On Monday, July 17, the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) filed an amicus, or “friend of the court,” brief asking the Arizona Court of Appeals to protect scientists from intrusive open record requests. In the case, the Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), which has a history of misusing state open records laws, is demanding the release of 13 years’ worth of email communications, and prepublication analyses and drafts belonging to University of Arizona climate scientists Malcolm Hughes and Jonathan Overpeck.
Climate contrarians have falsely accused NOAA scientists of manipulating data that demonstrates there was no "pause" in global warming. Here's how other researchers have proven the allegations wrong, and how the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund is participating in and monitoring the lawsuit.
On Friday, January 27, the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) asked the District of Columbia federal District Court to rule in favor of safeguarding scientific research. In partnership with the American Meteorological Society and the Union of Concerned Scientists, CSLDF filed a brief urging the court to protect scientific correspondence and preliminary drafts from indiscriminate disclosure to adverse groups.
On Friday, March 25, CSLDF filed a brief as amicus curiae before the Pima County Superior Court in Arizona, arguing for protection of climate scientists’ private files against invasive open records requests by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute.
CSLDF is pleased to announce that the Arizona Court of Appeals has granted its motion to participate as amicus curiae, or “friend of the court." Last month, CSLDF filed an amicus brief urging the Arizona Court of Appeals to protect climate scientists’ files from invasive open records requests by E&E Legal. As described in our brief, E&E Legal’s requests are “part of a broader strategy of attacking individual scientists as a way to try to discredit theories or even entire fields of study.”