course of this University of Arizona litigation, Schnare also <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/03/22/david-schnare-and-jonathan-riches-mislead-arizona-court" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">filed falsified documents with the court</a>, as part of his typical strategy that imposes huge timewasting efforts and expense on scientists.)</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Meanwhile, in the Virginia litigation over <span class="caps">FMELC</span>, in <span style="font-weight: 700;"><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2780437%20Court%20Docs.Excerpts_Redacted.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">filing-2</a></span>, <span class="caps">EXHIBIT</span> B, Schnare responded to 46 requests for documents, denying almost all. Some of these may be fair, but basically, he tried to reject almost all discovery, despite his own career of trying to force far less relevant disclosures from climate scientists.  A rundown of his objections: </font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
  5         overly broad and unduly burdensome
15         more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive effort (to get from Plaintiff)
  9          unreasonably cumulative and duplicative, plaintiff already has or will have them.
  2          discovery of electronically stored information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden of cost
  1          vague and ambiguous
  1          personal income tax returns are protected by a qualified privilege
12          has none
  1          Document attached
46        Total</font></p><div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In January we filed a brief asking the D.C. District Court to protect nine National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) climate scientists. On August 21, </span><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=97e7f679f2&e=15e3916d62" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); outline: none; word-wrap: break-word;">the court ruled in favor of these researchers</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, upholding NOAA’s decision not to release its scientists’ research documents to the conservative group Judicial Watch.</span></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://climatesciencedefensefund.org/2017/08/25/d-c-district-court-rules-in-favor-of-noaa-climate-scientists-in-foia-case/">https://climatesciencedefensefund.org/2017/08/25/d-c-district-court-rules-in-favor-of-noaa-climate-scientists-in-foia-case/</a><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">We’re thrilled by this outcome, but our work is far from done. This case is part of a growing trend where groups that dispute the reality of climate change attempt to use open records laws to access publicly-funded climate scientists’ private documents. These groups often aim to make public and manipulate scientists’ emails — including taking scientific jargon out of context — to discredit and distort peer-reviewed climate research.  </span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">We continue to support researchers in these cases; in July, <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=f364924a9c&e=15e3916d62" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; outline: none; word-wrap: break-word;">we filed a brief</a> asking the Arizona Court of Appeals to protect two scientists from another of these invasive open records requests.</span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">To learn more about how anti-science groups and individuals attack and intimidate researchers, </span><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=4b913d4c44&e=15e3916d62" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); outline: none; word-wrap: break-word;">check out our profile of atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayhoe</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. Her commitment to climate communication and public outreach has led to ongoing harassment and aggressive legal inquiry.</span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ref</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">n January 2017,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><a href="https://climatesciencedefensefund.org/2017/02/01/csldf-files-brief-to-protect-noaa-climate-scientists/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="transition: all 250ms ease-in-out; cursor: pointer;">CSLDF filed a brief</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">asking the federal District Court for the District of Columbia to protect National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) climate scientists. On August 21, the D.C. court upheld NOAA’s decision not to release its climate scientists’ research documents to the conservative group Judicial Watch.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px 1.5em; word-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the case, Judicial Watch sought to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which allows U.S. citizens to request copies of government documents, to obtain NOAA scientists’ emails, drafts, and peer review comments related to a <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="transition: all 250ms ease-in-out; cursor: pointer;">June 2015 paper published in <em style="transition: all 250ms ease-in-out;">Science</em></a>. The study, which is also known as the “Hiatus Paper,” found that recent ocean surface temperature increases were greater than those indicated by other peer-reviewed studies, thus refuting the idea of a “pause” in global warming.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px 1.5em; word-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The scientists’ findings did not sit well with Judicial Watch, which doesn’t agree with the science of climate change. Judicial Watch sued for the NOAA scientist’s documents; <a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-for-documents-withheld-from-congress-in-new-climate-data-scandal/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="transition: all 250ms ease-in-out; cursor: pointer;">the organization’s president claimed</a> that the requested materials “will show that the Obama administration put politics before science to advance global warming alarmism.”</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px 1.5em; word-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">NOAA produced some of the documents Judicial Watch requested, but withheld others, arguing that the “deliberative process privilege” protected these documents. The deliberative process privilege allows for the denial of a FOIA request if it can be shown the requested government documents involve materials that are “predecisional,” meaning written as part of the decision-making process, and “deliberative,” meaning involving consultative give-and-take. The rationale for this privilege is to safeguard preliminary documents that, if released, could prevent candid collaboration and open discussions among agency employees.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px 1.5em; word-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">NOAA argued the privilege exists to protect the sort of deliberative materials that are the heart of the scientific process. “In pursuing a research objective, scientists may begin with only a rough idea, and then develop, test, and revise that idea as data is collected and interpreted. Possible interpretations are generated and tested in part through candid debates and exchanges among peers. Indeed, the exchange and debate among peers is the mechanism that allows NOAA to ensure its scientific products are robustly developed and accurately tested.”