via the SPPI Blog:
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)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
————-
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
@ur momisugly
“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?
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.
————
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
“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.
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.
————–
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
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.
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.
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.
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! 🙂
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)
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.
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.
@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?
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.
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.
“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.
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.