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.
Who will rid me of these troublesome ‘private funders’?
======================
Mosher mumbles:
“my point and toms point is this. exercising that power requires discretion. It also requires brains. you don’t win an argument with me by arguing that the AG is just doing his job, when MY ARGUMENT is this:
1. he’s doing his job STUPIDLY”
Er, I guess the AG would be better off if he also consulted YOU before proceeding? Could he be planning to bring Steve Mc in later? Are you a lawyer? He probably has a couple of good lawyers on his team and maybe a couple of aces up his sleeve. Whatever. I don’t agree with your argument. I still think he is doing his job.
You can have the last word, if you like. I’ll wait and see what happens.
Steven Mosher:
I am fascinated by your strong assertions that Mr Cuccinelli should not be investigating the probity of the aquisition and spending of grant money by Dr Mann.
As I said at October 7, 2010 at 2:18 am;
“Therefore, the cases prove there is a need for investigations to reveal or disprove such malfeasance in any case where there is reason to suspect it exists. Indeed, an innocent scientist who finds him/herself under a cloud of such suspicion could be expected to welcome and assist the investigation that could clear his/her name. And the ‘Climategate’ emails provide significant evidence of misuse of funds by associates of Mann; e.g. see
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=332&filename=1056478635.txt
Hence, Mann is under a cloud of suspicion provided by his apparent ‘guilt by association’. And, therefore, there is a need for investigations to reveal or disprove his malfeasance if only as a method to provide exoneration of Mann.”
The only reasons I can think of for your assertions that such investigations should not be conducted are:
1. you want Dr Mann to remain under a cloud of suspicion although you think he has not conducted any misappropriation and/or misuse of grant monies,
or
2. you do not want that revealed that Dr Mann is guilty of misappropriation and/or misuse of grant monies when you think he is guilty of such misconduct .
I stress that I can think of no other reasons for your opposition to the investigation by Mr Cuccinelli . But each of these reasons is reprehensible.
So, would you please enlighten me as to which of these reasons or whatever other reason you have for your assertions.
Richard
@ur momisugly
@ur momisuglyJohn Whitman
“In this stream of comments there is the argument that the scientists should sort out potential cases of fraud within the scientific process /community.”
No it’s argued that the process of arriving at correct answers should be carried about the scientific community and that others should not intervene to criminally prosecute those who are alleged to be wrong. In the case of Mann this is exactly what’s being
alleged, that there are those who say his 98 paper is wrong, that Mann included it on his CV as part of a grant application for someone else and that therefore this is fraud.
“It goes on to say investigative actions by a legal body (Va AG Cuccinelli for example) should not occur because it is not qualified to judge the scientific process. ”
The AG is absolutely not qualified to judge the scientific process. If there was a trial he need expert testimony showing that Mann’s work was outright fraud. As pointed out by Steven Mosher to closest thing you’ll find to such an expert is Steve McIntyre and while we don’t know for sure that he hasn’t been contacted as part of building a case (a step you might expect to occur BEFORE trying to subpoena emails) and that he does have a negative opinion of this whole thing.
If Steve McIntyre doesn’t think Mann is guilty of fraud what is it you know about Mann’s work that he doesn’t? What is it that Cuccinelli knows about it?
What you and others are relying on is the existence of some unknown and secret evidence that will implicate Mann. Apparently even The University of Virginia doesn’t know it because they’re vigorously defending him.
Steve Mosher;
If he’s doing his job stupidly, then he will suffer the consequences. If he is doing his job stupidly, the courts will thwart him. That’s the purpose of an indepedent judiciary.
As for his strategy, I’m leaning toward stupid myself, but the fact is I don’t know. You suggest I read the CID for instance. That would tell me little. In legal investigations, as in business negotiations, sometimes the question you ask is meant to expose information which tells you what question to ask next. Not knowing what has prompted this particular request, what piece of the puzzle is sought as a result, I can’t judge.
