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
If it is true that any data fed into Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick graph code produces a hockey stick shape then it is an open and shut case!
Leaves a nasty taste in my mouth too, but the choice seems to be do we want a witch hunt or a British government style whitewash? That said, I can’t feel much sympathy for a man who is willing to use the force of the law to silence a satirical web site. Seems like he’s in for some unpleasant exposure whatever happens.
Never seen so many trolls, warmists and folks with bleeding hearts for Meltdown Mann (of all people!) on WUWT.
Fortunately, many of the people who have been posting on here for years (when I was only lurking) have pointed out a few good home truths.
The “scientific community” have been almost criminally irresponsible in their refusal to provide proper scrutiny of what has been going on in climate science, even when there has been absolutely clear evidence of very bad scientific practice, absolutely incompetent statistical procedures and some barefaced fraud. And persistent and brazen refusal to release raw data and methodology to independent scrutiny.
Meanwhile the whole AGW hypothesis has been picked up and hyped up by scientifically illiterate politicians, the mass media, and high finance scam artists. And, oh yes! by the European Union and the United Nations.
The recent climategate “enquiries” in the UK have been amongst the most pathetic whitewashes you can imagine. The politicians of every major party in the UK, campaigning for next week’s election, are in a frenzy to prove that their green agenda is greener than the other party’s green agenda.
Meanwhile the economy is going to hell on a handcart. So much money is already being wasted on useless measures (which will have absolutely zero effect on the climate) that we could have realistically used it to transform the lives of many of the world’s poorest people.
So if the US legal system can achieve just a little scrutiny and transparency in the case of Meltdown Mann and his hockey stick, then I for one will be absolutely delighted.
And if Mann finishes up sitting in Al Capone’s old cell then I think it would be just deserts.
This is a culmination of a decade of anti-science propaganda from media outlets like Fox News. The tactics are the same as those used by Holocaust deniers and Evolution deniers – pull the scientists into court where they will be “exposed on the stand”.
I believe Mann is a good scientist, but that is not the crux of the the matter. Should scientists be in a position where they can be sued to return grant money when their research turns out to be a failure? Where does that leave all scientists and all academics?
This is also about an ambitious politician trying to prove himself – like Richard Nixon did with Alger Hiss. Hiss was probably guilty but that is not the point here. What is to stop any politician jumping on any bandwagon-of-the-month and prosecuting any scientist or academic who has received a grant?
American science has already been dragged through the mud by the crazy Evolution Wars. Do you really want American science to drop further behind because for the sake of the Tea Party or election victories? Do you really want scientists from the academy to be at the mercy of ambitious popiticians? If you do, then I am sure Stalin and Lysenko would surely have agreed with you.
Here’s an interesting post, from a Feb. 1 WUWT thread on the Penn State investigation of Mann::
HankHenry 8:32 pm
If Mann is a fox let’s let the hounds out.
As I read this in a country which is run by bureaucrats and self-righteous NGOs who answer to no one, it would be impossible for me to praise American democracy too highly. Treasure it; if you let it slip away, you’ll never get it back.
For this reason alone, it is worth supporting a suit against anyone suspected of misusing taxpayers’ money to deliver a political result — pour encourager les autres.
And now, more importantly, may we have some more pictures of Mr Cuccinelli, please?
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
April 29, 2010 at 9:31 pm
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….
Those were my thoughts when I first read some of the more alarmed comments here.
Sen. Inhofe is already on record calling for criminal investigations. If , as looks likely, the Republicans do well in November the whole atmosphere ( pun intended ) surrounding “Climate Science” may become very hot indeed.
Oh, no. You mean the govt is going investigate the people are they giving money to?
Oh, the horror.
So, that might mean people will less willing to take grant money.
Oh, it going to ruin the world!
No longer are people going to get free ride from the tax payer.
Something must be done to stop this madman.
Is Gavin Schmidt now moderating these comments? Or has everyone suddenly gone soft in the tree-ring department?
BillD,
You think that lawyers don’t sign off on grants now? Wow. Did you just not think that statement through before you typed it?
I was at UVa between 2000 and 2003 inclusive. The man who was hired in part to replace Mann when Mann left for Penn State is a friend whom I met before he came to UVa through his then fiance who was a grad student at UVa.. He got his job because he is a good scientist. He is a good scientist who believes in AGW. I can absolutely guarantee you that no matter what his caliber as a scientist if he had applied for that position and NOT been an AGW proponent he would never have gotten the job.
