Mann’s old University gets another subpoena

via the SPPI Blog:

Cover page of the new subpoena

Cuccinelli reissues global warming subpoena to U-Va.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has sent a new civil subpoena to the University of Virginia, renewing a demand for documents related to a work of a former university climate scientist that was stymied when a judge blocked his previous request in August.

The new Civil Investigative Demand revives a contentious fight between Cuccinelli and the university over documents related to the work of Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist whose research concluded that the earth has experienced a rapid, recent warming. Mann worked at U-Va. until 2005; he is now employed by Penn State University.

In the demand sent to the university last week, Cuccinelli once again asked that the school turn over all e-mails exchanged between former university professor Michael Mann and 39 other scientists as well as between Mann and his secretaries and research associates.

An Albemarle County judge had quashed a previous demand from Cuccinelli at the request of the university, ruling that Cuccinelli had not properly explained his rationale for believing fraud may have been committed. He also ruled that Cuccinelli had no right to documents about grants conducted using federal instead of state dollars.

“Specifically, but without limitation, some of the conclusions of the papers demonstrate a complete lack of rigor regarding the statistical analysis of the alleged data, meaning that the result reported lacked statistical significance without a specific statement to that effect,” the CID alleges.

Mann said with Cuccinelli’s narrowing of his request, he has now limited the request to documents related to a grant that funded research unrelated to climate change.

“I find it extremely disturbing that Mr. Cuccinelli has sought to continue to abuse his power as the attorney general of Virginia in this way, in the process smearing the University of Virginia and me and other climate scientists,” Mann said. “The people of Virginia need to be extremely disturbed that he is using their tax dollars to pursue this partisan witch hunt.”

=======================

See the new civil subpoena (PDF)

Advertisements

95 thoughts on “Mann’s old University gets another subpoena

  1. Mann said. “The people of Virginia need to be extremely disturbed that he is using their tax dollars to pursue this partisan witch hunt.”

    Witches used to use tricks?

  2. “I find it extremely disturbing that Mr. Cuccinelli has sought to continue to abuse his power as the attorney general of Virginia in this way, in the process smearing the University of Virginia and me and other climate scientists,” Mann said. “The people of Virginia need to be extremely disturbed that he is using their tax dollars to pursue this partisan witch hunt.”

    How typical. In just these two sentences we see Mann firstly playing the victim card, and then we see an astounding display of gall with regards to misuse of tax dollars.

  3. Last para ” ….using tax dollars to pursue this witch hunt”

    Those words won’t come back to haunt him will they.

    Rhetoric off.

  4. I don’t know why Cuccinelli is still bothering with this.

    Any documents incriminating Mann will have long ago disappeared into the ether.

    The lessons of Climategate will have been learned well by Mann and the rest of the team, namely that the purveyors of bad and flawed science must be prepared at very short notice to destroy all evidence of their wrong doings.

  5. I’m strongly concerned when the power of the state is used to harrass, intimidate or ruin an individual or a small group of individuals.

    That said, as a taxpayer, I believe it’s wrong to feed at the public trough unless you give the taxpayer fair return for their money.

    The CRU e-mails indicate that at some point, the taxpayers may have been ripped off. It’s worth having a look. The finding from this investigation will either be fraud, bad science, or inconclusive research that taxpayers may no longer wish to fund. Can anyone think of any other possible findings?

  6. Given that no state dollars were used to fund the contentious research, it’s hard to see what defense Cuccinelli could have against Mann’s accusation that it’s become an ideologically motivated state funded witch hunt.

    The Virginia Bar ethics guidelines state:
    “A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others.”

    Cuccinelli has probably stepped over that line.

  7. “I find it extremely disturbing that Mr. Cuccinelli has sought to continue to abuse his power as the attorney general of Virginia in this way, in the process smearing the University of Virginia and me and other climate scientists,” Mann said. “The people of Virginia need to be extremely disturbed that he is using their tax dollars to pursue this partisan witch hunt.”

    Was not Mann involved in a ‘witch hunt’ when he and his cohorts resolved to stymie every effort to access records, and keep others from publishing research which ran counter to his received knowledge and that of his fellow witch hunters?

    And was not Mann, et al, seen (via Climategate emails) to have conspired to both discredit and threaten skeptics with one or another form of career termination, i.e., being blacklisted?

    If anyone is guilty of something, it is Mr. Mann, and he has much to answer for.

    Perhaps it is that which so frightens him: The release of further damning communications.

    At this juncture, it would not surprise me in the least that things begin to turn up missing …

  8. @peter miller, its a risk to delete emails and claim they dont exist because other organisations have copies.
    so what paper is he on about, anyone know? i don’t think he can prosecute for a scientist producing a bad paper.

  9. Federal dollar versus state attorney, any problems? Who are familiar with this jurisdiction issue? please explain what is the normal way of doing?

  10. Peter Miller says: “Any documents incriminating Mann will have long ago disappeared into the ether. The lessons of Climategate will have been learned”

    The lessons of climategate were that the “scientists” are a dithering bunch of fools who are so incompetent that they cannot even keep track of their own data. They haven’t a clue what they are doing, and they certainly don’t know much about that new fangled technology called “computers”.

    10:1 a decent IT person will track down all the emails they have “hidden” in a matter of minutes.

  11. If Cuccinelli does not believe that the science behind global warming is sound he should come up with the scientific proof of that, instead of resorting to slander and personal attacks on a highly respected scientist like Michael Mann. Mann has written over 100 peer reviewed articles. You don’t really believe that someone like that could get away with fraud?

    If the science behind AGW is wrong it should be simple to prove that. Climate skeptics have tried to do that for the past 30 years; they have failed utterly and are now apparently having a go at the scientists in stead of the science.

    It’s sad really…

  12. Another deep breath. Looks as if the VA AG modified his subpoena to “fix” what amounted to mostly a matter of form. Even the judge in the first scuffle acknowledged the AG’s power to investigate UVA grants under the authority granted to the AG.

    What will likely happen next is another round of motions and hearing(s) then, eventually, onto the actual data. Given the incestuous nature of popular climate “science” during the Mann made global warming period, there are likely footnotes cited which will allow the AG to pretty much investigate the entire cabal if he chooses.

    If the investigation leads to testimony by Mann, then reality will finally confront junk science.

  13. Regretably in the interval between the quashing of the last subpoena & now I assume it will have been perfectly legal for them to have deleted emails by the barrowload

  14. ‘“Specifically, but without limitation, some of the conclusions of the papers demonstrate a complete lack of rigor regarding the statistical analysis of the alleged data, meaning that the result reported lacked statistical significance without a specific statement to that effect,” the CID alleges.’

    So the VA AG is now being paid to determine the rigor with which statistical analysis is carried out in scientific papers and punish those who do not meet his specific expectations? I’m sure his degree in law and political aspirations make him extremely qualified for this feat. Does no one else find this utterly ridiculous and scary.