</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px 1.5em; word-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Judicial Watch claimed that the deliberative process privilege could not be applied to scientific materials, but the district court sided with NOAA, concluding that both the case law in the D.C. Circuit, as well as the facts of the case, showed that “drafts of the Hiatus Paper, internal deliberations, and peer reviewer comments thus fall within the scope of [FOIA] Exemption 5,” which includes the deliberative process privilege.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px 1.5em; word-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The district court also dismissed Judicial Watch’s claim that a February 2017 article in <em>The Mail on Sunday </em>showed potential wrongdoing by the NOAA scientists and should, therefore, overrule the deliberative process privilege. In the article, a former NOAA employee asserted that certain data archiving protocols had not been completed for the Hiatus Paper; the court said Judicial Watch “cites to a single article in a British tabloid reporting, based on a former employee’s allegation” which “does not meet th[e] narrow standard” necessary to show “nefarious government misconduct.”</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px 1.5em; word-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This case is part of a larger trend where groups that dispute the scientific consensus on climate change attempt to use FOIA or state open records laws to access publicly funded climate scientists’ private correspondence, including similar cases in <a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2016/06/22/az-court-reverses-protection-for-climate-scientists/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="transition: all 250ms ease-in-out; cursor: pointer;">Arizona</a> (currently on appeal) and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/04/17/va-supreme-court-rules-for-u-va-in-global-warming-foia-case/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="transition: all 250ms ease-in-out; cursor: pointer;">Virginia</a>.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px 1.5em; word-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hostile groups have also targeted researchers in other fields – from <a href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/judge-affirms-campus-position-207666" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="transition: all 250ms ease-in-out; cursor: pointer;">biomedical researchers</a> to <a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/08/29/wv-decision-on-academic-freedom-versus-freedom-of-information-laws/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="transition: all 250ms ease-in-out; cursor: pointer;">environmental health scientists</a> – under open records laws. In light of these abuses, many jurisdictions have begun instituting protections for scientific research under open records laws, including most recently <a href="https://www.thefire.org/rhode-island-takes-a-stand-for-academic-freedom/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="transition: all 250ms ease-in-out; cursor: pointer;">Rhode Island</a> (effective June 27, 2017) and <a href="http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/65-2017/bill-actions/ba2295.html" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="transition: all 250ms ease-in-out; cursor: pointer;">North Dakota</a> (effective August 1, 2017).</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px 1.5em; word-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judicial Watch has 30 days to appeal the district court’s decision.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px 1.5em; word-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><em><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">— Lauren Kurtz is the Executive Director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund</font></em></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">716</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">On Monday, the Arizona Board of Regents filed its final brief in an Arizona appeal over the protection of scientific research. </span><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=d99c42f555&e=15e3916d62" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1498579533500_2258" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); outline: none; word-wrap: break-word;">In this litigation</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, a coal-funded group that disputes the veracity of climate change has sued for the records of two University of Arizona climate scientists, seeking to obstruct research and potentially embarrass them with disclosures of private information.</span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The case is a frustrating example of how anti-science groups try to use the legal system to attack researchers. We are currently preparing our own brief for submission in the case, in support of protecting researchers from such baseless attacks.  </span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font><div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">coal-funded E&E Legal – </span><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=6a03182cbd&e=15e3916d62" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472836327547_76298" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; word-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22.5px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">which has a core mission of discrediting climate science</a><span style="line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> – appeared before an Arizona trial court in an attempt to extract over $179,000 from the University of Arizona. </span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">E&E Legal first sued the University for years of two climate scientists’ emails.  The trial court originally ruled </span><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=5203cc83ce&e=15e3916d62" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; word-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22.5px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">in March 2015</a><span style="line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> to protect the scientists’ emails, but </span><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=3788bb0bd1&e=15e3916d62" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; word-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22.5px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">a second decision</a><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=1ece4a4453&e=15e3916d62" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; word-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22.5px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> in June 2016</a><span style="line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> completely reversed the earlier ruling.  This new decision forces climate scientists to work within a fishbowl, where every informal email exchange can be picked apart by agenda-driven opponents – inhibiting scientific debate, discouraging collaboration, and chilling academic thought.  (An appeal on the decision is due this fall.)</span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Of course, E&E Legal is not satisfied with these outcomes alone, and the group is now trying to force the University of Arizona to pay it six figures in attorney’s fees and costs.  