Skip to comments.The Washington Post produces a bigoted editorial against the publicís right to know
Posted on 05/30/2011 9:17:50 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
WashPost: Freedom of Information Act not for skeptics use
In a bizarre Memorial Day editorial, the Washington Post criticized climate skeptics for using the Freedom of Information Act to pry documents concerning Climategater Michael Mann from the University of Virginia.
The Post labeled the skeptics FOIA efforts as harrassing and nuisance tactics.
The Post, however, has been entirely silent on Greenpeaces efforts to FOIA documents from the University of Virginia concerning Pat Michaels, University of Delaware concerning David Legates and from Harvard University concerning Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas efforts that are truly harrassing and nuisance in nature as Greenpeace acted entirely in retaliation to the FOIA request concerning Mann.
The editorial is especially gross coming on the day when America commemorates those who died to preserve everyones freedoms not just those of the politically correct.
And Ill add the post has been entirely silent on the fact the George Mason University, when asked by USA Today reporter Dan Vergano to produce documents related to the whole vindictive DeepClimate (Dave Clarke) and John Mashey assault on Wegman and Said at GMU. Vergano asked for expedited service and requests that fees be waived.
Not only did GMU comply, they did so quickly, without complaint, waived fees, and provided everything on a USB flash drive they sent to USA Todays Vergano.
That is the starkest contrast to the whining , wailing, and gnashing of teeth surrounding the FOIA requests for other universities like UEA and UVA . It vividly illustrates the elitism and bigotry of the organizations and the people who believe themselves to be above the law as well as the organizations who fan the flames by coming to their defense citing academic freedom. Bottom line use of public money makes the process and results open to public scrutiny to all who request the information, no matter who they are. Dont like the scrutiny? Then dont take the public money.
Steve McIntyre writes:
The difference in how academic institutions have responded to the seemingly similar requests in respect to Wegman and Mann is quite startling. George Mason gave expedited service to a request for Wegmans emails; the U of Virginia has done the opposite. George Mason turned over Wegmans correspondence with an academic journal without litigation; the University of Virginia has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on litigation. Multiple academic lobby groups protested the production of Manns emails as a matter of principle; the same organizations were and remain silent in respect to Wegman.
What is doubly bizarre is that apparently this FOIA request has led to the discovery that Dr. Ray Bradley, Mann co-author with the hockey stick paper MBH98″, apparently committed academic misconduct in his zeal to smear Wegman.
From Climate Audit:
the README included by George Mason stated the documents may not be forwarded to a third party. It also included the GMU policy on academic misconduct, stating Bradley had violated the confidentiality terms a point not reported by USA Today:
The materials in this USB are being provided in compliance with the Virginia FOIA. Many of the documents are published research papers that are copyrighted by their respective publishers. All other documents are copyrighted by Edward J. Wegman and Yasmin H. Said or by their respective authors. All rights are reserved. These documents may not be forwarded to a third party. Also included in this USB is the George Mason University policy document 4007 on academic misconduct. This policy requires confidentiality for all parties including complainants, in this case Professor Raymond Bradley. This confidentiality requirement was violated by Professor Bradley.
Also, last week, I sent an email to WaPos ombudsman, requesting space to rebut Bill McKibbens senseless bloviation about tornadoes and climate change. No response.
In light of their non-acknowledgement of a similar process by Greenpeace using FOIA laws to get records on climate skeptics Michaels, Legates, Soon, and Baliunas, plus their non-acknowledgement of my request, WaPos editorial gist comes across like this:
One rule of use for AGW proponents, another for skeptics.
To me, it smacks of this sort of ugly thinking.
Consider the source...
The media has their Agenda.
Good catch... on your part
Thanks for posting
LOL. Liberalism in a nutshell.
Maybe it should be changed to a more appropriate name: The Freedom Of Information That Can Be Used To Embarrass, Destroy Or Otherwise Impugn Republicans, Conservatives And Other Non-Liberal Entities That Fail To Toe The Ruling Class Line Act.
Great catch, thank you!
>> LOL. Liberalism in a nutshell.
This is far beyond Liberalism. It’s the precursor to Communism; radical Leftism.
Actually, I think the “media has their ORDERS.”
Isn’t Mr. Mann’s highly suspect “work” being funded by the taxpayers? And aren’t fudged data typified by his famous Hockey stick effect being used to justify EPA regulations and legislation like cap and trade to create shortages of fossil fuels that will cause energy costs to “necessarily skyrocket”?
Damn right the public has a right to see that data. The “climate change” fraud should never have been publicly funded in the first place, but now that it has, that climate data belongs to the government, and the government belongs to the taxpayer.
40 years late determining that we are in an information war.
If the leftist media elites have their way only their warped un-American view point will be allowed in America. Obama would relish it!
Why would anyone be surprised about this? SOP for the media. Ethical journalism is long dead. Old journalism “if it bleeds, it leads”. New journalism “if it’s leftist, it leads”.
Which even if true, never seems to be a problem when liberals do it, so.....
The Washington Post is often impressed with how 'famous the guesser is'...
The British Met Office's John Mitchell: People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful.
If the experiment disagrees with the guess, the experiment is wrong; change the data!