Judge blocks Cuccinelli investigation into Mann UVa issues

While the IPCC gets taken to the woodshed, Mannian methodology gets another free pass.

Cuccinelli

Cuccinelli left Credit: TIMES-DISPATCH, Dr. Mann, right

An Albemarle County judge has dismissed Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s demand that the University of Virginia turn over documents related to the research of a prominent climate change expert.

Cuccinelli, a vocal climate change skeptic, had been investigating the possibility that climatology professor Michael Mann fraudulently obtained five taxpayer-funded research grants while employed at UVa between 1999 and 2005.

In an opinion issued this morning, Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. ruled that Cuccinelli failed to show a sufficient “reason to believe” that UVa possessed any documents related to Mann that suggested a fraud occurred.

Peatross added, however, that the attorney general is within his rights to issue CIDs — which carry the legal weight of subpoenas — to investigate taxpayer-funded research grants awarded to professors such as Mann.

Cuccinelli said in a statement that he will send a new CID to UVa to continue his hunt for proof that Mann defrauded Virginia’s taxpayers in obtaining grants that funded his climate change research.

More here at The Daily Progress (not to be confused with the ‘angry progress’ blogs)

h/t to WUWT reader AnonyMoose

119 thoughts on “Judge blocks Cuccinelli investigation into Mann UVa issues

  1. In an opinion issued this morning, Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. ruled that Cuccinelli failed to show a sufficient “reason to believe” that UVa possessed any documents related to Mann that suggested a fraud occurred.

    This case smells like it goes toward an inside whistleblower.

  2. Why is a county judge ruling on a state matter? Seems a district judge, at a minimum, would be involved…

  3. I trust that Mr. Cuccinelli will continue his efforts to make UVA and Mann accountable to the Commonwealth. Independent research is one thing–and should be free from state intervention unless state interests or public safety are threatened. State-funded research is quite another thing, and full accountability is necessary, including all factors that make the research replicable. I support Cuccinelli all the way.

  4. So much for openness as a value point in and of itself. To be honest the best way to allow Cuccunelli to look a fool is to allow the process to continue until no fraud is found. There’s a lot of dirt under the rug, but fraud won’t be found there. So far, incompetence is not illegal in this country. Exposing that is what Mann has been spared.

  5. This are aggressive and shameful actions by Cuccinelli. Dr Mann was found to have done his job properly. Instead of letting it go, this polarizes the debate. As if the goal is to silence scientists and bring fear.

    Cuccinelli, let it go.

  6. The dirty stuff is going to be in the emails, but those are either deleted or they’ve switched to using gmail so their schemes won’t be subject to FOI requests.

  7. Cuccinelli will surely continue the patient legal process to get glimpses of UVa and Mann. The legal system grinds slowly and finely. Patience young grasshopper(s).

    Can you doubt he had already prepared for the current court ruling?

    John

  8. If this is just a witch hunt funded by people who find Mann’s research “inconvenient”, as he says, why not just release everything? Seems like he would be completely vindicated if there is nothing to hide. By hiding behind legal blockades it leaves the impression that there is something that would be very damaging if it was made public. Oh yea, and what about all the other emails that have never been made public? Those would answer a whole bunch of questions.

  9. Cuccinelli is still spouting the Kremlin line on global warming, but even the Kremlin has changed it’s tune.

    Until recently, the Russian position has been that global warming is an invention of the West cooked up to destroy Russia. When Medvedev visited Tomsk last winter, he called the global-warming debate “some kind of tricky campaign made up by some commercial structures to promote their business projects.”

    Recently, Russia’s President Medvedev stated that global warming is happening. RIA Novosti (7-31-10) reports that President Medvedev stated:

    “What is happening to our planet’s climate should motivate all of us, I mean, states and heads of non-governmental organizations, to take more active steps to resist global warming.”

    I guess Lord Monckton won’t be getting invited onto the Kremlin-financed propaganda channel Russia Today again.

  10. PaulW,

    Are you Mann’s sock puppet, or are you just thick?

    The next thorough investigation of Mann will be the first.

    A thorough review or audit of Mann, CRU, Hansen, Schmidt, etc. has yet to take place.

    Mann, and the UV system got millions in tax payer dollars. They have the right to know what it was spent on, since we now know the science was garbage.

    Scientists are not some medieval religious order, immune to mere secular authorities. It is long past time to subject Big Science to the same standards of accountability and disclosure as anyone else.

  11. Watching the legal process work through the kinks is like watching grass grow; it’s slow and inexorable and the only one that works up a sweat is the person with the lawn mower. Who that will be remains to be seen.

  12. The Russians often change the party line about the “plots” of crafty scientists and throw the conspiracy theorists under the bus.

    For example Izvestiya (3-19-92) reported:

    [Russian intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov] mentioned the well known articles printed a few years ago in our central newspapers about AIDS supposedly originating from secret Pentagon laboratories. According to Yevgeni Primakov, the articles exposing US scientists’ “crafty” plots were fabricated in KGB offices.

    Actually, the Russians own up to their propaganda campaigns pretty often. You might want to think about that.

  13. The Russians often disclose their propaganda campaigns when the official line changes.

    For example, Izvestiya (3-19-92) reported:

    [Russian intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov] mentioned the well known articles printed a few years ago in our central newspapers about AIDS supposedly originating from secret Pentagon laboratories. According to Yevgeni Primakov, the articles exposing US scientists’ “crafty” plots were fabricated in KGB offices.

    The theft and mischaracterization of the emails may be what Russian operatives call kompromat.

  14. What are these CIDs that he can issue, which “carry the same weight as a subpoena?

    SaveE.

  15. The judge’s ruling was very narrow. He simply said that Cuccinelli’s CID was defective while affirming the right of Cuccinelli to issue CIDs to investigate fraud at universities. UVa had argued that the AG had no right to investigate wrong doing at universities. This is a silly argument — if not the AG than who? UVa was essentially arguing that no one has the right to investigate them for financial fraud. This argument was clearly shot down. I imagine that the AG will now re-issue the CID with sufficient specificity regarding the alleged conduct. My bet is that we will see a new CID in 48 hours.

    UVa can now not argue that the CID is improper; they can now only try to shoot it down based on technical defects, which is a loser because the AG will eventually get the CID technically correct. UVa also can not argue that the alleged conduct does not rise to the level of fraud — that’s for a grand jury to decide. In our system, the accused does not get to decide whether the accusation has merit or not.

    Game, set, match Cuccinelli.

  16. The persecution of Mann is led by a man who was given 55,000 dollars from a criminal named Bobby Thompson. http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2010/reports/navy-veterans-association/

    Why did Cuccinelli give this obvious criminal “the benefit of the doubt” while persecuting a scientist that is very highly regarded by experts in his field?

    I bet Dr. Mann didn’t get 55,000 dollars from a criminal.

    Cuccinelli is probably getting funding from fossil fuel entities to persecute Mann.

    I remember that the Russian gas company Itera gave a lot of money to Congressman Weldon’s daughter.

    I think Cuccinelli is a stooge of the fossil fuel industry.

  17. Well this isn’t over and now there is political reputation in play.

    It will continue, it will be dirty and it will be very entertaining.

    Dr. Mann sought out the scientific spotlight and enjoyed the fame. Wonder if he will enjoy the interrogation bright lights as much.

  18. dp says:
    August 30, 2010 at 1:38 pm
    So much for openness as a value point in and of itself. To be honest the best way to allow Cuccunelli to look a fool is to allow the process to continue until no fraud is found. There’s a lot of dirt under the rug, but fraud won’t be found there. So far, incompetence is not illegal in this country. Exposing that is what Mann has been spared.
    ——–Reply:
    “…but fraud won’t be found there.”
    So you have access to all the papers? You are able to read his thoughts? You have inside information that nobody else has? Pray, please share it with us all!

  19. Theo Barker says:
    August 30, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    “Why is a county judge ruling on a state matter?”

    Because the investigation is being made under ‘civil rules’ rather then ‘criminal rules’.

  20. paulw says:
    August 30, 2010 at 1:39 pm
    This are aggressive and shameful actions by Cuccinelli. Dr Mann was found to have done his job properly. Instead of letting it go, this polarizes the debate. As if the goal is to silence scientists and bring fear.

    Cuccinelli, let it go.
    ————-Reply:
    Are you so thick that you believe those internal reviews would actually find any wrong-doing? Those were as sound as “peer-reviews” by “the team”. Worthless.

  21. Snapple,

    Despite your name, I think you have been drinking too much AGW Kool-aid. But thanks for stopping by. While you won’t get booted from this site for expressing contrary opinions, you will need to put a little more effort into it to get someone to take you on.

    Mods – a snip for Snapple for being off topic (Russian conspiracy theories) might have been in order.

  22. It is quite possible that Cuccinelli would not have found evidence of fraud . After all , it was an investigation , not an indictment . I’m not really sure what an insufficient “reason to believe” that UVA held any incriminating documents means . Fortunately , the ruling allows Cuccinelli to reissue the CID . Personally , I think UVA is stonewalling and trying to hide behind “academic freedom”.

  23. paulw says: August 30, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    “This [sic] are aggressive and shameful actions by Cuccinelli. Dr Mann was found to have done his job properly. Instead of letting it go, this polarizes the debate. As if the goal is to silence scientists and bring fear.”

    Paul, if you’ve read the Climategate papers, you’d know that silencing scientists and bringing fear is what AGW science is all about.

  24. This is called being “home towned”.

    Folks who live near (and maybe work at) a long-established
    institution of higher education are usually aware of how the
    local courts tend to favor the educational institution in the
    first round of rulings.

    The locals might get something done on appeal, if they want
    to continue the fight against a bank of institutional attorneys.