As for your suggestion of the list of things required to charge Mann with Fraud, two points. First, he’s not being charged, he’s being investigated. If the investigation bears fruit, THEN he will be charged and I suspect that many of the elements you list would go into formulating that charge. But the current matter isn’t a charge. It is data collection.
jae says:
October 8, 2010 at 6:47 am
Amen, Mosher’s beginning to sound like a Post Normal Scientist: “forget the regular ways to provide oversight, society needs next-quantum-level-up oversight by a new breed of self-annointed abiters of all acts to make the quality decisions now required to ensure that the world operates correctly: me and my buddies.”
Either that or an Ostrich.
And once again, Mosh, you and Tom can write your very helpful book based upon leaked, possibly FOIA susceptible “work”, but Cuccinelli can’t have or at least try to get the info he needs to do his job? And did you let anyone of AG rank shoot holes in your draft but then not alter it?
————-
sharper00,
Thank you for your reply.
First, Steven Mosher is making claims that science wasn’t consulted by Cuccinelli in his legal preparations. Which i take to imply therefore his (Cuccinelli’s) case cannot be scientifically supported. I have asked Steven Mosher twice whether he is conjecturing or is he speaking from knowledge. If he is speaking from knowledge but unwilling to admit it, then what the heck does that imply? Well, I don’t know what it implies but it makes me think about it at length . . . . that is for sure.
Secondly, it is nothing special that legal adversaries (like AG versus UoV) with hold what they know in the pre-trial phase. UoV is withholding the info AG requests, AG is very likely withholding info they have to see if UoV is acting in open truthful manner. It is allowed in the legal process and is not a matter of morality or politics or science. It is not a mysterious conspiracy, just normal legal tactics / practice. No conspiracy here . . . move along, move along. What argument are you making against this normal legal maneuvering?
Thirdly, your statements about scientists sorting out within their own process the bad science (even possibly) fraudulent science are actually in agreement with me saying that. I will say again that I have no problem with that. It is someone going on to claim that an AG has no right . . . . . that is false.
Fourth, I respect McIntyre profoundly. Therefore, I am very concerned about what you say about him in your comments. I advise you to be very careful if you are in any way publically saying or implying, without quoting him specially, that McIntyre has formally pre-judged the case in law about guilt or innocence of Mann / UoV. For you to imply without quoting him is highly inappropriate. Please clarify your source knowledge.
Time will tell. I am saying, the chance of a lawsuit independent of CID is >>90%.
John
Moderators,
Something appears to have changed regarding the submitting of comments at WUWT since yesterday morning.
Previous to yesterday morning a comment submitted by me would normally immediately be shown as “waiting moderation”.
Now on this thread most comments since yesterday morning disappear completely.
Can you kindly explain?
Thank you.
John
REPLY: Probably because you continue using some flagged word. This one was front and center – Anthony
Anthony,
Thanks for your quick reply. I would avoid flagged words if I knew what they were. If there a list somewhere?
John
JPeden says:
October 8, 2010 at 9:04 am
And once again, Mosh, you and Tom can write your very helpful book based upon leaked, possibly FOIA susceptible “work”, but Cuccinelli can’t have or at least try to get the info he needs to do his job? And did you let anyone of AG rank shoot holes in your draft but then not alter it?
##############
strawman. Nobody is arguing that the AG should not do his job. We are arguing this:
he is not doing his job well.
A. not availing himself of the right experts
B. not picking winning cases.
So the argument “he’s just doing is job” is a really a non sequitor to my argument. The AG can obviously do what he is doing. That is mere tautology. The issue is As I stated it. To answer my points one has to
A. demonstrate that he did engage the relevant experts
B. Show the case is one that is winnable. This means presenting some details.
For example: In a typical case of fraud the PI uses the funds programmed to purchase a piece of equipment for purchasing personal items. Dollars programmed to pyrchase a computer are used to purchase a car. So, if the AG had the SOW and the SOW showed that equipment was supposed to be purchased by Mann, then auditing that would be a good thing to do. If, however, the thought is that mann engaged in fraud by getting new grants based on bad science, then people need to state that. They need to state the new grant, pull the proposal, and demonsatrate that the new grant ACTUALLY relied on the older science to “sell” the proposal. That is all public record, and people have not done their jobs to at least show that the grants ACTUALLY relied on the mann science. Instead, people just assume a connection and on the basis of that connection they demand emails. Not good practice. Fishing expedition.
