Cuccinelli tells court former U-Va. professor's academic freedom not threatened

From the Washington Post

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has told a judge that his request for documents related to the work of former University of Virginia climate scientist Michael Mann should be granted because neither academic freedom nor the First Amendment “immunizes” a person from a fraud investigation.

The university has petitioned a judge to set aside Cuccinelli’s “civil investigative demand,” essentially a subpoena, in which he sought seeking emails sent to and from Mann before he left the university in 2005, as well as information about five public grants Mann received while at the school.Cuccinelli made a lengthy response to the university’s petition in an Albemarle Circuit Court on Tuesday. In his answer, a top staff attorney for Cuccinelli rejects several arguments that had been made by the university’s lawyers–hired specially to handle the case, which has received national attention.

Cuccinelli notes some documents he has sought are public records that could ordinarily be released through a Freedom of Information request. He also uses Mann’s own resume to indicate the grants he has asked about were awarded through the university, even though some involved federal money.

But the core of Cuccinelli’s initial response is a rejection of the university’s position that turning over Mann’s documents would violate his academic freedom. The university had been under significant pressure from academics who believed Cuccinelli’s attempt to get the documents was part of a politcally-motivated crusade scientists who have researched global warming. “Academic freedom is neither implicated nor threatened by the CIDs” Cuccinelli’s lawyer wrote, arguing that academics have no shield against allegations that they have committed fraud.

Read the rest here

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
PJB

Academic freedom….we are at a crossroads here.
That backroom deals and conspiratorial machinations resulted in the subversion (distortion?) of the peer-review process is one thing. If the release of the climate-gate e-mails had only raised more ire within academia, the miscreants would have been brought to heel.
Sadly, all we have seen to date are whitewashes and misdirection. This too will pass and saner heads will eventually prevail. This does not excuse the methods that were employed to (almost) achieve the means.
Mann appears to be the poster-child for “professors gone bad” so making an example of him will be a cautionary tale to ensure better behavior from grant-seeking scientists. Using “re-jigged” results to gain more grants may constitute fraud and as such, deserves to receive the full punishment that the law provides.

BillD

Looks 100% like a fishing expetition and harrassment. The DA can’t even say what he is looking for. Not sure how much time it would take for the university to comply or for the DA’s office to go through the information. Since Mann is not longer at UV, I assume that the costs will only accrue to the unversity and the DA’s office. In general, the sucess of grants is judged by publications and weak performance (few or weak publications) reduces one’s chance with further grant proposals. Does the DA expect to undercover fraud in the administration of the grant by some accountant clerk in the grants research department at the University of Virginia?

J.Hansford

This will be a good test to see if scrutiny can be brought to bear on people taking taxpayer money while purporting to do climate science…. and the institutions that facilitate them.
So far it appears they are not willing to entertain a spirit of cooperation and transparency…… So, what is it that they are afraid will be discovered?

Wriggle wriggle.
Still, at least Piltdown Mann won’t be troubling us with spurious tree ring trends while he’s soaking up $1,800,000 studying the flightpaths of mosquitos.

Amino Acids in Meteorites

I’m glad Ken Cuccinelli is still on the case. The more Michael Mann and those involved with him resist the more they look guilty. So all I can say is I hope they step up their efforts to resist even more.

kim

It’s immensely funny to read what happens in comments at the WaPo when BruceFairfax starts quoting text. It is geschribben and rippen to shredden.
================

Mike Bryant

Bravo!!! Cuccinelli… If fraud has been alleged, they must be forthcoming…. Even IF no fraud was alleged, all documents created with public funds should be available for public inspection… It’s time to get tough with our money… I just hope it’s not too late…

kim

Also noteworthy is the incoherent rage and raving of the alarmist faction, using invective and rhetoric peculiar to the tribe. That comment section is going to be worth following for awhile.
====================

Amino Acids in Meteorites

BillD says:
June 20, 2010 at 6:44 am
Looks 100% like a fishing expetition and harrassment.
100% Bill? It depends what kind of glasses you’re looking through.