    In this case the local judge accomodated the University of
    Virginia, knowing the Attorney General wasn’t going to walk
    away.

    The Attorney General got a ruling on having the right to
    issue the CID’s… as detailed in Virginia law. The UVa put
    up a vigorous fight to strike down that limited-instance
    (in cases of possible fraud) right.

  25. #
    #
    paulw says:
    August 30, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    This are aggressive and shameful actions by Cuccinelli. Dr Mann was found to have done his job properly. Instead of letting it go, this polarizes the debate. As if the goal is to silence scientists and bring fear.
    ____________________________________________
    What is the matter Paul, afraid they may audit you and find out about all that iffy stuff and you will have to give back all the grant money???

    As a tax payer AND as a chemist I am very happy to see Cuccinelli putting some fear into scientists – they need it given the amount of lying I have seen while working as a chemist and lab manager.

    Why is it that people think a PhD automatically means the guy is honest?

  26. Snapple says:
    August 30, 2010 at 2:29 pm

    The persecution of Mann is led by a man who was given 55,000 dollars from a criminal named Bobby Thompson. http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2010/reports/navy-veterans-association/

    Why did Cuccinelli give this obvious criminal “the benefit of the doubt” while persecuting a scientist that is very highly regarded by experts in his field?

    I bet Dr. Mann didn’t get 55,000 dollars from a criminal.

    Cuccinelli is probably getting funding from fossil fuel entities to persecute Mann.

    I remember that the Russian gas company Itera gave a lot of money to Congressman Weldon’s daughter.

    I think Cuccinelli is a stooge of the fossil fuel industry.

    —————–

    Snapple,

    I am sure your thought processes leading to arguments like “stooge of the fossil fuel industry” are common and valid in certain climate science consensus circles and on the Oprah Winfrey show, but in a court of law those arguments probably will lead to the extreme displeasure of the court. But, keep on trying that failed ad hominem technique; it seems to help the skeptics win more public confidence with your every attempt to use it. : )

    John

  27. And exactly how would the Judge know there was no fraud if he won’t let anyone see the emails that would prove the fraud? The standard is probable cause, and it is an easy one to meet.

  28. In the general search for truth, I guess that this teaches us that climatologist mannufacture rewards for climatologists (in the form of grants), and lawyers manufacture rewards for lawyers (in the form of meandering legal proceedings).

  29. I suspect this has more to do with politics and getting votes then anything else. The problem, while everyone is talking about Mr. Mann, the university is ultimately responsible. It is the university’s reputation and management that stand to loose the most. The other side effect is taking attention away from the issue of scientific competence and shifting it to “possible financial misconduct”. Now if the university is maleficent, that should be what the issue is. If Mann is incompetent or in other ways less then honorable in his research, reporting and or teaching, then go after that. As I see this from here in Calgary, it is a no win for anyone, as it is presently presented.

  30. I think Mann is a scoundrel but am relieved this is not going through. Those who, as I do, remember Congressman Dingell’s efforts to bring scientists to account in the ‘eighties will recall how futile his efforts were and how they came to be seen as hounding innocent eggheads. Scientists should do their own policing, and do it well. This is what this website is about.

  31. mpaul ,

    Thanks mpaul. It does look like Michael Mann and UV are getting backed into a corner. UV may at some point look at Michael Mann as a liability. If that point does come they could easily claim ignorance to what Mann was doing and distance themselves from him. They could say they didn’t understand the nuance of the science and so make themselves innocent of any wrong doing. If that point is reached Michael Mann will be left to face it alone. I wonder if he’s thought about that and made a plan B for it?

    Would anyone like to trade places with Michael Mann?

  32. Pat commented:

    “And exactly how would the Judge know there was no fraud if he won’t let anyone see the emails that would prove the fraud? The standard is probable cause, and it is an easy one to meet.”

    Evidently, Mr. Cuccinelli failed to meet the probable cause standard. If the standard is easy, and the argument still cannot meet it, what does that tell you?

    Oh, silly me. This is WUWT. The obvious conclusion (here) is that the judge must be part of the conspiracy. Thus the “home town” comment. Cuccinelli’s case is fine; the judge simply ignored that and found for his friends.

    REPLY: No the logical conclusion is that if there’s nothing to hide, release it, clear the air. And I don’t appreciate your illogical conclusion about WUWT. – Anthony

  33. Snapple says:
    August 30, 2010 at 2:29 pm

    ….I think Cuccinelli is a stooge of the fossil fuel industry.
    _______________________________________________________
    Snapple, you have it donkey backwards. MANN is the stooge of the fossil fuel industry.

    TheClimategate e-mail on Global Governance & Sustainable Development (B1) – Ged Davis is the key. Here is who Ged Davis is. A thirty year Shell Oil executive with UN and IPCC connections!!!!!

    Here is the context and history:
    In Maurice Strong’s 1972 First Earth Summit speech, Strong warned urgently about global warming he saw to it that Greenpeace got a free pass to the summit. Strong is a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation (Standard Oil money) that funds Greenpeace and WWF. Strong started in the oil business in 1952 working for the Rockefeller’s in Saudi Arabia and went on to be president and CEO of several oil companies.

    Here is the WHY of “Global Warming”:
    Obama’s Chief Science Adviser is John Holden.’In their 1973 book “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” Holdren and co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich wrote:

    “A massive campaign [read global warming] must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-devolopment means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries.”

    And Strong is again very active in the campaign for Global Governance:
    UN REFORM – Restructuring for Global Governance

    Our Global Neighborhood – Report of the Commission on Global Governance: a summary analysis

    The de-development plan is UN Division for Sustainable Development – full text of Agenda 21

    Maurice Strong
    David Rockefeller Studies Program – Global Governance & Climate Change

    Council on Foreign Relations web site, David Rockefeller Honorary Chairman – Global Governance
    David Rockefeller quotes on global governance

        At Baden-Baden , Germany , in June 1991 , David Rockefeller stated : 
         “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during these years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government which will never again know war, but only peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in the past centuries.”  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8450

    Snapple, are you sure you want a world ruled by Oil Execs and Banksters????

  34. Is there a pattern here? Climate things that Mann touched do seem to be often investigated. I don’t think you can blame that possible pattern on Cuccinelli.

    John

  35. Snapple,

    Instead of engaging in ad hominem slanders, why don’t you explain for us why UVA promptly released the emails of climate scientist Patrick Michaels when requested by a private “environmental” organization, but is into a hard stonewall mode on the emails of Michael Mann, whose POLICY of using cherry-picked data and improper statistical methods are a blatent violation of the Scientific Method?

  36. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 30, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    Would anyone like to trade places with Michael Mann?

    ———————-

    Amino Acids in Meteorites,

    I am not a lawyer and have no legal training, but I think the CID served on UVa was mishandled by UVa lawyers. They blew an opportunity that Cuccinelli offered them to drop the formal CID and do an informal showing. In that case it there would be no publicity involved at that step. If there was some finding then UVa would be in a position to deal with Cuccinelli sans the publicity to minimize the amount of legal liability. After all, Cuccinelli is not per se looking at the UVa. They were Mann’s employers so they are could be only incidentally involved.

    John

  37. During the 1980s, the Soviet state security, the KGB, orchestrated the infamous “AIDS made in America” campaign of defamation against American scientists. In 1987, the famous Soviet physicist Roald Sagdeev, who recently criticized Attorney General Cuccinelli’s persecution of climate scientist Michael Mann, publically denounced the pseudoscientific AIDS conspiracy theory. This may have happened because President Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State, George Shultz, told the Russians to stop spreading disinformation about how our scientists made AIDS.

    Unlike Virginia’s Attorney General Cuccinelli, America’s Secretary of State Shultz, a Republican, defended America’s scientists from those who would defame them and smear them in front of the whole world. Mr. Schultz appreciated how important American science is for the progress of the entire world.

    Cuccinelli calls himself a “conservative,” but there is nothing conservative about destroying American scientists and discrediting their research research with fabricated “fraud” charges. There is nothing conservative about risking the future of our nation and the whole world.

    Mr. Cuccinelli should follow the lead of the American statesman George Shultz, instead of toadying to the destructive sponsors of the pseudoscientific denialist movement. He should be defending scientists from persecution, not setting the mob on them at taxpayer expense.

  38. In his error-filled July 13, 2010 court filing requesting documents from the University of Virginia related to climate scientist Michael Mann, Attorney General Cucccinelli is spouting Pravda’s canards about the supposedly greedy, dishonest climate scientists who allegedly misled people about global warming.

    http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/110832-0/

    http://english.pravda.ru/world/europe/111117-0/

    Two months before Copenhagen, [Russia’s] state-owned Channel One television aired a documentary called The History of a Deception: Global Warming, which argued that the notion of man-made climate change was the result of an international media conspiracy. A month later, hackers sparked the so-called Climategate scandal by stealing e-mails from European climate researchers.

    PS–There are so many conspiracies Cuccinelli could investigate. For example, where are the aliens at Area 51?

  39. Dave says:
    August 30, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    The obvious conclusion (here) is that the judge must be
    part of the conspiracy. Thus the “home town” comment.

    Wow. You seem to see people claiming conspiracies all over
    the place. A “home town” ruling just means the judge had the
    latitude to give the local folks a break and make the outsider
    (the AG) cross all the t’s and dot all the i’s.

    There’s nothing conspiratorial about this ruling from national,
    international, or transnational interests. It’s about a state law
    being applied in a very limited circumstance concerning an
    institution of higher education that’s not a direct party to an inquiry
    about possible fradulent accounting in grant reporting.

    The AG’s legal brief is available on line.