The judge’s decision on E&E Legal’s payment claim is pending. </span><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">E&E Legal is part of a broader group going after climate scientists.  Climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann (who has experienced more than his share of politically-motivated attacks) has teamed with Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Tom Toles on a new book discussing these "climate wars."  In </span><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=17462ec5c2&e=15e3916d62" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; word-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22.5px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; font-weight: 700;"><em style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">The Madhouse Effect</em></span></a><span style="line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, the pair present an informative and highly entertaining takedown of climate change denial.  You can pre-order a copy </span><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=7a8f2a5c70&e=15e3916d62" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; word-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22.5px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; font-weight: 700;">here</span></a><span style="line-height: 22.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, and all proceeds will support CSLDF. </span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">guard uk no link</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Climate scientists are under attack from frivolous lawsuits</b></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>
</div><div>Climate Science Legal Defense Fund is forced to defend climate scientists against constant frivolous lawsuits</div><div>
</div><div>Lauren Kurtz</div><div>Thursday 7 July 2016 06.00 EDT Last modified on </div><div>
</div><div>Today’s climate scientists have a lot more to worry about than peer review. Organizations with perverse financial incentives harass scientists with lawsuit after lawsuit, obstructing research and seeking to embarrass them with disclosures of private information.</div><div>
</div><div>On June 14th, an Arizona court ruled that thousands of emails from two prominent climate scientists must be turned over to the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E), a group that disputes the 97% expert consensus on human-caused climate change and argues against action to confront it. E&E and its attorneys are funded by Peabody Coal, Arch Coal, and Alpha Natural Resources, coal corporations with billions of dollars in revenue. </div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Formerly named the American Tradition Institute, E&E has been described as “filing nuisance suits to disrupt important academic research.”</div><div>
</div><div>E&E originally attacked Dr. Michael Mann, whose research shows a dramatic increase in recent temperatures in a graph popularly known as the “hockey stick.” In 2011, the group sued under Virginia open records laws to obtain six years of Dr. Mann’s emails from the University of Virginia—over 10,000 messages in total. The Virginia Supreme Court denied E&E’s claims and ruled that academic research correspondence should be protected because release would cause “harm to university-wide research efforts, damage to faculty recruitment and retention, undermining of faculty expectations of privacy and confidentiality, and impairment of free thought and expression.”</div><div>
</div><div>E&E did not relent. Despite losing in Virginia, the group brought another open records case in Arizona to demand the same six years of emails—this time from Dr. Mann’s coauthor, University of Arizona professor Dr. Malcolm Hughes. Additionally, E&E sued for thirteen years of emails from UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author Dr. Jonathan Overpeck, also at the University of Arizona.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div><b>In court filings, E&E acknowledges it seeks emails that, in its words, “embarrass both Professors Hughes and Overpeck and the University.</b>” These smear tactics serve no role in scientific discourse, but are an attempt to distract, disrupt, and intimidate legitimate researchers.</div><div>
</div><div>E&E’s attorney also claimed that female scientists may, according to him, go on “mommy sabbatical” and then ignore their publicly-funded research in lieu of “sitting around folding clothes.” Given this risk, E&E argued that when scientists “abandon” their duties, emails regarding unpublished research should be released so that others can take over their work. E&E did not explain how to determine what has been “abandoned.”</div><div>
</div><div>Just filing the lawsuit caused damage: Dr. Hughes testified it took him ten weeks to go through all the emails, and he lost an entire research summer to reviewing old emails as well as losing a grant that expired. Dr. Overpeck testified it took him six weeks to go through everything and he was unable to use his sabbatical.</div><div>
</div><div>These sorts of lawsuits, regardless of outcome, subtract months of labor from the scientific endeavor and cost public universities hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. </div><div>
</div><div>The trial court ruled in March 2015 that the University of Arizona had provided an “abundance of supporting evidence” that releasing the emails would cause harm, and the court ruled in favor of the University. However, E&E appealed, securing a rehearing in the case. </div><div>
</div><div>Last month, the court reversed its earlier decision and determined instead that disclosure was warranted. The court concluded that:</div><div>
</div><div>[a]lternative methods of communications have been and remain available to Professors Hughes and Overpeck and any other similarly situated persons should they desire to correspond in confidence regarding research projects and like endevours [sic].</div><div>
</div><div>The implication seems to be that scientists’ research discussions should be limited to the telephone.</div><div>
</div><div>In a modern workplace, email is critical to professional communication. This decision will force scientists to work in a fishbowl, with every email exchange—from offhand notes to highly technical analyses—picked apart by agenda-driven opponents. It will stifle candid scientific debate, discourage open collaboration, and chill free academic thought. The Union of Concerned Scientists has found that:</div><div>
</div><div>open records requests are increasingly being used to harass and intimidate scientists and other academic researchers, or to disrupt and delay their work.</div><div>
</div><div>In an ongoing federal case, the conservative group Judicial Watch—which claims climate science is a “fraud science”—has sued the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for thousands of climate scientists’ emails related to a 2015 climate change study published in Science. Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), who accused NOAA of having an “extreme climate change agenda,” unsuccessfully sought the same emails last year.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>In addition to the Arizona case, E&E attorney Christopher Horner paired with another fossil fuel industry funded-group, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, to sue for the emails of climate communications professor Dr. Edward Maibach. While Dr. Maibach sought to intervene in the litigation, the judge ruled that he lacked jurisdiction. Thousands of pages of Dr. Maibach’s emails were released, and plaintiffs posted them to the internet with quotes pulled out of context and commentary calling him and other climate researchers “frauds,” “snake oil salesman,” and worse.</div><div>