    The smart, maybe just hopeful, money says this one gets thrown out too.

  15. I don’t know if the data being requested by the AG’s subpoena is covered under Electronic Discovery rules but if it is and if UVA deleted any of that data, they are in serious trouble. The discovery rules are very clear, in that they not only require organizations to protect data that is subject or relevant to litigation but also data that the organization has reason to believe may be subject to civil litigation. If it comes to trial, and if it is determined that the party destroyed relevant data, the remedy is the judge can instruct the jury to assume the data would have shown worst case.

    The other aspect of this is it’s really hard to delete anything these days. With backups and copies of things being saved and sent all over the place it’s likely if someone did try to delete something, there is another copy of what they deleted floating around somewhere. And if that was the case, and it was discovered, then it would get really ugly.

  16. While Dr. Mann might not be the most ethical scientist of all time. This is obnoxious and it is the type of behavior that in general discredits the skeptics.

    Speaking of Dr. Mann. I was involved in a rather contentious discussion on a warmist site that was focused on why CO2 should be classified as a pollutant. They chose to use the Taylor Dome ice core to show what the “natural” values of CO2 were in the atmosphere for the past 10,000 years.

    So I pointed out that in general ice cores show cooling for the past 6,000 years. So I found the temperature data and compared it to the CO2. Sometimes the results can be breathtaking.

    The Taylor Dome also clearly shows 4 major warming periods in the past 1,000 years. The current period is nowhere near as warm as the other periods in the past 1,000 years. It kinda blows the tree-ring proxies out the window. After pointing the flaw in a genuinely polite response, my comment was removed. I had been silenced….. on their website. :-)

    John Kehr

    The Inconvenient Skeptic

  17. At last someone is doing something about exposing this fraud. The beast of GW is staggering along, maintained only by inertia. One fraud prosecution of one of its perpetrators will see the rest runnning for cover. I thouhgt we had it with Jones. Did he ever change his tune! But the UK government didnt have the balls to take it to the wire. Lets hope the US can!

  18. Flavio, you have this backwards. It is not for sceptics to attempt to prove a negative. It is down to the alarmist scientists to prove their hypothesis is correct and substantiated by empirical evidence. This is what they have utterly failed to do.

    The hypothesis states that for a doubling of CO2, the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere will increase by X.

    A) Many climate scientists cannot agree, and there is great debate within the scientific community, what the value of X should be. Do projections of 1.5 degrees centigrade, 2 degrees, or up to 6 degrees of warming by 2100 ring any bells?
    B) They have failed to prove that the temperature will increase by X beyond reasonable doubt.

    A projection of X based upon a model simulation does NOT constitute proof, or even reliable evidence. It only clarifies what X should be in the hypothesis. It does not prove the hypothesis is valid.

  19. And in addition flavio..”they have failed utterly and are now apparently having a go at the scientists in stead of the science.”

    Nope you are wrong again. This is a case of a State’s attorney general investigating a claim of fraudulent application for funds. This is not “them attacking a person instead of the science”.

    I am NOT claiming the Mann has committed a fraudulent act. I will await the outcome of the investigation. IF at the end of that, the accusation is supported by evidence and it is shown beyond doubt that Mann committed a fraud, then I am happy to let the evidence speak for itself. IF Mann has NOT done anything wrong, then I will happily let the evidence speak for itself also and hope that the AG will offer a full and public apology to Mann for the inconvenience caused.

    Are you worried that one of the heroes of the cAGW movement has got something to hide?

  20. Thanks to Mr. Cuccinelli, the issue of misuse of taxpayer dollars is at least being fought in the courts. Earlier AGs let it pass. Academic freedom became academic license so many years ago that most young people (say, under 40) have never known it any other way; it is time for a public-spirited person like Cuccinelli to remind us of the difference. If Mann was performing true science, then he and UVA have nothing to fear from the inquiry; but we all know better than that.

  21. “I find it extremely disturbing that Mr. Cuccinelli has sought to continue to abuse his power as the attorney general of Virginia in this way, in the process smearing the University of Virginia and me and other climate scientists,” Mann said. “The people of Virginia need to be extremely disturbed that he is using their tax dollars to pursue this partisan witch hunt.”

    But when Michael Mann uses tax dollars in smearing other scientists reputation who do not toe the line regarding climate change, that is not a witch hunt and people should welcome it with open arms. What a hypocrite.

  22. Its important to read the entire subpeona, not just cherry pick the “lack of rigor” statement, which is really just a summary statement. The DA is of the opinion that Mann falsely misrepresented his science when he applied for the grants. Its an attempt to hold Mann accountable for his research and is a shot across the bows of institutions that when public funds are used, the research had better meet reasonable standards of care and due diligence. He’s basically pursuing the concept of wilful negligence in the conduction of the research. I personally believe this is an important fight, and long overdue.

  23. Flavio, you do have it backwards. Just to add to the words of Ken Hall at Oct 5, 4:07 a.m.. It is up to those who support the hypothesis of AGW via CO2 to prove the null hypothesis false AND their hypothesis true. They have failed on both counts.

  24. 1) Do not overlook the fact that the visiting judge who made the first ruling had a conflict of interest — yet he proceeded anyway.

    2) Cuccinelli is also suing the EPA over its CO2 endangerment ruling. He may just be on a fishing expedition to see if there is anything regarding intentional manipulation of data that could provide further ammunition in his suit against the EPA, or perhaps there could be more Climategate type e-mails that certainly could provide icing on the cake. Coal mining is big business in western Virginia, and Cucinelli is looking out for the best interests of the people of Virginia.

    3) If you have never listened to Cuccinelli being interviewed live on TV, you are missing a treat. This is one sharp dude.

  25. Why would it matter the source of the research funds? As an employee of Virginia at a public university, any communications or work of his ought to be made available to anyone in the commonwealth who requests it.

  26. I have to agree with most of the commenters above. I think it is an absolute disgrace for a researcher to publish anything that contradicts the views of of such an eminent personage with such impeccable scientific credentials as Mr. Cuccinelli. Mann should clearly have checked his results with him first and then obtained his permission to publish. What sort of a society are we becoming!

  27. @Ken:
    You claim that it is not up to the sceptics to attempt to prove a negative. I think that that is exactly what they should do. Scientists gather evidence to support a theory. If evidence is gathered in large amounts by independent researchers such a theory becomes accepted untill someone comes along and proves otherwise. That is what science is all about. There is hardly any scientific theory without uncertainties, but you only need one simple certainty to disprove any theory.

    You may recall the controversies surrounding acid rain and the ozone hole. As with AGW there was much opposition by skeptics and there were many uncertainties in both issues. Nonetheless, governments throughout the world responded by cutting down sulfur emission and banning the use of CFC’s. In both instances we can now see a slow improvement in the situation. In both instances society did not pay a large price and companies did not suffer major losses; in fact these challenges led to innovation and new opportunities.

