Washing global warming's dirty laundry in the courts.

Being a Brother at the Bar (and no, Borepatch, not that kind of bar--well maybe that one too, but that isn't what I mean here), I have great faith in our unique judicial system.  Truth and justice will largely and eventually prevail.  One could quibble about costs and efficiency, but it works.  And as exhibit "A" I give you the freedom of information lawsuit against the University of Virginia to force the disclosure of all of the (publicly funded) emails sent or received by UVA climate 'scientist' Michael Mann.  Great editorial by the Washington Times excerpted below:

The American Tradition Institute (ATI) is going after 12,000 emails sent or received by Michael E. Mann while he was on the staff of the publicly-funded university. Mr. Mann is famous for coming up with one of the “tricks” used to “hide the decline” in global temperatures. On Wednesday, ATI released a small selection of emails it hopes will convince a Prince William County judge that full disclosure of the rest is in the public interest.

In March 2003, for example, a trusted colleague of Mr. Mann’s emailed to find out how the UVA professor arrived at his conclusions. Mr. Mannadmitted he was missing crucial data and “can’t seem to dig them up.” Though he was working on this project on the taxpayers’ dime, he provided the information for the researcher’s personal use only. “So please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first,” Mr. Mann wrote. “This is the sort of ‘dirty laundry’ one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things.”

David Schnare, a scientist and lawyer who runs ATI’s Environmental Law Center, said he was shocked that anyone claiming to be a scientist wouldn’t keep a detailed log of his research activities. “In science, there is no dirty laundry,” Mr. Schnare told The Washington Times. “Science progresses by proving to yourself that you were wrong, that your hypothesis was in error. Every time you’re wrong, it means you can cut off some area of research and start on a better one.”