@John Whitman
“It is someone going on to claim that an AG has no right . . . . . that is false.”
Everyone accepts that the AG has the right (and perhaps even the duty depending) to investigate fraud. The problem here is the reasoning he’s given for this investigation and the troubling manner in which he’s gone about it.
You can read the most recent filing for yourself. Cuccinelli is claiming that flaws in Mann’s 98 paper constitute fraud in a later grant application on which Mann was not the principal applicant and for which the topic was not paleoclimatology.
If you accept that Cuccinelli has a legitimate basis for investigating fraud on this basis then you’re saying any AG can investigate practically any working scientist at any time. It will always be possible to take a published paper and find someone who thinks it could be done better.
If there was actual evidence Mann committed fraud then I think you’d find the balance of opinion was entirely different. If the AG presented a good reason for why he needed Mann’s emails (and yet oddly not that of the other people on the same grant application) then the balance of opinion would be entirely different. Instead what I see are a lot of people who desire access to those emails and have no love for Mann thus they’re willing Cuccinelli’s claim pass.
I’m reminded of A Man for All Seasons
Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
What Tom Fuller, Steven Mosher and others are imploring you to do is to not cut down the law to get to Mann. If Cuccinelli wins this case then you may get Mann’s emails and who knows what juicy quotes where he expresses anger or frustration but you might not be ready for the winds that blow as a result when AGs the country over can investigate any scientist they want. Perhaps Lindzen will be next or Dr Spencer. After enough investigations scientists will soon learn not to risk the ire of politicians.
“Fourth, I respect McIntyre profoundly. Therefore, I am very concerned about what you say about him in your comments. I advise you to be very careful if you are in any way publically saying or implying, without quoting him specially, that McIntyre has formally pre-judged the case in law about guilt or innocence of Mann / UoV. For you to imply without quoting him is highly inappropriate. Please clarify your source knowledge.”
I actually assumed people familiar with the case would be well aware of McIntyre’s extremely forthright statements
Cuccinelli v Mann
[…]
There’s absolutely no room for confusion on McIntyre thinks of this and similar investigations and I applaud him for being able to step back from his own dealings with Mann where others wouldn’t be able to.
I spent some time tracking down the FOIA angle and posted the following to Dr. Curry’s blog (http://tinyurl.com/2btvsjp):
Dr. Curry: Yes, there is a FOIA issue. UVA refused a FOIA request for Mann’s emails by saying that the emails had been deleted, then later admitted that the emails might exist on a backup server, but still refused access to the emails because the emails could not be implicated under Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (FATA) on a legal technicality.
You can read a newspaper account (about 3/4 down) here: http://tinyurl.com/25nbofy
You can read Cuccinelli’s 7/24/2010 petition (pp.13-15) here: http://tinyurl.com/22ubcpv
As far as I’m concerned, given the questions raised by the CRU emails, the questions about Mann’s procedures in developing the hockey stick, and this FOIA request, Cuccinelli has more than enough reasons to investigate Michael Mann and UVA.
The high talk of academic freedom versus witch hunts reminds me of nothing so much as Nixon’s insistence during Watergate that he would not turn over the White House tapes because doing so “would cripple all future presidents.”
I spent some time tracking down the FOIA business and posted a comment about it on Dr. Curry’s blog: http://tinyurl.com/2btvsjp . (I’m having trouble getting this comment through perhaps because of multiple links.)
Dr. Curry: Yes, there is a FOIA issue. UVA refused a FOIA request for Mann’s emails by saying that the emails had been deleted, then later admitted that the emails might exist on a backup server, but still refused access to the emails because the emails could not be implicated under Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (FATA) on a legal technicality.