Ron Cram

The reporting on this story has not been good. Read the comments and you can see how confused people are about what is going on.
Of course the government can investigate Mann. This is essentially an audit. If Mann has committed fraud, then he and the university have to return money to Virginia. Even if Mann has committed fraud, he will not be sent to prison. This is only about the money. And Cuccinelli is not judging the science. The people who think it is are way, way off base. The reporter should do a better job of explaining what Cuccinelli is looking at.
Mann and the university should stop complaining and turn over the documents. Thye are acting like they are guilty! If I was Cuccinelli, I would keep pressing.

Jimbo

On the comments page of the Washington Post RonInIrvine put it best:

“Mann and the university should stop complaining and turn over the documents. Thye are acting like they are guilty! If I was Cuccinelli, I would keep pressing.”

Through experience Cuccinelli knows that the more an organisation resists the more likely there is a smoking gun.
As my ma always used to say “If you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear.” :o(

hunter

Good. Both barrels, Mr. Attorney General.
The arrogance of academia is rather disgusting, frankly.

higley7

BillD says:
“Looks 100% like a fishing expetition and harrassment. The DA can’t even say what he is looking for.”
Actually, it pretty clear what he is looking for and neither fishing nor harassment is involved. Mann’s e-mail may very well contain discussion, as there was in the CRU e-mail, of unscientific thinking that went into creating the HockeyStick graph in which he/they (colleagues) consciously selected data and altered statistical programming to create a specific desired result.
It is one thing to make an honest error and logically follow and try to support a wrong hypothesis, but it is another to knowingly use immoral and false methods to create a result to support a politically motivated hypothesis. Now it is fraud—no academic freedom is involved—as other people’s money was used to fund the fraud and the results would be used to support the larger fraud of AGW.
Academic freedom does not mean that a tenured professor can do anything he/she jolly well pleases. There are still bounds. First, they are subject to all of our morals, ethics, and laws. They do have the freedom to study any area of knowledge they like or even change fields, as Albert Svent-Gyorgi did when he switched from biochemistry to crystallography. However, they do have to follow rational lines of thought and have to perform defendable work; otherwise, being unproductive, they can be stripped of their tenure. Yep, there are indeed limits.
And, if a paper was published, it only means that the rationale of the paper and its form was acceptable to that particular journal and its editor. It is the discussion and academic (lacking ad hominem attacks) arguments that follow that determines whether it is good science or not.
I was in lipid biochemistry and the literature from before 1980 is rank with papers that appear to make sense, but when you learn the odd chemistry that can occur in nonaqueous environments of fats, oils, and hydrocarbons and the innocent mistakes that can be made in handling these compounds, you find that over 50% of the papers are rubbish. Now that we know this, from our own and contemporary work, only the truly valid papers and their methods are cited over and over in current literature, becoming the scientific foundation of current and future work.
Time, adult discussion, and the utility of the published science determines, in a form of Darwinian selection, the fitness of the science.

HankHenry

“Looks 100% like a fishing expedition and harrassment.” BillD
Of course it’s a fishing expedition. Is that supposed to be some kind of condemnation? Every time the IRS audits someone they are on a fishing expedition. If a university or a researcher takes grant money they should expect to make an accounting of how the money was used. As long as governments give out grant money there will be people tempted to misuse it and there will have to be people making sure it doesn’t get misused, that’s the nature of money. You know, even Andy Revkin over at the NYTimes jokes about grant money, saying, “I got out of college in 1978. I was lucky enough to get a fellowship that allowed me to study ‘Man’s Relationship to the Sea in the South Pacific’ It was a real scam.” – this was during his keynote at a recent “Moving By Degrees” symposium. I think that people should take grant money more seriously than they do. Thinking that a vague notion such as “academic freedom” is license for educators and researchers do as they please simply because they think of themselves as academic is naive. Furthermore this all ties in to the uncertainty of climate science which is the thing that the U.S. Supreme Court directed the EPA to be on the watch for. There is a strong possibility that Cuccinelli is motivated by political considerations, but this is not that different from scientists letting their political cant interfere with their scientific judgments. Let’s not forget that Mann’s colleagues are the ones that described him as using a “trick.” That alone may be sufficient to warrant attention from authorities.

Doug in Seattle

I love the bit where UVA’ lawyer is claiming that the since this is the first time a CID has been issued under the FATA, it is unprecedented.
The warmers do so love that word – and now, finally, they get to use it in legal brief. I’m so happy for them.

