Cites nearly half a million dollars in state grant-funded climate research conducted while [Dr. Michael ] Mann— now director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State— was at UVA between 1999 and 2005.
From The Hook, it seems satirical YouTube videos will be the least of Dr. Mann’s worries now.
=================
No one can accuse Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli of shying from controversy. In his first four months in office, Cuccinelli directed public universities to remove sexual orientation from their anti-discrimination policies, attacked the Environmental Protection Agency, and filed a lawsuit challenging federal health care reform. Now, it appears, he may be preparing a legal assault on an embattled proponent of global warming theory who used to teach at the University of Virginia, Michael Mann.
In papers sent to UVA April 23, Cuccinelli’s office commands the university to produce a sweeping swath of documents relating to Mann’s receipt of nearly half a million dollars in state grant-funded climate research conducted while Mann— now director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State— was at UVA between 1999 and 2005.
If Cuccinelli succeeds in finding a smoking gun like the purloined emails that led to the international scandal dubbed Climategate, Cuccinelli could seek the return of all the research money, legal fees, and trebled damages.
“Since it’s public money, there’s enough controversy to look in to the possible manipulation of data,” says Dr. Charles Battig, president of the nonprofit Piedmont Chapter Virginia Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment, a group that doubts the underpinnings of climate change theory.
…
The Attorney General has the right to make such demands for documents under the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, a 2002 law designed to keep government workers honest.
=================
more at The Hook
h/t to Chip Knappenberger
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I just have to wonder why Cuccinelli is doing this? I can’t believe he’s just trying to get some money back into the state coffer. Possible reasons?
1. There is some existing knowledge of specific fraud; this investigation is to back it up.
2. Cucinelli wants the publicity.
3. Cucinelli wants to put AGW on trial.
4. There’s a potent political pressure to discredit Mann.
5. His college application was rejected by UVA.
Unless the reason is #1, I’m against this investigation.
Anthony — I think it would be interesting to conduct a quick reader poll of for or against this investigation.
For those worrying about the cost of fees if any funds are recovered: don’t sweat the small stuff. State lawyers aren’t paid on continguency. They are full-time salaried employees of the AG’s office. The state has to pay them anyway, even if they are only deciding how to construct new laws. Would you rather they were calling the SWAT team to prevent Teapartiers from singing “God Bless America?” Let’em do something useful for a change.
TOKYO – The Japanese Coast Guard has obtained an arrest warrant for the leader of the Sea Shepherd environmental group for its disruption of Japan’s annual whale hunts, local media reported Friday
This is off topic but explains this mess. Lisa Jackson, Mann and a carbon crisis cartel have gone too far and we reach a tipping point.
Some of us are conservative and conservationists. We have had enough false accusations about destroying the planet. We have done due diligance and know quacks when we encounter them.
Hopefully the first of many such actions against the ponzi scheme gang. They have ruined so many careers, caused the wasting of $trillion of dollars . . . they all have some ‘splaining to do.
Step 1, it is a good step.
Forget about the multi-trillion dollar fake carbon market
based on fake CAGW. What did he do to science?
For you fawning purists; here you go.
http://www.blip.tv/file/3539174
finally, someone with the courage to go after Mann. go for it.
i have no sympathy for those who argue against it. the battle is FAR from over:
26 April: BBC: Victoria King: Election 2010: Parties do battle over climate change
…for 90 minutes on Monday, Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem and Green representatives went head-to-head on the issue in front of bodies such as Greenpeace, Oxfam, Christian Aid and the WWF. ..
For the Lib Dems, Simon Hughes set his party up as the most ambitious of the main three on green matters. As Mr Miliband put it: “Simon says, ‘My plan is bigger than your plan’.”
There was conflict between Mr Hughes and Darren Johnson of the Greens, possibly because they share many of the same potential voters…
The Ask the Climate Question hustings was chaired by the environment editor of the Independent, Michael McCarthy, with questions ranging from nuclear power to emissions reductions..
***(Clark, Conservatives) “We’re all agreed on the ambitions and aspirations but what’s been lacking is action,” he said, promising to introduce a bill in the Queen’s Speech in a month or so’s time, if elected, to get going straight away.
Mr Clark came under fire for the number of Tory MPs and candidates that are climate change sceptics, but he insisted that wasn’t a problem. Asked about one such sceptic, in particular, he said: “I don’t agree with that guy, I’ve never heard of him.” ..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8644192.stm
29 April: Bloomberg: Deutsche Bank Says Tax Probe Targets Employees Who Trade Emission Credits
Prosecutors and tax investigators yesterday searched Deutsche Bank, HVB Group and RWE AG in a raid on 230 offices and homes to investigate 180 million euros ($238 million) of tax evasion. The probe targeted 150 suspects at 50 companies…
Yesterday’s raids were the biggest related to a fraud that may have tainted an estimated 7 percent of European Union carbon trades in 2009. The U.K., France and the Netherlands have also said they’re investigating “carousel fraud,” where traders buy and sell carbon permits, collect tax and disappear before turning it in to authorities…
http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-04-29/deutsche-bank-says-tax-evasion-probe-targets-seven-trading-floor-suspects.html
For all his flaws I’d never compare Mann to a witch. Perhaps we should give Mann a little credit and call this a hunt for the fox rather than a witch hunt.
