This rebuttal comment to I’ll Trade You Cuccinelli For Splattergate With A Player To Be Named Later was so well written, and so extensive, I felt that it deserves the honor of a guest post status.
– Anthony
Guest Post by Thomas Fuller
But it didn’t rise to a criminal level (that was the UK deleting emails in advance of Freedom of Information requests, not Michael Mann). What Ken Cuccinelli is doing is going fishing for wrongdoing without an allegation of such wrongdoing–and that’s not how we should be doing things in this country.
I’ll get a lot of flack from you on this–and don’t be shy, I can take it. But remember as you write–District Attorneys are not always Republican, and controversial scientists can be skeptics at times, too. Don’t let your desire for a short term victory in the daily news cycle let you ignore what would be an erosion of all our civil liberties, I beg of you.
Let’s begin by examining the validity of your statement, “But it didn’t rise to a criminal level (that was the UK deleting emails in advance of Freedom of Information requests, not Michael Mann). What Ken Cuccinelli is doing is going fishing for wrongdoing without an allegation of such wrongdoing–and that’s not how we should be doing things in this country.” On the contrary, there are outstanding allegations of wrongdoing.
Michael Mann and the University of Virginia refused to comply with the law and a citizen’s lawful FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request for e-mail held by the University, claiming the e-mail no longer existed. When Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli served a subpoena on the University to deliver the e-mail, the supposedly deleted and non-existent e-mail was recovered from the University computer servers. Consequently, it appears there is every reason to suspect a crime was committed when the citizen’s FOIA request was denied on the basis of a fraudulent claim of destruction of the e-mail. Unlike the case with the University of East Anglia, the statute of Limiitations is likely to remain in force in the Virginia case. It remains to be determined whether or not the evidentiary discovery will support misdemeanor and/or felony charges. That is the purpose and due process of law for which the CID is needed and proper.
Then there is the issue of the $466,000 (nearly a half million dollars) in grant monies Michael Mann solicited and received from the State of Virginia and its taxpayers, in addition to the huge sums of money he and the University of Virginia received from the U.S. Government. It has been argued by a group of scientists and others that Michael Mann and the University of Virginia should somehow be uniquely immune from a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) in a prima facie FOIA and/or fraud criminal case on the basis of some unwritten gentleman’s agreement to avoid interference with the intellectual freedom of scientists. Thusly, these same people see no cognitive dissonance, hypocrisy, or injustice when they punished, sanctioned, threatened, intimidated, and/or defrauded non-scientists and dissenting scientists by dismissing state climatologists, dissenting climate scientists, dissenting meteorologists, academics, students, political appointees, and others without any Civil Investigative Demand, administrative board hearing, arraignment and trial, or other due process of law thay are now claiming for Michael Mann and the University of Virginia without any statutory or constitutional right.
Rubbing salt into the wounds of the public they have wronged for many years, they are trying to carve out a privileged position of immunity for themselves just as the Members of Congress have done so before them. Discriminating against other classes of citizens, these so-called scientists want to enjoy an immunity from investigation and prosecution not enjoyed by other citizens in our society. Expressing outrage that anyone would seek to interfere with the privacy of their communications and right to publish their communications while remaining immune from due process of law, members of their class of citizens have been running rampant in innumerable criminal cases of defrauding governments, businesses, private citizens, and causing the deaths of private citizens.
For one example, Dr. Scott Reuben pled guilty to numerous charges of fraud in which he faked numerous medical studies published in medical journals as peer reviewed research for such companies as Pfizer. Despite the peer reviews, Dr. Reuben didn’t even have any patients enrolled in his faked patient studies. Physicians relied upon these faked perr reviewed papers to provide medical care to their patients. It was subsequently determined that Dr. Scott Reuben had been faking a number of medical studies for some thirteen years without being discovered and prosecuted.
Somewhere there is someone reading the forgoing and saying Dr. Reuben is just an isolated case, and his fraud is not representative of any widespread scientific fraud. Unfortunately, they are just plain wrong and ignorant of the facts.