I am still underwhelmed by the attourney general jumping into this. I do actually consider it a publicity stunt for future political gain.
That said , the fact that the last stand for people looking for the actual truth in a scientific issue revolving around the basic principles of the scientific method, ie., propose a theory, design an experiment , evealuate the results, ADJUST YOUR THEORY TO THE OBSERVED RESULTS, retest, continue the cycle until you have a thesis that withstands all the test. Publish your results , discuss the objections with anybody who has a problem with your theory. Make sure that your results are reproduceable by anybody who is interested.
In this particular case the AGW theory has world changing implications if it stands up to the scientific test. There could be Nobel invitations for properly done research , so just out of curiosity
WHY ON EARTH ARE THE PEOPLE WHO DESIGNED THE TESTS AND DID THE RESEARCH NOT STANDING ONTOP OF THE BIGEST MOUNTAIN THEY CAN FIND YELLING AT THE WORLD . HERE IS MY DATA, HERE IS MY THEORY BRIONG ON YOUR BEST I WILL DEFEND MY THEORIES BECAUSE THEY ARE WITHOUT ANY DOUBT CORRECT.
Unfortunately we are left with a bunch of incestuous back patters who can not defend their lunch choices let alone some of what could have been earth shaking research.
Here endeth the rant

artwest

BillD:
“Not sure how much time it would take for the university to comply or for the DA’s office to go through the information. ”
Hell of a lot less than fighting it out in court. Are you suggesting that no possible frauds should ever be investigated, as the same objection always applies?
BillD: “Since Mann is not longer at UV, I assume that the costs will only accrue to the unversity and the DA’s office. ”
Maybe you are hinting that Mann should pay the costs if guilty? Anyone have a problem with that?
Again, should no fraud inquiries ever take place?
In any case, if it leads to applicants for grants being more scrupulous than they otherwise might have been the investigation could pay for itself.
BillD: “In general, the sucess of grants is judged by publications and weak performance (few or weak publications) reduces one’s chance with further grant proposals. ”
That anyone can put this idea forward with a straight face after the proof of “the team” at least attempting to pervert peer review is astonishing.

StevenK

I am confused, and perhaps someone with a better understanding of the law can help me out here. But isn’t the U-Va a publicly funded institution, and weren’t the documents in question prepared using U-Va (therefore publicly owned) machines? If those two observations are correct then wouldn’t the recent Supreme Court ruling (Ontario vs. Quon) apply? It is my understanding that the court found that an individual using a publicly owned communication device did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It seems to me that the court has made it clear that anyone who uses publicly paid for equipment and publicly paid for work time has in essence produced a publicly paid for document and that those documents should be made available. Have I misinterpreted the court ruling? Or is there some other reason why this ruling wouldn’t apply in this instance?

Pascvaks

Not to worry America! In the short term, if Mann has done anything for which he should be punished he will receive a Pardon from the President of the ASPCC and a few more grants from the NAS. If the University of Virginia has done anything for which it should be punished it will receive numurous pledges and bequests from the AlGoreInstitute.ORG.
In the long term, Mann will live (after he dies) in infamy and be despised by real scientists (and many psyentists) forever and ever and evermore (a Benedict Arnold kind’a fella), and the University will be renamed The Mann GED Institute of Fiction and Poetry and eventually become a Community College, LLC, on the WWW, restricted to those in prison for child molesting and serving life terms.
Damnation is for Eternity! Or so I’m told.

Ian W

“BillD says:
June 20, 2010 at 6:44 am
Looks 100% like a fishing expetition and harrassment. The DA can’t even say what he is looking for. Not sure how much time it would take for the university to comply or for the DA’s office to go through the information. Since Mann is not longer at UV, I assume that the costs will only accrue to the unversity and the DA’s office. In general, the sucess of grants is judged by publications and weak performance (few or weak publications) reduces one’s chance with further grant proposals. Does the DA expect to undercover fraud in the administration of the grant by some accountant clerk in the grants research department at the University of Virginia?”