  40. Climategate is probably a Russian operation. They call it kompromat.

    Newsweek (8-2-10) observes:

    Two months before Copenhagen, [Russia’s] state-owned Channel One television aired a documentary called The History of a Deception: Global Warming, which argued that the notion of man-made climate change was the result of an international media conspiracy. A month later, hackers sparked the so-called Climategate scandal by stealing e-mails from European climate researchers. The hacked e-mails, which were then used to support the arguments of global-warming skeptics, appeared to have been distributed through a server in the Siberian oil town of Tomsk.

  41. REPLY: No the logical conclusion is that if there’s nothing to hide, release it, clear the air.

    That’s exactly what got Nixon in so much extended hot water.
    Watching Attn. Gen John Mitchell’s stonewalling face spout one 5th after another really cheesed America off.
    The taste of things hidden is fresh in the mouth.

  42. In his famous 1956 “Secret Speech” to the 20th Party Conference, Nikita Khrushchev stated:

    Let us…recall the “affair of the doctor-plotters [who were falsely accused of taking money from the U.S. government to poison Soviet leaders].”

    (Animation in the hall.)

    Actually there was no “affair” outside of the declaration of the woman doctor [Lidiya] Timashuk [more here], who was probably influenced or ordered by someone (after all, she was an unofficial collaborator of the organs of state security) to write Stalin a letter in which she declared that doctors were applying supposedly improper methods of medical treatment.

  43. Russia’s President Medvedev recently stated that global warming is happening. RIA Novosti (7-31-10) reports that President Medvedev stated:

    “What is happening to our planet’s climate should motivate all of us, I mean, states and heads of non-governmental organizations, to take more active steps to resist global warming.”

    This affirmation of global warming is an about-face for President Medvedev. As noted above, when he visited Tomsk two months after the Copenhagen Climate Conference, President Medvedev characterized the global-warming debate as “some kind of tricky campaign made up by some commercial structures to promote their business projects.”

    It should be pretty obvious that President Medvedev’s former views are shared by U.S. and British global warming denialists.

  44. 1. Cuccinelli inaccurately asserts that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age “disappeared” in Mann et al.’s original hockey stick paper.

    2. Cuccinelli misrepresents the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    3. Cuccinelli falsely maintains that climate scientists are primarily motivated by money, and suggests they are skewing their research results to attract grants.

    4. Cuccinelli exaggerates the importance of the hockey stick, implying that it provides the rationale for laws that would require emissions reductions.

    5. Cuccinelli cites a paper that criticized the hockey stick, but fails to cite refutations of that paper’s conclusions or the unusual circumstances under which it was published.

    6. Cuccinelli uncritically cites a study by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick that erroneously criticized Mann et al.’s hockey stick research.

    7. Cuccinelli implies Mann was hiding something in a data folder marked “CENSORED,” but fails to acknowledge that the folder was publicly available.

    8.Cuccinelli extensively cites the 2006 Wegman report, but fails to note valid criticisms of that report.

    9. Cuccinelli incorrectly cites three emails that were stolen last fall from Mann.

    10. Cuccinelli and his staff again make a basic mistake when describing the now well-known email that features the phrases “trick” and “hide the decline.”

    11. Cuccinelli confuses the Muir Russell report’s criticism of a Phil Jones graph with Mann et al.’s hockey stick research.

    12. Cuccinelli’s filing demonstrates a lack of understanding of how science works.

    http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/cuccinelli-court-filing-basic-errors-0430.html#3

  45. Unlike Pravda,

    The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has examined every one of the hacked CRU emails and has strongly affirmed that it finds nothing more than “candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets”.

    On 29 July 2010, the EPA denied 10 petitions which challenged the Agency’s 2009 determination that climate change is real, is occurring due to emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities, and threatens human health and the environment.

    The petitions claimed that climate science could not be trusted, citing the CRU emails and asserting a conspiracy that they said invalidated the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the US National Academy of Sciences, and the US Global Change Research Program.

    After months of serious consideration of the petitions and of the state of climate change science, the EPA has found no evidence to support these claims. In contrast, it says its review shows that climate science is credible, compelling, and growing stronger.

    The agency reviewed all of the stolen CRU emails, concluding:

    … petitioners have routinely misunderstood or mischaracterised the scientific issues, drawn faulty scientific conclusions, resorted to hyperbole, impugned the ethics of climate scientists in general, characterised actions as “falsifications” and “manipulation” with no basis for support, and placed an inordinate reliance on blogs, news stories, and literature that is often neither peer reviewed nor accurately summarized in their petitions. Petitioners often “cherry-pick” language that creates the suggestion or appearance of impropriety, without looking deeper into the issues or providing corroborating evidence that improper action actually occurred.

    The agency makes clear that:

    Petitioners’ assumptions and subjective assertions regarding what the e-mails purport to show about the state of climate change science are clearly inadequate pieces of evidence to challenge the voluminous and well documented body of science that is the technical foundation of the Administrator’s Endangerment Finding.

    (from: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions.html)

  46. [snip – unacceptable language. ~dbs, mod.]

    The Financial Times (4-15-10) reports:

    There have been indications that the hackers could have been based in Russia, and some experts believe they may have been hired by sceptics based in the US.

  47. Snapple says:
    August 30, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    1. Cuccinelli inaccurately asserts that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age “disappeared” in Mann et al.’s original hockey stick paper.

    2. Cuccinelli misrepresents the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    3. Cuccinelli falsely maintains that climate scientists are primarily motivated by money, and suggests they are skewing their research results to attract grants.

    4. Cuccinelli exaggerates the importance of the hockey stick, implying that it provides the rationale for laws that would require emissions reductions.

    5. Cuccinelli cites a paper that criticized the hockey stick, but fails to cite refutations of that paper’s conclusions or the unusual circumstances under which it was published.

    6. Cuccinelli uncritically cites a study by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick that erroneously criticized Mann et al.’s hockey stick research.

    7. Cuccinelli implies Mann was hiding something in a data folder marked “CENSORED,” but fails to acknowledge that the folder was publicly available.

    8.Cuccinelli extensively cites the 2006 Wegman report, but fails to note valid criticisms of that report.

    9. Cuccinelli incorrectly cites three emails that were stolen last fall from Mann.

    10. Cuccinelli and his staff again make a basic mistake when describing the now well-known email that features the phrases “trick” and “hide the decline.”

    11. Cuccinelli confuses the Muir Russell report’s criticism of a Phil Jones graph with Mann et al.’s hockey stick research.

    12. Cuccinelli’s filing demonstrates a lack of understanding of how science works.

    http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/cuccinelli-court-filing-basic-errors-0430.html#3

    —————–

    Snapple,

    You better file your stuff quickly with the attorneys for UVa!!! You might save Michael Mann. Quick. Don’t waste our time here. You won’t help Mann on this blog.

    I am sure you can really help him. But better hurry up before Cuccinelli surely files another CID very soon.

    John

  48. Last winter, the Kremlin-financed Russia Today satellite T.V. interviewed the English conspiracist Lord Monckton who promoted the official Russian view that global warming was a “hoax” cooked up by Western scientists. His claims were not challenged by climate scientists. This summer, Russia’s official press agency RIA Novosti reported Dr. Andrei Areshev’s defamatory claim that U.S. climate scientists were causing global warming with secret “climate weapons.” How can it be that in the winter global warming is a “hoax” that isn’t happening and in the summer the climate scientists are causing global warming with secret climate weapons?

    In the U.S. destructive canards about the “plots” of climate scientists are also spread by politicians such as Oklahoma Senator Inhofe and Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Those two American politicians are even persecuting climate scientists. History will remember Inhofe and Cuccinelli as destructive, mendacious demagogues who followed the money instead of leading the people.

    Even in Russia, politicians eventually retract ridiculous lies about scientists because they have to deal with reality.

  49. luca turin says:
    August 30, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    I think Mann is a scoundrel but am relieved this is not going through. Those who, as I do, remember Congressman Dingell’s efforts to bring scientists to account in the ‘eighties will recall how futile his efforts were and how they came to be seen as hounding innocent eggheads. Scientists should do their own policing, and do it well. This is what this website is about.
    _________________________________________________
    Unfortunately Scientists doing their own policing doesn’t work. They go after those who are not “Team Players” and crucify them. See: Lewis B. Allyn expulsion from the American Chemical Society – for telling the truth (pg 36)

  50. Sure, the state governments should investigate all of the scientists at their universities that get research grants. Why just focus on a few climate scientists. Medical research is a much bigger field. Attorneys going throught the notes and email messages of scientists should find lots of evidence for wrong doing.

  51. Snapple says:
    August 30, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    1. Cuccinelli inaccurately asserts that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age “disappeared” in Mann et al.’s original hockey stick paper.

    Does one really have to go beyond that incorrect assertion?

    DaveE.

  52. No the logical conclusion is that if there’s nothing to hide, release it, clear the air. And I don’t appreciate your illogical conclusion about WUWT. – Anthony

    No, Anthony. The logical conclusion is that Cuccinelli had zero evidence that Mann had done anything wrong, and the judge therefore properly ruled that the Commonwealth had zero basis to pursue this. In fact, his ruling essentially said: if you happen to find something, feel free to come back.

    As for your “nothing to hide” line of reasoning, sites like WUWT make a living picking through every single word as evidence of a grand conspiracy amongst the world’s climate scientists, all the while ignoring the learned findings of groups like the National Academies of Science. In short, Mann would have no opportunity to “clear the air” because you would simply mine every word of his to turn it into malfeasance. You’ve done this repeatedly with the so-called “Climategate” emails, despite the fact that every inquiry into it found nothing wrong.

  53. Medvedev isn’t going to kick the gift horse in the mouth. If the US is bound and determined to throw itself on its idealogical sword, why shouldn’t he encourage America to do so? Russia would join China in reaping the benefits of a ruined America.

