Wow. In the middle of the battle, the warmists erroneously send up a flare from their position, drawing undue attention to the target. I rather expected a moribund outcome from this investigation, maybe a couple of embarrassing quotes, maybe a hotheaded Santeresque comment by Dr. Michael Mann about Dr. Pat Michaels, but that was about it.
Now, with them trying to retroactively change the law as a way to head off the investigation, it makes me wonder if maybe there’s really something profound there in those communications after all. Bad move fellas, you just made the Q Score for this story triple.
From the Daily Progress:
By Bryan McKenzie
Two Democratic state senators are proposing to change state law to thwart Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s efforts to investigate a former University of Virginia professor’s research on global warming.
The proposed legislation would repeal sections of Virginia law that give the state’s attorney general authority to issue civil investigative demands, similar to subpoenas, to gather documents in relation to a civil investigation conducted by the office.
The bill is in response to efforts by Cuccinelli, a Republican, to investigate possible fraud by former UVa professor Michael Mann in relation to five taxpayer-funded research grants between 1999 and 2005.
The senators, A. Donald McEachin and J. Chapman Petersen, will meet this morning with Del. David J. Toscano, D-Charlottesville, at the Capitol to discuss the legislation.
======================================
Read the article in full here
h/t to Bishop Hill
John Kehr,
So is there now a wall of separation between science and state?
That implies that science, as you perceive it, is really a religious enterprise.
That also implies that science must not be supported by government money, and we must not be forced to follow the claims of its adherents. Is that what you are after?
However, I think if one reads what you are saying a bit more closely, it is clear you are playing a bit of deception, either deliberately or accidentally.
This is not a scientific investigation. This is a fraud investigation.
Fraud with tax payer money. The AG of Virginia is elected by the people of Virginia to enforce the laws of Virginia and to protect them from, among other things, fraudulent use of funds. Universities and their employees, if funded by tax payers, are not immune to that. Do you really think that ‘science’ is immune from any legal problems?
Unless you think that not only do climate scientists completely understand the climate, but also the law on disclosure and compliance? And that climate scientists should only be investigated by those acceptable to them?
Or maybe you perceive that your faith is in fact in big trouble and that you want to suppress any challenges to it?
Certainly if the science is robust, a mere Attorney General empowered to review public expenditures is not going to sink it, is he?
John,
I accidentally hit ‘post’ too quickly.
Please stop with the equivalency. Equating the AG of Virginia with Gore is bogus and annoying for any thinking person.
The AG of Virginia is abusing nothing. Gore enriched himself directly cynically and massively. Mann has published crap at tax payer expense. Did he spend it correctly?
The actions of U Va. scream coverup and corruption. The smell, as someone who grew up during Watergate can tell you, is the same now as it was then.
You do not know what Mann did with the money, since he has been enabled in dodging any reviews of it.
Pre emptive amnesty. Who would have thunk of it. The libs are uber creative.
If you’re in a hole, get a pneumatic drill…
While I understand the desire to avoid witch hunts and malicious prosecution, I have to ask: are scientists and researchers above the law?
As a Brit this subject had somewhat passed me by as I was aware of the general nature of the investigation, but not the details.
However this attempt to change the law retrsopectively caused me to sit up and take real notice. Why would those two senators draw attention to this by unless there was something to hide?
Logical non conspiracy theories welcome BEFORE I start to get really suspicious.
Tonyb
FerdinandAkin says:
January 19, 2011 at 3:38 am
It is becoming obvious that Dr. Michael Mann is not the one being defended here. There is some entity that has the clout to direct the University to spend tuition money on lawyers to defend this case. Failing with the lawyers, it has become necessary to expend not one, but two politicians embedded in the legislature.
The power and the money at stake here must be tremendous. Someone, or some organization, desperately wants this information to remain secret. They are willing to consume accumulated political capital at both the administrative level of the University and in the State Government to protect themselves.
Dr. Mann is expendable. The administration of the University is expendable. Two politicians are expendable. Whatever it is being defended here must be remarkably valuable indeed.
I would not be at all surprised if you’re very close to the mark here.
If a Cuccinelli-type investigation were to proceed it could lead to the exposure of far deeper and fundamental information as to how the marxists-leftists took control of education in America and indoctrinated and corrupted your young, behind your backs and without your consent – not just at university level.
Am I joking? – I wish I was.
But, of course, I’m a conspiracy theorist, a sceptic and a denier – which I ain’t.
I think Mann and AGW would be readily sacrificed by these traitors if they felt it was necessary to protect themselves, and money is not a problem for them.
I say God Bless America and sincerely hope you take your country back from the B******s before it’s too late.
tim
Good grief did ya’ll see the hypocritical reason for the bill?
They’re worried about inappropriate use of tax dollars?
Toscano said he and the senators filing the legislation believe Cuccinelli’s efforts to get Mann’s information, and to fight global warming issues, should not be taxpayer funded.“There are 50 scientific organizations in 50 countries all around the world that came to the same conclusion,” Toscano said. “This is really an inappropriate use of tax dollars.”
What a hoot.
From the WaPo story:
“If the bills pass the Democratic-led Senate, they are unlikely to be approved by the House of Delegates, where the GOP holds a strong majority.
Still, they afford Democrats a forum for hammering the controversial attorney general over the U-Va. subpoena, which they consider an area of vulnerability with moderate voters.”