    The AGW theory is not about proving that (quote) “… for a doubling of CO2, the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere will increase by X.” It has been proven a long time ago that we are warming our planet. Now we should accept the challenge to do something about it. In doing so we may find yet again many oppertunities to innovate, to improve the quality our lifes and in the end possibly even make a few bucks out of it!

  28. Hey if it were all on the up and up, why wouldn’t they comply. I mean it’s not like they are asking for the plans to the nuke arsenal. I thought it was all public data anyway.

  29. To all those who don’t want an AG harrassing a scientist, if you don’t want to deal with the government, don’t take tax payer money. If you take tax payer money, you are accountable to them and their representatives. It’s that simple. If you want to be a pig and feed at the trough, you have to be ready for the time when they may hang you by your back feet and slice you. If you don’t like that, don’t take the damn money. The attitude of Mann and others to those who dare question them or ask for access to information that they have in fact funded is the height of umitigated gaul and chutzpah.

  30. After reading all the comments above, it is obvious they fall into two camps:

    1) The warmers, who don’t believe there should be any accountability in scientific research, the spending of tax or other research dollars, or adherance to guidelines and laws applicable to the same.

    2) Everybody else, who DOES believe there should be accountability in all these areas.

    Are you warmers thinking logically? Or does the cult of CAGW distort your world view to the point that honesty is no longer applicable?

  31. Flavio

    I don’t think this legal case is worth the trouble, but, calling Mann a respected scientist is rediculous. Science is reproducible. That is part of the definition of science. Michael Mann is not a scientist by definition. His garbage is not reproducible, he knows it, that is why he hides data, hides his method, and his calculations, his results are not science they are anti science.

    The fact that anyone takes his junk seriously is just proof that the person is scientifically illiterate.

    Happy trolling, check out the “scientific method” it may be of use someday.

  32. Attachment B is a nonsense of contentious material,ending in suggestions that Mann is practising some kind of ‘Post Normal’ voodoo. If this is Cuccinelli’s ‘ammunition’,I have to question his judgement,and motivation.

    Scientific techniques,processes and methods aren’t nailed down like legal precedents,they evolve through growing insight,and the end result isn’t an immutable and/or legal finding.

    How is Cuccinelli going to establish that Mann falsely represented his work in the process of obtaining a particular grant? Mann has authored/co-authored many,many papers. How many does he need to produce to apply for a grant,in particular the one involved here?

  33. 1. The funds are fungible. Regardless of source: federal, corporate, or state they were disbursed and administered by the University of Virgina. That puts them under the purview of both the originator and the State of Virginia. The AG has the jurisdiction and responsibility to investigate.

    2. He has the jurisdiction to investigate, but should he? Substantial public allegations of misconduct (ClimateGate) and the enormous intersecting regulatory issues are strong arguments for a public inquiry.

  34. tarpon says:
    October 5, 2010 at 5:41 am
    Hey if it were all on the up and up, why wouldn’t they comply. I mean it’s not like they are asking for the plans to the nuke arsenal. I thought it was all public data anyway.

    Then why are they going after Mann and his emails to numerous colleagues instead of the PI for the grant in question?

  35. If there is nothing to hide what would be the harm in releasing the information asked for?

    A sure result of the CRU email “release” must have been a tightening up of server security in the establishments that have employed anyone in the “Gang”. Maybe Ken has had a tip off.

  36. Flavio,

    “It has been proven a long time ago that we are warming our planet.”

    Flavio, I don’t know where you got that notion from, but you have been ill informed. There is no proof that we are warming the planet. The AGW hypothesis rests on the following pillars: 1) Radiative transfers of green house gases as understood from quantum physics; 2) Increase in CO2; 3) Observed 20th century warming, and 4) the output of global climate models.

    Although this sounds impressive, there are still many problems and apparant contradictions in the theory.

    First problem – direct sensitivity of doubling CO2 based on radiative transfers is about 1c. It requires unsubstatiated positive feedbacks to generate the extreme warming.

    Second problem – the radiative imbalance that must result from the forcing of CO2 should lead to an accumulation of heat in the ocean, the OHC. Despite deploying a network of 3,000 submersibles to measure OHC to ‘unprecedented levels of accuracy’ since 2003, this expected heat has not been discovered.

    Third problem – one of the outputs of the GCM’s is a hotspot in the tropical mid troposphere, and this also has not been observed.

    Fourth problem – it is claimed that the warming must be caused by CO2 because without it, the GCM’s cannot hindcast the 20th century warming. That this is an argument from ignorance should be obvious to anybody schooled in science. Moreover, the models can only account for the mid century cooling by introducing an arbitrary aerosol cooling. This aerosol effect is becoming more and more doubtful.

    Fifth – as is becoming more evident, the global temperature records are in a real mess, and we can’t be sure what the actual temperature anomalies really are.

    Sixth – models have been unable to account for the lack of warming since the late nineties.

    I think I’ve covered enough here to demonstrate that nothing has been proved at all. In fact, science is begining to distance itself from the CAGW school, although you wouldn’t know it judging from media coverage.

  37. I didn’t have a problem with my university research. I didn’t have a problem with questions on budgets and funding. If Mann is clean, he and the University will cooperate swiftly. If Mann loaded up all his stuff and hauled it to the next school as personal property, I can see why the school is fighting release of records.
    Employees face crime charges when they haul off files and employer records.

  38. I see no moral or legal issues with an empowered representative of a government legal body (Cuccinelli) acting openly within the framework of the legal system. The legal system will sort out what is due process and appropriate. The legal system grinds slowly and finely . . . . but it is tireless. Cuccinelli doesn’t appear to be the kind of man who tires at all.

    I expect that Cuccinelli will eventually find his way into some of the documents at the UoV; once in then he will easily find cause for expansion of the search. I conclude that is what UoV (and indirectly Mann) are concerned about. I do not assess that they are standing up for the idea of academic freedom.

    John

  39. Flavio says:
    October 5, 2010 at 3:25 am
    “If Cuccinelli does not believe that the science behind global warming is sound he should come up with the scientific proof of that, instead of resorting to slander and personal attacks on a highly respected scientist like Michael Mann. Mann has written over 100 peer reviewed articles. You don’t really believe that someone like that could get away with fraud?”

    “If the science behind AGW is wrong it should be simple to prove that. Climate skeptics have tried to do that for the past 30 years; they have failed utterly and are now apparently having a go at the scientists in stead of the science.”

    I didn’t notice any slander in the simple request to find out how Dr. Mann came to his conclusions. Surely if there was nothing to worry about for Dr. Mann then he would happily release his papers to prove the accuracy of his case rather than slandering Mr. Cuccinelli. The science has already been proven to be wildly inaccurate on so many fronts. Ten years ago the AGW scientists were saying that we would not be seeing snow and ice in Britain ever again. The Arctic and Antarctic would be free of ice. Polar Bears would be wiped out. Glaziers would be gone. The seas would rise XXX cms. etc. etc. etc. Surely this is enough to at least justify some enquiry by sceptics without the AGW brigade jumping to each others defence. And in reply to the last sentence in the first paragraph, the answer is yes that’s why we want to see his papers, and why he does not want them released.