  54. paulw says:
    August 30, 2010 at 1:39 pm
    This are aggressive and shameful actions by Cuccinelli. Dr Mann was found to have done his job properly. Instead of letting it go, this polarizes the debate. As if the goal is to silence scientists and bring fear.

    Cuccinelli, let it go.

    Do tell: Precisely how is conniving with a pack of ClimateGate insiders to produce a predetermined result, i.e., stitching the tree ring record to the instrument record and foisting it upon the world without ever assessing what had been done openly, somehow to be considered as ‘doing one’s job properly?’

    Is it your thought that machinating is now the going style in the science community?

  55. Snapple says:
    “I bet Dr. Mann didn’t get 55,000 dollars from a criminal.”

    No. It appears to be just the reverse. He received funds from honest taxpayers which the disclosure denying Dr. Mann used to create and perpetuate his thoroughly discredited ‘hockey stick’ graph. He has resisted full disclosure of the raw data used for his analyses, modifications he and others made to those raw data sets, and the analytical methods used to further manipulate those altered data sets into the discredited graphs purporting mann made global warming.

    The disclosure averse doctor acts like a mann with much to hide….

    “Oh what a tangled web we weave,
    When first we practise to deceive! ”
    Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.
    Scottish author & novelist (1771 – 1832)

    It would seem that Walter Scott was a ‘Sir ahead of Dr Mann’s time’!

  56. Joe says:
    August 30, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    No the logical conclusion is that if there’s nothing to hide, release it, clear the air. And I don’t appreciate your illogical conclusion about WUWT. – Anthony

    No, Anthony. The logical conclusion is that Cuccinelli had zero evidence that Mann had done anything wrong, and the judge therefore properly ruled that the Commonwealth had zero basis to pursue this. In fact, his ruling essentially said: if you happen to find something, feel free to come back.

    ———————-

    Joe,

    I think you do not have the meaning of the court ruling quite right. Cuccinelli is probably quite encouraged by the ruling. Basically, the judge did not accept the argument of UVa that State of Virginia did not have a right to serve a CID on the UVa. A win for Cuccinelli . What the court said was that Cuccinelli needs to frame his CID and reasons for it more precisely. I think Cuccinelli is likely to do just that very quickly. And maybe keep doing it until it is precisely enough to proceed.

    Joe, see mpaul’s excellent comment above at:

    mpaul says:
    August 30, 2010 at 2:29 pm

    John

  57. Snapple, has it ever occurred to you that the Russians are no friends of ours and have figured out that the best way they can undermine the economies of the West is to act like they believe in AGW? They and the Chinese would love to watch us strangle our own economies in the name of fighting non-existent AGW. Then they’ll have all the chips.

  58. mpaul says:
    August 30, 2010 at 2:29 pm
    The judge’s ruling was very narrow. He simply said that Cuccinelli’s CID was defective while affirming the right of Cuccinelli to issue CIDs to investigate fraud at universities. UVa had argued that the AG had no right to investigate wrong doing at universities. This is a silly argument — if not the AG than who? UVa was essentially arguing that no one has the right to investigate them for financial fraud. This argument was clearly shot down. I imagine that the AG will now re-issue the CID with sufficient specificity regarding the alleged conduct. My bet is that we will see a new CID in 48 hours.

    According to the following quotation: “Cuccinelli did not show, Peatross wrote, any evidence that Mann’s work was “misleading, false or fraudulent in obtaining funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia.””, the judge appears to take the view that Cuccinelli is limited in his action to grants from Va. Of the 5 grants in question only one was from Va and Mann was not the PI on that one so perhaps he’s targeting the wrong person?

  59. A good and salient quote from the blog posters on the related article about Cuccinelli /Mann (the Virginian Pilot):

    “With the 63 comments as on now there is still zero that have explained why the raw data and assumptions are not on the Internet for everyone to see.”

    “Where is the academic freedom that is demanding sharing of information and knowledge? Is the university saying that only academia can view the data like the high priest of the Ark of the Convenant? Is there a ritual that academia have to perform to gain access to the inner sanctum?”

    “I am ashamed of those calling for limit access of knowledge. What do you want to do next – burn books so the unfortunate “non-believers” can see?”

    ================================

    Right on!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  60. Phil says:
    “According to the following quotation: “Cuccinelli did not show, Peatross wrote, any evidence that Mann’s work was “misleading, false or fraudulent in obtaining funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia.””, the judge appears to take the view that Cuccinelli is limited in his action to grants from Va. Of the 5 grants in question only one was from Va and Mann was not the PI on that one so perhaps he’s targeting the wrong person?”

    I suspect that Cuccinelli will re-issue a revised CID related to the Va grant and will simultaneous appeal the ruling that the other 4 are not subject to Va jurisdiction. If false claims were made, they were presented to UVa for payment through Va bank accounts. As such, they come under Va jurisdiction. This is a matter of law and not of fact — as such it is grounds for appeal.

    False claims can be made by people other than a PI obviously.

  61. Snapple wrote:

    President Medvedev stated:

    “What is happening to our planet’s climate should motivate all of us, I mean, states and heads of non-governmental organizations, to take more active steps to resist global warming.”

    The Russians are just momentarily confusing their recent hot weather with climate. Wait until another Russian winter comes, and they will be back pedaling their back pedaling.
    (And I thought Snapple was once promoted by Rush Limbaugh!)

  62. mpaul says:
    August 30, 2010 at 2:29 pm
    The judge’s ruling was very narrow. He simply said that Cuccinelli’s CID was defective while affirming the right of Cuccinelli to issue CIDs to investigate fraud at universities. UVa had argued that the AG had no right to investigate wrong doing at universities. This is a silly argument — if not the AG than who? UVa was essentially arguing that no one has the right to investigate them for financial fraud. This argument was clearly shot down. I imagine that the AG will now re-issue the CID with sufficient specificity regarding the alleged conduct. My bet is that we will see a new CID in 48 hours.

    UVa can now not argue that the CID is improper; they can now only try to shoot it down based on technical defects, which is a loser because the AG will eventually get the CID technically correct. UVa also can not argue that the alleged conduct does not rise to the level of fraud — that’s for a grand jury to decide. In our system, the accused does not get to decide whether the accusation has merit or not.

    Game, set, match Cuccinelli.
    _______________________________________________________

    Interesting take on it mpaul. I think you may be right….. As you said, Cuccinelli should be issuing another CID shorty then.

    Hey Snapple you wearin’ yer tin foil hat mate?…. You better be careful. Those Russkies will pinch yer thoughts before you even have ‘em ya know!…;-)

  63. I really don’t get the point of all this hunting for evidence of ‘fraud’ by our scientists.
    Does Cuccinelli seriously think he can find a sentence like this in Mann’s emails ? :

    “I cooked the Hockey Stick graph in my paper from 1998 from a bunch of made up data tables that I wrote on a rainy sunday afternoon.”

    And even if that’s there, then what ? It does not change anything about the trend in global temperatures (increasing at 0.15 C per decade IIRC). It does not change the absorption spectrum anything about the physics such as radiative transfer theory, nor does it discredit the models that we use that are based on these physics. And it does not change anything about the 1000+ new proxies used in dozens of reconstructions, showing roughly the same ‘hockey stick’ shape.

    The only difference would be that Mann’s carreer is finished.
    Is that what you guys are after ? Or do you guys just want a (this time legally approved) “Climategate 2″ so you misrepresent some more cherry-picked texts and use them to smear more dirt on scientists ?

  64. “Snapple says:
    August 30, 2010 at 4:57 pm
    Russia’s President Medvedev recently stated that global warming is happening.”

    My god! That’s just the proof I needed!! Why have I wasted all this time as a sceptic?? Thank you Snapple, thank you.
    cheers David

  65. Rob says:
    ” It does not change anything about the trend in global temperatures (increasing at 0.15 C per decade IIRC)”

    But Rob, global temperatures have been flat-lining (even slightly decreasing) over the past decade. Even the AGW high-priest Prof. Jones admitted this.

  66. Snapple says:
    “1. Cuccinelli inaccurately asserts that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age “disappeared” in Mann et al.’s original hockey stick paper.”

    Snapple, please post a graphic (link?) of the hockey-stick graph that shows the MWP and LIA. One of the (many) reasons why this wretched graph was roundly condemned was because the flat stick DIDN’T show those two periods.
    Oh, one other thing: I’m not Russian and have never been given any money by ‘Big Oil’

  67. luca turin [August 30, 2010 at 3:51 pm] says:

    I think Mann is a scoundrel but …

    Yeah, sure you do.

    (… blah blah) Scientists should do their own policing, (blah blah …)

    There’s your problem right there. Should police do their own policing? Should ballplayers do their own policing? Should students do their own policing? Should prisoners do their own policing? Who polices your kids? Who polices their school bus drivers, the school employees, your kids doctors or babysitters? What kind of person could dream up the scenario where scientists on the taxpayer dole are treated unlike anyone else?

    So about your questionable logic: (1) you think Mann is a scoundrel, and (2) you know he uses taxpayer money, which reduces to: (3) you know of a taxpayer funded scientist who you think is a scoundrel but (4) you think he should police himself or be policed by his collaborators.

    That about cover it?

  68. Snapple [August 30, 2010 at 4:39 pm] says:

    Mr. Cuccinelli should follow the lead of the American statesman George Shultz, instead of toadying to the destructive sponsors of the pseudoscientific denialist movement. He should be defending scientists from persecution, not setting the mob on them at taxpayer expense.

    Taxpayers are the mob thank you very much. This is the direction we are headed so you better get used to it. Stand in front of this freight train at your own peril. Taxpayers are finally waking up and they are the last line of defense to the socialist onslaught. We must make it so dangerous and painful to go near taxpayer dollars that it becomes a last resort, instead of the only resort.