</div><div>To evaluate scientific merits, a critic needs final data, methodologies, and research results—not thousands of emails. The peer review process vets research results, followed by examination and replication by the scientific community. These safeguards remain the foundation of scientific review. </div><div>
</div><div>In our ongoing quest for scientific progress, every frivolous lawsuit against a scientist represents a step in the wrong direction. We must not allow groups with perverse financial incentives to jeopardize science. </div><div>
</div><div>Lauren Kurtz is the Executive Director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF), a non-profit that defends scientists against legal attack. CSLDF was founded to fund Dr. Mann’s defense, represented Dr. Maibach, and filed amicus briefs in support of the University of Arizona. Help protect the scientific endeavor by donating to CSLDF, where a trustee is currently matching all donations up to $50,000. </div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">Bradley was a contributing author to the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change" title="Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">IPCC</a><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"> </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Third_Assessment_Report" title="IPCC Third Assessment Report" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">TAR</a><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"> </span><a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/558.htm" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">[1]</a><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">. Bradley worked on reconstructing the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years" title="Temperature record of the past 1000 years" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">temperature record of the past 1000 years</a><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"> with </span><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E.Mann" title="Michael E. Mann" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Michael E. Mann</a> and <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_K.Hughes" title="Malcolm K. Hughes" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Malcolm K. Hughes</a>,</span></span><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> </span>an eminent dendrologist. This work (for which is he is publicly best known, although scientifically his contributions to assembling surface temperature records are only rivaled by Phil Jones) figured prominently in the IPCC TAR </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_for_policymakers" title="Summary for policymakers" class="mw-redirect" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">SPM</a><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">.</span><sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_S.Bradley#cite_note-1" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">[1]</a></sup><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"> In 2005, the Chair of the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rep. </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Barton" title="Joe Barton" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Joe Barton</a><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">(R-Texas) demanded that Bradley provide a </span><i times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">detailed accounting</i><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"> of the data and funding of his research on climate change.</span><sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_S.Bradley#cite_note-2" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">[2]</a></sup><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"> Barton specifically asked for responses to various allegations made by </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre" title="Stephen McIntyre" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Stephen McIntyre</a><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">and </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick" title="Ross McKitrick" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Ross McKitrick</a><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"> about the Mann, Bradley and Hughes papers.</span><sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_S.Bradley#cite_note-3" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">[3]</a></sup><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"> In Bradley's response, he finds the assertions of McIntyre and McKitrick to be without worth, and recommends a commentary by </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Schmidt" title="Gavin Schmidt" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Gavin Schmidt</a><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">on the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClimate" title="RealClimate" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">RealClimate</a><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"> website (</span><span class="citation web" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Schmidt" title="Gavin Schmidt" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Gavin Schmidt</a>. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">"Dummies guide to the latest "Hockey Stick" controversy"</a>.</span><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">) as providing a very good guide to the issues. </span><sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_S.Bradley#cite_note-4" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">[4]</a></sup></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">616 news bs</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman">PRESS RELEASE: AZ SUPERIOR COURT ORDERS UOFA TO RELEASE CLIMATE ALARMISTS E-MAILS</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>posted under: Climategate, Conflict of Interest, E&E Legal v. UofA, Press Releases, Schnare, Suits</div><div>
</div><div>For Immediate Release: June 16, 2016 Contact: Craig Richardson Richardson@eelegal.org 703-981-5553 AZ Superior Courts Sides with E&E Legal and Orders UofA to Disclose ‘Climate’ Related Public Records Including Correspondence of Longtime Activists Hughes and Overpeck Washington, DC – On June 14, 2016, the Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona, the Honorable…</div><div><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);">une 16, 2016</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none;">Contact</strong>:<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none;" />Craig Richardson<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none;" /><a href="mailto:Richardson@eelegal.org" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; text-decoration: none; position: relative;">Richardson@eelegal.org</a><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none;" />703-981-5553</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; text-align: center; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none;">AZ Superior Courts Sides with E&E Legal and Orders UofA to Disclose ‘Climate’ Related Public Records Including Correspondence of Longtime Activists Hughes and Overpeck</strong></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);">Washington, DC – On June 14, 2016, the Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona, the Honorable Judge James Marner, <a href="http://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/21268996.pdf" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; text-decoration: none; position: relative;">o</a><a href="http://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/21268996.pdf" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; text-decoration: none; position: relative;">rdered the University of Arizona to disclose certain “climate” related public records</a> sought by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), <b>correspondence of two U of A academics, Malcolm Hughes and Jonathon Overpack, who featured prominently in the 2009 and 2011 “ClimateGate” releases of public records.