You can read a newspaper account (about 3/4 down) here: [see link in paragraph 1]
You can read Cuccinelli’s 7/24/2010 petition (pp.13-15) on the FOIA request here: [see link in paragraph 1]
As far as I’m concerned, given the question raised by the CRU emails, the questions about Mann’s procedures in developing the hockey stick, and this FOIA request, Cuccinelli has more than enough reasons to investigate Michael Mann and UVA.
The high talk of academic freedom versus witch hunts in this case reminds me of nothing so much as Nixon’s insistence during Watergate that he would not turn over the White House tapes because doing so “would cripple all future presidents.”
I spent some time tracking down the FOIA business and posted a comment about it on Dr. Curry’s blog: http://tinyurl.com/2btvsjp . (I’m having trouble getting this comment through perhaps because of multiple links.)
Dr. Curry: Yes, there is a FOIA issue. UVA refused a FOIA request for Mann’s emails by saying that the emails had been deleted, then later admitted that the emails might exist on a backup server, but still refused access to the emails because the emails could not be implicated under Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (FATA) on a legal technicality.
You can read a newspaper account (about 3/4 down) here: [see link in paragraph 1]
You can read Cuccinelli’s 7/24/2010 petition (pp.13-15) on the FOIA request here: [see link in paragraph 1]
sharper00 says:
“…the process of arriving at correct answers should be carried about the scientific community and that others should not intervene to criminally prosecute those who are alleged to be wrong…”
and:
“The AG is absolutely not qualified to judge the scientific process.”
and:
“What you and others are relying on is the existence of some unknown and secret evidence that will implicate Mann. Apparently even The University of Virginia doesn’t know it because they’re vigorously defending him.”
Well, where to start on this target-rich environment?
First, the self-selected members of the ‘scientific community’ have all been playing Mann defense up until now. Thus, every previous ‘investigation’ has been nothing but a whitewash. The motive is to keep the grant gravy train from being derailed. In the process, the truth — the normal outcome of the Anglo-Saxon adversarial system of justice — has been jettisoned by those self-appointed kangaroo courts.
Next, saying that the AG is unqualified to judge Michael Mann completely misses the point, and it raises the issue that Mr sharper00 is also unqualified to judge. In fact, only a judge and/or jury is qualified to judge. The prosecutor is supremely well qualified to prosecute, and he is doing the job he was elected to do. At this point it is an investigation which may or may not lead to a trial, depending on whether the AG believes the law was broken, or simply bent.
Further, a mysterious, un-elected, secretive NGO is heavily funding a tax-supported university to prop up its star rainmaker. That is certainly not beneficial to the public, which is of course why the source of that money is being kept secret.
Finally, Mr sharper00 presumes to know everything Mr Cuccinelli knows. And he seems to believe that the AG arbitrarily picked Mann’s name out of the phone book in order to have someone to prosecute. It doesn’t work that way.
An investigation begins with a complaint. We don’t know who complained, just like we don’t know who leaked the Climategate emails. What we do know is that an elected AG does not want the bad publicity that would come from losing a case. So if Mann is charged, there is a high likelihood of a conviction.
But at this point the AG is simply responding to a complaint. Attorneys General constantly receive complaints, and they have the duty to decide which ones to investigate. At this point, it is only an investigation. But it is entirely different from all previous *bogus* investigations, because it is an adversarial setting: Mann will be forced to answer very pointed questions — not the softball set-up questions he was asked in his previous whitewashes.
Witnesses will be interviewed, presumably including individuals and editorial board members harmed by Mann’s documented scheming. Mann will not be the only fish caught in the AG’s net. Mr Mann will find that most people will not perjure themselves — and he will also find that some people who worked diligently for decades with no recognition did not appreciate the young IPCC star arrogantly stepping on toes and throwing his weight around.
If this investigation proceeds, those questions and answers will be enough to open most folks’ eyes to Michael Mann’s shenanigans. Climategate desperately needs a fall guy. Who better than the guy whose supporters defend him by explaining that he was only incompetent, but not actually dishonest?
John Whitman says:
October 8, 2010 at 9:26 am
Thirdly, your statements about scientists sorting out within their own process the bad science (even possibly) fraudulent science are actually in agreement with me saying that. I will say again that I have no problem with that. It is someone going on to claim that an AG has no right . . . . . that is false.