When you sign on to get ‘government money’ everything you do that you charge to that money belongs to the government sponsor – you lose ALL rights to it and any privacy on the work. The intellectual property of anything done with government funding is vested TOTALLY with the government. Effectively, your work should be ‘open book’ as far as the government sponsor is concerned. In this case the government sponsor is now of the opinion that something was hidden from them – they have absolute right to ask for and see anything that was used or developed under that research grant.
These government research grants are by no means free money and the fruits of your and your students’ labors are completely owned by the government this includes not only results but also any stationery and furniture and computer hardware and software that was funded under the grant- if you don’t like that idea then don’t ask for a government grant.
Access to the information will in the end will come down to a simple contractual argument. Remember the State may also decide that if the university is recalcitrant in meeting these contractual research grant obligations, then perhaps no further State research grants will be extended to any department of the university. The fact that the university is willing to risk loss of all research funding raises some questions about what it is they feel they need to withhold: presumably disclosure of whatever it is would be of equal cost to them as loss of grant funding.

Peterk

“The DA can’t even say what he is looking for. The DA can’t even say what he is looking for. ”
and that is why he is requesting the records d’oh!
not until he gets the records will he know whether or not fraud has taken place

BillD Said:
“The DA can’t even say what he is looking for.”
Actually, the DA said specifically that he was investigating the possibility of FRAUD. It doesn’t make any difference who committed the fraud.
Yes, it looks like a fishing expedition. So what? It is a time honored liberal political tradition.
We have all seen some pretty ugly fish that need to be expelled from the academic pond, and finding the Al Capone equivalent of income tax evasion is just as effective in curtailing Dr Mann’s damage on honest science and society.

Butch Corcoran

And that is why I am proud to be a Virginian! Here’s an inconvenient truth. Professors at Virginia public universities are state employees. The AG has full standing for the investigation of all current and former state employees.

bob paglee

“Academic freedom” is as important as freedom of speech, but academic fraud deserves no nore protection than freedom of speech can protect one’s freedom to lie under oath. Mann is not being tried for scientific perjury, but why is academia trying to thwart the process if fact-finding? Is there an academic fear of uncovering the true facts?

The more they hide, the more they look bad!

Enneagram

Academic freedom?.A close friend just sent me the following. I just can´t believe this is happening in the USA.
THE SNEEZE
They walked in tandem, each of the ninety-two students filing into the already crowded auditorium. With their rich maroon gowns flowing and the traditional caps, they looked almost as grown up as they felt.
Dads swallowed hard behind broad smiles, and Moms freely brushed away tears.
This class would NOT pray during the commencements, not by choice, but because of a recent court ruling prohibiting it.
The principal and several students were careful to stay within the guidelines allowed by the ruling. They gave inspirational and challenging speeches, but no one mentioned divine guidance and no one asked for blessings on the graduates or their families.
The speeches were nice, but they were routine until the final speech received a standing ovation.
A solitary student walked proudly to the microphone. He stood still and silent for just a moment, and then, it happened.
All 92 students, every single one of them, suddenly SNEEZED !!!!
The student on stage simply looked at the audience and said,
‘GOD BLESS YOU’
And he walked off the stage…
The audience exploded into applause. This graduating class had found a unique way to invoke God’s blessing on their future with or without the court’s approval.
Isn’t this a wonderful story? Pass it on to all your friends………and
GOD BLESS YOU!
This is a true story; it happened at the University of Maryland.

jcrabb

This is just a Political witch hunt, as the “hockey stick’ has been replicated by numerous other studies.

Stephan

who is rigging the data this time
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=19&fy=2007&sm=06&sd=19&sy=2010
Its obvious from above that 2010 minimum will shock many AGWers.

Steve Oregon

“academics who believed Cuccinelli’s attempt to get the documents was part of a politcally-motivated crusade scientists who have researched global warming”
crusade against scientists

mpaul

What surprised me was how weak and poorly constructed UVa’s petition was. They basically argued that the state can’t investigate the use of grant money at the university, despite the UK ICO finding prima facia evidence of a crime in the climategate emails, because university faculty are fine and excellent men of letters. I’m sure that in the insular world of academia such arguments have force, but in a court of law, it won’t get them very far.

Pascvaks

Ref – jcrabb says:
June 20, 2010 at 9:23 am
“This is just a Political witch hunt, as the “hockey stick’ has been replicated by numerous other studies.”
______________________-
Soooooo True! Mann is a politician and deserves everything they throw at him. And that Hockey Stick thing you said is true too! We used to tape boomerangs to broomsticks and mophandles to play hockey backstage when I was in college. They worked great! But, you know, there’s no good substitute for a real puck. Gotta have a real puck.