Take for another example, the problem with widespread fraud due to ghostwritten peer reviewed science papers. Acta Crystallographica Section E was compelled to retract more than 70 peer reviewed papers ghostwritten by Chinese scientists as faked or fraudulent studies. Pharmaceutical companies have a reputation for ghostwriting peer reviewed studies in-house and then paying medical doctors and scientists to permit their name to b used for publication of the studies. This fraudulent practice has been reported to be widespread in the pharmaceutical industry and some academia for many years as an outgrowth of the academic practice of using graduate students to perform service for their superiors holding doctorates. The University of Alabama at Birmingham has been yet another academic institution which had to retract a number of fraudulent peer reviewed papers and remove eleven proteins registered in a database of such proteins used in science.
The fallout from the notoriously fraudulent stem cell research of Hwang Woo-suk and the investigation of his associate, Professor Gerald P. Schatten of University of Pittsburgh have been ongoing.
Closer to NASA there is the case of Samim Anghaie, his wife, and their business, NETECH, which fraudulently obtained 2.5 million dollars in contracts from NASA among the 13 U.S. government contracts totalling 3.4 million dollars.
Within climate science there has been a number of incidents of suspected fraud, one of which was reported by Dr. S. Fred Singer described the allegations of either fabrication of Chinese weather station data or plagiarism by Wei-Chyung Wang, University of Albany, from work by his colleague in China, Zhaomei Zeng.
Suffice it to observe, scientific fraud is not at all uncommon, and some commentators describe scientific fraud as being rampant. Looking at the known incidents of scientific fraud, it can be seen the perpetration of such fraud is highly rewarding with grants and contracts amounting in various examples as $70,000, $466,000, and $3,400,000. Whistleblowers are typically punished for their honesty, resulting in great reluctance to disclose such scientific fraud or enthusiastic cooperation with such fraud.
In your statement, “But remember as you write–District Attorneys are not always Republican, and controversial scientists can be skeptics at times, too,” you indulge in a fallacy seemingly common to many so-called Liberal-Left Democrats. You see opponents as necessarily being some kind of badly fundamental religious Right-wing extremist or at least some misguided minority Right-wing-nut Republican. Well, such ideas are extremist fantasies. There ae a great many people who describe themselves, as Republicans, yes, but also Democrats, Libertarians, independents, and others who insist upon honesty, integrity, and impartiality. A great many of these people cheerfully wish a pox on all politicians, activists, and Lamestream journalists who seek to frustrate the ability of ordinary citizens to govern their own lives free of interference by by people who think they know better what is best for other people besides themselves and seek to make themselves immune from the same rules and burdens they would impose on others. Whether it is the special immunities and privileges the MainStream Media (MSM) seek to deny ordinary citizen journalists or the climate data and information climate scientists attempt to deny ordinary citizen observers of climate science, you don’t have to be a Republican, a political conservative, or a right-wing-nut, to join with our political opponents in demanding non-discriminatory application of the due process of law to scientists the same as other citizens and professions.
At the very least, the University of Virginia and/or Michael Mann appear to be liable to investigation and prosecution for the violation of laws relating to the FOIA release of the e-mail evidencing Michael Mann’s involvement in the handling of $466,000 of state grant funds. There is more than ample evidence that scientific fraud is a common enough crime to warrant investigations, and convincing evidence of at least some violations of law with respect to FOIA disclosures. Scientists are not yet privileged with the immunity needed to commit FOIA violations and scientific fraud with complete immunity from investigation and prosecution. let the Attorney General represent the citizens of Virginia and safeguard their taxpayer monies and their right to the freedom of information guaranteed by written laws.
Tom Fuller says:
October 6, 2010 at 11:40 pm
“If I’m correct, it explains without need for wrongful intent or action why an email not found in one instance can be found in another.”
If a staff member asked the IT administrator to recover some of his e-mails, surely that would take only a matter of a few seconds to get a print out.
Are there any IT administrators reading this? Surely if e-mails are stored then there must be a system for rapid recovery, otherwise why bother storing them?
Sorry I have to agree with Tom.
I see a rather tedious recitation of other cases of fraud. Having read though Mann’s mail, having looked through his code, I can say there is no case of fraud. Mann’s methods are certainly aggressive, and he often makes assumptions that are unwarranted, but he truly appears to believe that his approach is correct and he defends it vigorously even to those in his camp who disagree with him. I think we need to hold a very high bar for the charge of fraud.