When *this* changes I’ll start to worry about your concern regarding a chilling effect from Cuccinelli looking into potential misuse of funds provided by the state.
Need I remind anyone that Mann got his job at UVa in part because of his “sexy” hockey stick that was almost certainly a centerpeice of most or all of his grant applications while still at UVa and that there’s now quite compelling evidence the “science” which Mann engaged in to produce that plot has come under some level of scrutiny? If money awarded based on that sort of behavior can’t be questioned because of fear about some chilling effect, then we shouldn’t be putting tax-payer money into scence research at all.
And, by the way, I rely largely on tax-payer money for all of my efforts.
””’By Jim on April 29, 2010 at 4:52 pm
If the government got out of funding science, this wouldn’t be a problem. We need to save money, this looks like a good place to start.””’
Jim,
I agree that encouragement of a basically non-gov’t approach to funding scientific research is a good way to minimize the political bias in climate science.
John
Haha anyone looking like the devils apprentice and are raising hell for the possibility of mismanagement of public funds, well that person got my support.
I wonder if Mann on a schtick still thinks he can afford it? :p
all I can say bring it on the quicker the better
Let’s not be nasty to the poor wittle Mann. Sure, he’s as crooked as that hockey schtick, but this witch hunt is going TOO far. You’re just a bunch of bullies. And there’s more of you than them, so it’s not a fair fight. Could you consider maybe tying one hand behind your backs, just to even things up a little?[/sarc]
HR says: April 29, 2010 at 4:28 pm
This is ugly! You may not like him or the work he has done but using the minutiae of the law to bring the man down is going a bit far. I thought you freedom loving Americans wanted the State off peoples backs.
Oh mann, great logic. Yes, we libertarians want less government. Where do you draw the line? Certainly you agree we need to prosecute murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc. Fraud involving government funding, umm. One thing you’re not considering is that we also firmly disapprove of stupidly asinine government spending. I consider all of Mann’s Yamal tree infested statistics in that catagory. This attorney is being paid a salary. At this point it has cost the State of Virginia some computer time and a certified mailing fee. If he finds something worth prosecuting, then the costs go up. If nothing else, as already suggested above, an open admission of how he fudged the data will be money well spent.
The legal probe is not about a single possibly mistaken grant application, it is about 20 year history of alleged distortion of science, which threatens to trash the world economies and science itself.
If that is why you want the AG to take action, then, to me, this is wrong. The AG should be doing this if only there is suspicion that the money didn’t go where it was supposed to go. If that is explicitly what this is about, then OK. If he’s doing this to try and knock down flawed science? Sorry, that’s not his job. Thanks to the skeptical community (us) and the internet, the world community is slowly but surly starting to ask questions that needs to be asked – more and more people are no longer accepting AGW with absolute blind faith. It’s going slowly, but the science IS refuting some of the results of the Hockey Stick type studies. Slowly but surly, the MWP is rising back into prominence. The Mannites cannot keep their thumbs on the scales forever.
Again, if this is strictly about misappropriation of funds, then fine. If it’s about a conservative AG’s political witch hunt trying to prove the science is a fraud through the court, rather than through science, then this is a VERY bad idea. The courts are NOT the place to decide science – John Edwards and cerebral Palsy comes to mind. When thinking about policy decisions, I always try and put the shoe on the other foot. What will happen when a “True Believer” AG decides to go after Pat Michaels or Richard Lindzen in the same manner, simply because they disagree with the science?
PS. No offense to any witches who might get angry at being associated with Mann – please don’t turn me into a newt! 🙂
That’s quite a strawman. All the AG has done is subpoena documents from the UV. It’s an audit (or so it appears).
Here’s my rhetorical question: Should grant recipients be in a position where no one can check out if they misused the money they were appropriated?
Sonicfrog says: April 30, 2010 at 5:12 am
Again, if this is strictly about misappropriation of funds, then fine. If it’s about a conservative AG’s political witch hunt trying to prove the science is a fraud through the court, rather than through science, then this is a VERY bad idea. The courts are NOT the place to decide science
Sonicfrog. Forget the word “science”, perhaps you would better understand the issue if I said that this is a group of people who have told the world that as experts in the subject they are absolutely certain that mankind is heating the globe (in public) and then we find out that in private they are actively talking about the fact the evidence points at alternatives like sulphates to explain the temperature record.
Whether it is an attorney giving legal advice, a doctor giving medical advice or a climate “expert” giving advice on the climate, government must expect that the funding it gives and the advice it receives is totally without any suspicion of fraud. Indeed because of their special position in society, the onus is on the experts to prove (when required) that they have not acted fraudulently rather than experting us to treat them as some special case of expert knowledge unless we can prove they were acting fraudulently.
All this investigation is doing, is asking Mann to prove he acted as any government employed expert should – that is nothing to do with “proving the science” and everything to do with the integrity of his working methods: whether his has acted impartially in the public interest when he uses public funds.
jorgekafkazar says: April 29, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Why are there a flock of people (whom I’ve never seen post here before) coming in and asking us to pity Michael Mann, saying it’s an awful thing to persecute poor, humble scientists, and how the VA Attorney General is nothing but a (put your favorite ad hominem here)? I’d guess this is a sure sign that the Warmistas are really, really, REALLY frightened.
Because there’s a mailing list being sent out to all subscribers asking them to go to specific sceptic boards and ‘scupper’ the discussion there with pro-AGW views. This was reported on WUWT recently, I’m sure.
Just a couple more legal points.
1 The grantee is the University of Virginia. That is why they were named. The checks didn’t go to Mann
2 The grantee provides administration of the grant and reports on benchmarks required for progress in funding (someone mentioned buckets of monies)
3 In the course of litigation, this strategy may cause Virginia to side with the accuser and against Mann.
4 There will be some turnover at schools. It can be because Penn State wants a fancy name added to their high profile strategy, it may be because Mann is just a tad careless and frequently in the doghouse with Virginia by reason of not being up to snuff on reports, compliance issues or even prudent use of funds. It will come out.
5 What are the presenting problems?
a. Was there fraud?
b Was there a severe shortcoming under the test of expectations of meeting
honest services theory for the stake holders
c Was there mismanagement of resources in the program?
d In the course of the intangible, was this a fabricated concept and a study to find the pink unicorn, a genetic relationship with it’s common ancestor the lochness monster and not even a revelant hypothesis or study. (Was this an abuse of science?)
Peter Wilson says:
April 29, 2010 at 7:20 pm
“…..Nevertheless, I am uneasy about using this form of attack. All scientists receive funding, and it is essential that they be able to pursue their research without fear that they may be called to account if they turn out to be wrong – an ever present possibility in science….”
If you are in industry working in science and you are found to have falsified data or are incapable of preforming the job, you get sacked. I have fired several scientists and techs for those very reasons.
Now tell me why academic scientists using MY tax money should not be held to the same standards as other scientists. If Mann was playing games with the funding and that includes lying on the grant application, then he needs to be called to account.
Is this case a witch Hunt at tax payers expense? Valid question
Is this a witch hunt?
1 Obama is sending SWAT teams to board drilling platforms. from the department of the Interior
A. The department of the Interior doesn;’t have SWAT teams
B Swat teams with bullet proof vests etc? Are there armed terrorists and gangs on the rigs?
C. The fire was 9 days ago. The rig in question is long gone.
D Is this a publicity stunt for the Green peace crowd and appeasement and demand for environmental justice?
2 Accusing people of a witch hunt at severe taxpayer expense is now a common defense for the guuilty parties
3 Are show trials beneficial for gaining points for re election? For Obama For above mentioned AG?
4 Will lack of dramatic response result in being targeted and a loss of popularity?
This guy is hilarious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-3nkQYONic
A Birther who wants to start a new Scopes Monkey Trial.
I hope it’s all televised, this time:
previous attempt to use the courts to try to control Science
And the funniest part – the University he hopes to prove incompetent – is where he got his first college degree. Maybe UVA will review lots of documents and find that they made a mistake:
his Bachelor’s in Mechanical Engineering was awarded in error.
Which would make his acceptance into the George Mason University School of Law, another public university in Virginia, invalid. Which would nullify his JD, which would make him ineligible to be AG.
Keep digging, Ken.
Pops says:
April 30, 2010 at 3:46 am
Is Gavin Schmidt now moderating these comments? Or has everyone suddenly gone soft in the tree-ring department?
_____________________________________________________________________
The best thing about WUWT is that the only remarks censored are those that are way off topic or off-color. Freedom of speech is allowed here.