One wonders what it was that moved Mann from U Va to Penn State.
This guy portrays one of the reasons I don’t care much for republicans either. They mix good sense with religious drivel, as in what the H E double toothpicks does sexual orientation have to do with anything? Discriminating against that is like telling me I can’t do something because I have red hair. Bizarre. Very bizarre. Anybody who wants to regulate someone else’s life and their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, in any way, shape, or form, should be voted out of office. They are as bad as green democrats and are the other side of the same %&*$ coin!
George E. Smith at 6:13 pm
G, your morally right, as always. And I also detest overbearing government.
And…. I live with one of the premier grant writers in the whole country, has written 100’s of them, been awarded over $200 million and teaches her own grant writing-management courses. Two of the key tenets within those courses are: 1) The grantor can, at any time (and they do!) demand documentation on anything and everything, without cause, and especially HOW YOU ARE SPENDING THE MONEY! 2) If you failed to follow the rules (and there are MANY!) the Grantor can demand back ALL of the money for the smallest of errors, WITHOUT further (legal) action!
There are many ways grant awardees get themselves into trouble. Here are the two most often violated: You must write the grant to the RFP required results and then, if you get awarded, THAT is what you MUST do. In other words every grant/RFP (especially State & Federal) is very specific as to what it wants the awardees to be doing/accomplish. You MUSTY do that and nothing more.
Two, in ALL State & Federal grants (and most large foundation grants) there are budgets with multiple buckets of allocated $$ that are set-out in the grant when it is written. When you get the money you can NOT spend it anyway you want, disregarding what you wrote in the grant request. For example, you run a little short in one bucket because you didn’t underestimate the total of that expenditure, equipment let’s say. No mater how desperate, you CAN NOT take money from another bucket allocated for something else, EVEN if you OVER estimated that one. (Accept in the case of one typically small bucket and then you better check first if it’s okay.)
Do people do it out of ignorance or trying to get away with it? Sure. And every GOOD grant seeker AND ADMINISTRATOR knows and ACCEPTS that, the Grantor (in this case the State of VA via the AG) does not need suspicion of wrong doing, legal precedent, etc. or to have or give ANY reason for requesting the documentation that proves you did nothing wrong. Almost every grant is audited in some way at some point.
AND, UAV admin knows this fact and is ultimately responsible for what was done and how the money was spent. Why? Because it wasn’t given directly to Mann by the State. It was given (probably direct deposited) to UAV. UAV then doled it out. Oh, and kept a hunk for themselves. It’s called – “indirect” or sometimes “administration costs” and typically it’s not audit-able. That’s the small bucket I mentioned above. But it can be 20-30% or more….
While this needs to be done properly and fairly, in view of the fact that PSU completely dropped the ball in their own whitewash of Mann and his scientific misconduct, as documented in the UEA emails, this seems entirely appropriate.
To my mind, Mann’s own conduct in advocating public policy positions based on his misconduct and deception as documented in the Climategate emails has opened him up to this liability.
I had not looked at Mann’s background previously, but he was at UVA 6 years, exactly the time it takes an assistant professor to come up for tenure. Does anybody know if Mann was denied tenure by UVA in 2005. That would be a somewhat delicious bit of irony, and a bit of a belated credit to UVA for turning out this charlatan.
Ian H. at 5;52pm
The Virginia DA just got elected to a [I believe} four year term. I doubt very seriously he is posturing for re-election.
Commenters in general:
I don’t like witch hunts either but suppose the DA has something to go on. I
have been in court, mainly on juries, and Mann’s additude will be a disaster in
a court of law. He’s such a self satisified prick {MODERATOR_ I expect a snip}
I would be surprised if his lawyers can keep him under control.
Of course, the DA might be on a snipe hunt. [Had to get a bird in somehow.] On the other hand’ it would be hilarious if a legal snipe hunt brought down the greatest snipe hunt in history by the hockey stick gang.
Nick Stokes says:
April 29, 2010 at 7:46 pm
“My accusatory tone was directed at the quote from mpaul, who said that Mann stubbornly refuses to release data and code, when he clearly does, recently at least.”
