Renewed energy: Cuccinelli reissues his demand for Mann docs
Write a letter to the editor
UVA claims that Cuccinelli’s action chills academic freedom.FILE PHOTOS
A little over a month after losing a bid for a wider trove of documents, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has renewed his demand for emails sent and received by controversial climate scientist Michael Mann when he was at UVA, the Washington Post is reporting. This has been a hot topic
inside and outside the academy because Mann is the creator of the famous “hockey stick graph,” which predicts a spike in global temperatures.
“Dr. Mann’s Hockey Stick graph is based on suspect data,” Cuccinelli says in a statement. “Others have shown that random numbers can be put into Mann’s algorithm, and they always produce a hockey stick graph.”
The University has tapped into private funds to cover the $352,874.76 in legal fees it has thus far incurred, according to UVA spokesperson Carol Wood.
“University leaders are disappointed that the institution must continue to litigate with the Attorney General,” said a statement arranged by Wood, “but will continue to stand for the principles the University has articulated since the C[ivil] I[nvestigative] D[emand]s were first put forward in April– and to support academic communities here and elsewhere.”
–last updated at 7:46pm
Cucc is an embarrassment.
I suppose with the same lack of evidence he presented at the last court hearing…
This CID law is a bad law in the hands of someone unable to see its faults. Such a combination inevitably leads to an abuse of power. The law should be repealed as quickly as possible.
It is not just this bad law that is to fault. The Attorney General again goes too far and enforces the law with an uneven hand. Speaking as a taxpayer, we deserve better.
Several investigations of the e-mails show no illegalities related remotely to the Commonwealths tax laws, yet the Attorney General goes after them. These e-mails were made public by individuals who stole them from a private e-mail system. The Attorney General makes no effort to prosecute these individuals for this theft commonly referred to as “hacking”.
Enough is enough. It’s time the Attorney General represent the people of Virginia rather than his own personal opinions. Time for him to drop this case, end the politically motivated witch-hunts, and serve all the people in Virginia, not just the ones who agree with him.
How much money does this man need to waste on things that don’t help Virginia advance at all?
But it advances Cucc’s political career by impressing his reactionary base.
At what point do the guys with white coats come take to a more comfortable room where he can avoid injuring himself?
DW: “This CID law is a bad law in the hands of someone unable to see its faults.”
He’s able; he *chooses* not to.
HS: “The University has tapped into private funds to cover the $352,874.76 in legal fees it has thus far incurred…”
UVA doesn’t have its own legal staff? It spends over a third of a million on outsourced lawyers? At least it’s a more useful expenditure than 47,000 T-shirts…
If UVA just gave in and proved him wrong he would be disgraced and learn his lesson. (unless of course they are collaborators and helping hide malfeaseance)
I would like to see the legislature force UVA and all Universities to be more transparent with grant money. The Freedom Of Information Act was enacted for a reason.
billmarshall,
did the AG issue a FOIA request? What this article is about is a CID.
So you’re of the opinion that a government official should be able to investigate whomever he/she wants without having to present any evidence that an actual crime has been committed?
And where do you get the idea that Cuccinelli would be “disgraced” if he were proven wrong? You really believe this isn’t just posturing on his part?
The Attorney General’s case was dismissed a month ago. Was he “disgraced” by that?
Don’t be fooled.
here is a good link that shows some reasonable probale cause..
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/global_warming_and_the_science.html
that article presents absolutely no evidence of a crime having been committed, nor does it purport to. what is its relevance?
Indeed. Why didn’t the AG simply send an email to the judge with the link embedded? That appears to be good enough for billmarshall.
Oh wait, I know! The difference is that the judge actually has to rule on the law while billmarshall is free to have whatever crackpot opinion he wants based on some webpage somewhere.
Looks like my advice to not be fooled was too late. billmarshall was fooled long ago and, as a result, is solidly in AG Kookinelli’s corner.
Oh wait, I know! The difference is that the judge actually has to rule on the law while billmarshall is free to have whatever crackpot opinion he wants based on some webpage somewhere.