Enneagram

Are you in need of a broom or a magic wand?
jcrabb says:
June 20, 2010 at 9:23 am
This is just a Political witch hunt, as the “hockey stick’ has been replicated by numerous other studies.

Enneagram

Steve Oregon says:
crusade against scientists

Anyone who serves a master betraying his honor is not longer a scientist but a mercenary,

Pamela Gray

Re: research scientists who cry waaayy every time someone wants to monitor/review
use of public funds. I’m a special ed teacher. It happens to us every year at the state and federal level. Wanna complain ’bout it? Take a number and wait your turn.
As for scientific freedom, the fact that I am monitored has nothing to do with my freedom to choose methodologies that produce student improvement results. I, and the district, more importantly can’t rob Peter to pay Paul, or call something one thing when in essence, it is another, in order to serve kids with disabilities. We can’t fudge test results (and we are monitored for that too), we can’t use funds from one account to pay for another, we can’t cut services when student count is the same but the economy sucks, we can’t be calling people disabled just because we want to double dip, etc, etc, etc. The review is extensive and takes a couple of months to complete and turn in. Every year. The review, which in essence is a search for wrong doing, is finely detailed, to the point that whether or not a student progresses is less of an issue than whether or not our records are complete.
The public demands how its money is spent. Mr. Mann, call 1-800 waaayyy.

James Sexton

“……..academics who believed Cuccinelli’s attempt to get the documents was part of a politcally-motivated crusade…….”
A politically-motivated response to a politically-motivated crusade would seem more apt. If academia had refrained from becoming politicized and if climate science would have avoided activism then none of this would have been necessary. I’m only surprised it hasn’t happened earlier.

Ed_B

“WHY ON EARTH ARE THE PEOPLE WHO DESIGNED THE TESTS AND DID THE RESEARCH NOT STANDING ONTOP OF THE BIGEST MOUNTAIN THEY CAN FIND YELLING AT THE WORLD . HERE IS MY DATA, HERE IS MY THEORY BRIONG ON YOUR BEST I WILL DEFEND MY THEORIES BECAUSE THEY ARE WITHOUT ANY DOUBT CORRECT”
I agree. Thats why I was excited to hear a debate in which Gavin Schmidt was a speaker. I was totally taken aback by his complete failure to present any proof of CAGW, and worse, he engaged in attacks on those people who were not “believers”. At that point, I saw the light. The whole hypothesis is close to a scam or fraud. While there might be some warming due to CO2, it is going to be so small as to be of no concern, perhaps 0.6 C.

snork

Looks 100% like a fishing expetition and harrassment.

In law, that’s called “discovery”. BillD isn’t a lawyer, is he?

Vincent

jcrabb says:
June 20, 2010 at 9:23 am
“This is just a Political witch hunt, as the “hockey stick’ has been replicated by numerous other studies.”
Other studies like Keith Briffa’s amazing Yamal tree study (one tree accounted for the hockey stick shape) or Phil Jones “Hide the decline study?”

Chad Woodburn

I forget, which part of the Constitution guarantees academic freedom? Now we all know that university professors do have special freedoms not guaranteed to the rest of us. After all, they’re elite and we aren’t. I guess academic freedom is found in the same place in the Constitution where is guarantees the right to privacy. I suppose the reason I don’t know where either are found is because I don’t have the talent of being able to read between the lines (to make it say whatever I want it to say).

Mindbuilder

It amazes me that legitimate climate scientists haven’t condemned the use of data from trees that give falsely low temperatures. Is there somewhere I’ve missed that they have admitted that that is bad science? I also don’t recall them condemning Mike’s Nature trick of hiding the inconvenient data. Have I missed that somewhere also? This refusal to condemn these tricks seems to be universal on their side. Therefore, since they call us deniers, maybe we should start calling the the people who defend the trick, tricksters.

Hu Duck Xing

Here’s another Steve;
“which he sought seeking ”
Author must be from The Department of Redundancy Department!

