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.
Dave Springer says:
April 30, 2010 at 7:55 am
Yeah, it’s a witch hunt for sure.
Sometimes a witch hunt finds a real witch and Mann appears to be one of the real ones.
plm: Whoooa..although I’m sure there are/were “good and bad” witches I believe credible witches may have at least made attempts to interpret “nature” to the best of their ability, hmmm…ok, I concede your point.
RockyRoad says: “You could enter any page of phone numbers from a phone book and you’d get the hockey stick.”
To be fair, you need to put red noise into the Mannomatic to get a hockey stick out. Numbers in a phone book are block-random white noise. Red noise has the same statistical characteristics of a random temperature series.
Smokey says:
April 30, 2010 at 6:27 am
Weren’t you the one predicting that Dr. Phil Jones would be
executedfired ?How did that prediction work out for you ?
http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/jonesp
I’m interested to see how a freshman AG witchhunt goes over with the people of Virginia. Kenny has been in office since January 10, 2010 – I’m sure Virginians will be thrilled to hear he wants to spend tens of $millions to investigate an ex-Assistant Professor of UVA that hasn’t worked there since 2005.
Having seen the whitewash of the UK enquiries I can only hope the AG does a better job. For BillD’s comment about needing lawyers to sign off a grant application; well maybe they should but what the applicant needs to be is honest and transparent with his results. George E Smith seems to think that scientists get a rough ride. I can’t agree. I remember many years ago the Thalidomide disaster that produced so many damaged babies. The scientists were certainly well sheltered until a newspaper broke the court ban on comment. It seems to me that persons in a position of power are very well protected against the consequences of their behaviour. Just look at Climategate and the outcome. But if you are the average company Joe and transgress, be sure the whole weight of the law will fall on you. I say go to it AG. When will somone hunt down Al Cap’n’Trade Gore?
[snip – inflammatory]
“D. King says:
April 29, 2010 at 8:02 pm
http://www.blip.tv/file/3539174
”
Thanks for the link – that was very interesting.
@ur momisugly Nick Stokes says:
April 29, 2010 at 6:59 pm
“But because he has stubbornly refused to release his data, code and methods”
Do you guys even bother to look before coming out with this stuff?
Here is the complete data and code for one of his recent papers.”
Er, what he did recently isn’t the issue here. What he did while he was at the University of Virginia IS. That’s what’s being investigated.
RockyRoad says:
April 30, 2010 at 6:51 am
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.
I guess you missed the headline, above:
Virginia Attorney General goes after Mann and UVA
In case you missed it, UVA stands for University of Virginia – U. VA, get it ?
Good luck proving that an Assistant Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences wasted 1/2 $million without his Department Head and colleagues being implicated.
As I said, I look forward to watching all this on TV. Ken was pretty good as Jefferson on “Married With Children”, but he didn’t have the gravitas of Fred Thompson on “Law and Order”:
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_rVmPG-JoGY/0.jpg
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….”
“Attack”? “Wrong”?
The assertions of Peter Wilson are so misplaced at to be risible.
Firstly, there is no “attack” when a funder asks to be shown where and how provided monies were spent. This is simply good housekeeping. And any organisation of repute has all its financial activities assessed by an independent accountant, so a complete reply to the request merely requires that the accountant’s report be provided. Hence, failure to provide a full and immediate reply to the request tells all that the funder needs to know, so the funder would then know not to provide future funds to the organisation.
The politics and/or nature of the representative of the funder is not relevant to these facts. And the public should expect their representative(s) to ask to be shown where and how provided monies were spent when those monies were provided from the public purse.
Secondly, scientists do their research and find what the research reveals. If it were known what the research findings would be then there would be little point in doing the work. Hence, the findings of scientific research are what they turn out to be so cannot be thought to be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. However, if the methodology used to obtain those findings is incorrect and/or inadequate then the scientists responsible should be “called to account” because their practice of science is “wrong” and, therefore, their “wrong” science practice is likely to provide misleading findings.
There are minimum standards of conduct in each profession, including professional science. All accusations of professional misconduct should be investigated to exonerate those falsely accused and to chastise those determined to have been rightly accused. This is true for everybody in every profession. And there is no reason why scientists should be exempted from it (e.g. an engineer would be expected to obtain advice from a materials scientist when using a novel material for construction of a bridge, and a scientist would be expected to obtain advice from a statistician when using a novel statstical method to analyse data). Indeed, it is essential for the proper conduct of science that scientists are not exempted from it.