Nope. You’ve changed the tense from the past to the present, ie “he stubbornly refuses”. You quoted mpaul: “But because he has stubbornly refused to release his data, code and methods”. “He has refused” is past tense. “He refuses” is present tense. This becomes more obvious when reading what mpaul said in context. So was this deliberate?
Peter Wilson says:
April 29, 2010 at 7:20 pm
“Is this enquiry going to assess the quality of Mann’s science?”
In my opinion, this would not assess Mann’s ‘science’, only assess scientific fraud, for example,
was “hide-the-decline” data manipulation ?
Did he prevent critics from publishing evidence disproving his findings without a scientific reason?
Did he make untrue statements, though he must have known better?
My first thought is “way to go, Cooch.” My second thought was that it may not be good policy to go after scientists with whom you disagree. However, Mann, violated several of the canons of good scientific research by not being forthcoming with data and methods (see McIntyre, et al) and, apparently, being part of the clique seeking to stifle comment and dissent. Had he been an honest scientist, who presented data and methods and reacted to critique and comment by changing methods or refuting the comments, he would, in my mind, be untouchable. Not the case. His story is almost “the dog ate my homework” when critics tried to get data.
Go, Cooch, wins in this case.
One more thing. As a thinking woman with an appreciative eye, good looking men can become quite ugly quickly when they open their mouths too much.
That said, more power to this man from Virgina regarding global warming and state grants. Go after Mann with guns a-blazing!
Going after the money might be a very good approach to Mann malfeasance. After all it was a tax evasion case which brought down Al Capone. How dare I compare Al Capone to Michael Mann. Have at it trolls and warmists.
I think we’ve been misled intentionally by Hansen, Mann, et al, and that a thorough investigation would show that to be the case. Given the potential ultimate cost to the public of our government adopting all of the AGW recommendations (which might well have happened if Climategate had not occurred, and still might, given our present extreme left-wing government) and that Hansen and Mann were at the center of the propaganda effort, I say more power to the AG.
If this was mostly made up, and it would certainly appear that the Hockey Stick was, then the perpetrators do indeed belong in jail. If they have to get there via an intentional misuse of grant money, that’s fine with me. Al Capone went in for tax evasion, after all, and not for all of the more egregious crimes he supposedly committed.
In my opinion, Mann and Hansen left the world of science long ago, choosing instead to join the cabal seeking control over massive injections of tax revenue via the AGW scam. Madoff cost investors billions; Mann/Hansen/Gore/Pachuri were seeking to cost taxpayers trillions. I have absolutely no problem with the legal system seeking to bring this nonsense to a halt as soon as practicable. And if a few people do jail time as a result, I’ve no doubt that they’ve done more than enough to deserve it.
This is not a witch hunt. This is simple justice. Lie, cheat, defraud; go to jail. If they did nothing, they have nothing to fear. The AGW crowd will willingly cover Mann’s costs in this if he whines loudly enough, as he no doubt will. And if he has less time for his “science” in the next few months, science will be the better for it.
Quoting:
Leon Brozyna: “Take Mann out to the woodshed and show him a new use for a hockey stick.”
Commenting:
Leon, I think a hockey stick might have been used that way once or twice in your actual hockey games. Perhaps not in the orderly way you seem to have in mind, I reckon. 😉
Jeff L says:
April 29, 2010 at 6:33 pm
… put the show on the other foot. What if it were a left wing politico coming after Anthony, in purely a witch hunt mode? No one would be too stoked then.
—-
Why would Anthony be subjected to a politician’s witch hunt? On what grounds? He’s not working on the public dime, unlike Mann. No, we would not be “stoked” if Anthony were under attack, but Anthony’s work is not jeopardizing our livelihoods and way of life and can be defended under simple freedom of speech. Mann has not simply being doing research, he’s courted public attention and made himself into a media figure. He was very happy to see his ‘science’ become the basis of public policy, even while he denied skeptics access to the data upon which his conclusions were made. As Reed Coray says above, in a comment that sums things up beautifully
“If I were Dr. Mann (heaven forbid) and I had uncovered some “science” that I believed showed that the world will end unless we immediately invoke procedures A, B, C, etc., I would BEG people to examine my work to either confirm my conclusions or show me where I was wrong. The last thing I would do is hide my work from anyone, but especially from people expressing a sceptical view.”
#
HaroldW says:
April 29, 2010 at 5:36 pm
More intimidation is not going to help to resolve the scientific questions in dispute, and this is clearly an attempt to intimidate.
I don’t see any attempt to intimidate here, although there’s been plenty of that on the AGW side (as you note in your comment). I just see a desire by the AG to find out if the funding was not used appropriately.
