John Mashey caught two commonly-repeated, denialist lies about Steve Schneider in a court filing by the unsurprising David Schnare. Read the whole thing etc., it's the lie about Schneider telling people to stretch the truth about climate and also the lie that omits how he told people to be honest. This has been corrected often enough that some of the denialists repeating it have to know they're lying (although I don't know if Schnare is one of those or just lazy). Bad enough to lie about a dead man's life work in general, but getting it wrong in court filings that are supposed to buttoned up is even worse.
Mashey's catch is important, it's about Schnare's attempt to argue that the scientific elite aren't to be trusted and therefore intrusive email searches are in the public interest. I found yet another inaccuracy in Schnare's filing along the same lines - much less important because it's just an incorrect historical flourish, but indicative of the work submitted to the court.
....we begin with a portion of President Eisenhower’s 1961 Farewell Address to the Nation — one that perfectly encapsulates the reason we bring this case and the legitimacy of the Arizona public records act’s presumption in favor of disclosure, particularly of old and policy-related academic records.
[T]he free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.1
Note with care, President Eisenhower does not limit his comments to how research may affect public policy, but focuses specifically on the people who do the research, the scientific-technological elite. Our concern in the instant case is precisely that....
It's actually an interesting Eisenhower quote that could be taken a number of different ways, but the problem is with Schnare's flourish stating that Ike emphasized the sentence about watchdogging the scientific elite above other issues. Schnare's footnote justifying this provides a link to the speech and says of the bolded sentence, "emphasis in the original. Eisenhower underlined this section of his speech notes and gave heavy verbal emphasis to this sentence."
So, three problems:
1. The link Schnare provided doesn't show any emphasis added to that sentence in the speech. That's bad enough - Schnare making a factual assertion in a filing without providing proof. (Update: fixed typo where I said "with providing proof".)
2. When you research it yourself, you find that Eisenhower underlined almost every sentence.
3. When you listen to the speech you find he gave no heavier verbal emphasis to that sentence than he did for any other.
Pictured above is Eisenhower's copy of the speech, and you can scroll through to see other pages - virtually every sentence is underlined, so doing that provides no emphasis.
And here's Eisenhower giving the speech, jump ahead nine minutes for that section:
Ike didn't give any more verbal emphasis of that sentence than he did of any others. He does speak deliberately, but he's an old man who's been giving speeches over scratchy radios and P.A. systems for decades - it's just a way to be clear and doesn't distinguish that sentence.
Again, not the biggest thing in the world, just the very first thing Schnare asserted that I decided to check, and it wasn't right.