I agree with most of what Mosh says which in itself fairly unusual but not so much in cases like this. Lets get something clear the AG does have rights and responsibilities within the law but as the judge made clear he does not have the right to try to do something beyond the scope of the law. Several have made the specious argument here that if UVa were innocent they would reveal all the information just to clear their name. That is only true if the request is a lawful one, they do us all a disservice if they submit to actions beyond the law. The courts exist to adjudicate such matters, let them do so. In order to investigate an organization for fraud there should exist a good reason to believe that fraud might have been committed. Asserting that Mann’s science was based on a dubious statistical procedure, therefore there is a reasonable belief that he committed fraud while at UVA and that the administration and other faculty were complicit, is a huge stretch way beyond any reasonable action by the AG.
If that were the case why not go after Michaels after his misleading testimony to Congress where he substituted altered graphs as if they were Hansen’s, or Wegman following his plagiarism (definitely meets the academic criterion for such) in his report?
Following up on Mosh’s hypothetical there is no way that any university I have worked at and no grant awarding body that would allow such fraud to take place. Even sole sourcing an item which had been included in the proposal would require written justification, changing an apportionment of a grant after receipt because of changed circumstances would require written permission from the donor. Some posters here think that once you’ve been awarded a grant you can spend it on anything you like, that is far from the truth, doing anything other than spending it on what you said you were going to spend it on is almost impossible.
————–
sharper00,
Thank you for your reply.
Thank you also for the McIntyre quote. It is always good to put his words in quote instead of saying what he said. Professional loyalty does exist for him, and I would respect his view.
So, it is clear McIntyre probably did not support Cuccinelli. Who else didn’t or did support Cuccinelli in the science area? I do not know. Are all scientists 100% behind Mann? It would be nice to find out.
If Cuccinelli persists, and I think he will, the law process will work itself through. I see no problem. If he is wrong he loses, if Mann /UoV are found lacking then the law will deal with them. Again, no problem. This is no longer strictly internal maneuvering within a scientific clique; an outsider is finally looking in. It won’t be a whitewash like we are used to.
Doom & Gloom/ Apocalypse of Science by the Legal Profession: To say that science has special fears from legal action against scientists is no different than saying the same for any doctor, engineer, lawyer or businessman fearing legal action. They (scientists) are just not special compared to other groups. They just aren’t privileged. Legal action in all professions has not doomed those professions . . . . nor does it /will it science. That is ridiculous. Legal responsibility helps the reputation of a profession.
Witch hunt? Imprudent or prudent legal investigation? Just a case of when in doubt investigate it (CID)?
Witch hunt sounds like hyperbole, emotional flag waving. So carries no weight.
Time will tell.
John
@Smokey
“The motive is to keep the grant gravy train from being derailed. “
Ok but you’re simply widening the scope of the fraud from Mann to what I can only assume includes nearly every working scientist. So presumably you know Mann is a fraud and the only reason he hasn’t been exposed to date is every other scientist being a fraud too. You can use this reasoning to defend pretty much any position you like and of course conspiracy theorists do.
“Next, saying that the AG is unqualified to judge Michael Mann completely misses the point, and it raises the issue that Mr sharper00 is also unqualified to judge. “
I am simply offering my opinion and Mr Cuccinelli is welcome to his own as well. However in his capacity as Attorney General he is seeking to investigate Mann for fraud on the basis that one of his papers could have been done better. This is putting himself in a position of judging the science, something he is simply not qualified to do nor should he be.
“Finally, Mr sharper00 presumes to know everything Mr Cuccinelli knows.”
I presume only to know the reasoning Mr Cuccinelli has himself given for the investigation. If he is in possession of secret reasoning or evidence then obviously I cannot speak to that and nor can you.
If the court accepts Cuccinelli’s stated reasons then working scientists have much to fear in the years ahead. Any Attorney General can begin proceedings against them on the basis one of their papers could have been done better (in the opinion of someone or the other).
“And he seems to believe that the AG arbitrarily picked Mann’s name out of the phone book in order to have someone to prosecute.”