And as for finding “a smoking gun like … Climategate” — please. The Climategate papers did not show fraud. They showed collusion and intimidation, bias in presenting conclusions, and reluctance and/or inability to provide data and algorithms which would allow a fair criticism of their work, among other behaviors. While I would criticise this behavior as not professional, it falls well short of legal fraud.
The problem here is not legal fraud, it is scientific fraud. “Collusion and intimidation”, “bias in presenting conclusions” (fraudulent conclusions) and refusing to share the data and algorithms on which those conclusions are based constitute fraudulent science. This, in an unpoliticized atmosphere, should be enough to have certain individuals ejected from their positions, or at least censured and blocked from further funding. In the absence of a willingness to act on these documented abuses of scientific process by the academic world, and in light of the fact that the results of this fraudulent science are being actively pushed into the political and public policy domains, it is incumbent upon political leaders who are doing their job to investigate. I do worry, however, about the ability to find unbiased experts to assist in this investigation.
The chilling effect of such investigations as Mr. Cuccinelli proposes (a) is not going to help free and open inquiry into the science; (b) is likely to be used against the open-minded as well as the closed-minded; and (c) can only distract attention from the real scientific issues involved. In addition, this will only tend to de-legitimize the skeptic approach to the topic, in public opinion, by associating this bad behavior with climate skeptics.
Rubbish. Free and open inquiry into the science was stifled long ago by political correctness and the name calling of critics of the AGW ‘mainstream’, which intimidated those who saw problems with the science into keeping quiet for fear of losing their own funding. The open-minded got no encouragement in that scenario, and how on earth would you typify who would be under similar political investigations as either open- or close-minded? If scientists simply did their jobs, and provided the data and information needed for proper review by all stakeholders, there would be no need for legal or other investigations of this nature.
The worst that generally happens to good scientists is to see their work ignored or rejected; I know of one fisheries scientist who worked for NOAA, who saw all of his [essentially correct] projections of future problems with tuna stocks at the then- current fishing levels hushed up and ignored. He may even have been told to destroy his report. This was decades ago – back in the 1970s. Again, science got perverted by the hiding of information, but this time not by the scientist. Mann is only getting the attention he deserves, even if it’s no longer the kind he courted. I doubt that the legal process will turn up much, as the real trial has to occur in the court of science, but it will be interesting to see.
You besmirch the name of Al Capone, Stan Stendera!
Wikipedia defines witch hunt as follows:
QUOTE
The term “witch-hunt” is often used by analogy to refer to panic-induced searches for perceived wrong-doers other than witches. The best known example is probably the McCarthyist search for communists during the Cold War which was discredited partly through being compared to the Salem witch trials.
UNQUOTE
I know nothing and care less about the politics of the VA AG.
I see no evidence of a panic induced search for wrong doers.
Mann’s scientific methods have been well documented by M&M, Wedgman and others.
The AG is merely looking for evidence that will stand up in court.
The science is already in.
Unfortunately, it has been ignored for far too long.
I like many other contributors to this thread, do not like the intrusion of the law into matters, such as science, that are better handled by more appropriate techniques.
But the AGW ill use of the scientific method has been going on for thirty years.
The costs are now mounting rapidly into the many billions of dollars.
Enough is enough.
The scientific community, by their lack of action have demonstrated that they are unable or unwilling to correct the situation, left to their own devices.
It’s time now for the law to act.
The scam cannot be allowed to continue.
Please o’ please witch hunt to the full extent of the Virginia law, maybe Mann will come clean and start talking. This whole AGW, cap n’ trade nonsense has got to be exposed for the pure scam it truly is. I say to scientists on all sides of the debate, go study the situation and come back in a hundred years when maybe just maybe we will have obtained significant a breadth of knowledge and confidence of cause and effect with regard to the global climate.
For now stop the insanity which truly is the corruption and wealth distribution strategy of the AGW “inner” circle, for the good of humanity. If you cant defend you position either in the political or scientific arenas maybe your spewing pure nonsense and should just stop. I think people in the masses are just completely and utterly tired of with being force fed “science” for some “cause” or “personal goodness”.
Witch Hunt oh ya I be the first to start piling the sticks.
I have just made a long post that wnet into the ether.
In short – I don’t like the law entering into scientific disputes either.
But the scientific community has failed to act,
despite clear evidence of Mann’s methods (M&M, Wedgman etc).
This is far bigger than the scientific community.
It has already cost taxpayers many billions of dollars
and threatens much much more.
Peer Review has failed.
Legal action is, unfortunately, now required.
Jim says:
April 29, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Jim, does that mean you don’t want the government to fund medical research as well? what about research into the safety of the water and food you drink? should that go away too?
Small potatoes….if the Republicans regain the US Senate, just wait for Sen. Jim Inhofe to regain his former position as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Now THAT would lead to some interesting headlines for sure! We’ll see….