While the IPCC gets taken to the woodshed, Mannian methodology gets another free pass.
Cuccinelli left Credit: TIMES-DISPATCH, Dr. Mann, right
An Albemarle County judge has dismissed Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s demand that the University of Virginia turn over documents related to the research of a prominent climate change expert.
Cuccinelli, a vocal climate change skeptic, had been investigating the possibility that climatology professor Michael Mann fraudulently obtained five taxpayer-funded research grants while employed at UVa between 1999 and 2005.
In an opinion issued this morning, Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. ruled that Cuccinelli failed to show a sufficient “reason to believe” that UVa possessed any documents related to Mann that suggested a fraud occurred.
…
Peatross added, however, that the attorney general is within his rights to issue CIDs — which carry the legal weight of subpoenas — to investigate taxpayer-funded research grants awarded to professors such as Mann.
Cuccinelli said in a statement that he will send a new CID to UVa to continue his hunt for proof that Mann defrauded Virginia’s taxpayers in obtaining grants that funded his climate change research.
More here at The Daily Progress (not to be confused with the ‘angry progress’ blogs)
h/t to WUWT reader AnonyMoose
luca turin [August 30, 2010 at 3:51 pm] says:
I think Mann is a scoundrel but …
Yeah, sure you do.
(… blah blah) Scientists should do their own policing, (blah blah …)
There’s your problem right there. Should police do their own policing? Should ballplayers do their own policing? Should students do their own policing? Should prisoners do their own policing? Who polices your kids? Who polices their school bus drivers, the school employees, your kids doctors or babysitters? What kind of person could dream up the scenario where scientists on the taxpayer dole are treated unlike anyone else?
So about your questionable logic: (1) you think Mann is a scoundrel, and (2) you know he uses taxpayer money, which reduces to: (3) you know of a taxpayer funded scientist who you think is a scoundrel but (4) you think he should police himself or be policed by his collaborators.
That about cover it?
Snapple [August 30, 2010 at 4:39 pm] says:
Mr. Cuccinelli should follow the lead of the American statesman George Shultz, instead of toadying to the destructive sponsors of the pseudoscientific denialist movement. He should be defending scientists from persecution, not setting the mob on them at taxpayer expense.
Taxpayers are the mob thank you very much. This is the direction we are headed so you better get used to it. Stand in front of this freight train at your own peril. Taxpayers are finally waking up and they are the last line of defense to the socialist onslaught. We must make it so dangerous and painful to go near taxpayer dollars that it becomes a last resort, instead of the only resort.
The probe by Cuccinelli is a miniscule baby step towards getting taxpayer accountability, much more pain is required. If a scientist or anyone accepts one single penny of TAXPAYER money they better be fearing that the wrath of god will descend upon them if they squander/lie/cheat/distort/waste/etc ad nauseum. If Mann is the first so be it, but he will not be the last.
Why don’t you just be honest with your left-wing self and say this: How dare you taxpayers try to police and account for your donations to the state! Don’t you know it is for the greater good?
When you grow up and begin to write checks of five and six figures to state and federal government EVERY year (not to mention property/school taxes) then come back and talk to me. In the meantime switch your handle from Snapple (what, was koolaid already taken?) to Twinkie.
Once the grant money has been spent and the peer-reviewed papers have been published it’s really too late. I suggest the following steps for scientists at state supported universities in Virginia. 1. copy (“cc”) the AG on all email messages. 2) Send manuscripts to the AG for approval before submission to journals. 3) Ask the AG for advice on statistical analysis. 4) Sent grant accounting documentation to the AG’s office for analysis and approval. This should be a good beginning.
@snapple.
the Russians only changed their minds when they realised there was money in it for them.
Is Snapple a Mann or an alien?
Snapple wrote:
“Cuccinelli calls himself a “conservative,” but there is nothing conservative about destroying American scientists and discrediting their research research with fabricated “fraud” charges. ”
“… He should be defending scientists from persecution…”
Snapple, let me set you straight on two quick things, so maybe we could get over this. First, it isn’t the “charge” that discredits the research, it is the “investigation.” If there’s no misconduct, there’s no negative result. It’s that simple.
Second, nobody should be defending scientists from persecution. The scientific method does that. If they followed the scientific method, then there can be no success for an investigation. If they didn’t… Then they shouldn’t be scientists. Pretty simple, no?
“”Cuccinelli calls himself a “conservative,” but there is nothing conservative about destroying American scientists and discrediting their research research with fabricated “fraud” charges.””
“He should be defending scientists from persecution.”
1) Charge doesn’t discredit, investigations do.
2) Nobody should be defending scientists. If they did their work right under the scientific method, then they are defended. If they didn’t, then they aren’t scientists and they should be investigated.
Rob:
“The only difference would be that Mann’s carreer is finished.
Is that what you guys are after ?”