***
Ha, ha, ha! The other funny thing is that the judge repeatedly asked the attorney from Cucc’s office for some evidence of fraud during oral arguments and the attorney kept pointing to the type of information cited by billmarshall and presented by the AG’s office in their brief. And the judge kept saying that he had read and considered all of this information but none of it suggested any indication of fraud.
Bill, FOIA only applies to a federal agency. A state university or its researchers are not a federal agency no matter how many grants they get.
It’s amusing that Cucc’s followers continually believe that obviously crackpot and/or ideologically driven websites are more reliable sources of information than NOAA, the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Science, or the National Research Council.
KS, you are mistaken
http://www.opengovva.org/virginias-foia-the-law/foia-overview-a-faqs-lawmenu-156
The article cleary points out that there was deception and misreprsentation. His cohorts came to aid and said his lies were irrelevant to what they purport to be the “fact” of global warming.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/global_warming_and_the_science.html
THe AG is unwilling to take their word for it and wants to see for himself. UVA is stonewalling instead of showing the proof.
The AG is going back to court to try and secure the info within the confines of the law. We will see if he accomplishes that when it gets back to court.
This is about global warming for some and partisan politcs for others when it really should be about accountability from those who receive taxpayer money regardless of the issue.
Hey that’s “American Thinker”, so you know it’s a reliable source of knowledge. Man there’s even stuff about scientific method in that hamfisted pedantic presentation style that tells one that this author has read a thing or two. And he references articles by Science Daily, where “Hostess Cakes” are advertised. This is heavyweight intellectual stuff. Back off.
Bill, why don’t you cite credible sources such as the National Research Council report on subject?
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1
Frankly, why AG Cuccinelli is doing this is beyond Eli, especially when there is a real scandal at his alma mater, George Mason University, where multiple PhD theses contain plagiarized sections and it has been shown that a senior academic plagiarized in a report to Congress which DID have policy implications. The administration at GMU has stuck its head firmly into the sand.
Eli refers, of course, to Edward Wegman, who simply copied sections out of a book by Ray Bradley (one of the people he was trying to trash) and then twisted Bradley’s conclusions. You can get details at
http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/22/wegman-and-rapp-on-tree-rings-a-divergence-problem-part-1/
Bill Marshall is back with the same arguements which mainly boil down to the University should just give in. That’s like the bully telling the kid he is beating up to just lie down and take it. If the bully doesn’t damage the victim seriously, that proves the victims point that there should not have been a fight to begin with.
This is not the society we live in nor should it be the society we live in. We’ve brought these comments to Mr. Marshall several times, but he just ignores them and repeats the same argument. It seems he doesn’t want to think through what he advocates on how others should act. Fortunately he is not the one to decide and the University will again defend itself against the Attorney Generals baseless attacks.
The link he provides many snarky comments and unsubstaniated opinions. It might go hand in glove with the Attorney Generals argument, but it falls way short of an argument for probable cause. Probable cause contains evidence a crime may have been committed, not speculation that one may have been committed. Nothing in this article supports the former and most in this article supports the later.
I read the account of the judges ruling. He quite pointedly said the Attorney General failed to provide evidence a crime was committed that the University could provide documents to support or deny. Fairly bluntly he said there was no probable cause.
Eli - Seems there is a scandal brewing at George Mason. Another example of an uneven hand in the administration of the law under the Attorney General. The Attorney General seems to be playing a game of cowboys and indians were he gives a pass to those on his side (who are likely cowboys) and goes after the other team (who are likely indians). This game might be interesting sport if he were not elected to administer the office of Attorney General with the responsibility to oversee enforcement of the law for all citizens of the state.
It is easy to claim the AG is a bully. It is a little harder to explain why Academics feel they are above the law. There is nothing wrong with asking for accountability. Mann was not exonerated by submitting proof; he was exonerated by a university that wanted the problem to disappear and received a direct benefit from that disappearance. He did not show the public his methods and has never explined how when random numbers from a phone book were entered into his program the results always came up the same.
Probable cause contains evidence that a crime “may” have been committed. The emails and the lame explantions meet that standard.
We will see what happens.