Richard
Anu,
Did I predict that Jones would be fired? Or executed?? Kindly show me exactly where I said either one. What I did say was that Jones is “despicable” for cheering the news of John Daly’s demise. I also noted that Jones was still receiving his full pay and benefits, that he was still in the same office, and that he apparently had the same duties that he had before, and that the only change was the nameplate on his door. I’ve also stated more than once that the Jones investigation would be a complete whitewash, which in fact it was.
But an investigation by a state Attorney General is quite a bit different than the rank cronyism displayed by the old boy committee that gave Jones a free pass and a pat on the head.
Unlike the Jones “investigation,” the AG will no doubt take statements from people hostile to Mann, and from Mann’s co-workers — most of whom will not lie to someone who can prosecute and imprison them if they perjure themselves, and some of them will no doubt willingly volunteer information. Michael Mann has stepped on plenty of toes. You can read in his emails how he bosses his co-workers around, giving them their marching orders. No doubt some co-workers will be calling the AG to volunteer their own tidbits of information. Certainly the eastanglia emails were only the tip of the iceberg.
And your frantic talk about a “witch hunt” is about as credible as labeling the Climategate emails as being “stolen.” As a taxpayer I support this investigation. The grant process has corrupted individuals and universities alike, at our expense. We pay, as they connive to game the system. Anything that shines the light of day on what’s happening is good for the taxpayers, and good for science in general.
We will see where the AG’s investigation leads. The fine thing about it is that it raises the awareness of the general public, many of whom still do not know about the ongoing scam of promoting the repeatedly falsified CAGW conjecture in return for grant money in the $billions, and the hijacking of the climate peer review process by a small clique of scheming scientists like Michael Mann, who connives to destroy individuals and scientific journals that don’t play the game the Michael Mann way.
With the high visibility of the state Attorney General, people who never paid attention to how their taxes are being wasted are now starting to sit up straight and pay attention. That can only be a good thing.
@DOUGLAS TODD Old Man
‘I say go to it AG. When will somone hunt down Al Cap’n’Trade Gore?’
The hunt will probably start the moment after someone finds out exactly how Al earns his carbon rights. Apparently he earns points by planting trees, but nobody seem to know exactly what’s what when it comes to his tree planting work.
Case in point: you start a carbon trading company which is earning carbon trade points by planting trees, i.e. something that is offsetting co2 “pollution”, but you don’t actually plant any trees yourselves yet you earn points, which you do by donating money to organizations that says they’re planting trees, and of course nobody seem to know if those organizations are in fact planting trees themselves neither. The only thing that’s supposedly important is that carbon rights has to be valued more then the cost of donating to one or more supposedly honorable tree hugger’s organizations.
It’s not like Mann was making off with the grant money. He *was* earnestly pursuing research. The complaint seems to be was he over zealous carrying his argument ahead. Personally, my gripe is the extreme overuse of the adjective “robust” by climate scientists. I’ve come to believe it’s somehow symptomatic of the shortcomings of the run of the global warming argument. Too much of the robust evidence and not enough of the puzzle pieces coming together into a plausible picture.
I think it is safe to say we have positive identification of a “troll” (comparing the VA AG to a vapid TV character in a lame attempt to inflame and distract reasonable discussion).
FYI. It is my understanding that realclimate can’t cover this. The patent holder of theMannomatic temp adjuster is a principle in the blog. I am sure his counsel has told him silence has become golden in the discovery phase of this trial.
Mann works a door or two down from the Realclimate office. It is also down the hall in the same building as The Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen.
WUWT covered the office locations. Mann has a lot of free time to blog his feelings and do research. It is publish or perish, baby. You can’t talk up a storm if you have a slice of the right tree. Tom’s Restaurant in Seinfeld is in the building.
Anu says:
April 30, 2010 at 9:49 am
RockyRoad says:
April 30, 2010 at 6:51 am
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.
I guess you missed the headline, above:
Virginia Attorney General goes after Mann and UVA
In case you missed it, UVA stands for University of Virginia – U. VA, get it ?
———————
Reply: I don’t give much credibility to headlines–those are constructed to raise blood pressure and pull in readers rather than convey facts (and even less credibility to people that say “get it?”). But if the UVA is found complicit, they should be reprimanded too. But really, the issue isn’t incompetency–the beef is whether there’s been malfeasance with public funds spent on scientific research, which turn out to be criminal conduct if such is found. The guidelines, as indicated by others commenting above, are strict and unyielding and there are serious consequences.
I’m looking forward to the results and my prediction is that Mann won’t be exhonerated–if the UVA is similarly implicated that’s their problem. It’s science I care about, not some charlatan scientist or his enabling university indirectly starving poor people throughout the world. Let this investigation be as robust as possible.