It’s all politics and the bills won’t pass…
Wow, attempting a cover-up in plain view. This will not bode well for public trust in government or climate scientists!
I would draw nothing from this (and nothing will come of it). The 2 senators actually have different reasons for their proposal. The one in C’ville is doing his constituents demands (that is where UVA is located), and is probably totally clueless on what is going on. The other however is a lying SOB (documented). He use to represent my area (until I moved since i refused to have anything to do with the cretin). If Cuccinelli was a D, that clown would be lying to support him. As it is, McEachin is also totally clueless about the subject and is just trying to give Cuccinelli a black eye to soften him up for the next election (where McEachin has already run and lost the office of AG and is now making noise about Governor – which many think Cuccinelli will run for in 2013).
The AGW crowd may be wrong, but we all know the leaders are not stupid. That same statement cannot be made for politicians.
jtom says:
January 18, 2011 at 5:31 pm
jtom – it is either 1 year or 3 years, not 2. This year, Virignia votes for every member of the GA (all Senators and Delegates), and in 2 years, for Governor (and all Delegates). They will not take office until 1 or 3 years from now. It is widely believed the democrats will lose their majority in the senate this year, but anything can happen.
Drudge has picked it up – Anthony the “Q” on this story just got way bigger – prediction true.
If the research had been privately funded, the grantor would OWN the data. The academics could get their names on the publications, but so would the source of funding. If this case the source was the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Democratic Partisans are essentially stating that Virginia does not have the proprietary rights of a private citizen, and that publicly funded scientific research is owned by the private individuals who took the money, not by the taxpayers.
Does anyone realize the Greenpeace FOI request for Dr. Michael’s information also involved Dr. Fred Singer?
http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/cdp-news-state/2010/jun/03/uva_at_center_of_battles_over_climate_change-ar-65067/
And why are two state senators (one of them is mine from Richmond and the other is from Northern Va.) getting involved in something way outside their constituencies and any issues they have addressed before? I am guessing there are some strings being pulled. This is Anthony’s “flare gun,” I find it hard to believe they would fight so hard for just a principle if there were nothing of importance that would be revealed.
Come on guys, don’t you know that state constitutions are ‘living’, ‘breathing’ documents that should be flexible enough to meet the contemporary needs of well-intentioned, thoughtful, and caring politicians?
Where are the bookies when you really need them …. birth certificate or UVa records; which sees light of day first?
Tom Davidson says:
January 19, 2011 at 9:54 am
If the research had been privately funded, the grantor would OWN the data. The academics could get their names on the publications, but so would the source of funding. If this case the source was the Commonwealth of Virginia.
In 4 of the 5 cases mentioned this isn’t true, the one that was funded by the Commonwealth was for $214,700 and the PI was J.D. Albertson.
“In 4 of the 5 cases mentioned…”
Falsus in unum, falsus in omis.☺
Tom Davidson says:
January 19, 2011 at 9:54 am
Tom, in all fairness, they are not claiming that. Cuccinelli is using a law passed 9 years ago, that was aimed at medicare fraud , to get the records. The alternative way is to go the legal “sue” route and get a subpoena to go about getting the records. So all they are really doing is trying to “slow down” the investigation.
oeman50 says:
January 19, 2011 at 10:22 am
Howdy neighbor!
None of this really matters; by the time they get to it, the backup server will no longer contain the emails in question.
I can’t imagine it still does even today.
I have been speculating if it is credible to think that Cuccinelli has been, since the beginning of his investigation, in possession of incriminating (to Mann/UVa) information from a confidential whistleblower/leaker within the UVa faculty or from within Mann’s research team.
One might be inclined to think it is not credible that he has had incriminating info from a confidential whistleblower/leaker since the beginning of his investigation. Maybe it is not credible because if he did have such info then he would have revealed it already in the legal process. But, I cannot dismiss the idea that the reason for Cuccinelli’s tenacity in pursuit of the civil investigative demands (CIDs) on UVa & Mann is that he already has in his possession info about what he will find. I speculate he does have a hole card.
I would think it would be a relatively safe path for a hypothetical whistleblower/leaker to go the Virginia Attorney General’s office with info. Given the often one-sided MSM coverage of AGW, it would be safer to go the Va AG office than the press. As for the option for releasing info to blogs, well maybe a hypothetical UVa whistleblower/leaker would not want to risk themselves to a public exposure . . . blog people can be fantastic investigators as we all know. : )
I wish Michael Crichton were still with us to write a fictional book about the possibilities.
John
“If a Cuccinelli-type investigation were to proceed it could lead to the exposure of far deeper and fundamental information as to how the marxists-leftists took control of education in America and indoctrinated and corrupted your young, behind your backs and without your consent – not just at university level.”
ROFL!
Oh, wait, you’re serious?
#
#
thegoodlocust says:
January 18, 2011 at 5:23 pm
I think the dumbest statement in the comment section over there was:
“It is also these same climate change atheists who challenge Mann’s
statistical analysis,” and they do so based entirely on stolen e-mails in which the term “trick” is used. The “trick” is a technique to meld two sets of data (temperature readings and tree-ring growth), and it was presented openly in peer-reviewed scientific journals (which means a high level of scrutiny of the methodology used).”
That was no trick. It was my SO. – MM
Here’s a scenario: A whistleblower brings e-mail copies to the DA and says, “You can use these, but only as a last resort, because I don’t want to be drawn into this. Try to get them by a subpoena first.”