</b></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);">The University had withheld these records, dating from 11 to 15 years ago, from public view since a <b>2011 Arizona Public Records Law request.  The request deals predominantly with climate change communications and specifically should provide further insight into development of the so-called “hockey stick” graph, activism by university professors using public resources, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).</b></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);">The 2009 and 2011 “ClimateGate” releases of public records also were subject to freedom of information laws, and the subject of stonewalled requests prior to being leaked apparently by a whistleblower concerned over those same efforts.  One of these U of A employees was a co-author of a particularly controversial paper at the center of these revelations, with his lead co-author, Michael Mann, describing the activist climate agenda in several emails as “the cause”. The other U of A employee has been at the center of this “cause” by his activism relating to and arising out of his work at the University, using University resources.</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);">As such, these records likely include significant overlap with those withheld for years during the University of Virginia’s decade-long efforts to keep its own involvement in climate alarmism from the public.</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><b>Commenting on the decision, Dr. David Schnare, E&E Legal’s General Counsel, and lead counsel in the case,</b> stated: “This is a landmark case that address the joint needs to ensure transparency while preventing harassment of academics. Academics have increasingly become a significant part of the policy-making process, requiring significant transparency in their activities. Judge Marner struck a wise balance.”</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);">Schnare continued, “The decision is a straight-forward and clear factual and legal ruling, the result of deep and thoughtful efforts by Judge Marner to sort through this difficult issue, which are plainly evident in the hearing transcripts.  Those hearings and the briefing in this case helped refine the arguments central to striking the proper balance of scrutiny that comes with public funding, as well as concerns inherent in the transparency which is essential to research, particularly research  that serves as the basis for economically and socially significant policies.”</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><b>The Court found that the University did not “specifically identify” any “substantial and/or irreparable private or public harm” that would come from releasing the documents; without such a harm, the legislature’s clear and overriding preference for transparency and public accountability prevailed.</b></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><b>The Court rejected the University’s argument that “release of the requested emails would set a dangerous precedent that would seriously and negatively impact higher education in Arizona and throughout the country.”</b>  The Court did not “ignore the repeated ‘chilling effect” concerns” raised by the University, but concluded that “potential harm is speculative at best, and does not overcome the presumption favoring disclosure of public records containing information about a topic as important and far-reaching as global warming and its potential causes.”</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);">The Court also addressed the University’s arguments regarding protection of academic freedom, holding “they go beyond championing academic freedom and, in effect, promote the creation of an academic privilege exception to [state public records law]. This is a proposition more properly made to the legislature rather than the courts.”  This finding may be the most critical outcome of this case, regardless of the public education that results on this matter of great public interest.</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);">Upon receipt, E&E Legal will begin review of the more than 1,700 emails and other documents, after which it will make them publicly available to all interested in the history of this important period during which academics demonstrated significant influence on the public discussion on global warming and the human influence thereon, and the often highly political “cause” being undertaken by academics, the IPCC and others.</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><a href="http://www.eelegal.org/" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; text-decoration: none; position: relative;">The Energy & Environment Legal Institute</a> (E&E Legal) is a 501(c)(3) organization engaged in strategic litigation, policy research, and public education on important energy and environmental issues. Primarily through its petition litigation and transparency practice areas, E&E Legal seeks to correct onerous federal and state policies that hinder the economy, increase the cost of energy, eliminate jobs, and do little or nothing to improve the environment.</p></div><div>--</div></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/17/AR2005071701056.html</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>GOP Chairmen Face Off on Global Warming</b>
Public Tiff Over Probe of Study Highlights Divide on Issue
</font><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 18, <b>2005 </b>
</font></p><p /><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.) has demanded that another senior Republican, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (Tex.), call off his investigation of three scientists who have charted Earth's rapid warming in recent decades.</b></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The unusual public tiff between two powerful GOP lawmakers highlights the sharp divide that drives the nation's climate change debate. Barton, along with President Bush and many other House Republicans, opposes mandatory curbs on greenhouse gas emissions and questions the science underlying such efforts. Boehlert, who backs limits on carbon dioxide pollution, said he fears such attacks could chill future scientific inquiry.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In a sharply worded letter sent last week, Boehlert called Barton's probe into the findings of Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes a "misguided and illegitimate investigation</span>." Mann will direct the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University as of next month, Bradley is a geosciences professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and <b>Hughes is a professor at the University of Arizona's Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research.