With that said: can anyone state clearly, siting the papers and the exact fraud that Mann committed. Precisely.
For example, did Mann do anything remotely like this case
“Closer to NASA there is the case of Samim Anghaie, his wife, and their business, NETECH, which fraudulently obtained 2.5 million dollars in contracts from NASA among the 13 U.S. government contracts totalling 3.4 million dollars.”
Lets look at the facts in that case:
“Sousan Anghaie talked NASA into awarding NETECH “several fully funded contracts.” This included about $600,000 to develop and study uranium-related technology. But the FBI and NASA allege that in reality, Sousan and Samim used that money for personal luxury use. Among the purchases made were a $480,000 home, a 2007 BMW, a 2005 Toyota Sienna, a 2008 Toyota Corolla, a 2007 Toyota Corolla and properties for their sons. Then there was another $528,000 project. Wow…
Not surprisingly, federal agents have raided the Innovative Nuclear Space Power and Propulsion Institute.”
. Comparing this case to mann, alluding to this case, demonstrates the weakness of the argument it seeks to support. I suppose the word “NASA” was key.
This is the kind of innuendo that a smart opponent of mann’s (McIntyre for example) would never make. I’m sorry, but having followed Steve’s tireless work for all these years, I think it does a huge disservice to him to present such a weak case, when he has laid out the real case. And don’t fool yourself, when this case fails, Steve will be blamed. They will write things like “Mcintyre and the critics of mann were dealt a blow today, when Michael mann was vindicated” They elide the sloppy critics of Mann in with the real critic.
Tom Fuller says: October 6, 2010 at 11:40 pm
When I wrote that district attorneys (should have been Attorneys General) are not always Republican, what I should have probably said was …
The ones who bring the bogus prosecutions tend to be Dems. I doubt that Dr Mann will be answering any questions now that he has fled the state.
Since all the climate research is govt funded, we have a right to inspect the process as well as the results. The only valid reason for withholding publicly funded climate data is prior to publication of results, and that’s only a matter of professional courtesy. (Not always observed, as we have seen in the surfacestations.org case)
D.Patterson
A heartfelt thanks for putting the case so well
Tom Fuller,
I’m sorry but now you are beginning to lose credibility
eg “Is it not possible that overzealous prosecution will impede scientific progress?”
Hasn’t overzealous funding by govts promoting only one side of the argument already impeded scientific progress to a considerable degree.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/43291
One factor that explains why universities continue to shield people like Mann is the profits the university enjoys.
Sometimes called “Indirect Cost Recovery”, a percentage of money of a grant is taken off the top for overhead and support. At my university, it’s $.44 on the dollar, or 44%. That money goes to paying the light bill, administrator salaries, and all the way down to enhancing the football stadium. But regardless of how it’s used, it is a LOT of money at stake, and they’ll fight viciously to protect anyone who brings it in, without regard to motive or method.
I read in the Washington Post that the U of V has spent $350 K on legal and clerical expenses–not sure how much the AGs office has spent. The grant being investigated, the only state grant, is about land use in Africa and completely unrelated to the Hocky stick controversey. Mann doesn’t really have anything to do with the investigations since he is at another university and the question is really about whether the university administered the grant properly and whether they should give out large numbers of emails that are on unrelated topics. Interestingly, the AG does not even list Mann’s collaborators for the African grant as being among those under investigation. Part of the ag’s evidence comes from something that Mann wrote for a book review on Real Climate. Interesting that scientists can even be attacked for writing book reviews.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
October 6, 2010 at 10:53 pm
That is not quite how that works. Simply causing a file to be deleted will not move the file to another place on the hard drive. In the case of a simple deletion of a file, the first character of the file name is replaced with a $-character.
That means that the HD-space used by that “deleted” file is then available to be over-written for other files. Still, file recovery software makes it possible to recover a deleted file if nothing, some of it or all of it has been overwritten.