    The probe by Cuccinelli is a miniscule baby step towards getting taxpayer accountability, much more pain is required. If a scientist or anyone accepts one single penny of TAXPAYER money they better be fearing that the wrath of god will descend upon them if they squander/lie/cheat/distort/waste/etc ad nauseum. If Mann is the first so be it, but he will not be the last.

    Why don’t you just be honest with your left-wing self and say this: How dare you taxpayers try to police and account for your donations to the state! Don’t you know it is for the greater good?

    When you grow up and begin to write checks of five and six figures to state and federal government EVERY year (not to mention property/school taxes) then come back and talk to me. In the meantime switch your handle from Snapple (what, was koolaid already taken?) to Twinkie.

  69. Once the grant money has been spent and the peer-reviewed papers have been published it’s really too late. I suggest the following steps for scientists at state supported universities in Virginia. 1. copy (“cc”) the AG on all email messages. 2) Send manuscripts to the AG for approval before submission to journals. 3) Ask the AG for advice on statistical analysis. 4) Sent grant accounting documentation to the AG’s office for analysis and approval. This should be a good beginning.

  70. Snapple wrote:

    “Cuccinelli calls himself a “conservative,” but there is nothing conservative about destroying American scientists and discrediting their research research with fabricated “fraud” charges. ”

    “… He should be defending scientists from persecution…”

    Snapple, let me set you straight on two quick things, so maybe we could get over this. First, it isn’t the “charge” that discredits the research, it is the “investigation.” If there’s no misconduct, there’s no negative result. It’s that simple.

    Second, nobody should be defending scientists from persecution. The scientific method does that. If they followed the scientific method, then there can be no success for an investigation. If they didn’t… Then they shouldn’t be scientists. Pretty simple, no?

  71. “”Cuccinelli calls himself a “conservative,” but there is nothing conservative about destroying American scientists and discrediting their research research with fabricated “fraud” charges.””

    “He should be defending scientists from persecution.”

    1) Charge doesn’t discredit, investigations do.
    2) Nobody should be defending scientists. If they did their work right under the scientific method, then they are defended. If they didn’t, then they aren’t scientists and they should be investigated.

  72. Rob:

    “The only difference would be that Mann’s carreer is finished.
    Is that what you guys are after ?”

    Yes, of course, for the sin of obstruction, obfuscation, bullying, instead of doing what a scientist should do.. admit the mistake, correct it, and move on. Mann fired himself when he did that. The end of his carreer is just the logical outcome.

  73. As Blade said, the taxpayer is the mob. Everyone has experienced some force from the government over the global warming fraud. The reports of research on global warming extend beyone the university and the grants, that information is intended to lead to major changes in our lives and even our freedom to decide for ourselves. If the science is bad then the laws passed based on bad science are an abomination. Scientists who do not put all their proof out there for review are better to keep it to themselves. With all your skill you still have a responsibility to the public and to your credit most of you are.

  74. ” Dr Mann was found to have done his job properly.”

    Ahhh… Ummm…. NO.

    Paulw displays his fundamental bias here.

    Dr. Mann was found to have done his job SHODDILY, but not improperly enough to warrant more than a whitewashed slap on the wrist. That is a FAR CRY from doing one’s job “properly”.

  75. Snapple,

    You are obviously a stooge for the “climate-change” industry. In fact, Joe Romm probably pays you to post here.

    That being said, keep in mind that Mann was awarded millions of dollars in government grants, and the government is filled with criminals, so his millions in grant money far exceed any paltry $55,000 you are alluding to.

  76. Bill D.

    Not a bad idea… the AG of the Commonwealth of Virginia would probably do a far more honest “peer review” than so-called “climate scientists” do for each other’s papers… I think it definitely has some merit!

  77. Considering the way this case and the circus of inquiries have been handled I’m beginning to wonder if organized crime isn’t a contributing factor.

  78. Snapple says:
    August 30, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    Your link, which you offer to support your view, has nothing to do with the NAS, Wegman, M&M investigation by Congress. It is a stand-alone report from 2006 by a 12 member committee assembled by North. It is rife with factual errors and reeks of misconceptions peddled by AGW mainstreamers, most of which have all been dealt with and refuted on this site and others…with facts. It does have salient and concise points concerning the MBH 98/99 conclusions:
    ___________________
    NAS 2006
    “However, the substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming.”

    “Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.”

    “We also question some of the statistical choices made in the original papers by Dr. Mann and his colleagues.” (Recall that during the M&M, Wegman, and North testimonies before congress that North was asked directly, “Do you agree with the Wegman conclusions?” he stated catagorically, “Yes”.)

    “One significant part of the controversy on this issue is related to data access. The
    collection, compilation, and calibration of paleoclimatic proxy data represent a
    substantial investment of time and resources, often by large teams of researchers.”

    “The committee recognizes that access to research data is a complicated, discipline-dependent issue, and that access to computer models and methods is especially challenging because intellectual property rights must be considered.”

    “Our view is that all research benefits from full and open access to published
    datasets and that a clear explanation of analytical methods is mandatory.” (Mann never did and still has not been held accountable)

    “Peers should have access to the information needed to reproduce published results, so that increased confidence in the outcome of the study can be generated inside and outside the scientific community”. (Mann never has and still has not been held accountable)

    “Paleoclimate research would benefit if individual researchers, professional societies, journal editors, and funding agencies continued their efforts to ensure that existing open access practices are followed.” (Few have, and still have not been held accountable)
    ____________________

    They also catagorically state that they believe “man-made” global warming is occurring. IMHO it is not the best of strategies to defend your point from within a camp that blatantly supports your (wrong) conclusions from the outset. That’s already been done as we have seen, with predictable outcomes: whitewash.

    Are you in Russia? Are you an expatriot? We’re wondering about all the references: where are you coming from with this? If you’re not living there, please go. You are part of the problem.

    It’s obvious where your loyalties lie. Mr. Cuccinelli represents an opportunity for the TRUTH to be exposed: that our tax dollars were used fraudulently, are being used fraudently and we want it to stop NOW!

    My feeling, at this point in the game, and after the monumental amount of outright lies and misinformation that has issued from this person and his camp that Mr. Cuccinelli is uniquely suited to bust this wide open given the very reasons you try to discredit him with:

    I almost hope he does have “criminal” (mob?) ties as it will most likely take the same techniques used by AGW believers to bring this eddifice of smoke and mirrors down.

  79. ” He should be defending scientists from persecution, not setting the mob on them at taxpayer expense.”

    Snapple,

    ONE of the jobs of a State AG is to ensure that the money belonging to the taxpayers of the State is spent wisely and honestly, not fraudulently. Obviously you completely fail to understand this.

  80. Blade is absolutly correct.

    We, the taxpayers, ARE the mob, and we should not only expect, but DEMAND proper accountability for what our taxes are being used for. If there is even the slightest reason to SUSPECT that our tax money is being used on downright shoddy, perhaps even fraudulent “research”, then it is the JOB of the State AG to investigate such things on behalf of the tax-payers.

    Snapple completely failed civics apparently.

  81. I don’t see any need for either side of this argument to get upset over the ruling. The judge just verified the right of the public to investigate the use of public funds while indicating that the complaintant had not properly processed his work.

    This is not persecution of Mann, nor is it vindication for Cuccinelli; it’s just the legal process following a well structure process.

    However, I’m tired of the repeated theme that the skeptics are backed by big corporations, big oil, etc. Check to see who has signed on for cap and trade – BP, GE, Exxon, etc. They expect to make money off this pyramid scheme.

    If the key is to conserve energy, I’d rather just pay direct, higher energy taxes so they go straight to government instead of through the Cap and Steal middle men.

  82. The AG need to tone down his personal ‘involvement’ and just send in a couple new law school grads and a few old accountants. If there’s anything, they’ll find it for him.

  83. Theo Barker says:
    August 30, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    The “county” judge is just the first level it has to go through. Just because the Commonwealth AG (Cuccinelli) instigated the inquiry, does not mean it goes directly to the Virginia Supreme Court. The AG is just the highest ranking lawyer in the Commonwealth government, not a special litigator.

  84. My earlier comment got quite a lot of criticism. I was called ‘thick’ and a ‘sockpuppet’, and I am just a commenter.

    I think that some of us have particular views that are not strongly linked to science. This weakens our critical view of the scientific results.

    It might help to take the survey by the University of Western Australia, on attitudes towards science. Then, we can debate on the survey results and hopefully help our efforts. The URL to the survey is

    http://www.kwiksurveys.com/online-survey.php?surveyID=HKMKNF_991e2415

  85. paulw,

    I took the survey; however didn’t see the results. Noted that while most questions were balanced, some seemed biased.

    Just FYI, I’m not a scientist, but a mechanical engineer with a BS. I believe I understand the scientific method, and I’ve had more than enough thermo, chemistry and physics to understand the issues presented with climate change. I just see way too much spin, too many people profitting and a lack of openness to believe the CA portion of CAGW.

  86. failed to show a sufficient “reason to believe” that UVa possessed any documents related to Mann that suggested a fraud occurred.

    um, aren’t the requested documents supposed to be the evidence of fraud? if the uva thinks they are innocent, why doesn’t mann just turn them over the documents, vindicate himself, and end the whole charade?

    geez, if mann got pulled over in his car any two bit judge would issue a search warrant for no reason at all. i guess that’s “justice” in america.

    go figure.

  87. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
    August 31, 2010 at 8:19 am

    “ONE of the jobs of a State AG is to ensure that the money belonging to the taxpayers of the State is spent wisely and honestly, not fraudulently. Obviously you completely fail to understand this.”