Well it’s actually pretty obvious Cuccinelli is unduly focussed on Mann which is part of the whole problem and creates a perception of harassment.
“Who better than the guy whose supporters defend him by explaining that he was only incompetent, but not actually dishonest?”
The point being made is that Mann is at worst incompetent. I believe many people coming from a wide range of opinion on AGW are disturbed by this investigation and consequently have put their differences on Mann’s work aside for the moment. Whether you think his papers are terrible, impressive or somewhere in between very very few people believe he’s actually fraudulent.
Reducing your enemies or those who disagree with you to mere frauds who secretly know you’re right is the easy way out.
@John Whitman
“To say that science has special fears from legal action against scientists is no different than saying the same for any doctor, engineer, lawyer or businessman fearing legal action”
I’m not saying scientists are “special” I’m saying this investigation makes working scientists a target in particular.
If an AG was attempting to prosecute a surgeon for murder or manslaughter simply because someone died on the operating table I’d be similarly aghast and so would you. If “a patient died” was all that was needed you’d say “But you could investigate any surgeon you wanted that way!”. The same goes for any other individual where spurious reasoning is invoked to use the force of law against them.
Once you make the bar so low any individual can meet it then the only real criteria are which individuals the state finds convenient to prosecute.
sharparoo:
“If you accept that Cuccinelli has a legitimate basis for investigating fraud on this basis then you’re saying any AG can investigate practically any working scientist at any time. It will always be possible to take a published paper and find someone who thinks it could be done better. ”
I don’t know how much you know about this particular issue, but I think you are greatly oversimplifying it here. There are many other nuances besides “it could be done better.” Why won’t the university comply with FOIA? Can you explain just where you would draw the line in the sand (i.e., just how much evidence of possible malfeasance would you require to take some action to find out more)?
John Whitman says: October 8, 2010 at 12:41 pm
“To say that science has special fears from legal action against scientists is no different than saying the same for any doctor, engineer, lawyer or businessman fearing legal action.”
Hi John. My concern is not that scientists or any other professionals be held above the law. My concern is that the legal process is being abused to harass an individual. How long would it take you and what would it cost to respond to a submission that you hand over all your emails and writing to be searched for anything that might implicate you in any wrongdoing (despite the fact that email exchanges are usually informal and often missing the nuance to adequately place their context)? Vague misgivings are not sufficient grounds and nor should they be for such a request. We will all see what transpires soon enough.
@JAE
“Why won’t the university comply with FOIA?”
What FOIA are you referring to? You mean Cuccinelli’s attempt to get all emails sent by Mann to various people? My understanding is that this is not being made under FOI provisions.
” Can you explain just where you would draw the line in the sand (i.e., just how much evidence of possible malfeasance would you require to take some action to find out more)?”
I’d like to see some indication the money that was supposed to be spent investigating the issue for the stated grant was not spent for that purpose. I’d also like to know why it’s purported the existing auditing and reporting mechanisms are apparently insufficient and require action by the AG.
All,
I think you are saying that you somehow trust the academic climate science establishment to do what is right but not the legal body of the USA. I say the track record of the former in climate science is highly questionable. My life has depended (quite succesfully) on the track record of our legal profession. Go with the legal process to see which prevails. No Problem.
John
@John Whitman
“I think you are saying that you somehow trust the academic climate science establishment to do what is right but not the legal body of the USA.”
No. What people are saying is that there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to handle issues. The appropriate way to handle scientific issues is through science, not through criminal prosecution of scientists.
Doctors Spencer and Christy produced erroneous satellite temperature measurements for years at UAH. Should they be investigated for possible fraud? Can an AG start collecting up their emails to see if there’s anything interesting in there?
They have nothing to hide right? They won’t mind a little bit of a look at their correspondence or maybe their financial records.
“Go with the legal process to see which prevails. No Problem.”
Well again this is not abstract problem. This is legal action specifically targeting Mann. If this is allowable then every scientist publishing a paper has to decide if they potentially want to “go with the legal process” investigating them for fraud possibly years later.