The extent of the success of the recovery of the data in the space designated for overwriting depends on how thoroughly (that is, how often and with how many different characters) the HD-space originally used by the “deleted” file was overwritten.
That is it in a nutshell. More of the principles involved are described here: http://www.aumha.org/a/recover.php
Mr Patterson’s case would make more sense if Cuccinelli was alleging that the grant money recieved to study ‘Resolving the scale-wise sensitivities in the dynamical coupling between the climate and biosphere’, issued several years before FATA legislation became law, was used to commit scientific fraud. He is not, because there is no evidence for this.
The allegation is that because Mann had MBH98 and MBH99 on his CV at the time of the grant application, and [Cuccinelli alleges] these studies were flawed and failed to show the scientific and statistical equivalent of ‘due diligence’ then the grant was obtained under false pretences, and he is justified in using the law to demand 10 years worth of documents and correspondence between Mann and a list of scientists so long it runs out of letters of the alphabet (but not the two other researchers who applied for the grant, whats up with that?)…..
The two papers were groundbreaking at the time and Mann has conceded that he would not go about the statistics in the same way today (indeed he has not). But a successful prosecution would require Cuccinelli to prove (inter alia) that the statistical flaws in the papers amount to deliberate scientiic fraud, and that Mann’s co-authorship of the papers was material in his being awarded the research grant for a study that had nothing to do with paleoclimate. The probability of success approximate closely to zero, What is this costing the taxpayer?
“The attorney general’s logic is so tenuous as to leave only one plausible explanation: that he is on a fishing expedition designed to intimidate and suppress honest research and the free exchange of ideas upon which science and academia both depend”
Not my words but those of the Washington Post….
Tom Fuller says: October 6, 2010 at 11:40 pm
“I greatly fear that this may serve as a precedent that will be used to marginalize and even silence scientists that publish papers that may offend the majority rather than support it, as in Mann’s case.”
Initially, I might agree. Sorry Tom, I can’t wholly support that view. Much like when the Commodore Amiga computer company destroyed itself and support for the PeeCee broadened (due to Microsoft’s incessant advertising their hopeless OS), Amiga stalwarts in their droves continued to write source code for the Amiga machine (I was one), because it simply WAS better. They believed in it due to ample evidence.
The case will always be somewhat to-and-fro.. But REAL evidence speaks for itself, and will always win. You – as well as the rest of us – aren’t stupid. We all know what makes sense, scientifically as well as economically. Rejoice in being a lateral thinker.. 🙂
Steven Mosher October 7, 2010 at 2:47 am
Steve McIntyre wrote on May 2, 2010 “This is a repugnant piece of over-zealousness by the Virginia Attorney General, that I condemn.” And more in like vein.
It is silly to misinterpret this clear statement the way you have. Did you not read this May 2 statement?
You are attempting a diversion in any case. (We have a roadside sign in Oz “Please use main road while detour is under repair”).
Try reading the full Cuccinelli request for data from the University. It’s not about FOI, it’s more about using scientific data whose flaws were allegedly known, to build a case for more funding, without mention of the flaws. The analogy for me is selling a private home without disclosing that it has fatal concrete cancer.
You can see the backbone of the claim in pages 1 & 2 of the CID to the University Rector dated 29 October 2010.
It is not for me to claim that the action of the A-G is over-zealous or has political or special interest motives. That is for the A-G to decide, perhaps at his peril. But at least the clear words available on paper should not be replaced by interpretative innuendo.
Tom Fuller says:
October 6, 2010 at 11:40 pm
When I wrote that district attorneys (should have been Attorneys General) are not always Republican, what I should have probably said was that the scientist in the crosshairs may not always be from the well-defended and funded consensus position. I greatly fear that this may serve as a precedent that will be used to marginalize and even silence scientists that publish papers that may offend the majority rather than support it, as in Mann’s case.
Tom – you and others seem to be treating this as a privacy or scientific privilege issue and it is not.
In this case the ‘contract’ between UVa and the State (and probably Federal government as well) would have a vesting clause that made everything that is done with the State’s funding property of the State. EVERYTHING not just what the funded establishment or scientist wants to allow them to have. If a university does not like these aspects of being publicly funded, then they should not bid for public funds for their researchers.
There are also very strict laws on the documentation provided by researchers in their support of funding requests. If these appear to have been breached then the State has every right to request supporting evidence – or alternatively – limit, prevent or withdraw all funding from the researchers’ establishment until such time as the State believes that they are being told the truth in bids from that establishment.
Again – if a researcher doesn’t like the rules applied to ALL applicants and recipients of State and Federal funding, then they should not apply for and use State and Federal research funding.
You are conflating an imagined single independent minded researcher working in a garret being bullied by an Attorney General – with a researcher who has requested and used State taxpayer funding and now refuses to provide the State Attorney General supporting evidence for the claims in the application and evidence of how the funds were spent. These are two totally separate cases.
Tom Fuller says:
October 6, 2010 at 11:40 pm
“The threat of creating a chilling environment for scientific publications must be considered.”
So fearing the consequences we must now keep a certain group of people exempt from our laws?
Now that is really lame….. Surely you can do better.
What a wonderful precedent to set. Who’s next?
What is more, if you have a slightly suspicious mind and if you wonder about the mindsets of others, you can put aside the dates of employment at various Universities for Michael Mann and re-examine the leaked CRU emails. It’s easy to search for “money”. Maybe a dozen hits come up. If you read them, you will perhaps be left wondering if adequate attention was paid by the circle of friends to the actual allocation of approved funds to approved projects.
The main hits are about Russian/British work and involve Keith Briffa more than most, but you might be left with the impression that Keith was a bit loose about paying researchers with diverse funds – with an interest in obtaining specific stated outcomes. To the extent that Michael Mann was copied in, if there was misallocation, he should have attempted to stop it.
OTOH, there might have been proper and correct allocation. The released emails are not adequate to allow a firm conclusion. Please draw your own conclusions. I have made no allegations here.
Tom Fuller, Oct 6, 11:40 PM. There is a First Amendment. Media folks are protected by this and, as noted, have expanded it to include very high bars for libel and slander. But that is, after all, a red herring or misplaced strawman. Even free speech does not extend to simple fraud. You cannot hide behind a privilege or Constitutional right if crime is involved. Claiming privilege in the Mann-UVA-VA AG case is like claiming you can’t even be investigated for murder because you hold a CCDW permit. That’s the society you’d choose to live but most would prefer potential crimes be investigated.
And don’t become confused with legal inference and some sort of supreme moral position about chilling science as somehow alluding to chilling free speech. For example, your right to advertise and make outrages claims is of no avail if you know, or should have known, what you were claiming was wrong. Depending on the inferences and details of the case , you’re civilly liable and possibly criminally as well. That’s what juries are for. First Amendment rights simply will not protect you. It is not absolute. And remember, the First Amendment only blocks, as in short circuit, an action from proceeding, there is still that jury thing, facts and appeals to protect the innocent. Better for UVA and/or Mann to claim the Fifth – it’s really absolute.
All in all, it just means you need to be a tad responsible in huffing and puffing while begging for taxpayers money under the guise of grants. Fraud is fraud. Civil liablity is just that. Crime is crime. If one relies on the hockey stick, make sure it’s not made out of tree sap else one may be considered a sap and will likely be proven to be one in court. It’s a sticky business when one lies.
Good letter, Mr Patterson.
The rule of law must be fair and must apply to all, otherwise we have tyranny.
Defend the sacred grove of Akademe from those beyond the pale.
=============
Great arguments, great discussion.
Thanks
In reading D. Patterson’s entry, I see reference to a cases of scientific fraud, meant to illustrate the possibility of such fraud and its successful prosecution. Illustration is not the same as comparison.
Mr. Patterson then refers specifically to the possibility of a prosecution of Mann over an FOI matter. It may be minor, and the outcome may be unsuccessful, but it’s worth pursuing.