    He understands it perfectly. He just doesn’t think it applies to climate scientists. Well, maybe some climate scientists – if it was Lindzen on the receiving end Snapple would be snapping with delight, and no mistake.

  88. So if I have it right Mann wrote a paper in 1998 that was the first attempt to reconstruct a temperature history using various proxies. Some people found his statistical manipulations inelegant but a subsequent examination of his work by the National Academy of Sciences found that though there were better statistical methods available none of them would have had a profound impact on his paper’s conclusions.

    Then some emails were stolen or leaked which proved beyond measure that even climate scientists have bad hair days but really didn’t reveal anything more than bad tempered fraustration with unacustomed attention.

    ‘Hide the decline’ and ‘Michael’s nature trick’ became, in the eyes of many the wooden stake through the heart of AGW. Yet months down the track after several investigations or white washes (depending on your contact with reality) the physical evidence of AGW continues to be collated.

    Now we have a DA who can’t lay a glove on the science but feels in the depths of his heart that a fraud must have been perpetrated. Only he doesn’t have any evidence as yet. And the only reason he doesn’t have the evidence is that the University will not roll over and deliver to him everything that Michael Mann and any one connected to Mann has ever written whilst Mann was engaged in publicly funded research at the University.

    Some on this blog have said that in the interests of transparency the University should deliver, utilising the logic that where there is smoke there must be fire. This is similar to the medieval justification of torture, for God would not allow suspicion to fall upon the innocent and so it followed where there was suspicion guilt lurked closely.

    However we know that Mann is guilty (leaving aside the perturbing thought that when the only acceptable verdict is guilty some one has just thrown natural justice out of the ninth floor window) not because we find his science unsettling but because…well just because.

    Perhaps rather than cheering on a politically motivated inquisition we might ask ourselvs if the science is so shabby that it can only be supported by fraud then it can’t be that hard to overturn it, can it? I mean its not that hard to identify all the journals that participate in the dissemination of this fraud. Its not that hard to read the papers and put your finger on the flaw/fraud, is it?

    Perhaps the DA should be making application to the courts to grant him access to the university’s subscriptions of the various academic journals in which Mann has published so that he might extend his writ.

  89. Bishop Hill links to an article from Virginia Qui Tam Law.com:

    Pick your own title: “Former UVa Scientist Michael Mann is Proven Correct, and Human Activity Really is Causing the Earth to Warm” or “Virginia Circuit Court Judge Sets Aside Portions of Civil Investigative Demand”

    There are very good reasons for this, because this epic battle over this CID is much ado about nothing. Even if a target “wins” and the CID gets set aside, they haven’t really won anything at all, because a CID is just a preliminary investigative tool…

    …even if a party fighting a CID wins and successfully quashes the CID, guess what? They may not have to respond to the CID, but they have spent thousands and thousands of dollars, and the winning prize is normally a freshly-filed lawsuit by the OAG. And then, as soon as discovery begins in the case, the OAG will ask for exactly the same materials they requested in the CID. At that point, the defendant will have no choice but to produce the material.

    OK S.

  90. Djozar: I took the survey; however didn’t see the results. Noted that while most questions were balanced, some seemed biased.

    Normally with such surveys they collect submissions over a period of time and publish a paper or report once they process the data. For the survey to work, they probably need a representative sample of contributors.

    I hope the results of the survey show a balanced view of what people believe about science. It is important to stick to science in this debate and leave out politics and personal feuds/beliefs.

  91. marco says:
    August 31, 2010 at 2:55 pm
    “…Then some emails were stolen or leaked which proved beyond measure that even climate scientists have bad hair days but really didn’t reveal anything more than bad tempered fraustration with unacustomed attention.

    ‘Hide the decline’ and ‘Michael’s nature trick’ became, in the eyes of many the wooden stake through the heart of AGW. Yet months down the track after several investigations or white washes (depending on your contact with reality) the physical evidence of AGW continues to be collated…”

    Sorry Marco, but I think you have not grasped the issues at all. Your paranthetical comment concerning “depending on your contact with reality” is telling. Careful, your projection is showing.

    Rob says:
    August 31, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    And Rob, if Marco is the voice of reason as you claim…well I just certainly hope you two will go back and do your homework. Have either of you actually read the Wegman Report to Congress? Have either of you actually read the Climategate emails, or the most recent M&W paper?

    I would think not, else you would not be so blithe in your summary of the events.

    I ve included a link (see bottom of post) through CA of the actual Wegman Report so you can brush up. Pay close attention to the graph’s plotting various allegiances of climate scientists, with Mann et al, starting on page 38 figures 5.1 and on. These pages explain the ‘why’ of all the frustration and agnst (as well as the “whitewash” comments by myself and others) some of us experience, knowing what ‘natural justice’ is and wanting to see it done.

    And Climategate revealed to the world that the “Go-to” authority (vis-a-vis CRU/Mann), THE source for global temeratures that national governments worldwide have used to oppress many of their people with useless taxes (See the EPA Tesla thread on this site for a recent example) and fines, actually “made-up” (as in ‘out-of-thin-air’) data (see comments by ‘Harry the programer’ included with the Climategate emails). Read the emails.

    Were/are you aware that the now defunct Waxman-Markey bill outlined carbon impact taxation on hot-tubs that contained 50 gallons of water or more? What next, the dishwasher? A shower? The toilet? YOUR tax dollars. Thank god it has been shelved…but for how long?

    Only by attempting to maintain the momentum that was started, IMO, by the M&M papers, momentum that was fueled by the Wegman and North Reports to Congress, Climategate, and now the recent M&W paper we may be able to FINALLY expose these charlatans. I use the word may because with the current state of affairs: MSM ignorance of the facts and the clearly biased results of the various so-called “inquiries”.

    This blog and others are attempting to: restore the scientific method, restore reason and objectivity to the peer-review process, restore some semblance of sanity to this debate, restore a sound perspective on what we actually know and don’t know about the climate, and to also stop oppressive taxation that has been shown, time and again, will not achieve any of the goals for their stated purpose.

    BTW – “…even climate scientists have bad hair days”(???) Have you even seen a picture of M. Mann??! :>O Puhleeeze…

    http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/07142006_wegman_report.pdf

  92. Hey ‘Rob’& ‘Marco’,

    Here’s an example and link (there’s tons, just bling or google ‘climategate emails, harry the programmer’). Read carefully because this is what FRAUD looks like, sounds like, smells like, etc. I didn’t think you were serious about getting the facts so I thought I’d try and help you out in case you came back to follow-up.

    Double quotation marks are ‘Harry’s’ actual notes released with the Climategate emails, single quotation marks are the ‘oneutah.org’ authors comments.

    “Here is an example of actual code from the CRU. Try explaining this away warmers…”

    ;
    ; “”Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
    ;
    yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
    valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
    2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
    (…)
    ;
    ; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
    ;
    yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
    densall=densall+yearlyadj””

    “‘valadj’ is an array that if we plug in the numbers we get Michael Mann’s hockeystick. The programmers have hard coded a predetermined result. So now when they plug the actual numbers in no matter what they are it will always result in the hockeystick even if temperatures remained the same.”

    “For example. Just for the sake of arguement lets say the average temperature remained constant at 70 degrees last century. When you run the numbers through their “fudge factor” you still get a hockey stick. Even a decline in temperatures would still result in a hockeystick. Way to hide the decline!”

    “Just imagine if there really was global warming and they ran those numbers through the magic global warming program then we would really be frying.”

    Link:

    http://oneutah.org/2009/11/28/climategate-source-code-more-damning-than-emails/

    What do you think? Is it a duck or not? At the oneutah.org site they even have graphs illistrating the examples mentioned. Go see, read, and understand. It’s worse than you thought. ;-)

  93. Gaylon,

    You threw in everything but the kitchen sink, so it’s kind of hard for me to address each issue you raised and put it into proper context in just a few paragraphs.

    To answer your question about what I’ve read, yes. I read the Wegman report, the emails, the inquiry reports, and the recent McShane and Wyner paper.
    And I read (and understand) a large number of peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject, including the papers from skeptics (Lindzen, Spencer etc).

    I also read the spin generated by Morano at climatedepot, Dellingpole at the Telegraph and further spinned by a spectrum of other blogs and Fox News.
    We don’t get Limbaugh here in California, or else I would have also listened to what he had to say, if it were only to see how media egos misrepresent scientific findings and feel misinformation to the public.

    Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your point of view), I’m not very sensitive to spin and politics and media ego’s. I was born in the low lands of Holland, face in the wind, two feet on the ground, two strong arms and a good head on the shoulders.

    Where I come from, you can’t go running around blaming top notch scientists like Mann claiming “FRAUD” and “charlatans” and worse by taking snippets of text out of context.
    Any public statement made by anyone in my view needs to be validated by real evidence.

    For starters, did you not study the scientific responses (and the results of the inquiries) on each of the issues or do you simply ignore these to validate your own beliefs ?

    Let’s take ONE example that you mentioned :

    “‘Hide the decline’ and ‘Michael’s nature trick’ became, in the eyes of many the wooden stake through the heart of AGW”

    As you very well should know, the ‘trick’ refers to NOT plotting treering data after 1960 in the Hockey Stick graph, because tree rings show a ‘decline’ in growth after 1960 and do not follow instrumental temperature data any more (most likely due to increased sulfur oxides and other air pollution since 1960).
    Incidentally, if CO2 were so “good for plants” as is often claimed as an argument to increase CO2 emissions, then the only thing ‘hidden’ with this ‘trick’ is the fact that CO2 is not the only factor determining tree growth.
    That ligit, and Mann/Briffa could have done a better job explaining exactly what they did, but it does not change one bit about the graph nor the temperature reconstruction.
    What did you think it meant ?

    Besides, where in Mann’s paper does the ‘trick’ to ‘hide the decline’ actually show up ? And which difference does it make ?

    Overall, I think that too many people here draw too many conclusions from way too little evidence.
    The real problem is the media egos and blogs that take tiny details way out of context and spin it into insane fiction stories.

    All connection to science and facts and reason is lost in the process, to the point where the AG can’t even state the nature of his own allegations against our own scientists.

    Stop your empty allegations, and let our scientists do their work.

  94. Gaylon
    Yes I have read the Wegman report and yes I read the network analysis. My ability in maths and statistics could be easily challanged by a kitten and so I found it a hard going read.

    Though I do remember being struck by the idea that a network analysis seemed to be a very peculiar thing to do for if Mann’s statistical competence was so lacking then a demonstration of such incompetence would be sufficient. Why anyone would find it necessary to analyse his professional network to underscore his error struck me not only as irrelevant but bizarre. You are either wrong or right regardless.

    Are we really surprised that specialist areas of study are not characterised by large groups of people and that these people are found in specialist centers of limited numbers. Think of the golden age of physics all the action was basically taking place at the Cavendish, in Copenhagen and in Gottingen.

    However I digress a little, as I admitted before I’m no great shakes with the numbers and that’s why I have to really be careful. But may I ask why you give precedence to Wegman rather than to the National Academy of Sciences. You of course can ask me the same and I doubt either of us will convince the other as to the supremacy of our respective reasoning but we must at least allow that two competent authorities have come to two different conclusions and it is in that contradiction that the charge of fraud withers. What we have is a scientific dispute…no?

    Have I read all the climate gate emails? What all 168 megabytes? No. But I have read many of them. I’ve also read the Russell report and perused the extensive archived submissions made to the enquiry by both antagonistic and supportive parties. But here’s the problem, according to your lights if I find the report credible then I’m a…warmist. Whereas I think we have a difference of opinion. What we don’t have is a fraud.

    I am not a US citizen and so was unaware how a paper published in 1998 reconstructing past temperatures impacts upon your tax obligations. I only note that since the paper was published your tax freedom day now falls earlier in the year (1998 c May 2 – 2010 April 9). So when you talk about this paper being an element in supporting oppresive taxation you may want to hide this particular decline.

    Thanks for the advice regarding harry the programmer. I googled the phrase ‘Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!’ and you’re right I couldn’t believe what I read. As quote mining goes if the oneutah boys and girls were after diamonds they’d be zillionares. But joking aside when somebody selectively quotes and through that selective quotation distorts the truth then that is a percursor to fraud if not fraud itself.

    And by the way CRU is not ‘THE source for global temeratures…’ it is one of four bodies that measure the global temp the other three being GISS, RSS and Dr Roy’s UAH which all show basically the same thing…ahem…cough…warming. But again no sign of fraud.

  95. Rob says:

    We don’t get Limbaugh here in California, or else I would have also listened to what he had to say, if it were only to see how media egos misrepresent scientific findings and feel [sic] misinformation to the public. Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your point of view), I’m not very sensitive to spin and politics…

    First, Limbaugh is available in every location in the U.S. You won’t listen to contrary points of view, though, because your mind is already made up — as you clearly demonstrate in your baseless assumption: “media egos misrepresent scientific findings.” If you refuse to listen, how would you know if anything is “misinformation”?

    In fact, far from being insensitive to “spin,” you are deliberately perpetuating it. You say, “I think that too many people here draw too many conclusions from way too little evidence.” You are clearly describing yourself. And as you are finding out, word games like that don’t get an easy pass on the internet’s “Best Science” site. Further, you state that correcting the hockey stick ‘mistakes’ do not “change one bit about the graph nor the temperature reconstruction.” Oh, really?

    Marco,

    Since you’re put off by mathematics, I suggest you read A.W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. There is no math involved. And you will come away understanding that the entire mainstream climate scam is based on dishonesty, from the IPCC, to Michael Mann, to Gavin Schmidt, to RealClimate, to every three comment warmist blog that censors contrary points of view — which includes almost all of them.

    Montford documents his exposé of corruption and fraud with numerous emails written by many different individuals, whose obvious concern is keeping the taxpaying public ignorant, so they continue to shovel money into the pockets of those gaming the system.

    Contrary to your belief, Montford doesn’t rely on ‘selective’ quotes; he shows conclusively that the IPCC’s and the climate journals’ written policies are routinely violated by the same bureaucrats, editors and referees who deviously shirk their obligation to abide by their own stated policies.

    For a taste of The Hockey Stick Illusion, read Montford’s article here:

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

    It is short and damning. The official shenanigans exposed in his book are similar and far more numerous, including getting colleagues fired for the ‘crime’ of having a different opinion regarding AGW, and conniving to blackball journals that don’t toe the CAGW line.

    Finally, your defense of the multiple whitewashes of Michael Mann all fail based on the same verifiable fact: none of those Potemkin Village-style cover-ups has ever allowed a critic of Mann to be a part of the proceedings. Not a single one. Every individual was selected based on their not rocking the boat. If that is your idea of an honest investigation, you are hopelessly naive; they were simply official cover-ups. Or maybe like Rob, your mind is already made up, and you refuse to let uncomfortable facts get in the way.

  96. I’m sorry but America’s AGW congregation is grasping at straws. Anyone wanting to question “monies from criminals” only needs start with the current incarnation of POTUS to be overwhelmed. Anyone giving a pass to the way Mann was investigated “inhouse” by his own people can’t say a word about Enron, BP, Sunncor, Eon and every other component of their “Big Energy” boogeyman any more. Their “inhouse” investigations are as above board as anything Mann has been involved with.

  97. Over the last 30 years I’ve been involved in scientific controversies as an author, peer reviewer, and editor. Sometimes scientists get angry and personal over disagreements. Sometimes new ideas about the best statistical approaches are important. Generally, scientists support their side of controversies by publishing peer reviewed articles. In no cases that I am aware of, have scientists suggested that other scientist’s publications were based fraudunlent grants or that scientific controversies should be settled by courts or politicians. In my view, the VA AG knows zero about science is just a political hack.

  98. Rob says:
    September 1, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    Wow…
    The context that you so adamantly state is taken out of context is right there in front of you. How can you (rhetorical question: we know how) look right into the face of Manns nature trick and not see it? Again, a rhetorical question: we know how. That is the code man! Any data, numbers, random noise, street addresses, or phone numbers punched into that code produces a hockey stick shape. That is a fact. That is the “trick”!

    As you state it,
    “As you very well should know, the ‘trick’ refers to NOT plotting treering data after 1960 in the Hockey Stick graph, because tree rings show a ‘decline’ in growth after 1960 and do not follow instrumental temperature data any more (most likely due to increased sulfur oxides and other air pollution since 1960).”

    Apparently you have been on the recieving end of some “misinformation”, no one disputs that our climate had warmed in the late 20th century (0.7C), and it has nothing to do with what happened “after 1960″, as you say. It has to do with the disappearing of the MWP and LIA, hence the “magic” of the “trick” that produces the straight shaft on the hockey stick (see Smokey’s link above for the corrected version). (I won’t even start on the reasoning that if the recent proxies diverged from the temperature record how does it then validate the past proxies). Your comment above does not address the issue at all, it circumvents it as you digress into sophistry about C02 for plant food (?).

    [snip]

  99. Smokey

    I’m not put off by maths I’m simply no good at it but nonetheless amuse myself endlessly by following any number of online maths courses and screwing them up royaly. I’m actually a maths wannabe. If there were maths bars I’d probably hang out at them and try and pick up…but that’s probably a little off topic.

    You said:
    ‘Contrary to your belief, Montford doesn’t rely on ‘selective’ quotes;’

    I haven’t mentioned Montford and didn’t know who he was until you posted the link. I’ll give it a read. However let me note that disgust with selective quotation is not a faith based system….I don’t belive something has been selsctively quoted I see the evidence by examining the original quote in its original context.

    You gave me some reading homework so here’ s some in exchange:

    http://www.cce-review.org/index.php

    Read the submissions as well.

    Describing the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Inquiry as Potemkin village…well not sure about that one. Your experience at different blogs is different to mine as I have seen any number of dissenting voices. And I have seen charge and counter charge of censorship but as most blog operators point out this is their virtual house and its their rules. Can you really claim that people opposed to the theroy of AGW are being shut out of the debate – when you see the way the polls are going I think the opposition to AGW is doing just dandy.

    But please reread your first paragraph. That is quite a conspiracy you’ve described there. You accuse me of being naive, let me caution you against sheepish credulity. The conspiracy you describe is simply ridiculous it requires the complicity of thousands of different people across many different national boundaries all working to what end?

    Ohh of course the great global tax eating conspiracy. Because it is axiomatic that a reconstruction of past temperatures leads inexorably to higher taxation and because it leads to higher taxation it must be a fraud. We have now entered the realm of Monty Python.

    Let’s concede for the moment that AGW has been proven beyond doubt. Why is it that the only policy response is higher taxation? The first thing you’d might consider is to charge the full external cost of carbon production to both producers and consumers. This would stimulate investment in alternative production (and might even free up the green kneejerk reaction against nuclear). The point being that there are any number of market based instuments that could stimulate the desired out come of moving away from a carbon economy.

    You don’t need a conspiracy to effect this you just need a policy debate. And in a policy debate a difference of perspective is not FRAUD no matter how offensive you find it.

    Both you and Gaylon have made a big deal of the Mann case from the perspective of its impact on something wholly unrelated; tax burden. Who is allowing their ideological baggage to obscure a thoroughly skeptical response?

    Skepticism cuts both ways. When it only cuts one way it’s not skepticism its special pleading.

    However I am sure that I have tried everyone’s patience enough and wish you all the best.