  40. Mike Haseler says:
    October 5, 2010 at 3:12 am

    10:1 a decent IT person will track down all the emails they have “hidden” in a matter of minutes.

    Some people think that when something is deleted it’s gone. Doh!

  41. Flavio –

    I’m glad that you are engaged here; props for that to you, really! It sets you apart – civil debate, kudos. Well done ;-D

    The way I see science is not so much of one side marshaling forces for ones argument – but also going one step further and telling others “if this were NOT true, this is what one would expect to see, this is how you would disprove it”. Say, for example – no change in the Tropical troposphere? The argument you posit is neccesary, but not sufficient.

    As to the statement that “it has been proven a long time ago that we are warming our planet” – that’s what we call an “assertion” that actually needs to be proved. Most skeptics will agree that warming has taken place – but driven by natural cycles that haven’t been adequately accounted for in various modeling efforts.

    And the Proprietor of THIS blog has long demonstrated the data quality issues associated with the Land-based temperature datasets.

    So its not quite so clear to me ….

  42. From the subpoena:

    Mann’s reference to “the community” when writing to Hulme in the first e-mail quoted above appears to be Post Normal jargon. As recently as September 16, 2009, Man posted this remark to he blog Real Climate: “More than anything else, the book attempts to show us what the community is doing wrong in our efforst to dcommunicate our science to the public.” (empahsis added). This is also probably Post Normal jargon.

    Academics are free to follow any philosophy of science they wish. Nonetheless, Post Normal Science has produce jargon which might be misleading/fraudulent in the context of a grant application if its specialized meaning is not disclosed or otherwise known to the grant maker.

    Pretty funny. I’m not familiar with the Virginia Attorney General’s office, but they don’t seem to be a fan of double-speak as a scientific philosophy.

    OK S.

  43. RC has weighed in on this issue.
    I posted the following on their site, it will never see the light of day:

    hal says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    5 October 2010 at 9:24 AM
    ….it needs to be highlighted to the widest audience possible.

    If that is what you want you should ask for a guest post at WUWT.

  44. Cuccinelli and Russell seem to be well within the rights of the Commonwealth of Virginia. They feel Mann has defrauded the state and they want their money back. Good for them! Why should climate scientists get on pass on stealing from the government?

  45. “It has been proven a long time ago that we are warming our planet. ”

    Care to elaborate, Flavio?

  46. So what happened after the first demand for documents? Did Mann and UVA just blow them off? That seems unlikely. I feel like I’m missing part of the story. Can anyone fill me in?

  47. Nevermind. I see the paragraph I missed now. I didn’t know a judge had quashed the earlier subpoena. Well, they wanted a fuller rationale for the subpoena and they got it! Nothing like being called a fraud by a prosecutor, eh Dr. Mann?

  48. Hmmm, seems to be a lot of people who believe scientists shouldnt be held accountable for the state of their science aye?

    To me, the real problem here is the lack of transparancy around the science that was conducted with the use of Government money. For me, there shouldnt be any question that the IG shouldnt get access to the data that went in to that science.

    It seems wrong that the “Government” has to force an organisation it has funded to hand over information on how it came to its conclusions.

    Perhaps the real story here is this. If you are transparent and honest about your science, making your data available, then you shouldnt have any concerns what so ever.

    To me, it seems that only those people who have something to hide are crying out in disgust here!

    Mailman

  49. Flavio says: Scientists gather evidence to support a theory. If evidence is gathered in large amounts by independent researchers such a theory becomes accepted untill someone comes along and proves otherwise. That is what science is all about.

    The basis for the cAGW is based on computer models. This is the only mechanism for determining cause and effect, and the predictive ability of those models have been poor to say the least. Add to that that they are extrapolating a 100 year trend from a system that operates in millenia and the burden of proof should still lie with the believers. The claims being made based on the completeness of the models are bizarre.

    I was under the impression that nobody actually proved that CFCs caused the hole in the ozone, this appeared to have been 2 graphs running in the same direction level of scientific proof. I was under the impression that somebody had attempted to reproduce the reaction at the temperatures involved and had failed. CFCs are heavier than air, and are by their nature chemically inert. Can you reference the research which proves CFC caused the ozone hole – were they even found there? I suspect this was the original environmental crisis which gave the UN the tools to get the scientific result it wanted.

    If you remember CFCs were used as a refrigerant. This means their boiling point is very close to room temperature so that you can use pressure to alter the boiling point and transfer heat. Why would heavier than air molecules accumulate at the poles and just destroy the ozone there? The majority hypothesis of the time – that it was caused by a natural tilt of the earth’s axis disappeared pretty quickly when the UN funds started flowing. The burden of proof should be relatively high when the appropriation of billions of dollars of taxpayer funds are involved, and opposing theories should at least be funded equally to the theory that justifies that appropriation.

  50. @Mailman

    “Hmmm, seems to be a lot of people who believe scientists shouldnt be held accountable for the state of their science aye?”

    The issue is whether scientists should be “accountable” to political appointees using the law to investigate them for criminal acts with no apparent basis other than “It seems like he should have known better”.

    I find it difficult to believe anyone here actually believes government grant money wasn’t used for the purpose of performing research. A lot of people do seem to think there might be something juicy in those emails and are happy to use any mechanism they can to see them.

  51. To have a successful case Cuccinelli needs to show that Mann knew or had reason to know that his grant submission contained information that was false. He really needs a smoking gun in the correspondence. Alone, the existence of the ‘censored’ directory or his R2 comments to congress are probably not enough. Ideally he needs an email where Mann says something like “I know its wrong, but its what the grantors want to hear” or something like that. So the AG’s got some work cut out for him.

    Having said that, I suspect Cuccinelli already has something in his possession and it might have something to do with this rather odd recitation in the CID about post normal science. He doesn’t need it in the CID so there must be a reason the AG is bringing it up. He must be laying the ground work for something. We just don’t know what it is.

  52. As for full disclosure on the political aspects, I consider myself a small “l” libertarian, and am normally predisposed to view governmental actions with a jaundiced eye. Cucinelli’s investigation, however, is appropriate. Michael Mann applied for and received taxpayer funding, so as a former Virginia resident, he got some of MY contribution to the State. And after following Dr. Mann’s activities for several years now, particularly his claim to be able to determine a single variable with absolute certainty from a multi-variable situation, for which he had no other concrete data, and then statistically manipulating the limited data (or interpretations) that supported his hypothesis, I’m greatly suspicious of his other methodologies, including how he handled the funding stream he was given access to.