</b></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">Using climate records culled from tree rings, glacial-ice layers and coral-growth layers, the three professors -- whose research was funded in part by the federal government -- determined in 1998 that temperatures have skyrocketed in the past century compared with the 500 years preceding it. The three men put the figures in a graph now known as the "hockey stick," and their work helped prompt the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2001 to declare the 1990s as the warmest decade in the past 1,000 years.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4">Barton began investigating Mann and his colleagues late last month, asking them to justify their work with documents from hundreds of studies. Noting that two Canadian researchers had questioned their findings, Barton wrote that he had opened "this review because this dispute surrounding your studies bears directly on important questions about the federally funded work upon which climate studies rely."</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In a letter Boehlert publicly released yesterday, the veteran GOP moderate asserted that his panel has jurisdiction over climate change and that Barton is targeting these scientists because he disagrees with their conclusions.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"My primary concern about your investigation is that its purpose seems to be to <b>intimidate scientists</b> rather than to learn from them, and to substitute congressional political review for scientific review," Boehlert wrote.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Barton, however, said he plans to proceed with the probe. He also dismissed a July 1<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> protest by Rep. Henry A. Waxman </span></b>(Calif.), a senior Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, who wrote Barton that some might interpret the probe "as a transparent effort to bully and harass climate change experts who have reached conclusions with which you disagree."</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"Chairman Barton appreciates heated lectures from Representatives Boehlert and Waxman, two men who share a passion for global warming," committee spokesman Larry Neal said. "We <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">regret that our little request for data has given them a chill.</span> Seeking scientific truth is, indeed, too important to be imperiled by politics, and so we'll just continue to ask fair questions of honest people and see what they tell us. That's our job."</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Although senior House Republicans often duel behind the scenes, they rarely issue public rebukes of each other. Boehlert's blunt language, coupled with Barton's harsh response, reveals the extent to which global warming has fostered a rift within the GOP on Capitol Hill.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"It's unusual for a chairman to write this kind of letter, but we feel the situation's unusual," said Science Committee staff director David Goldston, adding that the fight was about the need for independent scientific research, not climate change. "We are surprised at the level of sarcasm Mr. Barton's spokesman has used to respond to our serious concerns."</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Several members of the scientific community have protested the probe -- 20 prominent climatologists sent Barton a letter Friday questioning why he has focused on just one of the many studies that underpin current thinking on global warming -- and the president of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)</span> offered to appoint an independent panel to assess the scientific consensus on climate change.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"A congressional investigation, based on the authority of the House Commerce Committee, is probably not the best way to resolve a scientific issue, and a focus on individual scientists can be intimidating," NAS President Ralph J. Cicerone wrote in a letter to Barton.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Barton dismissed the idea as well. "We can't evaluate the idea without having seen it, and maybe it's a darned fine one, but an offer that says, 'Please just go away and leave the science to us, ahem, very intelligent professionals,' is likely to get the reception it deserves," Neal said. "We get a lot of offers to butt out from folks who would rather avoid public scrutiny, and reputable scientists wouldn't feel comfortable in the company of most of them."</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In the meantime, the three scientists are assembling documents in response to Barton's inquiry.</span> Mann on Friday defended his work in a letter to Barton, saying he had exposed his research to public scrutiny and shared much of his data with other scientists.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">"My research findings, which support the conclusion that the earth's surface is warming, and that recent warming is due in large part to human influences, are consistent with the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change," Mann wrote. "Other scientists have replicated all facets of my research and found it accurate and reliable."</font></p><p><i><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Staff researcher Alice Crites contributed to this report.</font></i></p></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">On March 24, after years of litigation, the Arizona Superior Court, Pima County, ruled in favor of the University of Arizona and its efforts to protect climate scientists’ correspondence and prepublication work.<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn1" name="ftnref1" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[1]</a>  In particular, in <em>Energy & Environment Legal Institute v. Arizona Board of Regents, et al.</em>, the court upheld the University’s decision to deny large portions of open records requests by Energy & Environment Legal (known as E&E, and formerly named the American Tradition Institute or ATI), a group that has repeatedly sought to use open records laws to access troves of researchers’ private files.<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn2" name="ftnref2" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[2]</a>  E&E has been described as having “a core mission of discrediting climate science and dismantling environmental regulations” in part through “filing nuisance suits to disrupt important academic research,” and the group has been linked to the fossil fuel industry, “major conservative players,” and “organizations opposing action on climate change.”<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn3" name="ftnref3" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[3]</a></font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">State and federal open records laws promote government transparency by allowing citizens to request administrative records, with exemptions for national security, trade secrets, and similar issues.  But open records laws have also become common tools of those seeking to harass scientists,<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn4" name="ftnref4" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[4]</a> and open records requests for large swaths of documents (including private emails) have been made on scientists employed by the government or public universities, or who otherwise receive public funding.  The scientists must then review and produce potentially thousands of documents – sometimes in a matter of days, depending on the applicable laws – or marshal a legal response explaining why the requests are invalid.