The AG is not a bully. Mann is the one who took taxpayer money, came up with a conclusion and then doesn’t want to show his work except to people who have a vested interest in continuing the money flow. Mann is the one who claimed he has 4 aces. Show the cards. A real Scientist would see the benefit of proving things in the court of public opinion since it would be public opinion that would force the politicians to pass laws to save the planet.
Accountability should have been put out there as soon as the email scandal broke. The AG shouldn’t have even had to get involved. Unfortunately UVA prefers to bury their head in the sand while lacrosse players commit murders, women are raped, the endowment loses billions etc.
They always circle the wagons and do nothing else until it is too little too late. Now they are wasting money instead of cooperating. I think when the truth gets out they are hiding something. It may not even be Manns work. It might be the tip of the iceberg with all the other grants.
Time will tell.
Bill, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Mann’s data and code are readily available. His work has been repeatedly examined by expert committees and they have never found evidence of fraud. Why don’t you cite material from a reputable source such as the National Research Council report?
It is a real shaun. I mean “shame” that UVA buries their head and does not support the South Rising Again like Herr Doktor Cuccy desires.
I am sure that you all are real americans like me and hate intellectuals and such. “I went down to the crossroads GPS”…
Oh, and Bill, you can keep saying that random numbers produce the hockey stick pattern, but your claim has been repeatedly disproved:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/on-yet-another-false-claim-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/
I had to file something at the Courthouse and the C. vs. Uva file was sitting next to the file date stamper. Before the first ruling someone sent the Judge (and no copy to the attorneys of either side) a big packet of Mann’s published works with Cliff notes written off to the side “and you need to understand” “and here’s the hockey graph” etc. Peatross is going to rule if its legal to issue this CID he doesn’t need 3rd outside parties sending in Cliff notes on Mann’s work.
Sam, they sneakly have people employed as “clerks” in the court that help the activist, biased judges understand the cases in front of them. The packet you viewed may well have been prepared by one of these gummint burrowcrats!! Heavans to Betsy I smell a rat!!!
Bill Marshall,
“He did not show the public his methods”
That is not true. His methods were available to the public, through the standard methods that all scientific jounrals make them available.
But I know you are a business person who thinks the development of Albemarle County is great, because all those fictitious half acre businesses paying 50k a year salaries are collecting lots of withholding, so everyone else should subsidize the water.
Why am I not surprised you want to excuse a witch hunt for another bunch of fictitious claims?
It’s as if Cuccinelli and his team didn’t even read the first ruling. In it, Peatross clearly states that:
“If the CIDs were allowed to go forward, this request would be limited to correspondence, emails, messages, etc. to or from Dr. Mann that relate to any information, materials or documents contained in the application for the 2001 U.Va internal grant and any information, materials, or documents provided by or to Dr. Mann that relates to approval or payment of any funds to him at any time under the grant until it ended.”
But what does Cuccinelli do? He requests the exact same set of documents spanning an eight-year period including emails sent to/received by Mann to/from/about 40 or so people, without regard to the relation to “information, materials or documents contained in the application.” In fact, the only difference I can see between the two “Documents to be produced” sections is that the plural “grants” has become the singular “grant.”
This is the Commonwealth’s foremost legal official? This is an embarrassment.
We can only hope that one day the AG will have to explain (FOIA perhaps?) how much of Virginia’s money and time he spent on his political fishing expedition.
I don’t care if Mann was studying Global Warming or the mating habits of ex presidents from arkansas. Evidence has come forth that shows probale cause that he may have committed a crime by misusing reasearch funds. The Judge threw it out as too broad and the AG has refiled hopefully within the letter of the law.
I think the difference of opinion here is whether the AG has the right (responsibility?) to root out fraud. I think he does. If he does so in a partisan way then don’t vote for him. What he is doing is certainly within the scope of his job.
UVA is apparently of the opinion that they should not be accountable or have to answer for the people who use taxpayer money under their watch. I believe that they are mistaken and I hope the AG proves them wrong.
If a busnesss owner has to show his books to the irs both state and federal and account for every penny then so should a researcher. If the resercher was given the money to do honest research and manipulated the data in any way while using taxpayer money he misused the funds. That is a crime.