    This stated, I don’t think it is hypocritical to on the one hand decry governmental intrusion of intervention, yet call for an investigation of Mann, with regards to what exactly he did with MY money. There is a line out there that Cucinelli (and the courts) should not cross – and that would be getting into a food fight about the actual science (or lack thereof) of Mann’s efforts. Such would constitute government over-reach, in a manner on the opposite end of the spectrum from the psuedo-populist ‘environmentalism’ espoused by many of our current political class at the federal level. The science should be the science, to live or die, stand or crumble, solely on factual information and data, with reproducible, provable result – not on ‘popular opinion’, or ‘consensus’, which are nothing more than extensions of human emotional conditions and response, oftentimes (particularly in the ‘climate change’ arena) having little to do with actuality.

    It is a valid inquiry – to examine HOW Dr. Mann used the funds (again, MY money) to deliver his work product. If he mis-directed or misused the funding, he should be nailed to the wall, figuratively speaking. And this includes the use of government provided tools and equipment (such as his computers and internet access through UVA). I have a similar issue with the very blatant and obvious use by the GISS crowd of NASA computers and work time to maintain a third party, apparently ‘private’ website and online campaign to cheerlead the warmist cause. If Mann engaged in similar activities during his tenure at UVA, then there should be a flag on the play.

    As ideologically horrific as the concept of the State intruding into the hallowed halls of academia may appear to be on the surface, when those hallowed halls are turned into a refuge for frauds and charlatans, then someone stepping in with a fire hose to flush it out can be a good thing.

    Plus, keep in mind – Al Capone was never arrested for illegal liquor, or murder, or extortion, or kidnapping. He was nailed on tax evasion.

    And there were Capone supporters who called that a witch hunt, too.

  53. mpaul – I have no idea how Cuccinelli sees this case playing out but if one is looking for honesty then one has to look at the impact of the UEA email release.

    Al Capone didn’t go to jail for rum-running or busting heads with a baseball bat; he went to jail for tax evasion. Dick Nixon wasn’t hounded from office because his staff sent burglars to break into DNC offices; he resigned because it was shown he participated in the coverup.

    There’s two outcomes here I consider more likely than any kind of litigation against Mann: the first and most desirable outcome is that we get the full body of at least his UVa-related work product, including email, released for public scrutiny, and the second is that UVa gets caught trying to cover something up.

  54. mpaul says:
    October 5, 2010 at 8:14 am

    . . . [edit] . . . I suspect Cuccinelli already has something in his possession and it might have something to do with this rather odd recitation in the CID about post normal science. He doesn’t need it in the CID so there must be a reason the AG is bringing it up. He must be laying the ground work for something. We just don’t know what it is.

    ————-

    mpaul,

    Yes, that is a reason conjecture.

    I could conjecture that what he already has is some emails or UoV documentation leaked directly to his office from a whistleblower. This conjecture is not unreasonable given what happened about a year ago regarding CRU.

    If that is the case, then Mr Cuccinelli is playing Major League Baseball while the UoV / Mann thinks the game is Junior Varsity softball.

    John

  55. @

    “I could conjecture that what he already has is some emails or UoV documentation leaked directly to his office from a whistleblower.”

    Strange then that Cuccinelli is reduced to quoting a sentence Mann wrote on realclimate which used the word “community”. He then goes to say this is “probably Post Normal jargon” and that Post Normal science could be “misleading/fraudulent in the context of a grant application”

    Does that sound like someone with a strong case?

  56. The judge limited the scope of the investigation to emails and documents pertaining to this grant:
    Resolving the Scale-wise Sensitivities in the Dynamical Coupling Between Climate and the Biosphere, University of Virginia-Fund for Excellence in Science and Technology (FEST) [Principal Investigator: J.D. Albertson; Co-Investigators: H. Epstein, M.E. Mann] U.Va internal award: $214,700.

    The AG’s probable cause argument is that Mann wrote two papers on global warming that “have come under significant criticism” and therefore his contribution as a co-PI on the above grant might be tainted. Seems like a pretty thin case and likely to be tossed again.

  57. sharper00 says:
    October 5, 2010 at 9:04 am
    @

    “I could conjecture that what he already has is some emails or UoV documentation leaked directly to his office from a whistleblower.”

    Strange then that Cuccinelli is reduced to quoting a sentence Mann wrote on realclimate which used the word “community”. He then goes to say this is “probably Post Normal jargon” and that Post Normal science could be “misleading/fraudulent in the context of a grant application”

    Does that sound like someone with a strong case?

    ————

    sharper00,

    Indeed, I was not clear in my above post. Thanks for bringing this up so I can state my comment more clearly. Appreciate that.

    My comment has nothing to do with mpaul’s comment on the ‘Post Normal’. Sorry for confusing you. I said that I thought mpaul was reasonable in thinking Cuccinelli had something he is holding back. mpaul indicated it might be related to ‘Post Normal’, I didn’t.

    My comment is to conjecture that Cuccinelli may be holding back new whistleblower supplied info directly related to Mann at UoV (independent of the CRU email released info).

    Thanks for your attention.

    John

  58. “Seems like a pretty thin case and likely to be tossed again.”

    Phil, be cautious about being too smug. Cuccinelli is a serious heavy weight with a 1st class legal mind.

  59. Flavio says:
    October 5, 2010 at 3:25 am
    “If Cuccinelli does not believe that the science behind global warming is sound he should come up with the scientific proof of that, instead of resorting to slander and personal attacks on a highly respected scientist like Michael Mann. Mann has written over 100 peer reviewed articles. You don’t really believe that someone like that could get away with fraud?”

    “If the science behind AGW is wrong it should be simple to prove that. Climate skeptics have tried to do that for the past 30 years; they have failed utterly and are now apparently having a go at the scientists in stead of the science.”

    I didn’t notice any slander in the simple request to find out how Dr. Mann came to his conclusions. Surely if there was nothing to worry about for Dr. Mann then he would happily release his papers to prove the accuracy of his case rather than slandering Mr. Cuccinelli. The science has already been proven to be wildly inaccurate on so many fronts. Ten years ago the AGW scientists were saying that we would not be seeing snow and ice in Britain ever again. The Arctic and Antarctic would be free of ice. Polar Bears would be wiped out. Glaciers would be gone. The seas would rise XXX cms. etc. etc. etc. Surely this is enough to at least justify some enquiry by sceptics without the AGW brigade jumping to each others defence. And in reply to the last sentence in the first paragraph, the answer is yes that’s why we want to see his papers, and why he does not want them released.

  60. mpaul says:
    October 5, 2010 at 10:04 am

    “Seems like a pretty thin case and likely to be tossed again.”

    Phil, be cautious about being too smug. Cuccinelli is a serious heavy weight with a 1st class legal mind.