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In the Arizona case, E&E filed multiple requests under Arizona’s open records laws for the files of University of Arizona climate scientists</span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 153);"> Dr. Malcolm Hughes</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> and Dr. Jonathan Overpeck, seeking thirteen years of documents – including emails dating back to the 90s.  (E&E has also unsuccessfully gone after Dr. Michael Mann’s emails in Virginia,</span><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn5" name="ftnref5" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[5]</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> as well as many others.</span><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn6" name="ftnref6" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[6]</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">)  The University of Arizona produced some documents but denied release of several thousand others.</span><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn7" name="ftnref7" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[7]</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">  The University stated the withheld documents contained protected intellectual property, including trade secrets and prepublication data and drafts; it also applied Arizona’s general records exemption that it was “in the best interests of the state” to withhold the documents.</span><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn8" name="ftnref8" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[8]</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">  The University argued that releasing the scientists’ files would undermine academic collaboration and chill researcher correspondence – particularly between publicly funded scientists and privately funded ones, who are not at risk of such disclosure.  This in turn would harm the scientific process and reduce the competitiveness of Arizona’s public universities, as researchers would become more reluctant to work at Arizona public universities or with public university scientists.</span><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn9" name="ftnref9" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[9]</a></font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span id="more-3117"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">E&E contested this decision and initiated litigation.  In its Amended Complaint, E&E stated it was conducting a “transparency project,” which it claimed was necessitated in large part by its interpretation of emails released in the so-called “Climategate” hacking.<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn10" name="ftnref10" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[10]</a>  In particular, E&E claimed that certain hacked emails involving the University of Arizona scientists and others indicated misdeeds worthy of further scrutiny,<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn11" name="ftnref11" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[11]</a> ignoring that all official investigations related to “Climategate” had shown no misconduct.<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn12" name="ftnref12" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[12]</a>  E&E also claimed any fear that releasing emails would “chill the creative efforts of faculty” was “unfounded” and it asserted instead that protecting researcher records actually “encourages and rewards misbehavior.”<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn13" name="ftnref13" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[13]</a>  E&E also acknowledged its requests sought, in part, documents that “embarrass both Professors Hughes and Overpeck and the University.”<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn14" name="ftnref14" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[14]</a></font></span></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The University of Arizona countered that protecting research correspondence and pre-publication work “is necessary to ensure Arizona’s great public universities continue their traditions of excellence in research and scholarship….  E&E’s claim threatens to rupture ordinary and customary expectations of academic confidentiality, and a ruling in favor of E&E will inevitably harm Arizona’s public universities and the scholars working in them.”<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn15" name="ftnref15" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[15]</a>  The University also stated that E&E was seeking “to attack [researchers’] science, criticize their interactions with each other and publicly assault how they speak about or defend themselves against the increasingly small group of outliers who continue to deny man’s role in global climate change….  E&E request[s] that the Court help it police and control the conduct of climate scientists.”<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn16" name="ftnref16" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[16]</a>  The University argued that, ultimately, E&E’s “briefs and other public pronouncements reveal a plan to harass scientists whose views do not accord with those of E&E and its allies, or who simply do not play by the rules of etiquette E&E nominated itself to enforce.”<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn17" name="ftnref17" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[17]</a></font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In its March 24 decision, the Pima County Court analyzed whether the University of Arizona had committed an abuse of discretion in denying E&E’s records requests, and it sided with the University.  The court found that the University could properly protec</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">t “prepublication </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">critical analysis, unpublished data, analysis, research, results, drafts, and commentary” as well as prepublication peer review work because the University was justified in concluding that, as is prohibited by Arizona law, “release of [the] information would have an important and harmful effect on the duties of a State agency or officer.”</span><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn18" name="ftnref18" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[18]</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">  The court also noted that the “volume and complexity of the records at issue is daunting,” and the court acknowledged that it spent “[m]any hours” of its own reviewing 90 “technical and esoteric” sample emails – a small fraction compared to the other 1700+ withheld emails – with “at least one [sample email] exceeding 800 pages in length.”</span><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn19" name="ftnref19" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[19]</a></font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Despite losing in court, E&E was still able to create considerable damage through this litigation:  the scientists had to pull and go through their records from the late 90s on, including hundreds of thousands of pages of emails and attachments.<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn20" name="ftnref20" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[20]</a>  Dr. Hughes said it took him over ten weeks to go through the massive number of documents E&E was seeking, taking him away from his research for a full summer (the time that he would normally use to focus on his research because he teaches during the academic year).