Yes, of course, for the sin of obstruction, obfuscation, bullying, instead of doing what a scientist should do.. admit the mistake, correct it, and move on. Mann fired himself when he did that. The end of his carreer is just the logical outcome.
As Blade said, the taxpayer is the mob. Everyone has experienced some force from the government over the global warming fraud. The reports of research on global warming extend beyone the university and the grants, that information is intended to lead to major changes in our lives and even our freedom to decide for ourselves. If the science is bad then the laws passed based on bad science are an abomination. Scientists who do not put all their proof out there for review are better to keep it to themselves. With all your skill you still have a responsibility to the public and to your credit most of you are.
” Dr Mann was found to have done his job properly.”
Ahhh… Ummm…. NO.
Paulw displays his fundamental bias here.
Dr. Mann was found to have done his job SHODDILY, but not improperly enough to warrant more than a whitewashed slap on the wrist. That is a FAR CRY from doing one’s job “properly”.
Snapple,
You are obviously a stooge for the “climate-change” industry. In fact, Joe Romm probably pays you to post here.
That being said, keep in mind that Mann was awarded millions of dollars in government grants, and the government is filled with criminals, so his millions in grant money far exceed any paltry $55,000 you are alluding to.
Bill D.
Not a bad idea… the AG of the Commonwealth of Virginia would probably do a far more honest “peer review” than so-called “climate scientists” do for each other’s papers… I think it definitely has some merit!
Considering the way this case and the circus of inquiries have been handled I’m beginning to wonder if organized crime isn’t a contributing factor.
Snapple says:
August 30, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Your link, which you offer to support your view, has nothing to do with the NAS, Wegman, M&M investigation by Congress. It is a stand-alone report from 2006 by a 12 member committee assembled by North. It is rife with factual errors and reeks of misconceptions peddled by AGW mainstreamers, most of which have all been dealt with and refuted on this site and others…with facts. It does have salient and concise points concerning the MBH 98/99 conclusions:
___________________
NAS 2006
“However, the substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming.”
“Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.”
“We also question some of the statistical choices made in the original papers by Dr. Mann and his colleagues.” (Recall that during the M&M, Wegman, and North testimonies before congress that North was asked directly, “Do you agree with the Wegman conclusions?” he stated catagorically, “Yes”.)
“One significant part of the controversy on this issue is related to data access. The
collection, compilation, and calibration of paleoclimatic proxy data represent a
substantial investment of time and resources, often by large teams of researchers.”
“The committee recognizes that access to research data is a complicated, discipline-dependent issue, and that access to computer models and methods is especially challenging because intellectual property rights must be considered.”
“Our view is that all research benefits from full and open access to published
datasets and that a clear explanation of analytical methods is mandatory.” (Mann never did and still has not been held accountable)
“Peers should have access to the information needed to reproduce published results, so that increased confidence in the outcome of the study can be generated inside and outside the scientific community”. (Mann never has and still has not been held accountable)
“Paleoclimate research would benefit if individual researchers, professional societies, journal editors, and funding agencies continued their efforts to ensure that existing open access practices are followed.” (Few have, and still have not been held accountable)
____________________
They also catagorically state that they believe “man-made” global warming is occurring. IMHO it is not the best of strategies to defend your point from within a camp that blatantly supports your (wrong) conclusions from the outset. That’s already been done as we have seen, with predictable outcomes: whitewash.
Are you in Russia? Are you an expatriot? We’re wondering about all the references: where are you coming from with this? If you’re not living there, please go. You are part of the problem.
It’s obvious where your loyalties lie. Mr. Cuccinelli represents an opportunity for the TRUTH to be exposed: that our tax dollars were used fraudulently, are being used fraudently and we want it to stop NOW!
My feeling, at this point in the game, and after the monumental amount of outright lies and misinformation that has issued from this person and his camp that Mr. Cuccinelli is uniquely suited to bust this wide open given the very reasons you try to discredit him with:
I almost hope he does have “criminal” (mob?) ties as it will most likely take the same techniques used by AGW believers to bring this eddifice of smoke and mirrors down.
” He should be defending scientists from persecution, not setting the mob on them at taxpayer expense.”
Snapple,
ONE of the jobs of a State AG is to ensure that the money belonging to the taxpayers of the State is spent wisely and honestly, not fraudulently. Obviously you completely fail to understand this.
Blade is absolutly correct.
We, the taxpayers, ARE the mob, and we should not only expect, but DEMAND proper accountability for what our taxes are being used for. If there is even the slightest reason to SUSPECT that our tax money is being used on downright shoddy, perhaps even fraudulent “research”, then it is the JOB of the State AG to investigate such things on behalf of the tax-payers.
Snapple completely failed civics apparently.