    ————–

    mpaul and Phil,

    I have this impression from what has unfolded that Cuccinelli is letting UoV / Mann hang themselves out to dry when he finally shows his whole hand. It will then look like they were covering up what he already has evidence of (what I conjecture is whistleblower info). UoV / Mann made a very serious mistake by not eagerly agreeing with the first CID. I am almost sorry for them . . . . they got some seriously bad legal advice, me thinks.

    John

  61. mpaul says:
    October 5, 2010 at 10:04 am
    “Seems like a pretty thin case and likely to be tossed again.”

    Phil, be cautious about being too smug. Cuccinelli is a serious heavy weight with a 1st class legal mind.

    Who’s being smug, I’m just commenting as I see it? The first time this came around I pointed out that I couldn’t see how the Commonwealth statute would give the AG jurisdiction over federal grants, the judge took the same view.

  62. Next November Cancun’s jamboree is near, so we are expecting a new version of “Climate-Gate” software to be issued 30 days ahead of that forbidden pleasures’ gathering.

  63. Most of my scientific publications have held up well but a few of my ideas were not correct. In addition, if I could I would change the statistical approach from a study that I published in 1988. But still, I don’t think that I should have to return the grant money or get sued by a government attorney who knows next to nothing about science. Afterall, scientific articles are published for anyone to read and new studies and new results build on the results of earlier work. My best studies show the weaknesses and limitations of earlier studies. I don’t think that scientific advances should lead to proscution when the mistakes or weaknesses of earlier work is uncovered.

  64. Larry wrote: “I was under the impression that nobody actually proved that CFCs caused the hole in the ozone…”

    “Can you reference the research which proves CFC caused the ozone hole – were they even found there?”

    “Why would heavier than air molecules accumulate at the poles and just destroy the ozone there?”

    One of the first major articles on ozone depletion was written by Frank Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina in 1974 and published in Nature (Free access: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v249/n5460/pdf/249810a0.pdf ). They argued that CFCs reaching the stratosphere would be dissociated by UV light, releasing Cl atoms. Cl reacts with ozone and forms ClO. If their predictions were right it should be possible to measure ClO in the stratosphere.

    At the time Rowland and Molina published their results this was not possible yet, due to the fact that ClO also reacted with the surfaces of the then available instruments. The problem was solved by James Anderson, who developed an instrument that had a continuous flow of air through itself after which a laser was used to measure the ClO. So yes, they were measured.

    Following quote is from the Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994. I recommend reading it.
    “Winds mix the atmosphere to altitudes far above the top of the stratosphere much faster than molecules can settle according to their weight. Gases such as CFCs that are insoluble in water and relatively unreactive in the lower atmosphere (below about 10 km) are quickly mixed and therefore reach the stratosphere regardless of their weight.” (Source: “Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994”. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/1994/ ).

    LearDog wrote: “I’m glad that you are engaged here; props for that to you, really! It sets you apart – civil debate, kudos. Well done ;-D “

    Thanks! :-)

  65. The AG is sharp. He has part of his case and the school is creating a cooperation problem that will come back to really haunt them. I suspect he has interviewed several insiders and knows what to look for. He also knows what is removed. Sports investigations are very common.
    Federal grants objection will not work. Mann was a paid worker.
    No one mentions this but I wouldn’t be surprised if he has a list of wastefull espenses padded for reimbursemet. (Picture limos, rooms, meals and booze at Copenhagen)

  66. I think the legal route is sadly the fastest way to break the back of this massive tragedy. Cuccinelli has the potential of doing us a great service with his actions and if he manages to prove fraud then perhaps we can start funding real science again instead of wasting billions of dollars on grant-whores who are knowingly peddling shit science.

  67. John says:

    “UoV / Mann made a very serious mistake by not eagerly agreeing with the first CID. I am almost sorry for them . . . . they got some seriously bad legal advice, me thinks.

    Agreed. And Mann’s public statements today are further proof that he is getting some really, really bad legal advice (or maybe Mann is not taking anyone’s advice). It’s a fool’s errand to attempt to frustrate an AG’s requests for information. The AG will eventually prevail — there are plenty of tools at his disposal that make this so. All that Mann has done is energize an 800 pound gorilla. Cuccinelli is now forced to go for the kill or face looking politically weak. There is no longer a graceful exit to this thing for Mann. Very, very foolish.

  68. @John Whitman

    “I have this impression from what has unfolded that Cuccinelli is letting UoV / Mann hang themselves out to dry when he finally shows his whole hand. “

    And presumably the University of Virginia is in on this fraudulent use of grant money?

  69. Flavio says:
    October 5, 2010 at 3:25 am
    If Cuccinelli does not believe that the science behind global warming is sound he should come up with the scientific proof of that, instead of resorting to slander and personal attacks on a highly respected scientist like Michael Mann. Mann has written over 100 peer reviewed articles. You don’t really believe that someone like that could get away with fraud?

    If the science behind AGW is wrong it should be simple to prove that. Climate skeptics have tried to do that for the past 30 years; they have failed utterly and are now apparently having a go at the scientists in stead of the science.

    It’s sad really…

    And I find it sad that people are so gullible, and so easily led. My gullible friend, the burdon of proof is not on the sceptic, but on the doomsayer – and models and hypotheses are NOT proof. Indeed, they’re not even evidence. That said, Mann’s baseless Hockey Stick has been disproven over and over, and furthermore the Climategate emails are proof enough of the tricks and cover-ups used to deceive the public.

    It is also sad to acknowledge that history is littered with fraudulent scientists (amongst the majority of good, honest ones). Where there is reasonable grounds for concern – and blatantly there is here – one should investigate. And by that, of course, I mean a proper independent investigation, not another whitewash.

  70. Whatever your position on fraud and AGW, the fate of the first subpoena could easily have been foreseen — Mr. Cuccinelli was asking for information clearly not authorized by statute.

    This time around, he’s done better, focusing on what is definitely encompassed by the statute. Even so, he never raised what could possibly be the most fruitful part of the investigation, and that is into grant applications that didnot result in grants,, that is, attempted fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, etc.

    Maybe he’s saving that for later.

  71. “Cuccienelli has just tried to criminalize all of climate science”

    Joe Romm.

    Think Joe needs to worry about splattergate trying to kill all of the sceptics.

  72. This all has nothing to do with the science, at least not the validity thereof.

    Cuccinelli is not a scientist and it’s not his job to prove or disprove climate change hypotheses.

    It has to do with whether Mann followed reasonable practices in spending the state’s money on his research.

    As a scientist it’s entirely reasonable to make mistakes, to do work that in the light of later evidence proves erroneous, there’s nothing particularly wrong with that. But if you were unreasonably sloppy or intentionally fudged the results, then your failure to exercise due care in how you spent the state’s money deserves sanction.

    The Climategate email release and subsequent deconstruction of the IPCC reports has documented, pretty much beyond a reasonable doubt, that those who occupy the top seats in the ‘climate science’ field have set a remarkably low standard for their field.