<a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn21" name="ftnref21" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[21]</a>  The University and the public court system also spent a substantial amount of time and money during the years of litigation.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Nonetheless, this recent Arizona decision is a significant victory.  Combined with the 2014 Virginia Supreme Court decision in Dr. Mann’s case – which held that releasing faculty files could cause “harm to university-wide research efforts, damage to faculty recruitment and retention, undermining of faculty expectations of privacy and confidentiality and impairment of free thought and expression”</span><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn22" name="ftnref22" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[22]</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> – the decision bolsters the consensus among courts that abusive records requests are not a permissible use of open records laws and only harm the scientific endeavor.  Unfortunately, this growing consensus has not yet stopped groups like E&E, which is committed to “peppering universities around the country” with open records requests</span><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn23" name="ftnref23" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[23]</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> – including another one dated February 27, </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">2015,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> seeking additional records concerning the same two University of Arizona scientists.</span><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn24" name="ftnref24" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[24]</a></font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">For more information on attacks on scientists, please visit <a href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">http://climatesciencedefensefund.org</a></font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><em><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Lauren Kurtz is the Executive Director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, which previously assisted with the representation of Dr. Mann in his Virginia open records litigation.</font></em></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref1" name="ftn1" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[1]</a> https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/science-and-democracy/19966054.pdf</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref2" name="ftn2" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[2]</a> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-cope-when-activists-ask-for-climate-scientists-personal-emails/</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref3" name="ftn3" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[3]</a> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/09/climate-change-american-tradition-insitute</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref4" name="ftn4" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[4]</a> http://www.ucsusa.org/center-science-and-democracy/protecting-scientists-harassment/freedom-bully-how-laws#.VRdv7Eu0HKE</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref5" name="ftn5" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[5]</a> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/04/17/va-supreme-court-rules-for-u-va-in-global-warming-foia-case/</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref6" name="ftn6" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[6]</a> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-cope-when-activists-ask-for-climate-scientists-personal-emails/</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref7" name="ftn7" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[7]</a> Petitioners’ Opening Brief dated June 26, 2014.  Cited court filings are available from the author upon request.  <em>See also</em> Amended Complaint dated October 9, 2013.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref8" name="ftn8" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[8]</a> Letter from the University of Arizona to ATI (now known as E&E) dated February 5, 2013.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref9" name="ftn9" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[9]</a> Respondents’ Opening Memorandum dated July 31, 2014.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref10" name="ftn10" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[10]</a> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.VRiv1ku0HKF</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref11" name="ftn11" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[11]</a> Amended Complaint dated October 9, 2013.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref12" name="ftn12" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[12]</a> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/uk-police-close-climategate/</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref13" name="ftn13" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[13]</a> Petitioners’ Opening Brief dated June 26, 2014.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref14" name="ftn14" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[14]</a> Petitioners’ Opening Brief dated June 26, 2014.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref15" name="ftn15" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[15]</a> Respondents’ Opening Memorandum dated July 31, 2014.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref16" name="ftn16" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[16]</a> Respondents’ Final Reply dated September 19, 2014.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref17" name="ftn17" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[17]</a> Respondents’ Final Reply dated September 19, 2014.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref18" name="ftn18" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[18]</a> https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/science-and-democracy/19966054.pdf</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref19" name="ftn19" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[19]</a> https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/science-and-democracy/19966054.pdf</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref20" name="ftn20" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[20]</a> Respondents’ Opening Memorandum dated July 31, 2014.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref21" name="ftn21" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[21]</a> Conversation with author.</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref22" name="ftn22" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[22]</a> http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1130934.pdf</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref23" name="ftn23" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[23]</a> http://eelegal.org/?p=2958</font></p><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref24" name="_ftn24" style="padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[24]</a> http://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/EELI-FME-Law-AORA-Research-Funding-Conflicts-request-U-of-A.pdf</font></p><span style="text-align: center; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div style="text-align: left;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">- See more at: http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#sthash.nICaxo1Y.dpuf</font></div></span></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>