Freedom of Information Laws Used By Climate Sceptics To Rifle Through Scientists' Daily Emails

authordefault
on

FREEDOM of Information laws across the world were introduced as a way to open governments and their agencies toย publicย andย journalisticย scrutiny and to extract the kind of information that tends not to make its way into press releases and governmentย pamphlets.

But seen through the eyes of some climate change scientists, it is a law which appears to have been hijacked by climate science sceptics and free market think tanks as a means to rifle through their inboxes in search of anything which, when taken out of context, might be used to make them lookย bad.

In the US, Penn Stateย Universityย climateย scientist Professor Michael Mann – he of the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph –ย ย recently fought off a long running attempt by the climate science denial think tank the American Tradition Institute to gain access to hisย emails.

As The Guardian has reported, the ATI, led by one of its directors Christopher Horner, has pursued several other scientists using FOI laws to gain access to their email inboxes. Mr Horner has also made specific requests for correspondence between scientists andย journalists.

Mann has described such cases as an โ€œabuse of public records and FOIA lawsโ€, saying the efforts were โ€œfrivolous and vexatiousโ€.ย ย 

Lawyer with the Climate Science Legal Defence Fundย Jeff Ruch told The Guardian that the requests were โ€œbasically a spying operationโ€ to โ€œfind material that is potential of use in discrediting aย scientist.โ€

Mr Horner claims the requests are a legitimate use of the laws. That said, the Union of Concerned Scientists has gone so far as to issue a guide to help scientists respond to demands for the release of private information, โ€œsuch as correspondence with peers aboutย researchโ€.

Climate scientists in Australia have also faced requests under the country’s state and federal FOI laws which have gone relativelyย unnoticed.

In recentย months, University of Western Australiaย cognitiveย psychology Professor Stephan Lewandowsky has been the target of four FOI requests, three of which have asked for correspondence and emails related to his research to be published in print next year in the leading journalย Psychologicalย Science.

As DeSmogBlog reported, the research found that people who rejected the science of human-causedย climateย changeย were also likely to endorse various conspiracy theories, such as NASA faking moon landings and plots to kill Princessย Diana.

Two of the FOI requests were subsequently combined into one and had asked for correspondence between Lewandowsky and bloggers in relation to the paper, which used questionnaires posted onย climateย changeย blogs.

A third application requested all documents and emails relating to Professor Lewandowsky’s underlying ethics application used to conduct the study and any correspondence from the public about theย study.

This has resulted in a release this week of more than 300 pages of correspondence, although the applicant, โ€œAustralian Climate Madnessโ€ blogger Simon Turnill, has yet to publish the files. Lewandowskyย said:

There will have been easily more than 100 person hours of publicly-funded time spent dealing with this request, which cost the applicant only $30 to submit – although I understand there was an charge of $400.ย Putting in FOI requests seems to be common practice now.ย There is no question in my mind that the intent is to intimidate and slow down research. These kinds of requests discourage scientists from doing their work.

Professor Lewandowsky said that the release actually showed that accusations made on the blogosphere about the ethical clearance for his paper wereย โ€œfabricatedโ€.

What this piece of research was doing, was simply asking people questions. The sum total of the ethical considerations, in any case, was close to zero. Any marketing company could do this without even having to ask anyone for ethical clearance.

Lewandowsky said that now the FOI request had been granted, he was happy to publish the entire dump of correspondence himself. Yet in a quirk of the law, he was unable to publish his own correspondence and so had to file his own FOI request to the university in order to access his own files. This request has been granted and the files have been made available.

Lewandowsky has also been sent a fourth FOI request in relation to his blog, Shaping Tomorrow’sย World.

Blogger Mr Turnill, who has said that the requests are legitimate scrutiny, made headlines earlier this year after he was given access to emails from climate scientists at the Australian National University in Canberra, which The Australian newspaper incorrectly claimed were proof that scientists there had not been subjected to death threats, as had beenย suggested.

The released files did reveal the scientists had been on the receiving end of a large number of foul and threateningย emails.

In a separate case, I can also reveal that Mr Turnill successfully used FOI laws to access alleged abusive emails sent toย academics at the University of Melbourne, but has yet to publish the 64 emails which he wasย given.

Part of that application included a request for correspondence between two named scientists and journalists (of which I was one)ย in relation to stories about abusiveย correspondence.

As an aside, it may surprise Australianย journalistsย to learn that any email sent to a government agency email address, including public universities and government departments, is potentially open for release under an FOI request. As I also discovered, this is even the case if the email that you sent explicitly stated that you would protect any source providing information.

In another case also involving the University of Melbourne, FOI laws were also used to extractย correspondenceย between climate scientists and the editors of the Journal of Climate. This came after theย scientists had voluntarily alerted the journal to a discrepancy between one methodology which they had described in a paper and the one which had actually been used. The paper was resubmitted in lateย September.

This has led to the scientists’ daily correspondence being publicly pored over by bloggers, including climate science sceptic and miningย industryย veteran Steve McIntyre.

Last year during the lead up to the Australian government legislating a price on greenhouse gas emissions, The Age newspaper reported that free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs sent no fewer than 750 FOI requests to the Department of Climateย Change.ย 

And what is the result of all of these FOI requests and the hundreds upon hundreds of hours spent processingย them?

Not a single issue has been found worthy of any disciplinary action by any employer. No smoking conspiratorial gun. No proof of scientificย misconduct.

In my view, the methods of scientists should be open to scrutiny. Indeed, there already exists a mechanism through peer reviewed science journals, which climate science sceptics appear reluctant to engageย with.

Freedom of Information laws are an important mechanism for maintaining transparency and enabling publicย scrutiny.

But shouldn’t scientists and journalists be allowed to engage in daily and common deliberations and conversations about climate science without the prospect of every word being broadcast?ย ย 

Related Posts

on

DeSmog estimates raise questions over climate benefits as EU officials consider whether the technology should qualify for billions of euros in subsidies.

DeSmog estimates raise questions over climate benefits as EU officials consider whether the technology should qualify for billions of euros in subsidies.
Analysis
on

Experts accuse Farageโ€™s party of a โ€˜deliberate campaign of misinformation about climate changeโ€™ in the House of Commons.

Experts accuse Farageโ€™s party of a โ€˜deliberate campaign of misinformation about climate changeโ€™ in the House of Commons.
on

A Conservative peer and former UK trade advisor were among those who spoke at the summit.

A Conservative peer and former UK trade advisor were among those who spoke at the summit.
on

All Conservative appointees to the Board of Trade have been binned by the new Labour government.

All Conservative appointees to the Board of Trade have been binned by the new Labour government.