  73. I read the supoena. It is clear to me. It quotes various leaked e-mails by Mann to his peers. Based on those e-mails from Mann, Mann gives us reason to believe he made some serious false claims while applying for grants.
    It will be impossible for Mann to deny he wrote what he wrote.

  74. sharper00 says:
    October 5, 2010 at 10:59 am
    @John Whitman

    “I have this impression from what has unfolded that Cuccinelli is letting UoV / Mann hang themselves out to dry when he finally shows his whole hand. “

    And presumably the University of Virginia is in on this fraudulent use of grant money?

    —————-

    sharper00,

    Thanks for your response. This is all interesting stuff.

    Good question. Maybe only the UoV / Mann know at this point. Maybe Cuccinelli also knows. I do not know.

    From what I have read it looks like internal political squabbles within the State of Virginia politicians may have influenced UoV decision to resist the first Cuccinelli CID. If so then I am sorry for the UoV, because that would seem to me to be an unbelievably stupid basis.

    Does Cuccinelli have something he is holding back? In my opinion, it would surprise me if he didn’t. Therefore I have my conjecture that he is in receipt of some whistleblower info. Sort of like someone copycatted the CRU release. Merest conjecture.

    Is the UoV’s situation such that they know he has it [key withheld info] so are fighting to categorically block any lawsuit at all? Yep, that is what I conjecture. Again merest conjecture. The court decision on the first CID denied their argument that any such lawsuit cannot be brought against them. I think that was a demoralizing blow to them. On that I think hung all the UoV hopes.

    I do not think UoV will fight this second CID. But maybe I have been watching way too much law TV? Come gloat at me if I am wrong. I would deserve it. : )

    John

    From what I have read it looks like internal political squabbles within the State of Virginia politicians may have influenced UoV decision to resist the first Cuccinelli CID. If so then I am sorry for the UoV, because that would seem to me to be a stupid basis.

    Does Cuccinelli have something he is holding back? In my opinion, it would surprise me if he didn’t. Therefore my conjecture that he is in receipt of some whistleblower info. Sort of like someone copycatted the CRU release.

    Is the UoV’s situation such that they know he has it [key withheld info] so are fighting to categorically block any lawsuit at all? Yep, that is what I conjecture. The court decision on the first CID denied their argument that any such lawsuit cannot be brought against them. That was a bad blow to them.

    I do not think UoV will fight this second CID. But maybe I have been watching way too much law TV?

    John

  75. Sorry for the double pasting of the same passages in my above comment “John Whitman says: October 5, 2010 at 12:29 pm”

    Duh! [slapping myself on the head]

    John

  76. @John Whitman

    “Does Cuccinelli have something he is holding back? In my opinion, it would surprise me if he didn’t.”

    Let’s propose a thought experiment: Cuccinelli’s investigation is based only what’s been presented so far. In this scenario what do you think of the rationale he’s attempting to use to subpoena records?

    “I do not think UoV will fight this second CID.”

    What would they have to gain? They’ve already missed their opportunity to simply roll over quietly and provide whatever records have been asked for. Even if they know they’re guilty they’d take a shot at winning a second time.

  77. sharper00 says:
    October 5, 2010 at 12:57 pm
    @John Whitman

    “Does Cuccinelli have something he is holding back? In my opinion, it would surprise me if he didn’t.”

    Let’s propose a thought experiment: Cuccinelli’s investigation is based only what’s been presented so far. In this scenario what do you think of the rationale he’s attempting to use to subpoena records?

    “I do not think UoV will fight this second CID.”

    What would they have to gain? They’ve already missed their opportunity to simply roll over quietly and provide whatever records have been asked for. Even if they know they’re guilty they’d take a shot at winning a second time.

    ——————

    sharper00,

    We got a thing going on . . . . : )

    You said, “Let’s propose a thought experiment: Cuccinelli’s investigation is based only what’s been presented so far. In this scenario what do you think of the rationale he’s attempting to use to subpoena records?”

    I say in response:

    As I stated in my previous comments, I do not see that this is the probable scenario. My scenario is he knows stuff that he has not shown and he is playing hardball to UoV’s softball. He is giving UoV fair warning to cooperate . . . . which they would be smart to do . . . if they don’t they are going to look like they were covering up which will make them look much much worse.

    For your scenario that he only has what he has shown so far, it is obvious to me that he is going forward with the CID process because thinks he is going to utlimately successfully file a lawsuit no matter what and it cannot hurt to get info before the lawsuit . . . it can only help him. He is a very smart cookie. He is playing to max out his options.

    I further conjecture, if he eventually does not win a CID, he will file a lawsuit anyway. He thinks he is going to win.

    You said, “What would they have to gain? [by not fighting the second CID] They’ve already missed their opportunity to simply roll over quietly and provide whatever records have been asked for. Even if they know they’re guilty they’d take a shot at winning a second time.”

    I say in response:

    In my view, their only hope was to get, in the court ruling of the first CID, a finding in their favor that Cuccinelli had no right to file any lawsuit at all. The court did not accept that argument. Cuccinelli does have the right. So, what could the UoV gain from not fighting the second CID? Maybe a lot . . . they would still get to interact with Cuccinelli out of court . . . there could be amicable discussions and some non-adversarial negotiations, etc, etc . . . . they won’t be in court. That is why it was stupid to fight the first CID. Bad legal advice there, me thinks.

    Again, maybe toooooo much court and law TV?

    John

  78. The key is the emails that have not been made public. Someone has to have them and there is a reason they have not been released. Mann cannot delete them from university servers on his own. If this was all so innocent and above reproach, why wouldn’t Mann just say fine, release everything and I will be exonnorated? Because of some high and might principal of acedemic freedom? Yea right.

  79. @John Whitman

    “For your scenario that he only has what he has shown so far, it is obvious to me that he is going forward with the CID process because thinks he is going to utlimately successfully file a lawsuit no matter what and it cannot hurt to get info before the lawsuit . . . “

    In that case he’d actually have to have something more than he’s presented so far. A lot more.

    If he actually has all the evidence he needs to convict Mann of fraud (and presumably now a number of co-conspirators at the University of Virginia possibly exposing an entire network of fraudulent scientific activity) then he could present some of it as a basis for getting these emails.

    The whole point of this filing was supposed to be to show why Cuccinelli actually needs these records. The reasons he actually gave are so ridiculous that the best anyone has been able to guess here is that there’s a secret plan in operation to trick Mann and the University of Virginia into further incriminating themselves.

    If we take the position that the only evidence of fraud is what’s presented (i.e. none) and that even Mann’s most vocal critics consider this entire exercise repugnant the more likely conclusion seems to be that is a politically motivated attempt to use the power of Attorney General to harass him.

    Now you might say “Boo hoo! He had it coming!” to that but you should always be careful what measures you support the state taking against its political enemies, an election later you might be one of those enemies.