There are a lot of contrarians on this site today, and I find it sad that all the arguments so far have precious little to do with the real issue, which is the proper conduct of scientific research. There’s rants about witch hunts and politics and all sorts of distracting, nonsensical things. Let’s keep it to the proper execution of scientific research.
bill frumkin says:
April 29, 2010 at 9:43 pm
But how do we know if he is a witch?
I know we can build a bridge out of him.
But could you not also build a bridge from a Bristlecone Pine.
John Egan says:
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.
The AG’s job is to protect the interests of the state. If Dr. Mann has used state granted funds inappripriately, then the people deserve to get their money back. I’m sure the AG has a wealth of knowledge of Virginia and federal law.
Dr. Mann on the other hand…..a man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn no other way–Mark Twain
David Schnare says:
April 30, 2010 at 8:32 am
David,
do you know if the AG is calling on McIntyre to come for deposition?
That will be helpful — something the Oxburgh gang did not do
David Schnare says:
April 30, 2010 at 8:32 am
“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.”
So, too, is conducting research without fear of persecution. I, for one, would be feeling pretty uncomfortable if every research result I produced when at the University of Virginia was subject to scrutiny that could result in criminal charges because the state’s Attorney General determined that a research decision I made led to a result which wasn’t one that the AG liked. In fact, if that were the case, I am pretty sure I would have selected a different University to attend (outside the state of Virginia).
Should I be living in fear of Cuccinelli’s successor somewhere down the line? An AG who thinks that pursuing GHG emissions reduction is a good idea and that research I conducted while at UVa could be interpreted to have 1) slowed that pursuit, and 2) been mollified had I made different research decisions?
If Cuccinelli has a particular alleged crime that he is investigating, that is one thing. If he is heading up a fishing expedition, then this is hugely scary. Thus far the available information seems to point to the latter. Yikes!
Science in the state of Virginia will not be the better because of this effort.
-Chip Knappenberger
davidmhoffer says:
April 30, 2010 at 7:39 am
“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”
Scientists hardly ever admit that they are wrong. That’s why the scientific
process is organized so that the collective (‘the peers’) in the end decide
what will stand and what will be buried in the archives. Mann’s hockey
stick has survived an exceptional scrutiny by 3-4 statisticians! If it is
to be falsified I think the key lies in new proxy material, but then again,
with a new warm year 2009 the hockey blade keeps climbing upwards.
I would guess that a 0.5 M grant has been duly reported and audited
when the project closed? What could be the point of this political
initiative? Actually I can guess …
MinB says:April 30, 2010 at 8:46 am
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.”
As Wiki is a known AGW website, they’ve intentionally lost this part of the definition: “.. .obviously ridiculous assertions with no basis in fact….. to cover situations like this:
Anu says: April 30, 2010 at 9:30 am
I’m interested to see how a freshman AG witchhunt goes over with the people of Virginia. Kenny has been in office since January 10, 2010 – I’m sure Virginians will be thrilled to hear he wants to spend tens of $millions to investigate an ex-Assistant Professor of UVA that hasn’t worked there since 2005.
But it always is somewhat humorous, in a juvenile way.
Tim Clark says:
April 30, 2010 at 8:11 am
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.
Not really, less than $100,000/year would barely support a single grad student, the university charges about 59% overhead. The university’s Office of Research Administration submits the applications to the granting authority and university officers sign off on it and submit the required reports. If the university didn’t comply with reporting requirements they’re on the hook. It’s not unusual to have periodic audits on past grants, I was once asked to explain why I’d ‘sole sourced’ a particular item 7 years before as part of one of their regular audits.
tens of $millions? Please.
And I think many of you are confusing the term Witch Hunt with Fishing Expedition.
I think it’s neither, but I don’t think the term Witch Hunt can be justified at all.
#
Tim Clark says:
April 30, 2010 at 8:11 am
“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.”
Another take on the issue: sceptics would perhaps not know the real
costsof gathering and processing material, because they get a police order
and demand ‘hand over all you have done the last 25 years’ (McIntyre
method).
Seriously though, 0.5 M is a lot of money, but for a research group
collecting different proxy materials and combining them; maybe not
excessive.
Point is: why didn’t any of the Mann critics come up with the idea and
do the creative part?
Then
Smokey says: April 30, 2010 at 10:10 am
Sure. Fabricated data sets. Out of a job.
Reputation destroyed. Charlatans.
Again – how did things turn out for Professor Jones ?
http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/jonesp
Reality did not match your fevered imagination in the case of Professor Jones – do you really think your wishful thinking will come true with Professor Mann ?
Yeah, and maybe Kenny will prove President Obama was born in Kenya, too: