It seems the process to get supporting evidence from University of Virginia has overcome a roadblock. From the Virginia Court System: h/t to WUWT reader Laws of Nature
Appeals Granted
Case
KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, II, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA v. RECTOR AND VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
(Record Number 102359)
From
The Circuit Court of Albemarle County; P.M. Peatross, Jr., Judge.
Counsel
Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Wesley G. Russell, Jr., E. Duncan Getchell, Jr., Charles E. James, Jr., and Stephen R. McCullough (Office of the Attorney General) for appellant.
Chuck Rosenberg, Jessica Ellsworth, N Thomas Connally, Jon M. Talotta, Stephanie J. Gold, and Catherine E. Stetson (Hogan Lovells US LLP) for appellee.
Assignment of Error
- The circuit court erred in setting aside the CIDs based on the ground that the Attorney General lacked a “reason to believe” that UVa. may be in possession, custody, or control of any documentary material or information relevant to a FATA investigation because it is contrary to the statute and without support in the record.
- The circuit court erred in setting aside the CIDs based on the ground that the Attorney General’s “reason to believe” had to be stated on the face of the CIDs because it is contrary to the statute.
- The circuit court erred in setting aside the CIDs based on the ground that the CIDs failed to sufficiently state the “nature of the conduct” being investigated because that is contrary to the face of the CIDs.
- The circuit court erred in setting aside the CIDs based on the ground that FATA does not cover requests for payments made on the Commonwealth when the Commonwealth has been a recipient of a federal grant because that is an incorrect construction of FATA and ignores that money is fungible.
- The circuit court erred by limiting the remaining right of inquiry based upon the errors assigned above.
Assignment of Cross-Error
- Whether the circuit court erred in holding the University is a “person” subject to FATA’s CID provision, where the General Assembly specifically defined the term “person” in FATA not to include Commonwealth entities.
Date Granted
3-4-2011
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As many folks have pointed out ,Buzz is pretty late to this party, and is under the starry-eyed delusion that all underlying data is routinely available with “peer reviewed” literature.
Here’s a recent example for young Buzz to get up to speed with.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/01/06/more-data-refusal-nothing-changes/
Also, if I’m not mistaken, MBH 1998 never did disclose how they calculated errors.
And of course, how can one forget the archiving practices of a prof at THE Ohio State University.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/06/04/losing-glacier-data/
It’s good to see some ranting from the warmists. This investigation, if allowed to go its full natural course – and there is absolutely no chance of that – would expose ‘climate science’ it its true clothes This is something the high priests of the AGW cult definitely do not want. Maybe the rank and file followers are dumb enough to believe there is nothing to hide – but as stated elsewhere, if there was nothing to hide, why has there been such fanatical resistance to exposing the facts?
Any information/data retrieved by Cuccinelli will have long ago been gutted of the detail which would expose Mann and the Team as the data manipulating fraudsters they are.
Anyhow, there is always hope – another set of leaked emails would also be refreshing.
If these guys were scientists, and if they were not actually the enemies of the average citizen, I would definitely agree with you, citizen.
citizenschallenge says:
March 10, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Please show us the subsequent work that had the magical PR appeal of the original.
You know, this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg
I know, the subsequent ones are kinda sorta maybe hockey sticks, and you still have to overlay with the instrumental record in order to make them “pleasing to the eye”.
Mods,
Sorry about that, but I forgot to close my brackets. No big deal, except subsequent comments may all be in italics.
The logical falicy of defending the indefensible. Its not deny, deny,deny, its desperately deny, deny, deny. The fallout from thr CRU emails continues to spread and I like the way its going.
citizenschallenge says:
March 10, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Smoke’n mirrors all the way down.
……………………..
Wait a minute, I thought it was turtles all the way down.
Is this the Seitz you are referring to? If it is, and he has doubts about AGW, then I’d say based on his credentials and experience, we should all have doubts as well. Who in climate science has qualifications anything like this?
Dr. Frederick Seitz is a Chairman Emeritus of the George Marshall Institute and President Emeritus of Rockefeller University. Dr. Seitz was the first full-time President of the National Academy of Sciences and was also President of the American Physical Society, former Chairman of the Defense Science Board and recipient of the National Medal of Science. Dr. Seitz was President Emeritus of Rockefeller University. Throughout his career, Professor Seitz served on numerous governmental panels and committees, and advised major political figures of the period on important scientific issues. He has made numerous scientific contributions to the understanding of the physics of solids; contributing significantly to the understanding of quantum mechanics, defect properties of solids, radiation damage, color centers, and transport properties of solids. Dr. Seitz was one of the pioneers to promote the creation of Materials Science Laboratories at the universities across the nation. He served as advisor to NATO, the President?s Science Advisory Committee, the Office of Naval Research, the National Cancer Advisory Board, the Smithsonian Institution, and other national and international agencies.
http://www.marshall.org/subcategory.php?id=45
What in the….
is that thing saying?
Buzz Belleville says:
March 10, 2011 at 9:22 am
Mann is being chased by Cuccinelli solely because Mann reached conclusions with which Cuccinelli does not agree.
You are in error.
Buzz Belleville says:
March 10, 2011 at 9:22 am
Spencer, Lindzen, et al better be ready to have their hard drives searched as well.
So you’re a witch hunt advocate.
Would you point out why that should be done?
Buzz Belleville says:
March 10, 2011 at 9:22 am
Spencer, Lindzen, et al better be ready to have their hard drives searched as well.