  80. When the Climategate Emails first surfaced I browsed through a few, particularly those relating to Keith Briffa’s Yamal tree ring results.
    In late March/ April 2002 (from memory) there was evidently quite a big rumpus between Mann and CRU and another, in which Mann accused Briffa et al of undermining his own work: within this correspondence Mann made a quite blunt reference to grant funding – and, I seem to remember, to keeping the lid on the discussion.
    If I was the investigator I think I would be interested in seeing Mann’s other Emails from this period that did NOT end up exposed on CRU’s system, but I fancy these may have disappeared!

    mpaul’s “smoking gun”?

  81. sharper00 says:
    October 5, 2010 at 10:59 am
    @John Whitman

    “I have this impression from what has unfolded that Cuccinelli is letting UoV / Mann hang themselves out to dry when he finally shows his whole hand. “

    And presumably the University of Virginia is in on this fraudulent use of grant money?

    Certainly. Any proposal that I’ve submitted has had to go through the University Research Grants and Contracts Dept. and usually has to be signed by the PI and co-PIs, the Dept Chair and a university officer from the Research Grants Dept. The proposal lays out what the funds will be spent on, when you come to spend it the purchases get vetted to see if they are within the scope of the application, if you want to vary something from the proposal then you have to apply via Purchasing to the relevant person at the grant awarding body for permission. On top of that universities are regularly audited (~5 years) by the federal government covering all grants. I’ve been contacted during such audits asking why I sole-sourced a purchase 5 years earlier (even though a justification was given at the time). Fortunately I always kept good records!

  82. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    October 5, 2010 at 6:57 am
    ‘Some people think that when something is deleted it’s gone. Doh!’

    And to truly have got rid of anything potentially incriminating, they will have had need of the cooperation of people like Harry from CRU and sysadmins/sysops who are willing to potentially incriminate *themselves by going through and destroying backups from way back. I don’t know where it comes from but this little proverb might become relevant in due course …
    “Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are easy to annoy and have the root password.”

  83. sharper00,

    We have laid out our conjectures. Time will tell.

    I think Cuccinelli is not going to stop. I think now UoV knows this and will start to work with him out-of-court to build up a good rapport and non-adversarial negotiation which will benefit both UoV and Cuccinelli.

    Some more of my extensive conjecturing here:

    I am further conjecturing that right now, even as we comment pleasantly, Cuccinelli’s office and UoV are already having confidential cooperative and informal discussions on how the proceed in an amicable manner, without Mann invited to the process. Even more conjecturing, UoV may be agreeing right now to cooperate fully if Cuccinelli agrees to drop the current CID and if Cuccinelli agrees to a deal with UoV, without Mann being invited to the process. I conjecture that Cuccinelli will accept that offer on the condition that Mann is not part of the process. I conjecture that lawsuits involving Mann will be deal with separately by Cuccinelli without involving UoV.

    By that scenario UoV gets out clean. If Mann did something wrong, then he is on his own.

    John

  84. Flavio

    That isn’t in my view sufficient in of itself to justify the actions taken on the back of it, but it is in no way my specialised subject – and that is the point. Science stands on the credibility of the peer review – these papers can only be taken at face value when other scientists accept that the bodies involved take their responsibility seriously. When you have NASA, the royal society, the UN, countless universities and scientific institutions turning a blind eye to data disappearing, being fudged – demanding trillions of dollars getting redistributed on the back of half complete computer models with arbitrary claimed certainty that have zero predictive ability we have a major problem. I don’t want to be arguing about supposedly reviewed documents outside of my sphere of expertise – I want to see the institutions taking their scientific reputations seriously.

    When somebody suggests on a well known blog that the thermometer record is being biased towards warmer stations and in effect the temperature record is dubious and they are being funded by the public to the tune of billions of dollars I expect them to respond with a detailled and reproducible explanation – not circle the wagons and require a state lawyer to drag them through the courts bit by bit. I don’t expect them to stand idly by while renowned sceptics get verbally rebuked by politicians and the establishment. They are supposed to be their to guarantee the science which you are quoting, not selling their souls for extra funding. It is no way the same for a sceptic to denounce a believer – because the believers have the ears of the state and the institutions.

    It is the scientific institutions acquiescence in the silence of the debate which has got us to this point, Cucinelli is right to take them to the courts but it would be far better if the institutions involved stood up for the integrity of science. One wonders how many institutions would be solvent if it were not funding from this stuff, and that is deeply worrying.

    When was the last time you saw a “scientific” claim by an environmental group torn apart by a scientific institution? They have allowed model outputs from different runs to have the worst case scenarios extracted in the msm giving a view that all of them are going to happen – even though some events are almost certain to be mutually exclusive. 90% certainty in the summed output of lots of different models all based on the same algorithms? Who are we to suggest that is far fetched. This has become a farce with supposed scientists falling over each other to make the most outlandish predictions and nobody having any responsibility for cross-checking or diminishing the more absurd claims. Any simulation with a net positive feedback will predict the system goes to hell in a handcart, the tricky bit is getting a computer model which accurately models the climate. It is always worse than we thought – yet it still appears to be cooler than the original predictions hansen made to congress.

  85. “The AG will eventually prevail — there are plenty of tools at his disposal that make this so. All that Mann has done is energize an 800 pound gorilla. Cuccinelli is now forced to go for the kill or face looking politically weak. There is no longer a graceful exit to this thing for Mann. Very, very foolish.”

    Not really. The AG is impotent in the face of the court. The AG has to persuade the court and this latest filing isn’t going to do that. Sloppy science does not equal fraud. The AG is alleging sloppy science. Sorry that doesn’t cut it. Especially when the judge has already turned the AG down. Once a judge makes up his or her mind, it takes quite a LOT to overcome that.

  86. Flavio says: October 5, 2010 at 3:25 am
    If the science behind AGW is wrong it should be simple to prove that.

    You’re new here, right?

  87. Mike McMillan says: October 6, 2010 at 1:53 am

    You’re new here, right?

    Actually no. And I am still not convinced…

  88. ginckgo says:

    ”guilty until proven innocent. No wait: guilty even after proven innocent.”

    When was the trial? I guess I missed it. Can you explain why McIntyre and McKitrick were kept out of every one of the proceedings? And, who represented the taxpayers footing the bill?

    The cover-ups actually amounted to: ”Innocent – no matter what.” There was no adversarial venue, which is the only way to get to the truth.

    .

    Flavio, it’s not you who needs to be convinced! It’s the scientists skeptical of AGW that people like Michael Mann needs to convince. But he’s been doing a terrible job of it, what with hiding his data and all.

  89. Maybe some of you missed it. UAV has stated that , in accordance with policy, Mann’s computer account was closed, password cancelled and contents deleted when he left the institution. UAV has also stated that some of the info ws recoverable. At this point no-one knows how much there was , how much there is and what is recoverable. aprobably no-one ever will.

    What does this prove. Nothing.

Comments are closed.