UVA can possibly prove him innocent but chooses not to. I think they are trying to protect a much larger misuse of funds and are afraid of a gigantic nationwide scandal that would cut out millions of dollars in grant money.
Anybody with a lick of common sense knows that misuse is out there. Why should these researchers get a pass?
No, Bill, everyone including the judge believes that the attorney general has the authority by statute to investigate potential fraud involving state funds.
Most people including the judge realize, however, that no evidence of fraud has been presented. Why don’t you present some from a reputable source (any one of the numerous expert committees that has looked at Mann’s work, for example)?
If the one Virginia grant dealt only with the report on the grasslands in Africa’s effect on ? (global warming?)(just skimming over the D.P. newspaper article so I could be wrong on what this one report is) C would have to show Peatross obvious fraud from this one Va. funded report. If the the hockey stick graph etc is not in this one Va. funded report I doubt if Peatross will spend much of his time going over the hockey stick talking points again.
BM: “UVA can possibly prove him innocent but chooses not to.”
Obviously you don’t know how the law works in the United States of America. In America you do not have to prove your innocence. The government has to prove you guilty. The constitution protects citizens against unwarranted searches and seizures.
Don’t like it? Take it up with the founding fathers.
It’s not a difference of “opinion”. It’s a difference in knowledge of both the facts and the law. Your opinions appear to be based on a limited and erroneous understanding of the law and no knowledge of the actual facts of the case.
This explains why you are on Cuccinelli’s side on this issue.
I guess one question is what research Mann cited to get that one grant. Regardless, the judge made clear that Cucc had no right to ask for all of the emails between Mann and other climate scientists that had no relation to the grant.
” The government has to prove you guilty. The constitution protects citizens against unwarranted searches and seizures. ”
The key word here is “unwarranted”
The AG believes his search is warranted and UVA thinks not. THe Judge agreed with UVA but left the door open for refiling which the the AG has done.
If the Judge allows it to go forward based on the law will I still be wrong or will your “understanding” of the law make you right?
An innocent person accused of rape is under no legal obligation to give an alibi. If he simply chooses not to and then is investigated because of some hearsay evidence then that is the way the system works. If he would simnply give an alibi it could all go away. If he wants to stand on principal then taking the heat is part of living in a democratic society.
Bill, are you being deliberately obtuse? Mann’s methods, data, and code are readily available.
The burden of proof of the one remaining grant is astoundingly weak.
The grant named in the CID is “Resolving the scale-wise sensitivities in the dynamical coupling between the climate and biosphere.” The two Mann papers that Cuccinelli uses as evidence of fraud, MBH98 and MBH99, are not referred to within nor used in application for the grant in question. Mann was not even the Principal Investigator.
So it seems in order to allege fraud, we have to believe the following is worthy of suspicion: Mann authored two controversial papers, which increased his reputation as a climate scientist. His reputation then assisted in the grant application process, which led to the grant. So if there was fraud perpetrated in the MBH98 & MBH99 papers, it led to the fraudulent award of $214k.
Also, the purported fraud is defined by the fact that Mann “knew or should have known” that his original papers were misleading. “Should have known”? We can now equate intentional fraud with unintentional mistakes? (I’m not claiming there were errors, by the way, but fraud would seem to imply intent to deceive, not sloppy work or inadvertent errors).
Simply amazing.
“knew or should have known” that driving while texting could lead to an accident……..
I believe that Mann is not above attempting to enhance his reputation. Regardless of some of the people on this blogs point of view his hockey stick has been debunked many times over. The simplest debunking is that his original hockey stick was based on tree rings in North America, which has two obvious flaws. North America is not the world and tree rings are reflective of the annual growth season and available moisture and light, NOT year round temperatures.
I believe that the AG is of the opinion that Mann distorted results for these very reasons and if he did so with grant funds that is a crime.
I still believe the bigger issue is accountability for people who suck the government teat for grant money and then want to be above reproach when asked for details about whether or not they used the funds as promised. There is a reason UVA is witholding and protecting a guy that left there years ago.
Again, Bill, can’t cite a credible source but just assumes that the “hockey stick graph” has been debunked. It hasn’t.
“More than twelve subsequent scientific papers using various statistical techniques and combinations of proxy records produced reconstructions broadly the same as the original hockey stick graphs, with variations in the extent to which the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent “little ice age” were significant, but almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century. There have also been disputes about the use of Bristlecone and Foxtail Pine tree rings as temperature proxies — the National Research Council report recommends that “strip-bark” samples be avoided for temperature reconstructions[9] – but the same “hockey stick” graph is found in studies which do not use tree ring proxies.”
Bill, I think you are confused. Mann is not accused of distorting results with grant money. As far as I know no one disputes the paper produced by the grant. Cuccinelli is investigating whether or not Mann engaged in fraud in order to procure the grant money itself. He does so by a rather convoluted process, which makes me question his motives.
I also doubt your claim about the hockey stick as being debunked. I believe the NAS re-affirmed the graph a couple of years ago. I’m open to new information, but please, no americanthinker.com type blogs.
There is indeed a reason UVA is resisting the CID, and it’s very simple: you don’t give in to a bully’s demands. Did you read the scope of the demand? Does that seem like a reasonable request? It’s a grant from 2001 (2 years before FATA), and has nothing at all to do with the Hockey Stick. It is interesting how this whole affair compliments Cuccinelli’s political ideology and aspirations however, which of course is what’s really driving it.
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Here is a comprehensive argument that is worth reading but I am sure that the close minded among you will call it prejudiced because it does not agree with your opinion.
to yes:but “almost all of them supported the IPCC” notice the word “almost” How many times does an experiment have to fail to be be proven inconclusive? If a new drug helps 70% of the patients it is not the “Cure” it is a treatment. If Manns work implies global warming is man made but only “almost” it means that it is not “case closed”
I want the AG to look into Grants. This is an issue that has been going on for a long time. I and many friends have heard of anctecdodal evidence and the circumstantial evidence is all around showing grants based on politcal agendas. (which is what all the naysayers are so upset about)
Not all Preiests molest little boys but that does not mean that it should not have been investigated on the rumors we have all heard about out entire lives.
We will see what happens. I am not a lawyer. I just believe that if the IRS can ask any question they want about what I did with my money than the AG should be able to ask Mann what he did with his share of my money.
Bill, the argument presented in that link is that Mann’s conclusions were incorrect. That is in no way an argument that he committed fraud. The author doesn’t even hint at that.
You admit to not being a lawyer. It doesn’t seem that you are a scientist either or even understand what they do. I think it’s a rare scientist that would say “case closed.” Mr. Mann has analyzed data and found certain tends were indicated by that data. He may (or may not) have chosen irrelevant data, collected it in error prone ways, made errors in calculation, drawn insufficiently well thought out conclusions, or more, all without having once committed fraud.
The test for those faults of methodology or thought in the scientific world is to publish and have one’s work considered by one’s peers. It is proper and expected that one might encounter criticism when one does that. The fact that such criticism exists is not evidence of fraud, rather it is evidence of a healthy system that allows each side to present the argument it wishes to make. The Attorney General’s suit is an attempt to silence through intimidation one side of this particular debate. The University is right to resist allowing him to establish such a chilling precedent for the damage that it would do to the University’s primary function, which is to foster thought and debate.
Your reference to “political agendas” is a curious one since this whole Cuccinelli show is based on a purely political agenda which doesn’t seem to bother you. On the other hand, if political agendas determine how grant money is distributed, why would it have even been necessary for Mann to engage in fraud to get such a grant? Why then is the Attorney General not pursuing those who give the money rather than one who got it?
If a new drug helps 70% of the patients it is not the “Cure” it is a treatment.
***
What bizarre thinking. If most new drugs help 70% of patients, then they are usually considered to be incredibly effective. I have never heard of your distinction between “cure” and “treatment” in scientific discussion. Drugs with 100% success rates are virtually nonexistent.
If Manns work implies global warming is man made but only “almost” it means that it is not “case closed”
***
As CookieJar suggests, you really don’t understand the scientific process. Scientists generally deal with probabilities and discard theories that are improbable. Many of the claims that you have presented have been discredited in the scientific literature, but you don’t seem to be acquainted with the scientific literature.