Why aren’t you anxious to have everything Michael Mann has done brought out into the light of day in court so the world can see how innocent he is and how dire global warming is? In that you threaten, instead, it reveals you are afraid of what will happen in court and issue a threat in hopes it will intimidate. You and this whole global warming thing smells of rat.
Thank you for showing your true colors. Please continue. Please, don’t let me discourage you.
citizenschallenge: “Sad part is here in 2011 the global warming “hockey stick” is alive and well, while Cuccinelli et al. are still beating a 12 year old study that received an OK stamp from the National Academy of Sciences and that has been superseded many times over by more refined studies.”
Chuckle – what a great example of the willfully ignorant beclowning themselves!
One can only guess where these false talking points are coming from (RC maybe?). The fact is that the Hockey Stick is dead – even the IPCC doesn’t use it anymore. Even members of the Hockey Team are now admitting the existance of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Why aren’t you?
Your ‘more refined studies’ have in turned been examined by McIntyre (where the researchers have – or are forced like Briffa- made their data and methods available). All use short-centered PCA, or strip-bark tree cores, “upsiden-down” Tijlander, or carefully cherry-picked data like Briffa’s six (out of hundreds) Yamal tree cores. You can’t cite a single Hockey Stick paper that uses none of these techniques, can you?
As for your claim that the National Academy of Sciences gave an “OK stamp” to Mann’s work, that also is contradicted by the FACT of North’s testimony under oath to Congress that his NAS panel agreed with Wegman and McIntyre that Mann’s statistical methods invalidated his Hockey Stick.
No one here is ‘turning scientists into enemies” because “climate scientists”, with their deliberate and blatant violation of the principles of the Scientific Method, aren’t actually scientists.
What is this Hockey Stick anyway?
Ross McKitrick sheds some light:
Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium”
~National Academy of Science,
report on the Mann Hockey Stick graph,
page 4
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=4
Someone had to do it:
the original and best
‘citizenschallenge says:
It’s this whole turning scientist’s into enemies that really awful.’
Only the “junk scientists”.
Is it me, or are there a bunch of new Defenders of the One True Faith (TM) showing up here lately?
I’m seeing names pop up that I don’t recall seeing previously…
Andrew Russell says:
March 10, 2011 at 9:39 am
No Buzz, it’s not Mann’s “conclusions” (actually, scientific fraud on a level to match Trofim Lysenko). It is that there is prima facia evidence that Mann engaged in financial fraud by taking taxpayer monies for studies that were based on cherry-picked data and phony-baloney statistics.
There is no such prima fascie evidence for the work done at UVa by Mann, that’s the point!
Tony says: “Is it me, or are there a bunch of new Defenders of the One True Faith (TM) showing up here lately? I’m seeing names pop up that I don’t recall seeing previously…”
They are definitely running scared in this theater of operations. I’d say they’re inches from total panic.
Buzz Belleville says: “…Messrs Russell and Bronson — First off, if you believe any of the proxy information for Mann’s reconstructions are not available, you’re mistaken. How do you think M&M were able to attack the conclusions drawn from those proxies…?”
With great difficulty:
“…Mann also objected that we did not exactly replicate his computational steps or sequence of proxy rosters. No one had ever replicated his results, and we now know others had tried but were also unsuccessful. To date we are the closest anyone has been able to come in print. We were not bothered by Mann’s response on this point, but it did seem pointless to differ over trivial issues. So we requested his computational code to eliminate these easily-resolved differences. To our surprise he refused to supply his computer code, a stance he maintains to today….”
See the entire link, Buzz. You’ve been led down the garden path:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
The SCOVA said in granting Cuccinelli’s appeal:
——————-
Any lawyers out there can tell me if I am wrong, but I think the SCOVA found in Cuccinelli’s favor in the Assignment of Cross-Error. My interpretation of item #1 in the Assignment of Cross-Error is:
John
Caleb says: (March 10, 2011 at 1:00 pm)
I have been waiting five years to see this guy exposed.
I had a strong, immediate and negative reaction to Mann’s “disappearing” of the MWP…
Very nice, and instructive, read, Caleb. Thank you.
“Phil. says:
March 10, 2011 at 5:04 pm
“…There is no such prima fascie evidence for the work done at UVa by Mann, that’s the point!..”
Well Phil, it actually depends on which seats you were in when the stage was set. Yes, I agree that, for those in the bleachers: unititiated (like say politicians, MSM, and John Q. Public) the evidience was far from “prima facie (corrected spelling)” However, for those who had floor seats: the intitiated, the evidence was CLEARLY “PRIMA FACIE”. As soon as the graph was published everyone who was anyone with ANY common sense, concerning history and/or climate, saw the flat handle of that schtick (sans MWP) and called BS, “show us how you did THAT!”, to which Mann haughtily replied, “NOPE” And the rest is history.
“Buzz Belleville says: March 10, 2011 at 9:22 am
Mann is being chased by Cuccinelli solely because Mann reached conclusions with which Cuccinelli does not agree.”
Yes, Mann took money intended for one purpose and may have used for another purpose. Yes, Mann may not have delivered the goods that the tax payers had paid for, a bait-and-switch trick, a decepton, a fraud.
I expect that “Cuccinelli does not agree” with Manns apparent conclusion that the taxpayers should be subjected to such things and that he not be questioned about it
Mann is guilty of so many things, it hardly matters what approach is used to take him down.