ZT

The public funds scientists to discover the truth. Why would scientists not want to be completely honest and open?
Just in case anyone hasn’t had a chance to review this typical Jones-Mannerism:
Here’s a climategate thread showing Mann’s ethics in action:
http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=903
Discussing Jones’ ‘impact factor’ in the literature, Jones says that his common surname results in too high a score. Not wanting to miss an opportunity for elevating the readings, Mann says he’ll use the untruthful, artificially high number:
Mann: “HI Phil, OK–thanks, I’ll just go w/ the H=62. That is an impressive number and almost certainly higher than the vast majority of AGU Fellows.”
That anyone can behave like this, create bogus relationships using shoddy amateurish ‘statistical’ methods, vehemently attack scientific colleagues, pervert the peer review system, and still obtain massive grant funding is an absolute disgrace.

899

BillD says:
June 20, 2010 at 6:44 am
Looks 100% like a fishing expetition and harrassment. The DA can’t even say what he is looking for. Not sure how much time it would take for the university to comply or for the DA’s office to go through the information. Since Mann is not longer at UV, I assume that the costs will only accrue to the unversity and the DA’s office. In general, the sucess of grants is judged by publications and weak performance (few or weak publications) reduces one’s chance with further grant proposals. Does the DA expect to undercover fraud in the administration of the grant by some accountant clerk in the grants research department at the University of Virginia?
In the case you hadn’t noticed, Mann was involved in the ‘ClimateGate’ matter up to his proverbial eyebrows.
It is your thought to say that because Mann is no longer at the university, that an investigation into wrongdoing has no validity?
Isn’t that every bit the same as the CRU thinking that they could put off responding to a FOI request until the 6 month limit had been reached, and thence declare that the request was no longer valid?

While I certainly wish there was another methodology for uncovering these charlatans’ chicanery, if Cucinelli’s approach is what’s available, let’s rock and roll.
Crying about ‘academic freedom’, to distract from the valid question of what may or may not have been done with the public dime simply won’t play in Peoria, and certainly shouldn’t in a court of law.
Whining that it’s ‘all political’ – well, live by the sword, die by the sword. When Hanson gets the memo, for his sake, hope he’s wearing dark slacks.

Craig Moore

Back in MAY WUWT had this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/30/ken-cuccinelli-versus-810-academics/#more-20046
A couple of thoughts come to mind:
++ If the university freely gave up Dr. Patrick Michaels’ “private” emails to Greenpeace without any legal requirement, it is hard to see how the university can now play the other side of the fence where there is a legal proceeding.
++ Why this fervent defense of academic freedom etc., for Dr. Mann and UV but not for Dr. Michaels? UV can’t have it both ways.

Gary

Unless funds were diverted for a purpose other than what was specified in the grant, then fraud was not committed. It’s been amply demonstrated that Dr. Mann’s research has flaws that he stubbornly will not acknowledge, that he has over-reached on his analysis and conclusions, that he fails to adhere to standard practices of science such as openly sharing data and methods, and that he’s a boor. However, none of these things, while rightly condemned, amount to fraud. This investigation is within the rights of the Virgina AG, but borders closely on the abuse of power. As in the Duke lacrosse team case, public officials can be tempted to use the power of the State for their own purposes. That had better not be the case here or nobody is served well. If Dr. Mann is hounded unfairly, even if he deserves being pulled up short for not playing nice, the public and the researchers all suffer. We need better science, not retribution.

tanstaafl

U-Va’s ducking & diving make it obvious that they’ve got something to hide.

geoff pohanka

This is the ultimate peer review. If someone is willing to accept public (0ur money) for their research, then their research should be open to review by those who represent the public (the attorney general). Why not release any and all information if there is nothing to hide? This is not a question of national security clearance. This is public information, since the public paid for it. And besides, Mann wants to re-engineer society using his data, so before we do that, why not let the information be closely reviewed by any and all who wish to, including the highest legal authority of the State? It is not like Mann doesnt take a political position with all his work, is he impartial and non opinionated, quite the opposite. So they say his information can not be released because the person asking for it, the AG, is not impartial or non opinionated. You can’t have it both ways. Keep up the pressure AG, the law is on your side.

Mindbuilder

Oh, and since the trick wasn’t really a bad thing, the trick was just a clever method of doing a calculation, they shouldn’t mind being called tricksters. And since they aren’t really calling us Nazi Holocaust deniers when they call us deniers, we aren’t really calling them frauds when we call them tricksters. We’re just saying they have lots of good clever tricks for doing their calculations.

@jcrabb. do you mean the studies that used the same faulty data and trick as the origional, or the ones with such poor cross validation R2 values that they are meaningless statistically?