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.
Anu,
There’s one pertinent detail you’re leaving out: the Attorney General has wide latitude in investigating possible wrongdoing. He can dig as deep as he wants, for as long as it takes to make a determination on whether to prosecute.
None of your strawman arguments amount to a hill of beans. It is Michael Mann who needs to be concerned at this point. And he clearly is, turning away all requests to tell his side of the story. Prior to the AG’s investigation, Mann was a real Chatty Cathy doll: pull his string, and out came the arrogant talking points.
But now, Mann and others will be forced to answer, under oath, anything the AG questions them about. This has never happened to any alarmist grant beggars before, and it will be mighty interesting to watch.
Queen1 says:
April 29, 2010 at 4:59 pm: I have no comments on his actions, but I would definitely like to see more pictures!”
You got that right! LOL
I’d love to see Mann get his comeuppance, but this guy seems to be doing this for ideological reasons rather than for any disclosure of truth. That makes me uneasy. I want Mann to be taken down, but I want it to be done fairly, ethically, and objectively.
(Ordering public universities to take out “sexual orientation” from their anti-discriminatory statements? Seriously? A little too far to the fringe for my taste.)
toby says:
April 30, 2010 at 1:23 am
(…)
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.
——————-
Reply:
May I borrow your own phrase and, based on the “ambitious scientist” meme, refine the argument with this more pertinent question:
Do you really want civilization and the very essence of science to be at the mercy of ambitious scientists?
Your support of Mann as a “scientist” is puzzling, very puzzling indeed. But your questions “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?” are completely misdirected. Why? Because good science has no moral position–it can neither be a success or a failure in that context; it just IS. However, public funding of science has certain guidelines that cannot be crossed. We’ll see what the AG finds–I’m sure, contrary to Mann, he’ll share his results.
Anu says:
April 30, 2010 at 6:13 am
And the funniest part – the University he hopes to prove incompetent – is where he got his first college degree.
——————-
Reply: It isn’t the university he hopes to prove incompetent–it is Michael Mann. Based on what we’ve seen of Mann’s specious “science” and his academic reticence, that shouldn’t be difficult.
This is the part about politics I hate. You have to decide whether or not to stomach some odorous side of a person in order to benefit from the part that can do some good. This is true of living in Oregon as well. The odorous part of our state’s laws and regulations get my nickers in a bunch. Which is one of the reasons why I am about as far away from the I5 corridor as you can get and still be an Oregonian. Heck, even Pendleton, with its ban on wood heat on inversion days gets to me.
Anymore, there isn’t a state in the Union that adheres to our founding constitution regarding the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If one class of people, though honest and contributing, can be discriminated against and denied these unalienable rights, someone, somewhere, will come after you and your rights. The politician we are discussing seems unclear about this historically well-attested behavior.
Yes.
Darned right they should – unless they disclose their failure.
Otherwise, scientists have no fear about taking public funds to generate over-reaching conclusions.
Oops — I’ve reread the story about the investigation. It looks as though the AG is going to try to find a smoking gun e-mail or document indicating knowing fraud in construction of the hockey stick. That would be almost impossible to prove. There’d need to be evidence much more incriminating than anything in the Climategate e-mails.
Still, there just might be something of that nature. It’s worth a look. It would be foolish not to look.
Another Obvious Troll says:
April 30, 2010 at 5:03 am
Could you consider maybe tying one hand behind your backs, just to even things up a little?[/sarc]
Maybe Mother Nature could tie one of the Poles ice behind her back so She has only one in a growing trend instead of both. That would help the trolls a little too.
toby says:
April 30, 2010 at 1:23 am
Toby,
You’ve been spending too much time under the bridge.
Ever since the leak from the University of East Anglia that the whole cabal (at least the US participants) were headed for trouble.
They are going to be investigated, indicted, and otherwise piloried to the point that their careers were ruined the day the leak occured.
Hanson, Mann, Trenburth et al are facing real trouble from many fronts.
The chance of any of them getting any more grants is between slim and none.
[snip – we don’t discuss chemtrails here]
Many of you are now so concerned and consider this a witchhunt from the gov? LOL. Sure, like it hasn’t been pointed out that Mann is a fraud to the core and he is in no way concerned with truth/facts or other… only what his masters tell him.
The govs grant money is MY, YOUR, money. Should it be thrown away? Or, if you knew that all one had to do was fill in “due to AGW” that they would get funding, even on the most preposterous studies? How about your grant money going to a study of “the effect of a child only having one pair of shoes to wear to school” (this was found in another article, so I don’t know if it true, but you can only imagine the nonsense being funding in our ‘higher’ institutions. If it is their money, let them fund it, or else the public should have a period of access to either voice a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote on which issues should be funded… say in grants over $100k, for example.
Real science/studies are often NOT funded because they go against the status quo, not necessarily because they have no value. Time and time again researchers that would put the advancement of science/med/life first often had their funding canceled because profits of another company would cease, or the military’s uses of technology would be proved (found out), etc.
When someone is caught in a scandal using public money, they should be investigated and it is a shame the entire fed gov has NOT been the ones to do this… we all know why, of course. Bho is heavily funded by, and receives lots of power, from his agw friends.
How much evidence does one need before you’d have an investigation take place? Like many have said… this is science. If the data and practices are sound, it could only reinforce their position.
Bryn says:
April 29, 2010 at 5:52 pm
…Only for $500,000? Yes it is a large sum, but what will the lawyers fees be on both sides?
Ever heard of “death by a thousand paper cuts”? If you don’t hold everyone accountable (regardless of the dollar value associated with the accountability vs. the potential crime) can you hold anyone accountable?
Bad science or junk science should not be against the law. But scientific misconduct should qualify as misappropriation of funds. Same with using state money to support a blog site, or using state (university) computers to work on a blog site.
This is not saying Mann did any of these things, but that if they happened they should be prosecuted. Let’s have a fair investigation to see if more action is warranted.
Wow. It’s like opening day of the fishing season—I’ve never seen so many people trolling before.
Kinda’ fun to see some of the remarkably specious arguments some people put forward. I hope they notice that their comments/views get posted here, unlike the sites on the other side of the discussion. Everyone is welcome here and I will never deny any of them their right to be wrong.
For those uncomfortable with this guy, the nature of conflict hasn’t changed much over the centuries. Exact quote eludes me, but I think it was “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” which is from Sun Tzu’s Art of War. They guy is trying to make a name for himself and probably has thoughts of a run at the governer’s job or maybe the White House at some point.
If this turns into a witch hunt, then it deserves to be denounced. At this point all that has happened is that he’s asked for the documentation. I think he is searching for a needle in a haystack. But he seems to think that there is one and he can find it. I think there is one too, and I hope he does find it. If he makes one up, that’s another matter.
This is not about attacking scientists whose science turns out to be wrong. This is about investigating scientists who got the science wrong, knew it, and said they didn’t. Proving it in a court of law may be as difficult as prosecuting Watergate. But the court of public opinion has different standards, and the investigation itself reveals that which causes resignations and retractions. It also sets a new standard, a warning to others engaged in the same practices that there may be consequences and perhaps they should clean up their act.
Of course such consequences fade from memory over time so that a few decades later history may repeat itself.
Roger Knights says:
April 30, 2010 at 6:55 am
…There’d need to be evidence much more incriminating than anything in the Climategate e-mails.
—————
Reply: Try the algorithm that Mann used to construct the hockey stick–garbage in, hockey stick out. You could enter any page of phone numbers from a phone book and you’d get the hockey stick. Now, would that be enough for the state of Virginia to ask for their money back? I’d say it would.
James Mc says:
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.
Does that make the AGW-supporters posting here the first-ever sheep in sheep’s clothing?
Reasonable debate is a great thing. I don’t expect we’ll see too many of these new posters on the more science-based threads, though!
Anthony, I hope you earn advertising money for every click. 🙂
John Egan April 29, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Sounds more like a witch hunt to me…I do not agree with Dr. Mann on some of his main points, but for an attorney general, no less, to act this way suggests that he knows little about the law and respects it even less.
Do you consider Bernie Madoff the victim of a witch hunt, too? If Mann used public funding to pursue a personal political agenda, that’s fraud, and — contrary to your opinion — that *is* against the law. Particularly the one cited in the article, because, as someone who was once responsible for ensuring that $50 million worth of taxpayer-funded equipment was not misused, I had to read that law and sign a statement that I understood it.
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.
Which becomes the title for this chapter: “Treble For Mr. Mann”
Yeah, it’s a witch hunt for sure.
But keep in mind the old saw “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean no one is out to get you.”
Sometimes a witch hunt finds a real witch and Mann appears to be one of the real ones.
Recall that looking into Bill Clinton’s extra-marital sexual escapades started out looking like a witch hunt but as it turned out he really did have a very inappropriate boss/underling sexual relationship with a young female White House intern. The witch hunt found a real witch.
Bryn says:
April 29, 2010 at 5:52 pm
…Only for $500,000? Yes it is a large sum, but what will the lawyers fees be on both sides?
John Galt says:
April 30, 2010 at 7:35 am
Bad science or junk science should not be against the law. But scientific misconduct should qualify as misappropriation of funds. Same with using state money to support a blog site, or using state (university) computers to work on a blog site.
Another take on this issue, I’ve received grant money before. Used it to put in field plots, expensively run HPLC’s, GC’s, Mass spec’s, Plasma spect’s, etc. Costly to operate. But from what I’ve read in Mann’s papers, he reanalyzed previously collected tree specimen. In other words, he sat in front of a computer and developed statistical procedures. Doesn’t $500,000 sound like a lot of money for this.
I know Ken personally. He is a friend of mine. We have discussed the general outlines of what he can do to bring some better science into the global climate discussion. He is a very very smart fella and he understands that “the science” is not settled. He is also a very strong fiscal conservative. He is doing several different things with this information request, one of which is to put the Virginia university system in particular, and all universities in general, on notice that transparency in science is essential to scientific progress.
This is no witch hunt. This group knows there are a lot of reasons why Mr. Mann’s activities deserve more careful and deeper investigation that the his university or the British have given in the recent past. This will only happen if the university administration starts demanding a higher level of performance from their faculty.
I expect there have already been some phonecalls from the UVA Board of Visitors/Administration and Ken’s office so that they can have a behind closed doors sit down to sort out what might come of all this.
Let’s keep in mind – scientific fraud done with public funds is a crime, and I speak not only as a Ph.D. scientist, but as a practicing attorney. Ken has my praise and support.
He has to be condemned to work in a hockey sticks factory until he gets sick by just seeing them.
What I like about this site is the diversity of views; I wouldn’t read it if all the posters were skeptics. So, I’m okay with so-called “trolls” if they’re on topic and not rude. Certainly, a hot topic like this will draw new posters and since it’s not being covered on RC, some of that audience is likely weighing in here. Hopefully, they’ll stick around and perhaps widen their perspectives.
Wiki: “… a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community… with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”