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.
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.
This is just a Political witch hunt, as the “hockey stick’ has been replicated by numerous other studies.
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.
“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
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.
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.
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.
Steve Oregon says:
crusade against scientists
Anyone who serves a master betraying his honor is not longer a scientist but a mercenary,
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.
“……..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.
“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.
In law, that’s called “discovery”. BillD isn’t a lawyer, is he?
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?”
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).
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.
Here’s another Steve;
“which he sought seeking ”
Author must be from The Department of Redundancy Department!
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.
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.
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.
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.
U-Va’s ducking & diving make it obvious that they’ve got something to hide.
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.
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?