Michael Mann has cost the world too much. If Mann has to pay a fifty dollar fine, I say, let’s see his fifty. The price of AGW promotion – by those we are still obliged to call scientists – is now being felt sharply here in Australia. The worst impositions are still to come. They are massive, and consist of the following:
-Ruinous state and federal and government subsidies of expensive and/or inefficient energy generation, recouped, of course, through innumerable taxes, fees, charges, sundries
-A whole new layer of consumption tax called “carbon tax”, not replacing but superimposed on all other taxes, and with its own specialised scientific bureaucracy
-Worst of all, an ETS, the wet dream of Enron and Lehman Bros, New El Dorado of all the shills, touts, shysters, skimmers, scammers and stock-jobbers we haven’t locked up yet
What concerns me is that there are “moderates” in this climate debate – some may well be contributors to WUWT – who would quite happily see the above iniquities come into full force. With moderates like that, who needs fanatics?
Adam says:
October 6, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Good letter. I am glad to see that this blog is still a source for open, rational debate. Which is probably in contradiction to the desires of all politicians, activists, and Lamestream journalists, whom I cheerfully wish a pox upon.”
I agree. This is why I come back to this site three or four times a day: because all sides of the debate are welcome and I believe it’s fair and honest. Anthony (and the mods) do their best to keep people civil, respectful, and on the topics. Kudos to WUWT.
Interesting, for the ones here that disagree with the investigation, it seems the position is we shouldn’t investigate until we can prove a crime has been committed……..well, at least not academics. Amazing! What a radical idea that the Attorney General of a state do his job…….Washington Post or not.
Tom Fuller says:
October 6, 2010 at 11:40 pm
“Mr. Patterson,
…”The threat of creating a chilling environment for scientific publications must be considered. Do we not have enough of a perverse incentive leading to piggy back publications regarding climate change and other controversial topics? Is it not possible that overzealous prosecution will impede scientific progress?
When I wrote that district attorneys (should have been Attorneys General) are not always Republican, what I should have probably said was that the scientist in the crosshairs may not always be from the well-defended and funded consensus position. I greatly fear that this may serve as a precedent that will be used to marginalize and even silence scientists that publish papers that may offend the majority rather than support it, as in Mann’s case.
So although I think you make a strong case, for me it fails.”
For me, it’s always fair to prosecute suspected criminal misconduct. Our judicial system assumes innocence until proven guilty. If Mike Mann and UoV are innocent, then they have nothing to worry about from the due process. To say that simply prosecuting the case would lead to a chilling environment for scientific publication makes no sense to me. To the contrary, not prosecuting this case sends a message to dubious scientists that they never have to fear for their actions. I came from the academic environment: potential for fraud is huge. Scientists for the most part are honest but the protection from the universities and academic “old boys network” can be too tempting for the most desparate of scientists.
In entomology I know of one episode where researchers determined a “pest” was essentially harmless and pesticide companies effectively intervened to prevent publication. I think environmentalists should have a problem with this sort of distortion. Mann’s case of distortion/manipulation/deception/fraud is similar. If this sort of thing is not illegal, it should be. Scientists should not betray the public trust.
I think if the Virginia AG was a democrat seeking information on a possibly corrupt conservative icon academic, the docs would have been released immediately and without hesitation.
I come to this site for science that might be persuasive against AGW. But posts like this basically destroy the credibility of this site. Anyone who believes or agrees with this post well, I just have to look at everything you say with extreme circumspect.
Let’s start with the FOIA nonsense. Has anyone here read Cookinellli’s new CID? Because it never mentions FOIA. And even assuming some FOIA fraud occurred (rather than an honest mistake), did Mann have anything to do with that? The author of this guest post never says.
Then there’s the reliance on fraud committed by other scientists. Please. If the AG went into court with that, the court would be horrified. Fraud by other scientists is not remotely sufficient to support an allegation of fraud by Mann.
Then there’s the idea that Mann should be investigated by the AG because AGW skeptics have been subjected to various alleged injustices. Wow again. Is anyone here a lawyer? Because arguing that to a court might get you thrown out of the court room.
This new request is going to be denied. I can almost guarantee it. You see in the US, prosecutors like the AG are not unfettered in their powers to pursue and prosecute. The court acts as a limit. The court said no once, because it doesn’t think that even if Mann did practice bad science, the way to address that is by investigating or prosecuting him for criminal fraud. I see nothing in the AG demand that is going to change the judge’s mind.
My posts do not seem to be working