I don’t see any need for either side of this argument to get upset over the ruling. The judge just verified the right of the public to investigate the use of public funds while indicating that the complaintant had not properly processed his work.
This is not persecution of Mann, nor is it vindication for Cuccinelli; it’s just the legal process following a well structure process.
However, I’m tired of the repeated theme that the skeptics are backed by big corporations, big oil, etc. Check to see who has signed on for cap and trade – BP, GE, Exxon, etc. They expect to make money off this pyramid scheme.
If the key is to conserve energy, I’d rather just pay direct, higher energy taxes so they go straight to government instead of through the Cap and Steal middle men.
The AG need to tone down his personal ‘involvement’ and just send in a couple new law school grads and a few old accountants. If there’s anything, they’ll find it for him.
http://biggovernment.com/chorner/2010/08/31/judge-in-virginia-global-warming-investigation-blocks-inquiry-into-his-wifes-former-employer/
Related revelation…
Theo Barker says:
August 30, 2010 at 1:33 pm
The “county” judge is just the first level it has to go through. Just because the Commonwealth AG (Cuccinelli) instigated the inquiry, does not mean it goes directly to the Virginia Supreme Court. The AG is just the highest ranking lawyer in the Commonwealth government, not a special litigator.
My earlier comment got quite a lot of criticism. I was called ‘thick’ and a ‘sockpuppet’, and I am just a commenter.
I think that some of us have particular views that are not strongly linked to science. This weakens our critical view of the scientific results.
It might help to take the survey by the University of Western Australia, on attitudes towards science. Then, we can debate on the survey results and hopefully help our efforts. The URL to the survey is
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/online-survey.php?surveyID=HKMKNF_991e2415
paulw,
I took the survey; however didn’t see the results. Noted that while most questions were balanced, some seemed biased.
Just FYI, I’m not a scientist, but a mechanical engineer with a BS. I believe I understand the scientific method, and I’ve had more than enough thermo, chemistry and physics to understand the issues presented with climate change. I just see way too much spin, too many people profitting and a lack of openness to believe the CA portion of CAGW.
failed to show a sufficient “reason to believe” that UVa possessed any documents related to Mann that suggested a fraud occurred.
um, aren’t the requested documents supposed to be the evidence of fraud? if the uva thinks they are innocent, why doesn’t mann just turn them over the documents, vindicate himself, and end the whole charade?
geez, if mann got pulled over in his car any two bit judge would issue a search warrant for no reason at all. i guess that’s “justice” in america.
go figure.
PeterB in Indianapolis says:
August 31, 2010 at 8:19 am
“ONE of the jobs of a State AG is to ensure that the money belonging to the taxpayers of the State is spent wisely and honestly, not fraudulently. Obviously you completely fail to understand this.”
He understands it perfectly. He just doesn’t think it applies to climate scientists. Well, maybe some climate scientists – if it was Lindzen on the receiving end Snapple would be snapping with delight, and no mistake.
So if I have it right Mann wrote a paper in 1998 that was the first attempt to reconstruct a temperature history using various proxies. Some people found his statistical manipulations inelegant but a subsequent examination of his work by the National Academy of Sciences found that though there were better statistical methods available none of them would have had a profound impact on his paper’s conclusions.
Then some emails were stolen or leaked which proved beyond measure that even climate scientists have bad hair days but really didn’t reveal anything more than bad tempered fraustration with unacustomed attention.
‘Hide the decline’ and ‘Michael’s nature trick’ became, in the eyes of many the wooden stake through the heart of AGW. Yet months down the track after several investigations or white washes (depending on your contact with reality) the physical evidence of AGW continues to be collated.
Now we have a DA who can’t lay a glove on the science but feels in the depths of his heart that a fraud must have been perpetrated. Only he doesn’t have any evidence as yet. And the only reason he doesn’t have the evidence is that the University will not roll over and deliver to him everything that Michael Mann and any one connected to Mann has ever written whilst Mann was engaged in publicly funded research at the University.
Some on this blog have said that in the interests of transparency the University should deliver, utilising the logic that where there is smoke there must be fire. This is similar to the medieval justification of torture, for God would not allow suspicion to fall upon the innocent and so it followed where there was suspicion guilt lurked closely.
However we know that Mann is guilty (leaving aside the perturbing thought that when the only acceptable verdict is guilty some one has just thrown natural justice out of the ninth floor window) not because we find his science unsettling but because…well just because.
Perhaps rather than cheering on a politically motivated inquisition we might ask ourselvs if the science is so shabby that it can only be supported by fraud then it can’t be that hard to overturn it, can it? I mean its not that hard to identify all the journals that participate in the dissemination of this fraud. Its not that hard to read the papers and put your finger on the flaw/fraud, is it?
Perhaps the DA should be making application to the courts to grant him access to the university’s subscriptions of the various academic journals in which Mann has published so that he might extend his writ.