  100. Smokey,
    The link you give to the ‘corrected’ version of the hockey stick graph is from McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) (M&M 2003). That paper has some very serious flaws, one of which is that they discarded 70% of the proxy data. I won’t call that ‘fraud’, just a misunderstanding, for which M&M were corrected by Rutherford et.al (2005). But flawed as it is, did you notice that M&M graph stops somewhere in around 1950 or 1960 or so ? The steep increase (0.4 C or so recorded with instrument data) over the past 50 years is simply absent from their graph.
    So, even M&Ms fabricated MWP is thus cooler than the world is today. Whatsupwiththat ?

    And Gaylon :
    you think that the “hide the decline” trick refers to the MWP and LIA, but you give no reference or reasoning why that would be the case. Let me guess : McIntyre’s paper ?

    Also : your charished Harry did not work for Mann’s project. The inquiry reports mention that he was working on a aerospace project IIRC.

    Mann did not need to artificially create a hockey stick blade. The instrument data over the past 100 years provides that blade all by itself.

    And for both of you : If you really feel that your references or knowledge provides any evidence of fraud, then by all means, tell Cuccinelli. He is desperate. Please help the guy out before he realizes what the rest of the nation already knew from the start : that Climategate was a big bubble of air…

  101. I sincerely doubt that Cuccinelli is “deperate”, since he is just starting the process, Read some of the threads above for some other view points.

    I do owe you an apoplgy however, I wrote my previos post in haste and largely from memory. When I re-read it this morning I was horrified. I typically proof read before hitting the ‘Post Comment’ and I didn’t.

    Mod – Thanks for the snip.

    On your the point of the divergence in 1960: you are correct, my point on the straight shaft was disjointed, at best.

    On the point of ‘Harry': he worked for the CRU and there is more than one example in his ‘Read Me’ files stating that he discussed specific programming issues with “Phil”, also recieving direction from him. I suppose that out of the 30 or so people working at the CRU there might have been another person named “Phil”, other than the one we all know, that might have given this programmer direction on how to “fix” the deplorable state of the CRU databases.

    I also want to offer another agreement: we are free to disagree, and at what point do we find common ground? No need to answer, until our state of knowledge concerning the climate advances beyond its current level of relative infancy; contradictions will endure. There will always be people trying to seek advantage from one thing or another.

    It is interesting to me the number of people willing to accept CAGW in spite of the evidence to the contrary. I am a worker, I pay taxes, have a family, etc, etc. So when I hear/read that AGW may/is not happening I get encouraged and hopeful. And yes: I get biased; I want to believe it’s not happening.

    A part of me finds it difficlult to grasp that a trace gas in an atmosphere with around 7000 trillion tons of mass can boil the oceans and destroy life on the planet. Another part of me asserts that if CAGW were real, factual and “settled” that there would be no controversy. We would ALL hunker down and do what we could without hesitation. But you don’t see the CAGW crowd doing this. Mr. Gore buys a luxury condo in the SF Bay area, an area he says will soon be underwater(?). So, in my mind, something is afoot. People (Gore, Pachy, Oxburgh, the UN et al) have something to gain and they want it VERY badly. And what do people in places of power do when they want something, to what lengths will they go? I know you are aware of history.

    I don’t want myself or my children (or anyone else for that matter) paying higher taxes for carbon based on a warming climate when GST’s are flat or declining (depending on start and end dates chosen), SST’s are dropping, la Nina is deepening and Sol is apparently in a Maunder type minimum. Just doesn’t make sense.

    In closing let me ask that you, in the privacy of your mind, agree that there is contradictory evidence out there. The science is far from settled. I will concede that perhaps Mr. Mann did not commit outright fraud, by the legal definition. Perhaps this was all done in ignorance and he refused to release his methods and code for honorable reasons (what could those be after all this time and controversy?).

    I would ask that you concede, or at least consider that this climate science debate is intimately tied to a political agenda: if AGW is passed off as real we will all pay through the nose. We, the taxpayers, are paying for the research and we, the taxpayers, will pay for mitigation, and we, the taxpayers will lose personal freedoms tied to our/your lifestyles.

    Too much has been taken from us by governments already, when does it stop?

    Moving on to another thread, see you guys later. Hope you stick around.

  102. Gaylon

    I don’t know if you’ll pop back on this thread but in any case I’ll post this.

    I think what you said about the political agendas that arise from the science is for me the nub. Though I don’t see one amorphous agenda I see lots of competeing agendas. Sometimes well supported by the science and at times only scarcely.

    For instance I really feel queasy when I look at the trumpeting of wind power. In Europe the wind power lobby has been massively successful in riding on the back of climate unease. The subsidies paid to make it appear ‘economic’ are extremely costly and yet its track record in abating emissions is simply piss poor. When you compare France (nuclear) and Denmark (wind), French emissions for energy production are roughly twice that of Denmark though France’s population is more than ten times greater. Have a peek at Scotland, its wind capacity exceeds that of its nuclear capacity and yet wind provides less than 7 percent of its electricity while nuclear bumps around 25 to 32 per cent.

    Conversely I see all the energy the oil lobby expends in trying to diss the science. As a historically cheap high density fuel nobody is going to deny the massive importance of oil to the development of the western economies (and coal of course). But there are a suite of energy technologies that can deliver high density returns that would become reasonably attractive if the external cost of oil was charged. One way to keep that off the agenda is to throw up so much flack about the science pretty much the way our friends in tobacco did so many years ago (and yep I’m a hypocrite, I smoke and here in Italy I love nothing more than tearing down the autostrada tipping the clock at a 100 and still getting 35 -40 mpg).

    So in short I more than appreciate your unease in seeing how one debate can get hijacked by another and how a vital clarity can be lost (in fact I more than appreciate it I share it). So I’ll always be happy to discuss the science but not what either of us might think or fear is the motive behind the science.

    cheers

    Marco

  103. Alan Drennan says:
    September 4, 2010 at 7:44 am

    According to , Judge Peatross is hopelessly conflicted by the fact that his wife is an ex-employee of Mann’s department at the UVA. She has edited material published in the Climate Change arena for Mann’s colleagues.
    _____________________________________________
    Thanks,

    It shows just how corrupt our whole political system has become. Of course that is nothing new. The guy with the money and/or political pull always gets a get out of jail free card. Reminds me of Senator Kennedy and Mary Jo Kopechne The left lament that the events surrounding Kopechne’s death damaged Kennedy’s reputation. The rest of us just wish an autopsy had been performed.

  104. If Cuccinelli believes there is/was a ‘conflict of interest’ with Judge Peatross then I’m sure he will know how to address that legally.

    Until then, Judge Peatross’ judgement still stands and was rather clear :
    – Cuccinelli should state the reason for his belief that Mann committed fraud.
    – Only grant applications that involved state money are to be considered (which means the claim affects at most only one (1) of Mann’s research papers)
    – The information that Cuccinelli can get is restricted to emails regarding the grant application, and NOT the entire email box from Mann as Cuccinelli demanded.

    That known, I am not sure how anyone can claim ‘victory’ for Cuccinelli (as is suggested in some of the responses here), and I doubt there will be any more CIDs issued by Cuccinelli.

    Either way, since an AG cannot simply demand a scientist’s email box without reason, this is a clear victory for conducting science without running a risk of being attacked by legal hawks that don’t agree with your scientific findings.

  105. I did some research and learned that Cuccinelli’s father is a former marketing executive at the American Gas Association–the gas lobby. Now the elder Cuccinelli has an advertising/marketing company that probably also serves natural gas clients because the father’s expertise in that area is touted. It is even noted that Cuccinelli’s father has another business with clients in “Europe.” Maybe these “European” clients include natural gas companies such as the Russian Gazprom.

    The father’s company gave Cuccinelli over 96,000 dollars for his campaign.

    I am wondering if there is some conflict of interest here and if Cuccinelli has hijacked the AG office for the financial benefit of his family.

    I remember that Congressman Weldon lobbied for the Russian-American gas company Itera, and his daughter got 500,000 dollars in “consulting fees.”
    Sometimes professional services can be a way to disguise bribes, so the FBI raided Itera and investigated Weldon.

    I think the federal authorities should investigate the possible conflict of interest as they did with Weldon.

    Here are some details with links of what I found out.

    http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/09/attorney-general-cuccinellis-daddy-and.html

    The claim that US scientists are greedy and corrupt is a staple of Russian propaganda. Remember when the KGB finally admitted that they had spread the lie that the Pentagon scientists made AIDS to kill blacks?

    Izvestiya (3-19-92) reported:
    “[Russian intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov] mentioned the well known articles printed a few years ago in our central newspapers about AIDS supposedly originating from secret Pentagon laboratories. According to Yevgeni Primakov, the articles exposing US scientists’ “crafty” plots were fabricated in KGB offices.”

    The Kremlin-financed English-language propaganda channel Russia Today puts those Western global warming denialists on TV. The Russian natural gas business pays the bills for the Kremlin, so they are protecting their profits.

    The Russian propaganda generally maintains that global warming is a plot to destroy Russia economically. Last fall, President Medvedev called the global-warming debate “some kind of tricky campaign made up by some commercial structures to promote their business projects.”

    Since NASA scientists helped the Russians spot their forest fires this summer, the Russian media has pretty much stopped defaming our scientists as greedy people who tell lies to get government money. Medvedev now says that global warming is happening. One Russian conspiracist claimed there is global warming but our scientists are causing it by beaming “secret climate weapons” at “certain countries” (Russia).

    First our scientists were accused in the Russian press of inventing nonexistent global warming and now they are accused of causing global warming, but evidently Cuccinelli didn’t get the memo.

    I think if Dr. Mann gets his trigger finger on any Buck Rogers “secret climate weapons” his first target won’t be Russia.

Comments are closed.